Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: flybywire-E2C on August 22, 2010, 03:14:17 AM
-
We have prepared draft rules for the Rogue Traders and Pirates Fleet Lists, but the upload folder is full. If you wish, the file can be seen here:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/bfg-list/files/-%202010%20FAQ%2C%20Errata%20%26%20Additions/
We would like to hear any thoughts about these before we try to get them cleaned up and pushed past GW. Any thoughts, comments, complaints, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
- Nate
-
Ah, these rules I already by mistake. I mean, GW removed the old ones from their site, I mailed Ray if he had them and instead sent me these ones. As asked I was silent about it. ;)
List had cool story...
I will see if I can find my mailings on it. I remember the list not being strong.
List changed though I see now. (xenotech not for free and now it is d6 or pay more to select)..
Xenos vessels ok, give 'em an extra turret (xenotech) always I say. Best choice! Rest does not matter to them I guess.
Light Cruiser: still suffers from the Voss Light Cruiser syndrom: weak choice. Should have 6+ prow at no cost. All of them.
Cruiser: Why not based on Lunar? Lunar is more common then Tyrant on which it is based.
Fleet list: I still do not agree with the set-up. Adding them to other fleets.
Check out Warp Rift issue 17:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/bfgmag/index.html
That is how Rogue Traders should be. It was made before the Rogue Trader RPG book, and even after that cool Rogue Trader RPG book by FFG the list from WR17 still stands.
So much more custom (can be cut down somewhat I guess). More choices on ships to take. Three different fleet lists! As background dictates the Rogue Trader only fleet, suited for smaller games (as BFG really should !), the list in which an Imperial Commander dictates a Rogue Trader to fight alongside him and the list which resembles the Great Expedtions which Rogue Traders undertake.
I mean, all that info was also in this pdf and the older pdf and yet you didn't do a thing with it when bringing Rogue Traders into BFG. Pity.
-
Ah, these rules I already by mistake. I mean, GW removed the old ones from their site, I mailed Ray if he had them and instead sent me these ones. As asked I was silent about it. ;)
List had cool story...
I will see if I can find my mailings on it. I remember the list not being strong.
List changed though I see now. (xenotech not for free and now it is d6 or pay more to select)..
Xenos vessels ok, give 'em an extra turret (xenotech) always I say. Best choice! Rest does not matter to them I guess.
Light Cruiser: still suffers from the Voss Light Cruiser syndrom: weak choice. Should have 6+ prow at no cost. All of them.
Cruiser: Why not based on Lunar? Lunar is more common then Tyrant on which it is based.
Fleet list: I still do not agree with the set-up. Adding them to other fleets.
Check out Warp Rift issue 17:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/bfgmag/index.html
That is how Rogue Traders should be. It was made before the Rogue Trader RPG book, and even after that cool Rogue Trader RPG book by FFG the list from WR17 still stands.
So much more custom (can be cut down somewhat I guess). More choices on ships to take. Three different fleet lists! As background dictates the Rogue Trader only fleet, suited for smaller games (as BFG really should !), the list in which an Imperial Commander dictates a Rogue Trader to fight alongside him and the list which resembles the Great Expedtions which Rogue Traders undertake.
I mean, all that info was also in this pdf and the older pdf and yet you didn't do a thing with it when bringing Rogue Traders into BFG. Pity.
You make several good points here. We tried to put as much variety and possibilities as possible while keeping it simple. Keeping it simple is always the key- there’s lots of temptation to hang all kinds of bells and whistles on a fleet list or rule set, but doing so creates a bunch of “except when†clauses to the rules, which BFG already suffers too much from.
As for the Endurance CL’s, I wanted a way to sneak more of them into the game, and as they are supposed to be much older than Dauntless, I figured letting Rogue Traders use them would be perfect. Also, the Xenos Escort special rules let them pick a refit as part of their point cost, and they already come with two turrets. If they came with three and could pick a fourth, they would be absolutely ridiculous!
One brilliant point you brought up was “Why not Lunars?†Lunars were derived from Tyrants and are more common: true. According to fluff, lances are more complex and maintenance-intensive than weapon batteries, which is something Rogue Traders would be trying to avoid or at least contract out (hence xenos ships). Lunars are the closest example to the Imperium’s “latest thing,†which explains why there aren’t so many Tyrants around. This ALSO explains why it would be easier for a Rogue Trader to get his hands on a Tyrant than a Lunar, which would more likely be a newer hull that the Imperial Navy would be considerably less inclined to part with.
As for all the missing stuff, the Draft rules are missing all the fluff and graphics that will be in the final product. For the draft, we wanted to focus on just the rule-sets so we wouldn’t have to deal with esoteric debates about how fluff-true the fluff is, etc. Trust me, the final product is going to be quite shiny!
Smile, game on and enjoy!
- Nate
-
Heya,
Okay point about Batteries vs lances. I can see that. Same that ordnance might be running low.
But also keep in mind that there are also moments that an Imperial Lord who gives someone the Rogue Trader authority also give them ships and fleet.
So I would love some variety here.
The light cruiser, yes, more of them cool, as it stands the voss light cruisers are just bad choices in any fleet except an upgraded Endeavour in the Adeptus Mechanicus fleet.
You didn't comment on the fleet list? What is there for people who want a dedicated Rogue Trader list?
-
Heya,
Okay point about Batteries vs lances. I can see that. Same that ordnance might be running low.
But also keep in mind that there are also moments that an Imperial Lord who gives someone the Rogue Trader authority also give them ships and fleet.
So I would love some variety here.
The light cruiser, yes, more of them cool, as it stands the voss light cruisers are just bad choices in any fleet except an upgraded Endeavour in the Adeptus Mechanicus fleet.
You didn't comment on the fleet list? What is there for people who want a dedicated Rogue Trader list?
Somehow a dedicated RT fleet list fell off the radar. I have one in the original draft copy and will make sure the final has it included, which looks a lot like the "Rogue Traders in Battlefleet Gothic" page but in reverse. Basically it's escort and transport heavy, at least six escorts for every cruiser, one allied cruiser for every three RT cruisers, some other details I'm leaving out, etc. As soon as the upload queue unclogs itself I will upload a copy of the RT rules that includes the missing page.
- Nate
-
I could upload it in this thread if you keep on having problems to do so. Or perhaps you can send Cybershadow or Mod-Lex a pm and ask your upload storage to be increased. I mean, you're a HA member. ;)
-
How big is the file? You could sign up here and host it:
http://www.players.tacticalwargames.net/tiki-list_file_gallery.php
-
Hi all! Mod-Lex has made arrangements for me to post drafts of everything we're working on in a public place that will be accessible to all the various different BFG fan lists out there. This also makes it easy for me to pull it down from that one place should GW finally get this stuff put up on the GW Specialist BFG Resources site.
In the meantime, here's a revised DRAFT VERSION of the Rogue Trader fleet list:
FLEET COMMANDER
Veteran Rogue Traders
A Veteran Rogue Trader may be present for every two Rogue Trader cruisers in a fleet. At least one Veteran Rogue Trader must be assigned to a Rogue Trader cruiser in the fleet.
Veteran Rogue Trader (Ld9) . . . . . . . . . . . 50 points
A Veteran Rogue Trader gets one re-roll, which may be used for his vessel or an accompanying Rogue Trader escort squadron.
CAPITAL SHIPS
Your fleet may include no more than twelve cruisers. Heavy transports may also be taken but not in squadrons with other transport types. Heavy transports do not count against the total number of cruisers allowed in the fleet.
Rogue Trader Cruiser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 points
Rogue Trader Light Cruiser . . . . . . . . . . . 120 points
Heavy Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 points
ESCORTS
A single squadron of 2-6 Rogue Trader escorts, Rogue Trader cargo ships and auxiliary vessels may accompany each Rogue Trader cruiser in a fleet, in any mix desired. Besides Xenos vessels, auxiliary vessels from only one race can be taken in a fleet.Any race can be used to provide auxiliary vessels except Orks, Necrons and Tyranids. Xenos vessels cannot be employed if Space Marine escorts are used as auxiliary vessels.
Xenos Vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 points
Recommissioned Escort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 points
Iconoclast Destroyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 points
Rogue Trader Cargo Vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 points
Auxiliary vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Varies
TRANSPORTS
The fleet must include at least one squadron of escort-sized cargo ships of any type (whether or not the scenario requires transports), organized in a squadron of 2-6 ships. Any number of cargo ships beyond this number may be taken, but they must be organized in squadrons that only contain cargo ships. These always count their full cost against the total points in the fleet, and regular transports are not free.
Escort Carrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 points
Q-ship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 points
Rogue Trader Cargo Vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 points
Armed Freighter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 points
Cargo Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 points
RESERVES AND ALLIES
Up to one cruiser from any fleet except Orks, Necrons and Tyranids can be taken for every three Rogue Trader cruisers in the fleet. The capital ships taken can only be from one fleet and cannot be from a fleet list differing from that used to provide escort squadron auxiliary vessels. If the fleet is large enough that three reserve or allied capital ships are taken, a single allied battleship may also accompany the fleet for its regular point cost. Reserves and Allied vessels do not have access to the Veteran Rogue Trader re-rolls, though allied vessels may purchase up to one special character from its own fleet list (if available).
THE DEMIURG
At least one Demiurg vessel of any class may be taken for every three Rogue Trader cruisers in the fleet. This is separate from and in addition to any reserve or allied cruisers taken, but each Demiurg vessel taken still counts against the twelve-cruiser limit, and no more than one Stronghold may be taken. Demiurg vessels may not be employed if Orks or Space Marines are taken as reserves, allies or escort squadron auxiliary vessels.
Stronghold Commerce Vessel . . . . . . . . . 350 points
Bastion Commerce Vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 points
Citadel Commerce Vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . .185 points
THE KROOT
A single Kroot Warsphere may be taken if there are at least three Rogue Trader cruisers in the fleet. This is separate from and in addition to any reserve or allied cruisers taken, and the Kroot Warsphere does not count against the twelve-cruiser limit. A Kroot Warsphere may not be employed if Orks or Space Marines are taken as reserves, allies or escort squadron auxiliary vessels.
Kroot Warsphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 points
USING A ROGUE TRADER FLEET
Attack Rating
When used with this fleet list, Rogue Traders have an attack (initiative) rating of 3.
Xenos Allies
The rules listed on this fleet list take the place of those listed on p.13 concerning incorporating Kroot or Demiurg vessels into a fleet accompanied by a Rogue Trader cruiser.
Sub-plots
A Rogue Trader fleet more often than not operates in wilderness space far from support or assistance should the need arise. Any game using the Rogue Trader fleet list must include a sub-plot from p.82-84 in the rulebook.
The Best Money Can Buy
The Xenotech Systems refit list can only be used by Rogue Trader cruisers and escorts, not by other reserves or allied vessels in the fleet. Over the course of a campaign, Rogue Trader cruisers cannot earn additional refits from the Xenotech list and must use the refit tables listed on p.156 of the rulebook. Rogue Traders that join the fleet over the course of a campaign may start by taking one refit from the Xenotech list for the appropriate point cost.
-
That looks good at a glance.
-
Demiurg and Kroot have "... may not be employed if Orks ..." in it, but above it says that Reserves and Auxiliary can not be Orks.
-
So I am happy we are updating the Rogue Traders. They definately needed one!
As for the ship profiles, I like the Recommissioned Escort that had 2 WB and 35 pts.
Xenos escorts are really really really cool :) The only thing is that GW sells that really crappy pack of escorts meaning it will be impossible to ever get many of them from GW. Personally, I would love battles with a bunch of those guys flying around the table, each with their own xenotech system, it would be awesome! But with the current rules it doesn't look like this will ever happen. Ah but a dream I guess.
I am working with Roy (Horizon) on doing a fan supplement that has 9 small xenos races (one has a BB, one a cruiser, 5 only use escorts) each with their own "special" weaponry (small, unique changes, certainly nothing over the top!). In case your interested, its the Kharechi Expanse here http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=15831&start=0 (http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=15831&start=0)
-Zhukov
-
Could we get the option to pay extra points to pick the upgrades on Admech too? It would seem they would be more readily able to decide on what to take than a trader would :)
-
Good call, make the AWR upgrade the most expensive one. Because really, that upgrade outshines every other upgrade.
-
Hi all! The DRAFT rules for Space Marines Dominion and Crusade fleets as well as Rogue Traders & Pirates can be seen here:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en
To be perfectly clear that these are only drafts, they are stamped as such on every page of the downloadable version of the documents. These remain a work in progress and should in no way be considered a final product until the name has a date stamp and has “DRAFT†pulled out of the name.
As far as the finalized documents go, the Eldar Domains and Refits file has been re-named but is otherwise completely unchanged. I’ve changed the naming convention for the finalized files to show the date in (YYYYMMDD) format. This way if for some reason the finalized rule sets have some unforeseen error or otherwise needs to be repaired, it will be replaced with a new file with an updated date. This way you will know at a glance whether or not you have the most current copy of the rules. Keep in mind that NONE of these are official canon until we finalize all the projects we are working on and get them turned in to GW. What we will be turning in however is pretty much what you see in the finalized documents, at which time I will be pulling the site down.
Have fun, game on and enjoy!
- Nate
-
I do not like or want the marine fleet rules posted in those drafts. You are reversing a core Marine mechanic of limited availability of lances by allowing strike cruisers to take S2 lances in the forward arc for the same cost as a normal Strike Cruiser. Second, you are allowing the Seditio Opprimere which again goes contrary to the core mechanic of marine fleets having limited access to lances. Third, I see no reason to ever use a list outside of the Dominion list. You loose boarding torpedoes and HR benefits, but you gain resilient bombers, 120 point strike cruisers with 2 lances on the front arc (dauntless speed with 6+ armor, 2 turrets and bombers? yes, please), and cheap battle barges.
This means that the test fleet I've been thinking of using would suddenly have a squadron of 4 strike cruisers carrying 8 lances and, if I wanted, I could swap out the battlebarge for the Seditio Opprimere bumping that up to 12 lances. While marines might need a bit of a boost to be more competitive, this just strikes me as bad in a number of ways. I'm not even sure why this is being made either, are you planning a combined IN fleet PDF with 1:1 battlecruisers to cruisers, non scattering NC, and 45CM WB standard too?
-
Bah bah bah
Have you drugged Bob Henderson, your teammate? He stated that he wished the Sedition would have never seen the light of day. Yes, I remember significant and important statements. ;)
And I, and many others, hate the SO as well.
Unfluffy: against Tyranids you want Weapon Batteries not lances.
Bad: many lances in a space marine fleet
Seditio is bad bad bad
Seditio is bad bad bad
Seditio is bad bad bad
Seditio is bad bad bad
Seditio is bad bad bad
Strike cruiser options: Bah, no lances allowed.
Marines should not have lances.
Marines should not have lances.
Marines should not have lances.
Marines should not have lances.
Marines should not have lances.
Dominion: this list is broken from the core.
See Vaaish his post.
Space Marines need, in my opinon, the following:
* Being able to do teleport attacks while on special orders.
* Perhaps having a 2nd shield on the Strike Cruiser
* An Assault Class variant (see Space Wolves list in Warp Rift for example).
-
I do not like or want the marine fleet rules posted in those drafts. You are reversing a core Marine mechanic of limited availability of lances by allowing strike cruisers to take S2 lances in the forward arc for the same cost as a normal Strike Cruiser. Second, you are allowing the Seditio Opprimere which again goes contrary to the core mechanic of marine fleets having limited access to lances. Third, I see no reason to ever use a list outside of the Dominion list. You loose boarding torpedoes and HR benefits, but you gain resilient bombers, 120 point strike cruisers with 2 lances on the front arc (dauntless speed with 6+ armor, 2 turrets and bombers? yes, please), and cheap battle barges.
This means that the test fleet I've been thinking of using would suddenly have a squadron of 4 strike cruisers carrying 8 lances and, if I wanted, I could swap out the battlebarge for the Seditio Opprimere bumping that up to 12 lances. While marines might need a bit of a boost to be more competitive, this just strikes me as bad in a number of ways. I'm not even sure why this is being made either, are you planning a combined IN fleet PDF with 1:1 battlecruisers to cruisers, non scattering NC, and 45CM WB standard too?
All valid points. As you notice, the SO has been toned down a LOT from the Imperial Tombship abortion that was in the White Dwarf magazine article! the Intent of the lances was to give SM's an ability to fight better in fleet engagements against lance-heavy fleets, since there isn't any rule (and there won't be) that prevents a player from saying, "hmm, I'm fighting SM's, I'm sure glad I brought along my four Gothics and 12 Firestorms, hooray!" Incidentally, this was produced from material originally written by Matt Keefe, Andy C and Gav Thorpe.
By design, SM's should be lance-poor, and this rule set shouldn't break with that. We will make lance ships significantly more expensive than their gunship bretheren. See, this is why DRAFTS work!
- Nate
-
By design, SM's should be lance-poor, and this rule set shouldn't break with that. We will make lance ships significantly more expensive than their gunship bretheren. See, this is why DRAFTS work!
I think it would be better to explore alternative options on the marine list before adding easy access to lances. Even with increased pricing you can't get around the dominion list. Say you tack on 25 points for the s2 lances, the dominion fleet is able to take the lances and still have their SC for the same cost as an unmodified SM strike cruiser.
The same goes for the SO, even with the adjustments given (decreased range and numbers of lances) you are still giving the marines far more range and lance capability than they should have especially for 425 points.
In any event I do not think that giving marines greater access to lances will make them more evenly matched with a fleet that takes more gothics and firestorms. Marines armor will be ignored by lances either way and with bombardment cannons firing at the same time as WB, there is no BM penalty for marines giving them a lance like weapon. Why not instead adjust marines by giving them an extra shield on the strike cruisers or boosting the range or strength of the BC rather than add more lances. All you are doing is removing what makes the marine fleet unique and fluffy by making them much stronger offensively but not addressing their durability issue against lances.
-
What a counter-productive design philosophy... creating more lances to counter lances. That is not good in my opinion. Quite bad actually.
Unneccessary.
Look, I will always advice to not tailor a fleet. I say : design an allround fleet that can face every fleet. Best at 1500pts standard size.
If that IN player does show up with his gothics & firestorms because he knew he was going to face Space Marines: pull out your Eldar and call him a git. Play Marine models as count as Eldar if necessary.
Tailoring should be discouraged. You are encouraging it.
"Marines now have lances, nothing stops me from taking more."
The only fleet that is lance heavy per nature is the AdMech fleet. But this is an elite/expensive fleet, outnumbered and flawed at boarding/h&r. Precisely what Marines excel at (rock-scissor-paper).
Imperial will go for a mix of weaponry, Chaos as well, Eldar are a threat to Marines, yes, but official Eldar are horrid to anyone, Orks do not have lances, Tyranids are mixed with few lances, Tau have below average lances (except your NEW Tau draft... :P). (codex creep anyone???)
There is main difference between the prow bombardment and prow lance option : intervening blastmarkers. I'd rather have lances on the Strike Cruisers to be honest.
Also: it is the core of Marines to be low on lances.
The design philosophy of the S.O. is still bad, even toned down. Background tells us it is designed to counter Tyranids. You need batteries to do so.
Mind you: I would / could support a S.O. that had str.12 (or higher! 14-16!) port/starboard weapon batteries at 60cm and no lances.
edit:
Only the smallest of vessels would be permitted to act exclusively as gunships, with the larger strike cruisers and battlebarges remaining predominately as aids to invasion, ensuring the Space Marines would never present a threat to the Imperial navy proper. Inevitably, the wrangling over interpretation of a ship’s “primary role†leads to some Chapters possessing rather more versatile fleets than the Imperial Navy is entirely comfortable with.
Despite the last comment, the Dominion list, with lanced Strike Cruisers are a threat to the Imperial Navy. Being gunships and all.
When a Thunderhawk Annihilator comes in contact with an enemy ship’s base, they attack it like bombers as described for bombers on p.30 of the rulebook, even if they have used their resilience to remain in play. Once they complete their attack, they are removed normally. Thunderhawk Annihilators cannot be used as assault boats.
Does this mean they do not act like Ork Fighter-Bombers (d3 attacks instead of d6)? I am rather opposed to this. I see no real need for them anyway but they exist so could tolerate them.
Honor Guard
Expensive for a one time attack that can be braced.
-
I would like to congratulate you guys on the Rogue Trader Draft. I think its by far the best revision so far. I love the fleet lists, especially the 'Pirates and Wolfpacks'. Getting all the small ships together into a ragtag fleet will surly be fun (although I have to admit I can't tell right now wether it's barely competitive or overpowered ;D). The scenario rules look promising as well.
Rogue Trader Cruiser
What Nate said about Lances being too maintenance intensive would probably also hold true for torpedoes here. The original Rogue Trader only has weapon batteries and I would keep it that way. Give the prow batteries a bigger arc or how about this:
Port/Starboard Weapons Battery: 30cm str4 L/R
Port/Starboard Weapons Battery: 45cm str4 L/R
Prow Weapons Battery: 30cm str2 L/F/R
Dorsal Weapons Battery: 45cm str2 L/F/R
Does it really need a third turret at 185 points?
Transports
How would "Fleet" transports work with transports from scenarios. Do both count for victory conditions?
For example if a Rogue Trader Exploration Fleet (with transports) escorts a convoy in scenario 6, would all the transports count for victory determination or only the free transports from the scenario itself?
How about a planetary assault?
Scenario Five: Space Hulk!
Does the Space Hulk start with only 2d6 hits remaining or does it have the full 40 hits with 2d6 points of damage taken?
With only 2d6 hits it would probably not last very long against the random effects table.
-
Hey Gusto,
I absolutely love this draft as well. I am already constructing the fleets to resemble the new merchants and wolfpacks. Here is some comments on your opinions:
RT Cruiser:
I like the argument on torps, but remember game balance. Your ship design is too weak IMO. The original RT was too weak IMO. I like the one they gave in this draft. And yes, I think three turrets needs to be kept. Convoy Flagships should have decent survivability. You could even make an argument that the points should be dropped a bit. It's still a plenty undergunned at 185 points.
Transports:
Good catch! In the convoy scenario with RT Explorations Fleets as defenders, I think it would be reasonable to waive the requirement for needing transports in the RT fleet list. Planetary Assault would be the same.
Space Hulk!
I assume it starts with 40-2D6 hits. Attacker recieves VP's for destroying it so it wouldn't live with only 2D6 hits remaining. LOL
And a question myself about Xenos ships.
It says on the ship profile the xenotech system is already included in the point cost. Does the player choose which system to have or do they pay the additional five points to choose? And how does this apply to the Wolfpack list? Also, do the Xenos ships roll for the Crew Refit like the rest of the RT's when in a RT list?
-Zhukov
-
RT Cruiser:
I like the argument on torps, but remember game balance. Your ship design is too weak IMO. The original RT was too weak IMO. I like the one they gave in this draft. And yes, I think three turrets needs to be kept. Convoy Flagships should have decent survivability. You could even make an argument that the points should be dropped a bit. It's still a plenty undergunned at 185 points.
The proposed RTC is just a slight modification of the regular Tyrant:
-2 torps, +1 turret and a very minor gun upgrade. Same cost.
My concern is that the 4 torps will be mostly useless unless you take multiple RTC's and play them like an Imperial fleet. I'd rather have it in a supporting role and let the escorts and allies handle the infighting and ordnance.
And a question myself about Xenos ships.
It says on the ship profile the xenotech system is already included in the point cost. Does the player choose which system to have or do they pay the additional five points to choose?
The special rules state it "has one selected xenotech system".
-
Yeah it will be interesting to see if one Carnage and something like ~24 xenos ships with targetting matrixs or 2 shields in a 1500 point fleet is overpowering or not ;)
I like the Torps, even with only four, because it forces your opponet to make a choice when attacking the convoy the RT is a part of. Now they are weak, yes, at only four. But if you suppose they were designed with only engaging planetary defences resisting the RT fleets entrence to a system or trying to force escorts ship squadrons from adjusting their attack runs, I like them. The RT cruiser is not a support vessel. In the RT fleet, it is the flagship! I say it's undergunned for a flagship type vessel with only 5 WB at 45cm range. When the Xenos get their batteries at range 45cm, then you see the problem (undergunned by only three escorts! Raids would have many more than just three...). Strength 8 batteries at 45cm on each broadside makes more sense to me. But that's my opinion. Personally, I like the currently proposed vessel.
Though I made my own RT cruiser whose stats are much much different ;)
Points: 185 (still playtesting on this bit)
Cruiser/8 Speed/20cm Turns/ 45* Shields/1 Armor/6+ Prow, 5+ Turrets/1
Port/Starboard Weapons Battery: 30cm str6 L/R
Port/Starboard Lance Battery: 30cm str1 L/F R/F
Port/Starboard Launch Bay: Fighters-30cm str1 each --
Prow Ether Cannon: 30cm str1 F
Ether Cannon: 1-2 miss. 3-4 one internal hit, one blast marker. 5-6 one internal hit, blast markers placed equal to shield rating.
-Zhukov
-
You know what will be overpowering? Taking escorts from the parent fleet and giving them upgrades like an extra shield... Swords or Tau Castellans with 2 shields...hmmm...
For Rogue Trader variants I always say: look at Warp Rift 17-18.
Rogue Trader vessels are unique things and one group of stats (like these two in the draft) never does them justice. I mean, even fluff in this pdf, dictates that Rogue Trader cruiser are various, upgraded, pimped, differemt, unique. Etc.
-
You know what will be overpowering? Taking escorts from the parent fleet and giving them upgrades like an extra shield... Swords or Tau Castellans with 2 shields...hmmm...
Too bad it's not allowed.
-
I think so. They can be picked as a choice of escorts for the Rogue Traders. Capped at up to half. Then further down the fleet list is says that the RT cruisers and its escorts can go roll (or add) from the xenos-tech table.
-
Hi everyone! There’s a new draft of the Rogue Traders fleet list that incorporates fixes for all the questions and comments that came up. Unless there are some serious objections, this is pretty much what the locked-in fleet list will look like. Here’s a fast pass of the tweaks:
- fixed spelling errors
- tweaked the cruiser profile (very!) slightly
- added some way-cool imagery and fluff from Inquisitor
- added info from an old Rogue Trader reference clarifying what the Stryxis are
- added another minor race from WH40k as an additional example race for the Xenos Vessel
- clarified exactly how the Xenos Vessel gets its “free†refit and how it’s used
- clarified that Fast Clippers CAN’T get the advanced drive refit twice
- changed the Warp Beast #5 profile from cruiser to defense and clarified how it reappears in the Stalkers of the Void scenario table
- clarified that auxiliary vessels can ONLY have Xenotech refits if they are actually part of a Rogue Trader squadron and not merely allies
- fixed some unclear items about the Space Hulk scenario
Please post your comments and complaints over the weekend so we can get this stapled shut and move on to other important topics that need addressing.
By the way, someone on the BFG-List was immensely kind and created a smashed-down version of the link that posts on the List quite nicely!
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*
Whoever it was, thank you VERY MUCH!!!
Hopefully we will have the Space Marines ironed out this weekend as well so we can get that stapled shut as well. v 3.1 represents what it looked like as of Monday. We are still tweaking the Fortress Monastery and making other small changes, but this is about 90% what it will look like.
- Nate
-
You know what will be overpowering? Taking escorts from the parent fleet and giving them upgrades like an extra shield... Swords or Tau Castellans with 2 shields...hmmm...
For Rogue Trader variants I always say: look at Warp Rift 17-18.
Rogue Trader vessels are unique things and one group of stats (like these two in the draft) never does them justice. I mean, even fluff in this pdf, dictates that Rogue Trader cruiser are various, upgraded, pimped, differemt, unique. Etc.
Agreed, but this thing was already becoming a five-headed hydra all by itself, and the hope is that the xenotech refits will help Rogue Trader ships be exactly what you say: various, upgraded, pimped, differemt, unique. Etc. However, one of the things I'm waiting on the HA's for a response is the following (which is NOT in the 1.6 draft):
Instead of the profile above, Rogue Trader cruisers may be an Imperial Tyrant, Chaos Carnage or Chaos Murder (even if a loyalist ship), for their normal point cost. However, it must be painted as such if Chaos vessels are to be used as loyalist ships, and no specal variants in the notes of these ships can be used. For example, the Tyrant can’t take a Nova Cannon or boosted batteries, etc.
The Murder is intended to be an abberation against the "Rogue Traders don't get lances" rule, only because fluff says there are a lot of retired Murders around, and Chaos likely didn't get them all. Incidentally, in my mind I like to think the Imps actually refer to this as the "Martyr" class and it was Chaos that bastardized the name, but that's beyond the scope of this post.
- Nate
-
Hey Gusto,
I absolutely love this draft as well. I am already constructing the fleets to resemble the new merchants and wolfpacks. Here is some comments on your opinions:
RT Cruiser:
I like the argument on torps, but remember game balance. Your ship design is too weak IMO. The original RT was too weak IMO. I like the one they gave in this draft. And yes, I think three turrets needs to be kept. Convoy Flagships should have decent survivability. You could even make an argument that the points should be dropped a bit. It's still a plenty undergunned at 185 points.
Tweaked this a bit but not a lot. Not much more we could do and keep this 185 points, and it needs the 3 turrets because by design this fleet is ordnance-poor. Yes, 185 points is the ceiling we set for this ship, but we are working on alternatives that are not yet done being debated, such as allowing a stock Tyrant, Carnage and Murder.
Transports:
Good catch! In the convoy scenario with RT Explorations Fleets as defenders, I think it would be reasonable to waive the requirement for needing transports in the RT fleet list. Planetary Assault would be the same.
Crap- forgot to fix this in 1.6. Yes, this was supposed to be fixed to say RT transports count in a Convoy Run scenario – they don’t need extras.
Space Hulk!
I assume it starts with 40-2D6 hits. Attacker recieves VP's for destroying it so it wouldn't live with only 2D6 hits remaining. LOL
You assume right, and this was fixed in 1.6.
And a question myself about Xenos ships.
It says on the ship profile the xenotech system is already included in the point cost. Does the player choose which system to have or do they pay the additional five points to choose? And how does this apply to the Wolfpack list? Also, do the Xenos ships roll for the Crew Refit like the rest of the RT's when in a RT list?
-Zhukov
This is all fixed as well.
- Nate
-
Hi,
thus a Sword or Castellan as auxillary vessel in the RT squadron can have double shields?
Stryxis are heavily mentioned in the Rogue Trader RPG corebook.
Per that book Rogue Traders can get lances on their ships. Lotsa ship points/profit but manageable.
-
Hi,
thus a Sword or Castellan as auxillary vessel in the RT squadron can have double shields?
Yes, but only if they are actually in a RT squadron that has at least three Rogue Trader vessels in it.
Stryxis are heavily mentioned in the Rogue Trader RPG corebook.
Per that book Rogue Traders can get lances on their ships. Lotsa ship points/profit but manageable.
True, but we didn't want to create a "click and build" RT cruiser list- it was an absolute NIGHTMARE getting the Tyranids right, and trying to do that with this kind of ship was going to open a Pandora's box better left closed. On the other hand, we're still discussing ways to open up the options a bit, without creating a vessel cool enough to piss off the Imperial Navy...
- Nate
-
Hey Nate,
Glad you took a little suggestion on the broadside guns for the cruiser! MUCH better now :) Though, I'm still going to use mine (which is supposed to have three turrets, not one, lol) ;)
Who cares what the Imperial Navy thinks of the RT cruiser! They have no jurisdiction on the matter (These ships ARE heavily modified so even the profile given is something that is probably already changed from the original)! ;) Something you COULD do, is give the player the option of substituting the strength 6 batteries with a strength 2 lance at 30cm or two launch bays that only have A-boats (and maybe fighters? I say no). First thing is that the points stay same (185). Secondly, the Launch Bay with only A-Boats makes sense! RT's could use A-Boats as large trading vessels that have quick delivery and movement! Just a thought... It is an easy solution....
Other than that, this document keeps on getting better! As a quick note, when me and Roy finish the Khareshi Expanse stuff, we will have the Xenos Ship version of all the escort sized vessels used so players have additional background fluff for whatever Xenos Ship they decide on.
-Zhukov
-
Hey Nate,
Glad you took a little suggestion on the broadside guns for the cruiser! MUCH better now :) Though, I'm still going to use mine (which is supposed to have three turrets, not one, lol) ;)
Who cares what the Imperial Navy thinks of the RT cruiser! They have no jurisdiction on the matter (These ships ARE heavily modified so even the profile given is something that is probably already changed from the original)! ;) Something you COULD do, is give the player the option of substituting the strength 6 batteries with a strength 2 lance at 30cm or two launch bays that only have A-boats (and maybe fighters? I say no). First thing is that the points stay same (185). Secondly, the Launch Bay with only A-Boats makes sense! RT's could use A-Boats as large trading vessels that have quick delivery and movement! Just a thought... It is an easy solution....
Other than that, this document keeps on getting better! As a quick note, when me and Roy finish the Khareshi Expanse stuff, we will have the Xenos Ship version of all the escort sized vessels used so players have additional background fluff for whatever Xenos Ship they decide on.
-Zhukov
the
I know how you feel about allowing lances, but this should be rare, hard, expensive, etc. However, here's some alternate cruisers we are looking at allowing (actual cut and paste):
Instead of the profile above, Rogue Trader cruisers may be an Imperial Tyrant, Chaos Carnage or Chaos Murder (even if used as a loyalist ship), for their normal point cost. However, it must be painted as such if Chaos vessels are to be used as loyalist ships, and no specal variants in the notes of these ships can be used. For example, the Tyrant can’t take a Nova Cannon or boosted batteries, etc.
What are your thoughts? What would you add? Keep in mind that Rogue Traders do definitely pimp their rides, but they are starting out with with re-commissioned, older hulls in the first place. Thus battlecruisers are obviously out, carriers are DOA, and ships like the Lunar are out because this is a relatively new so the IN would be holding on to the ones they have. Gothics are rare and considered a failed design so those are out, and Slaughters were ALWAYS rare so that's out.
I thought of the Carnage, which doesn't really have a reason to be kicked out, but giving Rogue Traders a lot of 60cm weapons doesn't feel right and would probably piss the IN off.
Now that I've chopped out about 90% of the available cruiser options, what would you add? Thoughts?
Oh, and I know the Murder has prow 60cm lances so shut up! :D I hate it, but fluff clearly describes there are plenty decommissioned Murders around, and there's no way in my mind Chaos got to them all, as indicated by the Imperial Bastion fleet list reserves.
- Nate
-
Ow, according the Rogue Trader RPG core book (yes it is another game by FFG but it was made with GW as a reference and upon GW's IP) the most common cruiser a Rogue Trader could/would get is a Lunar. Dauntless pretty popular as well. Well, they get the hulls and with remaining ship points build their ship (or what the gamemaster wants to bestow upon them).
Though the Koronus scope and background make it so they tend to start out with smaller ships (eg Sword or some raider-frigate variants they made).
-
Sleep is for squares!
After marathon BFG on the brain, I uploaded three files to the BFG repository
Link: http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*
Space Marines v3.2
Only difference here form v3.1 is the updated Fortress Monastery, minor spelling and other errors, etc.
Rogue Traders v1.7
Only difference here from v1.6 is expanded Rogue Trader cruiser choices, minor spelling and other errors, etc.
Tau Commerce Protection Fleet v2.0
This one's a biggie. No big changes, but a whole bunch of small changes and adjustments all over the place like Easter eggs.
I'll let the fans digest this for a few days. As for me, I'm going to bed.
- Nate
-
Ya, know, had another go at this pdf and I like it a lot know. Finally a pdf where I can bring my kitbashed Rogue Trader fleet into play. Rag Tagged. Plus it urges me to finally convert that Chaos Cruiser hull I have waiting...
-
Ya, know, had another go at this pdf and I like it a lot know. Finally a pdf where I can bring my kitbashed Rogue Trader fleet into play. Rag Tagged. Plus it urges me to finally convert that Chaos Cruiser hull I have waiting...
Sigoroth and Horizon, you two are the ones who spend the most time with your boots in my neck, so I would like input on this from everyone in general but you two in particular:
Since this stuff is still in draft and the Tau are pulled back into draft, I went through all my material to make sure we didn’t miss anything. Between all the Codexes, the Fanatic stuff and all the NDA background material, it’s a LOT to muddle through. I completely forgot that in current fluff, four entire loyalist Space marine Chapters defected to follow Huron Blackheart and the Astral Claws during the Badab Crusade. When Battlefleet Atermis finally put down the insurrection, the remains of the four Chapters scattered to the four winds, not in the service of Chaos (though some obviously did so) but as pirates serving their own selfish ends solely for the dubious glory that comes from a life of plunder.
I have all the fluff required to graft into this, complete with maps and whatnot. Now that the Pirate fleet list can have any Imperial or Chaos cruiser 185 points or less, how would it feel if they were also allowed to take a SINGLE (meaning 0-1) Strike Cruiser as well, with no refits or variants allowed?
- Nate
-
Replied in Yahoo, I think you should write an article for Warp Rift on it. ;)
So, not in the RT lists for now. ps ofcourse my real reply has a lot more detail ;)
-
Replied in Yahoo, I think you should write an article for Warp Rift on it. ;)
So, not in the RT lists for now. ps ofcourse my real reply has a lot more detail ;)
Why I ask is that in one of the Privateer articles by Matt Keefe, he specifically mentions the Astral Claws as one of the human pirate bands assailing the Imperium. It's almost a waste not to incorporate this material into the first actual pirate fleet list produced for the game.
As for Warp Rift, TRUST me I have all kinds of material that will never see the light of day that I plan to submit to Warp Rift! I have a whole lot of fluff material, alternate rule sets, etc. that while fun and technically balanced, they would never be appropriate as official rules.
- Nate
-
Replied in Yahoo, I think you should write an article for Warp Rift on it. ;)
So, not in the RT lists for now. ps ofcourse my real reply has a lot more detail ;)
Why I ask is that in one of the Privateer articles by Matt Keefe, he specifically mentions the Astral Claws as one of the human pirate bands assailing the Imperium. It's almost a waste not to incorporate this material into the first actual pirate fleet list produced for the game.
As for Warp Rift, TRUST me I have all kinds of material that will never see the light of day that I plan to submit to Warp Rift! I have a whole lot of fluff material, alternate rule sets, etc. that while fun and technically balanced, they would never be appropriate as official rules.
- Nate
Yay! :D
-
As for Warp Rift, TRUST me I have all kinds of material that will never see the light of day that I plan to submit to Warp Rift! I have a whole lot of fluff material, alternate rule sets, etc. that while fun and technically balanced, they would never be appropriate as official rules.
- Nate
:)
-
Replied in Yahoo, I think you should write an article for Warp Rift on it. ;)
So, not in the RT lists for now. ps ofcourse my real reply has a lot more detail ;)
Why I ask is that in one of the Privateer articles by Matt Keefe, he specifically mentions the Astral Claws as one of the human pirate bands assailing the Imperium. It's almost a waste not to incorporate this material into the first actual pirate fleet list produced for the game.
As for Warp Rift, TRUST me I have all kinds of material that will never see the light of day that I plan to submit to Warp Rift! I have a whole lot of fluff material, alternate rule sets, etc. that while fun and technically balanced, they would never be appropriate as official rules.
- Nate
Yay! :D
Here's a fast-pass reply to the note you sent me. Agreed the Badab War rates a whole separate pirate fleet list, but THAT should be a Warp Rift article as opposed to anything made official. Gadzooks, an official Space Marines pirate fleet? Images of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse come to mind! However, it would be themeful if a SINGLE (meaning 0-1) SM Strike Cruiser was allowed in a pirate fleet, with no variants or refits allowed.
- Nate
-
Variants, understandable, but why no refits?
-
Variants, understandable, but why no refits?
Pirates in general and the Astral Claws in particular will have little opportunity to spend any time in a formal shipyard incorporating new technology to their ships, especially since their primary prey is merchant shipping, themselves not noted for being a valuable source of high-end tech. On the other hand, pirates in general have to survive by thier wits and are probably the most hardened spacers anywhere in the galaxy, which is why they can earn extra crew skills in lieu of refits.
When it comes to adding this to the current Rogue Trader document, first, the good news. No, it’s NOT going to be merely a footnote. It’s going to be several pages of additional material, all of it sanctioned fluff that explains the rationale for the small tweaks being added to the pirate fleet list that will make it even cooler. Keep in mind that the pirate side of the coin focuses entirely on human pirates, not Eldar, Orks etc. except to where Xenos races play nice with what is essentially a human pirate fleet.
Now for the bad news. Here’s why we’re putting it all in the same document. In ALL the materials we have, the only difference between a Rogue Trader and a pirate is how loyal he or she is. A lot of the ships are the same, the profiles are unchanged and much of the fluff is so interweaved together (especially the new stuff) that if we created two different complete products, much of the fluff and ship profiles would be exactly the same and only the fleet lists themselves would be different. Not only would it be an enormous duplicity of effort, but I would have to spend even more time trying to make the two products sound and feel more different than they are just so they wouldn’t look like two slightly modified versions of the same thing, which in essence is all they would be.
Don’t worry folks, I promise this is going to be something bright and shiny. Just give me a chance to get it done.
- Nate
-
Hey, you know what would be cool? A Space Marines pirate fleet! I think I'll work on adding this to the Astartes document right now!! ;D :D ;D
- Nate
why would you need rules for this?
just play a space marine list as is
play an armageddon list
oooh, what about allowing a CSM list to take a strike cruiser or barge as "allies"?
-
Hey, you know what would be cool? A Space Marines pirate fleet! I think I'll work on adding this to the Astartes document right now!! ;D :D ;D
- Nate
why would you need rules for this?
just play a space marine list as is
play an armageddon list
oooh, what about allowing a CSM list to take a strike cruiser or barge as "allies"?
Woah! I was feeling a little punchy. This was just a joke, folks. Just kidding. Sorry about that if anybody actually thought I was going to do this.
If Sigoroth is already on his way to the airport to fly to the USA and shoot me in the forehead over this post, would somebody PLEASE stop him and buy him a Foster's for me?!?
(BTW- yes Horizon, I do have a cool Warp Rift article for this, but nothing that will ever be made official).
- Nate
-
Warp Rift lives on unofficial stuff.... ;)
-
If Sigoroth is already on his way to the airport to fly to the USA and shoot me in the forehead over this post, would somebody PLEASE stop him and buy him a Foster's for me?!?
Ugh, Fosters is the beer we export. No one in Australia can stand the muck so we sell it overseas. It's like making love on the beach ...
-
Id love to see astral claws rules :)
-
Id love to see astral claws rules :)
I envision one BB, a few Strike Cruisers (no more than 2 to 3), a ragtag bunch of escorts right off the pirate fleet list, and a small smattering of Imp and Chaos cruisers they either captured, or they joined their cause. It won't be official, but I'm going to make something for Warp Rift sometime in January-February (ish).
- Nate
-
Hi everyone!! Okay, the latest Rogue Traders Draft Rules and Tau Kor'or'vesh draft rules are on the street. Please review, comment and complain.
These are DRAFTS so make your complaints known of something is really broken. Rogue Traders in particular has a LOT of good easter eggs in it! Make your comments known!
I also posted the Space Marines final in the same place. They can be seen here:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*
Now I'm going to bed! 8)
- Nate
-
Sooooo....
Sneaky add on to the light cruiser, 6+ prow to give up 90* degrees.
Ofcourse, I disagree. 90* and 6+ prow. Though in the RT list I would add a prow armour option for +10pts and NO turn change.
The note under the cruiser that another variant can be taken, this includes the Dauntless. Perhaps the note should be on the CL page as well?
scenario I : Defending forces : what a jibberish. Write that down a bit clearer. I got confused along the way. Just note it as a 1000pts fleet (10x100) or 1500 with the other table. Then say that 10 transports are added for free, the fleet must spend at least 250points on freighters, clippers, etc...
-
Sooooo....
Sneaky add on to the light cruiser, 6+ prow to give up 90* degrees.
Ofcourse, I disagree. 90* and 6+ prow. Though in the RT list I would add a prow armour option for +10pts and NO turn change.
The note under the cruiser that another variant can be taken, this includes the Dauntless. Perhaps the note should be on the CL page as well?
scenario I : Defending forces : what a jibberish. Write that down a bit clearer. I got confused along the way. Just note it as a 1000pts fleet (10x100) or 1500 with the other table. Then say that 10 transports are added for free, the fleet must spend at least 250points on freighters, clippers, etc...
We can fix Scenario 1 - thanks for the catch.
Take a better look at the CL. It's got a bigger Easter egg than the 6+ prow... ;)
What did you think of the last page (the one AFTER Scenario 5?)
- Nate
-
torps have been boosted up to 4.
-
The Fra'al Battleship?
That it is stong.
Under 30cm it has compared to a Hades:
+8 wb
+2 lances
+1 shield
+1 turret
+ 2 hits
for 50pts.
Gimmick vessel so I don't mind.
-
The Fra'al Battleship?
That it is stong.
Under 30cm it has compared to a Hades:
+8 wb
+2 lances
+1 shield
+1 turret
+ 2 hits
for 50pts.
Gimmick vessel so I don't mind.
Wrong comparison. Try it against a Repulsive and see what you get. :)
- Nate
-
Wrong comparison. Try it against a Repulsive and see what you get. :)
- Nate
OK, so it has an identical profile to an extra-shield Repulsive with 2 minor changes. It has 3 prow lances instead of torps. This is equal value. It counts as a BB for turning rather than a cruiser, so has a larger turning circle and can't use CTNH. It's 5 pts more expensive. So far I'd say it's a little pricey given the manoeuvrability issue.
Super batteries - slight issue with this is it describes them as granting long range accuracy (represented by no column shift) but then also counts as always closing when at normal range.
Disengages when crippled - sucky downside from a play sense, though it's logical enough, just like the Demiurg. The fact that it gets +1 Ld for disengaging is actually a downside from a play perspective, though not so from the Fra'al's point of view.
Hard to tell but the downsides may just equalise the upsides here. Still a bit pricey given that the Rep can get an extra 15cm range on the dorsal lances and is more manoeuvrable. Still, more balanced than a Bastion.
From a background perspective I quite liked the old "Fra'al are big bad monsters" concept where you can't get them as allies, but just as an enigma that act unpredictably. They come in, kick some random peoples arses and piss off again. Also liked their special weapon, though it did need some tweaking.
Regarding their fleet inclusion, it's nice to see some non-Demiurg xenos cap ships.
-
Wrong comparison. Try it against a Repulsive and see what you get. :)
- Nate
OK, so it has an identical profile to an extra-shield Repulsive with 2 minor changes. It has 3 prow lances instead of torps. This is equal value. It counts as a BB for turning rather than a cruiser, so has a larger turning circle and can't use CTNH. It's 5 pts more expensive. So far I'd say it's a little pricey given the manoeuvrability issue.
Super batteries - slight issue with this is it describes them as granting long range accuracy (represented by no column shift) but then also counts as always closing when at normal range.
Disengages when crippled - sucky downside from a play sense, though it's logical enough, just like the Demiurg. The fact that it gets +1 Ld for disengaging is actually a downside from a play perspective, though not so from the Fra'al's point of view.
Hard to tell but the downsides may just equalise the upsides here. Still a bit pricey given that the Rep can get an extra 15cm range on the dorsal lances and is more manoeuvrable. Still, more balanced than a Bastion.
From a background perspective I quite liked the old "Fra'al are big bad monsters" concept where you can't get them as allies, but just as an enigma that act unpredictably. They come in, kick some random peoples arses and piss off again. Also liked their special weapon, though it did need some tweaking.
Regarding their fleet inclusion, it's nice to see some non-Demiurg xenos cap ships.
Hi Sigoroth! Thanks for the feedback! Try playing with two of them as a pair, exactly as you described- they ally with nobody but play nice (ish) with pirates. This is a FUN ship I have been trying for YEARS to see made part of the game as a scenario gimmick rather than anything actually fleet-worthy.
Here's why this proposal gets rid of the Ether Cannon- KISS. The Fra'al ships are not supposed to be as good as Imperials. If they had some kick-@$$ weapon that could beat on the Imps, they would either be a much bigger force in the galaxy than they are like the Dark Eldar, or the Imps would have mustered a crusade to exterminate them like they did to a number of minor races that got too uppity like the Yu'vath.
Who's the Yu'vath? Exactly.
Really, all of us are trying to steer away from unusual game mechanics, which the game is already replete with. By using entirely ordinary game mechanics, I took a ship profile that already exists and is well-tested, swapped out the prow weapon with another that is already tested as being an equitable trade, turned it into a "battleship but smaller" and play-tested it. What you see is the result. I see the better guns as a xenos technology unique to the Fra'al that Rogue Traders can graft to their ships as a refit, or Chaos duplicated (though imperfectly) for their Idolators.
Now for a peek behind the veil. Che Webster's Fra'al battlecruiser was such a good idea, a model was actually made for it, but for reasons beyind this post that model became something completely different: the Demiurg Stronghold. Incidentally, some of its special rules were incorporated into both the Demiurg, and to a lesser extent, the Necrons.
- Nate
-
Yu'vath is ancient (extinct) race with relics/forgotten planets in the Koronus Expanse.
The Stryxis operate there as well.
- Rogue Trader RPG Corebook.
Nate,
this:
for reasons beyind this post
is a common phrase from you.... and they make us curious and all. You know.
-
Yu'vath is ancient (extinct) race with relics/forgotten planets in the Koronus Expanse.
The Stryxis operate there as well.
- Rogue Trader RPG Corebook.
Nate,
this:
for reasons beyind this post
is a common phrase from you.... and they make us curious and all. You know.
Sorry, but some things I really can't talk about. I really do try to let the fans in on as many peeks behind the veil as I can when it comes to this game, and I'm not trying to come off like some enigmatic crudmudgeon. Anyone here can feel free to ask me anything you want, and as long as it doesnt call out anyone by name, I will say whatever I can. The biggest thing to remember is that game designers are people like anyone else, and some things like what decisions are made and why really are better left unsaid. I would be both betraying their trust and violating the NDA by blabbing everything that went on during the design discussions, etc., and in the end it wouldn't even change anything.
- Nate
-
Hi Nate,
I know I know. I know the burden of an NDA. ;)
-
looking at the fleet lists, I can't find "escort carriers" and "Q-ships". Where can a noob like me find them?
-
They are in the Armada rulebook. At the end of the Conflicts&Appendix.pdf. Pages 159 and 160.
-
Something I LOL at..
If the fluff describes the Fra'al as having an "attraction to wildly asymmetric designs and configurations", why is the Fra'al ship in the Planet Killer Magazine (the one darkened in the background here) and Demiurg (which might have been Fra'al) look so symmetrical?
Also, the Ether Cannon, having something that hits say: 1-3 miss, 4 one internal hit and one blast marker, 5-6 one internal hit and blast markers equal to shield rating, something over the top? I have a Rogue Trader cruiser that I modified to mount an Ether Cannon and with this set-up it's not overpowering or ridiculous at all.
-Zhukov
-
Something I LOL at..
If the fluff describes the Fra'al as having an "attraction to wildly asymmetric designs and configurations", why is the Fra'al ship in the Planet Killer Magazine (the one darkened in the background here) and Demiurg (which might have been Fra'al) look so symmetrical?
Also, the Ether Cannon, having something that hits say: 1-3 miss, 4 one internal hit and one blast marker, 5-6 one internal hit and blast markers equal to shield rating, something over the top? I have a Rogue Trader cruiser that I modified to mount an Ether Cannon and with this set-up it's not overpowering or ridiculous at all.
-Zhukov
The Fra'al battleship in Planet Killer was a scratchbuild using Emperor Battleship and Space Marine battlebarge parts, with old Necron destroyer parts tossed in. This model wasn't built to fluff, which admittedly was very scant back in 2000 and isn't much better even now. It was built as a cool one-off raider scenario vessel, with its entire fluff based on a single caption on the picture of the Divine Right in the rulebook.
Without getting too deep in the weeds, the ordo Xenos bases what races get exterminated based on the Sector Stabilis mandate. if a threat gets too big, too dense in a particular area or to threatening in general, they go try to kill it. If not, its decided to not be worth the effort. the Dark Eldar have exceeded this on numerous occassions, and the Ordo Xenos would absolutely love to exterminate their planet if they could just find the damn thing (stupid webway!). Eldar? Yeah, good luck. Orks aren't exterminated because they breed like cockroaches and frankly come closest to parity with the Imperium when taken in sheer numbers. Again, yeah good luck. Ditto for Necrons and Tyranids, each for their own reasons.
Now we come to the minor races: the Ordo Xenos has an uncountably long list of xenos races exterminated by the Imperium. Those that remain have either not yet been contacted, or they have been contacted and are scheduled for extermination provided the Imperium can muster the forces to do it without getting distracted by something else. Case in point are the Tau, which didn't get ransacked because of the Tyranids and the 13th Black Crusade sucked away so much of the Imperium's resources.
There are also those that have been contacted but deemed inoccuous enough to be not worth the effort. the Demiurg fall neatly into this category, as do any number of alien races such as the Stryxis and Loxatl that while annoying to a greater or lesser degree, they pose so little a threat that with all the wars the Imperium is prosecuting, they aren't worth the time.
Background states the Fra'al fall into this category, mainly because for al their predations their technology is only little better than the Orks, and they are many orders of magnitude less numerous than the greenskins. Now if you toss in a weapon system that bypasses shields and hits very effictively, that significantly changes the equation. the Imperium is above anything else a superstitious race, and anything that can bypass something as technologically advanced as a battleship's shields (think "magic!" when considering how ordinary citizens regard technology) will immediately be precieved as a grave threat. Not only that, but a weapon that can bypass shields with every shot will be something dearly coveted by the Adeptus Mechanicus. All of a sudden the Stabilis mandate is exceeded, and battlefleets are mustered to hunt down and destroy the Fra'al, with the AM leading the pack to salvage this cool new weapon before the Imperial Navy grinds them all to dust.
Our two options become thus:
1. The Fra'al are actually advanced and widespread enough that despite the Stabilis mandate being exceeded, they manage to persist, meaning they aren't exactly a minor race anymore.
2. the Fra'al are actually only a minor race, which means even though they managed to create a small number of captial ships, they aren't good or numerous enough to be worrisome to the Imperial Navy.
Because we absolutely CANNOT create new races for the WH40k canon or expand upon any existing WH40k race beyond the materials we already have from the game creators, the Fra'al can only be a minor race. Thusly they can't have any cool weapon system on their capital ships that would raise the Imperial Navy's ire, keeping in mind that just HAVING capital ships would attract the Imperial Navy's attention. This also gets rid of having yet another weapon mechanic in a game that already suffers from an overpopulation of weapon mechanics.
- Nate
-
Im happy with advanced long range shooting accuracy :)
-
Bit of a straw man there Nate. There's a third option. That is that the Fra'al are technologically advanced enough to ignore, defeat or avoid the IN while being numerically small and/or ideologically disinterested. This would mean they're capable of impacting on galactic politics, but just not inclined to do so. Or, if inclined, they may simply be in such insignificant numbers that they couldn't make an impact, though could avoid being exterminated. This allows them to have special technology but still be a minor race (through inclination or numbers).
-
Bit of a straw man there Nate. There's a third option. That is that the Fra'al are technologically advanced enough to ignore, defeat or avoid the IN while being numerically small and/or ideologically disinterested. This would mean they're capable of impacting on galactic politics, but just not inclined to do so. Or, if inclined, they may simply be in such insignificant numbers that they couldn't make an impact, though could avoid being exterminated. This allows them to have special technology but still be a minor race (through inclination or numbers).
Hi Sigoroth! :) Straw man? ??? :D Anyway, you make a good argument, but the Fra'al by the background info are predatory and xenophobic. If they were technologically advanced enough to do so, they would be much more effective at raiding Imperial shipping and would do so with much more frequency, earning them an opportunity to be erased for their trouble. In any case, based on the background we have and for the other reasons I outlined previously, the rules for this ship will be what they are. It's only a scenario vessel anyway, not anything that will ever be the centerpiece of a fleet list in its own right.
- Nate
-
It's only a scenario vessel anyway, not anything that will ever be the centerpiece of a fleet list in its own right.
Bite your tounge good sir! The Pirate list can have an entirely Fra'al list if they wanted to! It would look something like this:
Pirate Captain . . . . . . 50 pts
2 Fra'al Battleships . . . 500 pts
19 Fra'al Escorts . . . . 950 pts
He he. Not saying anyone in their right mind would do it necessarily, but it would be cool.
-Zhukov
-
It's only a scenario vessel anyway, not anything that will ever be the centerpiece of a fleet list in its own right.
Bite your tounge good sir! The Pirate list can have an entirely Fra'al list if they wanted to! It would look something like this:
Pirate Captain . . . . . . 50 pts
2 Fra'al Battleships . . . 500 pts
19 Fra'al Escorts . . . . 950 pts
He he. Not saying anyone in their right mind would do it necessarily, but it would be cool.
-Zhukov
Totally legal and massively cool. :D In fact, if you trade in an escort, your second Fra'al battleship could take a Pirate captain as well.
- Nate
-
Hi Sigoroth! :) Straw man? ??? :D
Ah, yeah it's a term used in philosophic discussion to describe an argument against a position whereby the position is described inaccurately so that it can be more easily attacked. I don't mean to imply that this was done maliciously of course. I did say a bit of a straw man. A better description would've been that it was a false dichotomy. Either way, my argument was only how it could happen, not that it necessarily should in this case.
-
Hi Sigoroth! :) Straw man? ??? :D
Ah, yeah it's a term used in philosophic discussion to describe an argument against a position whereby the position is described inaccurately so that it can be more easily attacked. I don't mean to imply that this was done maliciously of course. I did say a bit of a straw man. A better description would've been that it was a false dichotomy. Either way, my argument was only how it could happen, not that it necessarily should in this case.
The Straw Man historically having been used as target practice in sword and archery training.
-
So I too noticed your ork issue in the file. Saying that you can't use Ork aux's with kroot or demiurg, but it also said that you can't use Ork.
-
So I too noticed your ork issue in the file. Saying that you can't use Ork aux's with kroot or demiurg, but it also said that you can't use Ork.
I'm suffering from temporary blindness. Where in the v1.8 file does it say you can't use Ork aux's with Kroot and Demiurg? The version online only says Space Marine aux's. if I missed something, I need to fix it.
- Nate
-
Sorry, had older version saved on my comp. I was a lurker for a while and thought I would mention it. Btw... I was wondering a little about the ork limitations overall, as in the previous fabric of the imperium rogue traders were able to work with orks?
-
Sorry, had older version saved on my comp. I was a lurker for a while and thought I would mention it. Btw... I was wondering a little about the ork limitations overall, as in the previous fabric of the imperium rogue traders were able to work with orks?
Yes, we kind of fleshed this out in that the only Rogue Traders that would purposely work with Orks would be pirates. That's why Rogue Trader Explorers can't but it is allowed if Rogue Traders are taken against the Pirates fleet list.
- Nate
-
Overall I like the article. I see that reasoning, it is sensible... yes, they would be pirates, or at least... playing with fire. There are instances where they would trade, or even use orks to their advantage, naturally not in an exploration or missionary scenario. Perhaps to stage an attack on an imperial world and have a patsy, or other similar subplot.
I look forward to when it's completed, Rogue Traders are perhaps my favorite fluff in the 40k universe, and the old 'Fabric of the Imperium' article was somewhat vague and confusing. Very unbalanced as well, as the RT cruiser almost had the stats of a Tyrant, but was way worse, and the recommisioned vessel far outshined anything else. Although it was nice to take unlimited 15 point escorts, and I had been tempted to try mixing them with Orks for the cheese tactic of better leadership because of it.
It's good that you've fixed that. I'm surprised you're wandering around here, I remember a while back only seeing Jervis. Battlefleet gothic is full of holes, and it's somewhat difficult to decipher what's official and not, what is even worth thinking about, and etc.
I'm enjoying the 2010 FAQ, but there are some things that I disagree with (such as premeasuring weapons ranges.... movement I can accept, I understand it makes the game more fair, but not knowing things for certain added a little guesswork and fun)
-
Hi Plaxor,
for BFG it is quite easy to see what is official:
Every pdf on the GW site is official.
What this page does not have is rules for:
Rogue Traders
Tau CPF (FW fleet)
Both are in the draft2010 which will be official at one time. Along the FAQ2010 ofcourse.
So every other pdf you might encounter is in no way official (not that it matters if people agree on using non-official stuff as well).
Pretty easy huh...
:)
On pre-measuring: the rulebook never did disallow it or allow it. Epic: Armageddon always allowed for it.
With the technological aspects I can see pre-measuring fluffy. I wouldn't mind seeing it disallowed either for the facts you mention.
Also, Nate is indeed active now, but Ray Bell (Raysokuk) has ever kept a rather active online presence (untill Nate arrived that is... coincidence ;) heh heh).
Which holes are in BFG?
-
Lol, I'm aware. It's just from a FLGS standpoint, as there is a lot of fanatic magazine stuff, BFG feels a lot like picking and choosing which 'extra stuff' you allow or disallow, such as the SO. Or wolf-packs. Even the black templar fleets.
Holes, well you're covering them in the 2010 faq, lots of weird conundrums and stuff. Mostly with the fabric of the imperium in this case, and weird slightly ambiguous rules.
Anyways, as far as the premeasuring goes, I didn't know about it until my last game, (a multiplayer) where everyone was measuring out where they would be, and if they would be in range/the right aspect etc. before making a single move, even before doing orders. It was like they were planning out their whole turn. It takes a long time, and is kinda boring, and removes so much of the guessing and strategy that makes it fun.
I mean... as an ork player, I think I would have less fun if I measured out how far my opponent was, making sure that they were around 27cm away so I could ram or 20 so I could board. It makes it... too predictable... too perfect. Yes I understand the tech... and it makes it more fair... but I'll still play guessing and hoping.
-
What does FLGS stand for?
Well the Seditio will become official and I approve (hey, they changed the stats, good).
The other rules, yes, all unofficial, so tournaments won't go by them. But in most groups things are talked through. With us we mostly allow such things though will notify when we use such things. FAQ2010 is already being used by us for example.
But that's with all unofficial stuff: players/groups/opponents decide if it is allowed or not. But the official rules (+draft2010) covers every rule & race for players not know to eachother play a game.
-
Friendly local gaming store.
-
Nate,
How would you feel about rogue traders being able to take a Nicassar caravan as defences (or possibly being able to take gravitic hooks themselves)?
The Nicassar are known for being merchants, and it wouldn't be unlikely that a caravan might sit out around something controlled by a rogue trader, or that RT's could get attacked while meeting with them.
The Nicassar are one of my favorite races, and I'm excited to see if in 40k they expound on them more. (they are noted in the 40k rulebook as being a slave-race of the Thexians in the Ghoul Stars).
Edit: Or even involving the Thexians themselves, although with so little to go by on them, and there being no ships/rules out there already this I imagine would be unlikely.
-
...if GW starts selling Nicassar Dhows again I would be happy to include them...
-
I'm curious why the Fra'al cap ships have lost their well... everything. I mean, seriously, this isn't a Fra'al ship, it's a Neutered Retribution Class Battleship. I mean, weapon batteries? On a Fra'al? What next, Holofields on a Necron Tombship? (wow, would people scream about that...)
All their racial weapons and rules have been removed. ALL of them. Where's the Ether Cannons that their entire fluff of being feared revolved around? I don't mined changing ship profiles or rule alterations, but let's not go around retconning races, shall we?
-
The Fra'al ships have never been official, so there is no official ship fluff retcon going on.
Not dismissing the ether cannon (which was a tad too strong imo), just saying.
-
The Fra'al ships have never been official, so there is no official ship fluff retcon going on.
Not dismissing the ether cannon (which was a tad too strong imo), just saying.
I have a copy of Planet Killer. It's published by GW... so I know this isn't a fan creation here.
-
I was published by Fanatic Online (SG mandate), by no means my vessel was/is official.
But Planet Killer isn't official, so. Dunno.
-
I was published by Fanatic Online (SG mandate), by no means my vessel was/is official.
But Planet Killer isn't official, so. Dunno.
Mine says 'Published by the Black Library, Games Workshop LTD' and gives the stats for the Ramilies which were superseded by Armada.
-
Okay, GW made it. But they aren't official. ;)
-
Okay, GW made it. But they aren't official. ;)
I'm guessing the changes to Stryxis fluff are also due to them being unofficial?
-
The Stryxis where never in BFG a mentioned race afaik. And I do not know if Nate (or other HA member) knows that the Stryxis are a mentioned/described race in the Rogue Trader RPG corebook.
-
In Edge of the Abysss thier ships are rather in detail described. Though how a weapon that kills crew without damaging the ship would translate... Ld penalties?
-
Ah, I don't have all the RT supplemental books. So, see, the regular BFG'er won't know. And we don't know how much the HA know from them.
So what could we suspect: that GW sends the draft back and says the Stryxis should be changed.
Per abstraction Andy Chambers referred to hitpoints as crew size as well. So, would it ignore shields then? But Ld penalty will do a nice harassment...
-
Thats a pretty original weapon idea. How exactly do they kill the crew?
Brings to mind mysterious ghost ships, all crew dead, at active power, found cruising along through space, with weapons and shields powered up.
-
It doesn't exactly explain. RT handles crew and the ship as separate stats. The existent rules state that it works as a regular macrobattery, but on hitting a ship without shields, even if armor prevented it from actually damaging the ship, the ship looses one point of crew. If shields are up, it hits as normal for a MB.
Thier melee weapons are the same. They kill you and keep your stuff undamaged. Sort of fits in with them being shifty traders and pirates.
However, using the description in the book, thier ships almost sound like ork roks or mini space hulks linked together like nicassar dhows. They're basically described as being able to cram an engine into just about anything remotely spaceworthy and then upgrade it with their own, or better, someone else's, technology and then tie it all together into huge space going caravans. From what they're saying here, a entirely Stryxis fleet would include things like roks and space hulks.
One interesting thing is that they seem to have twice as many shields as is usual for a given class of ship. Though it would make sense, given that it's the only surefire protection from their weapons...
-
I'm curious why the Fra'al cap ships have lost their well... everything. I mean, seriously, this isn't a Fra'al ship, it's a Neutered Retribution Class Battleship. I mean, weapon batteries? On a Fra'al? What next, Holofields on a Necron Tombship? (wow, would people scream about that...)
All their racial weapons and rules have been removed. ALL of them. Where's the Ether Cannons that their entire fluff of being feared revolved around? I don't mined changing ship profiles or rule alterations, but let's not go around retconning races, shall we?
The Fra'al battlecruiser from Planet Killer Magazine was completely made up to add something of interest to the game. In that form it was too skewered to be of any use to anything that would be made official. To say "Fra'al don't get weapon batteries" is pointless because the entire concept was based on a single caption listed in the two-page spread of the Divine Right in the rulebook.
To add the Fra'al to the game as something that would mesh with present rules, here's what we did:
1. It can't exceed current Imperial tech in any excessive way
2. It will NOT use any new weapon mechanic
3. It will be based on a current ship as a template (we elected the Repulsive)
This gives the pirates something cool and slightly tougher to add to their fleet without creating something that would exceed 250 points, which were the constraints we set so it could be plugged into scenarios and against fleets as a whole. That doesn’t mean you can’t use house rules for some alien super-battleship or some cool new weapon system. In one-off games you can use (or not use) any rules you want as long as your opponent agrees, but we won’t be adding something like that into official rules.
- Nate
-
I'm curious why the Fra'al cap ships have lost their well... everything. I mean, seriously, this isn't a Fra'al ship, it's a Neutered Retribution Class Battleship. I mean, weapon batteries? On a Fra'al? What next, Holofields on a Necron Tombship? (wow, would people scream about that...)
All their racial weapons and rules have been removed. ALL of them. Where's the Ether Cannons that their entire fluff of being feared revolved around? I don't mined changing ship profiles or rule alterations, but let's not go around retconning races, shall we?
The Fra'al battlecruiser from Planet Killer Magazine was completely made up to add something of interest to the game. In that form it was too skewered to be of any use to anything that would be made official. To say "Fra'al don't get weapon batteries" is pointless because the entire concept was based on a single caption listed in the two-page spread of the Divine Right in the rulebook.
To add the Fra'al to the game as something that would mesh with present rules, here's what we did:
1. It can't exceed current Imperial tech in any excessive way
2. It will NOT use any new weapon mechanic
3. It will be based on a current ship as a template (we elected the Repulsive)
This gives the pirates something cool and slightly tougher to add to their fleet without creating something that would exceed 250 points, which were the constraints we set so it could be plugged into scenarios and against fleets as a whole. That doesn’t mean you can’t use house rules for some alien super-battleship or some cool new weapon system. In one-off games you can use (or not use) any rules you want as long as your opponent agrees, but we won’t be adding something like that into official rules.
- Nate
LOL they also make nice glass knives that can split ceramite. FFG has been expanding on some BFG fluff, though the Fra'al ships haven't made a big entrance yet, they've been hinted about quite a lot and will probably be in next year's Battlefleet Koronus.
As far as balance in the pirate list, that's understandable. And as far as the pirate wolfpack list goes, 1) is understandable. 2) and 3) however make me scratch my head and wonder why not?
-
So under the RT cruiser you say that you may take a dauntless instead... shouldn't this be under the RT light cruiser? Also you say more than half of the ships must be of the standard type, does this include the LC? IE do you have to include 2 RT cruisers to have an LC? Or can you take 2 RTLC to get a 'Murder RTCR'?
-
Hi everyone!! There’s a big set of updates today! If you want to get to it, click the link below.
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*
Rogue Trader 3.0: Corrected some small fluff and formatting errors. Only two big changes:
#1- We clarified how rogue trader cruisers are taken in the process making the Dauntless a more available option.
#2- I have been accused of fanboyism and abusing my role as HA to foist on the community unwanted changes. I promise that none of that was ever my intention in all the documents we have produced in this process. However, for once I admit raw, unrestrained fanboyism in adding an Easter egg to the Rogue Traders document. When incorporating the Stryxis, there is a LOT of rich background potential I intentionally left out only because I thought it would clutter the document and unduly encumber it for no real benefit. However, I had two small play-test battles in the meantime, and when making the corrections in preparation for sealing the document shut, I couldn’t help myself. I’ll let you all find the Easter egg, and those who know the background will quickly say it is fluff-true and balanced. However, I foisted this without going to the HA’s, and if there is a lot of grief about it, I’ll take it out before stamping it Final.
- Nate
-
... but in fluff, the regular rok movement rules wouldn't work: Strixis ships are strung together and pulled by a single ship. (technically, the whole thing would be a single ship, made out of towed hulked ships/etc, but I digress)
-
My NDA forbids further talking about this...Stryxis.
Havoc Class Raider = no torpedo. I like to chim in to replace the torpedo with a str2 battery firing front only or lfr. This is what the Rogue Trader RPG corebook says about them.
A single torp should be an upgrade option.
The Exploration fleet list / RT list / Cruiser restriction.
I do NOT agree that half of the list should be the profile given. In the Rogue Trader RPG corebook the token ships are the Dauntless and the Lunar.
-
My NDA forbids further talking about this...Stryxis.
Havoc Class Raider = no torpedo. I like to chim in to replace the torpedo with a str2 battery firing front only or lfr. This is what the Rogue Trader RPG corebook says about them.
A single torp should be an upgrade option.
The Exploration fleet list / RT list / Cruiser restriction.
I do NOT agree that half of the list should be the profile given. In the Rogue Trader RPG corebook the token ships are the Dauntless and the Lunar.
Not quite sure I follow on the token buisness, as Tyrant, Murder, and some others show up as the books add on. I'm expecting the big one to be BFK early next year.
-
You forgot the sword and the onslaught from the original book. Aren't there eldar ones in the expansions?
-
You forgot the sword and the onslaught from the original book. Aren't there eldar ones in the expansions?
2 so far. Solaris and Aconite. Firestorm also appears in the basic book, but is only given as an example without stats. Stats for it appear in later books. Murder also appears.
-
Yes , Battlefleet Koronus will be the next cool supplement for Rogue Trader. ::)
-
Yes , Battlefleet Koronus will be the next cool supplement for Rogue Trader. ::)
Yeesh, I'm sorry I wrote a positive review of Edge of the Abyss for DR, ok? (Much to some of the FFG authors astonishment) I, for one, actually enjoyed that book. (And I tend to leave Adam France to tear FFG new buttholes if they screw up)
-
What? You didn't get the: ::) at all. Try another route... ;)
FFG produces cool stuff.
-
So one thing I noticed Nate, under the 'rogue traders in battlefleet gothic' fleet list (allies) it says any...fleet may take 1 rogue trader cruiser... shouldn't this say any fleet may take one rogue trader capital ship? or one rogue trader cruiser and any number of rogue trader light cruisers/heavy transports?
-
So one thing I noticed Nate, under the 'rogue traders in battlefleet gothic' fleet list (allies) it says any...fleet may take 1 rogue trader cruiser... shouldn't this say any fleet may take one rogue trader capital ship? or one rogue trader cruiser and any number of rogue trader light cruisers/heavy transports?
Thanks! fixed- will be posted soon...
- Nate
-
Any chance we could get a specific name for the rogue trader cruiser such as the Hydra class?
Heres a fluff blurb:
Thousands of Hydra class cruisers have been made by the forge worlds of esteban and the ship is in wide use amongst the segmentum ultima fleets. These ships often find their way into use by Rogue Traders of the Imperium, as the ship is of a easily reproducible design, as well as the Imperial Navies authorities preferring to grant Rogue Traders ships without lance-type weaponry. A few vessels of older and different design have found their way into the hands of the Rogue Traders, but the Hydra is by far the most common.
Edit:
The Hydra's production dropped strikingly with the development of the Dominator class in segmentum ultima. Now being viewed as somewhat obsolete, the Hydra seems to find itself in the hands of Rogue Traders more and more.
-
Any chance we could get a specific name for the rogue trader cruiser such as the Hydra class?
Heres a fluff blurb:
Thousands of Hydra class cruisers have been made by the forge worlds of esteban and the ship is in wide use amongst the segmentum ultima fleets. These ships often find their way into use by Rogue Traders of the Imperium, as the ship is of a easily reproducible design, as well as the Imperial Navies authorities preferring to grant Rogue Traders ships without lance-type weaponry. A few vessels of older and different design have found their way into the hands of the Rogue Traders, but the Hydra is by far the most common.
Edit:
The Hydra's production dropped strikingly with the development of the Dominator class in segmentum ultima. Now being viewed as somewhat obsolete, the Hydra seems to find itself in the hands of Rogue Traders more and more.
The rogue trader cruiser mini is a Kar-Dunish (sp escapes me) class cruiser, IIRC.
-
Correct. Kar Duniash.
Not really a class but more a prow pattern style.
-
i didnt realize that existed, or an actual endeavour model. Links? :)
-
The Rogue Trader model is sold by GW.
The Endeavour was once produced by GW, mold broke, bye bye model.
The Zeus existst as an alternative. Check Warp Rift 30.
-
Hi all! BIG changes here! I'll re-post this in all the pertinent places.
First of all, the FAQ/Errata is DONE!!! A LOT of work went into this, an dit will remain in draft form for another week jusnt in case there's a few more kinks to work out that all of us missed, but this is essentially what the FAQ will look like. Sorry it took so long to get right, and sorry we pushed it so close to 2011!! Barring any unforeseen problems, we should be able to stamp this FINAL sometime around December 27th. SPECIAL THANKS to Horizon and Masque- I've decided to give them every dime I make from this effort! :P
Rogue Traders DRAFT v3.5: Like the FAQ, the Rogue Traders saw a lot of back and forth so the version number is quite different. VERY SPECIAL THANKS to Sam Shepherd, the creative design lead from Fantasy Flight Games that took the time to square our Rogue Traders with their Rogue Traders! How cool is that? ;D Now we just have to keep tweaking it until it's right.
Powers of Chaos DRAFT v2.8: A few changes and tweaks here, specifically to the Hecate, Inferno and fleet lists. It's still in work, but we're getting very close to what the final product will look like. Chaos is already a pretty solid fleet so most of the changes here were to correct balancing issues as opposed to anything else.
Inquisition DRAFT v1.4: A few formatting changes and minor tweaks, but nothing really different here- it's still in work.
Well, that's it! The link to all the files is in my signature. I'll be leaving town for a week and will try to stay in touch. Keep your smiles on, game on and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
- Nate
-
Hi Nate,
Rogue Trader draft is good. But his name his Sam Stewart. ;)
-
Hi Nate,
Rogue Trader draft is good. But his name his Sam Stewart. ;)
I have been up a LONG TIME today!!! :P ??? :) :D ;D
- Nate
-
In the Victory Points for Scenario Six, it says "escorts count for victory points individually instead of per squadron." Ummm, have they ever been counted per squadron and not individually? If so, I was NEVER aware of that, lol.
-Zhukov
-
In the Victory Points for Scenario Six, it says "escorts count for victory points individually instead of per squadron." Ummm, have they ever been counted per squadron and not individually? If so, I was NEVER aware of that, lol.
-Zhukov
Yes, in an attempt to make escorts viable their VP rules were changed to be squadron based. You had to destroy at least 50% of the escorts in the squadron to count as crippled, and if one escort survived/disengaged then the squadron would not count as destroyed. Therefore odd sized squadrons became the norm, 3 or 5.
-
That was a rule from FAQ1.5 and is in the d/l rulebook 1.5. :)
-
Only those individuals with Warrants of Trade or similar documents are allowed to explore planets not yet under Imperial control, encounter alien civilizations and regressed human societies, and claim barren worlds rich in minerals or other resources.
PG2
Similar Documents? You mean Letters of Marque
many Warrants of Trade are centuries old
PG2
I would say millenia old instead. A century is a very short time in the world of 40k. Some Rogue Trader warrants were signed by the Emperor!
Many Rogue Traders have highly unstable personalities; some have been known to destroy worlds on a whim or experiment with alien species out of macabre curiosity.
PG2
Totally not an unstable personality defect. Everyone in the 41st millenium of any power dissects and experiments on aliens species, and the majority of the Imperium is of the Monodominant philosophy, who would have no issues with that. I would say instead 'experiment on human populations out of macabre curiosity.' Even then, I would think that would still be within the rights of a Rogue Trader...
Portfell flew his cargo shuttles to destruction to fill his ship to capacity with gems and precious metals, resorting to cladding the exterior of his ship with gold and platinum when the holds were full.
Poor wording, should say; portfell flew his cargo shuttles to 'the brink of' destruction, as they weren't actually destroyed.
It is so known for the prolific rate at which the nebula births new stars and even new matter, making the region the apparent birthplace of much of the matter resident in the entire galaxy.
PG. 9 (the cradle)
This breaks the third law of thermodynamics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. The center of the galaxy may have the largest number of star-birthing areas, and planets and other celestial phenomena are being created there, however matter is not.
Rogue Trader light cruisers may be used interchangeably in the same manner as Rogue Trader cruisers in any fleet or scenario that allows them. Instead of the profile above, Rogue Traders may use a lance-armed Dauntless light cruiser for +15 points due to the additional expense incurred maintaining such weapons, as reflected in the fleet list. Rogue Traders are not restricted to only using Dauntless light cruisers in an Exploration fleet and may take them in the same manner as other Rogue Trader cruisers.
PG 15
I am so confused by this whole thing. You need to reword this as it is repetitive, and has other issues. Can RT's not use a torpedo dauntless? The last sentence is particularly confusing, does this mean that RT's can only use Dauntlesses in an exploration fleet, or that you can take them in any fleet list? Does it also mean that they have the standard limitations as RT cruisers where you can only have max half of your ships of non-standard type?
Your fleet may include no more than twelve capital ships, at least half of which must be Rogue Trader Cruisers following the basic profile for this ship.
PG.12
Does this mean that I can't have a have a fleet lead by a Rogue trader light cruiser because I have to have a RT cruiser? Shouldn't this say that at least half of the capital ships must be either RTCLs or RT Cruisers?
Heavy transports may also be taken but not in squadrons with other transport types.
Pg. 11
Why is this line necessary? It is a capital ship and therefore couldn't be squadroned with escorts anyway.
-
Hi Plaxor! Merry Christmas! Thanks for the reply and for taking the time- this is the kind of feedback we need.
Only those individuals with Warrants of Trade or similar documents are allowed to explore planets not yet under Imperial control, encounter alien civilizations and regressed human societies, and claim barren worlds rich in minerals or other resources.
PG2
Similar Documents? You mean Letters of Marque
No. a Warrant of Trade is a far more powerful document than a Letter of Marque. In fact, fleetlords will give Letters of Marque to Rogue Traders to accomplish some mission, with a Warrant of Trade as a reward conditional upon the mission’s success. This isn’t to say Rogue Traders won’t use a Letter of Marque to behave as Rogue Traders, though in essence this would only make them legalized pirates as opposed to true Rogue Traders licensed to traverse certain trade routes, go explore the galaxy beyond the Imperium’s realm, etc.
This all being said, Letters of Marque should be made mention of, and I will do so.
many Warrants of Trade are centuries old
PG2
I would say millenia old instead. A century is a very short time in the world of 40k. Some Rogue Trader warrants were signed by the Emperor!
Good point, and I will add this in.
Many Rogue Traders have highly unstable personalities; some have been known to destroy worlds on a whim or experiment with alien species out of macabre curiosity.
PG2
Totally not an unstable personality defect. Everyone in the 41st millenium of any power dissects and experiments on aliens species, and the majority of the Imperium is of the Monodominant philosophy, who would have no issues with that. I would say instead 'experiment on human populations out of macabre curiosity.' Even then, I would think that would still be within the rights of a Rogue Trader...
This info is actually a cut and paste from official fluff, which I generally leave as-is.
Portfell flew his cargo shuttles to destruction to fill his ship to capacity with gems and precious metals, resorting to cladding the exterior of his ship with gold and platinum when the holds were full.
Poor wording, should say; portfell flew his cargo shuttles to 'the brink of' destruction, as they weren't actually destroyed.
Once again, this is a cut and paste from fluff but I can fix the wording.
It is so known for the prolific rate at which the nebula births new stars and even new matter, making the region the apparent birthplace of much of the matter resident in the entire galaxy.
PG. 9 (the cradle)
This breaks the third law of thermodynamics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. The center of the galaxy may have the largest number of star-birthing areas, and planets and other celestial phenomena are being created there, however matter is not.
I’m a physics major so I know this is all drivel, but once again it’s a cut and paste from fluff. Imagine it from the perspective of an Imperial servant 40k years from now that traverses the stars but only has a dim idea of how anything around him works and considers everything about traversing through space to either be magical, deadly or both.
Rogue Trader light cruisers may be used interchangeably in the same manner as Rogue Trader cruisers in any fleet or scenario that allows them. Instead of the profile above, Rogue Traders may use a lance-armed Dauntless light cruiser for +15 points due to the additional expense incurred maintaining such weapons, as reflected in the fleet list. Rogue Traders are not restricted to only using Dauntless light cruisers in an Exploration fleet and may take them in the same manner as other Rogue Trader cruisers.
PG 15
I am so confused by this whole thing. You need to reword this as it is repetitive, and has other issues. Can RT's not use a torpedo dauntless? The last sentence is particularly confusing, does this mean that RT's can only use Dauntlesses in an exploration fleet, or that you can take them in any fleet list? Does it also mean that they have the standard limitations as RT cruisers where you can only have max half of your ships of non-standard type?
See, now THIS is something I can fix. I will phrase this better and make it more clear, keeping in mind that formatting issues (meaning page space) is one of the constraints we operate in. NO, simply adding another page or deleting graphics is NOT as easy as it sounds when simply saying so!
Your fleet may include no more than twelve capital ships, at least half of which must be Rogue Trader Cruisers following the basic profile for this ship.
PG.12
Does this mean that I can't have a have a fleet lead by a Rogue trader light cruiser because I have to have a RT cruiser? Shouldn't this say that at least half of the capital ships must be either RTCLs or RT Cruisers?
I can fix this and will make it more clear.
Heavy transports may also be taken but not in squadrons with other transport types.
Pg. 11
Why is this line necessary? It is a capital ship and therefore couldn't be squadroned with escorts anyway.
You are right, but this avoids what has already been an FAQ question: “Since transports are already so different and don’t even have to be in squadrons anyway, can transports and heavy transports be in the same squadron?†No.
- Nate
-
Stupid question here...
Should the cost of a Heavy Transport (and it's variants) go against the total cost of the escort fleet? I assume that two "escort transports", which are free, do NOT equal to one Heavy Transport? We played a game with four Heavy Transports (taken for free) against an Ork fleet using the Wolf Pack alternate chart, and the Ork's got utterly decimated and didn't land a point of damage on a single transport!!! (All five of us who played agreed the Ork's used correct doctrine in the attack too.....)
-Zhukov
-
I'm curious why the SDM was removed from the Wolfpack list? Is this an oversight or were they just too powerful?
-
I'm sorry Baron, what does SDM stand for?
-Zhukov
-
System Defence Monitor. 60 pt 2 shield, 2 turret escort with 6+ armour, 8WB@30cmLFR and 1L@30cmF. It's in the defences section of the BBB. 10cm speed and 45° turns.
-
Then it just doesn't fit the wolfpack-"feel" I guess.
-
Well, as a system ship it isn't capable of warp travel. So unless the pirates only raid the system they happen to be in ....
-
Well, as a system ship it isn't capable of warp travel. So unless the pirates only raid the system they happen to be in ....
It's true, which always made me wonder why Orks can take Roks not as defenses. I guess the idea that they build them at an insane rate makes them a lot more reasonable to be in an attacking fleet than system ships.
I don't think pirates would be dumb enough to use system ships in an attack, even if they were in system.
-
Well, as a system ship it isn't capable of warp travel. So unless the pirates only raid the system they happen to be in ....
No... a defense monitor is different from a system ship (see blue book. People seem to get the two mixed up because they're next to each other. The Monitor has no fluff saying it's not warp capable, just absurdly sluggish). I know the Secutor class monitor-cruiser is warp capable in RT, and the SDMs in Nightbringer and Rogue Star were all warp capable as well.
As far as not being the wolfpack feel.... they kept escort carriers from the original list. but I can see your point. I alway liked them because you could AFF them and give a little extra punch where needed.
-
No... a defense monitor is different from a system ship (see blue book. People seem to get the two mixed up because they're next to each other. The Monitor has no fluff saying it's not warp capable, just absurdly sluggish). I know the Secutor class monitor-cruiser is warp capable in RT, and the SDMs in Nightbringer and Rogue Star were all warp capable as well.
As far as not being the wolfpack feel.... they kept escort carriers from the original list. but I can see your point. I alway liked them because you could AFF them and give a little extra punch where needed.
Nah, I didn't get them confused, it's just an assumption I've made, since it has guns out the wazoo and I couldn't imagine it having those and still being warp capable. I consider all monitors as system defence ships only. This was reinforced by them being in the defences section and right next to system ships I will admit, whereas escort carriers, Q-ships and armed transports all seemed to be based off transport ships, which are warp capable.
As for cruiser sized monitors, well I had seen some fluff about one I vaguely recall, but I would give that the most limited of warp drives (on a par with Tau), just to earn the Monitor moniker.
-
Just checked the book Planetary Defence section and fleet selection. It is nowhere written that they (SDM) can do warp jumps but is written in both places that the system ships/vessels defending a planet cannot do a warp jump.
System Defence Monitor.
So the assumption they cannot jump is very logical and most supported.
-
Just checked the book Planetary Defence section and fleet selection. It is nowhere written that they (SDM) can do warp jumps but is written in both places that the system ships/vessels defending a planet cannot do a warp jump.
System Defence Monitor.
So the assumption they cannot jump is very logical and most supported.
But not every system has a shipyard. So they'd have to get them there somehow, since they're too big to fit inside anything short of a Ramilies.
-
But not every system has a shipyard. So they'd have to get them there somehow, since they're too big to fit inside anything short of a Ramilies.
That is a terrible hole in BFG fluff that I have never understood to be honest. I bet we will be working on the Planetary Defences next on this forum.
SDM's should not be in a Pirate Fleet unless it is defending it's Pirate Base which is basically the rules as written now. SDM's represent a plethora of different types of vessels and I would think they would be easy to board and steal considering how slow they are (Or buy on the black market. They are only escort sized ships after all. A wealthy Pirate may get a few.). I think they would be too slow to use for raiding convoys.
-Zhukov
-
There is some fluff of old (hulls of) ships being towed. Some were also lost (in the warp) en route to their 'resting place'. Maybe all you need is a specialised tow-ship (or whatever one cares to call it)?
-
There is some fluff of old (hulls of) ships being towed. Some were also lost (in the warp) en route to their 'resting place'. Maybe all you need is a specialised tow-ship (or whatever one cares to call it)?
Ok, but are you going to have it towed back every time that the ship needs to put into drydock?
-
Just checked the book Planetary Defence section and fleet selection. It is nowhere written that they (SDM) can do warp jumps but is written in both places that the system ships/vessels defending a planet cannot do a warp jump.
System Defence Monitor.
So the assumption they cannot jump is very logical and most supported.
But not every system has a shipyard. So they'd have to get them there somehow, since they're too big to fit inside anything short of a Ramilies.
Yep, tow ships for such systems. And otherwise only smaller ships. A ramilies could have them attached easily I think.
-
Yep, tow ships for such systems. And otherwise only smaller ships. A ramilies could have them attached easily I think.
But that flies in the face of how the warp works. If you have two ships in contact in the warp, they intersect each other's space. When they both come back into the materium, they're fused together. This is the (current fluff) way (among others) space hulks begin to form. They'd have to both be inside the same Geller field, which only extends a few meters outside the ship. So the only way a ship can transport another ship is internally. Actually towing another ship through the warp would be suicidal, as they would both either be totally fused together, or be torn apart by the stresses on their individual frames.
Admittedly, how the Stryxis get around this with their caravan ships isn't clear, as is lampshaded in Edge of the Abyss, page 78 'How they are able to do this without blowing themselves into the vacuum of space is anybody's guess'.
-
It is well established Ramilies Starforts are "towed".
And if that tow is only "in-system" then frick it: no SDM allowed in system without shipyard.
-
It always seemed to me that the reason space hulks exist is for the same reasons oil and water don't mix.
Entropy increases when the two substances cease to be mixed, I.E. Immatterium becomes more disordered when the ships amalgamate together.
Presumably this means that so long as there was enough energy being input into the system (the ships towing through the warp) then you would be fine, but this would mean a shit-ton more power than normal. I would think that these tow-ships have no weapons and instead sacrifice better engines, weapons systems, and possibly a lot of secondary systems to maintain significantly larger warp drives and Gellar fields to be able to do this.
From this it means that it is not so absurd that ships get towed, but likely the jumps would have to be short, with long wait times, probably only 5ly at a time, rather than the hundreds ships can perform normally.
-
System Defence Monitor.
So the assumption they cannot jump is very logical and most supported.
Actually, I looked back in my blue book to double check and it's just 'Defense Monitor'. I wonder where we all started calling them system defense monitors from?
And if that tow is only "in-system" then frick it: no SDM allowed in system without shipyard.
From the way I read the entry in Armada and BFGM, I always took it that they were in system tugs that a space station like a Ramilies would require in bulk, since they're mentioned alongside system ships. Logically (if such a word can be applied to 40k) they would tow the starfort to the location it's jumping from, dock and ride out the trip, then tow the starfort into position on arrival.
-
Actually, I looked back in my blue book to double check and it's just 'Defense Monitor'. I wonder where we all started calling them system defense monitors from?
He's right. Weird....
-
System Defence Monitor.
So the assumption they cannot jump is very logical and most supported.
Actually, I looked back in my blue book to double check and it's just 'Defense Monitor'. I wonder where we all started calling them system defense monitors from?
And if that tow is only "in-system" then frick it: no SDM allowed in system without shipyard.
From the way I read the entry in Armada and BFGM, I always took it that they were in system tugs that a space station like a Ramilies would require in bulk, since they're mentioned alongside system ships. Logically (if such a word can be applied to 40k) they would tow the starfort to the location it's jumping from, dock and ride out the trip, then tow the starfort into position on arrival.
Armada pdf, copy paste:
The greatest advantage of the Ramilies by far is that its powerful generators can erect a warp-bubble over
the entire structure enabling it, with the aid of seventeen navigators and an attendant fleet of tugs, supply ships, warships and system craft, to enter the Warp and be towed to different star systems.
See, towing is viable, even through the warp.
-
Armada pdf, copy paste:
The greatest advantage of the Ramilies by far is that its powerful generators can erect a warp-bubble over
the entire structure enabling it, with the aid of seventeen navigators and an attendant fleet of tugs, supply ships, warships and system craft, to enter the Warp and be towed to different star systems.
See, towing is viable, even through the warp.
Yeah, but if you read it that way, it means that the system craft are traveling through the warp with it, which directly conflicts with Bluebook, page 144 that System ships are incapable of interstellar travel. The only tug I've been able to locate anywhere in 40k fluff is the inter-system tug, a non-warp capable system craft, mentioned in the Rogue Trader rpg (no stats given). One thing that has gotten me thinking: the navigator is what determines how fast a ship travels through the warp to it's destination (unless you're doing a calculated warp transition) so neither the plasma drive not the warp drive provide actual propulsion at all in the warp. If the two things are not providing any propulsion, why would you tow anything to begin with?
And I think I've found the root of our SDM quandary: Andy Hoare. He does it in the Gerrit RT books and again in the sections of the Rogue Trader RPG main book he wrote. I suspect that it's bled into our usage unconsciously. And, a word of caution, he's also the author of the section of Planetstrike that claims that SCs are armed with lances, so take his thoughts on BFG as you will.
-
Movement in the warp is powered by the warp currents. The navigator simply steers the ship around stuff.
I guess that could mean that the navigator is actually moving the vessel. Although I always thought that the ship somehow moved itself and the only reason for a navigator was that they could perceive the warp/astronomicon, and therefore steer around stuff/to where they were going.
Where is my Rogue Trader book? Gah!
-
As it says:
It (Ramilies) creates a warp bubble around the tugs. Problem solved of tugs being system ships being non warp capable.
-
As it says:
It (Ramilies) creates a warp bubble around the tugs. Problem solved of tugs being system ships being non warp capable.
Yeah, but why would they be tugging in the warp to begin with? Plasma drives make no difference in the warp.
And, while that does explain how non-warp capable ships can accompany the Ramilies, it still doesn't explain how a system with no shipyard gets it's defense monitors. I know in Nightbringer they mention that they're sending their defense monitors back to be mothballed due to age and the Monitors in Rogue Star leave the system to be secretly refit by the Tau, though it's possible in that case that they left by gravity hook and got drives from the Tau installed in them so they could jump without them later in the book...
-
With the fluff, warp tugs are actually mentioned in a previous Black Library publication, Shadow Point. After the battle with the Ork Roks is completed the Lord Solar Macharius is sent forth on a new mission, a discussion ensues as to how the remainder of the system will be cleansed. The fleet that is en route to do the cleansing includes defence monitors on a warp tug.
-
Ah BaronI, again a great example on how BL writers mess everything up with their books. BL editors don't care enough.
@ Golgotha, never read Shadow Point but from what I heard a good book.
-
Ah BaronI, again a great example on how BL writers mess everything up with their books. BL editors don't care enough.
@ Golgotha, never read Shadow Point but from what I heard a good book.
So, when BL agrees with you it's a good book, and disagrees with you they've messed it up?
"A battle-squadron comprising of the Ark Imperial, two more squadrons of Cobras and a force of troop transports and warp-towed defence monitors is already in transit to the Mather system. "
It does not mention tugs at all, merely that they're being towed, which, again doesn't make any sense as the warp drives just translate the ship out of the materium. So how would towing it help as they would still have no geller field and no way to get ito the warp?
-
No Shadow Point is from what I heard a really good book about BFG battles and such.
My point still remains: just do not look at BL books for reasonable thought out backgrounds and such.
Or as BL once stated:it is another view on the universe then GW can/does publish.
Towed is towed. Tuggled or non-tuggled.
-
No Shadow Point is from what I heard a really good book about BFG battles and such.
My point still remains: just do not look at BL books for reasonable thought out backgrounds and such.
Or as BL once stated:it is another view on the universe then GW can/does publish.
Towed is towed. Tuggled or non-tuggled.
But... it's not only impossible, it's pointless, given how warp travel works.
-
Explain that to the tugs towing the Ramilies.
-
Yep, tow ships for such systems. And otherwise only smaller ships. A ramilies could have them attached easily I think.
But that flies in the face of how the warp works. If you have two ships in contact in the warp, they intersect each other's space. When they both come back into the materium, they're fused together. This is the (current fluff) way (among others) space hulks begin to form. They'd have to both be inside the same Geller field, which only extends a few meters outside the ship. So the only way a ship can transport another ship is internally. Actually towing another ship through the warp would be suicidal, as they would both either be totally fused together, or be torn apart by the stresses on their individual frames.
Admittedly, how the Stryxis get around this with their caravan ships isn't clear, as is lampshaded in Edge of the Abyss, page 78 'How they are able to do this without blowing themselves into the vacuum of space is anybody's guess'.
Probably the same way Orks do it- a Space Hulk can two up to four Roks through the warp. How do I know? cuz Andy C said so!
A Ramilies can definitely be towed through the warp. Then agan, tha'snot really the best xample because its own fluff states it generates an enormous gellar field to traverse the warp so it's possible the tugs actually nestle inside the Ramilies' field during transit. Then again, the tugs can be physically be attached to the hull s "tow" is a term rather loosely-used. Even for something as powerful as a Ramilies the procedure is risky. Each time its done, theres's a 17% chance it will founder in the warp, and a 3% chance it will be lost for good. That's pretty crappy odds when you are talking about several billion tons of hardware worth more than your average planet's total GDP. There's plenty of other fluff suggesting ships hulks are towed from one system to the other, though in all cases the procedure is described as dangerous.
Now I'm going to bed.
- Nate
-
Happy New Year's everyone! Now that the BFG FAQ/Errata is finally out, we're looking to wrap up the rest of the projects we have in work. The Kor'or'vesh Fleet list has been pretty static over the last few weeks so this is one that will probably be the next one pushed over the top. However, because of how closely it interrelates with the Rogue Traders rules, it is best that these be released together.
I'm aiming for next Wednesday (Jan 5th) as the date we push this over. While I know there's lots of things people wanted to see that didn't get added to the list, at this point I'm looking for things that are actually broken, NOT "I think it should be this and not that," and so on. Please note that "broken" means "provides tactically unfair advantage" or "so over-priced it is essentially unusable" or "the rules as written don't make sense or are too vague." Something that presents a tactical challenge to use does not in and of itself mean that it is broken unless it "breaks theme" with the fleet, like putting Abbadon the Despoiler in charge of a Tau fleet or allowing Necrons to be used as reserves for Imperials, or something equally absurd.
The goal at this point is to produce a useable rule-set that doesn't need a follow-on FAQ to make it work, not a line-by-line assessment on how each ship relates to fluff, how this ship or that ship needs this added or subtracted, etc. Being too slow or not turning as well does not fall into this category. This does NOT mean we aren't listening. However, we have fielded so many contradictory complaints, demands and other such rants like "make it like this or I'm going to smash all my models and never play this game again" (that was an actual e-mail) that at this point I'm happy with 90% right just as long as we can reach an end-state that is more or less fair for everyone. Keeping that in mind, anything you have to bring to the table concerning Rogue Traders will be greatly appreciated.
The Rogue Traders rules can be found on the BFG repository page by clicking the link on my signature. Again, thanks for everything you all do.
-
The Rogue Traders rules have been pushed over and are now FINAL. A few last-minute small tweaks and corrections have been incorporated.