Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on August 12, 2011, 06:56:52 AM
-
Does anyone use the rules for the Nova Cannon? We have been trying them out and I think they are too powerful now. Higher than 50% chance to do d6 when locked on. Fighting Admech with 2-3 is hellish.
-
That's still a good bit lower then the 99,9% chance of hitting my opponent had in the v1.0 guess range rules had. haha
-
...but still too much. Aren't the current rules be a better option?
-
I was happy enough with the faq1.5 version, thus the version BEFORE the v1.5 half-a$$ed rulebook came out.
That means 30-60 = 1d6 scatter
60-120 2d6 scatter.
the 3d6 is way to much.
-
I would never take Nova Cannons if I had any spare bits to convert my Dominators into Tyrants. Much prefer torps.
-
We have been using them here since they were proposed. I agree that LO makes NCs too powerful.I said so when the rule was first proposed. Normally NCs have a 33% chance of hitting. LO boosts this to a 55% chance. At long range I've found this somewhat manageable because there is no reason not to brace. Up clode is where it's deadly. The direct hit % in the 30-60cm range, where you roll 1 dice for scatter is almost 90%. Considering you can fire NCs last with no penalty to accuracy they target ships with shields knocked down. 3 LO NCs at close range average 9.333 hits with a range from 3-18.
I had argued for a limit on NCs of 1 for every 1000pts or part thereof with LO allowed.to This allows 2 for a 1500pt game. Also I argued for an option to replace NCs with torpedos for no charge since people seemed to believe that torpedos>NCs.
-
I would never take Nova Cannons if I had any spare bits to convert my Dominators into Tyrants. Much prefer torps.
Eh? What do you mean? If you want to convert a Dom to a Tyrant the most you need to do is just cut off the NC. Done. Don't need spare bits.
-
In my rules (not BF:R), I made it more accurate but limited how much you can take it in a certain amount of points. I think it was 1 in 750, IIRC.
-
Regardless of rules (for a bit) and concentrating on background the Nova Cannon is rare.
Thus I would like to see a nova cannon limit of 1 per 750pts
For AdMech I would go for 1 per 500pts
Problem: the official NC rules are kinda wacky.
BFG:R rules should adapt the restriction.
-
I agree with the restriction to 1/750 or 500 admech but I don't understand why the nova still isn't subject to reload. Even in rogue trader it must be reloaded and can't be fired until the turn after you reload. On another topic why can you launch ordnance the same turn you load it? They should look into that too, it just makes sense for it to take a turn getting everything into place to launch.
-
Why? It'll downgrade the ac based fleets more then they should.
Funny note: in our starting games we played like that:
launch AC turn 1
Reload AC turn 2
Launc AC turn 3
But I don't think the NC should reload in the scale of Battlefleet Gothic or/i] the weapon must be more effective.
-
It wouldn't downgrade ac at all. They already cannot launch once they have reloaded, with the exception of nids. The only time it would affect them at all is if they're within strike distance. If they're that close they have other things to worry about than reloading anyway, like finding who the idiots were that let them get close enough to be hit by guns... Seriously tho the ac fleets should be trying to get behind the guns if they're that close, not reloading while the enemy guns are locking on that's a losing battle. As for the reasoning behind it this would present it more realistically (it takes a while to get a bomber wing up in the air or torpedo tubes loaded). It would also help to curb torpedo spam espically with the crap new rule about them only being a 3 wide marker as people would actually have to think about where they will fire and why. On the nova cannon it only makes sense, it is a hugh shell, and its fluffy because this thing is susposed to take forever to fire. As other have stated the new rules do make it very effective, when its locked on its even more effective. Reloading, using the skip a turn method, would only help make it work more like the fluff describes it.
-
AC cannot launch when they have reloaded? Huh? When did this change come up? Or is this BFG:R?
One reason why the NC wasn't subjected to the reloading rule is that it would effectively make all the IN ships' prow weapons subject to Reload Ordnance. Now while I don't mind that happening, changes to the NC should be made if that were to happen. BFG:R does have an effective NC but I think the range limitation should then be removed because it's quite possible for enemy ships to get close to NC ships by turn 3.
-
wow good call im a tard ::) NO thats bad wording what I ment to say is that the ac cannot be launched when reloaded because you cannot have more ac launched than you have launch bays available. Thats why I said it would only affect ac fleets when they are within strike craft attack range.
-
That's the better wording.
But you don't know how often enemies can take out AC with gunnery at long range.
Torpedo (3 wide marker is a brilliant idea) spam? No problem with it. Only two fleets can try to pull it of.
Nah, I like the reload/launch in one turn.
-
IN and Tau? Do orks count?
-
My only problem with the new torp rule is that they still have ac waves. If they're going to say a 6 str torp salvo needs to be represented by a 3 str because people are complaining about a graze by one edge causes the whole salvo to attack. However ac waves are still hugh blocks that if grazing a ships base the entire wave attacks. Not that this would be a problem except that with large waves (16 or more) this allows the rear most ac upwars of 10+cm "extra" move.
-
The Nova Cannon Lock On rules are changed to as follows, "Vessels firing Nova Cannon which are on Lock On special orders roll an additional die for scatter distance and choose one die not to count before measuring scatter distance."
This should help make LO not so drastic with NCs, and also giving the small boost to the weapon we were looking for.
Ordnance waves should be changed to only one marker per type within a wave, with a D6 to represent the number of that type within the wave. So a wave of 4 fighters would be a single fighter marker with a D6 next to it, a wave of 2 bombers and 2 fighters would be one bomber and one fighter marker with 2D6 of different colours placed next to it etc.
I hope this helps, I am currently working on v1.2 of the core rules, which should fix these issues, as well as be a more usable system. Unfortunately I won't have most fleets done until around the new year, but I hope to work through the rules into an 'Alpha' playtest version by then. I started a blog for my progress; http://strategicconclave.blogspot.com/
-
Ac rule sounds good :D as for the novas I'm not so sure lo would have a big effect, must make some rolls after work. It might be better worded if the player has the option to reroll but the new roll stands even if worse.
-
Proposed change to NC on LO is too weak. Better to just improve the NC and then limit it as the fluff dictates. LO should be on the scatter dice.
-
Re-rolling scatter proves to play a bit too powerful, although it does make some sense. Proposed makes it when you 'miss' you don't miss as bad, which makes sense for LO, however mechanics are a bit weird.
-
Sorry I ment reroll the distance of scatter, not the scatter die itself. The wording on your rule sounds a bit.. rough?
-
Re-rolling scatter proves to play a bit too powerful, although it does make some sense. Proposed makes it when you 'miss' you don't miss as bad, which makes sense for LO, however mechanics are a bit weird.
Which is why NCs should be limited. You can't really make it any less powerful. Using LO on the scatter roll is a different mechanic from the typical LO where one has a chance to hit again. As long as the weapon is limited, it shouldn't be able to do a lot of damage every turn. 1 in 500 or 1 in 750 will limit it effectively.
How about this: In the rules I made, a miss where the center hole still scatters onto the base only does D3 damage. This helps balance things. Maybe this can be incorporated in the LO rules as well if people think LO on NC is too powerful if D6 is retained as damage. Meaning on LOs, a missed NC rerolls scatter dice and on a hit would only cause D3 damage at most. Personally, I still prefer D6 but it would be a good compromise.
-
I used to agree that Novas should be limited, and it even matches fluff, but my secret passion has always been to match another part of fluff: the part that says novas have always been lesser used than torps because torps are more tactically reliable and fit the fleet tactics. Hard to do in game though, when the alternate of the torp volley can cripple a cruiser in one hit and reach anywhere on the board.
But I can still dream.
One idea, in the vastness of space, would be to simply be roll a d6, miss 1-2, one hit 2-5, direct hit 6, or some such.
Scatter and blasts hitting multiple ships be damned.
Another limiter would be RO to reload the huge thing, never understood why it wasn't RO in the first place.
-
+1 to reload, you know its required to ro in rogue trader. Some people have said this may be a bit much tho as almost every capitol ship in the IN fleet would have to use ro to fire their prow weapons. As a side note iirc there used to be some rules for alternate warheads, similar to the alternate torpedoes. Do you have any plans to include these? I can't seem to find the exact rules right now tho might have been a bfg mag or warp storm something like that...
-
Also, in the fluff, when the cruiser is crippled by a nova, it is regarded as a resounding success, giving the impression that novas don't often succeed like that. So we just need to know that novas can potentially cripple a cruiser at extreme range.
Thus, make it d6 lance hits on direct hit, d3 or one on indirect, 30cm minimum range. No RO order needed. No points increase even needed :)
-
If your going to suggest lance shots why not say 6 lance shots instead of D6. Adding the extra roll is unnecessary and the standard mechanics for lock on could be used. (Roll 6 lances on a direct hit, 3 on a glancing hit, novas on lock on may reroll misses as normal)
-
Because you would get roughly the same results with a straight 6 lance shots. 1d6 or 2d3 on a direct hit on target vessel, d3 on any scatter. The goal is to make it no more appealing than a torpedo salvo.
-
Idk the nova is more expensive, fairly inaccurate, and you really only get one or two shots in most games. It seems that it should have something to make it as desirable as torpedoes.
-
My proposition assumes that novas would cost nothing extra than torpedoes. 1d6 lance shots on direct hit, 1 lance shot on template hit. Problem solved.
-
By lance shots, you mean you have to roll again after determining how many shots after rolling the direct hit or the template hit?
-
Yup.
-
Uh no, no additional dice rolling. Also basically nerfs the NC since now it has to roll for damage instead of the rolled D6 or 1 point automatically considered as damage.
-
Yeah, direct damage as per current NC is stronger then D6 lance shots. Or even 6 lance shots per default.
-
Average for a D6 is 4hits, average for 6D6 is 3hits (not a big difference and really the average for 1D6 could go either way). Where this really shines is in that you would need no extra rules or wording for lock on as you would just reroll any misses, making the nova very powerful when it hits (average 5hits give or take). Im not really a .fan of making the nova more accurate.... kinda takes away from its fluff a lot.
-
How do you come by that?
If I roll 1 D6 (current NC) a 1 means 1 hit (pity) a 6 means 6 hits (good, that is 2 shields down on a Lunar plus 4 damagepoints = crippled).
Rolling a 6 on a D6 = 16.6%
6 lance shots = roll 6 D6 to get a 4+. = average 3 hits = 2 shields down + 1 damage.
So you need 6 times a 4+ to get 6 hits.
D6 lance shots = much less.
-
1D6 lance shots = exactly half of current NC damage.
-
I know. I proposed 1d6 lance shots for those who want, say, 180 point dominators. According to the fluff, the nova shouldn't be better than a str6 torpedo salvo, or at least different in purpose but not better. That was simply a proposal for anyone who wanted a nova as an equal option without costing more points or limitation.
-
Well I personally don't find the NC to be all that strong. A fleet of pure NC ships lacks torpedoes, which are quite a strong offensive weapon. The NC is inherently unreliable and ceases to function entirely within 30cm.
-
I've gotta agree novas have proven very ineffective. They are way over priced for something that is only likely to get in a point or two of damage a game. When you factor in all the benefits of torps it just makes them look even worse. On the other hand there's nothing like the look on your opponents face when it direct hits with a damage roll of 6 and they didn't brace because the nova "never hits" or "doesn't do much damage" lol :D.
-
The NC is a psychological weapon and I like to keep it that way.
The v1.5 FAQ version (pre 1.5 rulebook) was okay. Max scatter of 2d6 above 60cm-150cm. Beneath 1d6.
-
I've gotta agree novas have proven very ineffective. They are way over priced for something that is only likely to get in a point or two of damage a game. When you factor in all the benefits of torps it just makes them look even worse. On the other hand there's nothing like the look on your opponents face when it direct hits with a damage roll of 6 and they didn't brace because the nova "never hits" or "doesn't do much damage" lol :D.
Indeed, it is this occasional instance of one shot crippling that makes the NC a psychological weapon. In this role I don't think that the objective of the IN player is to get in the occasional shot and hope to roll a 6 against a non-braced target, but rather to force a disproportionate number of BFI orders.
-
True, the problem with forcing bfi is that its typically only one ship, unless its in a squadron AND your playing with the craptastic "one braces they all brace".
One does the trick in smaller games but in large games I feel that to get the full effect I'm forced to take at least 2 preferably 3 (forcing some bfi hopefully) and maybe being able to do some damage. this robs the fleet of a lot of flexibility where torps come in. Maybe this is all just a problem of accuracy tho? I never had this problem when it was a guess range. One nova worked perfectly.
-
That's because when it was guess range it had a 99% accuracy. Of course you wouldn't have an accuracy problem under these circumstances! I think the accuracy is fine. Just ask a Tau player how scary NCs are.
-
I'd like to think I was a bit more accurate than that. What's the tau reference? Is that some fluff?
-
I'd like to think I was a bit more accurate than that. What's the tau reference? Is that some fluff?
Well, the 1% miss rate is to represent the extra variance of the first round of guesses. As for the Tau, ever tried playing Explorers against an NC heavy fleet? Large bases are extremely easy to hit with NC, and 1 shield ships are especially vulnerable to NC, and when they're carriers you're faced with taking a lot of damage or bracing, in which case you get no AC.
-
Ah I see, only played with/ against fw tau. Oh and first round= table size - each players move, always setup second :D.
-
Ah I see, only played with/ against fw tau. Oh and first round= table size - each players move, always setup second :D.
Well you don't get to know exactly how far your opponent has moved, so long as it is within his movement range, nor do you get to know exactly how far in from a table edge he has deployed, again within limitations.
-
I guess you dont watch them make their move? Ive never had a problem not know what their movement distance was, its the little numbers on the tape measure ;). As for the deployment distance everyone I play with has a habit of setting up with a tape measure to make sure theyre not over ;D. So... maybe its not "right" or "moral" but I got a lot of first turn direct hits 8).
-
I guess you dont watch them make their move? Ive never had a problem not know what their movement distance was, its the little numbers on the tape measure ;). As for the deployment distance everyone I play with has a habit of setting up with a tape measure to make sure theyre not over ;D. So... maybe its not "right" or "moral" but I got a lot of first turn direct hits 8).
My opponents didn't use tape measures while moving. They just determined their minimum and maximum movement, took the tape measure away and plonked their ship somewhere in between. Similarly, the deployment box was measured out and marked with dice. No tape measure lying handily nearby.
-
^ Like that. :)
But still, for some easy catch.
-
How about this simplicity; Ships equipped with Nova Cannon on Lock On special orders reduce the scatter distance by 1D6 to a minimum of 1D6. Meaning they will scatter 1D6 within 30-90cm, and 2D6 beyond. It improves it quite a bit IMO.
-
Ok so are the base rules for nova going to remain 30-45cm 1D6 scatter 46-60cm 2D6 scatter and 61+ 3D6 scatter. Or are the base rules going to read 30-90cm 2d6 scatter 91-150cm 3D6 scatter.
-
My Apologies, just looked at the original rules. Here is some mathmatica;
So Current 'Official' Rules;
30-45cm 1D6 Scatter
45-60cm 2D6 Scatter
60+ 3D6 Scatter
For these values it has:
1D6 Scatter: 55.5% chance of a direct hit, and a 22% chance of an indirect hit on a small base. On a large base it has a 66% chance of a direct hit, and a 22% chance of an indirect one.
2D6 Scatter: 35.1% chance of a direct hit, and a 9.1% chance of an indirect hit on a small base. On a large base it has a 38.5% chance of a direct hit, and a 12.8% chance of an indirect one.
3D6 Scatter: 33.3% chance of a direct hit, and a 2.3% chance of an indirect hit on a small base. On a large base it has a 33.8% chance of a direct hit, and a 3.3% chance of an indirect one.
Translating these into pure damage, assuming that direct hits=average 3.5 hits, and indirect hits average 1, and also assuming equal opportunities for large and small bases we have:
1D6: 2.35 hits average
2D6: 1.4 hits average
3D6: 1.2 hits average
So not much different from 3D6 to 2D6, other than when it misses it goes farther. However let's compare old to current rules; I know that there are some ambiguities to where targets lie in a game. Meaning, I've had games where NCs fired a number of times within the 30cm bracket, and all too often the 60-150cm section really didn't mean anything. So there is some 'manipulation to the numbers' here.
In this case, I am only counting half of the 60-150cm bracket. So lets say, that this is only 60-105, or 45cm.
So we have:
15cm of 1D6
15cm of 2D6
45cm of 3D6
Or an average damage output of 1.47. Naturally according to old rules, where the scatter was 1D6 under 60 and 2D6 over, this would be more like 1.78. Reducing the NCs efficacy by about 20%.
We had in system a re-rolling mechanism, where ships on LO orders could re-roll the scatter. Math looks like this for the NC in that case:
1D6: 80% direct vs. small bases, 10% indirect. 87.8% against large, 6% indirect
2D6: 56.3% direct vs. small, 6.3% indirect. 62.5% direct vs. large, 11.5% indirect
3D6: 55.5% direct vs. small, 1% indirect. 55.7% direct vs. large, 2.3% indirect
Or
1D6: 3.01 Hits average
2D6: 2.17 Hits average
3D6: 1.96 Hits average
With the 'reroll' system it really beefs up the long range damage. Making it an average overall (using the previous weighing system) of 2.213 or about 50% better than official rules.
Now looking at things that we could do;
Admiral D' proposed that reroll hits could only be glancing regardless of if the hole is over the base, meaning that you only do D3 damage in those circumstance, adding this to 'official' rules, this would mean;
1D6: 2.68 hits average
2D6: 1.82 hits average
3D6: 1.6 hits average
Average overall: 1.865 or 27% better than current rules.
Now if you take Admiral D's concept another way, in that if an NC hits a base, but is not over the center peg then damage looks like this (re-rolls included):
1D6: 2.71
2D6: 2.01
3D6: 1.74
Or an average of 1.988 or 35% better than current.
Now my proposal of dropping a D6 would have an average of: 1.78, or 20% better than current, however this seems a little boring now.
What I think in general;
Rerolling the scatter does make a bit more sense, obviously if it is done with normal efficacy then the weapon becomes too powerful. I do like Admiral D's system, although it is a little strange, and one disadvantage here is that on the rerolls it doesn't have the crippling capability, and is quite a bit more stable, so though it has a better damage output, it is lacking in a way. With my proposed system, it does a little less damage on average, but doesn't weaken the weapon.
Other things that could be done:
Altering the width of the bands, it does seem weird to me that 1D6 and 2D6 only occupy a small proportion of the entire NC range.
So finally I think that Admiral D's Proposition makes the most sense, meaning NCs on LO special orders may re-roll the scatter die regardless of result, however the 'hole' of the template must be centered over the stem of the ship to do 1D6 damage, if the hole is situated anywhere else on the base then it only does 1D3.
This should be a 37% improvement in the NC, at least when vessels are on LO, and provide a reason to be locked on. It also works well with the game, (re-rolling) and with logic (near misses shouldn't do quite so much damage).
-
I agree the scatter distance should be tweaked down. In the 30-60cm range it should be 1d6cm, from 60-90cm 2d6 and 90+cm would be 3d6.
If we go by d'Artagnan's idea then an initial roll of a 'Hit' (33.3% chance) the NC will do 1d6 damage (average of 3.5). When a miss is initially rolled (even if a hit is re-rolled when locked on) the NC will do 1d3 damage (average of 2) if the centre hole touches the base. For a small base, 1d6 scatter, this makes a 37% chance of 1d3 damage and 14.8% chance of 1 damage.
With this set of rules we see an average return of 2.06 damage in the 1d6cm scatter band against a small base when locked on. Comparing this to the original incarnation of the scatter NC rules (ie, the scatter distance roughly as per given above) the same situation would yield an average of 2.17 damage. When further than 60cm, so scattering 2d6cm, this system yields an average of 1.7 damage when locked on vs 1.32 damage of the original system. So basically this allows you to lock on and get an increase in performance when you're a long way away from the enemy, but when you're in optimal firing position you would need to LO in order to maintain roughly similar damage output. This seems a little off to me.
Comparing large bases, this system gives 2.2 damage on LO in the 1d6cm scatter zone, vs 2.6 damage under normal circumstances. So again, it's worse in the optimal zone, particularly as it requires LO to even achieve this. In the 2d6cm scatter zone we get 1.77 damage vs 1.49 of the original system, so again it's better than the current system. Again, it seems a little off to improve long rang performance while simultaneously nerfing performance in the optimal band.
-
Yeah, reasons why I don't like Admiral D's initial idea. It is somewhat weird. However the modified idea would make non-lo NCs weaker. However I do like it, as it feels sensible. Reminder this is the system where NCs do 1D6 damage if the hole is over the ship's stem, D3 if it is over any part of the base, and 1 if the template touches the base.
So the difference for non-LO;
1D6:33% direct hits, 22% indirect, 22% partials for small bases Or 1.81 hits average, or a 23% loss from this range
2D6: 33% direct hits, 1.8% indirect, 9.2% partial. Or 1.27 hits average or a loss of 5%
3D6: 33% direct hits, 1% partial or 1.17 hits. A loss of 4%
Now even though there is this loss for Non-LO there is a substantial gain for LO.
Reasons for this system:
-NCs should have a 'damage gradient' depending on how far they land from their target.
-Fluff dictates that to fire an NC ships have to pay particular attention to targeting, and they don't turn/perform any manouvres while firing. LO prevents turning.
-This system allows a reason for NC ships to use LO orders, and not to an unreasonable extent.
Considering the fact that this does make NCs weaker in a way, I do think that the bands should be modified to Sig's suggestion, meaning 30-60cm:1D6 scatter, 60-90cm:2D6 scatter, 90cm+:3D6 scatter. Which should subjugate the loss somewhat, and make it not so 'lopsided'.
Admiral D's initial suggestion is confusing, but the modified version is logical, and flows easily within the rules.
As far as NC limitations go, I think I can see a limitation in IN fleets, however I don't think that the Admech need such a limitation. Admech pay a premium for their vessels already, and have to pay another 20 pts for the NCs, so if they stack Lunars with NCs, they max out at 6. Since they need AC, generally 2 carriers for most fleets, they can't afford to give those NCs due to the rule of NCs being less effective unless they are on LO orders. I don't think that you will see more than 4 in a normal 1500 point fleet.
1/750 always seemed odd to me, that means 2 in a 1500 point game. Although this does make sense, I think a 500 point limitation makes more sense. Perhaps there are other systems of limitation?
I.e. no more than half of your capital ships may be equipped with NCs (rounded down obviously). I think this system doesn't permit the Heavyside Concept of listbuilding. This would limit IN fleets to 3 NCs if they stacked them in a 1500 point game.
-
So the difference for non-LO;
1D6:33% direct hits, 22% indirect, 22% partials for small bases Or 1.81 hits average, or a 23% loss from this range
2D6: 33% direct hits, 1.8% indirect, 9.2% partial. Or 1.27 hits average or a loss of 5%
3D6: 33% direct hits, 1% partial or 1.17 hits. A loss of 4%
Now even though there is this loss for Non-LO there is a substantial gain for LO.
There is only gain in the 2d6cm and 3d6cm scatter zones. Even when locked on there is a decrease in efficacy in the 1d6cm range band. If we up this range band to 30-60cm, as I think it should be regardless of which system the NC ends up using, then this would mean that in the most common range band the NC would get flat out worse. At longer ranges the NC would get better. So, in those rare instances when the enemy starts substantially more than 60cm away and they're thus already at the mercy of NCs then the NC becomes better. In the more typical situation where the NC is firing at ships within 60cm and has trouble competing against torpedo alternatives the NC becomes worse.
Reasons for this system:
-NCs should have a 'damage gradient' depending on how far they land from their target.
-Fluff dictates that to fire an NC ships have to pay particular attention to targeting, and they don't turn/perform any manouvres while firing. LO prevents turning.
-This system allows a reason for NC ships to use LO orders, and not to an unreasonable extent.
Possibly all true, not unreasonable. However, I don't like the effects of the proposed change.
Considering the fact that this does make NCs weaker in a way, I do think that the bands should be modified to Sig's suggestion, meaning 30-60cm:1D6 scatter, 60-90cm:2D6 scatter, 90cm+:3D6 scatter. Which should subjugate the loss somewhat, and make it not so 'lopsided'.
Well I think those range bands should be implemented regardless. The having 2 15cm range bands and a 90cm range band seems silly to me. In fact, I wouldn't mind dropping the 3d6cm scatter altogether. If it's going to scatter that much then just say that a miss scatters harmlessly off into the void.
Admiral D's initial suggestion is confusing, but the modified version is logical, and flows easily within the rules.
I don't think the system is confusing, though it does make the maths a little more so.
-
I'm glad you guys are addressing the Lock On Nova Cannon rules! We found them far too powerful as well. Also, I like where you guys are going with this. It sounds to me like you're coming very close to a great solution.
I have a couple of things to bring up here.
First, as discussed before, if you're going to limit the number of NCs in an IN fleet (which I think HAS to be done), you should allow players to swap NCs for torpedos and vice versa. Up to you guys if you want to assign a point cost to go with it.
The most effective use of NCs is to use them after shooting when the target's shields are down, they are close enough for 1D6 scatter. Blast markers don't effect the NCs so there's no reason not to do this. At longer ranges NCs aren't that threatening because of shields, but after the shields are down they go from threat to completely devestating. Making near misses D3 hits alleviates this a bit, but Lock On makes a direct hit a 55% chance. So, how many points of damage will 3 NC ships on LO do Mean average to a target ship with shields down? I get 6.9 hits mean average. Seems a bit overpowered to me.
-
I could see having the option to take ships with torps instead of nova. Maybe a dominator for 160-180ish and a dictator battlecruiser for 250-260ish. Apoc is the only other ship off the top of my head that's got a nova only, don't see much point in swaping it out on that ship tho.
-
The most effective use of NCs is to use them after shooting when the target's shields are down, they are close enough for 1D6 scatter. Blast markers don't effect the NCs so there's no reason not to do this. At longer ranges NCs aren't that threatening because of shields, but after the shields are down they go from threat to completely devestating. Making near misses D3 hits alleviates this a bit, but Lock On makes a direct hit a 55% chance. So, how many points of damage will 3 NC ships on LO do Mean average to a target ship with shields down? I get 6.9 hits mean average. Seems a bit overpowered to me.
It doesn't matter whether you combine NC fire with other direct fire or more NCs. Obviously shields make the average damage output of a single NC less than overwhelming, but the same could be said of a Gothic's broadside or any number of other ships armaments.
Also, the proposed system makes a re-rolled hit do only 1d3 damage, so there's still only a 33% chance of a direct '1d6 damage' hit. Lock On only increases the chances of a secondary '1d3 damage' hit. Against a small base in the 1d6 scatter zone this increases from a 22% chance to 37% chance. Against a large base in the 1d6 scatter zone it goes from 33% to 44%. In extreme scatter situations the chance of this secondary hit goes from practically nil up to 33%. In all cases the chances of a direct hit remain 33%.
It is the differential non-linear increase in secondary hit effectiveness between base sizes and scatter zones that is the problem for me. Perhaps it should simply reduce the scatter distance by 1d3cm.
-
Okay. I like that.
Regarding the comparisons of the damage output for LO NCs in the old system vs the new system, it sounds to me like you're getting exactly what is needed. NCs at long range were never the problem. It was up close where they got a massive boost in power. Then when you added LO to the mix they got even stronger. It was the short range band where they were by far the worst.
These new rules increase their threat at long range while putting a big damper on their damage output at short range. And it gives players a reason to LO when using the NC.
Also, it just feels right. LO should help more for long range shots than short range ones. Nova Cannon blasts should have an intermediate damage range. Sigoroth's new range bands feel much better as well.
-
1 NC per 500 seems to be the only real balancing that needs to be done, or you make it so for every NC you have, you must have 1 cruiser (Or higher vessel) without one.
The statement below makes sense from both a game point of view and a fluff point of view.
"-Fluff dictates that to fire an NC ships have to pay particular attention to targeting, and they don't turn/perform any manouvres while firing. LO prevents turning."
Another option would be not allow it to be fired after it goes on LO. This could be used to represent the cannon being reloaded (Yes in fluff they fire giant shells, which take 40+ minutes to reload), but being fired accurately causes them to reset some controls/systems (Kind of like a rush to get the next shell out, which when firing real weapons, you can fire a rifle rapidly, or fire accurately, but never both)
Or just don't let them go on LO 2 turns in a row.
Nerfing the damage output makes zero sense fluff wise or game wise.
Besides they are really only scare to 1 or 2 other fleets, and that's chaos who loves to sit back and fire away and Necrons since they don't seem to be an in your face fleet. When you look at the other fleets, Orks, Nids, Marines, Other IN, Eldar, DE (Tau I am very unfamiliar with, so not sure where they sit), the NC is not much of an issue since you are generally within it's minimum range after 1 or 2 rounds of shooting, or they just get a save against it....unless you the fleets mentioned.
I generally only run with 2 in my fleets, and only because Dominators are a great all comers ship (I take them in every fleet I write, no matter if it's Eldar or whatever, because when he does fail his save...oh man, destroying an eldar bb with one shot is just awesome)
-
Agreed Tag. 1/500 is what I'm writing, only being able to get 2 in 1500 points seems weird, and at 3 I don't think they would be much of a problem.
-
1/500 is fine. 3 in a 1500 can be a pain, if played right they can shut down carriers pretty easily. If you don't brace you run the risk of taking massive damage. If you do brace your not reloading and still might take damage. If you don't brace I will probably send my next shot to that ship too :P.
-
What about AdMech then? They should have more in a fleet if they wanted too.
-
Ya there is no good argument for admech no to have as many as they want.
-
Sure there is. If more than 1 per 500pts is abusive in the IN list, why isn't it abusive in the Ad Mech fleet. 4 NCs on the board at 1500pts is still 4 NCs whether its the IN, Ad Mech or whatever you decide to call it. Perhaps NCs have very rare and expensive ammunition or are difficult to maintain, even for the Ad Mech? Either way, there's no point in breaking the game in the name of fluff. Besides, Ad Mech is already pretty badass.
-
Why did you nerf the damage Plaxor? What we decided for Phthisis rule set was to force NC's to be fired before all other weapons. Kept the damage and re-rolls for LO the same. That removes his complaint about them being over powered.
-
The damage statistically on NCs is actually about the same. Since the ranges changed it makes near misses more likely, and damage is only reduced for those near misses (to not make it absurd). Direct hits remain nearly the same as the previous incarnation, bands are widened, which stabilizes the damage and randomness of the NC somewhat.
Admech could get 6 NCs at 1500, the fleet would be badass, but still suffer their inherent weaknesses. Primarily in that it would be more expensive, and either not have ordnance, or have very little. Besides I do not think that that fleet would necessarily be top-tier competitive, but it would certainly work better than a 6NC IN fleet (long range cruiser lances, and a slightly better LD table, also small ability to metagame by modifying ships depending on opponent's strategy)
The Admech are equivalent to what I wrote for the Daemonfleet. Both have the most potential to be broken in BFG:R, but we'll have to see (although daemons have a higher likelihood). Both 'fleets' were severely unpowered in their official incarnation, Admech particularly because it couldn't choose which upgrade it received (and some weren't anywhere near worth the points premium) and daemons due to their unreliability and massive negatives.
-
Sure there is. If more than 1 per 500pts is abusive in the IN list, why isn't it abusive in the Ad Mech fleet. 4 NCs on the board at 1500pts is still 4 NCs whether its the IN, Ad Mech or whatever you decide to call it. Perhaps NCs have very rare and expensive ammunition or are difficult to maintain, even for the Ad Mech? Either way, there's no point in breaking the game in the name of fluff. Besides, Ad Mech is already pretty badass.
In this case I think fluff should be followed and the AdMech should have more resources/options to field NC's in their fleet.If it is +1 to the Imperial rule in the whole game (eg in a 500pts match it is 1+1 for AdMech, in 1000 2+1 and in 1500 3+1 etc.
(Quick thinking there.
And I am not read into AdMech:Revised but when it comes to the Ships of Mars official fleet list they are not so bad ass at all. Expensive ships, in 9 of the 10 matches (or more) outnumbered) plus random upgrades which may not be so benefacial as you wanted them to be.
-
Its your party. We are handling it in a different way.
-
Handle what? AdMech? Or the NC distribution?
-
The AdMech fleet. 1 per 500 for NCs is going to apply to both AdMech and IN lists.
-
I guess I just don't see why AdMech needs to have more NC's than IN, or where it even states that in the fluff?
-
Its implied that the nova is rare in the IN, but Admech have no shortage of anything... because they build whatever they want. However I have no problem playing against someone that has a fleet thats nova heavy. I also like to play with random terrain and know where the aaf button is ::)
-
Fair enough Andrew, good fluff reason however...1 in every 500 points for imperials is not making it rare....at all really. So if that was the basis for the argument then it's totally flawed :). Keep them with the same restrictions. It still means almost half your fleet can be NC ships if you want.
-
Its implied that the nova is rare in the IN, but Admech have no shortage of anything... because they build whatever they want. However I have no problem playing against someone that has a fleet thats nova heavy. I also like to play with random terrain and know where the aaf button is ::)
That is truth. :)
The AdMech even has the option to give NC to the battleships with torps. (Not that 9 torps are bad....).
Compared to current situation 4nc per 1500pts is a limit to what is possible.
-
The restriction isn't supposed to make it 'rare' it's only to prevent ubiquity. 1/10 cruisers may have a Nova Cannon and there really isn't any reason that 3 could be in the same battle, it's just unlikely. It's comparable to house rule launch bay restrictions.
The BFG:R Admech was mainly done up by Sigoroth. Iirc Each vessel saw a 15 point drop from official rules and random upgrades were changed into mandatory purchases (each was given a cost between 5 and 20 points). The Ark was reduced further due to it's requirement that it be the flagship (forcing the player to 'waste' the free fleet commander upgrade) and the CLs were automatically given the 30cm lance, without having to sacrifice their torps.
Oh and I think the escorts saw some slight changes, particularly in the way of the marine escorts, as they lose quite a bit without a Marine crew.
-
I just have to say, I am so glad this is being discussed. I haven't played BFG in a while because the last game we had, we were trying out the lock-on rules on a fleet where a friend was using Admech with 2 novas. They pretty much ended the game in the first round of shooting and comments about the NC being nerfed started to fly, things got heated (very, very rare and I hate when it happens), and we have just been playing 40k since.
Either way, I have felt naked without semi-frequent BFG games so it's time to get back into it. Also, I am pumped to see Plaxor back.
-
Either way, I have felt naked without semi-frequent BFG games so it's time to get back into it. Also, I am pumped to see Plaxor back.
Thanks, good to hear. I hope you find the current version of NC rules to be much more fair. I know that no matter how the NC looks someone will be disappointed (as is with everything). Unfortunately as human beings we are all somewhat biased, in the case of the NC we all bring to mind the times that a fleet equipped with them ended the game before it even started, but we don't count how often the weapons did nothing, or weren't the most viable weapon (see about half of the missions).
I'm happy to note that I've gotten MUCH better at using photoshop, if I was this good from the start so many things would've been so much easier!
I know I got part way through Tyranids, and unfortunately they will still have to wait a few months; I'm trying to get everything 'just right' in the order of how it appears in the book. Tyranids are towards the end of the rules section, and due to their low.... popularity and complex rules they are a lower priority.
As a reminder I have a blog about this subject; http://strategicconclave.blogspot.com/ (http://strategicconclave.blogspot.com/)
I'll be posting some of this information there, but for those of you interested in helping, I have a number of tasks that would be extremely helpful (and aren't that much time consuming).
These include:
Checking documents for typos and visual errors.
Forming a Table of Contents (telling me which page for each section)
Forming an Index
Forming an updated cheat sheet (basically revising the official one)
Cataloging the Rogue Trader/Dark Heresy/Deathwatch/Black Crusade images (I'll be posting a list later, but I forgot to mention which were 'very useful' and which weren't.)
Creating various rules for racial defenses and transports.
Working out the 'flaw' of Tyranids in campaigns.
-
Oh I posted the 'Alpha' version of the rules earlier today. It is quite a beautiful document (and I'm glad to note that I'm averaging 20mins per page on complex revisions), I fixed all the odd page size issues, made the document uniform, filled in all the white space, and made it look like it was actually 'published'.
I fixed a bunch of rules conundrums, and I know I planned on going through each of the fleets first, but I figured I should finalize the beginning before moving on to the rest. With that in place, and my improved photoshop skills, I hope to make the Alpha version of Imperial Fleets sometime next week. Fortunately the documents get shorter after that! Although I suppose they are a bit less refined.
-
This rules pdf looks awesome. Skimmed it; I will read it in more detail later on.
-
Hello everyone,
After much study, the Stone has rolled back....
Just some thoughts on Nova cannon: when deciding the scattering distances, we must also keep in mind that when you fire a shot in one direction, it doesn't chage direction in-flight (unless it is a torpedo, etc.). So a Nova cannon shot will go in the same direction as when it is fired (as far as I'm aware, they don't incorporate directional thingies); the scatter distance thus represents initial targetting error, so I think it is sensible to greatly increase the range bands. One can think of this as being an arc-length scatter exaggerationâ€â€an error of 1 degree in the initial targeting is still an error of 1 degree at 150 000 km but the transverse distance error (the scatter) increases massively.
Also, the background suggests that Nova cannon actually need to travel a certain distance before the explosion is at maximum power, so I don't think the increase in power at long range is a bad thing; after all, what are weapons batteries, torpedoes and lances for if Nova cannon trump them at shorter ranges? Otherwise, I'm sure the Dark Age of Technology would have resulted in at least battleships all mounting Nova cannon everywhere (or at minimum on every battleship). Their disadvantage is the fact that they need to travel for a while before causing maximum damage. Then again, background can always be modified....
Finally, seeing as (when I last checked) attack craft fleets tend to be on the powerful, desirable side of things, fleets could do with an anti-carrier optionâ€â€I'm sure military technology realised this at the time of the Nova cannon's creation. :)
Thinking Stone