The "reload" stance has no effect on lances or macro weapons for imperial navy, and possibly other factions.
After reading on youtube that reload was bugged, I tested it.
I just tested this in a skirmish this morning, the 21 of January. I loaded up 2 tyrants and 2 gothics, set one of each on reload, then set them all to hold fire, then drove up to an ork fleet, and turned hold fire off.
The volleys of all weapons, including plasma macros, regular macros, and lances, were perfectly synched up over multiple firing cycles, for both the ship that was in reload stance and the ship that was not. Reload stance does not work.
Title says it all really. If this is a game where you build your fleet, you should have meaningful choices when doing so. You should get to pick if you want shrouds or cartouches, but the problem is that a lot of the lists waste a huge amount of points when doing so, as a lot of the lists not only have no ship under 50 points, which is a LOT in a 2v2 list of 600, but also are subject to design restrictions like escort limits, that might prevent you from even buying a 50 point ship.
In order to improve flexibility in list design, I think there should be something similar to total war: warhammer: a veterancy system. In total war: warhammer, troops in multiplayer don't have persistent experience. At the start of each match, after building your list, you just spend your extra points buying "chevrons" for troops, which just makes them generically better. Better morale, better weapon skill, better defense skill. This is not designed to be super powerful. It's not typical in the meta to give all your troops chevrons, or even any of your troops max chevrons. But it allows spare points to not be worthless.
This performs a very important function for allowing someone to build a list and still get value out of half a unit's worth of points left at the end. And BFG armada 2 desperately needs this. It feels terrible to submit a list that is 570 points, but if you don't want to do that, often you have few if any meaningful choices about what your list consists of. There just aren't many combinations of scythe harvesters and jackals that let you decide what your want your list to BE or DO.
TLDR: let players spend points at the end of multiplayer list creation on upgrading units slightly, for small amounts of points, to remove the incentive to just pick whatever ships add up to as close to 600 or 1200 points as possible, and allow them to actually choose the ships they want.
I would strongly argue that in both campaigns, fewer is better, in terms of fleets. Allow larger fleets, but fewer of them, so that you don't get overwhelmed by admiral abilities, and actually get some choices of what YOU want to do. If you started with a single larger fleet, instead of those 2 smaller fleets, you could actually choose about what you want in your fleet, and I think people are thinking that necrons are much weaker than they are, simply because they don't get a critical mass of anti ordinance firepower until you get up to at least 2-3 squadrons of doom scythes, 4+ jackals, or a star pulse wave. none of which you can do in the starting fleets.
I actually really like not transferring ships. It's grown on me, because it makes repairing an actual strategic choice, and also results in me sometimes going into battle with damaged, or even heavily damaged ships, which I like. That would not happen with transfers. I would just build a fleet every time of all my undamaged ships. Would the game be a lot easier with ship transfers? absolutely. But that's not what I am looking for at all.
I am completely for just reducing the number of fleets in every campaign by 1, and then spreading the points cap and the resources to other fleets.
That's intended. In fact, the campaign tooltips tell you that.
However, you don't count as a connected system, so you don't get all the bonuses to repair rates, and you don't get access to your shipyards, so you have to return to a connected system to reinforce.
It also makes sense in the lore, because you aren't traveling through real space. you enter the warp, you navigate to your destination, then you leave the warp. Which means you don't have to pass "Through" cadia at all.
I am no expert on lore, but I think that in 40k, ships can leave and enter the warp okay, but demons need a special hole to do it easily, and the eye of terror is one such hole. So the "Gate" part of cadia is in reference to the evil gribblies, not so much man made ships.
Also, of course, by holding cadia, they are limiting your incursion to 2 additional hops behind cadia. So chaos couldn't get right from cadia to terra. They would have to eventually land in some imperial held system under this game's rules.
Dispersed lightning arc.
Are you sure? did you test it during the campaign?
because I noticed it perfroming inconsistently during the campaign, but I believe that was because some of the necron light cruisers have left and right broadsides, not turrets.
I am actually not sure if the left/right 180 arc guns can be fired simultaneously, or if it's just one set that picks either the left or right arc to fire along, but if you have a ship to the left of you you, and then 3 ships to the right, it would mean that if you fire at the left ship, the guns should not arc to the guys on the right: because they are not in range and arc of the gun that actually fired. Just possibly the guns that didn't fire.
Also, the guns take forever to reload on necrons, so it takes a while to actually see the result.
I have definitely seen lightning arc hit multiple targets and hit a single target in campaign, but I have not yet seen it fail to spread when I was certain that it should have. Just a bunch of ambiguous situations where I wasn't sure.
So at this point, I have played the prologue, the imperial campaign, and the Necron campaign to completion on epic difficulty, and gone halfway through the imperial guard campaign again, still on epic. I thought I would write a few notes.
Firstly, the imperial starting fleets are just silly. Ignoring power, look at what your introductory experience is. You are asking the player to manage an Endeavour, a vanguard, a lunar, a firestorm, and a sword.
Why is this bad? Well, you are introducing any new player who is too intimidated to try multiplayer to the game by asking them to manage:
Two torpedo ships, one of which is short burn and one of which isn't, so the torpedoes don't move the same speed, and make sure that one of them has a loadout of so few torpedoes that a pair of frigates can shoot them down from 4.5k range without trying.
One squadron of strike craft and no other carrier power, so that it's assault boats get shot down by a frigate.
Six admiral abilities spread over 3 ships
And 2 escorts which don't have the same firing arcs.
Not to mention that you managed to put a 240 speed ship of the line in with a bunch of 160's.
And for some reason, Start the game with a manadatory commander who has a bonus to nova cannon cooldown but no nova cannons, that you cannot disband.
This is a terrible introduction to your game. You are giving people the impression that trying to manage a 600 point fleet well is incredibly difficult, and you are also giving people almost no early decisions about fleet composition.
Cut the number of fleets to start the campaign by at least one, and then add the third fleet to the game after you rescue it from those floating explodey thingies in the scripted mission on Cadia.
And don't start with a vanguard. That's just silly. The vanguard offers a critical mass of exactly nothing: it's not good enough at boarding to be good, it's not worth microing a single squadron of strike craft and that's just an exercise in frustration for a newer player. It's not a good supercharged void shield ship either, because there already is a linebreaker in the starting fleet: it's spire, with a ramming spur, the rammnig spurs specialization, fast burn torpedoes, and double the shield values, and not needing to waste his repair cooldown on honor the chapter. It's also a light cruiser, and you have now reworked vision so that light cruisers are completely useless at that, because you can't even see people at your detection range any more.
You don't want to saddle a player with poorly chosen commanders that you cannot disband, that tie up all your fleet maintenance with bad ships. Start the game with ships that actually work well in small fleets, which are easier to micro, and which don't tie up the entire pop cap of the fleet with a bunch of very inflexible stuff.
Oh yeah, and make planets that generate resources a lot more obvious on the map. That's a giant trap for a new player, who is likely to run around capturing penal colonies and Agriworlds, and not understand why his fleet is losing money. Forge worlds need to actually look distinct on the campaign map.
Yes they are. Just because space marines ALSO got buffed, doesn't mean that doubling the crit chance of necron ships was not a buff. If you argued "every race got a buff to boarding crit chance, and necrons less than average", sure. That would no be a buff.
But necrons got the largest buff to crit chance, of anyone, and it was shared by space marines (who also clearly needed a buff) and dark eldar (Because I have no idea what the devs are thinking with dark eldar... maybe one of them has a kid who collects dark eldar ships or something?).
You absolutely are suppposed to be in lightning strike range, because the primary armament on all your ships has the same range as lightning strike, and you cannot lock on. I will assume that's a typo, and you meant "boarding" range.
The fighter cooldown matters because it means that while YOUR fighters suck, the enemy cannot launch as many strike craft against you. It's not "oh, my doom scythes are less useless", it's "I have more time to recover star pulse wave after using it, once the enemy bombers get blown up".
As far as getting outshot by orks, you are gonna need to be a lot more specific. I don't find that likely, but I am not going to be able to look at the entirety of the ork list to figure out why you are right.
to be clear, I assume you are actually closing to 9k range, right? you aren't just trying to particle whip people from 13.5k away, "outside of LS range"?
To be fair, they did get buffed quite a bit. They are bad at ramming due to high cost/health, and no ramming spurs on their ships, and ramming got a serious nerf.
Armor seems to do quite a bit more, and If memory serves, I think lances used to treat armor as 25, now they treat it as 50, which means they are far more able to play at 9k range, given they rely heavily on lightning arcs, which don't ignore armor anyways.
They also got their boarding crit chance doubled, which may turn out to matter. I don't know though, they sure don't feel like a boarding race to me.
Also, I am not super sure, but I strongly suspect that they increased the cooldown on strike craft, which makes it harder to overwhelm them in the gaps between star pulse.
I am not saying it's enough, and to be honest, I spent all day playing the campaign, so I don't even know what's going on on the ladder. But they did get a lot of indirect buffs. And while torpedoes getting double health seems like a big nerf, torpedoes don't ignore armor (so the armor rework should help there), and it's not like necrons were shooting down torpedoes before the buff.
I still don't like the idea of just getting wrecked by nova cannons because they move so damn slow, though.
Huh. you could be right. I assumed at the time that the tyranid player was just REALLY fast on the scuttle button, but if there was latence preventing the ork player from seeing the scuttle indicator, , wouldn't there be latency registering the ship's death?
Yeah, dunno. In order to really think something is wrong, we would have to see it from the other player's perspective. As is, it could just be a REALLY fast scuttle, but I don't know that I am at all confident with that assessment.