Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: flybywire-E2C on February 20, 2011, 10:54:06 AM
-
All,
The FINAL DRAFT of the 2010 Compendium has just been uploaded in all is glory! It is a total of 170 pages, ten more than was available for printing when we worked on Armada!
It will be available here until Friday, Feb. 25th so everyone can peruse it and look for obvious screw-ups. We are NOT debating rules, ship classes, etc. at this point.
The only changes that will be considered at this point are accidentally deleted rules, misprints, rule and point cost errors (such as discrepancies between profiles and fleet lists), spelling/grammar errors and formatting problems, such as misaligned graphics, etc.
Fluff and ship debates will not be entertained at this point.
There are a few people for whom I am awaiting replies. You know who you are. Those adjustments will be made as long as I get your replies in by Thursday, Feb. 24th.
On Friday morning these files will be handed over to Games Workshop. For obvious reasons, no changes will be made after that point, and this project will come to a close.
If you find something that needs to be corrected, please reply on THIS thread. This is the only thread I will be replying to queries concerning errors on these final drafts. Of course, I will still be perusing over and replying to the other threads as well as time presents itself, but this is the thread I will be paying the closest attention to.
Again, I would like to thank everyone for all your help in making this as good as it could be.
-
All documents:
I think your background layer may be on top of the text, text not inside the background graphic appears bold compared to the rest of the text. Does not affect Marines,
FAQ2010:
p. 20 - "using allies" needs to run up so that it is on the previous page. it's confusing and looks like a header as it is now.
Inquisition:
Ordo Hereticus- The Thread Within on p45. I think this should be a colon not a hyphen. The same goes for the other headers done this way
The grey knights bit on p50 is awkward. It would be good to at least get it somewhere it can use the standard ship header to make it
break out more. Perhaps by shortening the text and removing the admech cruiser image for the Inquisitorial Crusier to allow the BB to fit at the bottom of that page?
Ad Mech:
The background watermark image needs to be dropped in opacity a bit more it's distracting to read text on top of it.
The box on p63-64 is difficult to read. Can you use the bakka style box rather than the beveled stone one you have here? Please remove the drop shadow from the header too, it's inconsistent with the rest of the PDF's.
The Admech fleet on p68 could use the layers with the ships set to multiply to get rid of the halo from knocking them out on the star background.
That's all I have time for now. The rest later.
-
*Stands up and applauds*
So what will it be after this goes out?
-
Part two:
Rogue Traders:
p73 Wolfpacks- should be Wolfpacks:
p78, 81 The chiseled background on "the cradle" box makes the text hard to read. Can you use the bakka version for it?
p80 The image cuts too close to the text, needs to have a bit of white to keep things from feeling cramped.
Chaos:
p108 Your background texture is repeating oddly in the grey box.
Doom of the Eldar
The watermark is too strong and interferes with the text.
p124 The fade on the image cuts to close to the text and looks odd overlapping the watermark on the page.
Ork Clanz:
p147-49 You have several paragraphs that have only one or two words breaking across columns and pages. If you can pull the one line on page 147 up it should fix all the others.
-
Part two:
Rogue Traders:
p73 Wolfpacks- should be Wolfpacks:
p78, 81 The chiseled background on "the cradle" box makes the text hard to read. Can you use the bakka version for it?
p80 The image cuts too close to the text, needs to have a bit of white to keep things from feeling cramped.
Chaos:
p108 Your background texture is repeating oddly in the grey box.
Doom of the Eldar
The watermark is too strong and interferes with the text.
p124 The fade on the image cuts to close to the text and looks odd overlapping the watermark on the page.
Ork Clanz:
p147-49 You have several paragraphs that have only one or two words breaking across columns and pages. If you can pull the one line on page 147 up it should fix all the others.
Vaaish- great catches all! THANKS!
One note: the picture fade for Doom of the Eldar washing over the Eldar rune is intentional, but not how it interferes with the text. I wil adjust the image slightly and fade the rune a bit more; that should fix the worst of it.
-
FAQ2010:
p3 Brace for impact:
"However, the special order previously in effect remains so, in that ships that reloaded ordnance are still reloaded, a ship or squadron moving All Ahead Full must continue to do so, etc."
This is still not very clear to me. If a ship was on Lock On does this mean it retains the turning restriction and the ability to re-roll misses?
Could this not be written into something like this:
"Restrictions and mandatory actions of the previous order are retained, benefits are lost." ?
p15 Asteroids:
"Shooting at enemies within 10cm range does not impart a right column shift when inside an asteroid field." should say left instead.
-
faq pg 29, middle column, first paragraph, it says "...If a spore is already rolling against ordnance that requires a 6+ to hit (such as against Eldar), being in contact with blast markers has no additional effect."
this makes no sense, i think something was deleted.
two paragraphs down, clarify the escort drones must be in base contact 'with the hiveship'.
pg29, third column, 1st paragraph. "in the same manner other ships may effect a boarding action"... did you mean 'initiate a boarding action?
also, the tyranid fleet pdf has a cost listed for hiveship torpedoes, but does not have an entry for how many (...or the other way around). this should be clarified here.
-
FAQ2010:
p3 Brace for impact:
"However, the special order previously in effect remains so, in that ships that reloaded ordnance are still reloaded, a ship or squadron moving All Ahead Full must continue to do so, etc."
This is still not very clear to me. If a ship was on Lock On does this mean it retains the turning restriction and the ability to re-roll misses?
Could this not be written into something like this:
"Restrictions and mandatory actions of the previous order are retained, benefits are lost." ?
p15 Asteroids:
"Shooting at enemies within 10cm range does not impart a right column shift when inside an asteroid field." should say left instead.
The problem with this is that AAF can be looked at as either a benefit or a mandatory requirement, depending on the situation or a player's point of view. This actually came up a long time ago, and Andy C's response to this was rather than put together a laundry list of what was affected by being BFI and what wasn't, simply state BFI completely replaced the previous special order in that if you already took advantage of it then you're good. if not, then it's lost. In any case it's covered in that you can't take special orders in your next turn.
God catches- we can make this more clear. You too, Valhallan! :)
Everyone, we're starting to get a lot of feedback here, which is AWESOME!!! Rather than reply each time, just know that I am reading them all and making fixes as noted. Again, THANKS!!
-
1. Craftworld Eldar Fleets> pg 142 > paragraph 5 > First sentence:
"...leadership check and do not need to eb on special
orders to do so."
2. FAQ> pg 24 > right column > second paragraph > second sentence:
"However, they still count as shooting as[at] defenses when doing so."
3. Craftworld Eldar Fleets > pg 139 > Paragraph 2-4:
These paragraphs seem to describe the same thing with minor differences; redundant:
ex. Paragraph 2:
The fortresses also allow the craftworld to repel ships in low orbit. During the Eldar player‟s
Shooting phase, the two fortresses each unleash one 45cm pulsar lance against each vessel on
the Low Orbit table, for a total of two per enemy vessel....
ex. Paragraph 4:
The fortresses also allow the craftworld to repel ships in low orbit. During the Eldar player‟s
Shooting phase, the fortresses each unleash one pulsar lance against each vessel on the Low
Orbit table...
Craftworld Eldar Fleets> pg 140 > Special rules
Reference is made to a chart, but there is no actual chart:
"In addition, at the beginning of each defending player‟s turn after the first turn, the defending
player rolls 2D6 against the following table. Unless otherwise stated, special orders called for
by this table are assumed to have automatically passed and must be taken for that turn."
-
A bit odd. In the FAQ it makes changes to the old Craftworld Eldar document, then these changes are incorporated into the new Craftworld Eldar pdf.
But if GW only accepts the FAQ it is okay, otherwise a redundant text. Right?
-
A bit odd. In the FAQ it makes changes to the old Craftworld Eldar document, then these changes are incorporated into the new Craftworld Eldar pdf.
But if GW only accepts the FAQ it is okay, otherwise a redundant text. Right?
Call me paranoid. The reason why I have the project split into separate documents is so that if GW decides for whatever reason they don't like one or the other, the entire project doesn't get round-filed into the bin. From the outset we were only supposed to work on what is not already on the website. As the Craftworld Eldar rules are already posted, they may very well not take these rules, in which case the FAQ fixes still remain in effect. Best-case, both the FAQ and the Craftworld Eldar rules are accepted, in which case the FAQ is redundant as far as the Craftworld Eldar are concerned, which in and of itself isn't much of a problem.
-
<snip>
The Admech fleet on p68 could use the layers with the ships set to multiply to get rid of the halo from knocking them out on the star background.
That's all I have time for now. The rest later.
I already said I wouldn't be replying to every post so I coud actually focus on the corrections you all are pointing out, but Vaaish, your Photoshop-Fu is strong... THANKS! ;D
-
Np, glad I could help a little.
-
The problem with this is that AAF can be looked at as either a benefit or a mandatory requirement, depending on the situation or a player's point of view.
It could be argued to be beneficial or detrimental but it would be mandatory nonetheless ... oh well :D
This actually came up a long time ago, and Andy C's response to this was rather than put together a laundry list of what was affected by being BFI and what wasn't, simply state BFI completely replaced the previous special order in that if you already took advantage of it then you're good. if not, then it's lost. In any case it's covered in that you can't take special orders in your next turn.
In that case how about: "What's done is done, the rest is gone!" ? ;D
FAQ2010:
p13 Catastrophic damage:
Fifth paragraph: "The turret value of a hulk is reduced to zero, and turrets have no effect."
Redundant to the first paragraph and also to itself. The following sentence regarding bomber attack runs is important however.
p14 Disengaging:
If a capital ship falls out of a squadron after failing to disengage, can it continue to act normally - as a single capital - in subsequent turns?
p25 Eldar Transports:
These are listed with a weapons battery range of 15cm but in the "Craftworld Eldar Fleets" pdf they have a range of 30cm.
-
The problem with this is that AAF can be looked at as either a benefit or a mandatory requirement, depending on the situation or a player's point of view.
It could be argued to be beneficial or detrimental but it would be mandatory nonetheless ... oh well :D
This actually came up a long time ago, and Andy C's response to this was rather than put together a laundry list of what was affected by being BFI and what wasn't, simply state BFI completely replaced the previous special order in that if you already took advantage of it then you're good. if not, then it's lost. In any case it's covered in that you can't take special orders in your next turn.
In that case how about: "What's done is done, the rest is gone!" ? ;D
<snip>
The problem with that is we once again run into problems like "Well, I didn’t know I would have to move so far when going AAF so BRACE! Whew! Now that I went BFI halfway through my AAF movement, now I don’t have to move all the way into that asteroid field up ahead.â€
No matter how you thread it, some munchkin will rule-lawyer it for his benefit and everyone else’s detriment unless we either make a blanket “everything works now, nothing works next turn,†or we create a laundry list of every instance something works and something doesn’t. Really, while Andy's solution may skirt some of the intent in favor of munchkinism, it is by far the most elegant solution from a range of imperfect choices.
As for the rest of your catches, THANKS! I’m working them in now. ;D
-
pg1: 'Battle fleet Bakka'
I believe it is usual to spell Battlefleet as one word, not two.
Also in the contents list Combat Air Patrol, Squadrons and General Fleet Restrictions and Options appear to have a space in front of them, which is odd.
pg2, final paragraph: 'Slannesh' should be 'Slaanesh'
pg4, Shooting, first paragraph: 'Escort squadrons have their total firepower halved as described on p.2.....'
Do you mean page 3?
More later.
Dragon Lord
-
Heres a question: I thought nate went on record saying something about intended CL rules for AdMech having a 30cm dorsal lance rather than replacing the torps? I dont see it in the admech section of the FAQ.
-
Heres a question: I thought nate went on record saying something about intended CL rules for AdMech having a 30cm dorsal lance rather than replacing the torps? I dont see it in the admech section of the FAQ.
It's one or the other (prow torps or dorsal lance), not both. Also, this only applies to the Endeavor and Endurance, not the Defiant. We didn't need to put it into the FAQ because it's already in the AdMech rules.
-
Hi all! I just re-posted all the documents. They are still drafts, and the only changes so far are those pointed out on this thread so you can see feedback on the needed corrections you pointed out. The plan is still to get these closed out by Thursday night so keep the inputs coming! Thanks!
-
Oh, thought it said the lance was prow oriented. Very well.
-
Most of it is looking better, but there are a few bits that are a bit off.
Admech, p.63-64 the text in the chiseled stone boxes is almost unreadable, especially the headers with the funky drop shadow. It would be best to remove the drop shadow and lighten up the background considerably.
General:
the background watermark is still distracting on the Inquisition and Admech, pdfs. These work best when they are quite light. This might not be the same opacity for all of them, but visually they should be about as visible as on the Tau, Rogue Trader, and Chaos pdfs.
-
The AdMech image could indeed be a tad lighter.
Nice fleet by the way in the AdMech document. The Defiant has been destroyed by the way. ;)
A shiny Endeavour took its place.
-
I pledged my soul to Clippy, the chaos god of Mistakes and here's what I found: ;)
(All in Powers of Chaos)
p 101, right column, 3rd line. an extra big whitespace after the ,
p 102, left column, 10th line of second paragraph, whitespace at the end of the line
p 103, center column doesn't line up with the others vertically (look at the last line)
p 104, center column, Line 23/24 Nur gle is spread across the line break without a -
p 108: Wage of Sin doesn't have a Prow Launch bay listed. Is that correct?
p 109: Center Paragraph doesn't line up at the bottom
p 110: The last sentence "The miasma obscures...." seems to belong to "Miasma of Pestilence" and not "Hives of Nurgle"
p 111: It's not immediately clear that the "Venegeful Spirit" is actually the same thing as the Chaos Battle Barge listed later in the fleet lists later on. Might need some clarification.
p 111: Third Paragraph, left column, line 12. vengeful isn't capitalised.
p 112: Prow Launch bays are only Strenght 2. Intentional? (It's 3 on Terminus Est and Scion).
p 116: Black Box. First Sentece: Using the forcesof chaos. Needs a space.
p 117: Box, second Paragraph, Line 4: Any ship friend or foe that touches... needs ,, around ,friend and foe,
General: The order the different gods are described (Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, Nurgle), their Ships are presented (Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Nurgle, Black Legion, Khorne, rest) and their Fleet listes are presented (Tzeentch, Nurgle, Khorne, Slaanesh) varies each time.
It would IMO ease navigation if they used the same order each time and if the Vengeful spirit was presented after the four other ones with the other generic ships.
Sorry for the nitpicking, I used the fine comb :D
PS: I suck at speeling and spotting tyops, so perhaps somebody could have a look for those too ;)
-
Maybe it's just my viewer but it seems like there is now some wierd interaction going on between the background image and the text throughout the entire main document making the text appear bold where it is not over the background image.
Battlefleet Bakka section
pg 32, main sub-heading: 'THE SAVIORS OF MACCRAGE DURING THE FIRST TYRANIC WAR'
There are a number of issues with this, firstly 'Maccrage' is correctly spelt 'Macragge' and I believe that it is 'Tyrannic' with two 'n's. Also though I realise that 'savior' is the correct spelling in the US as GW is a British company and all of their books use British spelling and grammar conventions I feel that the British spelling 'saviour' ought to be used here unless it has been decided that this document will use US spelling. There are a number of other uses of US spelling rather than British spelling that I have recorded but I won't post them unless there is a decision as to US vs. British English (though if going for US English there are instances of British spellings that should be changed for consistency).
Other instances of the spelling 'Tyranic'
section heading for First Tyrannic war on pg 33
first paragraph of text for Jovian Battlecruiser on pg 39
last sentence of text for Siluria light cruiser on pg 42
all other instances use the spelling 'Tyrannic'
Other instances of the spelling 'Maccrage'
second paragraph of text for Dominion battlecruiser on pg 40
all other instances use the spelling 'Macragge'
pg 32, end of paragraph 2: 'Classificationae'
Though I realise that this is (and is supposed to be) pseudo-latin it just sounds a bit awkward to me, 'classificae' rolls off the tongue a little easier. This is just an opinion though so feel free to ignore.
pg 34, 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence: capital has an erroneous apostrophe at the end.
pg 36, just above the first aquila in the middle column: 'Rath was commissioned as 12Sth Lieutenant into the....'
Do you mean '12th'?
pg 37, second paragraph of text for Victory battleship: 'Hammer of Scaro was rebuilt with prow torpedoes instead of replacing its Nova Cannon'
Either 'instead of' or 'replacing' needs to be removed.
pg 38, second paragraph of text for Vanquisher battleship: 'the ship underwent an extensive refit to repair extensive damage to its lance batteries....'
A style critique again, so feel free to ignore, but the use of the word extensive twice in such quick succession is rather awkward, I would simply remove one of them.
pg 39, second paragraph of text for Jovian, first sentence: Misspelling of Mechanicus as 'Mechaincus'
pg 42, 4th sentence of text for Siluria light cruiser: Misspelling of greenskins as 'grenskins'
Dragon Lord
-
Craftworld Eldar
p139 Scenario Craftworld Assault:
With the current wording each escort ship within 45cm of the Craftworld edge will get attacked by 2 pulsar lances each turn.
In other words you can forget about sending them in. This is particularly important since the majority of assault points is scored by escort class ships.
I strongly recommend to change "...each vessel..." to "...each ship or squadron..." or maybe "...each capital ship or escort squadron...".
I'd prefer "ship or squadron".
p142 Eldar Haven special rules - Netherfield:
"On the Haven it imparts an additional column shift for all weapons that use the gunnery table."
Should say "right column shift" for clarity. You could also add this in the notes section on page 143.
p142 Eldar Haven special rules - Polarization Field:
"It does risk suffering a hit ..." missing a NOT (blast it! this one is serious!!!)
Tau Protection Fleet
p159 Campaigns:
"... though they may use special ordnance rules listed on p.159."
This should probably be page 158 (torpedo bombers and orbital mines)
p166 Tau Kor Caste Orbital City - Stats:
Launch Bays list the Barracuda with 30cm speed.
-
FAQ 2010
Just noted a repetition and inconsistency on the Prow Torpedoes strength for the Tyranid hiveship:
p29 under Tyranid Weapons:
"On p91 of Armada, Tyranid Hiveships may take as a prow weapon strength 8 torpedoes for +25points"
p30 under Tyranid Ordnance:
"Tyranid hiveships have strength 6 torpedo launchers as a front-firing prow weapon option for the price indiciated on p91 of Armada" (i.e. 25 points)
Which one is it? Str8 or Str6?
-
Oh, and if you keep it as it is worded on p29, make sure you clarify which firing arc (i.e. front) the torps shoot at.
Thanks for all the good work :)
-
Orks:
page 150: Blood Axes, line 3. T o is spaced.
page 151: Box line 2: ..." It is an Assault Karrier upgraded with boarding torpedoes as part of its cost and ...". The page 149 states that being Assault Karrier is free anyway... is that wrong? I read it that even the boarding torps don't cost the usual 10/Str.
p 154: Skwadrons: "The Warlord must be in command of one tiddla skwadron and one other skwadron type for every re-roll he has. "
That sentence is a bit unclear on the details. a) is it one Tiddla Skwadron per reroll or one in total? and b) is the one other Skwadron type exclusive? So could you take 2 Big Ship Skwadrons if you take 2 Re rolls?
Also the sentence that says "Each skwadron must be fielded with the number of ships chosen for it in this list" is at odds with the paragraph below that talks about combining skwadrons. Somehow that doesn't add up or requires considerable mental acrobatics to figure out what is meant.
The sentence: "There is no restriction for what kinds or how many of what type of skwadrons are in the fleet ..." clashes with the "Using Skwadrons" section on the right, that does impose restrictions.
Space Hulk:
"Space Hulks so led can take upgrades from the list of Gubbins for double the listed cost
except any upgrade that increases its boarding value or speed. "
Taken literally that sentence could mean that non-speed/bv upgrades cost twice as much and bv upgrades cost the normal cost. I'd rewrite it to "Space Hulks so led can take upgrades
from the list of Gubbins for double the listed cost. Upgrade that increases its boarding value or speed can't be taken." That would save some potential for discussions. Unless SH's are supposed to be fast and even harder to board.
That seem to be it :)
-
I don't know if this ever made it in, but wasn't the Avenger reduced in price to 200 points or some such? I'm not seeing any adjustments to it's cost listed in the FAQ. Sme goes for the cost of the dictator.
There is also some odd bits of white text that says "test" in between the ship sections on the admech fleet list page.
-
You're probably thinking of my work, known as BFG:Revised, or formerly 'Flawed Ships' which is unofficial.
-
I remember that, but I thought that the Avenger was reduced in price and the Dictator went down by 10 points. I remember Zelnik getting all happy about doing a dual avenger list because of it.
I also noticed a change in the AdMech PDF that lets admech escorts take +1 turret for 5 points. 3 turret swords anyone?
-
I don't recall the Dictator going down in cost, but I know the avenger went down... (squee!)
-
This was mentioned on Warseer:
Craftworld Eldar
p132 Dragonship:
Is listed in its profile as Cruiser/8 (eight). I hope this is an error.
p134 Shadowhunter:
Is listed in its profile as Cruiser/6 but should obviously be Escort/1.
-
I hope the dragonship gets 8 hits.. that would be (jaw)some!
-
No corrections from my side at this point.
I just wanted to thank you all for the work you invested, even if it will not be on the GW side i think many players can make good use of all those documents.
-
What, they rejected them all? :P
*checks site*
-
nids FAQ again...
pg 29 middle column, third paragraph of tyranid weapons it states that a hive ship may take STR 8 torps for +25points.
BUT
pg 30, first column, third paragraph of tyranid ordnance it states that a hiveship may have STR 6 torps for the price in armada.
-
I pledged my soul to Clippy, the chaos god of Mistakes and here's what I found: ;)
(All in Powers of Chaos)
<snip>
p 108: Wage of Sin doesn't have a Prow Launch bay listed. Is that correct?
Yes, this is intentional. This BB is based on the Desolator, which doesn’t have a prow launch bay on the model.
<snip>
p 112: Prow Launch bays are only Strenght 2. Intentional? (It's 3 on Terminus Est and Scion).
Yes, again this is intentional. The Vengeful Spirit is supposed to be the archetype Chaos battlebarge and what the Despoiler was supposed to be. As our mandate included allowing cost changes but otherwise no changes to basic profiles, we included a fix by creating as a separate battlebarge what the Despoiler should have been, along with special rules allowing for some customization.
General: The order the different gods are described (Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, Nurgle), their Ships are presented (Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Nurgle, Black Legion, Khorne, rest) and their Fleet listes are presented (Tzeentch, Nurgle, Khorne, Slaanesh) varies each time.
It would IMO ease navigation if they used the same order each time and if the Vengeful spirit was presented after the four other ones with the other generic ships.
<snip>
This was a rather subtle “catch†I hadn’t given any thought to. The Chaos pantheon’s description was left as-is from the original article, and the ships were put in order of cost form most expensive first, which isn’t in the same order as the gods listed in the article. The order of the fleet lists were arbitrary and not in any specific order, so I changed those to the same order they appear in the write up to provide some continuity.
-
All,
The 2010 Compendium is complete. I want to thank you all for your hard work and (endless!) debate to get this right. I want to also thank those that took the time to check the final drafts for errors, which unfortunately are inevitable for a project this big. I received some e-mails about other concerns as well, and all of these have been incorporated and corrected.
It’s all been sent off to GW so obviously we are no longer making any changes to these files. Unfortunately, now it’s up to the powers that be to get these actually posted on the Specialist Games website. I will let you all know more as soon as I do. In the meantime, it can be found in the same place as always by clicking the link below.