Lab: Grants a +20 to all tests to repair, analyse, and identify ancient or xenos artefacts, or to craft single items. Use GM's discretion.

Google for Warhammer 40k Roleplay Armory, it's a great compilation of equipment, specially awesome for ship-building.

Lab: Grants a +20 to all tests to repair, analyse, and identify ancient or xenos artefacts, or to craft single items. Use GM's discretion.

Google for Warhammer 40k Roleplay Armory, it's a great compilation of equipment, specially awesome for ship-building.

Ohhhhh ............ Shiny!

I was already thinking about some kind of lab for my Explorator ( yes, our group is a slightly Explorator heavy ), nice to know that someone already put something like that together!

As I said, the NC is nice to think about, but not really practical, while we all kind of liked the idea, once I pointed out that many of our SP's and a chunk of ship space would be tied up in a weapon with a limited arc of fire which would leave our flanks fairly soft, we laughed about what an NC would do a little more and then moved on to more practical loadout ideas, leaving the NC to a larger ship that should come later in the campaign.

You know.....

I was thinking about the Nova Cannon, and I suddenly had a question pop into my head -

Would it be possible to either scale down a NC ( reduced SP, ship space, range, damage, inaccuracy, ect... ) so it would be more appropriate for a Light Cruiser or scale up a single MacroCannon ( increased range, damage, ect ... ) for an effect similar to a scaled down NC?

What do you think? Say scaled to about 2/3 or 3/4 current NC stats? Would something like that be more Light Cruiser appropriate?

Fluff-wise, that's not really feasible. Nova Cannons require special-made shells built for them, and it seems like there's really just one size produced by the Imperium, who aren't that big on renovating their technology for scaling things up or down.

As from balance you could do that if you want, but I'm disinclined to allow it because if my players want a Nova Cannon, then they should buy a Cruiser and go from there. Nova Cannons are already really powerful, and even slightly scaling one down opens up a whole issue of balance problems, because I find they unbalance combat whenever a PC is firing one.

Fair enough.

torpedos are weaker option then macrocannons and generaly suck

That's an interesting statement.

Torpedoes's damage isn't so predictable as macrocannons and you have to pay dearly for every shot. Because of this they're highly circumstantial, to highly imo. Firing 5 (for sake of testing aquisition modifieres) plasma torpedoes is equal to throwing a +0 or +10 aquisition test (if you happen to do shopping at forge world) with no guarantee to actualy make any significant damage (unless you're shooting at something insignificant already).

On the other hand Virus and vortex ones are good and fluffy indeed but also near unique and unique, so as such I consider them more a special corn flake than reliable, everyday weapon option.

I've seen my players positively rip cruisers apart with torps. Thus my comment.

torpedos are weaker option then macrocannons and generaly suck

That's an interesting statement.

Torpedoes's damage isn't so predictable as macrocannons and you have to pay dearly for every shot. Because of this they're highly circumstantial, to highly imo. Firing 5 (for sake of testing aquisition modifieres) plasma torpedoes is equal to throwing a +0 or +10 aquisition test (if you happen to do shopping at forge world) with no guarantee to actualy make any significant damage (unless you're shooting at something insignificant already).

On the other hand Virus and vortex ones are good and fluffy indeed but also near unique and unique, so as such I consider them more a special corn flake than reliable, everyday weapon option.

I've seen my players positively rip cruisers apart with torps. Thus my comment.

So lets put both theories to the test.

What do the side-by-side numbers say for macrocannons and torpedoes, from acquisition to hitting the target and the resulting damage - that way we can see what would likely happen in a average encounter for each, and discount freak hits that look real spectacular, but can't be relied on.

Heck for that matter, lets toss in lance batteries for comparison.

So lets put both theories to the test.

What do the side-by-side numbers say for macrocannons and torpedoes, from acquisition to hitting the target and the resulting damage - that way we can see what would likely happen in a average encounter for each, and discount freak hits that look real spectacular, but can't be relied on.

Since only the mathematically indept* use RAW macrocannons because everyone else can see what the problems are (FFG: HINT!), presumably some form of houseruled macrocannons?

Also, what sort of ship will we be assuming?

I have observed PCs killing cruisers with raiders, by using torps. This was all I stated.

It is entirely possible that my players have just been consistently more lucky with damage rolls for torps than for macro cannons. Attack rolls as well, possibly.

But from 2 campaigns (both curently active) I have fairly consistently seen better killing power from torps than macro cannons.

Also rather more consistent crits, now that I think about it. Could this be luck? Sure, but it's been a lot of torps fired over the years.

Heck for that matter, lets toss in lance batteries for comparison.

* and this was about as polite a choice of words as I could come up with.

RAW rules for macro cannons or some form of houseruling?

Since only the mathematically indept* use RAW macrocannons because everyone else can see what the problems are (FFG: HINT!), presumably some form of houseruled macrocannons?

The problem with using house rule macrocannons, is that not everyone will have the same house rules - I also suspect that this thread may end up being referenced by new players that don't have much in the way of house rules.

Also, what sort of ship will we be assuming?

I have observed PCs killing cruisers with raiders, by using torps. This was all I stated.

It is entirely possible that my players have just been consistently more lucky with damage rolls for torps than for macro cannons. Attack rolls as well, possibly.

But from 2 campaigns (both curently active) I have fairly consistently seen better killing power from torps than macro cannons.

Also rather more consistent crits, now that I think about it. Could this be luck? Sure, but it's been a lot of torps fired over the years.

Does the ship type matter? We are not looking at how fast we are killing another ship - just a side by side damage potential ( min, max, average - that sort of thing ). The easiest way, might be to assume that all the weapons are on the same ship shooting at the same target - each weapon shot independent of the others using the same modest ballistic skill.

Torps may show more variability to hits and damage, given they have variable warheads and drives - but even macrocannons might have atomic warheads, which can significantly alter damage potentual.

Does the ship type matter? We are not looking at how fast we are killing another ship - just a side by side damage potential ( min, max, average - that sort of thing ). The easiest way, might be to assume that all the weapons are on the same ship shooting at the same target - each weapon shot independent of the others using the same modest ballistic skill.

Batteries vs broadsides. Overlapping fields of fire vs absence of same

Excellent assumptions, please proceed.

Your question really can't be answered by just hand-waving away these assumptions as unimportant.

Your basic question as I understand it is "Should I put a torpedo launcher in my Prow slot, or something else?". Before we can answer this, how much power/space is available for "something else", because Torpedo launchers are the only weapon to take up space predominately, and power as an afterthought. If we're putting something else in, what are the limits on what can go there?

As for firing, the Secutor has a Dorsal weapon as well, so what should we assume is supporting this hypothetical weapon? Is it a macrocannon designed to take out void shields, a Las-burner designed for short-range burnination of the enemy, a Disruption cannon for salvage? Are you planning on fighting in concert with the prow weapon, or using it as support? Should we assume that the Port/Starboard weapons will also somehow get in on this damage?

What is the Crew Rating of your vessel? For low Crew Rating ships torpedoes have an advantage because of their inherent bonuses to hit, but then at high-levels they suffer because you can't boost the Ballistic Skill of the person firing. What about the Ballistic skill of the supporting weapon? How many extended actions are we going to allow for Macrocannon/Lance shots?

What are the statistics of the enemy vessel? Does it have one or two void shields? Does it have one or two turret ratings? What is its armour? What is its range from you? These questions matter because they determine if there's a bonus/penalty to firing for the hypothetical weapons.

Ultimately void combat is (despite my complaints about the default system) quite strategically deep. If you build a ship with torpedo launchers, then you can engage people at vast, vast distances and get a number of shots away before they close in on you. If you have close-range weapons then you try to focus on boosting speed/sneaking up to unleash a devastating salvo on them from up close. If you have mid-range weapons then you can do a little bit of everything, and gain adaptability on the battlefield which helps.

My GENERAL statement is that if you're not going to allow Light Cruisers to have a 90-degree turning arc, then I find torpedoes should be reserved for Frigates and below. The best strategy with them is their ability to bomb the Hell out of things from 40 VU away, turn, retreat, then once you're reloaded and at a safe distance, turn and fire again. The Secutor really is incredibly versatile, but the loadout of your ship will affect what tactics you use.

As Erathia had pointed there're a lot of assumptions to made.

Bearing this and a fact that I'm, at best, medicore at maths I'd like to point that no matter how much damage you'll score by shooting torps you'll have to pay for every single one of them. And you can miss or torps can get destroyed by turret fire or enemy small craft - or, if you house ruled it, even macrocannons ( http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?showtopic=44371 ). Secondly a ship can carry only a limited stock of torps.

I guess what I'n trying to say is that I don't try to compare damage output point-per-point and don't need to be proven that torps provide versality, diffrent strategic options and can wreck things up - it's just those two things: (imo to high) unpredictability and stock limits.

That's also why I suggested torp-bombers: there're the same (well, almost the same) drawback, but without need to invest ships space and weapon slot solely for torps.

Tenebrae, I don't think your players have too much luck or there's something wrong with your expierences GMing - for a matter of fact I haven't really took a torpedo shooting raider into consideration (thinking about this: it must have been a hell of suprise for players enemies to be torped by a raider ). Possibility of destroying ships with torps isn't something I'd even remotly try to negate. Torps just (imho) aren't cost effective.

And admittedly when looking for - let's say 4th or 5th ship - to complet a warfleet a torpedo shooter will be better option than yet another macrobattery/lance gunship, but this is something beyond scope of putting up a starting light cruiser.

Tenebrae, I don't think your players have too much luck or there's something wrong with your expierences GMing - for a matter of fact I haven't really took a torpedo shooting raider into consideration (thinking about this: it must have been a hell of suprise for players enemies to be torped by a raider ). Possibility of destroying ships with torps isn't something I'd even remotly try to negate. Torps just (imho) aren't cost effective.

Sure it is and maybe its interpretation is main diffrence between our attitude towards torps.

Your Group 1 is in a relatively best position to get torps refreshments. Do your group take +5 BS form hull type into account when firing torps? It isn't from a component or extanded actions, so by raw...

I guess that torp equiped raiders are quite effeciant. Maybe it's an effect of uncommon merging archeotech luncher goodness with their speed and mobility. Also great rpg opportunity I think. Sticking on a - lets say - lunar cruiser tail and intimidating them with possibility of shooting torps at their softies .

Your Group 1 is in a relatively best position to get torps refreshments. Do your group take +5 BS form hull type into account when firing torps? It isn't from a component or extanded actions, so by raw...

It's been debated back and forth. In the end I gave up caring. Sometimes they take it, sometimes they don't. +5 is not enough to make a big difference for that void master

I guess that torp equiped raiders are quite effeciant. Maybe it's an effect of uncommon merging archeotech luncher goodness with their speed and mobility. Also great rpg opportunity I think. Sticking on a - lets say - lunar cruiser tail and intimidating them with possibility of shooting torps at their softies .

Torp raiders are awesome. It's a light, fast ship, packing a punch it would have trouble bringing in any other format.

Double Sunsears probably, but they far greater resources (space/power).

Not sure if they work well on their own, far from re-supply though.

But then, as a GM I've found re-supply a good thing. Not to limit power so much as to get PCs to go sensible places.

Well there has to have been a reason the Imperial navy has squadrons of torpedo armed cobras , but back to the topic don't forget that the whole idea of a LC was to fill in the void that was left when there are not enough cruisers to spread around or to act as a support role to a larger ship...to that end it depends on which of the roles you want it to be, being the first ship I would guess that this will form the backbone of the fleet to come then I would focus more on endeavors and commanding other ships.

as for torpedos, I once had a gm that allowed us to make standard plasma torpedo's as long as the munitarium and manufactorium were installed.

as for torpedos, I once had a gm that allowed us to make standard plasma torpedo's as long as the munitarium and manufactorium were installed.

How fast?

I have an Explorator who'd love to make torps during travel-time.

one per month I believe.

If I recall right it took a -30 tech use test and there was always a chance the plasma siphoned off the engine to arm these could explode if the test was failed enough.

Hey all, sorry I haven't been around, I came down with a nasty little abscess, and am only now getting over a mouth full of hurt.

Your question really can't be answered by just hand-waving away these assumptions as unimportant.

Your basic question as I understand it is "Should I put a torpedo launcher in my Prow slot, or something else?". Before we can answer this, how much power/space is available for "something else", because Torpedo launchers are the only weapon to take up space predominately, and power as an afterthought. If we're putting something else in, what are the limits on what can go there?

As for firing, the Secutor has a Dorsal weapon as well, so what should we assume is supporting this hypothetical weapon? Is it a macrocannon designed to take out void shields, a Las-burner designed for short-range burnination of the enemy, a Disruption cannon for salvage? Are you planning on fighting in concert with the prow weapon, or using it as support? Should we assume that the Port/Starboard weapons will also somehow get in on this damage?

What is the Crew Rating of your vessel? For low Crew Rating ships torpedoes have an advantage because of their inherent bonuses to hit, but then at high-levels they suffer because you can't boost the Ballistic Skill of the person firing. What about the Ballistic skill of the supporting weapon? How many extended actions are we going to allow for Macrocannon/Lance shots?

What are the statistics of the enemy vessel? Does it have one or two void shields? Does it have one or two turret ratings? What is its armour? What is its range from you? These questions matter because they determine if there's a bonus/penalty to firing for the hypothetical weapons.

Ultimately void combat is (despite my complaints about the default system) quite strategically deep. If you build a ship with torpedo launchers, then you can engage people at vast, vast distances and get a number of shots away before they close in on you. If you have close-range weapons then you try to focus on boosting speed/sneaking up to unleash a devastating salvo on them from up close. If you have mid-range weapons then you can do a little bit of everything, and gain adaptability on the battlefield which helps.

My GENERAL statement is that if you're not going to allow Light Cruisers to have a 90-degree turning arc, then I find torpedoes should be reserved for Frigates and below. The best strategy with them is their ability to bomb the Hell out of things from 40 VU away, turn, retreat, then once you're reloaded and at a safe distance, turn and fire again. The Secutor really is incredibly versatile, but the loadout of your ship will affect what tactics you use.

You raise valid legitimate issues, but short of taking every ship and comparing it every other ship, what is the alternative?

As Erathia had pointed there're a lot of assumptions to made.

Bearing this and a fact that I'm, at best, medicore at maths I'd like to point that no matter how much damage you'll score by shooting torps you'll have to pay for every single one of them. And you can miss or torps can get destroyed by turret fire or enemy small craft - or, if you house ruled it, even macrocannons ( http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?showtopic=44371 ). Secondly a ship can carry only a limited stock of torps.

I guess what I'n trying to say is that I don't try to compare damage output point-per-point and don't need to be proven that torps provide versality, diffrent strategic options and can wreck things up - it's just those two things: (imo to high) unpredictability and stock limits.

That's also why I suggested torp-bombers: there're the same (well, almost the same) drawback, but without need to invest ships space and weapon slot solely for torps.

Tenebrae, I don't think your players have too much luck or there's something wrong with your expierences GMing - for a matter of fact I haven't really took a torpedo shooting raider into consideration (thinking about this: it must have been a hell of suprise for players enemies to be torped by a raider ). Possibility of destroying ships with torps isn't something I'd even remotly try to negate. Torps just (imho) aren't cost effective.

And admittedly when looking for - let's say 4th or 5th ship - to complet a warfleet a torpedo shooter will be better option than yet another macrobattery/lance gunship, but this is something beyond scope of putting up a starting light cruiser.

You are correct, a rather limited supply of torps on ship, was ( still is ) a concern of mine - that being said, they do have range advantage that only the Nova Cannon can come close to. Torpedo Bombers have the same problem, in that they require their own weapon slot - granted they might be a little more versatile, but they also add their own complications.

Well there has to have been a reason the Imperial navy has squadrons of torpedo armed cobras , but back to the topic don't forget that the whole idea of a LC was to fill in the void that was left when there are not enough cruisers to spread around or to act as a support role to a larger ship...to that end it depends on which of the roles you want it to be, being the first ship I would guess that this will form the backbone of the fleet to come then I would focus more on endeavors and commanding other ships.

as for torpedos, I once had a gm that allowed us to make standard plasma torpedo's as long as the munitarium and manufactorium were installed.

While outfitting for command and endeavors makes a lot of sense ( and to some degree what we would like ), once we have a more capable ship the command and endeavor stuff will be moved to it, the idea is the make the Secutor, more of a pocket battlecruiser - essentially relatively fast and unexpectedly hard hitting for it's size.

All of that aside, we actually looked at the Lunar class ( by shifting a couple of points we could have just been able to get one ), but we just didn't care for the weapon layout. Now drop one weapon slot from both sides, and replace them with a dorsal and keel weapon slot and that would have been ( in a word ) real nice .

EVERYONE wants a Keel weapon slot, and there is exactly one (Imperial) hull in the game that gets it. Given how the Imperium builds its ships, I can't really see anything bigger than a Raider deserving to have a Keel weapon anyway.The Cruiser Layout of Prow/double Broadsides may seem underwhelming at first, but once you start soaking up damage to split an enemy fleet, and broadside two enemies at once you'll be quite pleased with it.

Kind of an aside, but a long time ago someone made a xenos vessel that has a Keel/Aft layout because it's meant to attack while running. It was indeed pretty nice, so check it out

I don't seriously mind not having a keel weapon slot - but even more so, if there was a stern weapon slot ( as per prow, but covering the aft half / quarter depending on weapon ) .

But we were thinking more along the lines that the keel slot would be useful for carrying a single landing bay, that would not then leave you with an asymmetrical weapon layout that a single landing bay would frequently give, if taken in a broadside slot. For that matter, it would even make perfect sense that such a "keel" landing bay, is a non-removable item, that way it would not even give the same coverage that a standard keel weapon slot would normally give.

Now think about using a Lunar, as I mentioned, with one of the port broadside slots moved to the dorsal position and one of the starboard weapon slots moved to the keel and filled with a non-removable landing bay ( that doesn't allow for aft coverage that a standard keel weapon would give ). Can you really say doing something like that would make it OP? If so, what advantage would the layout give over any other single landing bay, other than eliminate the asymmetrical weapons issue?

Being able to get a double broadside might make sense with multiple friendly ships are around, where you have allies that can cover or help you, but a lot less desirable in a ship that is less likely to see "fleet" actions and more likely to see single ships ( or at best dual raiders ). As such, it would be a much better choice for a second or even third ship, than a first ship.

For a first ship, having weapon slots that are not limited to firing in one direction like keel, prow, and dorsal ( depending on the weapon ), gives the ability to focus fire that having a double broadside can not give ( without the penalty I list below ), in single ship combat that is more likely to be found when starting out. You see, in single ship combat, with double broadsides, half of your broadsides are useless at any given moment anyway - taking up ship space, SP, and power, that might be better spent, when not in combat. This was probably the biggest deciding factor for our group deciding that the Lunar Class, had a poor weapon layout. Such a penalty is less of an issue, after the RT group has progressed enough to own a ship that has enough power, SP, and ship space to spare - not to mention enough skill to fight a fleet battle.