Specialist Arms Forum

Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: flybywire-E2C on September 12, 2010, 05:34:13 AM

Title: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 12, 2010, 05:34:13 AM
Hi guys! I created a Google account with a public folder so we could have a single place for everyone to download what we give the green light to, available here:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en

They are visible directly from the site, but they show up in a low-resolution form that pretty much trashes all the graphics. You can download it directly from the site in their original form with teh graphics pretty much intact. We have listened to your inputs and did all we can to make these as fair as possible while both sticking to the design intent AND satisfying the fans, goals that are sometimes mutually exclusive!

The uploaded files have a few changes, based mainly on feedback we have received from the SG and BFG-List fan sites. Here's what we have on the street so far:

Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet
Eldar Domains and Refits

There is more to come. We should have the finalized FAQ/Errata and Rogue Traders rules on the street by the end of next week at the latest. There are a few more projects we will be working on after that, and when it is all complete, we will be pushing it all to GW so they can get it all posted at once.  Please feel free to copy the above link and re-post it anywhere you see fit. Thanks!

- Nate


Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Commx on September 12, 2010, 09:38:19 AM
Concerning the Tau Document:
Quote
Deimurg Cutting Beam
The Demiurg cutting beam is a short ranged but devastating ionisation beam. In addition to the rules described for this weapon on p.109 of Armada, the ship may extend the range of its cutting beam to 30cm by expending two collected blast markers per weapon strength instead of one, rounding down. For example, a Demiurg Bastion that gathers up five blast markers in the course of its immediately previous movement may in the shooting phase fire a str-5, range-15cm cutting beam or a str-2, range-30cm cutting beam.
This example is still wrong as the Cutting Beam begins at Str-1, not 0. Also, you misspelled Demiurg in the header.

Quote from: New Rules
A Kroot Warsphere may add up to +8HP, for +20 points per 2HP added. For every +2HP added, it adds +2 firepower to its weapons battery. Warspheres may also add +1 shield and/or turret strength for +10 points each (no more than one each). A Kroot Warsphere can extend the range of its weapons battery by +15cm for +25 points. Warspheres so improved are otherwise unchanged from their rules described on p.108 of Armada.
Looks like someone is going to be very happy upon reading this. (Not me though, I'll just be grumpy that the Tyranids lose such versatility only to have the Tau gain it...)


I'm also curious why every Tau capital ship suddenly comes with Tracking Systems of its own, further increasing the power difference between the Protector (which even became cheaper!) and the Hero when compared to other similarly priced ships (ie. every Imperial Cruiser).
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 12, 2010, 06:51:55 PM
The Tracking Systems is good (haven't read the thing yet).

Is it still open for changes.

* sharpens scalpel *
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 12, 2010, 07:44:22 PM
Tau Evolution List

The original fluff from the HA with O 'Mesme. Cool.

Custodian, as said, it is now a massive strong ship:
+20pts for better shields, better batteries (tracking system), better Ion Cannon and more missiles then the FW counterpart.

A beast of ship someone will always take.
I think it is too cheap. ;)
I really liked the HA original approach with 2/2 launch bays and 8 missiles. Much more fun. Would take it at 330.

Warden, good variant. Like it. (the 2 IC version is abusable and will fall badly among non-Tau players I feel).

Protector vior'la, is the FW variant ( a capable ship!) at -5 pts, with better Ion Cannon (arcs) and better batteries (tracking systems.
Protecot Tol'ku, hm, it adds 6 batteries for the loss of range on Ion Cannon and 2 missiles. hmmsels. Guess the tracking systems on 12 batteries are worth to take this variant. Under 30cm the vessel is a beast... 12 batteries and 2 ion cannon, that can be compared 18 batteries. There is no cruiser that can do that! In any fleet if I go quick on it. Perhaps the 260pts CWE Dragonship but... jeez. It can even do Imperial broadsides!  4 batteries and 1 ion cannon port starboard same time... no more weakness...

The vessel is heavily underpriced at 185 pts. I advice upping to 190 (frick the cruiser clash scenario no one plays ;) ). Drop a launch bay on the Tol'ku and arcs on the batteries on the Tol'ku! Drop Ion cannon range on the vior'la.

Emissary, hmm. 110pts... but still not the much requested and and adviced 25cm and 90*.

dal'yth : never ever take it. Nice to have Wardens, but no missiles is really doh.
bor'kan: doh, missiles for launch bays = MUCH stronger!! So useable. But I advice to merge bor'kan and daly'th: 1 launch bay, 3 missiles.
sa'cea: gunship which has one mission: draw away fire from Protectors and die.

So much on the Emissaries : this is no envoy, diplomacy ship which can defend against or run away from pirates. It MUST get 25cm speed and 90* turns. Increase it to 125-130pts.
Please consider the Distant Darkness variant posted in the thread. It was received really well and is playable.

The 2nd shield is a wish from many but that's up to the rest: I do not warrant it I guess.

All in all I would not use this Emissary variant. The crux is still missed: speed & manoeuvrability.

Castellan: ooh. 45cm batteries. Nice. The LFR arc isn't needed I think (Distant Darkness is F only). Consider trading the arcs for +5cm speed.

Xenos: as other poster. Nicassar: modelling and/or alternative model options needed.

The fleet list.....  Merging... GW and FW hmm.
I rather see a dedicated RAIDER / Fast strike fleet from the FW models, but alas.
I REALLY dislike the fact a Kor'O must lead the fleet if a Protector is present. Doesn't fit background. Having Kor'O's doing hunting and border patrols. tsk.

The Protector limit is odd. You know, this restriction doesn't matter. 2 per 500 means 4 per 750, right? But let alone of that: it just doesn't matter. Just make it unrestricted it won't change the local fleet setup.

Recap:
Custodian = overpowered
Protector = overpowered
Emissary = remains junk
Castellan = balanced thus good
Warden =  balanced thus good

On the variants: fluff wise no fan of it as this fleet isn't developed by septs. So I would just drop the sept names on them and give them suitable other names.
Overall this fleet is stronger then the FW list.

1500:
Custodian 330
Warden*3 90
Protector*2 Vior'la 370
Protector*2 Tol'ku 370
Castellan*5 250
Kor'O 80

1490

or
Custodian 330
Warden*3 90
Protector*2 Vior'la 370
Protector*2 Tol'ku 370
Castellan*4 200
Kor'O + aun'el 105
1475

The second list would give me:
52 batteries @ 45cm (all with Tracking System!)
+ 6 batteries @ 30cm
= total 58
6 ion cannon @ 45cm
+ 7 ion cannon @ 30cm
= total 13
16 launch bays
34 missiles

Lets see the FW equivalent:
Custodian 310
Warden*3 90
Protector*4 760
Castellan*5 250
Kor'el + aun'el 75
1485

giving me:
32 batteries @ 45cm
+ 21 batteries @ 30cm
= total 53
8 ion cannon @ 45cm
+ 5 ion cannon @ 30com
= total 13
16 launch bays
38 missiles

So it might look almost even one most take in consideration that your new list means the Tau have much better batteries above 30cm (do the number times 1.25 to get a good value, thus having 64 bats instead of 52 really)). Better turrets (re-roll), better boarding. Better shields (Custodian). Less prow deflectors (Custodian/Emissary).

Main considerations:
variants
Custodian strength
Protector strength
Emissary junk
Fleet list

cheers!


ps, all is just in my own humble opinion. ;)
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: fracas on September 12, 2010, 08:22:58 PM
1. if this is not official can we make it?
http://www.twolandscreative.com/wip/docs/BFG%20%5bCodex%5d%20Adeptus%20Mechanicus.pdf


2. any reason not to separate out the xenos fleet into its own pdf with stats for the bastion, commerce, and warsphere? along with the warsphere movement rule?

3. love the upgrade for the warsphere btw
any chance for a downgrade? say 4 - 6 hit points
with greater maneuverability? say 15 cm movement
and the option for an all kroot fleet thus? without the one per 750 pts limit

4. given how maneuverable the nicassar carravan+dhow is, why leave it as a Defense rather than a Cruiser?

5. kroot warsphere with the option for 3 shields, and having 4 shields on the Caravan, what should their base size be?
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: tinfish on September 12, 2010, 10:04:00 PM
Custodian - good for its price, but not overpowered. It has decent firepower to the front, but compared to an Emperor - 16 batteries to one broadside, it is not worth more points. The Custodian has to be closing to fire at full effect, so the return fire can quickly cripple it, where as the Emperor will spend most of the game abeam.

Protector - I thought the T'olku variant was going to cost 190 pts. I have no problem with the other one costing 185 for the cruiser clash scenario. It has even weaker broadsides than the one I just playtested (IC front only now), so unlike Imperial or Chaos cruisers it suffers from having to be closing to get the best use of its weapons.

Emissary - nice to see some variants, but it really needs 25cm move and 90 degree turns. It can't keep up with the Wardens, so can't protect them. It's only value to the fleet is to act like a Dauntless.
Do the grav hooks need fire arcs ;)

Castellan - fine - price has dropped 5 pts from the draft due to the weapon changes. It would still be nice if it moved 25cm to separate it more from the Defender.

Warden - good little ship.

Tracking system is nice, but it will only come into play a few times in the game. Once closing with the opposing fleet and a few pot shots later on. Compared to other fleets special rules eg. Necrons counting everything as closing, it is not that powerful.

So - I like it, but please make the 2 changes to the Emissary - even if it means the points going back up.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Vaaish on September 12, 2010, 11:29:35 PM
My question is why we keep finding the need to create rules that ignore the main rulebook? Eldar shooting, Necron Shooting, Admech AWR, and now giving Tau ignore fleet wide rage shifts?
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: tinfish on September 13, 2010, 12:04:34 AM
To be fair it is already part of the GW rules, it is just that you had to buy a 50 pt ship to allow it.

In some ways it is flavour - others might see it as rules creep, but at least they follow 99% of the rules unlike Eldar or Necrons.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 13, 2010, 01:38:07 AM
Quote from: Commx on September 12, 2010, 09:38:19 AM
Concerning the Tau Document:
Quote
Deimurg Cutting Beam
The Demiurg cutting beam is a short ranged but devastating ionisation beam. In addition to the rules described for this weapon on p.109 of Armada, the ship may extend the range of its cutting beam to 30cm by expending two collected blast markers per weapon strength instead of one, rounding down. For example, a Demiurg Bastion that gathers up five blast markers in the course of its immediately previous movement may in the shooting phase fire a str-5, range-15cm cutting beam or a str-2, range-30cm cutting beam.
This example is still wrong as the Cutting Beam begins at Str-1, not 0. Also, you misspelled Demiurg in the header.

Quote from: New Rules
A Kroot Warsphere may add up to +8HP, for +20 points per 2HP added. For every +2HP added, it adds +2 firepower to its weapons battery. Warspheres may also add +1 shield and/or turret strength for +10 points each (no more than one each). A Kroot Warsphere can extend the range of its weapons battery by +15cm for +25 points. Warspheres so improved are otherwise unchanged from their rules described on p.108 of Armada.
Looks like someone is going to be very happy upon reading this. (Not me though, I'll just be grumpy that the Tyranids lose such versatility only to have the Tau gain it...)

Demiurg are corrected! I will have a repaired version up on the website this evening. How did the Tyranids lose versatility?


- Nate
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Vaaish on September 13, 2010, 02:03:31 AM
Quote
To be fair it is already part of the GW rules, it is just that you had to buy a 50 pt ship to allow it.
There is a bit of a difference between having to buy a ship that can be destroyed and that only grants the effect in a limited radius and giving a wholesale license to ignore gunnery mechanics that can't be blocked or eliminated in any way.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 13, 2010, 02:09:12 AM
Quote from: fracas on September 12, 2010, 08:22:58 PM
1. if this is not official can we make it?
http://www.twolandscreative.com/wip/docs/BFG%20%5bCodex%5d%20Adeptus%20Mechanicus.pdf

 

The Ships of Mars PDF is already on the GW website. Your format is much nicer, but right now we are working on fixes for what’s missing from the GW website.
Quote
2. any reason not to separate out the xenos fleet into its own pdf with stats for the bastion, commerce, and warsphere? along with the warsphere movement rule?

We did not want to create a completely separate Xenos fleet list, even though it for all intents and purposes behaves as such. Because the Nicassar are also Xenos but the Nicassar cannot be used by a pure Demiurg/Kroot fleet, it became a matter of simplicity to combine it all together into a single document.   
Quote

3. love the upgrade for the warsphere btw
any chance for a downgrade? say 4 - 6 hit points
with greater maneuverability? say 15 cm movement
and the option for an all kroot fleet thus? without the one per 750 pts limit

 I cannot tell you how much grief exists that the Kroot even have their own ship. Without getting too deep into it, giving the Kroot their own ship faced extinction more than once, and the powers that be are NEVER going to buy off on a stand-alone Kroot list. Also, we didn’t want to give the Kroot anything that changes their basic “behaves like a Rok” mechanic because it would create yet ANOTHER movement rule-set, and between the Eldar, Roks and Space Hulks, the game has enough exceptions to the movement rules.
Quote

4. given how maneuverable the nicassar carravan+dhow is, why leave it as a Defense rather than a Cruiser?



No. This thing under no circumstances should be a cruiser.
 
Quote

5. kroot warsphere with the option for 3 shields, and having 4 shields on the Caravan, what should their base size be?

Good question!. The 2010 FAQ states “anything greater than two shields OR 10HP gets a large base.” Both of these would fall under that ruling. The Warsphere under the current rules does not, but good luck getting that monstrosity to stay up on a small base!
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: fracas on September 13, 2010, 02:50:10 AM
1. i think an all Kroot list would be amusing:
a super warsphere or two
a few standard warsphere
and half a dozen or so light warsphere

all bouncing around in the movement phase :)

but given the rules as is, i may just build a demiurge-kroot fleet


2. given renewed options for the Nicassaar, any thoughts to re-releasing their models?

3. the Admech pdf is not my creation, though i do love the format


thanks for your considerations nate!
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 13, 2010, 06:44:52 AM
Tinfish:
Quote
Custodian - good for its price, but not overpowered. It has decent firepower to the front, but compared to an Emperor - 16 batteries to one broadside, it is not worth more points. The Custodian has to be closing to fire at full effect, so the return fire can quickly cripple it, where as the Emperor will spend most of the game abeam.
Emperor is +35 pts for:
+1 leadership
+2 hits
+1 turret (negated by tracking systems)
+8 batteries (focusable in one arc from Emperor = 6 + 10) at higher range
has weaker ordnance (no resilience)
No missiles (6 of them) thus Custodian can do a synergy strike which the Emperor cannot.
No Ion Cannon (2 pieces). Lets say that 1 ic = 3 batteries (at 30cm to be honest) the Custodian has 6 extra batteries through them. So the earlier +8 bats is downed to +2. Down this post I'll show how it even gets better for the Custodian.

In a 1 on 1 duel the Custodian won't close. But use its faster speed to go around to the rear of the Emperor. Though it'll be tricky for both.

Tinfish
Quote
Protector - I thought the T'olku variant was going to cost 190 pts. I have no problem with the other one costing 185 for the cruiser clash scenario. It has even weaker broadsides than the one I just playtested (IC front only now), so unlike Imperial or Chaos cruisers it suffers from having to be closing to get the best use of its weapons.

Lets see, compared to Lunar the Vior'la has:
+5pts
-2 hits
+1 turret (plus tracking system)
+ 15cm range on batteries (+ ts)
+ 15cm range on ion cannon (lances)
+ 2 launch bays!
6 missiles which are better then 6 torpedoes (turns and speed).

In a 1:1 duel the Lunar will die die die. The Tyrant (185) and Dominator (190) as well.

The Tol'ku has just as much batteries then the Dominator without ts and has Ion Cannons and has launch bays and has missiles.

Both Protector variants need toning down! Preferring Ion Cannon range and ordnance.

Vaaish,
tracking systems

I understand your sentiments but on another level. The normal Tau fleet from Armada is an ordnance fleet pur sang. It can get some nice gunnery with the Messenger but still won't excel at it. Though the Hero is a problem with its massive weaponry.
Now this new HA Tau list creates a Tau fleet that has massive ordnance available but is also turned into a heavy gunnery fleet! 45cm Protectors (one with 45cm Ion+ 45cm bats), the other with 12wb at 45cm with TS), 45cm Custodians (Ion & batteries).

Now Project Distant Darkness (sorry to bring this up every time but I gave thought about it) has a Tau fleet which has focus on gunnery. The Custodian has 4 launch bays, the Protector 1, the Emissary a fighter bay. Then the main gunnery, batteries at 45cm is Front Arc only in most cases, Ion Cannon @ 30cm can do left-front or right front. yes the fleet is nimble with higher turning rates but with fixed arcs not overpowered. Less ordnance also means less broadside/rear protection.

Also lets not forget tracking systems make turrets re-roll their dice. Meaning an ordnance heavy fleet is just untouchable by other ordnance.



Onto Tracking Systems and batteries:

6 batteries above 30cm with tracking systems equals 8 batteries above 30cm with no tracking systems (Take that Lunar!)
8 batteries above 30cm with tracking systems equals 12 batteries above 30cm with no tracking systems (whoa! Custodian thus has 12 batteries plus 2 ion = 12+6 = 18!)
12 batteries above 30cm with tracking systems equals 16 batteries above 30cm with no tracking systems (like oh yeah oh yeah tol'ku!)

Add all these batteries to the 45cm Ion Cannon availability added to all the launch bays added to all the missiles....

(I made one mistake in the earlier post, tol'ku has no swinging arcs on the Ion Cannon, still no issue with all these batteries....).

Nate, you really said the FW Tau fleet was overpowered? ;)

On the Kroot and the powers that be. lol. Frick'em. Create a Kroot list and release it unofficially in Warp Rift.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: tinfish on September 13, 2010, 09:58:17 AM
On the Custodian v Emperor issue - you have to take into account a few other things. To field a Custodian you must take a Kor'O, the +1 Ld for the Emperor allows you to take a Fleet Commander for Ld 9.

So the relative costs are Custodian - 410, Emperor - 415. Are the differences you listed worth 5 pts?

Protector -v Lunar. As you are well aware closing v abeam makes a huge difference. The Lunar should only face one round of shooting against its prow armour before swinging abeam - it will lock on. Then the Protector could try a point blank synergy strike - if it hasn't been forced to brace. If the Protector goes abeam (to fly round for another pass) it isn't likely to knock a shield down with its broadside. The Lunar will always have a friend - 2 v 2 will be different.
In my playtest games the Protector didn't feel too powerful. You are always wary of the 6 hp's. If a couple of escorts strip your shields you have to brace against the next shot. They do have a powerful first shot, but then you are in amongst the enemy with your pathetic broadsides trying your hardest to get them back into your front arc.

Compare it to an Acheron instead, it can sit abeam, has the same batteries at +15 cm then +2 lances (in all 3 aspects) at 45cm and is 5cm faster, all for +5pts. My money is on the Acheron. My money is on the Acheron v the Lunar as well.

I should point out that I'm not some Tau fanatic, they are my 5th fleet. I just don't want them to be as poor and one dimensional as Orks.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 13, 2010, 10:31:07 AM
Ah well, on the Custodian I seem to be forgetting the Kor'O is needed in this list. I still think the vessel goes 1:1. In the larger scheme I'd still call it on the strong side.

Protector vs Lunar = Ion Cannon negate prow armour. Missiles & Manta's can do synergy strike (turrets have to choose).

2 vs 2 the Protector will even be more on the winning side with the added launch bays, missiles and added weaponry. Because now I can shoot (standard version) 12 batteries & 4 Ion Cannon at a single Lunar before it can shoot back.
The Lunar can only lock on if it is already abeam, it cannot turn doing the lock on when a turn is needed.

So even then, with a blastmarker on it, the Lunar moves 15cm forward (if the Protector shot from 45cm), makes a slight turn to shoot broadsides (6wb + 2l). The Protector still has the options then. Slow moving pace. Reload or Lock On, even AAF to make new distance for a new attack run.

The Acheron will also face difficulties because of the bomber/missile synergy, though 3 turrets is better. The 5+ prow won't help when closing. 6 batteries & 4 lances will harass the Protector, given.

(Cool to see you bring up th Acheron, underrated ship by many).

The Tau fleet indeed will have troubles in broadside duels but before they get there the enemy will be mauled.

I should point out that I am a Tau fanatic. ;)
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: tinfish on September 13, 2010, 11:56:41 AM
If the Protectors were 190 - 200 I would be happy enough. I would rather see the points go up a bit than have the weapons neutered. If the cruisers are ineffective no one will use them and the 3 Explorer spam will continue to be the only effective Tau fleet.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 13, 2010, 02:52:29 PM
Hmm, not really. The problem ain't the Explorer really. It is the fact the Hero is added to defend them. And Merchants are not taken.

3 Explorers are toast when an enemy brakes through.

Also, we are talking the FW fleet here. The GW feet is so darn expensive (I mean the price of 3 explorers is almost a complete FW fleet).

I don't think comparing GW-FW is needed here. The GW needs a 'fix'. So lets not create a fleet compared to a non-fixed fleet. Because then you cannot create the GW fleet as the FW is balanced wrongly then.
Or so. ;)



Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Vaaish on September 13, 2010, 02:53:04 PM
Based on the fluff we have, the Tau are inferior at least gunnery wise to IN. I'd rather see weaker weapons than higher points. As Horizon says, it is making them both strong gunnery and strong ordnance.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: KivArn on September 13, 2010, 03:17:26 PM
Tau fleet -- i really hope this isn't the final version as said in the pdf title...


Custodian, good ship, add a deflector for 15 points and i'll be ecstatic ;) (The deflector is used in diving into the warp.. it makes sense for all the new vessels to have it...)

Protector: Is there any need for the variants? The second ship is much stronger than the first.
Fix the first to have Front arc weapons only and give it a 90* turn and it'll be fine :)

Emissary: Again, having so many variants is kinda weird. It's akin to having a lunar class cruiser with 3 different weapons options... it still looks the same yet each ones different.
Drop the ion cannons... there are non on the ship, there should be non in the rules.
Either way though, it's still useless...

Castellan, i'll go with that :)

Warden.. you'll never make me happy without the twin ion cannons ;)

Composition, drop the limit on protectors... it's pointless anyway.
Having to take a Kor'O to take protectors does not fit with the fluff of the fleet, and seems ridiculous anyway.

EDIT: Oh man... i've just seen that you have to take an Aun as well for a protector!!!!!!!!! Seriously what was the thinking behind these 2 decisions for the composition.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: tinfish on September 13, 2010, 03:24:39 PM
I always thought the Tau were supposed to be a high tech race who use advanced weaponry and vehicles - technology lost to the Imperium. In 40K (which I haven't played in years) the Rail Guns and Ion Cannon are generally more powerful than Imperial weapons - even the basic rifle is more powerful. The army is full of drones to aid targeting etc.
The BFG fluff was about the original ships being an explorer fleet, not a battle fleet - hence they were relatively weak. The FW ships are supposed to be the next evolution of the fleet.

The fleet has downsides. Low hit points, restricted fire arcs, no assault boats, no teleport attacks. It doesn't have the speed of (any) Eldar or even Chaos, no long (60cm) weapons. Even the Imperials have Nova cannon - and Tau cruisers are the only ones that can be crippled by 1 direct hit.

I doubt anyone would scream cheese playing against this fleet, Eldar and Necrons have that covered. I have played a few games with the wip list and I honestly think my Chaos fleet is more powerful.

<edit>

I think there has to be a Protector variant. Would you play Imperials if there was a Lunar and a Lunar and a Lunar ??
It looses IC range and has more limited fire arcs & less missiles, but it probably should cost 190. 90 degree turns... I'd pay for that.

Emissary - there are two big gun barrels near the wing tips and a third under the nose - it should have 3 IC's :)

Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: KivArn on September 13, 2010, 04:56:41 PM
Quote from: tinfish on September 13, 2010, 03:24:39 PM
I think there has to be a Protector variant. Would you play Imperials if there was a Lunar and a Lunar and a Lunar ??
It looses IC range and has more limited fire arcs & less missiles, but it probably should cost 190. 90 degree turns... I'd pay for that.
Like all those different versions of the strike cruiser in the marine fleet ;). There's always the hero as well, that way you can have some variation if you want. The older model attack cruiser and the newer, more nimble, attack cruiser (if it had 90* turns)
Quote
Emissary - there are two big gun barrels near the wing tips and a third under the nose - it should have 3 IC's :)
Only if they're fixed forward ;) (or front arc at any rate..) and it recieves 90* turns :D
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Vaaish on September 13, 2010, 05:28:53 PM
Quote
I always thought the Tau were supposed to be a high tech race who use advanced weaponry and vehicles - technology lost to the Imperium. In 40K (which I haven't played in years) the Rail Guns and Ion Cannon are generally more powerful than Imperial weapons - even the basic rifle is more powerful. The army is full of drones to aid targeting etc.

not necessarily. Tau on the ground generally have longer ranged weapons but overall they are not superior to IoM outside of the railgun and their missile systems. They get a bit more of a boost from the markerlight too. If you look at Tau infantry armor, the best they have is the crisis and broadside suits, both of which are the rough equivalent of IoM marine gear. Most of their gear is about on par with IG stormtroopers and their vehicles aren't much to look at either outside of the ion cannon and railgun. While it is true that their basic armament is stronger than the basic IG armament, it seems to be less of a capability issue as it is a need for the IoM. Marine bolters can become significantly more powerful and just as long ranged simply by changing ammo type. IG lasguns can fire hotshot to boost AP considerably though at the cost of range. Even the IoM plasma weapons have a boost over their Tau counterparts. What that seems to indicate is that the IoM is just as capable of producing weapons on par or exceeding the capabilities of Tau equipment, but there just isn't the need with the number of bodies the IoM can throw at a problem.

That seems to translate into the space combat realm too, though the divide is much greater. Initially, yes, the tau were fighting without dedicated warships and they paid for it. That sparked the Lar'Shi class which is a passable warship fluff wise. More recently the Kor'or'Vesh came into play which still has inferior hull strength to the more advanced races and weaker overall firepower which perform better, but still aren't on even terms. What this comes down to is I'm not seeing any reason for the sudden shift to make Tau highly shooty and ordnance heavy. Tau is already a solid fleet, it doesn't need a boost in power.

I know this may come off as pushing for my own fleet, but seriously, we can't change the stats on the endeavour class, but we can make up a whole new list and and stats for Tau?
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Commx on September 13, 2010, 06:13:17 PM
Quote from: flybywire-E2C on September 13, 2010, 01:38:07 AM
How did the Tyranids lose versatility?

- Nate
In the 2010 FAQ, it was determined that all of a Tyranid's Evolutions are 'campaign only' without specific permission. This will mean they will only be used in some 'friendly' games at best, and never again in 'competitive' environments. One of the reasons given by the HA for this was that their many options would make it confusing for their opponent as there was no way to identify these changes. And yet, the Kroot Warsphere now possesses four different types of upgrade which are similarly 'invisible'.


[quote = Eldar Haven Criticals]Repulsion Field Off-Line. The station loses ability to maintain position in space. Until repaired, the station drifts 5cm toward the nearest celestial phenomena and loses ability to ignore blast marker or solar phenomena effects. It‟s armor value is reduced to 5+ until repaired.[/quote]
The Haven already starts with an armour value of 5+, so the last sentence does not actually do anything.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 13, 2010, 07:54:59 PM
Hi all,

the Emissary model does not have Ion Cannons. :)

Long time ago I exchanged mails with the model designer. Specifically on the Protector:

* Stubs along the prow are railgun batteries (1 on each wing tip, 5 in the middle) All Fixed Forward.
* Large turrets on top = Ion Cannon = flexible mount (LF / RF)
* Small turrets = anti ordnance (all angles covered like fluff says)
* Large bay underneath = Manta bay
* Small square holes along wing = bays which fit the Orca drop pod (= larger then Barracuda, thus these are fighter bays.
* Small holes round in prow = missiles

Going from that the Warden does have railguns & 1 ion cannon, never 2. The Castellan railguns and missiles. The Emissary no Ion cannon but fixed railguns, missiles and 2 launch bays. Custodian 4 Manta Bays. Not 8.


On the aun'el for a Protector. I guess my mind refused to registrate that,,,


I fail to understand why some of you do not see the wrongness of this Tau fleet. I mean, background wise and statwise I do not agree with the Forgeworld list as it has little imagination. But through all it is a mighty playable and well balanced list.
So I would only change this into a total different fleet, not an upgraded fleet. With different I mean a fleet with 90* turns on the Emissary & Protector. 25cm speed on Emissary, Castellen and Warden. All Railguns fixed forward, some at 45cm. Ion Cannon only 30cm (this was specifically stated by Bob Henderson in the past: Tau should not get 45cm ion cannon, maybe only on a Custodian). Much less launch bay. Custodian classified as a grand cruiser.

But now this Tau list sees an upgraded Custodian & Protector. These two are the problem, not the other three.

This list can outshoot & out ordnance every other fleet. Even the weak broadsides and boarding weakness is gone. What remains is the lower hits (like Eldar).

Only Chaos has longer ranged weapons. The IN only a select few vessels plus an unreliable nova cannon. Nids can do some 45cm as the odd Ork vessel and a Marine barge.
(Also Strike Cruisers, Dark/Craftworld/Corsair Eldar, IN light cruisers are ships with 6 hits which can be crippled in one shot or less).
On speed. 20cm overall plus an escort on 25cm (negating the Emissary as I won't use this variant) is average in the game. Not the best but also not the worst. The speed missiles make up for a lot of that.

I ran this list along my opponents (one plays Eldar, Ork, IN, Chaos, the other Chaos and Tau FW) and the inititial reaction is that is just unbalanced fleet.

The fleet list itself is marred with noodles. Kor'o & aun on a Protector is just a no go. The Protector limit pfft. The mixing with the SG list needless.

We need to face the fact that there are only a very few players with mixed fleets, most with a Forgeworld only fleet and another part with the GW only fleet.

Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 13, 2010, 08:01:11 PM
In many aspects i think horizon is correct.
Im not sure if the List is too strong as is would be now, but i think as well that the corrections take place in the wrong parts of the fleet. More 90° maybe more 25 cm fit the concept of new ship designs with lower structure (6 and 4 hits). If the smaller ships (emissary) are made worth ist points noone will only use protectors, further e.g. i dont understand why in a FW fleet in most battles there can only be 3 wardens (as the Custodian is the only ship who can bring them in).
So with keeping the emissary a piece of junk and making only one escort available of corse the players chose to play many protectors, there are simply no other options. I think thats the only problem with the FW-List.
The GW List is a little more versatile but still has the Merchant is junk problem, of corse players take only explorers and heroes that way...

Change the smaller ships that are not taken by players rather than tinkering at those who are already played.

Just for the fun ive to say i do have a mixed fleet :-D
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: tinfish on September 13, 2010, 10:18:44 PM
I think some people need to play a few games with them before any more changes are made. Theorygothic (invented a new word) is all fine and well, but nothing beats playing a few games.

Play a game, swap fleets and play against them. In the games I have played they didn't seem overpowered. I had no answer to Dark Eldar screaming past me and sitting on my tail - the Protector with more batteries will help a bit there, against necrons my opponent failed most of the target priority rolls, forcing him to shoot at escorts, then failed to brace when I shot back. My fleet was crippled at the end, if he had taken more cruisers rather than the tomb ship I would have been in real trouble. None of the regular BFG players at the club thought they looked too powerful and my opponent had no complaints.

Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: KivArn on September 13, 2010, 10:59:46 PM
Quote from: horizon on September 13, 2010, 07:54:59 PM
[The bit about the email and fleet ideas]

I remember that email :D,

and yes... i'd much prefer a whole different fast and manoeuvrable tau fleet as something new and different. With non of the silliness that exists in this one! :)

I'd be quite happy with 90* turns, fixed forward weapons, etc. I see the new tau fleet as a battlefleet akin to some of the startrek dominion/defiant battles. Where they close in for an attack run, sweep past, then turn around for another shot. Not staying relatively stationary and shooting the hell out of things.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 14, 2010, 03:07:14 AM
The Tau Commerce Protection Fleet had some misspellings and other minor errors corrected concerning the Emissary and the Demiurg cutting beam. The files are stored in the same place here:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en

Nate
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 14, 2010, 04:15:12 AM
@ Tinfish, I can do this theory since I played many games with the FW list. It is balanced. Thus if I see changes to those vessels I can see pretty quick if something gets stronger or weaker.

So... new version....

reading...

Custodian: no change
Warden: no change
Protector: no change
Emissary: 25cm speed and prow deflector option
Castellan: no change

Fleet List: no change


So... we improved a ship a bit, added no changes to the fleet list so I still give a thumbs down on it.

Well, the Emissary, it should have 90* as well. So fix that 45* typo as well. ;)

The fleet remains too strong/

The fleet list still has the clunky-wrong-bad-Kor'O&Aun requirements for the Protector (and to lesser extend Custodian).


So, Nate (or someone else from the HA) did you ready any of our concerns and opinions? ;)

General on the prow deflector:
This has nothing to do with the shape of the ship. Prow deflectors are a manner of doing long warp dives and are shields layered in a certain way.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: tinfish on September 15, 2010, 04:39:27 PM
I had a proper read of the pdf last night and noticed something.
In the fleet list it under Cruisers it says 'It may contain up to two Protectors for every 500 pts of Tau vessels in the fleet'

Literally this means I can only take 2 Protectors in a 1500 pt fleet - I need to buy 1000 pts of ships to be allowed 4, but I can only afford 2. In this same fleet I can take 2 Explorers and 2 Custodians.

Should it not read 'You may include 2 Protectors per 500 points of value of the fleet' or something like that. The Custodian could be read similarly.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 16, 2010, 04:18:32 AM
Good catch, that's like really bad wording. If it is intentional it is bad as well. :)
Title: New DRAFT rules for Space Marines fleets and Rogue Traders
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 22, 2010, 03:14:02 AM
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


Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 22, 2010, 03:38:56 AM
Quote from: tinfish on September 15, 2010, 04:39:27 PM
I had a proper read of the pdf last night and noticed something.
In the fleet list it under Cruisers it says 'It may contain up to two Protectors for every 500 pts of Tau vessels in the fleet'

Literally this means I can only take 2 Protectors in a 1500 pt fleet - I need to buy 1000 pts of ships to be allowed 4, but I can only afford 2. In this same fleet I can take 2 Explorers and 2 Custodians.

Should it not read 'You may include 2 Protectors per 500 points of value of the fleet' or something like that. The Custodian could be read similarly.

Fixed: Every 500 points of Tau vessels in the fleet may include up to two Protectors. The updated file is being uploaded tonight.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 22, 2010, 04:09:16 AM
You still kept the nonsense that a Kor'O and Aun are needed when a Protector is taken.

You still did not adress every and all remarks about the Emissary.

I am still not convinced this Tau fleet is in any way balanced.

:/
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 22, 2010, 05:08:54 AM
Quote from: horizon on September 22, 2010, 04:09:16 AM
You still kept the nonsense that a Kor'O and Aun are needed when a Protector is taken.


Oops, that should have been fixed as well, an oversight on my part.

Quote
You still did not adress every and all remarks about the Emissary.

I am still not convinced this Tau fleet is in any way balanced.

:/

We are not going to agree on everything, and please feel free to disagree that this fleet isn't balanced. The Emissary is not nor will be a "Tau Dauntless". The Dauntless is an "escort but bigger," light, fast and maneuverable. The Emissary is a "cruiser but smaller,"  Tau-style, something like an Imp Endeavor but not as good, which is what all the Tau ships are supposed to represent: Like Imps but not as good.
Tau seem like they hit harder than Imperials, but Imps fight best abeam, whereas Tau fight best only prow-on, an inherent weakness in and of itself.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 22, 2010, 06:55:49 AM
Dauntless is escort but bigger? = ship with 6 hits.
Emissary is cruiser but smaller? = ship with 4 hits.
Someone forgot to send me a memo?

But then why is the background for the Emissary that it is a diplomatic vessel that can withstand small pirate attacks and is manoeuvrable enough to evade them.
Manouevrable = 25cm / 90* turns.

Like an Imperial Endeavour but not as good? Well, the voss prow light cruisers are so weak and useless.... they NEED a 6+ prow at no point increase to be viable. I never ever compare a vessel to an Endeavour/Endurance/Defiant.

I still stand by this for the Emissary:
points 130
hits 4
speed 25cm
turns 90
armour 5+ / 6+ prow deflector
shields 1
turrets 2

prow battery str.2 - 30cm F
port battery str.2 - 30cm F
starboard battert str.2. 30cm F
prow missiles str.3 F
dorsal launch bay str.1 (fighter only)

Balanced & fluffy.

Representing Imperial ships but not as good?
As it stands the Hero from Armada is better then any Imperial equivalent.
Your Tau Protectors are better then any Imperial equivalent.
Your Custodian is better then or certainly a match for any Imperial equivalent.
Better turrets, better gunnery, better focusable firepower, better torpedoes, better bombers.

Please...

Fighting prow on like Tau is a lot easier. The Imperials have to choose: prow on for armour 6+ plus torps or abeam for guns. The Tau style is no weakness, their ordnance cover a lot of areas. Plus your Tau have better broadsides then the original FW fleet.


edit: the fleet list still tells me to embark an Aun on the Protector or Custodian.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: KivArn on September 22, 2010, 08:34:04 AM
FLEET LIST

Nice work sorting out the Kor/Aun issue :)

The wording on the limitations of the custodian are a little cluncky

Quote
Your fleet may only include one Custodian per FULL 750 points of Tau vessels. In other words, if your fleet is equal to or more than 750 points, it may then include one Custodian

Implies that
0 - 749 NO Custodians
750 - 1499 ONE Custodian
1500 - 2249 TWO Custodians
etc.



Quote
but it cannot include a second unless it already includes 1,500 points of Tau vessels, etc
but this implies the following

0-?? points NO Custodians
?? - 1829 ONE Custodian
1830 - 2579 TWO Custodians (as you must have 1500 points of Tau vessel (including up to one custodian) before you can take a second, and you can't get one in the first 329 points after the 1500 minimum)
2580 - 3330 Three Custodians
etc.

If the former was intended then could the latter half be re-worded
Quote
Your fleet may only include one Custodian per FULL 750 points of Tau vessels. In other words, if your fleet is equal to or more than 750 points, it may then include one Custodian. If the fleet totals 1500 points then it may include up to two Custodians, etc.

I still think the limitation on the protectors is worthless

2/500 so...

Points|max # of protectors taken 2/500|max # of protectors unlimited|# of protectors including one custodian
500|2 (370)| 2 (370) | 2P (370)
750|4 (740)|4 (740) | 1C 2P (700)
1000|4 (740)|5 (925) | 1C 3P (885)
1500|6 (1110)|7 (1295)*| 1C 5P (1255)**
2000|8 (1480)|10 (1850) | 1C 8P (1810) ***
3000|12 (2220) |15 (2775)****|1C 14P (2920) *****

* You could get 8 for 1480 but you need a Kor'el minimum at 50 points.
** You could get 1C 6P for 1440 but a Kor'O must be taken at 80 points.
*** Similarly you could get 1C 9P for 1995 but a Kor'O must be taken at 80 points.
**** You could get 16 for 2960 but you need a Kor'el minimum at 50 points.
***** However it is far more likely that at 3000 points you will have atleast 2 Custodians, and hence 2C 12P for 2880 points


As you can see from the table, the only sensiblish fleet that would break your 2P/500 is the 1000 point all protector fleet. And this is by one. Elsewise you will almost certainly be taking a custodian. They are, after all, too good not to take!

I ask you, is the limit really necessary? It seems like a rule for the sake of having a rule.

Other than this, the fleet list looks fine


TAU SHIPS
Custodian
May be a touch powerful, but only playtesting will tell :)

Protector
If we are having different configurations of protector i'll live with it, but i see no downside worth in taking the voir'la version. The Tolku gets +6 WB for -2 Torps, it might just be me, but on paper i doubt i'll ever take the voir'la class...

Emissary
Definitely has some worth in the different configurations, would look nicer perhaps if the ion cannon variant was dropped and replaced with either
Quote
The IL'PORRUI BORK'AN CONFIGURATION may exchange its grav hooks for 1 ion cannon
alternatively this would be done the other way around, keep the ion cannons and exchange them for grav hooks... would be easier this way with the attack arcs.

And to keep this ship in line with it's own fluff it needs to have 90* turns, otherwise it will be surrounded and eaten by all the pirates and other escorts it's meant to be able to out manoeuvre

Castellan
No Problems

Warden
No Problems
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 22, 2010, 08:45:40 AM
Hi,
the aun is still needed on a Protector. I guess oversight.

By the way:

Kor'o 80pts
aun'el 25pts
Custodian 330pts
3*Warden 90pts
Custodian 330pts
3*Warden 90pts
3* Protector 555pts

is 1500pts exact. If your guess one (0-749 = none, 750-1499 = one) is true, which I think it is.

This is quite noodles as Nate specifically stated he disliked the FW rules made it possible to easily take 2 Custodians.

The FW equivalent would cost:
1475 pts in total.

But the FW list would be weaker (no 45cm Ion on Custodian, 2 less missiles, only 2 shields, no swing arcs on Protector for ions, no option to take variant Protector (which I certainly would take in this new list) and no tracking systems on both custodian and protector, thus weaker railguns and turrets.

On the vior'la vs tolku Protector.
The Tolku has Ion Cannons at 45cm. Having a combination of Tolku & Vior'la is ideal:
370pts for:
6 + 12 = 18 railguns at 45cm (with tracking systems = equivalent of 8 + 16 batteres above 30cm = 24)
2 ion cannon @ 45cm
2 ion cannon @ 30cm
2 + 2 = 4 launch bays
6 + 4 = 10 missiles

True killer combo.

Lets look at an Imperial equivalent: 2x Lunar
360pts for (focusable firepower):
6 + 6 = 12 batteries @ 30cm
2 + 2 = 4 lances @ 30cm
6 + 6 = 12 torpedoes
outshot, outordnanced, torps will be neutered by 3 re-rollable turrets or fighters (2 needed, leaves room for 2 bombers).
Even the 6+ prow will suffer vs 24 batteries + 2 lances @ 31-45cm when closing.

The only option for the Lunar is to go on All Ahead Full and try to get in between both Protectors to use both broadsides. But it'll be a hard long road.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: KivArn on September 22, 2010, 09:02:58 AM
Quote from: horizon on September 22, 2010, 08:45:40 AM
Hi,
the aun is still needed on a Protector. I guess oversight.
Saw the Kor'O had gone, and assumed that the aun had as well... hopeing that it's an oversight!!

Quote
By the way:

Kor'o 80pts
aun'el 25pts
Custodian 330pts
3*Warden 90pts
Custodian 330pts
3*Warden 90pts
3* Protector 555pts

is 1500pts exact. If your guess one (0-749 = none, 750-1499 = one) is true, which I think it is.

This is quite noodles as Nate specifically stated he disliked the FW rules made it possible to easily take 2 Custodians.

The FW equivalent would cost:
1475 pts in total.

But the FW list would be weaker (no 45cm Ion on Custodian, 2 less missiles, only 2 shields, no swing arcs on Protector for ions, no option to take variant Protector (which I certainly would take in this new list) and no tracking systems on both custodian and protector, thus weaker railguns and turrets.

And that's quite a nasty little fleet there!

A better limit for the custodian might be 1 per 1500 or part there of, would drastically limit the numbers, but allow them to exist in smaller games. The possibility of 4 in a 3000 point game is a little silly!
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Don Gusto on September 22, 2010, 12:53:26 PM
Since about 10 days I cannot access the files any more. Previously it worked just fine but now I just get a blank page. Tried it with different browsers, both at work and at home.  ???
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 22, 2010, 12:54:56 PM
Heya,
I discovered that too, but when logged in on my gmail account I can download/see them again.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: KivArn on September 22, 2010, 12:57:09 PM
had  the opposite problem... lost them in gmail and had to use the original links!

weird  ???
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: russ_c on September 23, 2010, 01:44:03 AM
I have a question about the Space Marine fleet list and venerable battle barge.  If I have a fleet worth 1000 points does that mean I can have both a Space Marine Battle Barge AND a venerable battle barge?  Or, does a venerable battle barge count as a "regular" battle barge for the purpose of fleet points/composition?

Also, How do annilators work with turret suppression?

The Dominion fleet appears broken to me ( without play testing ).  The cost for a strike cruiser is reduced by nearly 20%, but they still have the best SM benefits: armor, high LD, +1 Hit and run,  and boarding value.

The Venerable stuff is...interesting.  So for 435 points I can take a despoiler with 4 T-hawks?  That seems like a better choice then a standard Battle Barge if you're willing to give up the batteries for lances.

My first overall impression is that you're really messing with the flavor of SM.  It's starting to feel like an IN fleet.  I think that SM needed some work, but not like this (good work on the combined batteries ruling in FAQ though).  If you'd like to add options to SM but not sacrifice the flavor as much why not try a few things like...

- Variants of Strike Cruisers that are either Bombardment heavy or T-hawk heavy.  Basically re-distribute the load out on the vessel
- If you must add longer range +4 lances, how about "artillery" bombardment cannons instead?  Perhaps they have a longer range and can only every column shift a single direction once ( brainstorming on the fly here if it isn't obvious!), they still fullfill a role much like a lance, but aren't quite the same thing and serve to fill a longer range roll much like an NC vessel would for IN.

Russ
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 23, 2010, 03:11:14 AM
Quote from: Don Gusto on September 22, 2010, 12:53:26 PM
Since about 10 days I cannot access the files any more. Previously it worked just fine but now I just get a blank page. Tried it with different browsers, both at work and at home.  ???

Here's the link. Let me know if this doesn't work:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en

- Nate
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Don Gusto on September 23, 2010, 01:26:53 PM
I only get a blank page.
The same link worked for me previously. I could view and download both the Tau and Eldar PDF's.
I don't have a gmail account or anything like it.

Lots of new stuff and I can't start a rant on it.  >:(
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 23, 2010, 01:34:17 PM
Try these:

Folder:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&sort=name&layout=list

or this

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&sort=name&layout=list&num=50
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Don Gusto on September 23, 2010, 04:03:55 PM
Same result.
It looks to me that a logged-in account is needed for access.

Does no one else have this problem?
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 23, 2010, 08:00:03 PM
Odd, I am gonna try somethin...
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: russ_c on September 23, 2010, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Don Gusto on September 23, 2010, 04:03:55 PM
Same result.
It looks to me that a logged-in account is needed for access.

Does no one else have this problem?

The first link provided by horizon in the above post did not work for some people local. The second link did work, but it requires a google account login.

Russ
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 23, 2010, 08:19:33 PM
Eldar Refits:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=10sRKw0jdvITsDhz8h6bK9fTVKfH9QC40-x-8-5fpZsk&hl=en

Tau CPF:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B-aXA8fc5AQ8ZGZjMDkxOGQtMGU4Zi00YTU1LWE5ZDgtYTdjODMxOGIxOTNi&hl=en

Space Marines:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B-aXA8fc5AQ8ZWIzNWYzMDEtMTY2Ny00Yjk5LTljYTMtNmM4Mjk5OTQ1Nzdk&hl=en

New try, made available to web...public.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Don Gusto on September 23, 2010, 11:12:06 PM
The Eldar Refit Link worked right away but was in an awkward format. Tau and SM Link didn't work, but while I was checking for a moment I could access all files and then I got blank pages again.  ;D
Right now however its all good, even the original link gives me access to all 4 files.

Very strange, reminds me of the warp.  :o

Thanks for your efforts.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Zelnik on September 26, 2010, 02:32:51 PM
I sure hope these are not going to become official. Especially the space marine list.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 27, 2010, 04:06:34 AM
The Rogue Trader should. Especially since the old one isn't online.

The Refits/Haven is also good enough.

The Tau/Marines are at this point not good.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Soulstone on September 28, 2010, 12:55:34 PM
Well, after having seen these... kaff kaff... amendments (?), all I can say is I'm glad I don't play anymore.

I just hope that the supporters of the houseruling school of thoughts have learnt what happens when you REALLY want to tinker with something that works.

Keep up the not-good-at-all work.
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 28, 2010, 12:57:15 PM
uh oh...
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: Soulstone on September 28, 2010, 01:47:28 PM
Well, that refers to the Marine list. A sprinkling of lances and rusty bad ideas of the past (the useless monastery, the hideous SO and so on) struggle to make the list look any better - your revision of the gunnery table with multiple weapon has definitely more to it  ;).
Title: Re: Public repository for completed new rules from BFG HA's
Post by: horizon on September 28, 2010, 07:42:56 PM
Yeah... ;)