Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: horizon on August 04, 2010, 06:29:38 PM
-
Hi,
this was posted at the Yahoo Group by Nate Montez.
The BFG FAQ 2010 wip.
Read and Shiver. ;)
cheers,
Horizon
-
Nice little boost to the apocalypse with the removal of the damage for firing over 30cm. Also a curious change to the Vengeance with the prow arms critical.
-
There are probably a few bugs I haven't noticed yet, I'll get in there with my shovel and smack 'em flat!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
CWE:
Shadowhunter has the 'turret'-idea everyone disliked. ;)
Flame of Asuryan: really LF/RF on the Pulsars?
With Hero 100, Vampires added on Flame the thing become delicious....
-
Ramming and size: There are four sizes concerning the leadership check to ram. From biggest to smallest: Defence>Battleship>Cruiser>Escort. The worst this test can be is on 3D6 and the best it can be is on 1D6. For example, an Ork Rok would need to pass a leadership check on 3D6 against an escort or cruiser, 2D6 on a battleship or 1D6 against another defense.
This example on page 13 is wrong. Being a Defence, a Rok would roll 2d6 against another Defence, and 3d6 against anything 'smaller', including a battleship. This is stated correctly later during the Space Hulk entry.
Ships that do not count critical damage normally and instead take an additional 1Hp of damage (such as Ork Roks or Kroot Warspheres) have this damage cumulative upon them when in a squadron. For example, if a squadron of three Roks is fired upon by a Retribution battleship and takes a total of 13 hits, all critical damage rolls must be made for the first Rok before declaring it destroyed. If three critical damage hits are rolled in this manner, they cause an additional 3Hp of damage and are applied to the first Ork Rok destroyed in the squadron. As shields still work normally, this applies a total of 6Hp to the second Rok before its critical damage rolls are made.
I think this example is trying to tell us that inflicting critical hits on things like Roks will cause the extra damage to be added to the total amount of hits the squadron takes instead of having it 'go to waste', but to be honest I have no idea...
Defences and Blast Marker Removal: You remove D6 blast markers from each defence in each end phase after all other actions in the end phase. This only applies to stationary defenses, not planetary defenses that behave as ships (such as monitors or system ships).
I would reword 'stationary Defences' to 'Defences that start the game with a Speed of 0cm' to prevent people from interpreting it as applying to standby or otherwise slowed Monitors and other such nonsense.
All Vengeance grand cruiser variants (both Imperial and Chaos) listed in Armadas on pp.14-16 and 38-39 completely ignore prow critical damage, regardless of the cause. If any critical damage rolled against the table results in a Prow Armament Damaged critical hit, it is assumed the critical damage did not take place, and it does not move up to the next higher critical damage. If the critical damage is caused by the ship taking a hit, the hit itself still counts normally.
That one is rather unexpected. Although I do like the sound of it, I'd still like to know why this was included please. :)
Before the game starts, the owning player can decide if the Ramilies will rotate or not. Once the decision is made, it cannot be changed throughout the game. If it is decided that it will rotate, it does so for 45 degrees once per game turn (no more or less) at the beginning of the owning players movement phase. The Ramilies otherwise does not move in any way during the course of the game, it still counts as defenses, and this movement does not alter nor can it be altered by any command checks or special orders the Ramilies can make. If the owning player decides the Ramilies Star Fort will rotate, then it cannot have ships dock with it for the duration of the game.
Finally! You wouldn't believe how long I've been waiting for that rule (even though I do not actually have a Ramilies or even an Imperial Fleet). It just makes so much more sense to have it spin and actually be useful. ;D
Flame of Asuryan‟s weapons: The port and starboard pulsar lances should be labelled Keel. They share a single weapon entry and so will be affected when weapons strength is halved for whatever reason. The launch bays carry Vampire Raiders at no extra cost. The port and starboard pulsar lance fire arcs are left/front and right/front respectively.
First it mentions that they share a single entry, but then it gives them two different arcs. Is this really supposed to be the case?
Ork fleets have access to the Grunt escort. By definition, this escort has the same profile as the Ork Brute with the following changes: 35 points, Armor 6+/5+, 2 turrets. Special rule: The Ork Grunt is constructed primarily to act as a huge armored assault ship. It counts as having 4HP when attempting to board or being boarded. Otherwise this vessel has no special ramming abilities different from any other Ork escorts. Grunts may be easily represented by mounting Brute models on a large (battleship) base. Only by basing these models on a large base may they use the Grunt profile and point cost.
Heh, Escorts with a Boarding value of four. That seems very Orky but probably needs to be reworded as such. Right now, people might think they also have 4HP to take the 'damage' following a boarding action.
Necron BFI
Good to see that's finally sorted out. I don't think there are any ways to misunderstand or confuse that left now.
Feeder Tentacles and Massive Claws may not attack a ship that made contact during the opponents turn. However, the Tyranid player can elect in its own turn to remain in contact so that feeder tentacles and massive claws can take effect normally.
Does this mean the Tyranid vessel's minimum movement distance is waived in such an instance?
In addition to the fleet requirements on p.92 of Armadas, the fleet must have at least six escort drones for every hiveship in the fleet. Any ship attempting to fire upon a hiveship suffers -1ld when attempting to ignore closer targets if a squadron containing only escort drones is in base contact with and in between the hiveship and the firing vessel.
Although I'm not too fond of the mandatory use of half the allowed escorts as Escort Drones, the Leadership penalty might make them actually useful for their intended purpose. I'll have to run the maths on that soon. ;)
-
If the Eldar get a Transport using 'their' rules, why don't the Necrons and Tyranids get such a thing? Although the former might not actually have any in the first place, surely Tyranids could use some sort of Spore-carrying transport or Defences?
A fleet of purely Demiurg capital ships can be fielded, but if so used, the point costs are those on the special notes of pp.110-111 of Armadas. A pure Demiurg fleet may include Kroot Warspheres following eth requirements on p.112 of Armadas. In a pure Demiurg fleet, up to one Stronghold commerce vessel may be taken for every two Bastion commerce vessels in the fleet, though there is no limit to the number of Bastions the fleet may contain. If desired, the fleet may have one squadron of up to six escorts from any one of either the Imperial, Chaos or Tau fleet lists for every full 1,000 points of Demiurg ships in the fleet, based on Bastions costing 300 points each and Strongholds costing 400 points each. A Pure Demiurg fleet used in this manner is not restricted to the rule forcing Demiurg ships to attempt to disengage when crippled.
400 and 300 points for Strongholds and Bastions seems 'a little' high to me. Do you really consider it to be more powerful than an Emperor?
There's probably much more to complain/comment about, but I'm saving that for another day. ;)
Good to see that this thing is moving somewhere though, I was beginning to fear that you had forgotten about it...
-
torpedo basing has been revised to just the width of 2, its actual strength designated by a dice.
but no mention of attack craft basing.
i wouldn't mind a similar clarification for attack crafts, and in essence, stacking of attack crafts.
as an aside
give all the rules update
GW should put out BFG v2.0
-
Commx,
on the Flame Pulsars: I imagine it to be the same as the prow pulsars on the Void Stalker. Two prow pulsar entries, one lf other rf.
-
but no mention of attack craft basing.
i wouldn't mind a similar clarification for attack crafts, and in essence, stacking of attack crafts.
Yes there is, on page seven of the document.
Ordnance markers in a wave must be spread and moved so they are always in contact with each other, and they cannot be stacked. Ordnance waves must be assembled into the smallest circumference possible, such as a block of four, two rows of three, etc. For example, a single wave of eight ordnance markers cannot be stretched out into a single-file line eight markers long. On the other hand, individual markers not in a wave can be organized in any formation desired as long as no single marker moves farther from its launching vessel than its maximum possible movement. Once separated, ordnance markers cannot be re-combined into waves.
@Horizon: That is a possible explanation, but I seem to vaguely recall that people weren't very happy with that option when we were discussing things, or was that something else?
-
I see it. Thanks
Seems in consistent that one type of ordnance stacks (torps) but another (ac) cannot.
did I also miss how to base ACs?
I still favor epic bases with variable models mount representing strength of the wave
Or each additional markers in a wave placed behind the first , using epic bases
-
Ordnance markers in a wave must be spread and moved so they are always in contact with each other, and they cannot be stacked.
I suggest adding "offensive" at the Start of the following sentence. Otherwise a fighterscreen as one wave is impossible and with fighters nobody ever had problems of abuse with single-file lines. A wave is considered offensive als long it contains anything than pure fighters.
Ordnance waves must be assembled into the smallest circumference possible, such as a block of four, two rows of three, etc. For example, a single wave of eight ordnance markers cannot be stretched out into a single-file line eight markers long. On the other hand, individual markers not in a wave can be organized in any formation desired as long as no single marker moves farther from its launching vessel than its maximum possible movement. Once separated, ordnance markers cannot be re-combined into waves.
-
Thanks for all the feedback!
We'll get onto fixing it for the next(final) attempt.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Commx,
Yep, the Rok ramming example is wrong!
The Keel Pulsars of the Flame are seperate entries but are both keel. This needs rewording.
The Demiurg are wrongly pointed! Those should be VPs not points!
Nid transports are all of thier ships! ;D
Roy,
Actually, I'm supprised that got in there with turrets! ;)
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Sneaky git, just like an Eldar should. ;)
-
Hi all! Okay, my account's up and running! This here is exactly the feedback we have been looking for so please keep the complaints coming. We will always explain our reasoning for what we did if a change was intentional, but mostly what I'm seeing so far is genuine mistakes we missed that need fixing. Oh well, that's why it's called a DRAFT!! Again, thanks all!! I will digest and mash on all this over the weekend and push out a "Draft, Take 2" some time around Monday or Tuesday.
We are currently manicuring rulesets for the Eldar (refits, crew skills, transport and Haven), Rogue Traders and the Forgeworld Tau (to include a pure Demiurg/Xenos fleet list). That will probably take a few weeks to get sorted. After that, we're looking to address Space Marine Dominion fleets and the Ork Klanz. It's a lot so please bear with us. Once it's all done, it will go out as cleaned up PDF files, graphics-laden and formatted just like the current rulebooks.
Keep the complaints coming! We can't fix what we don't find. Good times!
- Nate
-
Commx VS FAQ - Round 2 :P
Any ship described as being on standby may not move, fire weapons or launch ordnance. It may however attempt to Brace and repair critical damage. Turrets and shields work normally. While on standby, ships obviously count as defences against the gunnery table, with all modifiers applied normally.
Perhaps it would be wise to mention the Leadership test it may take to become Alert here as well? In a similar vein, is said Leadership test the only way to become Alert. I would assume that getting damaged and the such would also be quite alarming.
Brace For Impact does NOT halve turret values (note that being crippled does). However, it is the only special order that halves a ship‟s ability to launch ordnance, provided the launching vessel is already reloaded. This effect is cumulative, meaning if a ship is both braced and crippled, its weapons and ordnance are halved (rounding up) again! For example, a Styx heavy cruiser that is both braced and crippled has a launch bay strength of 2 each side, or 6/2=3, then 3/2 =1.5 (rounding up)=2.
This example is erroneous as well. Either the Launch Bays are added up before dividing it by two twice; or this is done for each individual Launch Bay. Either way, the Crippled and Braced Styx will end up with a Launch Bay strength of one per side for a total of two. (Either 6/2=3, 3/2=1/5->2, or 2*(3/2=1.5->2, 2/2=1)=2) Page 4 indicates that the former should be the case so it's just a matter of changing '2 each side' to '1 each side'.
A ship that fails to Brace For Impact cannot attempt again to Brace until the ship, squadron, ordnance wave or other event causing damage to it completes its attacks. It can however again attempt to brace before the next ship, squadron or ordnance wave attacks it.
Does this also mean that a ship that chooses not to Brace versus the first salvo of an enemy ship or squadron cannot decide to Brace against a second one afterwards?
target aspect or modifier can adjust shooting beyond the far left or right columns on the gunnery table. <sic>
I presume this sentence is supposed to start with 'No'?
A ship that starts or ends its movement in contact with a blast marker for any reason counts as being in contact with a blast marker in every arc for purposes of movement, shooting or ordnance attacks. A ship in base contact with a blast marker counts as being in contact all around it. This includes whether or not other ships are in base contact with it or for purposes of ordnance attacks. Ships firing battery (firepower) weapons at such a vessel suffer a right column shift. Ordnance attacking it must first roll a D6, removing the entire wave or salvo on a roll of 6.
In base contact with what? The ship (which makes no sense), or the Blast Marker (which contradicts the very first paragraph under Blast Markers)?
Blast Markers and Multiple Bases: When a ship has multiple bases in contact and its shield goes down, the blast marker may be placed anywhere on the targeted ship‟s base, potentially taking down other ships shields.
If it is no longer 'as close as possible to the attacker', who decides where they will be placed?
Various rules about Blast Markers which may be placed during Movement.
What if a ship only comes into contact with a Blast Marker during the last 5cm of its movement? Does it stop right there, or is it placed at the end of its reduced maximum movement? The former seems more logical as the other might prevent it from reaching the Blast Marker (and thus being slowed down) in the first place.
Nova Cannon VS Holofield & Area Effect VS Holofield
Which of these rules should be applied to the Planet Killer's Armageddon Gun?
Multiple fighters on CAP in base contact with a single ship function as a single wave in all respects. When encountering blast markers, roll once per blast marker for the whole wave, not per squadron marker. This includes if the ship is subsequently destroyed, though they may afterwards separate normally if the owning player elects to do so.
The last sentence directly contradicts the last sentence of another paragraph in the same section:
Exploding ship with fighters on CAP: If a ship explodes while having fighters on CAP treat the fighters as a wave against the effects of the explosion. Any markers that survive subsequently act as separate ordnance markers that are no longer in a wave.
Reducing Torpedo Markers: When reducing a torpedo marker the centre must always be in the same point along the line of fire.
As all Torpedo salvoes are of identical size now, this rule is redundant.
Massed Turrets During the Movement Phase: No more than one ship can be moved at a time, so ships will only be able to benefit from massed turrets after or before the movement phase is complete but not during. This does not affect how and in what order ships escorted by CAP are moved.
So if, during its movement, a ship is in base contact with another when it touches ordnance, it will still not receive the Mass Turrets bonus?
Any ship or defence with either 3 or more shields OR greater than 10HP must use a large size base. However, any capital ship can elect to use a large base and is considered to have Tractor Fields for free.
To prevent confusion about this, perhaps it should be mentioned that Tractor Fields do not actually exist and that this simply refers to the increased area the ship occupies?
Boarding Value and Boarding Modifiers: The boarding value is your remaining hits (plus turrets if you‟re defending) which may offer a +1, +2, +3 or +4 boarding modifier, depending on the combination of modifiers you have.
The paragraph above this one specifically states that Turrets are not a part of the Boarding Value.
Leadership Check to Traverse Asteroid Field: You must pass a leadership test to move through asteroid fields or suffer D6 damage. In the case of capital ship squadrons, each ship that moves through the asteroid field and fails suffers D6 damage. In the case of escort squadrons that fail, D6 damage is distributed among the escorts that actually entered the asteroid field, in the order that the ships entered. In all cases, shields (but not holofields) work normally against hits.
Does this mean that every capital ship in a squadron must test individually when moving through an Asteroid Field or equivalent? And if so, using its own Leadership or the highest in the squadron?
Right, that was the first half of the document. Now I feel that I've deserved a break. :P
-
Hi Nate,
great to have you on the forum after a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long time.
On your second notes: open a thread on Rogue Traders, FW Tau, etc place the work in progress and ask feedback. This to make sure the wording is better then in the latest AdMech pdf. Also to make the things better.
Is the FW Tau Project Distant Darkness? :) <evil grin>
-
Hi Commx,
you read this thing, am I right that things which were clear before are now cluttered? Like the BFI sequence on attacks.
I mean original it was pretty obvious you brace against a ship which shoots at you. Against Lunar for example you either don't brace (or fail) against Batteries then you may not brace against lances from said Lunar.
New BFI attempt/chance against next ship.
Then, per, ordnance marker/wave attack you may decide (or fail) to brace.
I mean that's easy. ;)
-
Hi Commx,
you read this thing,
I'm glad somebody noticed that. ;)
am I right that things which were clear before are now cluttered? Like the BFI sequence on attacks.
Although I will agree that some of the FAQ rulings sound a bit cumbersome on their own, I try not to view them as a direct replacement of the existing rules. Instead, I prefer to think of them as clarifications of existing passages instead, which can be as large as required to convey their information.
I mean original it was pretty obvious you brace against a ship which shoots at you. Against Lunar for example you either don't brace (or fail) against Batteries then you may not brace against lances from said Lunar.
New BFI attempt/chance against next ship.
Then, per ordnance marker/wave attack you may decide (or fail) to brace.
I mean that's easy. ;)
In the case of the sequence to which you are referring, the current FAQ entry is almost a literal copy of the last paragraph of the normal rules on page 23. Only the last sentence - which some may view as redundant - is added, which does not seem too cluttered on its own.
However, the fact that the clarifications which are apparently required here are about three times as long as the rules themselves seems a bit excessive to me. My personal preference for situations like these would be to simply replace all of them with a completely new entry for the Brace for Impact order, one which includes all of the amendments and clarifications that might be required.
I hope that answers your question. :)
-
However, the fact that the clarifications which are apparently required here are about three times as long as the rules themselves seems a bit excessive to me. My personal preference for situations like these would be to simply replace all of them with a completely new entry for the Brace for Impact order, one which includes all of the amendments and clarifications that might be required.
I whole heartedly agree. I've gotten about a 1/3 of the way through the new FAQ and have notes all over every page. I'm still trying to get my head around how I'm going to approach the critique. As you've demostrated, it requires a lot of typing! :D
A number of the entries left me with question markers and feeling like I've never played this game because I don't even understand the wording (I'll elaborate soon).
Russ
-
Okay the marathon begins! :D
Below you will find my critique of the first 2.5 pages of the FAQ Draft. Only 31.5 pages to go! I will pick back up on page 3, movement with my next post.
Page 1
Basic Rules
Definition of Game Turns: A game turn is both player turns, so a game that lasts eight turns has sixteen player turns.
Perhaps this should be player count agnostic? Such as:
Definition of Game Turns: A single game turn is comprised of all players taking a single player turn, so a game with 2 players that lasts eight turns has sixteen player turns(2 player turns per game turn).
Pre-measurement: You may pre-measure movement and range unless all players agree not to. Note: To aid in pre-measuring, use a couple of empty flying bases with bearing compasses dropped over the stems.
I think this could be generalized as well instead of explicitly saying movement and range. Like this:
Pre-measurement: Anything requiring measurement may be pre-measured prior to making a decision unless all players agree not to. Note: To aid in pre-measuring, use a couple of empty flying bases with bearing compasses dropped over the stems.
Secrecy of Fleet Lists: Fleet lists are not normally secret. However, to add a degree of subtlety to a campaign, fleet lists may be kept secret until the end of the game (or campaign) if both players agree. However, it must be written down, complete with all refits and point totals. If at any time your opponent wishes to see your fleet list, both players must then immediately reveal their fleet lists to each other.
Secrecy of Subplots: Subplots are normally rolled for in front of both players at the beginning of the game. However, subplots may be kept secret in the same manner as described previously for fleet lists if both players agree. However, they must be written down at the beginning of the game, and if at any time your opponent wishes to see your subplot(s), both players must then immediately reveal them to each other. If kept secret, they must be revealed at the end of the game.
This is my first example of the text needing to be streamlined. How about this instead:
Secrecy of Fleet Lists and Subplots: Fleet lists are not normally secret, but may be kept secret until the end of a game or campaign if both players agree. However, it must be written down at the beginning of the game, complete with all refits and point totals. Subplots are normally rolled for in front of both players at the beginning of the game. Subplots may be kept secret in the same manner as described for fleet lists. If at any time your opponent wishes to see your fleet list and/or subplot(s), both players must immediately reveal them to each other. Subplots must be revealed at the end of the game.
Orders/Leadership
Special orders are declared before the movement phase by choosing a vessel, declaring the order and rolling leadership, repeating this over and over until a vessel fails its leadership check or all desired vessels have their special orders.
This ruling is in conflict with the BB on page 11, third column, second paragraph under Taking Command Checks: "To make a Command check...it has passed the check and goes onto special orders. Then move the ship or squadron as appropriate before moving on to place you next special order."
If the FAQ rule is intended to clarify this then I think it's worth prefacing the FAQ statement with "Correction to Taking Command Checks on page 11 of the BB". Perhaps it's assumed that order of precedence is FAQ>Armada>BB , but it's actually worth stating at the beginning of the FAQ or at the very least tagging rule corrections when applicable.
Under no circumstance can a ship's leadership be modified higher than Ld10, though various combinations of effects all affect the ship or squadron normally. For instance, an Ld10 Admiral aboard a ship in contact with Blast Markers (-1Ld) while the enemy is on special orders (+1Ld) is Leadership 10. In effect, a leadership check roll of 11 or 12 always fails unless SPECIFICALLY stated otherwise.
The statement ",though various combinations of effects all affect the ship or squadron normally" and the example that follows has always been awkard to me and really don't reinforce the main point that a ship's leadership can never go above 10. I had to read it a few times to grasp what was meant to be conveyed. Might I suggest the following re-wording:
Under no circumstance can a ship's leadership be modified higher than Ld10. All combination of leadership modifiers that affect a ship or squadron are applied and if the resulting leadership would be greater then LD10, use a leadership of 10 instead. A leadership check roll of 11 or 12 always fails unless SPECIFICALLY stated otherwise.
Page 2
Orders/Leadership continued...
If a ship containing a fleet commander, Warlord, Mark of Chaos, etc. is destroyed, the cost of any embarked commanders or other improvements are included in the Victory Points earned by the enemy, even if it can be assumed the fleet commander escaped to fight another day. In other words, if a Ork Kill Kroozer (155 pts) with an embarked Warlord and Mad Meks (+65 pts) is destroyed, the opponent earns a total of 220 pts, and obviously the Warlord and his Meks are lost for the game. However, in a campaign, the Warlord manages to get his hands on another Kill Kroozer (or whatever) and gather around him some Meks. Or, if you like, another aspiring Warlord showed up to take his place with his own mob of Mad Meks!
In the interest of pairing down the text to a more managable FAQ, I think the example can be streamlined without harm to the point:
If a ship containing a fleet commander, Warlord, Mark of Chaos, etc. is destroyed, the cost of any embarked commanders or other improvements are included in the Victory Points earned by the enemy. Example: if a Ork Kill Kroozer (155 pts) with an embarked Warlord and Mad Meks (+65 pts) is destroyed, the opponent earns a total of 220 pts. The Warlord and his Meks are lost for the rest of the game, but will still be avaiable in the following game(s) of a campaign.
Any ship described as being on standby may not move, fire weapons or launch ordnance. It may however attempt to Brace and repair critical damage. Turrets and shields work normally. While on standby, ships obviously count as defences against the gunnery table, with all modifiers applied normally.
This is a nearly verbatim entry to the rule in the scenario's section of the BB. What was the reasoning for repeating it here? Also, as Commx pointed out if it's necessary to repeat it you might as well repeat it verbatim with the Leadership blurb.
I second the question of being Alarmed once hit.
BRACE FOR IMPACT: Brace For Impact special orders can be undertaken ANY time a ship faces taking damage but before the result is rolled, including when ramming or being rammed. This includes while the ship may already be on special orders, as Brace For Impact REPLACES whatever special order the ship may currently be on (a ship that successfully reloaded is still reloaded). It may now also be used to protect against critical damage from any kind of H&R attack.
A decision to brace for impact must be made before ANY attempt to shoot (rolling dice) by the opponent is made, including modifier rolls for variable weapons such as Ork Gunz.
I would combine the above two separate paragraphs into a single thought:
BRACE FOR IMPACT: Brace For Impact special orders can be undertaken any time a ship faces taking damage. This includes when a ship is ramming, being rammed, under threat of Hit and Run attacks, or even while the ship is currently on different special orders, as Brace For Impact REPLACES whatever special order the ship may currently be on (a ship that successfully reloaded is still reloaded). Brace Impact must be declared before any dice have been rolled by either side, including turret fire rolls and modifier rolls for variable weapons such as Ork Gunz
It may now also be used to protect against critical damage from any kind of H&R attack.
I personally need a clarification on how BFI protects against H&R attacks, does this mean if my ship is BFIed and my opponent rolls 8 hits against me, I can try and save them prior to him rolling on the critical charts? Just making sure I understand this since my main opponents has T-hawks! ;)
Brace For Impact DOES NOT protect against critical damage caused by hits that were not saved against normally, nor any damage caused during a boarding action (including critical damage). Being braced protects against actual damage taken by the ship itself, NOT hits absorbed by shields, reactive armor, holofields, etc.
What does "Brace For Impact DOES NOT protect against critical damage caused by hits that were not saved against normally" mean? Do you mean "does not protect against critical damage caused by hits that can not be saved against normally"? I think I need an example because I'm clueless, regardless…I would simplify the sentence into a list of what can not be saved, like this:
Brace for Impact does not protect against critical damage caused by hits that can not be saved against normally, damage caused during a boarding action(including critical damage), or hits absorbed by shields, reactive armor, holofields, etc.
When being attacked by ordnance, the decision must be made before rolling turrets.
This is a special exception to the core rule that brace for impact is made before an opponent rolls any dice. Why is the rule necessary? If there is AC remaining you still don't know what your opponent will roll for hits. If this remains the case you should probably reword Brace for impact. NOTE: I've done so already above in my combining of the wording to say "before any dice have been rolled by either side.
Brace For Impact does NOT halve turret values (note that being crippled does). However, it is the only special order that halves a ship's ability to launch ordnance, provided the launching vessel is already reloaded. This effect is cumulative, meaning if a ship is both braced and crippled, its weapons and ordnance are halved (rounding up) again! For example, a Styx heavy cruiser that is both braced and crippled has a launch bay strength of 2 each side, or 6/2=3, then 3/2 =1.5 (rounding up)=2.
A Styx crippled and braced would have launch bay strength of 1 per side based on the stated rules, not 2.
Page 3
Orders/Leadership continued...
All Ahead Full, Come to New Heading and Burn Retros halves firepower and lance strength but not torpedo or attack craft launch capability.
Okay, call me picky, but need this really be stated redundantly when it's directly stated in the BB chart of SO effects? Was there a mistake in earlier editions I don't know about?
-
@russ_c: I find it the easiest to simply copy-paste "[ quote][/quote]" a lot first, then add in the passages I actually want to quote when I need them. Saves time over typing the command each time.
@Ray_B: Nid transports are all of thier ships!
If that is the case, it would be nice to see it in the FAQ. ;)
Commx VS FAQ - Round 2 (cont.)
Asteroids and All Ahead Full: When traversing an asteroid field on All Ahead Full you must pass a leadership check on 3D6 instead of 2D6 or suffer the usual D6 damage. Escort squadrons still get to re-roll this result for free, as they would normally.
I just noticed it was lacking, but perhaps the requirement to actually take this test when navigating Asteroid Fields (As well as the re-roll for Escorts) should be added to their rules? These do not appear to be in the rulebook itself, which just states the effects of failing an unmentioned test.
Shooting at Asteroid Fields: Asteroid fields are treated as minefields if you wish to shoot at them. You must first pass a leadership test to shoot an asteroid field even if it is the only possible target, with a blast marker placed in contact with the asteroid field facing the direction the shooting came from for every roll of 6.
This is different from the 'place Blast Markers anywhere' rule that appeared earlier in the document. Is this intentional?
Ships Exploding Inside Asteroid Fields: If a ship explodes inside an asteroid field, including when due to the D6 damage from failing a leadership test to safely navigate an asteroid field, the explosion will hit all ships and ordnance within the asteroid field but none outside the field. Blast markers from the explosion are scattered throughout the asteroid field, each player taking it in turns to place a blast marker. Note: You don't roll for the range of the explosion.
So, if the Asteroids take Shields down during movement, no Blast Markers are placed, but if something else happened, they are? That seems a bit odd to me.
This means that they cannot take on any special orders except Reload Ordnance. They can however attempt to Brace For Impact.
Which means they may only take Reload Ordnance and Brace For Impact; two special orders. I would suggest rewording this.
Ships that are targeted as defenses but otherwise are not normally restricted to planetary defenses, such as Ork Roks, Kroot Warspheres, etc., are treated as ships and can make Special Orders normally.
This can be combined with the last sentence of two paragraphs up I believe.
For example, having three Chaos cruisers (such as a Murder, Carnage and Devastation) entitles a 12th Black Crusade Incursion Fleet fleet to have a Repulsive grand cruiser. It also entitles the fleet to have one reserve cruiser such as the Executor grand cruiser, but that ship cannot be taken because you must have at least four cruisers to have two grand cruisers, not merely three.
This example should probably state that you cannot take them both, as taking just the Executor would be fine according to the rules above it.
For example, a Gothic Sector fleet list with six cruisers may take both a grand cruiser from the Imperial Bastions fleet list on p.29 of Armadas and a battleship from the Adeptus Mechanicus fleet list.
This example also contradicts earlier rules, as three Cruisers from the main fleet will not allow a Battleship to be taken in reserves.
Allied and reserve vessels cannot use refits and upgrades from the fleet list they are allied to unless they are of the same race or the rules for that fleet specifically allow it.
directly contradicts: Reserve vessels may take any upgrades, refits, etc. available to either fleet list but may not take any special characters from the reserve fleet list to use with the primary fleet.
<Reserve & Ally rules in general>
Here, I have to agree with Horizon that they appear to be immensely cluttered and clunky. I can decipher them, but they probably require some major rewriting to make them more understandable.
Imperial Power Ram: The Power Ram may be taken by any Imperial capital ship with a 6+ prow unless it has a Nova Cannon. This is for any Imperial fleet list and does not count as a separate refit. Ships so equipped impart one automatic hit during a successful ram on a target vessel before rolling for hits inflicted.
If all of the Power Ram's rules are to be in the FAQ, you might as well add the 5pt. Cost too for completeness.
Apocalypse Class Battleship and Critical Damage: The special rule concerning this battleship on p.12 of Armadas when it undertakes Lock-On special orders and fires its lances greater than 30cm is unchanged. However, it does not take 1Hp damage for doing so, even though the critical damage still affects the ship, is cumulative and must be repaired normally. All other critical damage affects this ship as it would any other normally.
Perhaps it would be better to explicitly state that it does not take the 1HP damage which would normally result from the critical hit?
Ships not able to take an particular refit rolled randomly may re-roll the result.
Why is this only listed under the Space Marine Campaign entry? Shouldn't it apply to any ship in any fleet?
The Ramilies can always board any enemy ships in base contact in the end phase of its own turn, and it can decide how many quadrants are involved in the boarding action.
While on the subject, is the Ramilies entitled to Teleport Attacks? If so, how many?
Daemonships Repairing In Campaigns: Daemonships do not automatically regain hits after each battle. They have to be regained either in a game by warp translation or by expending repair points, or they can be withdrawn normally.
Although I suppose this has little to do with the actual rules, I find it odd that a ship that can restore several htis to itself during a few turns cannot completely regenerate in the timespan between encounters.
If an Eldar vessel passes its leadership check during a solar flare, it will take no damage but turn directly away from the sun edge and move 2D6cm.
This movement and turn do not sound optional but mandatory, is that correct?
An Eldar vessel intending to board an opponent may do so in either movement phase, but it may not shoot or launch ordnance before doing so. If it boards in its movement phase, it may not make its second movement.
As the rules already prohibit firing and launching ordnance during the turn in which a ship intends to board, this seems redundant.
When a wave of fighta-bommas attacks a ship you must decide if any of the markers will forgo their attack runs in favour of turret suppression. Every one that does so cannot make any attack rolls but adds an additional +1 bonus attack to any surviving fighta-bommas when rolling their attacks. Fighta-bommas used in this manner cannot contribute more bonus attacks than the defending ship actually has turrets.
Is this intended to be different from the new 'default' rules for Turret Suppression? If so, you might want to explicitly state the difference; if not, why not simply mention that they may also opt to use it as normal?
Torpedo Bommas do NOT retain the ability to behave as fighters and cannot intercept other ordnance or provide a bonus attack for turret suppression. In addition, their speed is reduced to 20cm. Torpedo Bommas always cost +10 points per launch bay based on the MAXIMUM launch bay strength of a given vessel. This means a Terror Ship must pay +40 points and a Space Hulk must pay +160 points to use Torpedo Bommas.
Why are Torpedo Bommerz so expensive for the Orks? They are actually weaker than Fighta-Bommerz due to losing 5cm of speed and the ability to act as a Fighter, so 10pts per bay based on the maximum amount seems a bit excessive here.
Re-rolling Synaptic Control: You may test for synaptic control over a ship which failed the test the same turn including other Hiveships, as long as there is another Hiveship within range.
Can this be done only once, or once per Hiveship as they are not strictly speaking re-rolls?
Spore impacts from moving in base contact with Tyranid vessels effect enemy ship movement, meaning enemy vessels lose -5cm speed and ships with zero shields (such as Eldar and ships with Shields Collapsed critical damage) have to roll a D6 against receiving damage on a 6. However, this test (if required) only needs to be done once per movement phase, regardless of how many Tyranid ships make base contact. The ship only counts as having blast markers in base contact if it ends its movement in base contact with a Tyranid vessel.
Due to their special rules, Spores already inflict one point of automatic damage to an unshielded vessel. Does this mean they get one point of damage automatically, and then potentially another one due to coming in contact with a 'Blast Marker'?
Bio Plasma ignoring holofields and reactive saves: Bio Plasma only ignores shields in a similar fashion to that of ordnance only they cannot be shot by turrets either! Bio Plasma does not ignore holofields or reactive hull saves.
This basically contradicts all of the rulings on other shield-ignoring weapons earlier in the document.
Tyranid ordnance is exempted from attack craft limits based on number of launch bays and cannot run out of ordnance. They may have up to twice the number of attack craft markers in play as they have available launch bays.
These two sentences contradict each other.
Tyranids ignore ALL blast marker effects when boarding. They do not lose spore protection for being in contact with blast markers due to placing one on the target vessel when boarding; place the blast marker solely in contact with the enemy vessel and not between it and the Tyranid vessel. While they ignore all blast marker effects when boarding, the target vessel does not. As such, Tyranids still get a +1 for the enemy being in contact with blast markers.
This appears to be copied literally from the previous FAQ, even though it is a source of confusion.
A Tyranid vessel with two sets of massive claws may use any two claws to perform its “grab†on an enemy vessel, rolling again to hit in every End Phase as described on p.84 of Armada.
If two out of the four claws 'grab', are you allowed to roll two or four dice during the End Phase? Additionally, you might want to add that Holofields no longer protect a vessel that has already been 'grabbed', as I'm quite sure a Tyranid vessel would know if it had something in its maws or not.
An Imperial escort latched by a Tyranid cruiser should pretty much behave like a speared fish!
I would change this to be an Imperial Cruiser and a Tyranid Hiveship, as an Escort will always be destroyed before it can be grabbed.
Tyranids do not have access to any crew skills in the course of a campaign. They may gain refits in the course of a campaign as outlined by the rules on p. 92 of Armadas. These refits can only be used in one-off games if both players agree.
I can only say that I am quite unhappy with this ruling. Although heavily upgraded Hiveships have been found to be problematic, something which is effectively a complete ban on Evolutions is a major nerf to the entire fleet.
For the Cruiser Clash scenario, Tyranids can use one hiveship and three cruisers instead of the four cruisers described on p.93 of Armadas. If this option is used, no refits or escorts can be taken, and the hiveship cannot be higher than LD-8.
The next paragraph requires the purchase of six Escorts per Hiveship, which is disallowed here. That would forbid the use of the Hiveship.
In addition to the fleet requirements on p.92 of Armadas, the fleet must have at least six escort drones for every hiveship in the fleet. Any ship attempting to fire upon a hiveship suffers -1ld when attempting to ignore closer targets if a squadron containing only escort drones is in base contact with and in between the hiveship and the firing vessel.
As I am rather certain the Escort Drones are not supposed to be in base contact with the firing vessel, the last sentence needs some rewording.
Nicassar Dhows can only be deployed from Nicassar Rigs, Explorer starships and Merchant starships equipped with grav hooks. Only a number of Nicassar dhows can be deployed equal to the number of grav hooks present at the start of the battle on the ship or defense types described here.
You might want to mention that Orcas and Nicassar Dhows have to share the Grav Hooks (ie. One Grav Hook can carry either one, but not both of them at the same time.)
Demiurg ships may extend the range of their cutting beams by expending two collected blast markers per weapon strength instead of one, rounding down. For example, a Demiurg Bastion that gathers up five blast markers in the course of its immediately previous movement may in the subsequent shooting phase fire a str-5, range-15cm cutting beam or a str-2, range-30cm cutting beam.
This example is incorrect, as a Cutting Beam starts at S1, plus one per Blast Marker gathered. In this case that would mean S6 at 15cm or S3 at 30cm.
Well, that is the end of my work for now. I refrained from doing any rewording myself so far (russ appears to be busy with that), and also neglected to point out spelling or grammar mistakes as this is not the final version yet. Hopefully the second draft will be somewhat shorter...
-
This example also contradicts earlier rules, as three Cruisers from the main fleet will not allow a Battleship to be taken in reserves.
I believe that grand cruisers are still cruisers for the purposes of reserves etc just as light cruisers are still just cruisers so no rules are contradicted.
-
I believe that grand cruisers are still cruisers for the purposes of reserves etc just as light cruisers are still just cruisers so no rules are contradicted.
That is not my point. As a clarification, my point is high-lighted in these two quotes from the FAQ.
For example, a Gothic Sector fleet list with six cruisers may take both a grand cruiser from the Imperial Bastions fleet list on p.29 of Armadas and a battleship from the Adeptus Mechanicus fleet list.
Only ships of the same “type†(battleship, cruiser or escort) count for reserves purposes so you can‟t pick three escorts (imagine this word being Cruisers now) from one fleet list and use them to qualify for a battleship from another.
So to take an AdMech Battleship from Reserves, the Gothic fleet would require three regular Battleships of its own first. With its six Cruisers, it can only take two Cruisers (Light, Grand, Heavy, plain, or whatever you fancy) from reserves.
-
Yeah, that is bad wording.
-
I see what you talking about now.
-
Page 3
Movement
Flying Bases Overlapping: As ships can overlap by flying over/under one another it is possible to stack ships. When ships overlap it is common practice to remove the models from their flying bases. To keep things clear, it is usually best to have a few stemless flying bases around with a straight line draw from the central hole to the bases edge to indicate direction. If desired, numbered contact markers can be used for this as well. The drastic weakening of their shield strength usually discourages this as described in the section on blast markers, but it is completely legal.
Oh boy, okay...
If the rule does not change, then I would complete your thought by making the last sentence the third sentence prior to giving suggestions on how to physically resolve the problem. Also, I would clarify that we are indeed talking about ending movement overlapping. Something like this:
Flying Bases Overlapping: Since ships can overlap by flying over/under one another it is possible for a ship's base to overlap another base at the end of movement. The potential drastic weakening of shield strength due to blast markers (described later) usually discourages this, but it is completely legal. When ships overlap it is common practice to remove the models from their flying bases. To keep things clear, it is usually best to have a few stemless flying bases around with a straight line draw from the central hole to the bases edge to indicate direction. If desired, numbered contact markers can be used for this as well.
BUT, although I'm trying to strictly stick to being neutral with my critique of the draft FAQ, I'm going to make a final attempt to list why this rule should not exist and should be replaced with "A ship may end it's movement overlapping with an enemy, but not a friendly base unless completely unavoidable. This does not restrict any ship overlapping during it's movement."
1.) As Nate has stated to me, "Bases stacking on each other is supposed to result from an unhappy accident when trying to move your ships maximum distance and optimum firing arc." Unfortunately, as stated, the above rule (along with the following FAQ paragraph) fully permits ship bases to stack not only in an unhappy accident, but even as a suggested tactic. The critical point is that when friendly ships are being moved in relation to one another, they can all be moved in an informed manor with the player having the ability to consider each ships placement to provide them with maximum distance and optimum firing arc while taking into account how other friendly ships will be placed during that game turn. This means the player has ample ability in nearly every case to place them advantageously without the need of stacking if just a little forethought is used. But that player did not have this luxury when his enemy placed his ships, so to avoid situations where an enemy base would deny the player an advantageous position we must allow a ship to be placed overlapping an enemy if necessary.
2.) The rule is creating additional paragraphs in the FAQ to address, clarify, and support this ruling. A perfect example is the entry on "Blast Markers and Multiple Bases". This entry has become confusing as it attempts to both explain scenarios with bases touching and overlapping. Torpedoes now require more explanation on how to deal with launching and resolving attacks. AC now has contradictory exceptions to the conventional rules (see point 3 below). We should be thinking about how the rules can be clarified to keep the essences of the game but help remove the need to excessively "provide solutions to problems that are not addressed in the current rules because in most cases, frankly they don't often come up in normal game play". This is a challenge yes, but it should be in the forethought of every rules decision. Essentially, allowing friendly bases to overlap is creating exceptions to current rules and requiring new rules to be drafted. Allowing enemy overlapping does not conflict with any of the current rule set and thus requires little to no explanation for how to deal with AC attacks, torpedo launch and hits, etc.
3.) In an attempt to clarify bases "hiding" inside another base and to not allow this to be abused there is a new rule / clarification stating "attack craft can select to target vessels with bases hiding inside the large base in this manner". This new ruling is contradictory to the core mechanic of what constitutes AC engaging a ship (i.e the moment it touches a base). This contradiction is clear seen in the FAQ on page 6 where it's stated "Ordnance markers must always attack the first ordnance or vessels the come in contact with" and "they [attack craft] are assumed to be able to avoid or ignore closer targets or obstructions unless the course of their movement unavoidably brings them in contact". This situation creates a rules paradox were the rule exception is trying to be shoe-horned in to make friendly overlapping function within the theory of the original rule, while not tangibly working with the core mechanic.
4.) In regard to point 2, in my opinion it's best to create clarifications that enhance the game by making rule scenarios simpler to understand and minimize the edge cases that cause confusion, disputes, or vagary. Any rule that creates the need for more rules to justify or clarify is a classic indicator that something is mechanically wrong. A good example of a simplified rule in action is the choice for blast markers affecting all around a base. Sure it makes some tactical decisions moot, but it does a grand job of simplifying situations, avoiding vagary, and thus keeping the game moving while retaining the essence of the original rules. The shortest path to achieving the same results with overlapping bases is of course to not allow any overlapping at all, but this might provide to much compromise to the essence of the game. Instead I offer a shorter path to simplicity at less of a sacrifice: allow non-friendly overlapping.
5.) My last point is a bit abstract and ill-informed, but worth throwing out for some thought I think… I would encourage everyone to think about how the average BFG gaming session goes within your game group and how tournament play has occurred for the last 10 years. How common is it really for friendly ships to necessitate overlapping? How many past tournaments would have been affected by people "stacking" ships? Now, how many times have you needed to overlap your ship with an enemy to gain the position you intended? I don't want to sacrifice the essence of BFG or the intent of the original designer, but I would say that how the game has been "traditionally" played by the community at large for the last 10 years, has some weight in what's right for the game.
Granted I'm certainly biased here because I only have my gaming group's experience to reflect on. In my group we just assumed for whatever reason (probably because of the models) that when moving our own ships we should not overlap them if not necessary (it's never been). But, when my opponent moves his ships I sportingly allow him to place his ship in any legal place, even if it overlaps with my ship, to give him the advantage he deserves due to good commanding. So I am genuinely curious if other people's gaming groups have found these scenarios common or not.
Okay, back to the FAQ text critique! :D
Stacking Ships and Escort Squadrons: Cruisers and escorts can be stacked to follow the movement of battleships and other models that use a large base. However, attack craft can select to target vessels with bases “hiding†inside the large base in this manner as long as the attack craft actually have the range to reach the smaller base. Torpedoes still behave normally and cannot select smaller targets in this manner. Ships with bases stacked in this manner may mass turrets against ordnance as described in the relevant section.
Well this paragraph is part of my above critique and questioning of ruling. I also has the primary contradiction that needs some amount of work to remove anyone confusion of precedence.
When a ship is forced to stand still, it counts as being targeted as Defenses. People have taken this to mean, “If I stand still in high orbit I count as defenses, but if I move 0.5cm, I don‟t.†Minimum move distance to not count as defenses must be at least 5cm.
This is a redundant statement written verbatim from the rules on page 16 of the BB. A given rule should only exist in a single place, unless being restated to be clarified. I believe Nate has suggested that HA is attempting to make the FAQ backwards compatible with people still using rules 1.0, but I'd like everyone to consider that anyone who has the ability to d/l a copy of the FAQ has an equal ability to get the PDF of the updated rules. Additionally, this particular FAQ has so many clarifications that I find it hard to imagine that some one can successfully use the FAQ with rules 1.0. Just a thought…
Page 4
Shooting
For escort squadrons in particular, total all combined strengths (rounding up) before halving or splitting firepower. For example, if a squadron of five or six Eldar Hemlocks are braced, they have a total of three pulsar lances.
What is the "(round up)" referring to in this sentence. When you combine weapon strength prior to dividing you never get a fraction of strength. I believe it can just be removed form the sentence unless I'm misunderstanding.
Multiple Gunnery Weapons: If a ship or squadron has multiple types of gunnery weapons, like Bombardment Cannons, Heavy Gunz or Standard Weapons Batteries, they may be fired simultaneously. Calculate the dice on the gunnery table separately for each type of gunnery weapon. This means you do not suffer gunnery shifts due to blast markers caused by other members of the same squadron in the same shooting phase. The order in which these weapons hit is up to shooting player, so Bombardment Cannons can hit after weapons batteries have taken down shields for instance, or vice versa if desired.
Can be streamlined into:
Multiple Gunnery Weapons: If a ship or squadron has multiple type of gunnery weapons, like Bombardment Cannons, Heavy Gunz, or Standard Weapons Batteries, the my be resolved simultaneously to avoid gunnery shifts from blast markers caused by the same squadron or ship. Calculate the dice on the gunnery table separately for each type, roll and apply the hits. The order in which these gunnery weapons hit is up to the shooting player.
Splitting Weapons Fire Against a Single Ship: You cannot split weapons batter or lance fire of any type at a single target!
I truly don't understand what this clarification means or is about. The term splitting fire is typically used to mean you divide weapon attacks between multiple ships, so if you fire at a single vessel how could you "split weapons fire"? Does this rule conflict with the FAQ entry below on "Ships with multiple lances in a given fierce arc…"?
On The Line Shooting (firing arcs): When shooting and the arcs are on the line in-between arcs, the shooting player chooses which arcs to use, whether it is the attacking or defending ship.
It took me a few times to realize what was trying to be conveyed by the last part ", whether it is the attacking or defending ship". Please re-word this:
On The Line Shooting (firing arcs): When shooting, if the arcs are on the line in-between arcs of either the defending or attacking ship, the shooting player chooses which arcs to use in either case.
target aspect or modifier can adjust shooting beyond the far left or right columns on the gunnery table.
Surely you mean: "Target aspect or a modifier can never adjust shooting beyond the far left or right columns on the gunnery table."
Ships with multiple lances in a given fire arc may split their weapon strength between two or more targets but must still make a leadership check to fire on any target besides the closest.
Does this conflict with the above FAQ entry of "Splitting Weapons Fire Against a Sinlge Ship"?
If a combination of ships in a squadron has a firepower value greater than 20, look up 20 and the remaining firepower values separately and add them together. For example, a squadron of two Carnages can have up to firepower 32 in one broadside, or firepower (20+12).
This is in the rulebook verbatim. Can it please be removed due to said opinions prior? :P
Blast Markers
If a ship is in base contact with a ship with a blast marker but the blast maker does not touch its own base it does not count as having a blast marker in contact as well.
This was the single most vexing sentence in the previous FAQ for me. It boggles my mind everytime I read it. Are you attempting to say this:
A ship only counts as contacting a blast marker if its own base physically touches the blast marker and not if the ship's base touches another base in contact with a blast marker.
Also, this is in complete conflict with the below FAQ statement "Blast markers placed in base contact with a ship that took fire do not affect ships near to but not in base contact with that ship."
When in base contact before the movement phase, blast markers affect leadership, movement, shooting and ordnance in contact, as well as in every other respect where blast markers have an effect. A vessel is considered to be moving through blast markers even if it is moving away from blast markers it is in contact with at the beginning of the movement phase, such as blast markers in contact due to a previous round of shooting.
A ship that starts or ends its movement in contact with a blast marker for any reason counts as being in contact with a blast marker in every arc for purposes of movement, shooting or ordnance attacks.
The first sentence and last sentence in the quote are pretty similar statements whose thoughts could be merged. I think it's important to say "movement phase" instead of just movement since the previous is the term to encompass the steps prior to actually moving your ship's (i.e. assigning SO with leadership rolls). These changes look like this:
A ship that starts or ends its movement phase in contact with a blast marker for any reason counts as being in contact with a blast marker in every arc for purposes of leadership, movement, shooting or ordnance in contact, as well as in every other respect where blast markers have an effect. A vessel is considered to be moving through blast markers even if it is moving away from blast markers it is in contact with at the beginning of the movement phase, such as blast markers in contact due to a previous round of shooting.
Page 5
Blast Markers continued...
A ship in base contact with a blast marker counts as being in contact all around it. This includes whether or not other ships are in base contact with it or for purposes of ordnance attacks. Ships firing battery (firepower) weapons at such a vessel suffer a right column shift. Ordnance attacking it must first roll a D6, removing the entire wave or salvo on a roll of 6.
The first sentence in this paragraph is a verbatim repeat of the first sentence in the opening paragraph of the Blast Marker FAQ section. Also, what does "This includes whether or not other ships are in base contact with it or for purposes of ordnance attacks" mean!?
When a ship has multiple bases in contact and its shield goes down, the blast marker may be placed anywhere on the targeted ship‟s base, potentially taking down other ships shields.
This contradicts the BB on page 24 far right column, second paragraph under "Placing Blast Markers": "Blast markers that are caused by shield impacts are placed touching a ships base, facing as much as possible towards the direction the attack came from".
Was the change intentional, if so I think you should state such in the FAQ to clear up any question of precedence. Also, if intentional…I disagree with chaining it! :D
Blast markers cannot affect the bases of ships it is not covering, but it will affect as many bases as it actually can cover, regardless of how many ships are stacked in the space of a single ship's base.
Oh boy, I think this stems from the stacking friendly ruling. What does "covering" mean? You mean touching? If so, please change all references of cover to touch.
Blast markers placed in base contact with a ship that took fire do not affect ships near to but not in base contact with that ship. Place blast markers so they do not touch the bases of ships nearby but not in base contact.
This is a direct contradiction to two statements prior in the Blast Markers section stating that a BM must physically touch a ship base to affect it.
Ships with shields overloaded by taking fire but are otherwise functional do not risk taking damage on a D6 roll of 6.
It's important to keep a consistent lexicon when describing rules so I would replace "shields overloaded by" with "who's shield are down from"
Movement through blast markers reduces speed by a total of 5cm, regardless of how many are moved through in each movement phase.
I would clarify this sentence with a few minor changes:
Movement through blast markers reduces speed by a total of 5cm, regardless of how many blast markers are moved through in a single movement phase.
Russ
-
Page 5
Nova Cannon
Nova Cannon are no longer a guess-range weapon, and it can be fired per-ship as opposed to all at once in the beginning of the turn. When firing, the template is placed anywhere desired so that its edge is between 30-150cm from the firing vessel. It does not have to be centered on a single ship and can be placed in contact with multiple targets. If placed within 45cm of the firing ship, roll a scatter die and 1D6. Roll 2D6 if the template is between 45-60cm of the firing ship, or 3D6 if it is placed beyond 60cm. Move the template a number of cm rolled by the dice in the direction of the scatter die roll. If the scatter die rolls a “hit,†the template remains where placed. Any target that is in base contact of the template after it is moved takes one hit. Any target in base contact of the center hole of the template takes D6 hits. Replace the template with a single blast marker if it does not contact a target after being moved.
Already in current BB, you know how I feel about it also being here! ;)
Page 6
Nova Cannon continued…
The correct dimensions of the Nova Cannon template are a 5cm outer diameter with the holes diameter at 1.2cm. The Nova Cannon‟s dimensions can be found on Games-workshop‟s small green blast template where the Nova Cannon‟s perimeter is marked with a 2, this does not include the width of the line. Use the larger hole in the centre of the template if there are two sizes.
For some reason I feel this should be the first statement in the Nova Cannon section. Also, I would stick to just giving the absolute measurements of the template and avoid mentioning specific template's and their anatomy, least GW make the statement null by creating a new template style in the future.
Holofields and similar systems save against the shell hit, not the subsequent damage rolls. For example, if an Eldar vessel is hit by a Nova Cannon round and fails to save, it must immediately take as many hits as the damage roll allocates unless it successfully braced beforehand.
I would move this paragraph after the below FAQ entry for Nova Cannon Blast and Holofields.
Nova Cannon Blast and Holofields: Although Holofield saves are taken against a direct hit from a Nova Cannon where the hole is over the base, they are not taken against the blast template.
I would replace the final words of this sentence "against the blast template" with "the rest of the template" to support the exception of the actual hole being over the base.
Area Effects and Special Weapons
Some weapon systems such as the Necron Nightmare Field and Star Pulse Generator are area-effect weapons that do not aim nor are directed at a particular target. Such weapons or effects are not blocked by line of sight obstructions such as hulks, minefields or celestial phenomena, nor can they be saved against by holofields.
Chaos Marks that affect nearby ships based on area as well as catastrophic events such as Warp Drive implosions, Solar Flares, etc. are also not affected by celestial phenomena and other such obstructions.
I would take the above statements and distill them down to a definition of an area-effect weapon followed by a list of such weapons…like this:
Area-effect weapons or events do not aim nor are they directed at a particular target. They are not blocked by line of sight obstructions such as hulks, minefields or celestial phenomena, nor can they be saved against by holofields. Necron Nightmare Fields, Star Pulse Generators, Chaos marks that affect nearby ships, warp drive implosions, solar flares, etc. are all area-effect weapons or events.
Exterminatus vessels used in scenarios that require them normally replace their standard prow weapon with an Exterminatus one.
I would reword this sentence as follows:
Ships used as an Exterminatus vessel replace their standard prow weapon with the Exterminatus weapon.
Thus concludes my second round…
Russ
-
I refrained from doing any rewording myself so far (russ appears to be busy with that)
Gah, I can't help it. Nothing is more important then a clearly written rule so it feels like a natural part of the critique. Hope I'm not offending anyone...
Russ
-
I agree with Russ on overlapping..... in case anyone asked. ;)
-
I'm gonna do like other people and quote a bunch of things and point out flaws and make some suggestions. Hopefully that'll be helpful rather than annoying.
This document is intended for use with the Battlefleet Gothic Living Rulebook and Armadas as well as the resources located at the Specialist Games Battlefleet Gothic Resources website.
First of all, the document contains many, many references to "Armadas". These should be changed to "Armada".
Since this document is intended for use with the downloadable versions of the rules shouldn't it contain the missing page 7 info from Armada and shouldn't it not contain updates to the BFG rulebook and Armada that are already included in the .pdfs? If you want the updates to the printed versions to be included I suggest putting them in their own section or at least marking them as such. Keep in mind that there are at least two different English printings of the main rulebook.
For all intents and purposes this supersedes any previously released FAQ. However, it is almost guaranteed that in the course of game play, some situation is going to come up that is not covered by this Q&A.
This is pretty nitpicky, but this document isn't really a FAQ or a Q&A. There are no questions, only new rules and errata.
Special orders are declared before the movement phase by choosing a vessel, declaring the order and rolling leadership, repeating this over and over until a vessel fails its leadership check or all desired vessels have their special orders.
What is the reason for the change to the rules as written? The printed rulebook, the .pdf, and reference sheets all make it pretty clear that you issue orders for a ship/squadron then move it then repeat for each ship/squadron in your fleet.
When escort squadrons are braced or on any special order that halves firepower, the whole squadron adds its firepower and weapon strength together and divides it in half (rounding up).
Why does this rule specifically apply to escort squadrons? A very similar but more complete rule is already in the Shooting section on page 4.
Flying Bases Overlapping: As ships can overlap by flying over/under one another it is possible to stack ships. When ships overlap it is common practice to remove the models from their flying bases. To keep things clear, it is usually best to have a few stemless flying bases around with a straight line draw from the central hole to the bases edge to indicate direction. If desired, numbered contact markers can be used for this as well. The drastic weakening of their shield strength usually discourages this as described in the section on blast markers, but it is completely legal.
Stacking Ships and Escort Squadrons: Cruisers and escorts can be stacked to follow the movement of battleships and other models that use a large base. However, attack craft can select to target vessels with bases “hiding†inside the large base in this manner as long as the attack craft actually have the range to reach the smaller base. Torpedoes still behave normally and cannot select smaller targets in this manner. Ships with bases stacked in this manner may mass turrets against ordnance as described in the relevant section.
I propose a simple change to the rules that will avoid lots and lots of special rules and clarification. I'm taking this idea from how fleeing units handle a similar situation in Warhammer Fantasy. "If a ship ends its movement such that its base overlaps the base of another ship continue to move it directly forward until it is no longer overlapping but still touching the other ship. This may allow a ship to move slightly farther than its maximum movement but helps keep things clear on the tabletop."
Multiple Gunnery Weapons: If a ship or squadron has multiple types of gunnery weapons, like Bombardment Cannons, Heavy Gunz or Standard Weapons Batteries, they may be fired simultaneously. Calculate the dice on the gunnery table separately for each type of gunnery weapon. This means you do not suffer gunnery shifts due to blast markers caused by other members of the same squadron in the same shooting phase. The order in which these weapons hit is up to shooting player, so Bombardment Cannons can hit after weapons batteries have taken down shields for instance, or vice versa if desired.
Are all weapon systems assumed to fire simultaneously? If my ship has both batteries and lances and the battery fire destroys the closest target can the lances then shoot at the next nearest target or are the lance shots wasted?
target aspect or modifier can adjust shooting beyond the far left or right columns on the gunnery table.
This sentence fragment implies the opposite of what I assume you were trying to say.
Ships with multiple lances in a given fire arc may split their weapon strength between two or more targets but must still make a leadership check to fire on any target besides the closest.
Why mentions lances but not batteries? Why mention this at all? Splitting fire of lances and batteries are both clearly allowed by page 21 of the rulebook.
Ships with Blast Markers in Base Contact: A ship in base contact with a blast marker counts as being in contact all around it. If a ship is in base contact with a ship with a blast marker but the blast maker does not touch its own base it does not count as having a blast marker in contact as well.
I've never really seen a need to change the standard rules for placement of blast markers or counting them as all round rather than simply the location they actually occupy. The change to the placement rules makes it almost never worth it for ships (escorts especially) to mass turrets as they become far more vulnerable to simple direct fire weapons. Counting them as all round seems to punish any kind of pincer or envelopment tactic as the second burst of battery fire will be penalised by a blast marker that should only be on the other side of the target.
Holofields and similar systems save against the shell hit, not the subsequent damage rolls. For example, if an Eldar vessel is hit by a Nova Cannon round and fails to save, it must immediately take as many hits as the damage roll allocates unless it successfully braced beforehand.
Nova Cannon Blast and Holofields: Although Holofield saves are taken against a direct hit from a Nova Cannon where the hole is over the base, they are not taken against the blast template. If this save is successful the effect of the Nova Cannon is reduced as if only the template were touching the base. No blast marker is placed. Therefore if the template touches a ships base with holofields it will always cause at least one point of damage, unless the ship is braced.
I know this suggestion will be considered somewhat unconventional but here it is anyhow. I'd allow Holofield saves against both the hole and the blast as long as the shot does not scatter. If it scatters I wouldn't allow Holofield saves against either. This correlates better to the idea that Holofields work against targetted shots but not random happenstance.
Ordnance is launched at the end of the shooting phase as opposed to during the ordnance phase. This means if a given carrier already has attack craft on the table at the beginning of the ordnance phase, it cannot launch any more attack craft that turn unless it recalls markers currently in play and launches new markers from the ship?s base,
even if it has successfully reloaded. This prevents a carrier from attacking a target to expend its attack craft in play and then launching a new attack craft wave in a single turn. This rule does not apply to torpedoes. Ships and defenses that may launch up to twice the number of launch bays they have on the table are not restricted in this manner as long as they do not exceed the number of attack craft markers in play.
This whole section should either be divided or be renamed "Ordnance" rather than "Attack Craft" as it contains many rules pertaining to both.
The timing in the scenario above is off. No carrier can launch attack craft after the beginning of the ordnance phase regardless of how many are already on the board. Also, this scenario implies that attack craft launched by a certain carrier prevent that specific carrier from launching again until they are removed. I always thought only the total number of bays and attack craft on the board mattered. The last sentence would seem to disallow a carrier from launching more craft if it had even a partial wave left on the table. I would assume it could launch another partial wave as long as the total craft on the board was not more than it had bays.
Opposing Resilient Attack Craft: If two markers that both have a 4+ save attack each other and both remain in play, they stop movement and remain in contact until the next ordnance phase. However, if any marker that saves is attacked again in the same phase, it (along with the marker that attacked it) is automatically removed. This save is used one fighter at a time. Following is an extreme example:
1. If two Thunderhawks are attacked by two Eldar fighters, and the first fighter attacks the first Thunderhawk and they both roll a 4+, both markers must immediately stop all movement and subsequent attacks but both remain in play. If the second Eldar fighter now attacks the first Thunderhawk, the first Thunderhawk is automatically removed. If the second Eldar fighter now rolls a 4+ save, it may remain in play but the Eldar ordnance phase is now complete because both ordnance markers used their save and can no longer move or attack.
2. It is now the opponent?s ordnance phase. The sole remaining Thunderhawk may now elect to move away from the two Eldar fighters, or it may elect to attack them. If it does, both it and the Eldar player again roll their 4+ save because it is now a different ordnance phase. Regardless of the outcome, all ordnance markers still surviving after this exchange remain in place until the next player turn because both ordnance phases have already taken place.
Overall I'm very happy with the resilient attack craft rules, but I think this example is incorrect. Since the first Thunderhawk temporarily loses its fighter status after surviving against the first Eldar fighter shouldn't the second Eldar fighter be forced to fight the second Thunderhawk as fighters should always be attacked before other attack craft according to the main rulebook?
Multiple fighters on CAP in base contact with a single ship function as a single wave in all respects. When encountering blast markers, roll once per blast marker for the whole wave, not per squadron marker. This includes if the ship is subsequently destroyed, though they may afterward separate normally if the owning player elects to do so.
Roll once per blast marker? Don't ordnance normally only roll once in a phase no matter how many blast markers they encounter?
Multiple fighters on CAP in base contact with a single ship function as a single wave in all respects. When encountering blast markers, roll once per blast marker for the whole wave, not per squadron marker. This includes if the ship is subsequently destroyed, though they may afterward separate normally if the owning player elects to do so.
Exploding ship with fighters on CAP: If a ship explodes while having fighters on CAP treat the fighters as a wave against the effects of the explosion. Any markers that survive subsequently act as separate ordnance markers that are no longer in a wave.
As has already been pointed out, these two rules are in conflict as to what happens to CAP fighters when their ship is destroyed.
Torpedo Placement in Turn of Launch: A torpedo salvo is now represented with a Strength 2 marker with a D6 indicating the actual salvo strength. Place the torpedo marker at the end of its movement in the turn of launch so that it is completely within the correct fire arc. Now retrace the markers movement reducing its strength as appropriate. When launching torpedoes the torpedo marker will technically be in all arcs and may be in multiple arcs until its final position this movement, it may not interact with anything out of the torpedoes firing arc, no matter how close the target vessel is to the shooting vessel, regardless of how wide the torpedo marker is.
Reducing Torpedo Markers: When reducing a torpedo marker the centre must always be in the same point along the line of fire.
Much of this needs rewording or elimination if the two-wide torpedo marker is going to become the standard. By the way, I'm against that. Preventing salvos larger than six-wide would be acceptable but two-wide markers are just too easy to dodge when fired at range.
Massed Torpedo Salvoes: When launching a combined salvo from a squadron the salvo must be in ALL of the ships appropriate firing arcs and its furthermost edge at the limit of its speed from the furthest ships stem. All the ships firing a combined salvo must be in base to base contact. Note that some ships (such as Ork Ravagers) cannot for any reason combine salvoes in this manner.
This should make some mention of whether or not (I hope not) the salvo can hit the lead ships in such a squadron since the marker is fired from the rearmost ship.
Splitting Torpedo Salvoes: Single ships capable of launching six or less torpedoes cannot split torpedo salvoes. Ships capable of launching salvoes larger than six may split their salvoes in two, but no single salvo can contain less than four torpedoes.
This rule seems clunky and arbitrary. It also makes no mentions of whether/how squadrons firing massed salvoes can split them. I also think that the number of torpedoes needs to be larger than 7 rather than 6 to be split as described. I would either allow splitting however you like (especially if the two-wide marker is becoming the standard) or not allow splitting at all.
Turret Suppression Rules: Each fighter in a wave of bombers attacking a ship will add +1 attack to the total attack runs of the wave, regardless of whether they are shot down by turrets or not. The maximum number of bonus attacks that can be added in this way cannot exceed the number of bombers in the wave. There must be at least one surviving bomber in the wave after turret fire to gain these bonus attacks andfighters are removed before any other type of ordnance. The number of turrets on the defending ship does not affect this bonus. Fighters that never made it because they were intercepted by defending fighters (even those on CAP) don?t add to this suppression bonus. Ork Fighta-Bommas work slightly differently, as illustrated in their section.
Assuming it's not a typo and that this is an actual change to turret suppression, I love it. I always hated that in certain circumstances it was somehow worse for a ship to have more turrets.
Crippling a vessel constitutes a permanent change to its turret value and thus the maximum number of attacks that can be gained by supporting fighters. A crippled Lunar will only have 1 turret and so you can only gain a maximum of +1 attack due to fighter support.
With the change to turret suppression this rule makes no sense at all.
I'll tackle more later.
-
Oh boy, nice draft. :o
Overall I like it although it still contains a lot of errors (as has already been pointed out).
Just a few comments/questions which I hope haven't been mentioned before.
p.8 Resilient Attack Craft
The last part of the example "...because both ordnance phases have already taken place." is confusing. There is one ordnance phase per turn, never two.
p.10 Torpedoes
Please don't do this (see my post in the ordnance thread).
p.11 Turret Suppression
I like the fact that fighter support is now limited by attacking bombers, not defending turrets. But theres a lot of references left in the faq which still mention turrets in relation to fighter support and are now confusing.
Just to make sure:
If two bombers and two fighters in a wave attack a ship with 3 turrets and 3 get shot down, the remaining 'wave' will make [d6-3]+2 for a total of 2-5 attacks? Is this correct?
p.13 Hit and Run Attacks
I don't see a need to allow ships on LO/RO special orders teleport attacks. The rule is straightforward and the fluff behind it makes sense to me. On special orders the ships crew is too busy and its energy is needed elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the fact that its weapon strength has been halved.
In an engagement at close range this change will benefit the side which already has the upper hand (less ships on BFI), is this the intention?
p.14 Example of Ork RokZ getting beat up by a Retribution
Seems to imply that I roll 12 dice for critical damage for the first rok and then another 6 dice for the second. This can't be right.
p.27 Eldar Holofields vs Boarding
I'm still not sure how holofields save against boarding. Once against the boarding attempt in general or once against each hit suffered in a boarding action?
p.28 Eldar Haven Spire
May I endeavor to ask how many hits that shining marble sports?
p.34 Demiurg cutting beam at extended range
That's a nice idea but (in Armada) the beam starts at strength 1 not 0 (has been pointed out before).
I think it would be better with a wording like:
"The cutting beams range can be increased to 30cm by halving its effective strength (rounding down)."
-
Hi,
p13, this has mainly to do with Necron and Space Marines iirc.
p27 this is in the rulebook
-
Ramilies: you say the ramilies can now rotate 45 degrees per turn, which is all well and good, but maybe you should specify that it always rotates in the same direction, to avoid some very odd tactics involving Ramilies that oscillate and spin all over the place.
-
Good point. I'll fix this.
Ramilies: you say the ramilies can now rotate 45 degrees per turn, which is all well and good, but maybe you should specify that it always rotates in the same direction, to avoid some very odd tactics involving Ramilies that oscillate and spin all over the place.
-
p.27 Eldar Holofields vs Boarding
I'm still not sure how holofields save against boarding. Once against the boarding attempt in general or once against each hit suffered in a boarding action?
Good catch. Against raming and boarding, they save once against the ramming or boarding attempt, NOT against any damage suffered if this save fails.
p.28 Eldar Haven Spire
May I endeavor to ask how many hits that shining marble sports?
8Hp. I am updating a separate "Eldar Domains" draft that addresses the Haven, Eldar Transport, crew skills etc.
p.34 Demiurg cutting beam at extended range
That's a nice idea but (in Armada) the beam starts at strength 1 not 0 (has been pointed out before).
I think it would be better with a wording like:
"The cutting beams range can be increased to 30cm by halving its effective strength (rounding down)."
Good catch. Fixed. I also added that the cutting beam is never less than strength one.
-
p.8 Resilient Attack Craft
The last part of the example "...because both ordnance phases have already taken place." is confusing. There is one ordnance phase per turn, never two.
Good catch. I have fixed this to say "...the ordnance phase for each player has taken place."
p.11 Turret Suppression
I like the fact that fighter support is now limited by attacking bombers, not defending turrets. But theres a lot of references left in the faq which still mention turrets in relation to fighter support and are now confusing.
Just to make sure:
If two bombers and two fighters in a wave attack a ship with 3 turrets and 3 get shot down, the remaining 'wave' will make [d6-3]+2 for a total of 2-5 attacks? Is this correct?
Correct.
p.14 Example of Ork RokZ getting beat up by a Retribution
Seems to imply that I roll 12 dice for critical damage for the first rok and then another 6 dice for the second. This can't be right.
This entire example was buggered up. I fixed it using a squad of three Dauntless CL's against a squad of three Carnages so the example would make much more sense and to clarify this was NOT something unique to Ork Roks.
-
Is any of this ever going to be consolidated into a downloadable resource in an official capacity?
-
The pdf is available. At the yahoo group a more final draft has been posted. So I guess it'll be at GW within months.
-
Nate,
Unless I missed it someplace, could you share your thoughts on why HA has chosen a STR2 marker for torps instead of something larger and how you do (or don't) see the feeling of torp game play changing?
Thanks!
Russ
-
1. I think we should standardize all ordnance bases to 2x2cm squares
2. will there be a fleet commander for an "all Demiurge fleet"? especially one that is 750pts +?
-
Could this be split into 3 sections - rules updates, fleet section and the FAQ. Trawling through 38 pages to find a few rules changes isn't going to be fun for the first few games trying them out, especially when you remember reading something and can't find it again.
-
2. will there be a fleet commander for an "all Demiurg fleet"? especially one that is 750pts +?
Looking at the fluff, I would argue no because it doesn't seem to indicate that level of organisation to their society. You really don't need one with their Ld values anyways.
-Zhukov
-
Not for ld boost but for reroll options and legality
-
Check the kor'or'vesh pdf in the Tau thread draft!
-
Legality? Necron and Tyranid don't use fleet commanders so no fleet commanders for Demiurg isn't a problem.
-Zhukov
-
Any updates to the WIP FAQ? Haven't been able to log in easily here.
-
Some late notes:
I never asked the queston what was up with the double mark of nurgle in the Powers of Chaos list when taking the Terminus Est and the Nurgle Warmaster... wasted points!
Orks:
The Fighter Bomber sequence. It all starts well and I understand and then comes the paragraph below: When a wave of ... ... ship actually has turrets. Now I lost it and do not understand them anymore.
Eldar:
Flame of Asuryan weapon labelling (adressed at Yahoo).
Adeptus Mechanicus:
Here is a noodle : in the archmagos entry it is stated that the Magos is placed on a ship BEFORE the leadership is rolled. Isn't it normal that first leadership is rolled and the admiral or equivalent is placed?
Imperial Navy:
Apocalypse not taking 1 hit from the locked on special rules. Yeee-haa!
Allies:
I think Dark Eldar can and will join with Craftworld Eldar and Corsair Eldar, especially Corsair if the circumstances say so. I mean, they're dying and not entirely stupid.... (wait,... official Eldar are... no defence vs mon-keigh weapon batteries say that they are stupid. lol lol lol ;) ).
General fleet restrictions:
Craftworld Eldar attack rating of 3. Thanks ;)
Disengaging from a capital ship squadron: well disengaging 1 vessel opposed the whole team makes it somewhat better but I still see no logic in having BFI count for the whole squadron.
Massed turrets:
It says that a ship can get +3 extra turrets from three other vessels in base contact. Assume: 1 Sword gets turrets from 3 Firestorms. That is 5 dice for the Sword.
But when afterwards (in the same phase) one of the Firestorms is attacked, may that Firestorm get a +1 from the Sword, or any other Firestorm?
Is the massing unlimited per phase?
-
Hi,
played a game with FAQ2010:
* Torpedoe's on strength 2 marker: works. Did not change gameplay. My opponent being happy on this new rule as he found the previous wide markers ridiculous (he is an IN / Ork / Chaos / Eldar player so knows to shoot and receive torps).
* Fighter Bombers: we both agreed that the new fighter bomber rules make them much to weak and that they are badly written down.
-
Playtested using the new FAQ:
- Same result with torpedoes, it was a lot more organized and standardized things. I did notice on our printouts that 2 torp marker is a bit smaller then the WHFB base so it still makes things a lil hard for 3D modeling.
- Turret massing (can't remember if that was new) was very simplified.
- New FoA costing for hero and flame rules are a nice fit.
- Shadowhunters are awful now lol
- Battery on Dragonship from 16 to 14... didn't really notice.
-
I strongly suggest that we keep the old fighter bomber rules. Allow me to explain my madness.
First things first. The Orks have to split their ordnance between two functions (both as fighters and as bombers), which means they lack flexibility.
Secondly, the odds of an ork craft reloading are part of the big bad joke that the ork fleet is known for.
So lets let them keep their shockingly powerful fighter bombers... they only get one shot and they are not exactly hard to counter.
I already made my rage known about the shadow hunters...
When i looked at the gunnary table, the difference for eldar batteries between 16 and 14 can be anywhere between 1 and 3 dice.. not huge i confess, but i never was a fan of 'balance by nerfing'. I think it would have been better to make it 4 pulsars instead. Call me a freak if you like :P
seriously.. no FLR Hero ship... that just makes my brain melt.
-
Secondly, the odds of an ork craft reloading are part of the big bad joke that the ork fleet is known for.[/qiote]
I think Deadshane would disagree with that. He has never mentioned a problem with his adepticon fleet reloading ordnance, though granted he does take a good number of rerolls IIRC.
-
When your average LD is 7 (on a good day), reloading becomes a problem. Not a HUGE problem, but a problem nonetheless.
-
Nah, my Ork opponent does manage his reloads most of the times. There is no problem with Ork Leadership in the overall game.
Fighter Bombers are now too weak though.
And Zelnik, 4 Pulsars is a no-no. ;)
-
Ork FBs should be getting a lot of attacks but they need to have worse chances of damaging a target. They should be rolling against lowest Armor+1 up to max of 6.
-
I'm playing a game tomorrow and am going to put the 2010 FAQ to a playtest. Are the rules initially posted in this thread still the most up-to-date? Just want to make sure before spend time rifling back through the FAQ as we play.
Thanks,
Russ
-
Check the two threads made by Nate (flybywire) which are labelled faq clarifications pt1 & 2.
-
okay... Again, why can't we just leave the fighta-bomber rules the same as they were before?
-
Well, Zelnik, I believe they have abandoned us once again (check out the Tau thread(s)). They took the info they wanted from us and molded something....
Just like Genestealers or so I guess.
-
As a casual fairweather ork player, I definitly have had problems with ordnance reloading in my fleets. I really hope fighta bombas are changed, so I can buy more of a fleet. Because Orks don't need a nerf, and the fighta bombas were a fine orky thing.
I've expressed before my sadness with the torpedo rules. The Imperialy Navy I have always imagined playing as a wall of torps you must go around.
Now its much easier to, in theory.
This IS a WIP file right? Its great to see life in BFG but with all the errors people brought up, will it be changed and clarified to crystal purity?
-
'Torpedo Placement in Turn of Launch: A torpedo salvo is now represented with a Strength 2 marker with a D6 indicating the actual salvo strength. Place the torpedo marker at the end of its movement in the turn of launch so that it is completely within the correct fire arc. Now retrace the markers movement reducing its strength as appropriate. When launching torpedoes the torpedo marker will technically be in all arcs and may be in multiple arcs until its final position this movement, it may not interact with anything out of the torpedoes firing arc, no matter how close the target vessel is to the shooting vessel, regardless of how wide the torpedo marker is.'
This doesn't make sense to me. Whats this 'all arcs' business. And 'how wide the torpedo marker is'? Its all the same length now.
Edit: And as I see no points cost on the power rams, is that simply something that all Imperial cap ships now have standard? (Barring NC ones)
-
Generally speaking, weapons are limited to the arc they are located in unless otherwise noted. Left for port, right for starboard and front for prow. Torps however are ordnance and their main rule is that as long as they hit and opponent's base, it wouldn't matter if the ship was declared to be in the port or starboard arcs rather than the prow.
The torps when attacking will also depend on which arc it hits the opponent. Some opponents have different armor values. Orks for example. 6+ prow and 4+ rear. So if the torp hits the prow, it will roll vs 6+ whereas if it rolls in the remaining arcs, it will roll 4+.
-
After reading over it a few times, I think I understand what you are saying. That, essentially, I cant say 'Those torps dont hit me because my ship isnt currently in your front arc'?
Also, are power rams now standard on imperium ships that dont have nova cannons? I'd need to inform my group :)
Edit: Save the Bommas! ^^
Or...or I wont buy the ork fleet im now considering!
-
Power Rams are a +5 pts upgrade. Not standard.
-
After reading through all the pages of the v2.0 FAQ2010 here are my final notes:
page 3, Movement:
Good to see your clarification that stacking should not be abused. I can play with that.
page 4, Blast Markers:
The last sentence in the section concerning Eldar. "This leadership check ..." confuses me.
Eldar don't get a leadership check for blast markers. The way I've played it an Eldar ship would just roll once against a D6 if it encountered both a gas/dust cloud and a blast marker in its movement. Since the number of blast markers moved through doesn't matter, it doesn't matter in this case wether the Eldar can ignore one of them. Is this not correct?
page 5, Nova Cannon:
You dropped the idea of the blast template not being saveable by Holofields, but kept it for the Armageddon Gun? As a CE player I thought it was ok.
page 9, Massing Turrets and Turret Suppression:
There is still a wrong number in the example with the Emperor. "The four bombers now each roll ..." should be three instead.
The second last section (crippled Lunar) is no longer needed and should be dropped since turret suppression is now limited by attacking bombers.
page 10, Boarding Actions:
Does the upper limit of 10 apply in general or only to the example? Crazy circumstances could push this much further.
page 10, Hit and Run Attacks:
I have no doubt the proposed rules will work and are fair.
But (sorry for repeating myself in this case) here I can't follow the logic of the FAQ as a whole.
One rule weakens H&R (saveable by BFI) the other strengthens it (allowed on SO). Both are additions to the original rules. Why not drop both and keep the rules simpler? I'd prefer H&R destroy escorts on 5+ over 4+ combined with BFI save.
page 22, Eldar Ordnance:
The second section is outdated as it references the old turret suppresion rules.
page 28, Demiurg cutting beam:
The rules now work exactly as I was hoping for - Wonderful ;D
-
There seem to be some rather significant changes in there. Why can the armageddon take a NC? Why did you revert to allowing the holofield save against the auto 1 hit from the NC? Why does the exorcist now get AB?
-
There's been an v.2 update? Where can I get it?
Re Vaaish points, Armageddon is a logical extension since the Lunar can get one. Not really that effective since one will have to choose bet the NC and the broadside weapons.
Holofield reversion is pretty much the suck. Eldar should not get any save from the blast effects. They're paper. Let them be paper.
Exorcist getting ABs is 50-50 with me since I rarely use the ABs. However, makes me wonder why they can introduce this change to the Exorcist and still be against swapping the TH and Shield value of the SC.
-
Admiral, I understand that, but I'm curious as to why the changes showed up. The armageddon doesn't need the NC upgrade with its lances and it gave the tyrant some use if you wanted NC in the armageddon fleet beyond reserving in a dominator. Same goes for the exorcist why give it AB and second, why charge 10 points for it when all other ships with access only pay 5.
-
" In a pure Demiurg fleet, up to one Stronghold commerce vessel may be taken for every two Bastion commerce vessels in the fleet, though there is no limit to the number of Bastions the fleet may contain."
What about citadel vessels ... these will not qualify to get a stronghold?
-
Admiral, I understand that, but I'm curious as to why the changes showed up. The armageddon doesn't need the NC upgrade with its lances and it gave the tyrant some use if you wanted NC in the armageddon fleet beyond reserving in a dominator. Same goes for the exorcist why give it AB and second, why charge 10 points for it when all other ships with access only pay 5.
Cheaper access to NC for BC class ships? Probably better to have gone onto the Overlord but hey, still cheaper than the Mars.
Having no access to the latest PDF, I don't know why they gave it the AB at such a steep price. Maybe the designers considered it as a ship large enough to take in the AB squadrons. Hey the Vengeance prows must be good for something. ;D
-
the overlord, being in essence a souped up tyrant, should also get the nova cannon option
-
It is not. It's a longer ranged Tyrant but in no way is it souped up.
-
Hi,
Even with the remark I dislike all and everything about overlapping.
A ship that starts or ends its movement in contact with a blast marker for any reason counts as being in contact with a blast marker all around it and in every arc for purposes of movement, shooting or ordnance attacks.
Does that mean that if I have a ship in contact with a blastmarker and move away it still has the effect of the blastmarker 20cm further away? Thus I suffer a shift to the right when shooting because the blastmarker counts as being all around. (Obnoxious rule that counts all around, blech bah boo). 20cm away. That is what you write here. It also means that 20cm away from the marker it still counts as being in contact thus that means every ordnance I envounter in my movement or that attacks me in my ordnance phase must roll a d6 to avoid collision with the blastmarker.
Noodles I call.
Eldar holofield: reason for change is the massive flak the FAQ got on it from the people at Yahoo. (Yes, yahoo BFG and Forum BFG is almost an entire different gaming kind of people ;) ). In all cases I don't mind since I don't play offiical Eldar but if I would then I liked the non-saveable holofield template hit.
torpedoes"str.3 marker vs 2cm2cm. If both use the same it has no effect. Works together at the same time as well.
Allies: Dark Eldar will be allies with Corsair & Craftworld Eldar if it both suits their needs (survival of race).
Flame of Asuryan: still no reason why the keel pulsar is swivelling.
Shadowhunters; this rule is still blechy. So Eldar do suicide runs.... fly into bomber marker... bomber makes d6 attacks, then against 4+ armour, then holofield... with re-roll. Naah, not so Eldar.
Fighter bomber explanation still confusing and in the end downgrades them by a large margin.
Tyranids: evolutions only if people agree. Good enough... I hope ;)
-
Eldar holofield: reason for change is the massive flak the FAQ got on it from the people at Yahoo.
I remember that thread. In fact, I just pulled it up and reviewed it. I really didn't see anything in there that provided any solid reason why it should revert to getting a holofield save.
The discussion seemed to boil down to two parties, one saying the rules specifically say any other form of attack so Eldar get the holofield save plus it's instakill for escorts. The other saying, WB are area affect and thus the column shift rather than holofield since NC are area of effect weapons outside of the center hole, they should not grant the eldar a save.
Seeing that we've already rewritten other rules in the past, I see no reason that the current wording would prevent the change. Second, It's not instakill, Eldar just have to think a bit more about bracing their escorts like the rest of us. Third, most times you will only hit one escort and most corsair fleets like taking nearly all escorts. That means even if you do instakill the escort you won't be making any significant headway before eldar can ship the NC down.
I really think this is one that should be allowed. It's not kowtowing to IN players, it just makes IN slightly more viable against eldar.
-
I agree, you know. :)
-
Yup. Only those biased towards Eldar would really like to maintain the status quo.
-
Admiral, no offense, but that was really out of line. I want to maintain the status quo because it's how the game was made. I started with Tau, and didn't start eldar until I had four other fleets.. I barely play them over my chaos or imperial navy.
Why do i want them to stay the same? because they were balanced that way. I honestly believe that most of the people who try and change their rules are doing so because they can't change their tactics to compensate!
Why the heck are you giving the overlord and Armageddon nova cannon upgrades?! are you MAD? Nova cannons are NOT meant to go on every imperial navy ship! if you do that, you take away one of the special rules that the Adeptus Mechanus have unique to them!
Why don't they have them? because fleets with 5 nova cannons ruin the game. Why doesn't the Armageddon get a nova cannon? because if it shouldn't! the nova cannon is a standard 20 point upgrade across the fleet, even in the admech. Also, why take the Mars, when you can take the cheaper Dictator now? Why not give IT a nova cannon too?
Why am I so against you screwing with the game? because everything that comes out of your writing will probably ruin it! What makes this game great is that there are NO major changes over time, unlike the disaster which is 40k. It's one thing to give a Repulsive a third shield, but giving the IN access to even MORE nova cannons, or accusing "eldar sympathizers" of resisting the change.. How in the world did you become a member of the HA??
-
lol @ zelnik.
HA =
flybywire = Nate Montes (z?)
Raysokuk = Ray Bell
Patriarch = Bob Henderson
Admiral d'artagnas has the same veteran status like you and me.
Why do i want them to stay the same? because they were balanced that way. I honestly believe that most of the people who try and change their rules are doing so because they can't change their tactics to compensate!
That is a 50/50 statement. Some people are indeed tactical nitwits and ask for changes but people like Sigoroth, Vaaish, Admiral D'Artagnan, Russc, you and me etc are tactical enough to make that difference.
Eldar official rules are just plain wrong. Space Marines are now getting a needed update. Rogue Traders finally fleshed out. Funky rules for the Eldar Haven. And since FW removed the pdf for the Tau fleet it was given to make a new Tau pdf upon the FW models. Mind you, the FW fleet was not unbalanced but it was bland and not innovative. The new rules are for unique, cool within a balanced enviroment.
The FAQ 2010, you know, it is impossible to please everyone. That just is fact. Every player has his vision. Sometimes the same, sometimes different. You need to go to a middle point. I think the HA did a pretty good job with this FAQ2010.
The Nova Cannon upgrade was a 'surprise' but I don't see Nova Cannon spam as 'wrong' within the current rules. I don't mind the option, I don't mind a removal so to say.
-
Admiral, no offense, but that was really out of line. I want to maintain the status quo because it's how the game was made. I started with Tau, and didn't start eldar until I had four other fleets.. I barely play them over my chaos or imperial navy.
What status quo? Oh the one where IN have almost 0% chance of ever winning against Eldar? That status quo? Sorry but in the interest of BALANCE, that should be changed.
Why do i want them to stay the same? because they were balanced that way. I honestly believe that most of the people who try and change their rules are doing so because they can't change their tactics to compensate!
Really? Have you EVER tried playing IN vs Eldar?
Why the heck are you giving the overlord and Armageddon nova cannon upgrades?! are you MAD? Nova cannons are NOT meant to go on every imperial navy ship! if you do that, you take away one of the special rules that the Adeptus Mechanus have unique to them!
Why don't they have them? because fleets with 5 nova cannons ruin the game. Why doesn't the Armageddon get a nova cannon? because if it shouldn't! the nova cannon is a standard 20 point upgrade across the fleet, even in the admech. Also, why take the Mars, when you can take the cheaper Dictator now? Why not give IT a nova cannon too?
I'm not the one giving them the NC. The HA are the ones giving it to the Armageddon and Armageddon ONLY. Please read the new draft. I'm on the fence actually. I think it's a waste personally since the 45 cm broadside lances would be wasted. I only suggested the Overlord because, let's face it, that ship needs all the help it can get.
As for the NC, Eldar should not really be getting any save when the outer template hits them anyway. It's in effect, an area effect explosion. How the Eldar can save it with their holofields is very much questionable indeed. I can understand saving against the center hole, but not the outer template.
Why am I so against you screwing with the game? because everything that comes out of your writing will probably ruin it! What makes this game great is that there are NO major changes over time, unlike the disaster which is 40k. It's one thing to give a Repulsive a third shield, but giving the IN access to even MORE nova cannons, or accusing "eldar sympathizers" of resisting the change.. How in the world did you become a member of the HA??
Screwing with the game? Really? Problems have already been identified and needs changing. And yes, most of those who are Eldar sympathizers are the ones resisting the change. When a race virtually can't win against another faction, it means there is a problem. IN do not have any weapons on their basic cruisers and escorts which can reach the Eldar with their present rules. One needs to invest in BCs and battleships which really, Eldar can just play the movement game against. Why do you think MMS was proposed as unofficial rules? Because MSM IS broken (move, shoot and hide behind terrain). Eldar weaponry IS broken (re-rolling torps, str 1 lance which can hit up to 3x). Eldar Defenses are obscenely broken (weakness only vs WB, superb against everything else). And if you can't see that then you need to play IN vs Eldar some more, maybe even Orks vs Eldar.
And who said I was a member of the HA? The things I propose are from a player's point of view. I try to bring as balanced a change as I possibly can (1TH instead of 2 TH for SC in exchange for another shield, Eldar holofields which still get 1 right column shift vs WBs but lances change to hit on a 5+ with re-roll or straight 6+ with no re-roll as examples) When I propose a change in something, I try to balance addition with subtraction unless the subject in question is utterly rubbish that it needs all the help it can get (like NC on Overlord for +20, +20!!!) or the subject is so strong that it needs to be toned down, a subject like, oh... ELDAR!
If Eldar played more like Dark Eldar, you won't hear much complaints from me.
-
4.) In regard to point 2, in my opinion it's best to create clarifications that enhance the game by making rule scenarios simpler to understand and minimize the edge cases that cause confusion, disputes, or vagary. Any rule that creates the need for more rules to justify or clarify is a classic indicator that something is mechanically wrong. A good example of a simplified rule in action is the choice for blast markers affecting all around a base. Sure it makes some tactical decisions moot, but it does a grand job of simplifying situations, avoiding vagary, and thus keeping the game moving while retaining the essence of the original rules. The shortest path to achieving the same results with overlapping bases is of course to not allow any overlapping at all, but this might provide to much compromise to the essence of the game. Instead I offer a shorter path to simplicity at less of a sacrifice: allow non-friendly overlapping.
While I completely agree that overlapping bases should be avoided at all costs (even enemy bases), your example of a "simplified rule in action" is bad. The all-round BM rule is a complication, not a simplification. The gunnery rules state that if your line of fire from the firing ship to the target passes through a BM then you get a right shift. Clean, simple, elegant. The all-round BM rule is counter-intuitive since you could have a clear line but still count as firing through BMs. It complicates the rules, reduces the tactical depth of the game and, more than that, was completely unnecessary.
-
I agree, you know.
I know, but I wanted to raise the point again over here.
Why the heck are you giving the overlord and Armageddon nova cannon upgrades?! are you MAD? Nova cannons are NOT meant to go on every imperial navy ship! if you do that, you take away one of the special rules that the Adeptus Mechanus have unique to them!
This is what I would like to know. It just showed up in the latest draft along with some other odd little changes that don't seem necessary.
-
The eldar players are not responsible for your lack of tactics, admiral.
One of my first fights with my imperial navy, WAS eldar.. they even had the super-scary void stalker.
I mopped the floor with him, AND trashed the void stalker before it had a chance to make a shot. I even used the 'horrible' and 'terrible' endeavor light cruiser to do it.
And when it comes to the overlord, Again, if you can't figure out how to use it, that's not reason to change it.
I have a 1500 point fleet where i use two squadroned overlords as the primary 'hammer' of the fleet, and it does a number on just about every fleet i have played it against.
And if you were wondering... Just like how the space marines are not meant to win every game, the eldar are meant to win a LOT... why? because they have a hell of a lot more experience at space combat then almost any other faction. If you want to win against Eldar, bring tyrants or overlords, or change your tactics.
There are a LOT of similar complaints about the dwarves in blood bowl, but they have not changed because they are supposed to be a challenge to play against. Just like the eldar and necrons in BFG.
Perhaps you should start a thread on "how to beat eldar with IN" instead of trying to change the whole game, and insulting some of the players at the same time.
-
Aha! Don't tailor. ;) Thus do not take Overlords or Tyrants just because you fight Eldar. You use them because they are your core 1500pts choices.
A Void Stalker that made no shot... I love to read that battle report. Was it an experienced Eldar player? If so he deserves a beating from Asuryan himself ;)
The Overlord is dropped by the largest margin of players, not only the Admiral D'Artagnan. Maybe not because it is bad ship but because there are much better ships to pick.
/sidenote here
Zelnik does have a fair bit of completely different vision on tactics - ship choices within BFG. (The grog-o-matics). I am not saying it is worse or better, just that is should be noted. With different I mean different from what the common choices are. Also from a powergamers view.
But I'd call it game. Open a thread on how the Imperial Navy should beat a Corsair Eldar fleet.
And with Corsair Eldar I mean: no Hellebores for sure. :)
-
Thanks Horizon.
And to answer your question.. It involved three endeavors, all ahead full, and a small planet.
-
AAF? 4d6, max = 24cm plus 20cm base = 44cm. small planet, gravity well ~5-10cm. But as said that was max move.
Nice AAF for sure and totally bad foresight from the Eldar player if he tried to hide the VS behind a planet.
On: Endeavour batteries: 8 at 30cm. On AAF halved. so total you had 3x4 = 12 batteries.
12 batteries at 4+ armour (unkown positioning). But, jeez, give it max, closing capital within 15cm = 8 dice (holo shift).
Thus 8 dice at 4+ armour. Per average that would be 4 hits.
So that means you got some great lucky and good dice along the way to kill the Void Stalker in one strike.
!
-
The eldar players are not responsible for your lack of tactics, admiral.
Again you are assuming I lack tactics. That's the second time you have accused me of that. Why not I just assume your playing group is the one that lacks tactics for not using Eldar effectively because you can beat them with your IN consistently? The fact is there are almost no tactics which can be viable against Eldar with IN unless one does decide to tailor and even then the tailored ships are still in trouble because Eldar will be taking multiple squadrons of Hemlocks and Nightshades. Hemlocks, assuming 3 per squadron will fire anywhere bet 3 to 9 lance shots then zip away while Nightshades will be firing 6 re-rollable torps each squad of 3 and then zip away AND hide behind TERRAIN which every Eldar player will make sure to be on the table.
One of my first fights with my imperial navy, WAS eldar.. they even had the super-scary void stalker.
News Flash: The VS isn't the scary one.
I mopped the floor with him, AND trashed the void stalker before it had a chance to make a shot. I even used the 'horrible' and 'terrible' endeavor light cruiser to do it.
Haha well, fine, you had one good game. And how long has this Eldar player been playing? How many games has he had under his belt? How many times have you gamed? What did he bring against your IN and what was your IN's composition? Hint: if he was not bringing the Nightshades or the Hemlocks enmasse, he's not a true Eldar player.
Again, one good game does not break the facts, especially if you're tailoring by bringing 45 cm to 60 cm ships like the Overlord and Tyrant. Try using that same list against Chaos or other races and see your list burn.
And when it comes to the overlord, Again, if you can't figure out how to use it, that's not reason to change it.
I have a 1500 point fleet where i use two squadroned overlords as the primary 'hammer' of the fleet, and it does a number on just about every fleet i have played it against.
So what are you afraid of if the Overlord gets an NC? It still bumps up the cost to 250. It's not like it comes for free. It's not a question of I can't figure out how to use it effectively. It's an issue of there are other better ships which can take its place. Vengeance, Exorcists, Armageddon. That's the problem with the Overlord. Sure you can bring two. I can also being 2 Armageddons, 2 Vengeances or 2 Exorcists and I'd have more firepower to bear.
Hammer? Funny. Hammer with what? Your FP16 WBs with right column shifts for ranges above 30 cm? I'm so scared.
And if you were wondering... Just like how the space marines are not meant to win every game, the eldar are meant to win a LOT... why? because they have a hell of a lot more experience at space combat then almost any other faction. If you want to win against Eldar, bring tyrants or overlords, or change your tactics.
I don't mind Eldar winning a lot. I mind when there is virtually no chance of IN winning unless it tailors.
There are a LOT of similar complaints about the dwarves in blood bowl, but they have not changed because they are supposed to be a challenge to play against. Just like the eldar and necrons in BFG.
Perhaps you should start a thread on "how to beat eldar with IN" instead of trying to change the whole game, and insulting some of the players at the same time.
Again, challenge is meaningless if your fleet cannot win unless one has to tailor.
Insult? I haven't insulted you or anyone. In fact it's you who has been going out of the way insinuating people are dumb because they lack tactics. All I have said are it's the ones who are biased towards Eldar who would like to maintain the status quo. What's insulting or out of line about that? Is it false?
FYI, I'm not even one who proposed MMS. It was another Eldar player who decided that MMS was broken and wanted to institute another change to give the other players like IN (and Orks) a chance to win. Don't go harping at me.
And tell me, what's so bad about the NC's outer template doing 1 hit? Maybe finally Eldar will be forced to use that Special Order, BFI, which other races use consistently while Eldar do nothing but rely on their superb holofields.
-
why not NC on Armageddons and Overlord
imo make more sense there than on lunars, tyrants, or dominators
-
Ahem, Dominators are build around it so from that viewpoint... ;)
And I am half responsible for seeing MMS online in the first place. Pestering ;) that certain member made him post it. History shows what happened. <grin>
-
As far as novas go, the fewer the better. Simply because it makes the much more specialized admech worth it to collect a unique fleet, which a friend of mine is currently doing.
And for what its worth, MMS Eldar are now, to me, the only official Eldar :)
-
Yup. I'm actually fine with only the Lunar and Tyrant getting the NC. Personally, I would prefer the NC get a boost but then get limited in access. Aligns it with the fluff.
As it is, I'm on the fence with the Armageddon getting it. 265 points isn't cheap so I'd still stick to the Dominators and Lunars for the non-Gothic lists.
-
Eldar vs NC:
Well, the NC is a directed weapon. So holofields should have some effect. The blast, however, is AoE. I myself would allow Eldar targets to move the template by up to 1cm after the scatter, to represent the holofields throwing off the aim (or rather, the ships not being where they appear relative to the blast). Otherwise no save. Of course, this is presupposing the original Eldar rules. But they're so broken as to be laughable, so it doesn't really matter anyway.
@Zelnik
From the years I've been on BFG forums and to what extent that allows someone to get to know someone I doubt that you'll find too much fault in Admiral d'Artagnan's tactics. I myself have lost once with Eldar. It was against IN, but there were quite a few extenuating circumstances and it was a slim loss. My gaming group have long since given up trying to fight Eldar.
Mind you, we followed the battlezone selection rules using strategy ratings as shown in the rulebook. This meant that in the vast majority of scenarios battles took place in the Outer Reaches. I always had sufficient terrain in which to manoeuvre. If, for whatever reason, Eldar ever find themselves without terrain then they're royally boned. I can only presume that in your victory against Eldar they had no terrain.
As for the Overlord, it's a hunk of junk. As are Tyrants for that matter. Out of my some 30 odd IN cruisers I posses no Overlords. I have 8 Armageddon and 4 Mars, no Overlords. Plenty of Dominators, Dictators, Gothics and even some Lunars. I don't have Tyrants, but could easily make them I suppose.
Anyway, the NC was supposed to be rare and so the Dom and Mars are the only ships to come with them standard. The Tyrant and Lunar have the option to be refit with them. This isn't all that unreasonable, since "rare" could mean "not fleet-wide" or "non-standard", etc. Presumably as time goes on more and more ships would be refit with NCs. So, since the Armageddon is an upgraded Lunar it stands to reason that some of the Lunars that got the refit to become Armageddons might have had the NC. Of course, this is a percentage of a percentage, so the rule didn't need to be added.
-
Fluff should guide rules
Giving nc options to the overlord and Armageddon would make both ships more appealing so we all would see more of them. Since 3 standard cruisers could take them already giving the option to the overlord and Armageddon won't really increase nc spam will it.
-
Armageddon's are a common sight. The Overlord's are the rare ones.
-
I say if theres a ship that has a problem, dont add a nova cannon, fix the ship :)
Lord knows some IN cruisers need it.
-
I wouldn't recommend an a cruiser fix by adding an NC myself.
-
The Armageddon is the strongest battlecruiser at the imperial navy's disposal. It does NOT need a nova cannon.
When i look at the three battlecruisers, i view them as different tools for different jobs. The mars literally says "stay back and pound the enemy from afar", The Overlord says "Long range support" and the armageddon screams "GET IN AND SCREW PEOPLE UP IN THE FACE!!!"