Has anyone done up the stats for this ship class ?
Cheers, Chris
Emperor's Bounty Lathe-class Light Cruiser ?
On the Dark Reign forums there is an conversion sheet between BFG and RT, don't know if the Lathe is present but thought this might help.
The Lathe in the ship name means it's a local pattern of the Lathe worlds in the Calix sector. Thus nothing from BFG is a Lathe-class light cruiser. Personally I'd go with the Endeavour class from "Ships of the Imperial Navy" and swap out the torp for a lance. Or just use the stats for the Dauntless in the book.
Jesus Surloc what don't you know about 40K?
I used to play BFG, and I remember most or what I read. I can't remember the page it's on or always recall the exact stats of something. On other hand I'm not a big SM, Nid, or Necron buff.
Dalnor Surloc said:
I used to play BFG, and I remember most or what I read. I can't remember the page it's on or always recall the exact stats of something. On other hand I'm not a big SM, Nid, or Necron buff.
I think your just being modest
Hold a mo! Lathe-class implies alternative to Dauntless-class or Endeavour-class.
That said, the 'Lunar hull' and 'Dauntless hull' in RT really should've been named something more in keeping with BFG/40k custom. That is: Mars STC Cruiser or Lathe Light Cruiser. The 'Lunar-' or 'Dauntless-' prefix is a bit odd because the ship you finally build might have very little in common with the Lunar or Dauntless classes! (Demarked and differentiated in BFG by their final profile, not from their hull type)
Basically: Lunar and Dauntless shouldn't have been explicitly 'named' at that stage/level. As for a 'Lathe-class Light Cruiser' I've no idea; though I'd propose a simple hybrid Endurance/Dauntless hybrid (all Lances weapons but leaning towards the Endurace/Endeavour hull type for its origins. And no enhanced armoured prow. Lathe-options on everything else too, of course!)
Xisor said:
That said, the 'Lunar hull' and 'Dauntless hull' in RT really should've been named something more in keeping with BFG/40k custom. That is: Mars STC Cruiser or Lathe Light Cruiser. The 'Lunar-' or 'Dauntless-' prefix is a bit odd because the ship you finally build might have very little in common with the Lunar or Dauntless classes! (Demarked and differentiated in BFG by their final profile, not from their hull type)
I tend to view the naming conventions in the same way as the Rhino, Chimera and Leman Russ STCs - the core of the design is the chassis, onto which a variety of additional components are added to create distinct vehicles aside from the one that shares the design's name. A Rhino APC is constructed from the RH1N0 chassis, as is a Vindicator, a Predator, a Repressor or Whirlwhind, while Chimera IFVs, Manticores, Basilisks, Hellhounds and Salamanders are all built from the Chimera chassis... and by similar logic, a Lunar-class Cruiser can be constructed from a Lunar-class hull, which also forms the basic superstructure for a large number of other cruisers and battlecruisers (the Apocalypse-class Battlecruiser used by Battlefleet Armageddon is specifically noted as being a refit of a Lunar-class cruiser, swapping out weapons for longer-ranged versions and adding the dorsal lance armament... all presumably thanks to a more potent plasma drive that's difficult to produce in large quantities).
It should be noted that a number of cruisers in BFG are described as modifed lunar cruisers. Of course in BFG most Imperial cruisers are the same model other than what weapons you stick on them.
N0-1_H3r3 said:
Xisor said:
That said, the 'Lunar hull' and 'Dauntless hull' in RT really should've been named something more in keeping with BFG/40k custom. That is: Mars STC Cruiser or Lathe Light Cruiser. The 'Lunar-' or 'Dauntless-' prefix is a bit odd because the ship you finally build might have very little in common with the Lunar or Dauntless classes! (Demarked and differentiated in BFG by their final profile, not from their hull type)
I tend to view the naming conventions in the same way as the Rhino, Chimera and Leman Russ STCs - the core of the design is the chassis, onto which a variety of additional components are added to create distinct vehicles aside from the one that shares the design's name. A Rhino APC is constructed from the RH1N0 chassis, as is a Vindicator, a Predator, a Repressor or Whirlwhind, while Chimera IFVs, Manticores, Basilisks, Hellhounds and Salamanders are all built from the Chimera chassis... and by similar logic, a Lunar-class Cruiser can be constructed from a Lunar-class hull, which also forms the basic superstructure for a large number of other cruisers and battlecruisers (the Apocalypse-class Battlecruiser used by Battlefleet Armageddon is specifically noted as being a refit of a Lunar-class cruiser, swapping out weapons for longer-ranged versions and adding the dorsal lance armament... all presumably thanks to a more potent plasma drive that's difficult to produce in large quantities).
That's a fair assessment and certainly the most favourable to work with now, but in terms of 'what should have been done', another route should've been taken IMO. Major cruiser/CL classes 'characterised' by their 'origin' makes sense, especially within BFG terms. A Cypra Mundian cruiser might be significantly different in format/base systems from those produced on Mars or Voss or Kar Duniash (as per BFG models); base hull type dictates certain factors whilst actual armament (swapping lances for weapons bays) determines 'class'. (Doing that swap gives a Dictator.)
By the same token, it strikes me that the Battlecruiser hull, unlike in BFG models, should actually be a very different hull-type (plenty of room for those extra lances). Though even then, a higher-grade power core would suit that trick...
On a more pedantic note, I think you mean the Orion/Armageddon class Battlecruiser, not the Apocalypse class Battleship.
Still, that's largely all pedantic.
In summary: There's an opportunity to not only 'adapt' what went before, but to add to it. Could've really went for much further some exploration but...didn't. Ho hum, it's not terribly imporant.
Xisor said:
That's a fair assessment and certainly the most favourable to work with now, but in terms of 'what should have been done', another route should've been taken IMO. Major cruiser/CL classes 'characterised' by their 'origin' makes sense, especially within BFG terms. A Cypra Mundian cruiser might be significantly different in format/base systems from those produced on Mars or Voss or Kar Duniash (as per BFG models); base hull type dictates certain factors whilst actual armament (swapping lances for weapons bays) determines 'class'. (Doing that swap gives a Dictator.)
Which is fair enough from a galaxy-wide perspective... but with Rogue Trader focussing on a single area of space, most common military hulls (that is, Frigates, Cruisers, Light Cruisers) would originate from the nearer Forge Worlds capable of producing starships, even if there's a hypothetically greater variety when considered as part of the rest of the Imperium.
Xisor said:
By the same token, it strikes me that the Battlecruiser hull, unlike in BFG models, should actually be a very different hull-type (plenty of room for those extra lances). Though even then, a higher-grade power core would suit that trick...
My own musings tend to consider the dorsal lances of a Battlecruiser in RT terms as being Strength 2, Range 12, 1d10+4 damage, Crit 3, requiring 12 power and 0 space, with the External special rule. It also fits with the idea in the Adeptus Mechanicus fleet rules that essentially any cruiser can have a lance fitted to the dorsal spine if you've got the right technology. The biggest difference, then, is the necessity for a better drive (100 power instead of 75, for +2 SP; more than the dorsal lances alone need, because you've got to account for the increase in range for the broadsides, which would need higher-powered components; the Lunar hull doesn't have enough space for bigger ones, not if you want to include everything they should have).
Xisor said:
On a more pedantic note, I think you mean the Orion/Armageddon class Battlecruiser, not the Apocalypse class Battleship.
My copy of Armada is somewhere within a very large stack of books, inaccessible at the moment, so I went from memory. Should've checked the digital copy, really...
It should be noted that at least one battlecruiser in BFG is stated to be a lunar class hull. "The Armageddon class was developed in an attempt to rapidly increase the number of available battlecruisers. Almost without exception, Armageddon class ships are built from the recovered hulls of crippled Lunar class vessels, making them one of the easiest battlecruisers to construct, though many fleet commanders have proved unwilling to sacrifice large numbers of their main front-line cruiser." Imperial Vessels (armada) pdf page 17.
That said it sounds like the cruiser to battle cruiser is a major refit. Some thing taking years and numerous acquisition rolls.