So we rolled 50 ship points at game start and I had this idea of picking a crappy crew to get a light cruiser at game start. My reasoning was that if we pull it off we will have a really strong ship at our disposal and in the meantime we got some heavy RP potential trying to survive long enough to equip our ship.

Unfortunately just by looking at the ship stats the light cruisers seems not better, but the same or worse then a frigate. It's 3 guns, but only 2 of those can fire at the same time at a target and only if shooting sideways while the frigate can shoot forward or sideways with both of it's guns. Prowl mounted weapons do not seem to me better at all then dorsel mounted weapons. Armor is the same. It's got less speed and maneurability and detection. More hull does not seem that much useful either because crippling shot are equally crippling against both.

The only thing left is cargo space and power, and while it does have more of those nearly all his components also cost more, so the increase is very marginal. The light cruiser seems to carry all negatives of a cruiser (not able to land on planets, can't repair easily, big jucy target) but none of the benefits like extra guns and better equipment in almost every other slot.

So what exactly is a light cruiser good for?

Azmodael said:

I suppose I'd say start by reading p. 191, for a brief rundown on the typical uses for light cruisers. They start to get the bigger guns of the cruiser line, while still being a bit mobile, like the frigate. Light Cruisers might come a bit more into their own in Battlefleet Koronus, where they start getting what L. Cruisers were made for; torpedoes and the earliest hanger bays, as well as the Flight Command Bridge, the Repair Decks, and Pilot's Chambers that make the most of fighters and bombers. While you are still too small for Nova Cannons, torpedoes and attack squadrons can both be a significant boon, if you can maintain their spendier nature. While they lack some of the upgrades that can capitalize on the presence of multiple ships, they are also supposedly rather good at serving as squadron flag ships, with the smaller ships being cheaper, and more maneuverable. Meanwhile, the LC can hang back, firing torpedoes, and launching fighters or bombers, to support other ships in your fleet, as the enemy breaks apart to engage them.

I'm sure there's more, but I'll let someone else have their say.

They're cheaper than a cruiser! Honestly, in the base book there really isn't a lot going for the poor old Dauntless. With the release of BFK though you can fit an Escort Launch Bay to the side weapon slots and/or torpedo tubes to the prow. This allows a light cruiser to punch WAY above it's weight class and is the primary fluff reason these vessels were commissioned in the first place.

In short the light cruiser is just that, a lighter cruiser. It can benefit from several cruiser only components, but if it's looking like a bad deal to you, then go with the lighter vessel. You can never go wrong with a Sword Frigate.

EDIT: And Venk says the same! Enjoy whatever ship you finally decide on though.

Personally I allow them to maneuver like frigates, but that's a houserule that predates BFK's torpedoes and attack craft.

Btw, if you want to give even gun light cruisers a chance read up on the old battlefleet gothic rules on GW's site. Each light cruiser actually had different handling characteristics dependant on how gun heavy it was.

Dauntlesses for instance turned 90 degrees not 45 and were good for hunting and leading frigate units.

An old standby for the light cruiser NEVER use one as a ship of the line. That's not their job, they are scouts and escort leaders ONLY. I can't remember how many times I've made people pay for using light cruisers in their cruiser line.

Most simple way of doing it would be to give any light cruiser that packs dorsal firepower the 45 degree turns of a cruiser, and ones without give 90 degree turns.

The real concern for me currently is fixing the void sunder array. Getting three hits with that thing requires beating your target number by 60%. While possible with min maxing I'm not a fan of such all my eggs in one basket approaches. That front lance spray on a dauntless was an instant kill on any frigate or raider before, now it's just meh.

On paper they're not that hot, however if you've got about 70SP at start or a fairly decent bit of time to sink into upgrading a light cruiser, they will hurt things badly- especially if theyre the forge world Secutor or Lathe. They can get very brutal and 'cruiser tough' with the right components in them, only things you've got to watch out for is space.

They are also a bit harder to out maneuver then a cruiser…

a good raider/fast frigate pilot can stern camp a cruiser/ grand cruiser easy..

Don't forget that they can have broadside batteries. When you fire them with somebody with a decent BS, they can tear up most small ships horrible. Bormal batteries only give you a max of 3 hits rendering it useless against shielded vessels. The broadside is a different matter.

Light cruisers are awesome if used properly.

The Secutor Class Light Cruiser can be a real terror fully geared for war.

I've looked at the Secutor LC and I must say I would never use it unless I found it in-game drifting around. That this is AWEFUL. For 2 more points I get a cruiser that is like twice as good.

In response to the post, what are Light cruisers underpowered compared to? Any vessel can be underpowered if not equipped properly. Frigates are fairly easy to work with for sure. Fairly cheap with points to spare. Light Cruisers need some though and discussion to make them viable unless your rogue trader knows his ships. If you have the Into the storm book, you can build a warrant of trade to match you ship needs. If a Cruiser is what you want, take the path that gives the most ship points. Now for a good starting light cruiser go for the Endeavour class from BFK, with a starting torpedo slot in addition to you 3 basic hard points you have the ability to take on larger targets. I've built quite a few ships just for fun, guess the biggest suggestion i can give is to not buy into a ship that you can't properly equip.

I hope this insight has helped to some extent.

By the way, I think there's a bit of the mechanics that ffg put in that altered the way light cruisers stack up that we're missing here. To make frigates and under usable as a ship for a rogue trader they were all significantly boosted by comparison to cruisers and light cruisers.

No one would be complaining that light cruisers were underpowered if they had, as they're supposed to, six times the hull points as frigates, transports and raiders.

We should remember originally:

Raiders/Transports/Frigates: 1 hit through the shields and poof

Light Cruisers: 3 hits to cripple, 6 to kill

Cruisers: 4 hits to cripple, 8 to kill

They didn't really underpower the light cruisers and cruisers they MASSIVELY ramped up the raiders frigates and transports.

-Edit- ooh and weaponry too, Sword class frigates could carry only ONE dorsal mounted weapon in BFG, Cobras had a battery of 1 and torp spray of 2, iconoclasts just had a single mars macrobattery, etc etc.

As I said it's not the LC's fault that everything below them suddenly got twice the guns and four times the armor o_O,

Well light cruisers are not worth their points. If a frigate brings just as much firepower, is faster, more maneuverable, just as armored and can carry almost the same components (quality wise) a logical question arises - why bother with cruisers? Really the only short coming of the frigate is the lack of space&power but this can be worked around by equipping the best components. The bridge between frigate and cruiser is definitely not worth 15 points. And cruisers are a lot better then the LCs, despite they cost only 5 points more. LC's should cost 50 SP or have access to more cruiser exclusive equipment. Otherwise they just fill no role within a fleet considering their cost/effectiveness ratio.

A light cruiser is a stepping stone between a frigate and a cruiser. Yes, that cruiser may only cost 2 more SP than a light cruiser BUT it costs a lot more SP to actually fully fit the thing. A light cruiser can be fitted with a low SP allowance and still be more powerful than a frigate.

That said, it's entirely up to the players - my groups have generally always favoured smaller, more elitely equipped vessels. A frigate with a pair of turbo-melta batteries saw us through most of our first campaign and almost nothing could threaten us. It was only when we can across an ancient Martian priesthood outpost that was protected by a number of system ships with lances that we actually took anywhere approaching critical levels of damage. I'm sure if we'd had a bigger vessel we'd have been squished more by those lances.

I typically reduce LC ship costs by 3-5 SP as I agree they seem overpriced. However, if you give them the 90deg turn rate they do have a significant advantage with a captain who knows how to predict enemy movements. Last battle a Dauntless mopped the floor with a Kill Kroozer, staying out of range of the 'eavy gunz with ease and eventually getting astern of da orky gitz.

Some thread necro there, but that's ok. I'm into thread necro. Ship design is all dependent on the rules you use. RAW, there's too much going wrong to even discuss ship design. There are only a couple worth building. If you use Mathhammer, then you have many more weapon choices. If you return turning radii to BFG then CLs get 90 degrees and that's a big deal. If you houserule broadsides that's another big help to CLs. Pay no attention to escort landing bays. They aren't worth the space. With proper house rules you can't go wrong with a Dauntless packing 2 Mars Macro Broadsides and a Prow Lance. And it's doable with 50 SP, but you have to cut corners somewhere, crew, component quality, but it's doable.

Soz for the necro, I was generally googling light cruiser threads and forgot to check the last posting date.

IMO light cruisers are a bit weaker for their points than frigates or cruisers, and I´d shave 2-3 points off the general cost to make them a more appealing option and also to shorten the SP gap between frigates and LCs. I do not think this makes cruisers bad, just stresses the more "pure firepower, not much else" option they are described to be.

Also, I´d give the Lathe some buffs or upgrades, or both. Why is the premier AdMech exploration LC sporting weaker sensors than the Dauntless and no particular systems to better perform its function?

LC's are larger, pack more firepower (perhaps marginally, so) and are generally fast/maneuverable enough to out-dance capital ships. They are the perfect 'tweener for a fresh RT. The advantages are simple...

1. Size: I mean this literally - i.e. space/power. Once essential components and guns are on a frigate, it's got very little room for anything else. Certainly no "special" components - which is what an RT wants/should have. With a Light Cruiser, I can arm it and still have a good chunk of space for a barracks, laboratorium, temple-shrine and others. Mechanically, this gives me APs towards endeavor objectives. RP-wise, it gives me a temple or observation dome to entertain guests... or a lab to research/engineer some sexy piece of archeotech I found on a planet. This is RT, not BFG. It is not meant to be a void warfare simulator.

2. Firepower: Broadsides. That is all. If you can put those in the port/starboard slots, you are near doubling the damage potential of a standard macrobattery. Also, launch bays - though you should not take a carrier as your initial RT ship. Carriers need escorts.. or they die.

3. Survivability: Takes more punishment to kill, by a good margin at that. Yet, still has the speed and maneuverability to GTFO, if need be.

4. 'Tweener this touches on 1 and 2, to be honest. It's the combo of firepower and utility that an RT with a single voidship is looking for. At the start of the campaign, your life is your single vessel. It needs to be able to do almost everything you could potentially need to do until you enjoy enough success to become a Lord-Admiral, with a fleet of vessels at your disposal. Until that day comes, your one boat has to do it all. Frigates do not allow for that. LC's do - of course, not perfectly, but certainly a far sight better than an escort would. Cruisers would be even better, but you should not be starting an RT campaign with a Cruiser.

Traejun, RAW carriers need no escorts in this game. And escort bays aren't worth the space. Otherwise, I think you point out the finer aspects of the CL admirably.

Traejun, RAW carriers need no escorts in this game. And escort bays aren't worth the space. Otherwise, I think you point out the finer aspects of the CL admirably.

I sometimes have a hard time separating military theory from the game. You'd never deploy a carrier without escorts, so that's sort of how I feel about RT carriers - especially the LC sized one. That said, I've only ever seen my players take a carrier as a starter ship once, and it ended very badly for them. When they got pointed by a small, fast ship and the squadrons failed to cripple it in the first round, they got blagged... Hard. Without a screen to keep the smaller, faster ship away and buy time for the attack craft to hurt it, the carrier was a sitting duck.

Depending on how your GM works things, yeah, it can suck. The Navy, whether they use carriers, or not, can often just be expected to have the resources to field several ships, but even some well-to-do Rogue Traders can find it hard to operate several, afford their upkeep, and position them all in the one area they are in, rather than spread out, on background endeavors. Bastille and Sun Lee don't seem to have an absurd PF, compared to what some players CAN start with, or acquire relatively quickly, and they can both field escorts, but balance, money, and other stuff might make it more of an undertaking for the party than they want. As for carriers, yeah, they should have some escorts, even if the stuff someone like Errant Knight can post up, showing just how ridiculous they can be, on good days, shows that they probably won't need it; carriers have always liked having them, and if you aren't a Battleship, with three port/starboard slots, so you can field your preferred amount of bays, and your desired amount of cannons/broadsides, they might lack firepower to a field, if their bombers fail to do their job.

Personally, I'm a firm believer that many ships of the "Light Cruiser +" designations should try for escorts, just as a show of wealth and strength, and a deterrent against aggression, if possible, but to cover the lumbering capital ship, as she moves, or turns, if need be. It might not always be economically suitable, and your GM might not appreciate having to plan around it, but it does have a certain fit, based both on real world parallels, and also investment protection. Another ship with supplies, storage space, and guns should often pay for itself, if your adventures are of the fun, and lucrative kind. Still, you don't have to roll for that first ship, even be it a cruiser, so it might not seem too hard to acquire a ship, but it can be, and that's before kit.

The reason terrestrial carriers needed, and still need escorts is because of their vulnerabilities.

Terrestirial carriers don't have armor. They give up their armor for better speed. A 40K cruiser kitted out as a carrier has as much armor as a gun-cruiser and gives up no speed, and it can as easily go for uparmored components as its gun-bearing sisters. Terrestrial carriers dedicate all their space to their primary mission. 40k cruisers kitted out as a carrier give up no speed, no turrets, no detection, no maneuverability, no nothing - except primary gun batteries. They just aren't comparable to terrestrial carriers. They assume none of the weaknesses.

The reason 40K light cruisers can't stand up as a carrier is the space vs. damage output issue. Escort bays take up 4 spaces and carry 3 squadrons that can hit for 3d10+12 damage at +10 Command skill. Lathe bays take up 5 spaces and carry 6 squadrons that can dish out 6d10+24 damge at +25 Command skill. It's all about bang for the buck, and light cruisers can't pack the bang. 6 squadrons doesn't do the trick. To make a potent carrier you need at least the 12, and preferably the 24 squadrons that a full-on cruiser can carry. Otherwise, macrobatteries are more efficient in terms of the damage they can dish out.

Consider an online MMORPG with its DPS mechanics. Carriers only dish out damage every few rounds, but they dish out more damage at once. The time between their attacks lessens as range lessens, until they come within 1 rounds' striking distance of bomber squadrons, at which point you're launching and retrieving some squadrons every single round. Gunships can't reach out as far as a carrier, but they aren't outranged by much, and once they are within range they dish it out every single round. So the light cruiser *** escort carrier launches 6 squadrons every 3 rounds for an average "DPS" of 2d10+8, or does it stick with its broadside batteries for an average "DPS" of 1d10+2? This is where STR and squadron attack groups come into play. The light cruiser gunship has broadsides with STR 6, and probably a swivel mount worth another STR 1-3. The light cruiser carrier, on the other hand, is probably attacking in 2-squadron formations at an effective STR 4. That's a potential (7-9) d10 + (14-18) vs. 4d10 + 16. No contest. To be fair, though, the escort carrier probably has better attack values since it's probably based on the RT's Command skill than on an AM's or VM's BS skill.

I apologize to the RT and MMORPG illiterates out there who I just confused with all my acronyms. I noramlly don't do that. I just couldn't help myself this time around.

I might try outfitting a LC as a carrier if I have 2 other guns, like on the Secutor and the Endeavour (although torpedoes and spacecraft would be a pain in the bum to maintain). As Errant Knight says, LCs do not generally pack enough bang for the buck as carriers with just one frontal gun without so many expensive upgrades that it would be easier to just go for a cruiser.

What irks me is that in many roles, a cruiser does much the same as a light cruiser, only better and for just a few SP more. The reason I want to reduce the starting SP for LCs is so they compare better with cruisers, and I do not want to make cruisers more expensive, because that would make them almost unobtainable for starting groups.

The utility of a light cruiser in a military-themed campaign is unquestionably low. Cruisers have nearly twice the firepower at little cost. In a trading or exploring campaign, though, the light cruiser comes into its own. It has a better space to armament ratio than the cruiser, permitting more miscellaneous components.