Python-class Destroyer

I really like the two Frigate concept, especially since most people expect the Corvette to fail. I'm torn on if the Scimitar needs to be improved slightly or not. It is the slowest and weakest of the Frigates - the Claymore has less Hull Integrity but an extra point of Armour which is much more valuable to me. Having Port/Starboard weapons is interesting, but given that you can't mount broadsides on it, and you have so little space to work with, having 3 weapon ports instead of the Claymore's 2 is not clear to me if it's an advantage. I love the Arrow though.

So you can probably guess by now I'm not a fan of the Python. Yes you say explicitly it's a new ship design for the Imperium, but literally no other ship has 2 Prow weapons so this is an amazingly revolutionary design, and of course people are going to stick 2 Torpedo launchers on it. There is already a ship that can mount 2 Torpedos though, as the Orion Star Clipper can put a Voss Torpedo Tube in its Prow and Keel spots, but that redesign makes a lot more sense to me. Having two torpedo tubes constantly being cycled is just devastating, and seems overpowered to me.

Possible fixes: The torpedo tubes are literally side by side, make it so that any torpedo launcher doubles any chance of triggering Volatile, and that damaging/destroying one torpedo tube automatically damages/destroys the other one. Alternatively, allow the Python to install any Torpedo tube, so it can take a Fortis or Mars torpedo tube if it wants and go back to having a Dorsal weapon for "covering fire".

Not sure how to say this, but I kinda don't like any of these.

First of all, they all seem to be designed specifically to counter certain specific problems with the themes of the IN, while I prefer ships designed in accordance with the theme of the IN.

But also, for each of them, I have complaints.

Python: Prow 2? Seriously, and nothing else?

Ignoring for a moment the detail that prow mounts tend to mount the theoretically "best" weapons*, the idea seems like a way to not have to worry about reloading torps. I don't really see the Imperium of Man having a class of ships purely for that purpose, just as I don't really see how you'd fit 2 huge weapon systems into the relatively small prow of a raider.

Scimitar: 1 Prow, 1 Port, 1 Starport.

I like the idea, I dislike the execution. Since frigattes can only fire into their front arc with their prow weapons, this is a rather wasteful design. You have to install 3 weapon components, to gain the benefits of just a single dorsal weapon. You could get into a situation where you're surrounded and want to fire on all sides, but how often do you have enemies in all 3 available fire arcs? And if you don't, the double dorsal mounts of the Sword is always a better solution, for a lower price.

Further more, since the rules (and fluff) so encourage focusing fire, it would usually be a better choice to fire 2 weapon systems at a single target, that 2 weapon systems at 2 different targets, which this design cannot do.

There is some help with squadrons, but given how they are written (in BFK), I don't think they will help much.

I'll have to look up the rules again to double check though.

Arrow: I'll have to do this one later, almost late for work as it is.

* not really, infact, the best, as the rules favour macro cannons. Lances and Torps face restrictions because they are supposed to be more powerful, not because they actually are.

Agreed. I like the corvettes, and the 'light carrier', but a frigate-class ship packing twin lances is very much out-of-scope for anything we've seen the imperium able to build. A lance is a massive power and volume investment for anything sub cruiser-weight.

The scimitar isn't great, but then corvettes aren't supposed to be. Plus, it makes multiple corvettes co-operating better; two corvettes can between them shell three targets with two batteries each, whilst a "2 dorsal" design would be stuck engaging only two targets. Yes, one on one they're not as good, but corvettes fighting anything one on one are almost by definition buggered.

I don't have my book in front of me, but the Arrow gets 6 squadrons? My memory says 4, so wanted to check on that.

Thanks for all of your hard work on these!

I really like the two Frigate concept, especially since most people expect the Corvette to fail. I'm torn on if the Scimitar needs to be improved slightly or not. It is the slowest and weakest of the Frigates - the Claymore has less Hull Integrity but an extra point of Armour which is much more valuable to me. Having Port/Starboard weapons is interesting, but given that you can't mount broadsides on it, and you have so little space to work with, having 3 weapon ports instead of the Claymore's 2 is not clear to me if it's an advantage. I love the Arrow though.

So you can probably guess by now I'm not a fan of the Python. Yes you say explicitly it's a new ship design for the Imperium, but literally no other ship has 2 Prow weapons so this is an amazingly revolutionary design, and of course people are going to stick 2 Torpedo launchers on it. There is already a ship that can mount 2 Torpedos though, as the Orion Star Clipper can put a Voss Torpedo Tube in its Prow and Keel spots, but that redesign makes a lot more sense to me. Having two torpedo tubes constantly being cycled is just devastating, and seems overpowered to me.

Possible fixes: The torpedo tubes are literally side by side, make it so that any torpedo launcher doubles any chance of triggering Volatile, and that damaging/destroying one torpedo tube automatically damages/destroys the other one. Alternatively, allow the Python to install any Torpedo tube, so it can take a Fortis or Mars torpedo tube if it wants and go back to having a Dorsal weapon for "covering fire".

Thanks. In all honesty, I was primarily thinking about dual lances not torpedoes before I remembered those things and tacked on the rule. I'm all for limiting it to just one torp system.

And the Orion's Dorsal 1, Keel 1, so it's only one Torp on the Keel. But you're right, no other hulls have Prow 2.

Not sure how to say this, but I kinda don't like any of these.

First of all, they all seem to be designed specifically to counter certain specific problems with the themes of the IN, while I prefer ships designed in accordance with the theme of the IN.

But also, for each of them, I have complaints.

Python: Prow 2? Seriously, and nothing else?

Ignoring for a moment the detail that prow mounts tend to mount the theoretically "best" weapons*, the idea seems like a way to not have to worry about reloading torps. I don't really see the Imperium of Man having a class of ships purely for that purpose, just as I don't really see how you'd fit 2 huge weapon systems into the relatively small prow of a raider.

Scimitar: 1 Prow, 1 Port, 1 Starport.

I like the idea, I dislike the execution. Since frigattes can only fire into their front arc with their prow weapons, this is a rather wasteful design. You have to install 3 weapon components, to gain the benefits of just a single dorsal weapon. You could get into a situation where you're surrounded and want to fire on all sides, but how often do you have enemies in all 3 available fire arcs? And if you don't, the double dorsal mounts of the Sword is always a better solution, for a lower price.

Further more, since the rules (and fluff) so encourage focusing fire, it would usually be a better choice to fire 2 weapon systems at a single target, that 2 weapon systems at 2 different targets, which this design cannot do.

There is some help with squadrons, but given how they are written (in BFK), I don't think they will help much.

I'll have to look up the rules again to double check though.

Arrow: I'll have to do this one later, almost late for work as it is.

* not really, infact, the best, as the rules favour macro cannons. Lances and Torps face restrictions because they are supposed to be more powerful, not because they actually are.

Well, more of the same is just more of the same. Sure, I could tweak those a bit, but i wanted something different even if it means they're rare, experimental, hated or mocked.

Actually, it was about the imagery of two lance "fangs" and I added the torpedo rule on an edit after realizing it. Either limiting it to 1 torp system or halving the ammo load for torps might help.

The Scimitar actually has Dorsal 1 not Prow 1. And Magnus has the right of it. It's meant to operate in pairs, or more, and if it's in the thick of things, the squadron can fire 2 macros at 3 separate targets. It can fit Mars Macrocannon in those slots, not broadsides obviously, but you can get some Best components and fit in other things. Alone, the best it can do is mimic a Sword against one target and be real pathetic against another.

I don't have my book in front of me, but the Arrow gets 6 squadrons? My memory says 4, so wanted to check on that.

Thanks for all of your hard work on these!

It can store 3 squadrons per point of Strength according to BFK p.11. And thanks, it was fun even if they end up a bit odd.

Agreed. I like the corvettes, and the 'light carrier', but a frigate-class ship packing twin lances is very much out-of-scope for anything we've seen the imperium able to build. A lance is a massive power and volume investment for anything sub cruiser-weight.

The scimitar isn't great, but then corvettes aren't supposed to be. Plus, it makes multiple corvettes co-operating better; two corvettes can between them shell three targets with two batteries each, whilst a "2 dorsal" design would be stuck engaging only two targets. Yes, one on one they're not as good, but corvettes fighting anything one on one are almost by definition buggered.

Yep, you got it man. I shall maybe tweak the Python a bit.

Python-class Destroyer

Thanks. In all honesty, I was primarily thinking about dual lances not torpedoes before I remembered those things and tacked on the rule. I'm all for limiting it to just one torp system.

Well, more of the same is just more of the same. Sure, I could tweak those a bit, but i wanted something different even if it means they're rare, experimental, hated or mocked.

Actually, it was about the imagery of two lance "fangs" and I added the torpedo rule on an edit after realizing it. Either limiting it to 1 torp system or halving the ammo load for torps might help.

The Scimitar actually has Dorsal 1 not Prow 1. And Magnus has the right of it. It's meant to operate in pairs, or more, and if it's in the thick of things, the squadron can fire 2 macros at 3 separate targets. It can fit Mars Macrocannon in those slots, not broadsides obviously, but you can get some Best components and fit in other things. Alone, the best it can do is mimic a Sword against one target and be real pathetic against another.

It can store 3 squadrons per point of Strength according to BFK p.11. And thanks, it was fun even if they end up a bit odd.

How about ... thank you for completly invalidating the Defiant class Light Cruiser?

The arrow is faster and cheaper than the Defiant class, with almost no drawbacks. It has slightly lower detection, but that'll only matter with a very few auger systems, or in a very few edge cases of rolls. The decreased space available is irrelevant, considering that the defiant uses Capital scale essential components. I haven't done the math (have you?) but I suspect that the arrow has more space available after having essential components installed than the Defiant.

At that it is faster and (as an escort class, a frigatte) much more maneuverable, all for 16 points less than the Defiant class. And why do I keep comparing it to a defiant class? Because the Defiant is limited (as an LC) to Escort Bays, meaning it has a launch strength of 2 total, the same as the Arrow, which get's a cruiser-style launch bay, despite being an escort.

Why a raider hull? Maybe it should be a frigate at least and add a few more hundred metres to its length. No reason really, other than a liking to the Cobra.

You're welcome?

The Defiant is rather... sad, though I could find a use for it in BFG in pairs. Yes, the Arrow ends up having more space to install barracks, cargo, and the like. Perhaps the Lathe pattern landing bay could be downgraded to an Escort level. It's not meant to be a superior choice, you know. It's meant to be a small hull troop hauler, an Astartes one too.

I have to change my opinion on the Arrow to match Tenebrae's, as I missed that you were giving it the Cruiser-equivalent launch bay, which is far too overpowered for a Frigate to handle. Given that they're normally not allowed Landing Bays at all, downgrading it to a Jovian Escort Bay does seem sensible. I think the Stats for it are more or less okay, as it's comparable to the other Frigates in the book. Maybe lower Hull Integrity somewhat, as even with the Reinforced Prow compensating for the Landing Bay, there's still presumably a big chunk at the fore of the ship that was taken out to make room for fighter bays.

I realise a lot of these seem like they were created as very situational responses to the annoyances of void combat, but thematically I can see some incredibly wealthy Rogue Trader rolling into a Forge, massively overfunding them and demanding a ship built that can handle these exact specifications based off of these definitely-not-Xenos-no-you-don't-need-to-review-them designs that he found. I agree that having two 1-strength lances is probably better than one 2-strength lance, but that's probably the best the Imperium can do to mimic Eldar lance design. Or they're tired of having to pay those exorbitant maintenance fees on Light Cruisers in order to get fighter craft escorts, or they want a cheap corvette that can just dakka everything in sight.

I'm just also of the opinion that because these are new and somewhat experimental designs there should be drawbacks to the hulls as a result. They fill a very specialised role and are useful for that, but outside of that role they should have some glaring weaknesses. Hence my suggestion that the damage to one Python's prow weapon carries over to the other one. Great for that specialised charge down enemy lines, but one critical hit can leave it helpless.

Oh I agree that if these were to be fielded they should have more than the listed drawbacks.

For one, the crew wouldn't know how to operate them that well. Being a superstitious lot, and seeing as how "older is always better", then the crew of these vessels should be greatly penalized. I'd say that for all my concepts, unless they were supposed to be older ones, that they the crew rating and morale should suffer.

Repairing a Lunar has to be something that can be passed down from generation to generation of crew. Repairing a Scimitar, no matter how easy it's supposed to be? Oh no, I say these wouldn't be seeing frontline service for quite a while.

Originally, I wanted to allow the Python to only fire when it didn't change direction at all. All energy is transferred to the lances. Very single-minded.

The Arrow... is a truncated Strike Cruiser. A Strength 1 bay should be fine for it, perhaps it can use the space for drop pods as well. I don't know. It's just not meant to be a carrier-competitor.

Oh I agree that if these were to be fielded they should have more than the listed drawbacks.

...see, I can't read your mind, so if you don't write this in your post, I have to assume you intend them to be used as-is, same rules as everything else.

I could see the Python as a unique vessel, the proto-type of a line considered to have failed. I might want to change the name though, to an actually venomous snake if the intended imagery is that of twin fangs.

I agree that having two 1-strength lances is probably better than one 2-strength lance,

This is almost trivially true, due to lances needing 3 DoS per extra hit, and the various rules for re-rolls, in particular the free re-roll available to Voidmaster with the Gunnery speciality.

If the vessel is non-unique, you could even mount best quality lances, for a potential of 4 lance hits from a Raider .

There's even the dual chance for crits, since combined volleys are irrelevant for lances.

Why a raider hull? Maybe it should be a frigate at least and add a few more hundred metres to its length. No reason really, other than a liking to the Cobra.

I assume this refers to the Python? Makes no difference really. Raiders and Frigattes have the same rules for movement (IIRC), so the differences are really only of fluff-wise relevance, and some expectations for stats.

Making it a Light Cruiser would be a relevant change though.

The Defiant is rather... sad, though I could find a use for it in BFG in pairs. Yes, the Arrow ends up having more space to install barracks, cargo, and the like. Perhaps the Lathe pattern landing bay could be downgraded to an Escort level. It's not meant to be a superior choice, you know. It's meant to be a small hull troop hauler, an Astartes one too.

The Defiant is kinda sad, I agree. But it's also our benchmark for non-cruiser carriers.

And no, I can't know that it's not supposed to be a superior choice, because I can't see it written anywhere

... and as written, it strictly is a superior choice.

Oh, my apologies Tenebrae. I rarely like using my own concepts and designs apart from the canon ones. This extends to other games as well, like BattleTech, where it's so easy to tweak and optimize that I tweak and optimize to a different standard. It just loses its fun.

I do, however, like fleshing out the universe some. So this happens. My philosophy is either "specialized sidegrade" or "sure why not?" in terms of what the ships should be.

I'm quite happy in my Dictator.

If I get real bored I'll start creating Segmentum-specific Lunars.

Oh, my apologies Tenebrae

Heh, none taken. I guess I was trying to apologize if I came across as extremely antagonistic

Python-class Destroyer

I actually like the Arrow. It is a support ship, but I could see pairing it with a captial ship that has no fighters of its own to provide fighter screening against enemy torpedos or small craft. The Escort Bay makes it ballanced enough, and I could even see my players thinking about building some. The Python reminds me of the Viper Class Missile Destroyer from Battlefleet Gothic. It is a Cobra modified to just mount prow torpedo tubes. It has a torpedo rating of 3, which gives it 6 tubes. They were specifically designed to carry boarding torpedos, but later changed over to more conventional torpedo tactics.

It has a torpedo rating of 3, which gives it 6 tubes.

You will not that torp rating do not carry over that easily.

Cruisers in BFG have a Torp strength of 6 - and have 6 tupes in BFK.

Whereas Cobras have a torp stregth of 2 in BFG but 4 tubes in BFK.

Generally though, escorts have been up-powered, compared to capital ships. Probably because the designers of the game expected most groups to focus of escorts, but that's just a guess.

Fair point for the larger ships. The picture also shows 6 tubes, though. Converting from BFG can be a little strange anyways.

I imagine that just because we install one Torpedo Tube weapon doesn't mean we're installing one tube, but probably an integrated series of tubes. Likewise every "strength" of torpedos represents a number of torpedoes fired at once.