I've decided that I don't like the lack of forward weaponry on the larger Imperial ships, and here's my house rule to change it. there is no change to Dorsal, Keel, or Prow mounts.

Port: Fires to Port. Half (round up) of Port mounts may be designated to fire Fore and Port, but only if the mount designated does not hold weapons with Broadside in the weapon component's name.

Starboard: Fires to Starboard. Half (round up) of Starboard mounts may be designated to fire Fore and Starboard, but only if the mount designated does not hold weapons with Broadside in the weapon component's name.

This means that a Dauntless mounting non-Broadside weapons in its one Port mount and one Starboard mount can bring them both to bear Fore in addition to its Prow mount. A Lunar mounting non-Broadside weapons in one of its Port mounts and one of its Starboard mounts can bring them to bear Fore in addition to its Prow mount, and it can still fill the remaining one Port mount and one Starboard mount with Broadside weapons.

This upguns the larger ships considerably and makes them much more flexible in combat, especially allowing some forward-firing capability in Cruisers mounting an Armoured Prow. I know this doesn't match up with Battlefleet Gothic, and I don't really care.

I guess this is the kind of rules I would simply forget about in the heat of battle, they seem too insignificant when compared to how complex they are. Yet, that's maybe because my players don't have a Cruiser. However, I do agree about the "don't care about BFG" part. In my opinion, there's already too much BFG in Rogue Trader.

There is never enough BFG in a game.

Look at how the port/starboard weapons on the Lunar and Dauntless are mounted. It is impossible to fire them to the fore without destroying your own guns first. Heh.

For other designs then Lunars/Dauntless it is possible to have such weapon mounts. Tau are very well know for their arcs.

horizon said:

Nonsense. With this logic, Prow mounts on Light Cruisers and Cruisers - such as the Lance Battery on the Dauntless - shouldn't be able to fire 270 degrees (as allowed by RAW) for the same reasons. There are several available weapon configurations. The 'standard' configurations you speak of from the models (stupid little toy ships) are obviously the banks of broadside mounts. The battery mounts - such as the Sunsear Laser Battery - could certainly consist of turrets with greater traverse mounted to a flared 'wing' of the hull.

Therefor my house rule is that prow lances fire prow only.

No nonsense: ship eg 'toys' is what the ships are and how they look like. Take a look at the art in the RT Corebook. You are justiying rules for your own needs.

added:
The fire arcs as from BFG. So you already see how far the port/starboard weapons are reaching.

Also I feel offended if you say stupid toy ships.

While this seems like a quite nice idea, it kindoff breaks the whole 'age of sail in space' vibe that WH40K has going on. Also, it steals the Tau special ability for their broadside weapon batteries.

I wouldnt use this rule, but its your game ofcourse.

horizon said:

That is typically what a house rule is intended to do - adjust the game to meet a perceived need. And since we're in the house rules forum...

Beyond all that, the BFG crap doesn't sway me a bit and I posted that quite clearly from the beginning.

BossTroll said:

I'm actually less for an age of sail feel in the starship tactics, and one more like the capital ship battle scenes from the Star Wars movies. To me, I can still have my RT feel without the BFG Imperial limitations.

Hey,

perhaps we are off on a wrong tone here...?

But, cool, you don't like BFG and the age of sail combat but that is how BFG is designed and how the Starship Combat section in the RT RPG is designed. It is how every book from the Black Library describes space battles in 40k.

Personally I vastly prefer the Naval approach we have, while I do like Star Wars as well, the naval approach is much more fitting with the 40k setting as a whole.

So you can ditch it, just means a rewrite for most of the section and not only fire arcs of the port/starboard sides. Good luck.

horizon said:

So you can ditch it, just means a rewrite for most of the section and not only fire arcs of the port/starboard sides. Good luck.

I'm not sure what else you think needs to be changed to allow the firing arcs changes I've presented. It's a pretty self-contained rules change; what ripple effects are you suggesting?

horizon said:

From what I've seen, HappyDaze is just abrasive. Its a bit of a shame, because it sometimes eclipses the rest of his posts and arguments. Its not really worth going up in flames over (which you aren't =)).

On topic, I can see both sides of the argument. I like the Age of Sail in space concept quite a bit. Its evocative and easy to relate to for most players. But I've never played BFG and have no particular attachment to that line of games.

But Age of Sail in space isn't anywhere close to a realistic model of space combat...even with a pulpy setting allowing for a certain suspension of disbelief. So making any changes you feel is justified to evoke the kind of space combat you want to have is fine.

To me, Cruisers are able to bring crushing firepower to bear, but that firepower comes at the price of speed and maneuverability...meaning that power is situational. I find that to be somewhat balanced...at least conceptually.

Your changes would mean that Cruisers would become more of a full package kill-machine. With the ability to bring a lore more firepower into more arcs, its a situational nerf to other ship classes who rely on their speed and agility against cruisers. I don't really see how this change matters much for fleet actions...where a lot of the combat is abstract anyway. But it has a pretty significant impact in smaller scale actions, since it makes Cruisers more versatile against all foes. You're pretty up front about this.

You talk about wanting a more Star Wars feel to space battles...but I'm curious how you mean that exactly? In SW, a lot of the space battles took place between "forward facing" fleets slowly advancing, with the space in between swarming with fighters, torpedoes and megapulse laser blasts.

That same feeling can be achieved just fine (in my opinion) by changing how your Imperial Admirals layout their battle plans. Rather then attacking prow-first at an enemy fleet, there would be a lot of maneuvering and coordination, resulting in an Imperial Navy doing a lot of flying at an angle and bringing massed broad side fire to bear. To me, it seems pretty easy to evoke that same feeling of massive ship combat, without needing more firepower in Cruiser frontal arcs. Just adjust the tactics of the Imperials to match their equipment and you still get massed fire...that slowly moves into closer and closer range...until it ends in near knife-fight range, exchanging close range fire, boarding parties and desperation. Seems pretty epic to me...

I guess my question would be...is the "buff" to Cruisers to make them more epic in fleet-actions worth the nerf to all other ship types in small scale (most player driven/centered) combat?

One of my problems is that by RAW, a Dauntless has less bearing weapons in the Fore arc than a Sword and only matches on the sides. This is somewhat mitigated by the cruiser's ability to mount lances, but the way shields work in RT means that Lances unsupported by batteries rarely prove effective. I'm making my change to increase the effectiveness of larger ships, especially those operating independently (such as a group of PCs might use or encounter). As you noted, smaller ships will retain the advantages of speed and maneuver over the cruisers. They are going to be less effective in combat with the larger ships, but I see this as a positive feature.

Then it sounds like a house rule that will only benefit your game.

I have to say that I concur. Adjusting the intrinsic fire arcs will have a knock-on effect on the dynamic interaction with other ships in the fleets. With this change instantiated, consider the players selecting a new ship. The advantage of speed and maneouv. simply isn't maintained with this change, it is seriously devalued.

Cruisers also gain benefits in terms of space and power available, if their armament can suitably compensate the threat rightly posed whilst operating on their own then...well, that's it.

Rogue Trader Cruisers, as opposed to Imperial Navy Cruisers, are typically outfitted for some economic purpose. Naval Cruisers operating alone would ... not. Backed up by escorts, that's the simple case of it.

In Rogue Trader terms, I see the limitation on Cruiser forward strength as being a prime factor in taking a big ship.'Fixing' that is, in my esteem, covering that mistake/lack-of-foresight is a thing I'd not be terribly happy about. Offering an 'out', however, seems mighty viable. There's no particular reason the port/starboard weapons couldn't be reconfigured or augmented to 'bulk outwards' and add in additional relays, turret fixtures and so forth.

Easy to make a whole string of endeavour's out of it all. But for reworking? Sure, it works, but I don't buy into the motivation myself. Or rather: I find the motivation to be of little worth. But, then again, I haven't inspected all elements of it, if you'd elaborate on it (or if I eventually take a thorough peek) I'm sure I'd be of more use!

Xisor said:

This is the difference between taking something like Mars-pattern Macrocannons vs. Mars-pattern Macrocannon Broadside on your cruiser's Port/Starboard mounts. An Imperial Navy cruiser can comfortably take the Macrocannon Broadside knowing that it can rely on escorts to cover it while it lines up the superior firepower of that mount. Independent cruiser-sized vessels, like those of most RTs, would be better off with the (non-Broadside) Macrocannons for the improved coverage to the fore.

You could just say that the ships 'roll over' in space...meaning all their port starboard weapons can be brought to bear on one target. If they're in either arc and your cappy wants to pop the ship anything but weapons pointed out your drive nosels can bear.

If you really want to reproduce the Star Wars feel, then I think you're going in the wrong direction.

If I remember right from my youth in the Star Wars fandom, naval combat worked as such:

Imperial Star Destroyers (and other ships of the line) were about the size of 40k destroyers. Not cruisers.

Most large capital ships didn't spend a lot of effort on ship-mounted weaponry. Usually they focused more on hangers laden with squadron-upon-squadron of fighters. These fighters were really what won the battle. When capital ships went head-to-head, it was just a battle of attrition determined by who had more shields and who had bigger guns. However, fighters (and bombers) could inflict significant damage without their capital ship even subjecting itself to enemy fire. Of course, your capital ship was vulnerable to enemy fighters as well, and because of this fact most of the larger ships were pretty much entirely given over to AA batteries, not ship-to-ship weapons. This led to the interesting differential between the factions. Imperials could field much larger numbers of fighters, but their capital ships had to drop them off, so they opened themselves up to retaliation. They could afford to do this because even their capital ships were replaceable due to their vast manufacturing capabilities. The rebels, on the other hand, couldn't afford to risk their capitals (and sometimes didn't even have capitals) so they fielded fighters that could reach combat by themselves.

If you want this kind of fight, it only takes a small amount of reflavoring. First, consider using the vehicle rules from into the storm and having the players launch from their ship in fighters. However, the rules don't really have good support for fighter squadron combat... yet. Instead, consider: Cruisers perform the role of the Star Wars capital ships, while the destroyers perform the role of bombers and frigates the role of fighters. If you want the capital ships to go toe-to-toe instead of side-to-side, give them 2 or 3 forward-only facing weapons, and one prow weapon (and no port or starboard weapons). This way they are short and fat like Star Wars ships instead of long and narrow like 40k ships. Have one faction of ships (or all of them) work like Tau ships, where the escort-class ships don't have FTL drives, and have to be towed into battle by a cruiser.

I'm all for modifying a system to work better for your game, but don't forget to look the decision's consequences. As you have it set up know, cruisers have a 3/3/3/2 weapon setup, being able to fire 5 weapons/round. This means there is no point to frigates, as good fire arc coverage is their primary selling point. You keep saying the escort class ships are more maneuverable, but what's the point of maneuverability when there isn't a position that's more advantageous to be in? You also keep saying broadsides could be chosen by naval vessels, but I'm not sure an upgrade from s3 to s6 (and nearly doubling the space) is as valuable as a 180 degree firing arc. I mean, how often do you get 5 degrees of success, especially on an NPC vessel?

On a side note, I can see why someone might put a lance on the prow mount of a light cruiser, but I'm not quite sure why people keep putting one on the prow mount of a cruiser. I would think a battery would be better there, with each side having 2 batteries/battery+lance/2 lances depending on the cruiser's role.

If you're going to say escorts have an advantage because they are more maneuverable, but then take away the point of maneuvering, at least throw them a bone and give them a -20% to be hit or something to represent their maneuverability. I think that's the less interesting option, as players have to think about tactical positioning and it creates interesting choices, but a flat penalty to hit will always be a flat penalty to hit.

Hopefully the battlefleet book will introduce a lot more of the BFG concepts. I know you don't care about BFG, but one of the neat things about that game was that each fleet had a very different (as in different era) playstyle. I think the style of combat you're envisioning would probably be represented by Chaos fleets (WWII style standoff, relying on fighters, bombers and long-range bombardment), but there are also Eldar (classic pirate sailing ships who actually care which way the solar wind blows), and Space Marine (modern Carrier Battle Group style, with one hulking impressive ship surrounded by escorts and light cruisers) as well as others. I really hope FF takes the time to include that kind of variety in the supplement.

At the very least, it probably wouldn't hurt to look through the BFG rules (given away for free on the GW website) and really look at each faction as a whole, and see what the purpose of each ship is, and what they did to keep the purpose of each class from being completely obviated by another one in the faction.

I'm not attacking your decision, I'm just critiquing it. I'm asking these questions because I want your houserule to work even better for you, and possibly for other groups as well. And if it's not working as intended, maybe collaborate to find a more elegant solution.

I looked back at what I put above and compared it to my notes. In my notes I allow half (round up) to be Fore Port/Fore Starboard. I decided not to make the change to allow Aft coverage. This means that I do still have the aft blind spot on almost all ships.

Yes, my house rule does mean that many cruisers and light cruisers can cover their fore arc with 3 weapon mounts. The grand cruiser can cover its fore arc with 4 weapon mounts. Here's the breakdown that shows a fairly even progression of arc coverage using this rule (it assumes that allowable fore port/fore starboard mounts do not use broadside weapons):

Lunar/Tyrant: Fore 3, Port 3, Starboard 3, Aft 0

Dauntless/Lathe: Fore 3, Port 2, Starboard 2, Aft 0

Secutor: Fore 4, Port 4, Starboard 4, Aft 0 (This ship has its own issues with power and space that keep it from being as overwhelming.)

Sword/Tempest: Fore 2, Port 2, Starboard 2, Aft 0

Firestorm/most raiders: Fore 2, Port 1, Starboard 1, Aft 0

In my 40K universe escorts are just that - escorts. They are not the main show (and I do not run RT games where an escort is the primary ship of a RT), and they do not engage cruisers (including light cruisers) one-on-one and expect to win. They are easier and cheaper to build and they require far less crew. Their role depends upon this since it typically takes 2-3 to threaten a cruiser. In this I still hold some of the feel for escorts as seen in BFG (although not to that degree).

Etheric said:

This is accomplished by using Evasive Maneuvers. The high Maneuverability score of many escorts means they will benefit more from this than larger vessels (Eldar cruisers being a big exception).

HappyDaze said:

Out of curiousity, could I ask why? I've been playing a game where the group was using a Firestorm as their flagship for a couple of months and then managed to restore a Murder from a Space Hulk. After playing with the Murder for a while, they handed it over to NPCs and went back to the Firestorm. They felt that having a smaller, less powerful ship was more fun, cause it meant they were the underdogs in most fights which made the victories more satisfying. THey'd rather have the Blockade Runner from the start of Star Wars rather then the Star Destroyer that's chasing it.

I understand that not everyone feels the same, there seem to be a lot of opinions on the forums that starting with a cruiser is the only way to go. I've been curious for a while as to why, you're jsut the first person who seems to have been so... emphatic in your opinions on cruisers vs. escorts.

With a cruiser (or light cruiser) I have more options. The PCs can still be at a disadvantage - the opposition could always have a bigger ship (fairly uncommon) or simply more ships (quite common), but with a cruiser the PCs can sometimes have the upper hand against a lone smaller vessel. This creates more variety in the stories I can tell, and the "always the underdog" thing is not something I want in this game.

And it fits more into the Battlefleet Gothic Rogue Trader fleet(s) and background in the RT book itself (RT's being given massive fleets & force to bring forth the light of the Emperor).

nice idea, but if you want to have more forward firepower why not -1 weapon slot form each side of the ship and get 2 dorsal weapon slots on the top of the ship that can hit in all 3 directions?

that way you dont loose your side shooting, instead gain a bit more, and you have more forward firepower as well...