After a few space battles and some simulated scenarios, we are considering dropping the combination of macrobatteries in one salvo. Mostly, because the combination of macrobatteries seems to have put lances out of a job. Secondly, because it makes the broadside power of a cruiser redundant. As the rules are, a sword with two sunsears seems so much better armed then a classical Dauntless with a lance/macrobattery broadside combination, and this feels to me, well, wrong. A light cruiser is supposed to pack much more of an oomph.

But what are the consequences? Obviously, it would make STR3 and STR4 macrobatteries far weaker, as they will need an appreciable part of their STR just to get through the armor (not to mention the voidshield). This means armour really start to have a meaning, as STR3 and STR4 batteries will be great to strip shields and to do damage to lightly armoured ships, but won't do much against heavier ships. What will be the result for NPC ships?

The rule as it stands feels unbalancing. But will changing it unbalance more?

Friedrich van Riebeeck, Navigator Primus, Heart of the Void

Makes it much harder for NPC ships to put a serious dent in larger PC-controlled ships. Aside from that, there's not much of a real downside, aside from possible player complaints.

There is a thread similar like this one at the "House Rules" section. The title is something like "Removing Macrobattery Salvo".

Thanks, I will give the Houserules section a look.

FvR

There was a lengthy discussion on the main Rogue Trader board titled: [Mathhammer] Are lances a trap?

There is an in depth comparison of how different house rules affect damage output, including removing salvoing.

In brief: Removing salvoing reduces damage between 20 - 50% across a significant range of Ballistic Skills (30-70). It widens the difference between different types of macros as the Ballistic Skill increases, i.e. at high BS Ryzas are four times better than Mars cannons rather than a little more than twice as good. It helps balance macros and lances, but does not do enough to make lances worthwhile.

Thanks, I have taken a look a both posts. All in all, my feelings go a bit in the following direction (we still have to discuss this with the gaming group):

- Rogue trader Space combat is based on the old rules for BFG. These were inspired by naval warfare in the age of sail, with a few elements of the late 19th and mid 20th century thrown in (mines, torpedos, carriers). This is an athmosphere of gritty harsh battles, devastating broadsides, boarding and medicae decks were a tot of rum is all the pain relief you can expect.

- The classical rate of the 18th century British navy corrsepond perfectly with the basic ship types:

1st Rate of the Line: Battleship

2nd Rate of the Line: Grand Cruiser/Battlecruiser

3rd Rate of the Line: Cruiser

4th Rate Frigate: Light Cruiser

5th Rate Frigate: Frigate

6th Rate Frigate: Raider

In the British fleet, the first three rates were Ships of the Line, meant to slug it out in momentous sea battles, broadside against broadside. The heavier the ship, the more dominant it got. The last three rates were meant to scout, support, raid and police the seas. They could not withstand or deal out the pounding needed to fight in the heart of a great battle. Interestingly enough, the most prevalent British ships were 3rd rates (Lunars and variants) and 5th rates (Swords and variants). In each case, 5th and 6th rates had no place in any line of battle, and 4th rates were to light as well. I do like it if this feeling is translated in comparable strength relations in RT. And don't forget, with sufficient (fantastic) heroics a la Hornblower even a frigate might win from a ship of the line through brilliant manoeuvre and derring do. This pleases me, as this can be done in RT as well. Slug it out as a frigate with a cruiser and you die, be nimble, agile and daring and with the luck of heroes you have a chance.

- 'Modern' additions:

If you wish to have a chance with light ships against heavies, the more modern influences are the way to go. Torpedos offer even a small craft an impressive punch. Mines can cause untold havoc if used well ( I would start a campaign in 'undred 'undred teef right away if I were the navy). Attack craft are allready harder to deploy from smaller ships, but offer space stations, planets and comparable targets a very nice edge as well. In each case, small craft have some very good ways to fight heavy craft, but the last ones should keep the overall edge.

To summarise, I think that limiting the power of macrobatteries (and perhaps enhancing lances, but let's not start changing too much from the start) helps preserve the feelings of the game I described above.

FvR

Although you should never forget, that a frigate can duke it out with a cruiser and win.

Unless you enhance crew values of NPC vessels greatly. 40 crew as given for most NPCs is simply nothing. A frigate with tricked out weaponry can even whithout salvoing kill a cruiser with a few passes.

Regarding lances and macrobatteries, i suggest giving lances 1 extra d10 flat out. And halving the strength of any weapon battery fired after the first. This allows Mars pattern macrobattries to steal deal damage, but will reduce the firepower of dual sunsears (if in player hands) significantly. The upped lance damage is comparable and provides a better damage per strategic turn, IF you have a lower Ballistics skill. Which should be very welcome, since a lance takes up more space/energy than a comparable macrobattery.

The stats of PC commanded ships are so impressive, that they seem to be veritable buzzsaws, even without the macrobatteries being added up. Still, this is heroic RP, so that is not that bad. A short look at the PF and SP also makes it quite clear characters will normally start out with an escort, either a raider or most likely a frigate, with light cruisers and cruisers rarities. So it is not unlogical that frigates and raiders have gotten a huge power boost compared to capital ships....still, I rather have players will at least be carefull when facing a cruiser and go for manoeuvre and smarts to get on top then just trust the stats and roll those hits.

The idea of lances is not bad, I like it. And it has as an added advantage that it will make NPC ships quite a bit more dangerous. Stripping one shield from a ship and then hitting it with a lance can even be done by a competent NPC crew. Something to consider, hmmm

FVR

van Riebeeck said:

But do we need such a move? RPG isnt tabletop after all. FFG reduced RTs from cruisers down to frigates and then boosted escorts back up again, so players do not experience character or ship grinding.

Circles in circles, ill never understand that design idea.

Around here most of us went for the cruiser first, with one player wanting something small and cheap (ill never understand that guy) or being undecided. But then again, knowledge of the age of sail simply drills you towards cruisers. One does not want to sit in a frigate when meeting a ship of the line.

But great if you like my lance idea. The nerfing of macrobatteris only exists to curtail those Void Masters with 70-ish ballistic skill. If you dont have them, you dont really need it. Hitting with everythign when all you have is one roll at 55 ballistic skills, you earned such a hard hitting salvo, 75 ballistic skill with rerolls, it happens way too often.

I have done a bit of thinking about revitalised lances as well, and the 2d10 is an option, but might give these weapons to wide a damage range (2-20). Perhaps giving the lance the 'tearing' quality (roll 2d10, drop lowest) might work as well. The damage output would be more reliable and on the high side, but in the same range as the original rules. It would give player lances a more respectable oomph and will make NPC lances all that more nasty.

FVR

No it wont. Quite sadly, someone calced that in the huge lance thread already.

But lances are still inferior with tearing if you VM has BS 60+. (Plus they need more energy than macros)

Even 2d10 is inferior with really high BS chars, so thats why i even nerfed macros.

Honesty I wouldnt nerf macros - if you really want to boost lances instead, but I'd be careful with that not to make lances too powerful. Nerfing macros has the side effect of making xenos races that do not use lances much weaker (especially orks), while boosting lances, makes eldar much more deadly.

To me comparing macros and lances is like comparing an assault rifles and RPGs, both are designed to be anti-personnel, but the assault rifle has a much higher rate of fire but the rpg can take down vehicles with different rounds. There is a reason why all races (even the lance happy eldar) use macros - its because they are good and effective at what they do while Lances are used by races who have a combat doctrine that can utilize them.

Assault rifles and RPG's? I can see think of a few comparisons, but to compare a precise incandesent pillar of devastating power with a primitive AT weapon (RPG's were designed for anti-tank work, the Anti-Personnel round is an afterthought) that fires projectiles that get instable with any side wind....seems a bit far. In real life RPG's perform far worse then they do according to games and movies. Better compare a light machine gun with a sniper rifle if you wish to keep the infantry comparison going on. Or an area saturation bombardment with a precise strike.

That aside being said, most races can do plenty of damage with their macrobatteries as they are. I have run a few scenarios to see what dropping the macro combination would mean, and I am generally pleased with the result. And cruiser size macrobatteries of any race can still do grievious damage to any ship out there. The most whopping damage from one salvo in those scenarios still is not Imperial, Eldar or Chaos, but Ork. A full succes on the prow 'eavy gunz of a Kill Kroozer will ruin everyones day. And if a GM wishes small craft to form a real threat to a PC ship, use torpedoes or a nasty combination of a Ryza plasma and a shield stripper. Works like a charm.

FVR

van Riebeeck said:

Actually this is the reason why I compared lances to RPGs their performance. Similarly lances work well on paper too, but are not that great in actual use. There is a reason armies arm their soldiers with assault rifles as the main weapon, but still field RPGs. Same with macros and lances.

But the comparison falls apart when you consider the reason for equipping RPGs in the first place. Assault rifles are ineffective against particular targets, like tanks, so you have to field alternate equipment to deal with those targets.

That doesn't follow with lances and macros as they stand. Macros are more effective than lances against all targets, not just the majority of targets. If cruisers were all but immune to macro fire, it would make sense to field lances even if they had numerous drawbacks. It's just not the case if you don't make some change to the rules like removing salvo fire.

Well to be honest, the only way I know of that a lance is superior to a macro is ground force support where the lesser collateral damage makes it better (so you don't kill your own troops).

Honestly, even in BFG I've never really liked using lances especially in an imperial fleet. They are like a fail version of the "Big Gun" concept that replaced batteries. Space combat in WH 40k is like an amalgamation of every stage of naval combat with ramming, batteries, big guns, torpedoes, aircraft, and weapons of mass destruction.

That being said, my main point was to say that you should not alter lances to a point where they are superior in every case beyond macros. Or nerf macros to the pointlessness.

Well, not combining macros is mostly detrimental to non broadside using ships. It stops a sword frigate from having a far higher and longer range 270 degrees firepower then a light cruiser. And it again makes those cruiser broadsides interesting. In my testing macros still remain the dominant weapon system, easily outperforming lances with far higher power needs. Even if it was just for the fact that macrofire mostly gets boosted to get those succeses and in each case drop the shield(s), where lance fire almost feels like an afterthought, just to see if you get a bit of damage and maybe a nice critical to boot. So, if you manage to get that Repulsive with two sunsear broadsides, turbo-weapon batteries and a munitorium, you can still rip things to pieces with astounding ease. Hell, even a well used and often reviled mars macrobattery broadside is devastating.

I would not mind lances having an efficiency comparable to the space and especially power outlay that they need. But how to do it, go for tearing, double its dice...at the moment we have decided not to combine macros any more, and from there on we see how it goes. Or the lawyers in my group will get mad from the ruleslawyering in the one spot they try to escape lawyering.

FvR

Hantheman said:

Well a lance is always bigger/More power hungry than a macrobattery.

Also if you give lances 2d10 damage and do nothing about macros, every PC worth his salt (every single one) will rip out all lances on his ship and equip macros.

Lances arent supposed to be the lasguns of space warfare though. They are supposed to be on equal footing. Giving a sunsear strength 2 if combined with another (unchanged) sunsear, gives equal firepower against a target; if compared against a Titanforge coupled with a sunsear. Problem is the lance uses more power and is a SP more epxensive.

Giving laces 3d10 is still kinda meh in my eyes, and overpowers lower BS NPC ships. But 2d10 alone simply removes lances out of the game for PC considerations. Which is something id prefer to prevent.

The Other option would be to reduce lance cost to a single SP as well. Then itd be ok again. There are some weak SP1 weapon systems out there after all. But SP requires the weapon to be better than a SP1 weapon system, or be useless.