Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Plaxor on January 07, 2011, 08:07:08 AM
-
So this is my thread that I'm starting for my pdf workthrough of the rules. These are things that should be changed about how the rules work. I think this might be opening up a can of worms..... but please, feel free to list your ideas.
All right... voting started....
Overlapping not allowed [Horizon, Plaxor, RCgothic, Commander]
MMS (official) [Horizon, Sigoroth, Plaxor]
Blasmarkers v1 (marker spec) [Horizon, RCgothic, Commander Plaxor (should still maintain some stuff from faq 2010)]
Torps 1 marker per d6 [Horizon, Plaxor, Commander]
Base size according to class [Plaxor]
Unrestricting Teleport attacks [Plaxor, Commander]
Tiered BM removal [Plaxor (per 1000), Gron (per750), Commander RCgothic, Horizon (?)]
-
From FAQ2010
* delete everything concerning overlapping --> Overlapping is not allowed.
* 1-6 str per torp marker (eg 1 dice).
Rulebook/FAQ
* Blastmarker rules v1 re-installed (no change to massing turrets etc in regards to this).
* Eldar rules to be replaced by Eldar MMS rules
-
I'm a little confused on what you mean by the blast marker rules. You added in turret suppression?
Eldar MMS I never really followed (I was one of the 'pretend eldar don't exist' people). Although from what I can tell the more and more you edit the PDF the more and more eldar look like a normal fleet.
I totally agree on overlapping. It should not be allowed unless it can't possibly be avoided.
The multiple torpedo thing I don't really agree with. It seems like the only reason for it is that multiple dice are annoying.
Also I think that fighter/bomber waves could be only one marker with a dice next to them.
And that the whole base size complexity should be changed. Ships should have a mandatory base size according to class. Grand cruisers and battleships have large bases, all others have small.
-
I'm a little confused on what you mean by the blast marker rules. You added in turret suppression?
No, is was just stating. aka some people think the new BM rules are a counter to the benefits of massing turrets. I disagee. So old BM rules. yaki.
Eldar MMS I never really followed (I was one of the 'pretend eldar don't exist' people). Although from what I can tell the more and more you edit the PDF the more and more eldar look like a normal fleet.
It is still faster, more manoeuvrable and has special weapons.
The multiple torpedo thing I don't really agree with. It seems like the only reason for it is that multiple dice are annoying.
Not really. A lot of people complained the whole IN torpspread was "crippled", bij keeping it str1-6 it'll still retain some of the "old" feel.
Plus the dice. ;)
What do you mean with the bases?
-
I'm still confused about the BMs, could you tell me exactly what you mean? That you can't place BMs in contact with multiple ships?
I thought it was just the thing where BMs didn't surround the vessel, so you could get firing bonuses.
According to the FAQ any ship with more than 10 hits must have a large base, any ship with 10 hits or less can choose to have a large base. I think that this system is too complicated, and the 'choose to have a large base thing' just happened because of a packing error. My idea is that ships just have different size bases according to fluff.
Their reasoning 'tractor beams' is dumb, as it only really pulls in ordinance. My assumption on why large ships have large bases was that they just had a larger energy signature (with bigger engines, weapons output etc.) so that ordinance could more easily find them.
However there is somewhat of a large difference in the area that a large base can board compared to a small base. (which is why deadshanes reasoning makes sense in his warp rift article).
-
Agreed on overlapping.
Agreed 1-6 torps per marker.
I don't really see the need to change from the current marker templates, but if it has to change then it should at least be 1-6 torps per marker. In very large games, there's a potential for S36 torpedo barrages from a squadron of 4 Retributions, and the absurdity of one tiny marker with 6D6 trying to balance on it is just ridiculous. A more likely Scenario is 4 Dauntlesses and S24 with 4D6. I'd prefer a minimum of 1 marker per launching ship, but 1-6 per marker is simpler.
Blastmarkers v1: agreed.
This is the blast marker only counting as being where it actually is. Lines of fire that do not directly pass over the BM do not suffer a column shift, and ordnance that circumvents it isn't at risk of the entire wave being destroyed. Only ships actually in contact with the blast marker lose shields.
This avoids all sorts of headaches that have been caused by changing it.
I'd also revamp turret supression and the way fighters work, but exactly how is under discussion in another thread.
-
RC, apparently you're alive! I was starting to wonder.
The idea behind keeping the marker size the same would prevent such absurd situations from happening. It makes it less appealing anyways. The same issue as before happens when you start adding up markers. That it doesn't make sense that torps from far away can hit whatever they run into.
-
you don't need to use lots of dice - buy some with numbers on them - two colours and you have tens and units. Don't want that - you can buy dice with more than 6 faces on them :)
-
Just noticed that the official FAQ 2010 (FINAL 20101231) is gone from the google docs page (for the moment). Didn't see it on the SG/BFG resource page either. Anyone know something on this?
-
Deliberate. HA did some small corrections (eg Dragonship batteries str14 was per accident deleted). And now it is off to GW iirc.
-
you don't need to use lots of dice - buy some with numbers on them - two colours and you have tens and units. Don't want that - you can buy dice with more than 6 faces on them :)
Even counting in base 6, 2 dice per marker is more than ideal. I object to even one dice - I like to keep my battlefield as free from unthemed markers as possible because it hurts my immersion to see dice littered about.
-
Continuing on the torp tangent, why not print off Torp tokens that are the 3 torp wide, and have a printed number on it to reprisent the strength? :D
In my alternative torp rules you woulden't need to keep track of reduced torp strength as all the torps are assumed to chain react and detonate for maximum blast effect, leaving nothing left after the first attack.
-
That would hamper cool torp tactics. Pity. Not hitting is fly on.
-
Oh, another thought (while I was building the necron pdf) Teleport attacks should lose their limitations. Meaning that you won't be forced to have more hits than your opponent (you have to be a capital ship of course)
Teleport attacks are rare enough that this shouldn't matter, and it means that SMs will actually be able to do them.
Edit: Blast marker removal should be a tiered system. It doesn't make sense that blast markers take longer to disappear in larger battles, and It's dumb to play 2000 points and have the battle littered with BMs.
So I think that for every 1000 points (or part) played, players should roll a d6 for BM removal.
-
Nova cannons. From the several huge threads on this forum, it seems no one is particularly happy about their current state.
-
I'm pretty happy with where they are. They aren't OP (although some people think they are), it just takes different tactics to fight them.
They especially aren't OP in missions.
If anything they would need to be cheaper, but they aren't something that needs to be competitive, they're just.... well a fun and characterful weapon.
Torpedoes are much more competitive, even with the size reduction (which I don't think matters all that much)
-
Nova cannons. From the several huge threads on this forum, it seems no one is particularly happy about their current state.
No, most people are happy with their current state, and a vocal minority won't let the argument lie.
As for BMs, 1 D6 for removal per 10 in play?
-
Torpedoes are much more competitive, even with the size reduction (which I don't think matters all that much)
It's not necessarily the size, it's more the mechanics of the new implementation that's at fault. If you have more than one dice for the strength on a marker it gets messy on the table and alternative means aren't much cleaner (writing it on a slip of paper, marking it with a penny, etc.). It quite simply does not scale well and provides less incentive to combine a salvo unless you are in shotgun range.
One d6 per maker still halves the size of torpedo spreads and make it easier to read on the table.
-
NC's: I'm happy with their current state, but as it turned out I stopped using them all together. This made everyone even more happy (including myself).
BM's: Remove 1D6 per 750pts (or part thereof) played should keep them at bay. I've printed out two additional colour sheets of BM's and glued them to simple cardboard and it is not uncommon to run out of BM's even then in a 1500pt game :/
-
BM: additional D6 reduce the number of blastmarkers way to fast: 3D6 (Plasxors suggestion) or 4D6 (gron) in a 3k Game will remove an average of 21/28 markers every turn - this is more than you usually produce.
I'll sugest 1D6 up to 1500 Points plus one additional every 750P. Eg. D6+2 in a 3k game (for an average of 11 markers removed each turn)
Or two alternatives:
- the simple solution: after removing D6 BM's you can remove any additional marker your opponent agrees with (so you'll usually remove any "unimportant" bM)
- roll a D6 for each BM. On al roll of 5+ (4+?) the marker is removed.
This system guarantees a "constant" removal of markers regardless of point size played. And it is random (a fact I like - it is strange that always that BM disappear which the player wants to disappear ;D)
-
So this is my thread that I'm starting for my pdf workthrough of the rules. These are things that should be changed about how the rules work. I think this might be opening up a can of worms..... but please, feel free to list your ideas.
All right... voting started....
Overlapping not allowed [Horizon, Plaxor, RCgothic]
==> No overlapping.
MMS (official) [Horizon, Sigoroth, Plaxor]
==> No opinion, yet.
Blasmarkers v1 (marker spec) [Horizon, RCgothic, Plaxor (should still maintain some stuff from faq 2010)]
==> v1 please
Torps 1 marker per d6 [Horizon, Plaxor]
==> Counters can be printed noting their S, just as 'old' markers differed in width.
Base size according to class [Plaxor]
==> Rather depending on number of shields: up to 2 = small; 3+ = large
Unrestricting Teleport attacks [Plaxor]
==> If you mean if the conditions are met (target ship shields down and within 10 cm), yes but NO to multiple teleport attacks from the same ship at the same time.
Tiered BM removal [Plaxor, RCgothic]
==> Can live with that.
-
Some nice suggestions Eldanesh.
According to my suggestion it would be 21 per turn at 3001 points.
for every 1000 points, or part.
So if you're playing 1000 points, then it would be still only 1d6
1001-2000 would be 2d6
2001-etc.
It accounts for the fact that people generally play 500, 750, 1000, (and then jump to) 1500, 2000 point games. Only really removing 3d6 in very large games, when people are playing with upwards of 3000 points.
However I could see adding a modifier to the roll depending on the points value of the game. Like D6+x (for every 1000 points or something)
I don't think that rolling randomly for each marker is a good idea, as it removes a certain little 'tactic' to the game of where you leave BMs.
-
Just realised that the worst contributing factor that pours a bucket of BM's on the table is solar flares. Somehow these mostly occurs in the first or second turn (when I play at least) and after this they are hardly removed at all. Perhaps just not place BM's generated from this at all but resolve everything like they would have been there as normal.
-
That would hamper cool torp tactics. Pity. Not hitting is fly on.
Yeah, but my alternative torp idea would give a different dynamic to torps, it would change torp tactics, but you would not need to keep track of stuff. Players would probably try to line up more ships to be hit by torps as well. If a s6 torp wave hits 3-4 ships, and gets to use all of its 6 strength against each ship (minus turret hits, or maybe change turrets so they automatically hit torps) then they're generally more effective, even if you have to remove the whole marker after that one turn of attacks. And of course, like I said, you would not need to keep track of the changing strength.
-
Blastmarker removal: no change. It works fine as is to me.
Can someone explain me a problem with it?
-
Roy,
Blastmarkers work fine currently, it's just annoying that I have to have 8000 blast markers on the table to play 2000 points.
Also it doesn't make sense that you would remove the same number of blast markers at 500 points as you would at 3000. At higher points levels it means that blast markers stay on the table longer compared to lower points levels.
Since most of us don't like having the pile o blasts, it's a simple fix.
Edit: Changed Horizon's name to Roy. Sorry for getting it wrong. (I don't know where I got that Idea)
Also most people remove BM's that 'don't matter' in larger games anyways.
-
Horizon isn't Ray but Roy if I am not mistaken.
-
I like the "Blast markers removed on a 5+" idea.
-
I like the "Blast markers removed on a 5+" idea.
It's not a bad thing, but rolling like that can be very hard to keep track of, and it removes a certain tactical advantage/strategy that one can use.
-
It also takes longer to do it that way as you have to point to each one and roll a d6 instead of rolling the total amount you remove.
-
So Nate was vaguely talking about some ideas for Boarding torpedoes that never happened.
Boarding torpedoes are notoriously bad. They cost more points and offer no advantage, here is a comparison:
Normal Torpedoes:
Move 30, roll to hit against armor, cause 1 hit and can cause a critical effect
Boarding Torpedoes:
Move 20 (in orks), 15 (in nids), 30 (in sm), roll to hit against armor, and cause a hit and run. They are 5 points more expensive in orks. They can turn, but only in their second move and beyond.
Much much worse...
However I feel that these should be changed to sort of what nate was getting at:
Move 20 (in all races except nids who will still have 15), roll to hit against armor and will cause 1 hit (that can't cause criticals) as well as a H&R attack. Can turn in their second move and beyond.
As these are more expensive, and slower (which matters a lot for shotgun), they basically trade off the chance for a better critical with an auto H&R, and they trade speed for turns in second and subsequent turns. Plus they are more expensive (at least in orks)
I think that this set-up would make them a viable upgrade.
-
I disagree entirely. Boarding torps should not be able to do the same damage as high yield warheads. I would just say give them +1 to hit to represent their ability to guide to weak points and cut their way in. Against high armour targets this bonus as well as their ability to turn should be sufficient.
-
Yeah, actually you are right.... hmmm... I honestly don't think they would be too bad if they didn't have to roll against armor. Even then I probably would never use them.
-
Yeah, actually you are right.... hmmm... I honestly don't think they would be too bad if they didn't have to roll against armor. Even then I probably would never use them.
And if they didn't roll against armour then they'd be a-boats. That would allow a Despoiler, for example to send out a wave of 8 bombers and another of 8 a-boats, against which turrets can only shoot at one. If they just get a +1 to hit then against a 5+ armour ship then that means they effectively halve their strength and get that many a-boat attacks. So 6 boarding torps would give 3 H&R attacks, 6 normal torps would give 2 hit points damage. The former can turn.
For the record, I'm against the new H&R rules against escorts. Escorts have already been improved against ordnance with massed turrets, they've been improved against H&R attacks by allowing BFI and they've been improved in general by the alteration to the VP rules. If people need further incentive to take them it should not be in the form of making them a safer bet (that's what taking cruisers is for), but should rather be because they're more attractive. This can be in the form of a fleet role, such as limiting the massed turrets rules to escorts only and changing the bomber attack run rules so that escorts become more necessary to protect the larger ships. It could also be in the form of just being worth their damn points. An across the board reduction in cost of 5 pts, 10 pts, or some other change, to those escorts that are just never used (as has been discussed in most cases).
With the scrapping of this bogus rule, then at least boarding torps would retain their lethality against escorts, while giving an alternative against cap ships (disable rather than damage).
-
whats the wording exactly on the rule? i was unaware it effected torp bombers.
what was the reaction on that suggestion that boarding torps do damage+HnR or at least potential damage?
-
But massing turrets always poses the disadvantage of reducing your shields.... and even the really good escorts weren't taken that often.
Like the sword, which was in ~30% of lists.
ABs now have about the same chance of killing an escort as a bomber (vs. IN escorts) which seems fine. I think the idea was to make ordinance worse, and escorts better.
Although you do bring up a point about them being more role-filling. I think it would be interesting to give escorts some kind of 'overwatch' ability where they forfeited their shooting phase to fire at any ordinance that came in range with their wbs.
-
So working through the RT/Xenos Minoris document, and came across some thoughts for allies.
Horizon said that the Dominator didn't make the Gothic sector list special enough, as reserves would allow the Bastion fleets to take 2 of them in a normal game.
The reserve rules severely damage the character of the fleet lists, and allow very weird things to happen, such as corsair eldar to be allowed in an IN fleet.
So my recommendation is that unless specifically denoted in the fleet list, I.E. Rogue Traders allying into whoever, or Tau allies, Bastion fleet reserves etc. Allies and reserves are not allowed unless agreed upon by your opponent.
This should help with internal balance, as BFG with those rules becomes somewhat of a take whatever you want game, save for the more restricted ships.
-
But massing turrets always poses the disadvantage of reducing your shields.... and even the really good escorts weren't taken that often.
Like the sword, which was in ~30% of lists.
ABs now have about the same chance of killing an escort as a bomber (vs. IN escorts) which seems fine. I think the idea was to make ordinance worse, and escorts better.
Although you do bring up a point about them being more role-filling. I think it would be interesting to give escorts some kind of 'overwatch' ability where they forfeited their shooting phase to fire at any ordinance that came in range with their wbs.
To be honest I don't like overwatch in any of the GW games. It's a turn based system. Everything should be able to fit properly into those turns so that such mechanic-breaking rules aren't necessary. Also, a-boats should not be reduced in effectiveness to that of a bomber against escorts. They aren't increased to bomber rating against non-escorts. Escorts are fragile. They're supposed to be fragile. The reason you take them is because they're cheap, fast and can focus a lot of firepower. If they tweak the massed turret rules to be escort-only and make BBs more susceptible to bombers (as they should be) then there will be another incentive to taking escorts (AC protection). Another way to go would be to just make them more worthwhile. Decrease their costs. By either 5 pts (good escorts) or 10 pts (crap ones). So a Sword would go from 35 down to 30 pts. A Firestorm would go from 40 pts to 30 pts. Etc.