Location
Manchester
Age
22
Joined
Last Online

Signature

No life lost in the service of the emperor is wasted.

No sacrifice too great, no heresy too small.

Where is your Federation now, heretic?

About me

BFGA:A Alpha Tester
BFG:A Beta Tester
BFG:A Wiki Founder
BFG:A Mod Creator
BFG Story Writer
Imperial Loyalist

Recent Posts
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@whitehawke It's highly situational, which is why you never hear about it since it rarely makes much difference. Only ever had it debris help me win a game once, in all my years of playing, and that was thanks to caps and the fact escorts are so small.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Of course you will only ever pick one skill, since MWJ is an immediate auto-pick.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@canned_f3tus Technically, GW's own policy of 'everything is cannon' actually holds up for the scales on display in 40k.
Two planets in 40k have such vastly different capabilities, that it makes sense for that to be massive size dispensaries between ships even within the same class.

So you will still see 20+KM long Retributions, as well as the 'standard' 8-10 KM, it's likely that those larger Retributions are just older or were built on special request of some High Admiral. The nature of the Imperium itself makes size and power estimates unreliable.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@canned_f3tus I know what it is 'meant to be' by star wars standards, I'm just pointing out that this battle cruiser/battleship vessel is about the same physical size as a Cobra Destroyer. They little more than well-armed escorts in 40K metrics.

Perhaps I need to better illustrate this visually...

Here's the Size of a Star Destroyer against some other well known vessels in Si-Fi:
0_1554472255784_a0653c69-eb3b-466a-9e44-344852e45aff-image.png

Pretty big right? By no means a small vessel, and it's a line vessel you say? Sounds good, so lets compare it and the largest ships in that comparison to to a Tyrant Class; one of it's operation equivalents in the IN:
0_1554472503895_f73c12d3-cd56-4164-9829-bb900274d044-image.png

As you can see, IN Line Ships are effective the equivalents in scale of smaller SSDs/Battle cruisers (like the Praetor Class), and I can assure you a Tyrant is more than capable of killing those vessels with it's guns, it's torps or simply ramming them apart on its prow.

And it just gets silly if we compare an ISD to a Retribution, going by the 'Battleship' role.
0_1554472946614_3a93bc45-827e-42ea-9fc7-7eb0919cc973-image.png

And here again you can see the scale mismatch vs SM ships:
0_1554473087861_a732066a-dcd5-4a35-b512-9542ddd54826-image.png

I assure you, it doesn't get any better if we start looking at other factions in 40K, if anything it gets worse. While I understand the different tactical role of the ISD, it's way out if it's depth in 40K.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@vampfan666 The problem is scale: it's vastly different between the two IPs.
In SW you have far more variance in scale than in most cases in 40K fleets (there are exceptions, especially if we include the highest-end rouge trader and in-fluff ships and void-capable constructs).
The reason why you see so little variance is just because the scale is quite uniform for most 40K vessels, while in SW the flagships tend to utterly dwarf their line ships, this is just not often the case in 40K.

This picture illustrates what I mean quite well: notice how the majority of the 40K ships are of quite considerable mass, while in SW, the SSDs just dwarf everything. Even the smallest 40K military vessels are in the size range of Star Destroyers.
0_1554395908113_08d1b219-678a-4a3e-bd45-68320e1c6351-image.png

To further add to the point, Imperial fighters and bombers (at around 100 metres in length a piece), are in the same size range as corvettes, frigates, and some light cruisers by SW scale. So it wouldn't be workable to be permanently zoomed in to the point that EaW treated as it's standard, 40K fleet scale just makes it impractical, but it's entirely possible in the current game if you want the cinematic feel so I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@canned_f3tus The IN GCs I think are ok, since they pretty much work exactly like that (they have better broadsides, but they will never defeat a BB one for one), it's just the abuse of Ram spurs and torps which makes the Overlord so much better for PvP. Like, I would certainly take an Exocist over a Mars as a carrier, unless I'm building a dedicated Nova fleet.

It's just the Chaos GCs which are messed up really. They just don't fit well with the rest of the fleet at all.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@canned_f3tus At the moment I would recommend the Emperor over the Exorcist, as the Emperor is the better combat vessel if you disregard the carrier capabilities. But, if the Heavy carriers become useful again, it's more or less a 50/50 depending on what you want: better hp and firepower or better battlefield flexibility (due to the better speed and mobility on the GC), usually the latter is more useful, especially since the Exorcist costs less but that's just my opinion.

Vengeance is a good alternative in PvE to the Overlord if you want something a little bit tougher with better broadsides, but it will never be as competitive in PvP since it lacks the Ramming Spur and Torps which allow the Overlord to do massive alpha strikes that the Vengeance can't match.

Avenger is cheesy in 2v2, the low price makes it very abusable in that format. The damage and hp for that price is also off the charts for the amount of value you get, but everywhere except 2v2 (and PvE, I guess); the low range, poor speed and mobility and average accuracy for a ship of that weight class makes it a very poor choice. The lack of Prow or Dorsal weapons, which hurts most GC's playablity, also really hurt the Avenger particularly harshly for those reasons.

Executor is kind of like the Chaos Avenger, but worse in almost every way. The lances just don't hit hard enough or crit often enough to put it on par with it's IN competitor. Otherwise, same applies here as to the Avenger, particularly bad in a fleet which has almost no synergy with such a play-style (with the exception of some wacky brawling builds). Never run it, play the Acheron instead if you want lances.

Retaliator suffers heavily from a lack of weapon synergy, high cost and the fact it's carrier capacity is now practically useless. It looks particularly bad in the Chaos line up, when you could take the Styx for cheaper (with better weapon synergy), or the Despoiler which has massively superior weapons for a carrier in terms of both value and weapon synergy (the additional toughness doesn't hurt either, you literally only sacrifice turn rate and emergency turns). The main issue with its Macro weapons it has is that they are short range, and most Chaos ships don't want to be in short range, so either you build your whole fleet as a close-in brawling fleet (and the Retaliator's prohibitive cost will hinder such fleets severely) or this ship is going to get isolated and destroyed in no time. Don't use it, it's the worst of the Chaos Heavy carriers.

Repulsive is probably the only Chaos GC worth considering, cos it actually corrects the problems most GCs have. It has dorsal lances, so isn't totally useless if you're chasing down a kiting enemy, and has torps which can be brutal in close quarters. It's DPS is decent for the weight class, it's got respectable range, It's decently tanky and gives you a good alternative to a heavy brawler (since the Chaos lineup lacks of BB that fills that role, and their BCs are also generally poorly suited to the role as well). Compared to the other two, it's a like a breath of fresh air. Consider maybe taking one if you're feeling experimental, but beware, it is slower than most Chaos ships and that may restrict your battle-plan in some match-ups; so it's certainly not an auto-pick.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@whitehawke The Demiurg Cutting Beam, but that's a skill, like the Pulsar used to be.
Basically you need to line it up, so if the gun is pointed at the target it will 100% hit, and if it isn't, it wont hit.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@whitehawke Accuracy isn't displayed since they are beam weapons, meaning they fire a beam directly forward of the ship, it's a holdover from the bad old days when they were a skill and not a proper weapon.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@skalgrim-fellaxe That's due to numbers, for example the Shark Assault Boat, there should only be one charge.
Although, 97 stacks is abnormal.


Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.