I am wondering about the turning radius of a light cruiser, specifically, the Dauntless. In the description of the class at page 196 their manoeuvrability is stated as being 'the manoeuvreability of a frigate'. On the other hand, on page 213 the book states that transports, raiders, firgates and other ships of equivalent size have a turning radius of 90 degrees. All other ships have a 45 degree turning radius instead. Now, I could read this as a Dauntless counting as a frigate as far as turning is concered (i.e. 90 degrees) or I could consider it an other ship with the 45 degree turning angle.

Obviously, this is an important difference in game stats but also in feeling. A 45 degree turn feels as befitting a large, ponderous ship, presenting its vast broadside to their foes, majestic and powerful. A 90 degree turn gives the feeling of a panther, fast and sleek, turning and deadly.

In my view, the Dauntless (and other light cruisers) should turn 90 degrees. For this I have a number of reasons:

- Difference with other cruisers. With Battlefleet Koronus a large amount of new hulls has been added to the possible ships, amongst which there are many new cruisers 'of the line'. Overlords, Chalices, Dominators...all of them vast heavy ships meant to slog it out. To keep the light cruisers from becoming second rate cruisers of the line, it make sense to stress their speed and manoeuvrability. It will give them a distinct feel and play style and enable players to choose for a big slogging ship or a more nimble craft.

- SP value balance. Compared with the cost of a Lunar (60 SP) , an Ambition (57 SP) or even a Armageddon class Battlecruiser (63 SP) the cost of a Dauntless is steep at 55 SP. If it can turn only 45 degrees, this cost difference becomes very steep indeed, with only its high speed as an advantage. Just comparing possible broadsides, an Armageddon at 63 SP has 1 possible prow, 2 port/starbord and 1 dorsal against the 1 possible prow and 1 port/starboard for the 55 Sp Dauntless. That is easily double the firepower. To even such vast differences out, it seems to me logical to give the Dauntless a distinct manoeuvrability adavantage as well.

- Cross system logic. This is a tricky subject, as rules in another game system should never be given to much thought. But they should not be ignored, especially if one game system is clearly inspired by the other. In Battlefleet Gothic all Imperial light cruisers have a 90 degree turn, all the cruisers a 45 degree turn. I am fully aware that BFG and RT are only related, but much of the space combat mechanics of RT are very clearly based on BFG. On itself, this should not be sufficient reason to impose a 90 degree turn as a rule, but I see it as a supporting argument for my first two main arguments, feeling and game balance.

What is the general opinion on this question?

Friedrich van Riebeeck, Navigator Primus, Heart of the Void

Rules as written, light cruisers turn 45 degrees.

That said, you raise some very good points. With no maneuver advantage, light cruisers are a rather poor value compared to the many full-sized cruisers available. The light cruisers have one less broadside mount each side, and usually one less void shield, so there is a very significant difference in power. A couple points in speed alone hardly offsets that. And, while Battlefleet Gothic != Battlefleet Koronus, there is also the little detail that Battlefleet Gothic is a mature game that has been played extensively, while Battlefleet Koronus is new and perhaps not playtested overmuch. The ship combat systems are similar enough that BFG might well have it right. Ninety degree turns for the light cruisers is probably worth trying out.

It's your game, you can always house-rule it.

Cheers,

- V.

Interesting. I had assumed that LC's could turn 90 degrees. Given the reasons above, I think I will let them do so in my game.

Hmm, an interesting (and well-phrased) point.

I must admit to not having played the BFG game, but I do not put much stock by the combined feel/game-balance argument in this form: the ships of the Empire are unlikely to form a beautifully designed and perfectly balanced line of tools in the hands of a central, competent logistic and military authority. Rather, the Administratum, the Navy, the Cult of Mars and sundry other factions in the Empire will intrigue against one another and build what they can, where they can and as best they can, relying more on keeping ancient ships in service and re-creating the sacred designs of old as best they may. Banish all thought of innovation and logic!

If logical thinking and modern military design theory could be applied to the Empire, then it would cease to be the dark, grim, inefficient, awe-inspiring and all-too-Human wreck of a theocratic leviathan that we so love. That would be more like Traveller or Star Wars. ;-)

Another point is that neither Navy captains or Rogue Traders will have much say over what ship they get: again, this is not a logical, market-driven economy. Ponderous LC will continue to be built by the wharfs designed to do so. These ships are built like cathedrals and take decades if not centuries to complete: hundreds of generations of loyal, plodding work-hands will know no other form to build. The respect of the sacred machine is too great to allow redesigning it.

Having said that, what with centuries of tinkering and installing salvaged archeotech components in essentially handcrafted, unique ships , nothing is really 'standard' anyhow, and individual LC may well overcome their design flaw with upgrades. In other words, some LCs might have 45 degree/round turning capabilities and others 90. GMs discretion, said the GM! ;-)

Obviously, the Empire is ridden by inefficiency and a unwillingness to enhance or -perish the thought- concieve new and bold designs. Nor does the Empire care a lot for the feeling of its ships, as long as they inspire awe and dread and are suitable representatives of the Might of the Empire of Man.

On the other hand, neither the players nor FFG are the Empire. The point of 'feeling' is important to both players and GM while the idea of game balance is of importance to FFG, who try to ensure that their rules give a workable and fast system to simulate a non existant reality. Both elements are important to enjoy the game.

And it goes without say that a GM has the final authority to determine what ship with what abilities a player group will get. He controls the storyline and determines the interaction with all NPC's and institutions. If a GM would like to have a ship with both archeotech and xeno elements the players get it, even if the basic rules do not allow for it...obviously the previous owner from whom they inherited this ancient ship had some interesting times in the expanse and decided that he could scrounge that strange looking Augur array. But, that being said, the individual qualities or deficiencies of ships and the personnal choice of a GM do not affect the general characteristics of a class. On the contrary, they need to be underscored by a good background and game world specific (as opposed to normal) logic. If you have a light cruiser that is as manoeuvrable as an Ork Kroozer, there is obviously a good reason for it. Perhaps it has suffered dreadful battle damage that strains the ship in harsh turns or it could have been of shoddy construction to begin with, being build above a decaying hive world. On the same hand, you could have an Armageddon that is far more manoeuvrable and that can turn 90 degrees, being constructed on Mars with a special blessing of the Adeptus Mechanicus.

In all the abilities of a ship are no more then hand holds, but, as hand holds go, they do are useful. A campaign focused around a Hazeroth raider will have a different feel then a campaign featuring a vast Lunar. And in trying to balance out challenging encounters it is handy to have a way of estimating the strength of a ship and its opponents. Giving a light cruiser the opposition that might challenge a cruiser might turn out quite nasty if the light cruiser can only behave as a second rate normal cruiser. Which is no problem if you wish to give the player a hell of a challenge, but can turn out quite campaign shattering if things go wrong with a minor encounter. I had such a thing once with a troll and impossibly bad rolls of the players...but that is a different story.

FvR, Navigator Primus, heart of the Void

van Riebeeck said:

Not quite true. Check the Voss triumvirate. These vessels are held in low regard for a reason. Also read up on the different variants of Land Raiders; old and sacred and unchanged for millenia is the wrong descriptor!

Remember this is 40k, if you can retcon it to increase sales for a plastic vehicle box: Do it!

PS: My descriptor for LRs: If it improves killing abilty, do it!, Even if it means dropping it like a rock and having a very real chance of destroying said not so holy relic. (If it aint holey it aint holy!)

You are the GM, if you want to change it, its your game. Its not like 40k is a static, unchanged bible of a universe. Bolters are FFG's prime example of inconsistency, there are hundreds more written by GW. You can only improve your game. If it sounds like fun and good for a gaming group, there is nothing holding you back.

Well, an unwillingness is different from not doing it at all. Obviously STC's are from time to time adapted to new demands and new and bright ideas might be given a chance. But with caution!The difference between fitting innovation and heretek is not that great. Compared with the inventiveness of man in the real world the static nature of technology, or worse, even its technological decline, stands out as one of the interesting points of the Imperium.

FvR

I might have forgotten something in my argument: the existance of the Lathe- and Secutor-class monitor cruisers. While technically light, these are clearly 'armed and armored up' ships that trade manoeuvrability and speed for weapons and protection. That extra Dorsal weapon slot and the ability to use cruiser components to get 2 void shields clearly make these ships far more resilient and far harder hitting. They remind me a bit of the coast defence ships the Scandinavian navies build at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The displacement of a light cruiser, but slow and heavily protected, in essence a poor man's battleship. What these two monitor cruisers obviously are, scaled down ships of the line, capable of fighting in out with the enemies of mankind side by side with the full cruisers, only slightly less resilient and strong. But vastly different from the Dauntless, which is that quintessential light cruiser, steaming forward to scout and support the light forces in advance of the line of battle...and as such, is build to posses the speed and manoeuvrability to keep up with them.

FvR

A very silly question, but I am never at my best with tech-spirits: how do I proceed to pose this question directly to FFG?

FvR

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_faq.asp

Vandegraffe said:

Indeed, RAW states 45 degrees.

Saying that BFK was "perhaps not playtested much", though, is a little harsh and insulting, when the 45 degree turning radius was in the core book, and entirely unrelated to the contents (at the time of the core book being written) of BFK.

Plus, you can't have light-cruisers be much faster than they currently are without them being faster than frigates, which is obviously silly, as it invalidates the frigate and cruiser in favour of the light-cruiser. They fit a niche between frigates (fast + agile), and cruisers (slower and less agile), in that they are faster than a cruiser, but less agile than a frigate. It's possibly a 60 degree turn could have been best suited for a compromise between the two, but then with the turning radius not being part of BFK, there's not much say those of us who worked on BFK had in that.

Also, expecting the RPG to entirely fit with BFG is just like the arguments used by people who dislike the differences between the TT 40k game and the RPG - they aren't meant to be identical, and who's to say that BFG is in keeping with the fluff? Perhaps it's RT and BFK that is the more accurate to GW's vision?

Well, as you might have seen the argument isn't based on BFG, the latter is only brought in to support the argument. The main argument is one of feeling ( I might be too much harking back to the Age of Sail here, or are it the misty days on the North Sea, with sleek light cruisers running ahead with destroyers to scout ahead of the Grand Fleet?) and one of balance (SP 55 for a light cruiser vrs SP 60 for a Lunar and SP 64 for an Overlord).

Neither am I saying light cruisers should be faster, even if there is no reason why a big ship should be slow. As long as you have the power to accelerate your mass, you are in the void and nothing is dragging you down. Don't forget that older Imperial technology was capable of doing just that. A slaughter class can zip along at speed 9 with the same mass as a Lunar and an enormous Hades is still quite as fast as our present Dauntless.

But let us see what a Dauntless class is intended to do: basicly, they compare pretty well to the 'Town' class build just before WW I, in that they have to patrol the Void (seas) on extended deployments and scout ahead of the main battle fleet. In the first case, its size will give it the endurance that a frigate lacks. In the second case, they are the backbone of the forces skirmishing in front of the main battle fleet, trying to find out where the enemy is and denying the enemy information. In that function, they just add that extra firepower and resilience that allows them to reliably deal with frigates and destroyers, but still need both the speed and the agility to keep up with the 'light' forces. To boot, they are the perfect flagships for the advance guard with their superior space and communications (take a look at what they say about the vice-admiral in BFK). The original book even stated specifically that a Dauntless 'combines the manoeuvrability of a frigate'.

Now I do realise that the planning of the industrial-military complex in the Imperium is quite a bit more haphazard then it is here on Earth, but the agile Dauntless fullfils a vital niche in the Imperial Navy. An agile Dauntless does certainly not invalidate the frigate, for the simple reason that you can build about three of them in the place of one light cruiser. Mind you, I said build instead of acquire and I am basing this very arbitray count on the megatonnage. This is perfectly logical, as every fleet needs mass to bulk itself out. The only reason why Lunars are build is the same reason why Swords are build: you need numbers. A Lunar does nothing a battleship cannot do far and far better, but it is far easier to construct and man, just as a Third Rate Ship of the Line did nothing a First Rate could not do, but was so much cheaper to produce. And just as the line of battle consists of cruisers around a hard core of battleships, so do the light forces consist of destroyers and frigates around a hard core of light cruisers. It makes perfect sense that even in a place that is often so unlogical as the Imperium of Man a few Fleet officials are quite aware that it makes perfect sense to give both the line of battle and the light forces ships with comparable speed and manoeuvrability. The heavies plod on with their speed of 4-5 and the 45 degree turns, the light forces scout ahead with their speed of 7-10 and their 90 degree turns. Including a less then agile light cruiser amongst those light forces would be quite illogical.

FvR

P.S. Thanks for the link by the way, I allready used it to ask the question, still expecting a response.

MILLANDSON said:

Considering what certain Codex writers get away with currently. No chance.

The TT is pretty much the marine love thing you can have. At least the keep the stats to a believable level, or theyd sell 10 Marines per army.

Another rant brought to you by an avid 40k gamer. Who stopped buying. Bring on the King Tiger!

Voronesh said:

If Marines died as quickly as they did on the TT they would be the weapon-test-dummies of the galaxy. SMs tend to be the used by the worst and least tactical players, at least for those I have played with.

Well yes thats true.

But i play them as well, while im not that good, i am acceptable with them.

Basically Marines are supposed to be the best at tactics and strategy, but are THE introductory army for 40k. Which leads to obvious problems.

But they can be played to their fluff standards. It just needs two things:

- The dice gods must be with you.

- Your opponents makes one or two mistakes, and you let him.

I do have a few 1000 point armies and most of my Imperial forces can reach 2000 points.

My SM force is White Scars which is a fluffy army mostly and unless my opponent gets stupid, the best I can do is draw. Other armies can win big but also lose big. SMs are the designed currently to be the most tactically flexible army - while that sounds nice, other armies that exploit a tactical weakness are much much more deadly especially if your army has that weakness.

That said in tournaments, I tend to field armies that deal with power armor well, considering how many armies that does well against (SM, demon hunters, chaos, necron - witch hunters and eldar have some hard troops too - no experience against the new tau), and how many people actually play SMs, I usually do pretty well at least against codex SM armies. I sometimes forget chapter specific rules that get used against me.