In BFG lances and macrobatteries may be fired at torpedoes and attack craft. Are there any rules about firing lances/macrobatteries at torpedoes/attack craft in Battlefleet Coronus?

Sorry for my english.

Dart Mobius said:

I don't think so. At page 12 Battlefleet Koronus we see that the only thing that can shoot down torpedoes and attack craft are defensive turrets, or using the Interception rules for fighters.

thor2006 said:

Which actually makes sense, come to think of it. The enormous guns that make up a macrobattery or a lance simply being to unwieldy to really follow something as small and fast as an attack craft or torpedo. You could try to raise a curtain of fire and hope for a lucky hit, but unless you're playing with a generous GM, it won't really do any good. (Might deter some craft pilots from their intended route of attack though, buying you one or two turns.)

Which actually makes alot of sense.

1. If a lance even gets close to an attack squadron, its toast. A macrobattery Broadside can throw up more flak than anything else, yadda yadda.

2. Nobody is asking for normal hit chances against small craft, in BFG it was a 6 to hit a squadron with anything, compare that against the 4+ for a lance to kill anything else.

3. The person who wrote the rules, actually had an extra box, allowing the big guns to target squadrons at an additional -20 to BS, on top of anything else. And a hit only reduces a single squadron, qhich isnt necessarily dead, but rather limping home. Why that was cut? No one knows.

4. There is a reason that carriers are rather rare in the world of 40k. If it has a plasma drive, it can be targeted and shot down. Carriers can only have so many attack craft, whereas a macrocannon broadside can keep shooting for much longer.

Voronesh said:

I hope this will be added to errata.

Hm.. Several separate quotes don't seem to work. Ah well:

1. If a lance even gets close to an attack squadron, its toast. A macrobattery Broadside can throw up more flak than anything else, yadda yadda.

True. But a lance manages to shoot only one single, not very wide stream of energy into quite a lot of space. Meaning your chances of getting close enough to an attack squadron are very slim at best. And a macrobattery broadside doesn't even come halfway close to flak towers in terms of creating a curtain of lead. They'll surely beat lances and indeed have quite a high rate of fire for their size. But it's still comparing a 6 inch cannon to a chaingun.

3. The person who wrote the rules, actually had an extra box, allowing the big guns to target squadrons at an additional -20 to BS, on top of anything else. And a hit only reduces a single squadron, qhich isnt necessarily dead, but rather limping home. Why that was cut? No one knows.

-20 doesn't seem like a lot if you compare the size of attack crafts to that of even a raider. That's like half a dozen different categories in size the least. So if it was allowed, it would definitely need to be more. Now a rule to create a kind of suppressing fire in a certain area. That I could endorse.

4. There is a reason that carriers are rather rare in the world of 40k. If it has a plasma drive, it can be targeted and shot down. Carriers can only have so many attack craft, whereas a macrocannon broadside can keep shooting for much longer.

If you go by the background fluff, that's not all: Attack crafts are not much more effective in attacking ships then a good macrocannon, if at all. They are more versatile in general and better suited to go after small crafts (other attack crafts, torpedoes, shuttles etcetera). They however are way more complicated and expensive to be kept in a running state. And in a prolongued battle, as you already said, you'll sooner run out of working attack crafts and crews than out of macrocannons and shells to fire with them. Which means that for a standard ship of the line, macrocannons and maybe lances are simply the better choice. Carriers only really making sense in supportive or certain special roles.

Voronesh, you do know that the NDA (a legally binding document) you signed means you aren't allowed to talk about anything that gets cut from the books before release, right?

Congrats on probably getting your team kicked from playtesting.

Sorry to disappoint Milly, but he's referring to a post by N0-1_H3r3 in this thread (reply #4).

Copied:

Big Guns, Small Targets
While the guns of fighters and defensive turrets are well-suited to stopping incoming bombers, assault boats and torpedoes, these weapons do have their limitations, namely range. At times, it may be desirable to stop incoming ordnance long before fighters or turrets can deal with it, turning macrobatteries and lances against such small targets.
Firing at torpedoes or attack craft with normal weapons is difficult, so small and quick are the targets, but they can seldom stand up to weapons that tear other starships asunder. Against torpedoes and attack craft, normal weapons suffer an additional –20 penalty to hit. However, every hit caused immediately defeats either a single squadron of attack craft or a single torpedo.

MILLANDSON said:

Im not part of any playtesting team. I read this on a thread posted in this forum.

Congrats on getting information wrong. No NDA signed, so any information i got is legally aquired. Plus BFK is already released. So it wouldnt even be a breach of a NDA. (Yes i might be on a roll with quite a few rants here and there, but that doesnt mean you need to invent something)

On to the actual post:

1. Macrocannons compare more like a 1000 inch gun to a 20mm CIWS. I guess now its more flak less problem. Lances perform a sweeping maneuver instead of a concentrated strike. If you need 1 seconds to cut through adamantium armour 5 metres thick, you probably need 1% of a second to vanquish a Fury interceptor.

3. Im only quoting what the person who wrote the rules was giving as a negative modifier. Yes id give more of a penalty as well, but it really depends on the person firing. Di you have a Void Master with 80+ BS rerolling every macrobattery, or are you stuck with a Explorator who can eke out 50 BS.

4. Rules as written in BFK have bombers doing vast damage, and only interceptable by turrets, of which there are few and those roll with crew stats (nearly always bad). If you have a half acceptable carrier on one side and a more traditional ship on the other, the fluff and BFG would be nearly certain on the outcome. In RT itd be more of a gamble for the traditional vessel. The Rule written by the actualy writer of that set of rules, does alot in shifting the power back to what you actually have.

True, forgot a lance could try to sweep. But even with that, I'd label it very ill suited to attack small crafts at best. Macrocannons would be able to cover a bigger region of space and therefore better suited, if at all. Honestly said, I could live with rules for shooting at attack crafts with the "Big Guns". But I know just how a group of explorers tends to stack their boni in ship combat. And with most groups a mere -20 would mean that a single macrocannon battery will usually wipe out every enemy attack craft squadron in reach, up to the batteries strength.

That's one of the reasons, why I'm in favour of a "suppressing fire" rule for the big guns. Leaving the approaching squadrons the choice: Break away and try again next turn or suffer the consequences of flying through a wall of explosions and energy. If they decide the latter, the BS test made by the defending ship (with a reasonable modifier) would be taken into account to decide how many crafts make it through. This could of course also be an opposing test BS and maybe boni or mali for type of weapon against craft rating and maybe pilot skill.

And while it's true that bombers can do a lot of damage, even the bigger carriers simply don't have that many bombers to send out, so while they might look good in a quick 1 on 1, an opponent with several ships or a prolongued battle will usually favour the gunships. At least that's how the few battles with fighters we had so far went. (We played around a bit with the new rules as soon as we could get our hands on them.)

Hmm, whilst I agree that the penalty is rather generous, I do like that rule. I think I'll propose it to our GM.

Lance sweeps sound rather useful against fighter formations, simply because the gun is indeed so huge. What's the diameter of a lance beam, how many power would it have? Surely you would not even need to score a straight hit against a small craft - it'd be enough just to be too close! And given that squadrons usually fly in formation, I'd imagine a sweep aiming at (or rather through) its center to at least come with the possibility to obliterate a good number of its craft.

Macrocannons are a bit more tricky, but if you can time the detonation of their shells this could indeed result in a deadly amount of flak, given that a single shell is already larger than the craft it attempts to destroy. Lots of theorycraft, but I would not deem it too far-fetched that a capital ship is able to project a thick cloud of deadly shrapnel right into an approaching squadron.

Lukkai said:

Doesn't that mean that this oddity would persist if you continue to pit one carrier to one other ship? I'd think that if 1 carrier is superior to 1 cruiser, then 10 carriers would be superior to 10 cruisers. Unless you include this houserule that enables the cruisers to combine their macrocannons for an even larger "nebula" of flak.

Maybe this is the disadvantage that would balance an increased range for small craft, as mentioned in another thread? Meaning that if you implement more potential counter measures you could also allow fighters and bombers to stay in the open for more than 4 turns ... at least to me it sounds as if their range by the RAW would be rather short to prevent carriers from leaning back and sending waves of small craft that cannot be shot down - due to missing rules to turn the big guns on them.

Lynata said:

Fighters can stay out for four turns, bombers can stay out for six.

Another variant of house rule: use "Big guns, small targets" but one weapon can target only one wave(or individual squadron) of attack craft. If carrier use waves of attack craft - more vulnerable against big guns, less vulnerable against turrets. If carrier use individual squadrons - less vulnerable against big guns, more vulnerable against turrets.

Lynata said:

Yes, they would. In a short range short duration combat! Fights over longer distances or periods would favour the gunships. Plus gunships are cheaper to built, to run and need fewer crew that are specially trained (which again takes time and money). Any dope can work on a gundeck (in fact it's a classic working place for unlearned press crews). But it takes months to years to train a capable fighter pilot and crew.

Plus while price is not necessarily an issue for the Imperial Navy and the Administratum when building a ship, it definitely is during it's actual service. Not to mention the administrational trouble to train and correctly assign high trained crews of specialists. But now I'm entering fluff area.