It seems to me that the present rules for torpedoes and attack craft are failing as far as the relative speed of these weapons compared to their targets is concerned. I suppose this is caused by the disparity between the Battle Fleet Gothic (I know RT is a different game, but the inspiration by BFG is hard to deny) turn based system with an ordnance phase in which both sides moved their torpedoes and bombers and RT's strategic turn, in which the ships and their ordnance move according to their initiative.

The result of this disparity is that a torpedo with a speed of 10 has no chance of overtaking a reasonably fast ship like a raider or frigate. And while I see the thrill of pushing the engines to try and outrun those torpedoes chasing you, it should be a thrill and no 'oh, with our speed 12 those torpedoes can't even close'.

So I would propose to include an Ordnance Phase at the end of each strategic turn of space combat in which all ordnance is moved a second time . This would mean that that torpedoes and assault craft would move once in their own strategic turn and once at the end of the turn (if different flights are active they will move the second time according to their initiative value as wel). Furthermore, as this would double the speed of ordnance, their endurance will be limited. Torpedoes will still move their full distance, but reach this in half the time while attacking craft will see their endurance in turns halved (and will retain the same radius of action).

Torpedoes and small attack craft are very slow in BFG. In fact, their speed is comparable in RT, though some ships in RT(i.e. raiders) are far faster than anything shown in BFG.

I'm fine with this, because you shouldn't be firing torpedoes at non-capital ships. Torpedoes take out the slow moving, poorly maneuvering Cruisers and above. Raiders and Frigates don't have a lot going for them, but they do have speed which is why I think it's reasonable that they can outrun torpedoes.

If you're in a Cruiser, one broadside from a Cruiser can just rip a Raider apart. They need to have SOMETHING going for them.

While somewhat ignorant on the whole thing, I can see why this might be. The whole point of most Raiders is that they outrun anything they can't outgun, and torpedoes can hit pretty hard. my brain sees other weapons for swatting at the pesky flies, if you will, while torpedoes, and even Assault Craft, seem more for hitting the lumbering giants that you need to beat over the head with a truck. Honestly, the core book even tries, in an effort to not have to write even more text, and give you all the goodies, to claim that most Rogue Traders, and their "civilian ships" don't use torpedoes, attack craft, or Nova Cannons; these are the weapons of dedicated military forces, like the Imperial Navy, who expect to fight other frigates, cruisers, and worse; also, they try to explain that the cost of maintaining these "limited munitions" armaments is often too much, and take up valuable cargo space.

Now, to be fair, BFK then came along, reconnected us with these missing weapons systems, did a pretty good job of making us want some of them, and then said "oh yeah, sure Rogue Traders can have these, too", but they are military ordnance, for the most part, and so it makes more sense they are built to tangle with military threats (read: frigates and up), while letting their macrocannons deal with the destroyers, and gunboats (read: raiders), which are often only a small threat to a true warship, alone. Again, I'm not talking with nearly the knowledge base I'm really trying to sound like I have, but torpedoes don't seem to be for raiders. Now, granted, you might have only used that as an example, and maybe the somewhat bigger ships are also pulling this off, but this game does seem to favor, in my readings, allowing one side of the conflict to disengage, and succeed at it; this is how some of these ships survive thousands of years of service, even if some of our esteemed associates are cherry-picking, and optimizing, their ships. When it is YOU that needs to flee, it'll be a godsend if you can outrun the special-ordnance torpedoes.

The key point of torpedoes and attack craft is that they ignore shields. Capital ships in general, but battleships in particular, have heavy shielding, and these weapons are meant to get at those ships. They were never meant, in the context of BFG, to be used against escorts. That said, even when using them against the big ships, you want to use them while closing, not when the range is widening. The U-Boat Commander's Handbook recommends that when attacking escorts with torpedoes get a bow-to-bow shot at the last moment possible (500 yds) before diving so that the target has no time to change course. What with the torpedo closing at 50-60 mph and the oncoming ship closing at 20-30 mph, there are literally only seconds to make a decision. The same principle applies here. Torpedoes are not chase weaponry, nor should they be. In fleet actions, they are area of denial weaponry, and they serve the same function in BFG.

I fear I cannot fully agree with you here. First off, torpedoes and bombers are in fact twice as fast in BFG as in RT because they move twice, both in their own turn and in the opponents turn. This means that they do have the ability to overtake, well, about everything but some Eldar and Necrons I suppose. And yes, torpedoes are indeed the weapon of choice against heavily shielded capital ships, but the main reason they aren't used against small escorts is not so much their speed as their maneuverability. A decently commanded raider or frigate will easily turn away from a torpedo salvo, not so much outrun it.

And as far as bombers and attack craft are concerned: these are not just handy against those pesky escorts sniping from your flanks, they are almost the weapon of choice to deal with them. With their speed and maneuverability raiders and frigates can try and find the dead angles of capital ships and zoom annoyingly on the flanks, distracting you from concentrating your fire on the foes that really count. Nothing is in that case better suited to seek them out and destroy them than a couple of bombers or assault craft, the efficiency of which is further improved by the limited turrets. And obviously, a closing shot is better. As in the real world, chasing missiles and torpedoes both have a far shorter practical range (i.e. the range within which they can be launched and stil hit their intended target) than when used in a hand on joust. But a MK48 or Meteor would be of little use if it could not overtake an Yasen SSN or SU-35. And as it now stands, no bomber is capable of overtaking a raider that is trying to get away.

To finish, I see no reason to balance out the capabilites of a raider versus a capital ship. Escorts are allready way overpowered in RT (there is some logic here, as properly powered cruisers would eat frigates and raiders alive) as they are. If you wish to take out a big ship with a small ship, don't bring one small ship. Bring loads of small ships.

Good point about the double movement of ordnance in BFG, but the maneuverability issue is one I did point out, both in BFG and in real world situations. However, you are using modern equivalents (SU-35) that weren't existential when these games were originally created, nor were these games intended to portray modern craft in space, but WWI and WWII tactics in space, hence the broadsides batteries and forward-firing mounts. Best to keep in mind the capabilities of the Kaga or Akagi, and Dauntlesses or Kates when evaluating 40K attack craft, and not a Nimitz-class carrier and its complement.

Well, the issue is not so much the advanced targeting technology in a MK48 torpedo or Meteor missile, but their kinetic energy that allows them to overtake their targets from a decent range. I could as well have taken the Japanese Long Lance torpedo of the Second World War, a bloody fast and bloody powerful but unguided weapon that could overtake any Allied ship with its 52 knots speed. But even the rather faulty American MK14 could manage a very respectable 46 knots. A speed no sizeable warship could exceed (the French large destroyer 'Le Terrible' came close at more than 45 knots, but that was during trials).

And this is just the part about torpedoes. For bombers and assault craft have the same problem: unless they manage to hit their targets during their first turn, any fast ship can outrun them. So no Kaga or Akagi here. On the whole, the capabilities of a carrier in both BFG/RT are way below their real world fighting power. For the Kaga and Akagi outranged the battleships of their era by about a factor of ten (to take the 300 kilometres range of the battle of Midway as a prime example) which is defintely not the case in WH40K. With its speed of 6 and 6 turns endurance, an Imperial bomber can operate out to 36 Void Units. Very respectable indeed, but only 50% further than battleship level lances and batteries, that can easily reach up to 22/24 void units.

But worse is to come. Said bombers can not only forget about overtaking any nimble frigate or raider that wishes to escape them. Said bombers will also have a problem overtaking even a slow Lunar if said ship wishes to do so. Just do the maths. A speed 6 bomber chasing a speed 5 Lunar gains only 1 Void Unit per turn on the cruiser. If this cruiser is more than 12 to 16 void units away it means that the bomber can just overtake this cruiser in turn 6, depending on whether or not the bombers move first in their strategic turn. So in essence, the practical range of these bombers against a disengaging cruiser is no more than 16 void units, or even 11 void units if the said cruiser can move earlier. This is ridiculously low. And in this whole story, I haven't even included the extended actions that would allow the Lunar to increase its speed. which can easily make it move quite a bit faster than its basic speed of 5 VU, making it even impossible to overtake a decently crewed cruiser.

So I restate my case: It seems that the rules for torpedoes, fighters, bombers and assault craft have a fundamental flaw, inherited from a faulty adaptation of the BFG weapons in RT, whereby the double movement in BFG (in the turn of each of the two players) has been replaced by a single move in RT (on the initiative of the launching ship). The result of this mistake is excessively slow ordnance (both torpedoes and manned craft) that has no chance against faster ships and even has serious trouble overtaking slow ships. To remediate this problem, I would propose a final Ordnance Phase at the end of each strategic turn in which all ordnance can move again. The result of which would be to make ordnance quite a bit more dangerous. Not a bad thing. Torpedoes for one, are, as noted above, a great force equalizer for smaller ships. So good for starting Rogue Trader players, who can need all the help they can get fighting that Ork Kroozer. Or good for a GM when he needs to challenge that top-of-the-line-brimming-with-archeotech-Repulsive class flagship of a succesful Rogue Trader dynasty without wishing to pull another Chaos Battleship with Warmaster out of his hat (while hoping the players won't react with a 'omg, don't damage it too much for that will be our new flagship').

A thing to remember is that any comparison between real life and 40k space combat must not ignore one vital difference between them. Space battles take place... in space. The reason carriers in the real world are so effective is because their payload is moving through the air towards is sea or land based targets. Ships in 40k are moving within the exact same medium as the fighters, bombers, and torpedoes being sent against them. Its a completely different ball game.

That Fury Interceptor or Plasma Torpedo needs to be able to match its target in terms of acceleration and engine output compared to mass, something that is by no means a given. With bombers against capital ships its the same conundrum. So yeah, in my mind if a Lunar-Class is turning tail and running from a carrier, why should the bombers catch up easily? Both are moving through the vaccuum of space, both are using plasma reactors to accelerate forward and the natural resistance that would slow a seaborne vessel is just not present.

Well, it's not so much a matter of kinetic energy as it is conservation of momentum, which I admit is nitpicky and we've foregone that suspension of disbelief in so many other aspects of the game as to make bringing it up now silly. It wouldn't be hard to make the argument that small craft had more delta-V per mass anyway. After all, they don't have warp drives, turrets, a bridge, or so many other unnecessaries. You do want to pack them to the brim with boomstick goodies, though.

You've won me over. The movement of both torpedoes and small attack craft is faulty. The limitation of bombers out to 36 VUs was very arbitrary, and not one I care for. And that's just in theory. In practice you'll only want to send attack craft at range 24 or less since you'll always want a fighter in that group of bombers to soak up losses and ensure the group doesn't get turned back. That means only 4 turns endurance (of the fighters) and 6 VUs movement (of the bombers). In fact, I've completely redone small attack craft rules, as has anyone that has played a campaign dominated by them. They are way too overpowered, but that's always been about the damage they dish out and the damage they never take, not their movement. Still, changing their movement means making them even more powerful, so something else might have to be adjusted now.

My House Rules for small craft up to now include:

• The Abstract Method is used to keep track of small craft losses. Attack craft used in battle always make a maintenance check after that battle.
• Small craft form Wings made up of squadrons. A Wing can have as many squadrons as Flight Crew Rating/10 (rounded down).
• The damage of bombers is 1d10 + Flight Crew Rating/10 (rounded down)
• Pilots Chambers add +5 to Flight Crew Rating.

• Small Craft Repair Decks add +10 to the Acquisition roll for maintenance.

As a player of older 40k ships, the ones used by chaos, the idea of my bombers being unable to catch cruisers would be rediculous.

The general problem seems to stem from the nerfing of larger ships. One squadron of bombers is SUPPOSED to make chunky out of an escort. Making cruisers equivalent to two escorts is what makes this stuff op. They're supposrd to have the hp of eight.

Halve the damage but play with the armor % of each.shot riles should help keep yout stuff alive against bombers.

I don't know that capital ships got nerfed so much as escorts were given 3-4 times their hull integrity. I think that was a matter of making the smaller ships playable on an RT scale. I'm not sure I agree with it, given the abilities of the average RT+wonderbuddies.

The scale of squadrons is probably what goes most wonky for me. I seem to remember that the Emperor-class battleships are supposed to carry "thousands" of attack craft, and I've heard the number 2000 bandied about. In RT terms the Emperor would carry 24 squadrons. Dedicated cruiser/carriers can duplicate this feat but if the squadrons were evenly distributed that would mean there are 160 Furies, 80 Starhawks, and 64 Sharks, a far cry from "thousands."

FFG didn't bother to reconcile the numbers in their game with BFG. I don't know why, but it might be the same philosophy that made them give escorts so many more hit point...they just wanted to keep the game on a smaller, more tactical scale.

I have to question the economics of 10 Starhawks vs. a Firestorm frigate and wonder why the Imperium doesn't invest more heavily into carriers, and the "tradition" explanation doesn't work for me. These squadrons need to be much larger, but then it doesn't work with Space Marine vessels.

Heh. I'm looking for an old post of mine that details exactly why bombers are so overpowered. I haven't found it but about a year ago I posted that 1 of the 4 biggest problems with small craft was that they are too slow. Funny how time changes perspective. But I'm back on board now.

A small word of defence in favour of escort sized vessels: their hits in BFG are very low. With 1 hit, everything that manages to cause them damage will kill them. Practical during a large BFG battle, as there is enough bookkeeping to do with the capital ships, but resulting in exceedingly glass-jawed escorts. For this reason, may players seem to have used houserules allowing for 2 hit escorts and the new Battlefleet Gothic: Armada computer game does about the same, giving frigate sized ships 2 hits and the smaller torpedo craft 1 hit. Which works quite well in my opinion, allowing escorts a measure of survivability.

For RT it was obviously impossible to maintain very vulnerable escorts-sized ships, as those are the bread and butter of (at least the beginning) player characters. And those 30'ish-40'ish points of damage that these ship can take work quite well in play, allowing for quite a bit of stuff to happen before the ships start to disintegrate or explode. The downside, however, has been to make capital ships ridiculously underpowered. A Dauntless with only 50% more resilience than a Sword is just plain silly. Same goes for their firepower. Just the macrocannon broadside of a Lunar should be about 50% heavier than the combined firepower of a Sword. But nothing of that. The two weapon mounts of a Sword can easily pack 8 macrocannon hits against 6 for the Lunar. Of course, this Lunar adds its 2 lances, but in the vanilla rules no weapon is as underpowered as a lance battery.

So what to do? In my next game, I will in each case increase the strength of capital ships. Capital ships should just be that, very powerful killers fit for the line of battle. An escort toying with them should do so at its peril. And as I will make them quite a bit heavier, I will make them quite a bit more expensive as well. I understand the wish of players to have their own cruiser fleet, but this should be very, very hard to come by and demand more than 'just' deep pockets. Still pondering about the particularities though. Doubling the resilience of a cruiser and up might be a good starting point, as it would place the frigate/light cruiser/cruiser endurance in a more logical 2/6/8 relationship.

And for those fearing that this might diminish the chances of the players: What the players face is always in the hands of the GM. It is his task to balance the threats. So a more powerful cruiser is not unbalancing in any way.

Note if you want to increase the resiliancy of ships do away with "any old hit" taking down a shield and give them an absorbtion value.

Funny thing though, the side arc of a dauntless is *exactly* as strong as the full shot of a sword. Go figure.

Aye, forgot that with a never-by-any-player-taken Mars Macrocannon armament, it is. But who is not loading his sword to the brim with Sunsears or Plasma weapons.

I didn't follow that last bit of logic van Reibeeck.

A Mars-pattern broadside battery in a Dauntless has STR 6. A Mars-pattern macrobattery on a Sword has STR 3. Seems to me that the total firepower of a stock Sword (2 Mars batteries) is exactly equal to a stock Dauntless when not figuring in the lances.

The Lunar, on the other hand, has 2 port and 2 starboard slots for broadside weapons. In BFG the Lunar has exactly the equivalent of a Mars-pattern broadside battery and a Titanforge lance battery. It's exactly the same. The only thing FFG did was change the relative hull integrity of the ships...well, and they added a bunch of options past a stock Mars-pattern loadout, but that's a good thing. Now, if you compare all ships together, the Sword and the Lunar and the Dauntless the comparisons start to get uneven but hey, I'm sure that was done in an effort of interchangeability, and I'm ok with that.

Yes, increasing the hull integrity of escorts made them more survivable but I fail to see how increasing the hull integrity of light cruisers and cruisers proportionately (if that's what you're suggesting) is a solution. Does it really matter if you change the hull integrity of an escort to 10-20 or change the hull integrity of a Lunar to 160? It has the same effect...the Lunar can take on many escorts. The first option has escorts exploding left and right while the second option just increases the length of the battle.

Now I do find it weird that they only listed cruisers with hull integrity of 70 instead of 80. Personally, I'd have had no problem with escorts having only 10-20 hull integrity. Their survivability might be low, but throw in the RT and wonderbuddies and they'll dish out enough damage to contest with light cruisers RAW.

Some of these problems were ironed out in the Mathhammer thread (the Storm quality for broadside batteries, for instance). I use a different version for my house rules but it's largely the same effect.