Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: Zelnik on November 09, 2010, 03:38:28 PM
-
Hey guys, I hate to point this out, but we are closing in on the end of 2010, and we have not heard much in the ways of progress on the 2010 faq. Can we get an update from the HA?
-
Hey guys, I hate to point this out, but we are closing in on the end of 2010, and we have not heard much in the ways of progress on the 2010 faq. Can we get an update from the HA?
The Draft FAQ/Errata is pretty much in its final form, subject to a few additional tweaks. We're trying to get some things sorted (and pushed through here on the forum) before we get it cemented shut. We will probably make this thing final no later than the first week of December. I know that sounds a bit gun-shy, but we all realize how important this document is, and I'm sure we would all like for it to be more right than fast.
- Nate
-
And then fingers crossed on how fast GW uploads it to their website. If you need some persuasive assistance to speed up GW give us a call. heh heh.
-
Excellent because Adepticon's BFG tournament (Sunday April 3) will be using the 2010 FAQ.
-
maybe it should be called the 2011 FAQ? :)
-
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*
Biggie: The updated 2010 FAQ/Errata is FINALLY on the street! We listened, and there are a LOT of small detail changes and additions here. Most of it will make lots of people happy, some of it may not. PLEASE take some time to pick this thing apart. It's still a draft, so if there’s something important we missed, please let us know! We're hoping to have it cemented shut by Christmas.
- Nate
-
I've just taken a quick look at the new powers of chaos PDF (liking the new Khorne battlebarge and cruiser options) but there's just one thing:
Most likely a typographical error (damn cut and paste!) but the Chaos space hulk has two lots of port weapons entries. I'm assuming guns, torpedoes and launch bays on both sides right?
Cheers,
LDTM
-
It would be kinda interesting to have asymetrical ships, wouldnt it? :p
-
Would it ever, I might just give it a run as it is for a giggle.
Special rule: letting off all your portside guns at once allows the space hulk to move 10cm forward and 1cm to the right as a result of recoil during its next movement phase ;D.
-
I have actually been doing a lot of thinking about asymmetrical ships/fleets (ie, xenos ships). I didn't want to say anything till I had them modelled, but that might never happen.
-
The only immediate criticism I can think of is TLDR - Too long, didn't read. It's as long as the basic rules!
At the very least it needs a summary sheet of all the rulings, and at best it needs to be a v1.6 rulebook with the rulings fully integrated.
-
what is TLDR?
And Sig, Fra'al right? Had the same thought :)
"Give em the lance side!"
-
TLDR - Too long, didn't read.
Actually, I read as much as I could manage whilst at work, but still didn't get beyond p8.
-
With the drafts I only skim the fluff. Stats first, in relation to the specific ship fluff.
-
Ah, got it. Another strong reason for mk2 bfg.
-
And Sig, Fra'al right? Had the same thought :)
"Give em the lance side!"
Actually, not really. Fra'al are described as being completely weirdly asymmetrical. Though I've toyed with the idea of making this sort of ship, I'm more inclined to have a reasonably symmetrical core on my ships.
What I had in mind was a long dagger like core with varying weapon options. For example, have one side, completely armoured with some torpedo tubes (I imagine the armour shield to be rounded all down one side and curve around to the front, like a gladiator arm shield) and the other side open and spiked with direct fire weaponry. Variants could be arranged on the opposite side. So this fleet would operate on a hook basis, ie, break first line, swing around to present guns to aft of foreward line and armour/torps to prows of second line.
Carriers would be launch bays one side, and either the direct fire weapons or armour/torps on the other. So this fleet would be quite efficient, but could come undone with good positioning by the opponent, since it has to fly one specific way to get shots off.
-
I just played in a tournament using the new FAQ, and I found that many people ignored some of the more significant rules changes as they were too difficult to find in the document.
I would really like to see it split into sections of:
New Rules - stuff which doesn't appear in the rulebook at all, like Fighter turret suppression.
Errata - fixes to the rules in sections where they were unclear or didn't make sense.
FAQ - questions which can be answered just by reading the rules a little more closely.
That way the more experienced players could ignore the latter third of the document, without having to wade through simple questions to find the changes made to blast markers or whatever.
-
I just played in a tournament using the new FAQ, and I found that many people ignored some of the more significant rules changes as they were too difficult to find in the document.
I would really like to see it split into sections of:
New Rules - stuff which doesn't appear in the rulebook at all, like Fighter turret suppression.
Errata - fixes to the rules in sections where they were unclear or didn't make sense.
FAQ - questions which can be answered just by reading the rules a little more closely.
That way the more experienced players could ignore the latter third of the document, without having to wade through simple questions to find the changes made to blast markers or whatever.
Which version are you using? The latest FAQ has a table of contents in the front, and the individual fleets have completely separate pages so they can be pulled apart and placed in a binder for those that print the electronic rules and keep printed copies of their fleets in one notebook.
- Nate
-
I'd suggest that a simple change in word color to highlight the new changes might work well. I found it difficult to dig through what changed from the previous version to this version. Just highlighting the new 2010 FAQ changes would help immensely.