Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on October 12, 2012, 04:04:08 PM
-
New BFG:R Documents:
++BFG:R Imperial Navy++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Imperial%20Navy.pdf)
++BFG:R Chaos Fleets++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Chaos%20Fleets.pdf)
++BFG:R Space Marines++
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Space%20Marines.pdf)++BFG:R Adeptus Mechanicus++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Adeptus%20Mechanicus.pdf)
++BFG:R Tau Empire++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Tau%20Empire.pdf)
++BFG:R Necron Fleets++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Necron%20Fleets.pdf)
++BFG:R Dark Eldar++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Dark%20Eldar.pdf)
++BFG:R Ork Fleets++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Ork%20Fleets.pdf)
Note: Most of these are still being worked on.
Also, official in BFG:R - ++Eldar MMS 1.9b++ (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-aXA8fc5AQ8T0pOTmliYmIxR0U)
Original post: I have been really interested in BFG:R since I found out about it and have absolutely loved playing games with the modified fleet lists and the revisions to the rules. Plaxor, who was the one heading the project, has put a post on the BFG:R blog page saying that he is basically marking the end of BFG:R as a project. I am very interested in getting this project done and having it in a releasable format for everyone to have (for free of course) and enjoy.
I have posed this point to Plaxor and am waiting for a response. If he is willing to send me the files, I will be more than happy to take up the work in his place but I will need some more volunteers to help as well. I cannot say that I have the experience he does in making the PDFs or even fleet designing, not that I think it needs any more or many more point adjustments, but with a crew of people who can help out to get this thing released would help ensure it's release.
Will anyone answer the call? ;D
Confirmed Changes: (strike-through is implemented)
Chaos:
Despoiler: Use modified stats (Horizons)
p/s launch bays str2 (4 total)
Prow launch bays str 4
dorsal lances str3@60cm LFR
p/s weapons batteries str 10@60cm
Devestation: Lance range @ 45cm
Idolator: 'New Fraal tech'
Infidel: 2 turrets
Iconoclast: 25 points
Retaliator Side wbs @45cm, 6 launch bays. No free improved engines
Warmaster must be on the highest class of ship, not the most expensive.
IN:
Retribution: Side WBs fp18@45cm Cost 355
Apocalypse: Firing lances over 30cm causes blast marker to be placed on ships rear rather than critical. Dorsal Wbs to FP 9
Avenger: FP20@30cm cost 200
Tyrant: 180 base cost, 190 upgraded version
Endeavor/Endurance/Defiant: 6+ prow, maintains 90' turns
Dictactor: 210 points cost.
Dominator: 45cm upgrade @ -10 points
Oberon:Prow and Dorsal Weapons at 60cm, costs 355
Mars: Cost 260
Firestorms: Cost 35
Falchion 2 turrets
Exorcist: 6lb cost 260 (+5 AB upgrade)
Defiant: +2 prow torps
(Horizon's Stats):
Cruiser 6
Shields 1
Speed 20
Turns 45
Armour 6+/5+
Turrets 2
Prow Torps 30cm S2 F
Prow WBs 30cm FP2 F/L/R
Port/SB Launch bays S1
Dorsal WBs FP2 F/L/R
(/Horizon's Stats)[/sub]
Astartes:
Strike cruiser: Now has assault carrier option, which swaps P/S weapons batteries for 1lb each @+15 points. As well as an option to swap prow lb with 3 torpedoes. 2 shields 1lb. Upgrade to replace prow LB with str. 3 Bombard F only for no points.
Battlebarge: Shields at 4, turrets at 4 Cost 440
RSV: Deleted
Gladius, cost 40
Nova cost 45
GCs: 25 points prow torp upgrade (6) no longer resists prow criticals if upgraded
Improved engines @ 5 points
20 point prow sensor array (see emperor)
Fleet list changes:
Bastions Fleet: No longer contains Endeavor Variants
Armagedon list: Loses RSV (as they no longer exist), however gains the Sword.
Confirmed Changes
Tau:
Hero: -2lances, -2FP (one each side), No longer restricted.
Merchant: 105pt cost, 6hits standard, upgrade to 8 hits for 20 points. +10 for lance variant
Corsairs:
Nightshade 50pts
Hemlock 50pts +1 f wb@30cm
Aconite 60pts
Hellebore: 80pts with profile change: 2wb, 1 pl, 1 fighter launch bay
Solaris: weapon range @45cm, no right shift.
Shadow: +2 torps, +2wb
Craftworld Eldar
Hero destroyed; Now just +25 point upgrade on characters
Flame of Asuryan-> Void Dragon CG loses vampires and aspect warriors. May upgrade vampires for +10 points. Permanent part of CWE list, restricted as 3:1 with cruisers.
Shadowhunter: old special rule. Speed bands +5cm, DE variant lance, +1wb, 45pts
Ghost Ships: Using MMS version with conversion for similarity to msm.
Wraithship: +5 point vampire upgrade. replaced by MMS 1.9b
Dark Eldar:
Mimic engines for free
Torture can buy two impalers for 20 points, not 2 for 20 each
The Torture carrying the fleet commander can upgrade its' hits by 2 for +35 points, if done so then it can purchase an additional weapon system.
Addition of Incubi Bodyguard on the Archon's ship; these add an additional +1 to the ships boarding modifier. 2d6 on teleport attacks pick which counts. +15 points
Addition of Wych Cult. Doubles boarding value +15 points. sortof...
Ork Changes
Gorbags Revenge: Prow torpedoes increased to D6+4, Cost 305
Kroolboy: +2wbs to p/s guns. 255 cost
Slamblasta: Lances changed to str d3+2, Cost 285
Hammer: No stats change, just upgrades added (as listed)
May reduce the strength of P/S Guns to 2, and add soopa engines for no cost
May replace p/s heavy guns for 1 launch bay (total 2) for +10 points
Kill-Kroozer: Prow guns increased to D6+6, P/S guns increased to D6+2. Torps made into a 10 point upgrade. Cost reduced to 150, Turrets upgraded to 2
Upgrades:
May reduce P/S guns to str 2 and add soopa engines at no cost
May replace P/S heavy guns with D6 torpedoes for free.
Of course may replace prow heavy guns for d6+2 torpedoes for 10 points
Terror ship: Prow weapons at D6+4, sides at D6+1. turrets upgraded to 2, Base cost 175
Upgrades:
May reduce P/S guns to strength 2 and add soopa engines at no cost.
May upgrade prow heavy guns to Str D6+2 torpedoes for 10 points.
Onslaught: 30 points firepower D6+1
Upgrades:
may exchange 1 firepower for soopa engines at no cost
may upgrade turrets to two for 5 points
Savage: 30 points, has soopa engines
May upgrade its turrets to two for +5 points
Ravager:
May swap 1 gun for soopa engines at no cost
May upgrade its turrets to three for 5 points
Brute Ramship:
May exchange 1 firepower for soopa engines at no cost
May upgrade its turrets to two for 5 points
all the escorts in a squadron must have the same upgrades. All soopa engines or none, all turrets or none etc.
Torpedo Bombers/Minelayers: use old cost upgrades (based on averages rather than max)
Warlord upgrades:
Maniak gunners: 10 points, may re-roll lance strength as well (in the case of the Slamblasta)
Looted Torpedoes: 10 points
Mad Meks: 10 points
Extra power fields: 20 points
Fleet lists:
2 new characters added:
Big Mek: Makes the ship replace one shield with D3, comes with a re-roll 40 points
Freeboota Kapitan: Adds +1 ld to the ship, comes with a re-roll 40points
Both characters are in the warboss category, so you may not include more than 1 character per 500 points. Each may take 'warboss upgrades' which with the big mek will make the shields go to d3+1, or d3+2 on bb/bc.
Pirates: Now includes Kroolboy, and Roks, may include all three character options but must include 1 freeboota kapitan if over 750 points as it's leader. Other two are 0-1 each.
WAAGH: May include all three characters, however it must include a warboss at 750 points or greater. Both other characters are 0-1
Mechanicus Changes
Archmagos Veneratus @ 75 points
Ark Mechanicus @390 pts
Emperor @385
Retribution @375
Oberon @375
Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant @200
Dictator @230
Endeavor/Endurance @125 Comes with 30cm dorsal lance (without sacrificing torps)
Defiant @135 Comes with lance, without sacrificing torps
Vessels no longer come with a free, randomly rolled gift of the ommnisiah, every vessel must purchase one
Emergency Energy Reserves: 15 points
Advanced Engines: 15 points
Fleet Defense Turrets: 10 points
Gyro Stabilized Targeting Matrix: 10 points
Repulsor Shielding 15 points
Augmented Weapon Relays: 30
Auto Reloaders: 25 points (makes a vessel able to do an additional order if they pass RO) XXXX (replace with Extra Magazine for 15pts like current BFG:R documents)
Firestorm, Gladius @35 points
Nova @40points
Tyranids: ?
-
Well Im up for helping where needed. I do believe that the scale of the project should be stepped back to the original intent of correcting and compiling the fleet lists with any additional fixes saved for a later document.
-
Awesome! I agree about the scale of the project; I think it was quite a bit too large. Where BFG:R was before a few of the newest files was about where it should should be in my mind: updated PDFs for the fleets and a rulebook with integrated changes (probably just a few). There were only a couple rules changes that I think BFG:R had that were noticeably different than FAQ2010 and that was mainly Launch Craft and some scattered throughout. Mainly the changes came in the fleet lists, mainly the Eldars, the new Tyranids (which are awesome but need a couple fixes), Necrons, Orks. Honestly, every fleet list has changes, some more than others.
-
Not even the small rule changes for me.
Just pure and simple: ship stats/cost revision.
Even fleet lists wouldn't be needed in this document.
Eldar MMS has its own pdf and existed before BFG:R and will continue to exist for everyone who wants to use it.
-
So, basically, FAQ2010 merged with the rulebook and the modified fleet lists? Eldar MMS should be included in this because it is oh such much better. Either way, the new ships from BFGR Dark Eldar, I think, should be brought in andthe new Tyranid list and Necrons.
-
While I can't speak for him with 100% accuracy, I think you have me and Talos for playtesters, if you need. I can provide commentary on rules, but I'm not super knowledgeable, so I won't be the most helpful there. Talos will be more help on that side. But playing games, I can do.
-
So, basically, FAQ2010 merged with the rulebook and the modified fleet lists? Eldar MMS should be included in this because it is oh such much better. Either way, the new ships from BFGR Dark Eldar, I think, should be brought in andthe new Tyranid list and Necrons.
That is even to much for me for a starter.
A plain pdf with ship cost and stats.
End.
:)
-
Not even the small rule changes for me.
Just pure and simple: ship stats/cost revision.
Even fleet lists wouldn't be needed in this document.
Eldar MMS has its own pdf and existed before BFG:R and will continue to exist for everyone who wants to use it.
I agree. Just revised costs and/or stats for some of the more broken official ships and a separate section for new ships. Maybe separate sections, so that some of the more balanced ships can be in a "generally accepted by most people" section whereas some of the more ehm, out there, suggestions can be included but at the same time highlighted as such.
Fleet lists could also be included, but again only to correct costs and other issues, rather than introduce new fleets. For example, I have no idea why the Ad Mech fleet list says "The benefit a Mechanicus Archmagos brings with it cannot be combined with a refit selected because the ship rolled a 6 when determining base leadership, meaning in one-off games a ship will never have more than two refits from the Mechanicus Gifts table." I mean, really, wot? ??? Rolling a 6 for leadership doesn't give you a bonus refit, it only allows you to select which refit you want instead of rolling for it randomly. You can't get 3 or more refits even if you allow the two to be used together. Hell, you can't even get 3 Mechanicus refits in a campaign, since they use normal refits for that.
On the topic of the Mechanicus Archmagos you should be able to combine the benefit with rolling a 6 for leadership. Leadership is rolled before assigning your FC to a ship, so if you assign your FC (most likely Ld 8 ) to a ship that has rolled a 6 for leadership you're already losing 1 Ld. I don't see why you should lose the ability to chose your refit too. Likewise some other fleet lists could use a little work here and there.
Well anyway, back on the point, I agree that it should be just ship fixes for the main document, with perhaps some appendices for the rest. I dislike pointing to BFG:R as a suggestion for new players on ships like, say, the Dictator, only to find crap like the Hydra on the very same page. It lowers the validity of the document.
I also dislike that Plaxor went ahead and left the Tyrant as a useless piece of shit instead of fixing it. All for the sake of a single line of fluff that could easily have been altered. Fixing that damn ship was one of the main reasons for making this document in the first place.
-
I agree that there are still alot of fixes to the ships that need to be addressed before the document can be considered finished. I really disagree about making it only ship profiles and costs or even spiltting some ships up tho. The idea is to condense the lists into one document. I think each fleet list should start with the special rules for that fleet, including weapons/ leadership/ boarding etc. Then the revised ships and a selection of applicable fleetlists (maybe not all of them but i would say at least two for most fleets). This puts everything that a player needs to use a fleet in their hands all in one easy to understand document.
Playtesting should be conducted on all of the "new" designes if any are to be included, not that some are needed (Imps) others are greatly needed (DE). Existing designes have already been played with for 10+years so there shouldnt be a problem there ;).
-
I a willing to playtest, but more importatly I am willing to play the sounding board game with you guys all day long. Please count me in to this project.
I agree with pretty much everyone here: original project was too ambitious, but why does everyone want to narrow the vision so much? How about ship lists/fleet lists (which are mandatory, btw, if we are adding even a single new ship to the game) in the document. The FIRST document. If we can get that done, let's try core rules/campaign/whatever else catches our fancy.
-
Why so narrow?
Because that is what the intention was in the first place.
Plus it is manageable.
If you have the ship stats/cost right you can start working on fleet lists.
@ Thane,
as you said you aren't ' knowledgable' isn't an issue to me. In fact, I think it is good if newer players add a perspective.
-
If things are posted (or DOC'ed or however we'd be doing this) I will happily provide my input.
-
Horizon, if you just want the ship stat and cost fixes, why don't you just make a word document and write them down and release it? That's really all if would be. I Personally like BFG:R more than 2010 because of what was done to fleets like Dark Eldar, Tyranids, and the smaller developments to fleets like AdMech (besides the wonkyness Sigoroth pointed out), Orks, and Necrons. Also, to be perfectly honest, I think the launch craft rules are better and more interesting in BFG:R. So if it just a list of 2010 compendium with a few stat and point changes, that would be a relatively short document that can be done pretty quickly. Maybe I don't understand what you mean, Horizon. I really like the currently uploaded BFG:R rulebook though there are some typos and tweaks that should be made.
Either way, this whole topic was meant to bring the discussion up, see where everyone was on the issue, and plan on going forward.
Things I would like to see in BFG:R2
-current BFG:R launch craft rules
-current BFG:R lists with whatever changes are needed.
-current BFG:R nova cannon rules with lock-on (though it needs some more playtesting)
Considering the entire BFG:R is not official and optional for that matter, I think it should just be a collection of articles (like it is now) that will supplement FAQ 2010 with optional rules that can be adopted by game groups if they want. I picture it working like MMS Eldar; group will play 2010 rules and MMS Eldar as a supplement. I am thinking it will look like that. Thoughts?
-
I think the main reason for simplicity is acceptance. While there are a lot of gamers out there that are quite open and experimental the vast majority are quite conservative. The 2010 FAQ doesn't have the stamp of officialdom from GW so there will be some players that won't use it, but since it was authored by the HA there are a lot of people that do.
MMS Eldar is not official and so there are a lot of people that don't use it. However, it makes a great deal of sense and fixes a lot of problems and has been tested by a good section of the BFG community so some do use.
So acceptance of any document relies upon 2 things: authority and reason. Authority is by far the greater of these two. Any number of outrageous changes can be made with authority. But since we are not GW representatives we are already shot on that. Without a position of authority to argue from we should concentrate on conservative changes.
A document that purports to provide minor balance adjustments to ships that have been tested over 10 years and found lacking, authored by veteran BFG players, I believe is the very closest we can get to a generally accepted document. So this document should focus on that, plus maybe some glaring problems in ship lists. I don't mind adding further sections with new ships included but they should be clearly labelled as experimental, and perhaps categorised by their level of insanity.
-
Once the core revisions are made to ships and fleet lists i have no problem with making separate documents for things like nova cannon and attack craft, but i dont think they should be in a condensed version of the core (+2010) rules.
I would like to see some work done on correcting some issues with things like scenarios and a revised campaign pdf. Maybe even a document to help those looking to run a tournament.
-
I just don't understand. If BFG:R was just going to be a very small amount of changes, why didn't someone just make a document that is just an amendment to the 2010 rules? I mean, how many changes do people want to make to the 2010 rules and lists? From my perspective, BFG:R already is the separate documents with alternate rules and lists.
-
I'd be in favor of a more complete rule-set. A compromise could be to work in spheres. So like Talos suggested, we work on ships and such, Horizon can help if he wants, and Sig and the rest, then we release that, and if that's all Horizon wants, he can take it and use it, and whoever wants to can continue on the next phase, so on and so forth. That way we have set, manageable milestones to work towards, and we have usable chunks that can be integrated as they're made, and eventually, for those that want it, we get a finished product. Best of both worlds, everyone gets what they want, and helps with the bit they're invested in.
-
I just don't understand. If BFG:R was just going to be a very small amount of changes, why didn't someone just make a document that is just an amendment to the 2010 rules? I mean, how many changes do people want to make to the 2010 rules and lists? From my perspective, BFG:R already is the separate documents with alternate rules and lists.
Heh, I don't know!
It all started with the flawed ship thread. A lot of people added and jumped in as it was a strict focus, so everyone could tell/vote their view.
Plaxor then went ahead and ahead and ahead. And the community involvement got less. Not only because Plaxor moved a little away from the forum (he did post things on here) but people moved away also because they were less interested in revising the complete book.
I have never said I do not want a revised ruleset. I am only saying we should do the ship stat/cost revision before all other things. This should be the focus. Sigoroth brings great points why.
After that the fleet lists may be worked on and/or the rule revisions (not as a rewrite but more as a document which brings good alternatives to what is official).
So we are looking at three documents. Which can be 'promoted' seperatelly but also as a package.
A project like this has to be done in steps. Anything else and it'll dry out again.
-
Overall I think you guys are totally right. Why don't we walk through it in steps:
1. List of fixed stats and point changes.
2. Revised rules set.
3. Fleet List Revisions and additional ships (like current BFG:R lists).
How do you guys think this first document should look?
Flawed ships thread.....
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=2007.0
Should we start with this? Also, do we want to title this something different? Here is the list of changes from that link:
Confirmed Changes:
Chaos:
Despoiler: Use modified stats (Horizons)
p/s launch bays str2 (4 total)
Prow launch bays str 4
dorsal lances str3@60cm LFR
p/s weapons batteries str 10@60cm
Devestation: Lance range @ 45cm
Idolator: 'New Fraal tech'
Infidel: 2 turrets
Iconoclast: 25 points
Retaliator Side wbs @45cm, 6 launch bays. No free improved engines
Warmaster must be on the highest class of ship, not the most expensive.
IN:
Retribution: Side WBs fp18@45cm Cost 355
Apocalypse: Firing lances over 30cm causes blast marker to be placed on ships rear rather than critical. Dorsal Wbs to FP 9
Avenger: FP20@30cm cost 200
Tyrant: 180 base cost, 190 upgraded version
Endeavor/Endurance/Defiant: 6+ prow, maintains 90' turns
Dictactor: 210 points cost.
Dominator: 45cm upgrade @ -10 points
Oberon:Prow and Dorsal Weapons at 60cm, costs 355
Mars: Cost 260
Firestorms: Cost 35
Falchion 2 turrets
Exorcist: 6lb cost 260 (+5 AB upgrade)
Defiant: +2 prow torps
(Horizon's Stats):
Cruiser 6
Shields 1
Speed 20
Turns 45
Armour 6+/5+
Turrets 2
Prow Torps 30cm S2 F
Prow WBs 30cm FP2 F/L/R
Port/SB Launch bays S1
Dorsal WBs FP2 F/L/R
(/Horizon's Stats)
"There are several variants of this profile doing the rounds as well:
#1. No Dorsal WBs and drop to 100pts. (AKA Sigoroths Profile)
#2. WBs merged into one FP4 Prow hardpoint.
#3. Keeps original S2 Lances and adds S2 Torps.
#4. Swaps one of the original S2 Lances for S2 Torps, and adds one Dorsal Lance in addition (as per Ad Mech, but uses half-sized LBs instead of gives up torps - functionally identical to #3, but unclutters the prow). Which one to pick is causing the most controversy at the moment." - RCGothic
Astartes:
Strike cruiser: Now has assault carrier option, which swaps P/S weapons batteries for 1lb each @+15 points. As well as an option to swap prow lb with 3 torpedoes. 2 shields 1lb. Upgrade to replace prow LB with str. 3 Bombard F only for no points.
Battlebarge: Shields at 4, turrets at 4 Cost 440
RSV: Deleted
Gladius, cost 40
Nova cost 45
GCs: 25 points prow torp upgrade (6) no longer resists prow criticals if upgraded
Improved engines @ 5 points
20 point prow sensor array (see emperor)
Fleet list changes:
Bastions Fleet: No longer contains Endeavor Variants
Armagedon list: Loses RSV (as they no longer exist), however gains the Sword.
Confirmed Changes
Tau:
Hero: -2lances, -2FP (one each side), No longer restricted.
Merchant: 105pt cost, 6hits standard, upgrade to 8 hits for 20 points. +10 for lance variant
Corsairs:
Nightshade 50pts
Hemlock 50pts +1 f wb@30cm
Aconite 60pts
Hellebore: 80pts with profile change: 2wb, 1 pl, 1 fighter launch bay
Solaris: weapon range @45cm, no right shift.
Shadow: +2 torps, +2wb
Craftworld Eldar
Hero destroyed; Now just +25 point upgrade on characters
Flame of Asuryan-> Void Dragon CG loses vampires and aspect warriors. May upgrade vampires for +10 points. Permanent part of CWE list, restricted as 3:1 with cruisers.
Shadowhunter: old special rule. Speed bands +5cm, DE variant lance, +1wb, 45pts
Ghost Ships: Using MMS version with conversion for similarity to msm.
Wraithship: +5 point vampire upgrade.
Dark Eldar:
Mimic engines for free
Torture can buy two impalers for 20 points, not 2 for 20 each
The Torture carrying the fleet commander can upgrade its' hits by 2 for +35 points, if done so then it can purchase an additional weapon system.
Addition of Incubi Bodyguard on the Archon's ship; these add an additional +1 to the ships boarding modifier. 2d6 on teleport attacks pick which counts. +15 points
Addition of Wych Cult. Doubles boarding value +15 points.
Ork Changes
Gorbags Revenge: Prow torpedoes increased to D6+4, Cost 305
Kroolboy: +2wbs to p/s guns. 255 cost
Slamblasta: Lances changed to str d3+2, Cost 285
Hammer: No stats change, just upgrades added (as listed)
May reduce the strength of P/S Guns to 2, and add soopa engines for no cost
May replace p/s heavy guns for 1 launch bay (total 2) for +10 points
Kill-Kroozer: Prow guns increased to D6+6, P/S guns increased to D6+2. Torps made into a 10 point upgrade. Cost reduced to 150, Turrets upgraded to 2
Upgrades:
May reduce P/S guns to str 2 and add soopa engines at no cost
May replace P/S heavy guns with D6 torpedoes for free.
Of course may replace prow heavy guns for d6+2 torpedoes for 10 points
Terror ship: Prow weapons at D6+4, sides at D6+1. turrets upgraded to 2, Base cost 175
Upgrades:
May reduce P/S guns to strength 2 and add soopa engines at no cost.
May upgrade prow heavy guns to Str D6+2 torpedoes for 10 points.
Onslaught: 30 points firepower D6+1
Upgrades:
may exchange 1 firepower for soopa engines at no cost
may upgrade turrets to two for 5 points
Savage: 30 points, has soopa engines
May upgrade its turrets to two for +5 points
Ravager:
May swap 1 gun for soopa engines at no cost
May upgrade its turrets to three for 5 points
Brute Ramship:
May exchange 1 firepower for soopa engines at no cost
May upgrade its turrets to two for 5 points
all the escorts in a squadron must have the same upgrades. All soopa engines or none, all turrets or none etc.
Torpedo Bombers/Minelayers: use old cost upgrades (based on averages rather than max)
Warlord upgrades:
Maniak gunners: 10 points, may re-roll lance strength as well (in the case of the Slamblasta)
Looted Torpedoes: 10 points
Mad Meks: 10 points
Extra power fields: 20 points
Fleet lists:
2 new characters added:
Big Mek: Makes the ship replace one shield with D3, comes with a re-roll 40 points
Freeboota Kapitan: Adds +1 ld to the ship, comes with a re-roll 40points
Both characters are in the warboss category, so you may not include more than 1 character per 500 points. Each may take 'warboss upgrades' which with the big mek will make the shields go to d3+1, or d3+2 on bb/bc.
Pirates: Now includes Kroolboy, and Roks, may include all three character options but must include 1 freeboota kapitan if over 750 points as it's leader. Other two are 0-1 each.
WAAGH: May include all three characters, however it must include a warboss at 750 points or greater. Both other characters are 0-1
Mechanicus Changes
Archmagos Veneratus @ 75 points
Ark Mechanicus @390 pts
Emperor @385
Retribution @375
Oberon @375
Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant @200
Dictator @230
Endeavor/Endurance @125 Comes with 30cm dorsal lance (without sacrificing torps)
Defiant @135 Comes with lance, without sacrificing torps
Vessels no longer come with a free, randomly rolled gift of the ommnisiah, every vessel must purchase one
Emergency Energy Reserves: 15 points
Advanced Engines: 15 points
Fleet Defense Turrets: 10 points
Gyro Stabilized Targeting Matrix: 10 points
Repulsor Shielding 15 points
Augmented Weapon Relays: 30
Auto Reloaders: 25 points (makes a vessel able to do an additional order if they pass RO) XXXX (replace with Extra Magazine for 15pts like current BFG:R documents)
Firestorm, Gladius @35 points
Nova @40points
Tyranids: ????
-
Seems pretty straight forward and community approved to me, but auto-loaders? My BFG:R docs have extra magazines instead, which use the roll 3d6 and toss the highest result. Although this is a little odd, the auto-loaders are mechanically unique, which although interesting are so vastly different from existing mechanics that if authenticity is our concern could drive away the conservative lot. As far as I know, no other fleet can have one single ship take 2 special orders. Other than that these are rubber stamped in my book.
-
I agree. The current BFG:R AdMech list does have it as Extra Magazine at 15 pts which I believe is a much better option to have available. I have edited my post of the list about it and marked the change with annoying capital Xs.
-
Actually have another question; was there ever a revision/fix for the unique chaos battleships? I noticed in BFG:R they have the conqueror as a non-unique one. What about the terminus est? Did they ever fix the flavorful but absolutely retarded no torpedo defense? Or the fact that the vengeful spirit, even with lance increase, is 10 points cheaper but more powerful? And the fact that they should all come pre-equipped with CSM crews?
Agreed with tau, merchant always seemed too shitty and hero too beastly.
Ship compilation should include all eldar ship as MMS standard.
Didn't see any mention of it, but what about giving the (tau) protector bombers?
As for Defiant, fluffwise it has good forward lances, small prow torpedo salvo and broadside lb, so I think original profile, with 6+prow, 90 degree turns and str 2 prow torpedoes is the only truly accurate profile.
-
Oh dear. Here goes the Defiant discussion again. ???
The Defiant's issues:
- It's undergunned relative to the other Endeavour/Endurance ships. Its port/sb weaponry is replaced with what would usually be half the standard trade for launch bays - 12WBs get you 2LBs compared to 4LBs for the Dictator.
- Small LBs are proportionately less effective offensively than larger ones, making that trade even worse.
- Lances have worse synergy with the LBs than the standard torps would have had due to competition for special orders. The lances are arguably more powerful than the LBs and could benefit from Lock On, but half the ship is useless if you don't Reload Ordnance.
- As the ship can focus all its fire in any direction, a 6+ prow is not an advantage as it is to the other vessels.
- Its strong focus only beats the other Endeavour vessels until you remember that lances and LBs have no synergy, unlike a uniform armament.
So it's heinously undergunned and conflicted in design. The most obvious fix is to just add two torpedoes - this gives it enough of a forward focus to get benefit out of its 6+ prow, and makes it easier for Reload Ordnance to dominate the ship's priorities. But then Defiant would then fit a ridiculous amount of weaponry onto its prow. In comparison to the other vessels.
So Horizon's solution (which I agree with) is to split the prow armament into a standard Endeavour prow, and a 2WB turret in the dorsal position. The half-size port/starboard armament justifies the internal mechanisms necessary for a puny dorsal mount. This also proportionately reduces the total gunnery strength of the ship and it's one-side firepower, which again eases pressure on Reload Ordnance and more strongly defines the forward focus. So this is much better. A Defiant will do its damage on the way in whilst an Endevour/Endurance will do the damage once it gets there.
However it's STILL a bit under-strength compared to those vessels, so I'd give it either an additional turret (standard for a carrier) at the same price as the others, or a price break compared to those vessels on top of Horizon's stats.
*Weapon Battery Equivalent
-
When people respond, please mention if you approve of the "Confirmed Changes" list above and the document can start being worked on. Please list changes you do not approve of and I can start editing. I am glad the discussion about specific ships is happening again but I also need to know where everyone stands on the confirmed changes list so we can implement those changes. I'm excited to get this done! ;D
-
I disapprove of things, RcG does, Sigoroth does. But not all of us on the same. :)
Above list was voted upon, and yes that meant sometimes being on the losing theme.
Now the key is: do you keep what has been done or do you want individuals overruling on what happened back then?
Through time one progresses on opinion. Yet, I am wary of changing things now that a deal of people is not so involved anymore. Can we surpass people that moved away or not? One way I say yes but on the other hand that means you will never get something out.
Imagine you doing this some months and some new people come who would sway a vote outcome. Would you restart that part again?
I say: what is set should be in a pdf. Promote this thing. (Under BFG:R banner as people know the name. ;) )
When it generates feedback things can be altered afterwards if the majority would like to.
Or does someone want to veto some changes in above list?
(Retaliator & Excorcist back to 4 lb! haha)
-
I was unaware that the list was voted on. That's great! I will get to work. I was planning on editing the currently posted BFG:R documents with the edits and make sure they sync up. Good? Also, what about Tyranids?
-
I have a laundry list of things i dont like about the IN and Chaos ships alone, but keeping whats already been worked on and testing them out or going over errors should be the priority, along with discussion on fleets that have not been gone over quite so much. IN and Chaos seem to have gotten the most attention.
-
Well, if you guys want to keep the weird dorsal turrets and stuff on the endeavor, far be it upon me to fight the entire community (unless it's a fist fight, in which case bring it) but I will say this: look up the ship a little bit. Instead of making it a carbon copy of it's expected role, look at the fluff. This thing has two prow weapons, one of which is a average size lance or battery, the other of which is a minuscule torpedo. Although it is not represented accurately by its stats, the falchion has 2 dorsals and 1 torpedo component on a little escort, even though it is almost the exact same size as a sword that cannot carry said torpedoes. And the torpedoes on the falchion and the endeavor are the exact same size in fluff; two torpedo tubes each! That's half the size of a cobra, which launches four (all fluff numbers, obviously not BFG). A light cruiser with a third of a cruiser sized volley of torpedoes does not count as very cluttered
All i'm saying is that it would be so nice to have a ship that follows the fluff; lances OR battery, torpedoes, launch bays. Adjust the cost if you want, but try to keep it in line with fluff at least a little bit.
Rant a side, community has voted really well, I think. As for tyranids, good question! The current ones are pretty good in very specific builds, and terrible in others. Great against certain fleets and unplayable against others.
Overall, I think plaxor did great things with the tyranids, especially lowering the costs and the bio-plasma change. I do have a few pointers, though:
1) Kraken has 2 hits in BFG:R, which obviously is blasphemy in standard BFG.
2) Evolution chart is a good idea, but you are pretty much forced to grab either holofields or +1 armor to make them viable, as they pretty much have 4+ armor across the board. What about if we tweaked the armor/speed and whatnot to more "average levels" and then grouped them into hive fleet? Each hive fleet being having its own package of abilities, sort of like marine chapters but more significant.
3) The new tyranid ships have feeder tendrils/claws to a man; great for flavor and balancing but eliminates the highly specialized ships you could build before. Not sure if good or bad thing...
4) He has cruisers listed as grand cruisers for some reason. Strange...
So if other players prefer 2010 nids, let them keep it. But we will probably have to work of off plaxor's nids when we get to phase 2, because 2010 nids don't fit in with other fleets without work.
-
I really do like the new Tyranids list but there are some changes that Plaxor and I talked about making to it, mainly in the names.
1. I am not against a 2 hit Kraken but I do think they should go back to the old style where it has the 4+ save. Also, that will have to be made clear in this document because any vessel on brace for impact cannot test to resist instinctive behavior and that's weak.
2. Agreed. I feel like you are really missing out if you don't take the +1 armor option. I think we should rework the evolution chart, maybe each cruiser and battleship have their own upgrade options, sort of like the old list. I am a little hesitant about the evolutions being global for the entire fleet.
3. Yeah, I'm on the fence about this though part of me feels like it is more fitting for Tyranid vessels to have the.
4. That's mainly the Juvenile Hive Ship and I think he did that because of the whole Native and Aberrant rules that Plaxor wanted to implement. Anyways, we aren't going that direction so I can just change it back to Cruiser.
I propose we split the difference between this list and the original list.
-
On, I am currently editing the Chaos document. Have there been votes about the Cerberus, Heretic, Unbeliever, Schismatic, and Havoc ships? Anything else that needs changing in the Traitor document?
-
For chaos, the light cruisers seem uncharacteristic but balanced enough. Again though, the named battlebarges are a little odd. Terminus Est is really weak compared to regular battlebarge, and its odd that they don't all come equipped with CSM. As for changes, we should keep the additional upgrades associated with the specific marks, along with the 15pt marks of BFG:R. Makes them both relevant and reasonably priced. Before some were so expensive that making an all marked fleet was way too cost heavy; marking 4 cruisers with mark of nurgle was 140pts, not even counting options!
As for nids, lets try the hybrid approach; go with half modular/half-preset weapon systems which establish the individual ship while showing off the tactical variants...maybe the 1 point evolution could represent hive fleets (if we wanted to go with that option ::)) and the various upgrades for nodes could be potential upgrades to all capitals. Also agreed with 4+ save, although mechanically it was weird that it was the only non-necron ship to have it.
-
Quick note:
Chaos Light Cruisers are from Book of Nemesis (the Polish supplement).
Some people like their addition, I am against cl's for Chaos.
They weren't in the ' vote'/flawed ships thread (as that was about official ships anyway).
-
Here is what I propose with the Chaos fleets....
1. Combine what is needed in the Traitor Fleets PDF with the Powers of Chaos PDF.
2. Make the stat and point changes voted on.
-Remove Relictor, Desecrator, Havoc, and light cruisers.
-Which Blackstone Fortress stats should we include? Note, the BFGR one is 550 compared to 750.
-
Well i agree with removing the unofficial ships, price corrections for the most part sound ok but the ABS@550 may require playtesting, 750 is pretty absurd but then it doesnt come into play much. Are the ABS special fire rules in there i dont have the pdf in front of me right now. The Chaos VBB defiantly have some issues as pointed out and CSM crew for Chaos seems a bit overpriced at 35 compared to the standard SM VBB rules (Chaos are only getting +1 to boarding over base instea of +2) do warmasters and lords get CSM standard (its poorly worded in the FAQ version). Im sure theres more once i get the chance to look over the doc.
-
The desecrator is just the conqueror world eaters battlebarge, minus khorne-ness and improved thrusters. Do I understand then that we are removing the chaos battlebarges, or just taking the basic BB profile and scrapping the rest? Agreed with AndrewChristlieb about CSM, less benefit should equal less cost, but I do not know how much...never used ABS so I cannot really comment, only to say that it seems really good; 8 uber lances at 90cm every turn...that cripples an IN or chaos cruiser every turn, and it takes a lot of punishment.
Quick thought on light cruisers; what if we kept one and added a limitation? Either by points or by ship minimums, or even reserve only...the battery covered artillery cruiser seems chaos-ish. Agreed about a hell of a lot less access either way though.
If anybody has played the ABS this is probably a good time to put in your two cents, although to be fair it is probably used so rarely that we could safely use the original profile and modify it later if required.
-
I think ships that aren't in 2010, at least for the main fleets, should stay the same. Adding ships to the chaos and IN fleet seems to me like something we should do in an optional release later on. Relictor and Desecrator and light cruisers, for example. As much as I really like those ships and have used them before, they are not official or 2010 or even voted on, from what I can tell.
-
The Tyrant has to be 12WB@30cmL+R. Otherwise it's useless.
As for the damn Defiant, my fondest wish would be to delete this ship. It's just a rubbish ship. However, assuming it stays in, I think that its prow armament should be identical to the other 2 ships. After all, it has an identical prow. I never got why they had it use lances whereas the other two ships had torps and WBs. I don't think it should have dorsal weaponry for reasons of precedent and fluff (I believe it's not supposed to have much at all in the way of guns). I understand why it could get dorsal weaponry over the other two variants (broadside space re-purposed) but I didn't like that argument for the torp variant Explorer either.
So to me a cheap and nasty CL that gives an extra couple of AC and torps as well as nominal direct firepower seems fine by me. Remember, this isn't a lone patrol vessel, but a line support carrier. Imagine it being used in concert with a Dictator, bolstering its bomber waves and torpedo salvo. For that it doesn't need lances or dorsal weaponry, but you would want it to be cheap.
-
^Yes. I could see a 180pt Tyrant 12wb L/R with a 10pt upgrade to 10@45 L/R to somewhat perserve its purpose (Eldar deterant...).
Defiant @ same cost as Endeavour with 2 wb & 2 torps sounds good.
I have tried the Defiant/Dictator combo with the 6+ prow and it works well, the 90 turn isnt nearly as useful on this as the Endeavour/Endurance tho.
-
Hey! Sorry I'm so late to the party!
I'm at work and studying for a midterm, so my input for the time being will be limited to the fleets I play.
First! The hero. IN seem to disregard fluff every now and again, however with one 2 cruisers, I suppose having this one match is important. That being said, if we're set on making it weaker than the lunar (which is fine, also I don't have the pdfs with me, so I don't know what it's actual stats are) it should get at least a nominal point adjustment (down).
Second! The hellebore. I've used the varient with just fighters, and I probably won't pay 80 points for it, ever. I had it with seekers of the dark city, and even then it was marginally useful at best. I use hellebores, I like them, they're never dominatingly powerful, but they pay for themselves. I will probably not use them at 80 points, they just don't inflict enough damage to warrant it, in my opinion. So I think they should still be 75 points, OR get bombers, though that may require a further price hike...
Last but not least, Talos' suggestion of bombers for the protector. I like the thought, but I've never ploayed with the protector. I hate the thought of just having a fighter in the bay of an ordnance centric race though. Could include bombers with a cost/restricted varient.
Feel free to ignore all of these, I'm late, I know. I would also like to look at the torpedo gun boat thing from nemesis, but I've gathered we're saving that book for later?
-
Interesting point on the tyrant...if it had those stats I would actually build some for my IN fleet... ;D No seriously.
What would we do for the price of the defiant? Like Sigoroth, I don't mind that it can't shoot worth shit if it's cheap enough. Torpedo gun boat thing from nemesis is the Tau Nao'Sak'Oreas missile cruiser. When and if we do add it, look up the thread on it.
@Thane Damn it man just look at it's stats for a moment; even with down gunning it it still ordnance! Lots of ordnance! Combined ordnance! That being said, I'm not sure why people want the batteries nuked.
-
@Talos You're talking about the hero? I can't look at it's stats, I mentionied that. Because I can't see it's stats, I don't know if -1 wb and -1 lance makes it worse than the lunar or not (you lead me to believe it does not). I do know that generally people want it to be, and if that's the case, we need to adjust it's price.
-
In the earlier posted BFG:R confirmed changes list earlier in the thread, does anyone know what the Idolator's "new fraal tech" is?
Also, the Dominator 45cm upgrade @ -10 pts. Can someone please explain this?
-
Alright, the first document is finished for review:
++BFG:R Chaos Fleets++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Chaos%20Fleets.pdf)
Please check if all the stats are right, check fir further changes that need to be made, and that all the ships are in there that should be.
-
Can't seem to access document...
As for tyrant, what about if we make the batteries stock range 45cm at strength 12, and cost stock at 190?
-
Fixed the link from google drive to dropbox.
-
Well, I noticed a few things:
1) I thought common consensus was that the styx was now 260...did I miss something?
2) Not sure what fraal tech is, but I think the idolator was bumped down to 40, along with the firestorm to 35.
3) Could be wrong, but are those the original stats for the retaliator? Seems like it would munch on a mars class for breakfast.
If I notice more I will mention it.
-
In the earlier posted BFG:R confirmed changes list earlier in the thread, does anyone know what the Idolator's "new fraal tech" is?
No right shift for range, targets within 30cm count as closing.
Interesting point on the tyrant...if it had those stats I would actually build some for my IN fleet... ;D No seriously.
Indeed, and this is the point. The Tyrant is supposed to be the workhorse mainstay of most fleet lists. The Dominator is supposed to be quite rare (apart from a few lists), but there's currently no reason to take the Tyrant and those people that want the 12WB@30cm ship just take the Dom. This means that the Tyrant is rare and the Dominator is common in fleet lists, the opposite of what they should be.
What would we do for the price of the defiant?
I was thinking 100 pts. Perhaps 90-95 pts would be more accurate, but I'd rather give them an extra turret or something than make them that cheap. (Cheap carriers equals potential for abuse). Given that the broadside hardpoints are half strength I was thinking that they could use that "extra room" for extra crew and craft, allowing them to use a-boats as standard. Maybe also grant a bonus to boarding value. However, some did not like this idea. It is, after all, another exception to the rules and I myself had argued that exceptions are to be avoided. That's true of course, but I think this falls into the acceptable exception category, but since this is hardly a clearly demarcated area I can't provide a terribly compelling reason why I think this is so.
Anyway, short answer is; 100 pts, plus give it some minor upgrade, e.g., extra turret, higher BV and/or a-boats.
As for tyrant, what about if we make the batteries stock range 45cm at strength 12, and cost stock at 190?
A few things wrong with that. Firstly, it's actually too cheap. That ship would cost 200 pts. Secondly, it forces someone to pay for range, which is not a good fit with the IN basic style. Yes you could adopt your style to make use of it, etc, but forcing someone to pay for something that will only occasionally be useful is naff. Presumably this is why you said 190 pts, so that it becomes a bargain buy. If you do that though then that means that range is a bargain for the IN, rather than a premium. Surely we're aiming at making conservative changes to produce a balanced ship rather than radical changes for the sake of competing with the Dom?
Towards that end there are 2 balanced options that I see. First there is 12WB@30cmL+R with prow torpedoes at 180 pts. The IN fleet is screaming out for this ship more than any other new ship. The basic cruiser configurations are: all WBs; all lances, and; mixed WBs/lances. Currently IN players can only use the Dominator for the first of these options (since the Tyrant is poo). This means that those people that prefer a WB gunboat are forced to take a NC.
While NC are balanced and the Dominator gets it cheap enough to make the loss of torps manageable this brings up 2 problems. The reverse Tyrant/Dominator rarity situation already highlighted is the first. The second is the fact that there is an anti-NC bias in the BFG community. Note that this isn't due to any inherent imbalance in the NC, but rather from a combination of psychological effects and some extreme scenarios where the NC completely dominates. This means that people who take the Dominator because they want 12WB@30cm get accused of munchkinism for NC spam.
So this option would fix a lot of problems. The second option is 10WB@45cmL+R and torpedoes at 190 pts. This is an ok option and should remain for those that feel the need to pick up a bit of range. It is not anywhere near as necessary as the first option though. If we had to choose between them then the 12WB@30cm option should be the clear winner. Luckily we can have both. Simply make the Tyrant 12WB@30cmL+R for 180 pts and give it an option to 'upgrade' to 10WB@45cmL+R for +10 pts. Job's done.
This will allow people to finally get a WB torp gunboat at 180 pts. It will make the Dominator a rare ship and the Tyrant a common ship. It will make real munchkin NC spammers easier to spot. And lastly it will allow those people that took the Tyrant for its range upgrade to continue to do so.
Under no circumstances should it be left with hybrid ranges. This version is utterly useless.
-
Well, I noticed a few things:
1) I thought common consensus was that the styx was now 260...did I miss something?
2) Not sure what fraal tech is, but I think the idolator was bumped down to 40, along with the firestorm to 35.
3) Could be wrong, but are those the original stats for the retaliator? Seems like it would munch on a mars class for breakfast.
If I notice more I will mention it.
1) It has been for almost 2 years now. See the FAQ2010.
2) Yes, I believe we just decided upon a points decrease rather than Fra'al tech.
3) It is the same as the original except +2 AC and +15cm range on the WBs. The Mars has longer range on the lances, prow armour instead of the extra shield/hits, a NC instead of the extra AC and is cheaper.
-
Eh Styx is fine at 275 and stellar at 260.
Idolator is listed as doesnot suffer column shift over 30 for 45. Seems like it should be a left shift all the time at that price or no shiftannigans and 40pts.
No named battleships? Loosk like the entire powers of chaos pdf is missing actually.
There are some typos and such, i didnt look over all the rules but the stats look reasonable with the exceptions listed.
Chaos lords in the 13th list are still poo at 25 pts.
-
Vastly preferring the 30cm FP 12 batteries, with range upgrade at 190pts. Almost worth playing a NC tyrant over a dominator, although that is a pretty small concern. Somewhat agree with placement and play assesments, however: the tyrant is suppose to be uncommon, as it failed to live up to its expectations and thus was produced in fairly limited numbers, and although the dominator is fairly uncommon it is a fleet support vessel, meaning it is still fairly common in actual battlefleets (1500pts+).
Also, how many NC is considered spamming? Is 3 in 1500pts count as spam? What about 4? Or is spam literally only extremes, like 4 dominators in 750pts.
-
1. I fixed the Styx points and brought in powers of chaos. You should be able to see it now.
2. We will have to decide if we are going to use the current BFGR "Special Qualities" list and terminology. Personally, I find it very helpful.
3. I would like to get 2 people as proof readers. Would anyone be willing to volunteer their time and read through these things and check for typos and other things? If we include the Special Qualities terminology, we will need to change the parts of the documents that need it to match that terminology.
-
Sure thing Danny boy! Send me the files and get ready for some shredding! Helps that girlfriend plays BFG and is a master of editing, so someone else and it will have gotten 3 lookovers.
P.S. Can I call you Danny Boy? Please? PLEASE?
Warning: I am really tired.
-
It really depends, 1/500-750 seems the standard. The thing to remember tho is that NC spam really isnt even that great. Dropping pie plates makes no difference when theyre itty bitty and almost everything has at least one automatic invulnerable save (shield).
I would remove the Nova as an option for the Tyrant @ the above stats.
Ill drop any typos i find, its mostly been things like point costs in the fleet lists not matching the stats and such (styx is still 290 in both lists for example).
I dont care for the extra list myself and would much rather see a standardized layout for each fleet listing a description of their rules so you dont have to refer to two documents just to know fearless gets a +1 this or buttmunch gets a -1 to that.
-
1. You can call me Danny boy if you want. Please just make a note pad of stuff to edit in the order they appear in the document.
Proof-Readers:
1. Talos
2. GF of Talos
3. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Also, I do need to go through the fleet lists and change the points.
-
Ill proof read.
So Chaos characters, marks, Csm. Any changes needed i know i have a fee issues with these.
-
Awesome.
Proof-Readers:
1. Talos
2. GF of Talos
3. AndrewChristlieb
Andrew, I think writing up some proposed changes in this forum will be helpful. I think keeping the topic on the Chaos fleet at this point will be the best because them we can get it finished entirely. You mentioned characters. Mainly the "Chaos Lord" at 25pts?
-
Second that, as chaos characters and marks are piss poor in BBB/faq 2010, but pretty interesting in BFG:R as written. And just to be clear: we are proof reading your revised documents, pointing out inconsistencies with established rules (either official or community voted as it were) and gaping voids were things should be, if I understand you correctly.
Also, empty you inbox so we can reach you or send me an email adress. I'm jdpries@live.ca if you whish to contact me more expediently.
And if I have questions, I will probably PM horizon or Sigoroth for clarification, and those two know their way around an enginarium, so to speak, so this should be a bulletproofread. Hehe...
As for plaxor's shortcut terms like stalwart and embarked regiment, I am all for. People seem to enjoy it in regular 40k, I can't see it doing anything but tidying up the entries.
Dominator losing 4 battery a side for increased range should probably be the same cost, maybe minus 5 tops. IMHO
-
Yes, that kind of proof-reading. Of course, still bring up problem rules or values you notice in this thread.
My email is dangleason1@gmail.com if anyone wants to chat that way.
-
To rehash previous statements, marks of chaos are quite good in BFG:R, and I recommend implementing those full force, but keeping the additional add-ons from powers of chaos (such as the pink horror death blast, the khornite overload swarm, and so on and so forth). BFG:R also does sub-commanders right; to be useful, they must be cheap and not very customizable, for that is point of the fleet commander. As for CSM, as AndrewChristlieb pointed out, they don't gain as much benefit as IN vessels gain. What about +20-25 points?
As far as I know:
Mark of Nurgle: +1 hits is worth 10-15 points, an not being board-able is so situational that it is worth maybe 5-10pts? (Suck it, Nid and Khorne boarding fleets!)
Mark of Khorne: Doubling boarding value makes the tactic extremely effective, an the potential abuse makes it pretty good at 20 points
Mark Of Tzeench: Straight up price of a normal reroll. Functional but pointless, as any lord can purchase one at that price. Maybe at 15-20pts it would stand out as sorcerous advantage?
Mark Of Slanesh: -2 Leadership is significant penalty, but it does have a really short range. In BFG:R, they instead give incoming batteries a right column shift. Much better.
If we put all marks at 20pts and CSM at 20pts Termies at 10pts, the only problem is khorne boarding shenanigans extremely rape-tastic. A decked out slaughter would be 205 points, and its boarding value would be huge (18 or so if I am correct) at a very bargain price.
-
The Overlord in BFGR is 220 instead of 235. Was this voted on? Also, what about the changes to the Armageddon?
-
This means that those people that prefer a WB gunboat are forced to take a NC.
Note that this isn't due to any inherent imbalance in the NC, but rather from a combination of psychological effects and some extreme scenarios where the NC completely dominates. This means that people who take the Dominator because they want 12WB@30cm get accused of munchkinism for NC spam.
Simply make the Tyrant 12WB@30cmL+R for 180 pts and give it an option to 'upgrade' to 10WB@45cmL+R for +10 pts. Job's done.
This. I am in complete and utter agreement with this. The Dominator would stay the same in this case, correct?
Here is the Imperial Navy document in its current state....
++BFGR Imperial Navy++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Imperial%20Fleets.pdf)
-
Do you want that proofread to, or left alone for now until you are done?
Also tyrant is a done deal in my book with those specs.
-
Overlord went to 220 in the FAQ and gained the targeting matrix.
-
Overlord went to 220 in the FAQ and gained the targeting matrix.
Yes, the 2010FAQ Overlord is quite reasonable, actually a better fix than what we had come up with.
-
2 things. First, why is the Despoiler so much more expensive than the Emperor? I see that it has more firepower, but the Emp has +1ld...so is the firepower really worth the loss of that and 25 points? I haven't really used either, or seen much of either yet.
Second, in that document, the Emp is shown as having sharks included, then stated as being able to buy them. I undestand how it is supposed to work, but that's there.
Ciao.
-
Skimmed the Chaos Document tonight.
Remove refernces to running out of Ordinance under the Armageddon gun rules.
Possably replace the double 6's rule with a failed leadership test causes a crit to overcome its inability to go offline due to rolling doubles.
I would remove the option to replace 2 prow launch with 9 torps on the Despoiler.
Terminus Est listed as a famous Despoiler :/ yay or nay?
Repulsive lost the ability to take a 2 shield version? Mine came with a small base tho :(
Retaliator and Executor should be Cruiser for type, not Grand cruiser ( Iknow they are grand cruisers but there is no "grand cruiser" type theyre just Cruisers for gunnery purposes)
Hecate should get the prow wepons @ 60CM for the same price IMO
Idolator should be @ 45 with a left column shift or 40 without, as it is currently its meh.
Either remove the transport entry (they should be in their own section anyway) or add the stat instead of saying refer to the Imperial section.
I am all for a special ships section with the stats for generic transports and defenses.
Same thing why does the chaos attack craft section refer us to the imerial section?
Why does the Chaos Hulk cost more than an Ork Hulk and have less weapons? (I know Orks are Variable but the hulk averages pretty high)
Leadership should remain 6 max, warmasters, CSM, etc should be unable to modify this stat (leadership 9 Hulks are stupid! and rather powerful
Hulk Special Orders section should detail the AAF may be performed but adds +0D6 and is only intended for ramming only.
Remove the section stating that Chaos fleets with a Hulk cannot take more than 2 battleships.
Critical chart needs work, It should be far more common to damage a weapon than a "high energy system" due to the fact that there are WAY more of them to take out :).
Misma of Pestulance, should allow use against torpedoes, maybe replace with the rules for spore clouds?
Hives of Nurgle, feels like secessful hits past shields should cause an auto fire crit to represent the chance of plauge spreading.
CSM should modify the leadership to 1 or 2 = ld8 3 or 4 = ld9 5 or 6 = ld10 instead of +1 leadership
CSM: Others should be allowed any one mark OR at least get a reroll or something...
CSM should = Thunderhawks only.
CSM for escorts 5pts/ each
Chaos sector list has **** as the value for modified ship values (Despoiler Styx Inconclast)
Im not sold on the Named Chaos fleets. 12th and 13th seem fine, with the 13th appended to include the named battleships or one CSM fleet list and remove CSM as an option for the 13th.
Would be nice to see the addition of a section dedicated to the traitor IN ship rules from FAQ 2010.
not too many errors I noticed, Im sure theres some grammer errors and such as I was just looking for play errors atm tho.
Im going to put some thought into the HQ slots/ Marks and get back on those.
-
@ AndrewChristLieb Hehe good work...found a lot more rule corrections that slipped by me, you sneaky chaos loving bastard ;D...have you checked the IN one yet? I already sent both as email's to dan, after he has read both we can revise and re-assess the document again.
-
First of all: remove all qualities Plaxor made up. I kinda dislike them. If you put out a fleet list like that (so we do more then ships only ey ;) ) people wonder what it is and you have to put out a rule document at the same time.
Massive quality, tsssk,
/
ya, add the 2 shield option for the Repulsive (-15pts).
Imperial Navy
Overlord to 220 with matrix option.
Armageddon to 235pts (FAQ2010), plus NC option for +20.
The Defiant is gone :o
-
No i havent had a chance to go over the IN yet, got home just before 9 last night now i have to drive to Memphis this morning to repair some equipment because Memphis doesnt have anyone trained on it :/. So its probably going to be a late night again! On the plus side overtime makes my wife the happiest :).
-
@AndrewChristlieb Overtime makes her happy because of the money, or because your out of the house? :P
@ horizon I agree that we should not utilize any qualities that plaxor made up for now, but most of the qualities are just keywords for existing vessels i.e. stalwart, which is the +1 vs. boarding that the endeavour family has, improved targeting matrix which is the left column shift on batteries that overlords, mars, all eldar, and few others get. We could strip them all out I guess, but surely a one page (or even half page!) list of the terms and what they are could really unclutter/streamline the ship profiles.
Sort of like w40k, ya know? All players know the various terms (armorbane, shred, vector strike, instant death, etc...) and so profiles are easier to read because of it.
-
Repulsive lost the ability to take a 2 shield version? Mine came with a small base tho :(
Retaliator and Executor should be Cruiser for type, not Grand cruiser ( Iknow they are grand cruisers but there is no "grand cruiser" type theyre just Cruisers for gunnery purposes)
Either remove the transport entry (they should be in their own section anyway) or add the stat instead of saying refer to the Imperial section.
I am all for a special ships section with the stats for generic transports and defenses.
Same thing why does the chaos attack craft section refer us to the imperial section?
I'm on it. Thanks!
Needs voting on:
Idolator should be @ 45 with a left column shift or 40 without, as it is currently its meh.
Possably replace the double 6's rule with a failed leadership test causes a crit to overcome its inability to go offline due to rolling doubles.
I would remove the option to replace 2 prow launch with 9 torps on the Despoiler.
Hecate should get the prow wepons @ 60CM for the same price IMO
Why does the Chaos Hulk cost more than an Ork Hulk and have less weapons? (I know Orks are Variable but the hulk averages pretty high)
Leadership should remain 6 max, warmasters, CSM, etc should be unable to modify this stat (leadership 9 Hulks are stupid! and rather powerful
Hulk Special Orders section should detail the AAF may be performed but adds +0D6 and is only intended for ramming only.
Remove the section stating that Chaos fleets with a Hulk cannot take more than 2 battleships.
Critical chart needs work, It should be far more common to damage a weapon than a "high energy system" due to the fact that there are WAY more of them to take out :).
Misma of Pestulance, should allow use against torpedoes, maybe replace with the rules for spore clouds?
Hives of Nurgle, feels like secessful hits past shields should cause an auto fire crit to represent the chance of plauge spreading.
CSM should modify the leadership to 1 or 2 = ld8 3 or 4 = ld9 5 or 6 = ld10 instead of +1 leadership
CSM: Others should be allowed any one mark OR at least get a reroll or something...
CSM should = Thunderhawks only.
CSM for escorts 5pts/ each
Chaos sector list has **** as the value for modified ship values (Despoiler Styx Inconclast)
Im not sold on the Named Chaos fleets. 12th and 13th seem fine, with the 13th appended to include the named battleships or one CSM fleet list and remove CSM as an option for the 13th.
Would be nice to see the addition of a section dedicated to the traitor IN ship rules from FAQ 2010.
Terminus Est listed as a famous Despoiler :/ yay or nay?
Wha?
Remove refernces to running out of Ordinance under the Armageddon gun rules.
I don't see this. I see a lot about rolling doubles on RO for the Armageddon gun malfunctioning. Is that what you are talking about?
Edit: I finished the edits from AndrewChristlieb and have a whole like from Talos that I will work on later tonight.
-
Ork space hulks already have the ability to go AAF +0D6 in order to ram.
Traitor IN is in the FAQ already, a short section similar to the one in the Bastions list for chaos ships would suffice.
The Terminus Est is listed as a famous Despoiler.
On a roll of any other double the Armageddon gun must be shut down to prevent overloading. This could really be kept as a rule i guess but its a hold over from when ordinance ran out on doubles. Also the last sentence states that the torpedoes run out if you roll double 6's along with the critical from te Armageddon gun.
She likes expensive purses, and jewlery, and misc other stuff :D.
I hate the named values in 40k too :/.
-
Yeah...to be fair, so many people like to flip back and forth between core book and codex pages for keywords and codex, but honestly, I prefer keyword with full description usually, cluttered though it may be.
ex. Under overlord battlecruiser
Improved Targeting Matrix: [insert flavor text here]...for +15pts.. the overlord battlecruiser has a left column shift on the gunnery chart.
That way you always have the ability on hand and easy to comprehend, but the keyword addition makes it simpler to write tournament lists and makes a quick visual/audio distinction between abilities that are worded similarly but are different in application.
ex. telling opponent what you are playing
...also got this here mars battlecruiser, with improved targeting matrix...
-
Alright, I have the edits from Talos and AndrewChristlieb done. Please make one more run through the documents and confirm the voted rules changes are fixed (listed on page 2 of this thread). Also, send those typos my way whenever you can.
Ready for Imperial Navy?!
-
nah, the keyword has nothing to it. I do not care forum 40k at all. Stalwart means nothing to me and I rather read targetting matrix in a fleet list then an obscure keyword. BFG:R is still niche and unofficial. Adding 'weird' extra's is just a bad idea to make revised costs/stats widely accepted.
-
Alright, I included the rules for transports and attack craft in the Chaos document, replaced out the old keywords, and the points should be fixed in all the fleet lists. Now, we just need one last look-through, and then we can move to IN.
-
Ok so the Planet Killer is still listed as torpedoes running out on doubles.
Despoiler is now listed at 400pts on its entry and the 12, 13th fleet lists while the Chaos Named (Khorne, Nurgle, etc) fleet lists have Despoiler at 390pts and the Terminus Est is still listed as a famous Despoiler the attack craft also do not list their speeds
Repulsive: Rewording of the extra shield may be in order. A Repulsive may also take a third shield for +15 points and must be mounted on a large base. It would sound better as: A Repulsive may also take a third shield for +15 points but must be mounted on a large base if this option is taken. (IMO)
Transport entry still refers to the IN list. (I would still rather see it remove entirely).
Styx and Iconclast are still listed as ****pts on the Gothic sector fleet list
and im refreshing again... lol :D
-
the Terminus Est is still listed as a famous Despoiler
I don't know what you mean by this. What am I supposed to change?
Ok, I did a bunch of edits on the IN list as well. Here it is for review:
++BFGR Imperial Navy++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Imperial%20Navy.pdf)
I am assuming we should keep the Bakka list for a later supplement.
-
Vengance and Avenger list Grand Cruiser as their type
Exorcist doesnt list the speed on the attack craft
Overlord states: The Mars Class Battlecruiser may be given a Targetting Matrix, granting it a left shift on the gunnery table for +15 pts its also listed at 230 instead of 220.
Armageddon lists the port and starboard lances at 30cm instead of 45cm
Tyrant is listed as 6 45cm weaps and 4 30cm weaps, was this a revision? its still poo as Sig would say
Endeavour special rule refers to a Defiant class ship that apparently no longer exists
Gothic sector list shows the Retribution at 365 Emperor at 345 Mars 270pts Overlord at 235 Dictator at 220 Tyrant at 185
Solar list shows the Armageddon at 245 and list a Defiant class ship that does not appear to exist... Also does not list the Hunter, Gladius, and Nova. The list also refrences that Defiants and Endurances may not exceed Endeavours instead of the FAQ ruling that there may be no more than 2 total of them per 500pts (or portion thereof)
Bastion list shows Armageddon at 245pts Overlord at 235 Dictator at 220 Tyrant at 185 Firestorm at 40
There seems to be a lack of ham. Chaos and IN grand cruisers are missing the prow upgrades.
-
Ok go to the Despoiler Stats and look under the fluff sidebar where it says "Famous Ships" deleat the Terminus Est (unless it is infact a Despoiler, but then why does it have its own listing?)
Ok im going to give you a break now ;), btw thanks for putting in the time to finish this its much appreciated :).
-
That's mostly what I found too...didn't notice tyrant, good eye. They say despoilers are based off of the terminus est only weaker, but as far as I can tell the terminus est is not a whole lot better, but it does cost a bunch more.
-
Apocalypse: shouldn't it say further then 30cm instead of farther?
-
Apocalypse: shouldn't it say further then 30cm instead of farther?
These words are functionally identical. I prefer further. Farther doesn't sound right to my ear. I believe that the original word was further. Children start off quite able to cope with irregular verbs such as ran and sang when little, but pass through a stage as they develop of trying to form regular verbs instead (runned and singed) before finally being able to assimilate. Likely farther came about due to some such over-correction, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a yank that first coined the phrase, as they seem to be stuck in that sort of stage of development.
-
Actually like most English garbage words its British in origin. Further can be used in place of farther although the "far" in farther tends to see people misconstrue there to be a distinction when speaking of distance but its really when not speaking of distance that you see the distinction. Farther would be incorrect for use as say "The dog walked further down the street. Farther it turned and went in the house." you see when talking about distance farther and further interchange but when referring to an amount of time farther doesnt "fit". Remember the long verson furthermore as a reminder.
-
(http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://epltalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/england-v-USA.jpg&sa=X&ei=da-CUOD9FZCFyQHC84CoDw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGLoPFpBK_9XZGt7rPU9DK8dCY9Jw)
Moving on... ::)
-
Actually like most English garbage words its British in origin. Further can be used in place of farther although the "far" in farther tends to see people misconstrue there to be a distinction when speaking of distance but its really when not speaking of distance that you see the distinction. Farther would be incorrect for use as say "The dog walked further down the street. Farther it turned and went in the house." you see when talking about distance farther and further interchange but when referring to an amount of time farther doesnt "fit". Remember the long verson furthermore as a reminder.
You can use farther for time "we must delay our plans farther than we thought", etc. But yes, there are a couple of instances where you should only use further. All of them! Just kidding, but yeah,
In this instance however, you could use farther, since we're talking about the range of the guns. I'd prefer further.
-
Umm...to be quite honest, I have never looked it up, but I know in canada so little f**ks would be given either way. If you were to have that debate in anything other than a friendly/casual setting or some spelling bee/grammar competition, people would either think you were being anal and obtuse or socialy retarded. This is of course a social setting, but it still seems a little...odd? For what its worth, I also prefer further, but wouldn't even bat an eyelash reading it as farther. Just saying. :P
-
Lame edit Horizon, lame.
-
Alright, I finished AndrewChristlieb's and Talon's edits on the Chaos and IN documents. Check them out if you can and see if there are any more changes needed.
I am going to keep moving down the list and work on Space Marines next, then AdMech.
-
Space Marines:
++BFGR Space Marines++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Space%20Marines.pdf)
-
Imperial:
Vengance special rules has a couple typos in the last sentence
I know its been there since forever but it would be nice to see the Dauntless special rules state +5D6 on AAF insterad of +D6
Bastion fleet fluff (on the fleet list page) cuts off.
I thought the Endurance and its varients had been removed from the Bastion fleet list, or was I dreaming this? At anyrate the special fleet list requirements (no more than 2 per 500) should be shortened to remove references to Armageddon (My opinion here).
Bastion fleet list should add the Exorcist to the list of ships able to take Shark Assault Boats.
Chaos:
Despoiler now lists the prow Launch as 2 now instead of 4??? this ship has been changing alot but at 400pts now thats a big drop in capabilities.
Chaos transport entry now lists them as +3D6 when on AAF special orders. Im still pro removing this entry, as Im sure your quite aware :D.
Chaos space Hulks still have no info in reguards to AAF.
Space Marines:
Before we get started here the rules from Armada are missing and unless im mistaken rapid strike vessels got dropped right?
If you dont mind can you modify the original post with the links to the revised documents so theyre easier to locate. Thanks.
-
Imperial:
Vengance special rules has a couple typos in the last sentence
fixed
I know its been there since forever but it would be nice to see the Dauntless special rules state +5D6 on AAF insterad of +D6
change this to clarify
Bastion fleet fluff (on the fleet list page) cuts off.
whats interesting is that it cuts off on the official document as well. I added in the word "absent" to make sense of the sentence, keep it brief and broad, and end it quickly.
I thought the Endurance and its varients had been removed from the Bastion fleet list, or was I dreaming this? At anyrate the special fleet list requirements (no more than 2 per 500) should be shortened to remove references to Armageddon (My opinion here).
fixed
Bastion fleet list should add the Exorcist to the list of ships able to take Shark Assault Boats.
fixed
Chaos:
Despoiler now lists the prow Launch as 2 now instead of 4??? this ship has been changing alot but at 400pts now thats a big drop in capabilities.
that was a stupid mistake on my part. fixed
Chaos transport entry now lists them as +3D6 when on AAF special orders. Im still pro removing this entry, as Im sure your quite aware :D.
the original rules for IN transports (which Chaos transports use the same rules) have them at +3d6 to their AAF orders so it was put in the Chaos entry as well. Is there a particular reason you think the entry of CHaos transports should be removed?
Chaos space Hulks still have no info in reguards to AAF.
hmm, I'm not sure what needs to be added here. Can you build on this a little more
Space Marines:
Before we get started here the rules from Armada are missing and unless im mistaken rapid strike vessels got dropped right?
I am just working with the 2010 document for SM. In the voting, the RSVs got dropped.
If you dont mind can you modify the original post with the links to the revised documents so theyre easier to locate. Thanks.
you got it
[/quote]
-
My bad +3D6 is correct, ive got orks on the brain... Im of the opinion that the transports and their varients should be in an appendix of thier own similar to what was in armada, if im not mistake the Imperial list has already dropped the transport.
Chaos space hulk as listed can go on AAF and gain +4D6 cm. in the Faq pg 27 it is stated that space hulks may take AAF special orders but they may gain no extra movement for doing so. This is to allow then to ram (as if they can pass the leadership...)
The 2010 SM document excludes all of the special rules that were presented in Armada (weapons boarding etc) it only includes the special rules for what was added in the doc itself.
-
My bad +3D6 is correct, ive got orks on the brain... Im of the opinion that the transports and their varients should be in an appendix of thier own similar to what was in armada, if im not mistake the Imperial list has already dropped the transport.
agreed and fixed. It will be good to have a document for defenses and transports.
Chaos space hulk as listed can go on AAF and gain +4D6 cm. in the Faq pg 27 it is stated that space hulks may take AAF special orders but they may gain no extra movement for doing so. This is to allow then to ram (as if they can pass the leadership...)
working on it
The 2010 SM document excludes all of the special rules that were presented in Armada (weapons boarding etc) it only includes the special rules for what was added in the doc itself.
fixed
-
Adeptus Mechanicus is now uploaded (you can see it on the original post of this thread).
-
Tau Empire is now ready for proof-reading. Both documents are integrated and the voted changes are there.
-
Tau:
Protector: -5pts
Emissary: 25cm speed (stats juggle needed)
Castellan: -5pts
<waits on Sig for Demiurg> ;D
fleets lists:
need: 1 korvattra and 1 kororvesh list plus rules to merge.
AdMech:
now that gifts are buy option and not a d6 roll the points of the vessels need to come down somewhat. ~ 10-15pts.
Ark is 415 in profile, 390 in list
-
Necron Fleet is uploaded with a few things to notice: 1. It includes the Kartouche, Reaper, and Khopesh. 2. It has the new, simplified Reactive Hulls rules with the complimentary point increases for ships that benefit from it (also making the points multiples of 25, which is nice, I know Sigoroth supported this originally).
Please check it out and let me know if there are any changes or edits that need to be made.
-
Tau:
Protector: -5pts
Emissary: 25cm speed (stats juggle needed)
Castellan: -5pts
were these voted on?
fleets lists:
need: 1 korvattra and 1 kororvesh list plus rules to merge.
I will look into this
AdMech:
now that gifts are buy option and not a d6 roll the points of the vessels need to come down somewhat. ~ 10-15pts.
I think we should get some recommendations and get it voted on. If anyone wants to write up a list of costs for the AdMech ships, we could get started that way. Personally, -10 would be my pick for points reduction. They have higher leadership and extra lances, but have a disadvantage when it comes to boarding and many limitations on the ships they can take.
Ark is 415 in profile, 390 in list
fixed
I am going to start working on the Ork fleet now and I will definitely need some help on this. From what I can tell, most/all of the rules changes that were voted on were implemented in the current BFG:R document. I am going to get rid of the keyword stuff and them submit it for you guys to proof-read.
-
The protector, should it be able to buy bombers?
The emissary's weapon loadout seemed fine while I was using it, pretty glass cannon, which makes sense for a yacht loaded up with guns.
-
I'm all for dropping the castellan, but then what about the defender? With the same price who in their right mind would choose a defender? The defender has one more battery granted, but the castellan has 5cm more speed, 15cm more range and better turns.
Has anyone ever actually run a messenger? Seems really crappy point sink for your tracking system when a custodian will double the range and actually do stuff.
For Admech, about 15 points more than IN equivalent, plus upgrade seems reasonable, 10 points more for CL. At least to me. ;D
Necrons: The cartouche seems pretty pointless, other than getting a tombship earlier. IMO.
Looking forward to Orks.
-
I'm all for dropping the castellan, but then what about the defender? With the same price who in their right mind would choose a defender? The defender has one more battery granted, but the castellan has 5cm more speed, 15cm more range and better turns.
why would you drop the castellan? they have a model specifically for it and it's a nice one.
Has anyone ever actually run a messenger? Seems really crappy point sink for your tracking system when a custodian will double the range and actually do stuff.
For Admech, about 15 points more than IN equivalent, plus upgrade seems reasonable, 10 points more for CL. At least to me. ;D
seems about right
Necrons: The cartouche seems pretty pointless, other than getting a tombship earlier. IMO.
I would argue that the IN Gothic is pointless but we still keep it as an option. Some people like it and will use it.
Looking forward to Orks.
I'm not... (editing is going to be a nightmare). Also, I has been modified so much that it is going to be difficult to get the right rules and avoid the non-voted on rules.
-
Very true about the orks...best starting point is probably the faq, then filter through non-official stuff. There is a discussion that could be of merit at http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=4800.msg36154#new
about ork lists.
Castellan: By dropping I mean't the point drop horizon suggested, not removing the entry, my apologies for the terminology . I much prefer the castellan myself over the defender, just "defending" those who maybe already own the models.
Cartouche: We can still vote on it Danny Old Boy, I'm just casting my ballot :P.
-
Very true about the orks...best starting point is probably the faq, then filter through non-official stuff. There is a discussion that could be of merit at http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=4800.msg36154#new
about ork lists.
Castellan: By dropping I mean't the point drop horizon suggested, not removing the entry, my apologies for the terminology . I much prefer the castellan myself over the defender, just "defending" those who maybe already own the models.
Oops, I get you now.
Cartouche: We can still vote on it Danny Old Boy, I'm just casting my ballot :P.
Deal!
-
Defender -> 2 hits. :)
Done.
-
A two hit light cruiser? Because a two hit escort is crap.
-
I do agree that 2 hit escorts would require some special ruling, which we would need to do in the second stage (rules documents and whatnot). But a 2 hit CL would also be a pretty weird ship...1 hit crippled much?
@ AndrewChristlieb Any suggestions on how to fix this problem?
We could just give the range increase to the defender too. Then the trade off is a bit closer: castellan is quicker and more maneuverable, defender has more fire power.
-
No, a 2 hit escort is a solution. There aren't even fancy rules needed.
Actually some years ago, there was a big vote when the yahoo group was still alive. A majority of players (iirc 70%) wanted 2 hits escorts.
The ships were:
Defender
Hellebore
And the large Ork Escort
iirc
-
I have no problems with a 2 hit escort.
-
I have no problems with it either; but if we are trying to compartmentalize our changes, that is a pretty radical departure from the established norm of 1 hit escorts. What happens when said escort is hit? Can it be crippled? Is it worth victory points? Do criticals now affect it normally? Do they repair them normally if so? Can they be squadroned with 1 hit escorts? Do they follow the same turn rules as smaller escorts?
My point is, we can do it and I will be all in. But will the rest of the community follow? That remains to be seen.
AndrewChristlieb is proving my point here. Damn you for not following blindly! >:( ;)
-
Na 2 hits are just absurd. Its too much change on something thats not required.
-
It isn't absurd.
Actually, it is absurd BFG offers a jump from 1 to 4 hits and nothing in between. ;)
-
@ AndrewChristlieb Your corvette idea would be pretty nice around this point eh? (smiles evilly)
Imagine if corvettes were the current escort and escorts were 2-3 hit vessels. Sounding pretty crazy about now eh? Well, I am but consider the implications. Interesting isn't it?
I still want them, but still don't think the community will accept them.
-
Actually it is a pretty old Tau Manta idea.
Drop Manta's from all Tau Launch Bays.
Replace them with Tigershark bombers (fighter/bombers).
Make Manta an extra you can but for ~ 5pts per Manta.
Attacks as ordnance but stays on field.
Has a 4+ save vs everything.
-
Wow, now we are off track.
-
Mmm corvettes. If all escorts were boosted to 2-3 hits i could maybe see it working out, but its too significant of a boost to them for it to only apply to a handful of ships.
-
Hi everyone!
New to the whole forums thing, and as the ball is rolling on completing BFG:R, thought I'd start giving my 2 pence worth on some stuff.
The whole 2-hit escort thing is one house rule me and my long time sparring partner have run for some time. here's our take on it.
Heavy escorts
Applies to- Defender
Hellebore
Jackal
no change to points costs (ships affected are expensive anyway)
2 hits
not crippled for loosing one hit
Any critical hits just cause a point of damage instead
As for squadrons, we just used them as per normal rules for escorts. We did have house rules for light cruisers/heavy escorts moving 5cm before turning, but it didn't feel right to restrict escorts to that extent and was dropped.
I don't know if such rules have been tried before, only got back into Gothic in the last few months and still to grips with all that's gone off in community since, not to mention find all my old notes (moving houses: bane of all ordered things!)
what do you think?
-
So in a squadron of three would the squadron be considered crippled when it has taken three hits or when two entire escorts have been destroyed? I think I would lean towards the former myself. I would probably limit squadrons to a max of 4 ships like cruisers also. The crit= 1 hit is a good mechanic.
-
Yep, that's pretty cool. Crippled based on total number of hits in the squad and crits cause 1 wound.
-
Seems simple plus it keeps bookeeping to a minimum; if its crippled its destroyed, and I also think you would then calculate said VP/crippling based on hits taken.
@ afterimagedan Looks like the kraken will be 2 hits again, makes your life easier I suppose... ;)
-
Yeah well, changing one number in a ship's profile isn't the worst thing in the world. Mainly, if this change is going to take place, it will just be more voting (which I am fine with).
-
Two words: Bring it.
Votes are good, let's get some exterior input! As much as I love my opinion, it shouldn't be the only one (In my opinion, of course...).
-
(http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/2/24/I_see_what_you_did_there_super.jpg)
-
Glad you noticed ;)
-
@Andrew- The former is correct, forgot to put that in! :-[ And a max of 3-4 vessels is a good idea, or have them count as 2 models for squadron purposes.
-
I guess could see this then, with a few tweaks as pointed out, working in the standard rules. How would you work mixed squadrons if there was a cap of 4 in a 2 hit squadron and 6 in a 1 hit squadron (or more in the case of Orks/Nids). Or would these be unable to mix between vessels?
While the Defender and Hellbore are ok options for this due to the fluff and gameplay, I think Grunts and Kracken would be perfect examples for something like this. Maybe the Jackel but theyre already pretty stout. I could also see seperating out the Escort Carriers and DE Corsair with Impailer as 2 hits (anything large enough to launch attack craft really for that matter both because the extra hit would be benificial to a ship of that format but also because of the built in limitation of a maximum of 4 per squadron....
-
Adding a second hit is a big boost in the power level of an escort though. Would we not have to increase the cost of many of them? Not the 60+point ones like the hellebore but certainly some of the cheaper ones, I would think.
-
indeed
-
I like Bessemer's idea of having them count as two escorts for squadroning purposes; i.e you could have two hellebores and 2 aconites in a squadron, or just three helebores or 4 aconites and a hellebore.
-
Just created this account to help get involved. I've owned a BFG fleet since the box set was released, but I've taken some pretty long and frequent breaks from the game.
I've recently returned to the game with my gaming group, using 2010 rules. We play weekly with IN, space marines, tyranids, corsair eldar, dark eldar and orks.
I think we are ready for some fan rules, and so we'll be using BFG:R. I noticed that you all were tweaking it, so I was eager to get involved. I'm more than happy to share ideas, playtest, vote, be the devil's advocate, and proofread.
For orks, and this was mentioned before. Rather than just have torpedoes be included as a replacement to heavy guns, I would like to see heavy guns actually be something worth keeping. Is that off the table as of now? I wouldn't mind testing any ideas if you all were open to it. I was thinking something simple would be...
30cm range, one hit becomes two, ignores all column shifts (both positive and negative)
-
The 30cm range would make them a lot less useless. They already ignore modifiers for range so that shouldnt be an issue either.
-
That would work, but it would make normal Gunz seem pretty worthless. Compare an onslaught to a savage with these new uber heavy gunz. 1d6+1 averages out at 4 normal battery, vs. the 4 heavy gunz which are twice as potent. An alternative could be giving them a right column shift for firing over 15cm. This would allow onslaughts to shine at longer ranges whilst still doubling the effective range of the savage (and other heavy gunz users, aminly the whole fleet). This is similar to the bio-plasma rule where they can fire at 30cm, but beyond 15cm they hit on a 6+.
-
Good point Talos, I was focused on the Kroozers, I didn't think of just making the direct escort comparison. The bio-plasma observation is sound. having the heavy guns keep their short range focus is probably the better idea, so as to keep the two weapon types distinct. I think I'm going to get a couple cruiser clashes in with no torpedoes. Just really trying to make heavy guns work. I'll come back with some thoughts...
Afterimagedan... I think it might be important to start putting version numbers on the end of these edited BFGR files. I've got a folder with all of the BFGR files, and a separate folder for these new edits you are making. But if you are going to be uploading 'works in progress', I'll probably have a hard time figuring out which file is current.
Would it be kosher to continue using the version number of Plexor's files? For example your current IN file could be 1.7
-
Well i can say that i have been having some success with savages using the Ork Clans pdf but everything else with 'eavy gunz they seem to be a waste of a hard point. I would rather take the snotling gun over them on the Kroozers, looted lances are pretty standard on my kill kroozers and the battleship choices are either gorbags or deathdeala, the hammer is ok but reliading the bomb cannon seems... odd that could just be a misunderstanding with hiw the rule is written tho. For that matter a switch to bombardment cannons would fix all the problems at once and eliminate the need for any special weapons such as the zzapp.
-
Welcome Bessemer and Shephammer! Glad you guys are wanting to take part.
As far as the version numbers, I was assuming that people weren't going to download the files yet because none of them are fully finished. The ones you get through the link are live updated. I would rather keep it this way so everyone has the ability to see the progress right away and not have to wait for me to get around to uploading a new version.
-
That would work, but it would make normal Gunz seem pretty worthless. Compare an onslaught to a savage with these new uber heavy gunz. 1d6+1 averages out at 4 normal battery, vs. the 4 heavy gunz which are twice as potent. An alternative could be giving them a right column shift for firing over 15cm. This would allow onslaughts to shine at longer ranges whilst still doubling the effective range of the savage (and other heavy gunz users, aminly the whole fleet). This is similar to the bio-plasma rule where they can fire at 30cm, but beyond 15cm they hit on a 6+.
Rather than having 2 rules (ignores range shifts and gets a right shift over 30cm) just give them a right column shift.
-
Euh, orks an right shifts are just bad. Even their escorts cant over come that with manuvering. The best a cruiser can get then is three dice and a savage only two and thats if someone lets you come knock on the front door and then you have to deal with 6+ front armor a good portion of the time. These should be super scarry up close and currently they are not, they just take away from the orks ability to do anything in the shooting phase.
To fix the 'eavy gunz they need to be super killy up close and able to do something from 30cm. Heck id be ok if we had the option to just replace them with more gunz right now, orks should have the most options to kustomize short of maybe nids anyway.
-
But Sig is saying they lose the drawback from close up. Not currently number crunching, but if they got a left column shift for close range they would probably be ok, right? Devastating up close, mediocre but functional at range.
-
Huh ya i see what your doing there with the range modifier and the right shift they remain the same at 15 and get less dice at 30. That might work then.
-
hey, I just noticed the Tau named character is in the Tau document. Are we including him, and Abbadon and such, or are we going to discuss them when we discuss commanders?
-
I think we should include them. Why not? One of the goals behind BFG:R at the very beginning it condensing the options of each fleet into one document.
-
I was just under the impression that:
1. There was hesitation about the book of Nemesis, and a desire to deal with it after the main books.
2. Named characters were considered pretty powerful
I don't mind the inclusion, I was just surprised, as I was expecting a discussion about them, and leaders in general, and the book of nemesis.
Alos he doesn't appear as an option on the fleet list.
-
Also I thought in BFG:R Grand Cruisers MUST use large bases. If that is in fact the case, the Repulsive needs to be reworked.
-
Well characters are stupid expensive and should be pretty powerful.
I think the thing with the grand cruisers was that they all went to 3 shields base (which needs a large stand) but thats pretty crappy for the Repulsive which was shipped with small bases. (most of them anyway iirc there was a problem with these like the ork kroozers that were shipped with some large bases.
-
The Tau leader is a kor'o, i believe, and can be played on the Custodian.
Named Leader
Ld 9, 1 RR + Aun friend in cost(1RR) + Skilled pilot (I don't know what that is, heads up Dan, if you're removing keywords)=110pts, with an aditional, optional 10 point upgrade.
OR
Kor'o + standard Aun
Ld 9, 1RR + Aun(1RR)=105pts
So you're paying 5 point to have skilled fighters, seems like a sweet deal to me! then maybe I'll use that optional, maybe I won't.
Not saying that He should or should not be included, just that he's not expensive compared to the normal cost of leaders for Tau.
I know it sucks that you have to buy a big base, but is that the only reason we're leaving it as an optional instead of just making it an automatic 3 shields? I think in the old BFG:R it was automatic already, and I think it should be again, to homogenize grand cruiser rules.
-
I was just under the impression that:
1. There was hesitation about the book of Nemesis, and a desire to deal with it after the main books.
2. Named characters were considered pretty powerful
I don't mind the inclusion, I was just surprised, as I was expecting a discussion about them, and leaders in general, and the book of nemesis.
Alos he doesn't appear as an option on the fleet list.
Ah, sorry, I had misunderstood you. I thought the character was from GW or 2010 documents. Yeah, it it's not from there, we should not include it until it's voted on.
-
Well characters are stupid expensive and should be pretty powerful.
I think the thing with the grand cruisers was that they all went to 3 shields base (which needs a large stand) but thats pretty crappy for the Repulsive which was shipped with small bases. (most of them anyway iirc there was a problem with these like the ork kroozers that were shipped with some large bases.
That's why I thought the rules was, if you have 3+ shields, you have to be on a larger base. I'm indifferent to the Repulsive change because I will always use it with 3 shield anyways.
-
People run Abaddon all the time from what I hear; he's really good. The imperial one in bakka is pretty good if you and your opponent allow refits. I imagine it is the same for tau, but I have two questions about Kor‟O Vash‟ya Y‟eldi Mesme (what a god damned mouthfull :D)
1) No other faction has special commanders available at less than 1000pts. Presumably he is the same?
2) He counts as a ld 9 (80pts) with 2 rerolls (25pts) yet only costs 110pts? Who wouldn't take this guy?
His other two abilities are strong, but not much of a cause for concern.
Skilled pilots is all fighters have resilience and bombers re-roll to hit like the eldar. Pretty strong for 5 points IMO.
Also, he is in faq 2010, on one of the first pages.
-
@Talos Note why I call him "The Tau Leader";p The 25pts is just for 1RR, the stock 80pt leader actually comes with 1, but in princeiple it's the same, you're paying 5 points for skilled pilots.
Didn't notice him in the faq, I thought he was introduced with the missile boat thing.
-
Wow, what a beast. Yeah, let's talk about this guy. I am going to start a Tau thread, if I haven't already.... ::)
-
O Mesme...
Project Distant Darkness has five playable characters. All at once is possible as well. har har
@Thane,
Repulsive: BFG:R doesn't matter in this case. Repulsive was sold with small bases, people have it on small bases, fact we need the original rules.
-
Alright, so far all the confirmed changes are implemented (unless there is a mistake). I have some fixing of the Ork special rules, and then really, we need to figure out what we are going to do with Tyranids, which is always last.
-
Tin 'eads too.
-
I think the BFG:R rules for the 'crons are pretty good however. IMO they can be almost kept as is.
-
Agreed.
-
Now that the Imperial Navy fleet is being voted for, what's next? I think we should get some of the smaller fleets out of the way; ones that we don't need to change much like Space Marines and Necrons. Sound good?
-
Let's finish off necrons; there are almost no points of contention for them.
-
Agreed.
-
Hey so I just realised we are including ships that don't exists in GW/FW production (Eldar Supernova, Necron ships, Tyranids, any Book of Nemesis ships that we might add later on). We should include with those ships a blurb on how they could be represented, potentially, for new players who may be just starting modeling, and not feel up to converting yet, or need guidance. (I myself have only just started on this treacherous path, with an Aurora to Solaris minor conversion, and would like ideas for the Supernova...) For example I believe some of the Unique Chaos vessels indicate what ships can be used to represent them.
-
That's a good idea but I think it should be a separate document that can be more thorough on how to do the conversions necessary.
P.S. I have made a Supernova. (http://afterimagedan.blogspot.com/2012/10/tactica-corsair-eldar-mms.html)
-
Okay that sounds good, but if that's what we do, we should include a reference to that document in the intro of the others or something.
Also that conversion looks sweet, how did you go about it?
-
I took a shadow cruiser and put the 40k eldar jetbike front and the jetbike guns on the front of it. It was actually pretty simple! Also, I added a couple bits to it.
-
Interensting, I would never have thought to use a jetbike, I would've thought (obviously incorrectly) that it would be too big. I would probably have tried to shave off the guns on a VS...
Looks good man.
-
My Take on the Supernova
-
What kind of faceplate is that? From what model?
-
That's the old Harlequin jetbike, right?
-
Yep, topside is the old Harlequin jetbike canopy, the underside is an Eclipse (the launch bays form part of the hull behind the face).
Didn't think the pictures would be so big when you clicked them :o
-
Looks cool dude, great conversion.
-
Cool Supernovas people.
lol, I don't have one.
-
Can you link MMS 1.9 in the OP?
-
Done.
-
Thanks
-
Alright so we have gotten some stuff done! ;D *applause*
Down to business:
1. Should we take a vote to apply the Secondary Commander rules to Chaos?
2. Can we vote to finalize the IN document, assuming our newest fleet commander vote passes?
3. What's next? I would like to get Necrons out of the way. Are we ready to vote on finalizing the Necron document? By the way, finalization does not mean that a typo or some weird and obvious mistake cannot be fixed. Also, I think Tau is very close as well and we could finish that relatively quickly. It will probably need a vote to approve the final Defender stats and points.
4. What's next after those? I say we start the vote on the Necron document and start talking about Chaos marks (that seems to be a huge topic of interest).
5. Since Tyranid have not been given any love by the earlier BFG:R voting, and the fact that they seem to be the least familiar race to many, but loved by a handful ( ::) ) means that they need a lot of help. I am personally really really happy with where the current document is at this point and would like to get come more discussion going about them.
6. Any other big fleet changes that you can think of that need addressing? The 2 hit escort vote did get a lot of hurdles out of the way and I will be implementing those changes probably tonight.
-
Well I think Chaos command should be approached on its own, perferably after we finalize some of the really close lists.
IN seems really close, less Bakka so unless someone has anything to add to the Gothic, Armageddon or Bastion fleets we should wrap them up.
Necrons, Tau, Nids, Eldar (all) seem really close so why not close them up.
Chaos next, its the other big one so before we get into the really messed up stuff finish them.
Orks and other Humans should probably be approached last as they all seem to have some big issues. Also Defenses and Transports in here?
-
Agreed on the Chaos front; let's hold off for a bit.
I started compiling the Defenses and Transports document tonight after working on the 2 hit changes. Did you (andrewchristlieb) see my question to you about 2 hit transports and defenses?
IN will be the first done, then let's get Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Nids then onto others. What about AdMech and Space Marines? I think they are about as done as Necrons, unless we want to discuss chapters (which I wouldn't mind).
At the end, Chaos, Inquisition, Rogue Traders, Orks, Defenses and Transports, Demiurg.
-
I would rather see the Marines get chapters than the current FAQ garbage. Working on that could give a basis to work on fixing the 13th Chaos list and all the Chaos FAQ stuff too.
I did see your post, defenses dont get a leadership roll (always 7) and cant take any special orders except reload anyway (should be changed so thedy can at least brace). Looking at them its pretty obvious that the only real option is the Weapons battery 6 at 60cm which only covers the weapons themselves at 30, and these are still bad choices compared to say mine fields or even an Orbital Dock. Torpedoes are the second best choice IMO and are ok now that they can squadron but are still hindered by the leadership 7. 2 lance at 30cm are just a joke, 3 would be passable (and fit the actual model).
As for the CVEs with 2 hits your looking at 61.5 assuming that 15cm weapons would be worth .75 points using the (blah) smothermans. (not counting the loss of 45* turns over a standard escort or the poor leadership or the further reduction in leadership when reloading) fixing their leadership issues helps make them closer to the 60 mark but really doesnt warrent a price increase. I do like the idea of them still running out on doubles, a more streamlined approach tho might be to just give them D3 launch. I would put all "militarized" transports at standard leadership.
-
Make a seperate auxillary pdf with transports and defences etc.
I am not fan of introducing to much chapter specifics into Battlefleet Gothic. Small bits okay but nothing like +1 Ld, or more re-rolls, or better assault etc.
Think: Dark Angels must have a 2:1 Hunter Ratio to other escorts. Ultramarines have Imperial Navy easier at their disposal. Etc
-
I did see your post, defenses dont get a leadership roll (always 7) and cant take any special orders except reload anyway (should be changed so thedy can at least brace). Looking at them its pretty obvious that the only real option is the Weapons battery 6 at 60cm which only covers the weapons themselves at 30, and these are still bad choices compared to say mine fields or even an Orbital Dock. Torpedoes are the second best choice IMO and are ok now that they can squadron but are still hindered by the leadership 7. 2 lance at 30cm are just a joke, 3 would be passable (and fit the actual model).
As for the CVEs with 2 hits your looking at 61.5 assuming that 15cm weapons would be worth .75 points using the (blah) smothermans. (not counting the loss of 45* turns over a standard escort or the poor leadership or the further reduction in leadership when reloading) fixing their leadership issues helps make them closer to the 60 mark but really doesnt warrent a price increase. I do like the idea of them still running out on doubles, a more streamlined approach tho might be to just give them D3 launch. I would put all "militarized" transports at standard leadership.
I agree with the standard leadership chart and I am entirely ok with people putting a secondary captain on them. The question is, with this improvement, should the points cost go up?
-
Make a seperate auxillary pdf with transports and defences etc.
Already started!
I am not fan of introducing to much chapter specifics into Battlefleet Gothic. Small bits okay but nothing like +1 Ld, or more re-rolls, or better assault etc.
Think: Dark Angels must have a 2:1 Hunter Ratio to other escorts. Ultramarines have Imperial Navy easier at their disposal. Etc
I think whatever we do with the chapters, we should either make them cost points to keep the fleet balanced, or provide a downside that counter-balances it. Some of the chapters, at this point, I think are awesome. But, some of them really need a point cost or counter-balance. I will sit down with these and provide some thoughts. I encourage you guys to also!
-
In the earlier posted BFG:R confirmed changes list earlier in the thread, does anyone know what the Idolator's "new fraal tech" is?
The 'no coloumn shift over 30cm' was translated into the 'new fraal tech'-rule.
One 'fix' the Revised list provided, that seems to be left out:
The Desolator class battleship got it's dorsal WBs raised to 9 to get the roughly equal firepower of 3 lances on other battleships.
Was this left out by purpose or did you just miss it?
-
When did the Desolator get dorsal wb9?
-
In the original BFG:R stuff. Always thought that would have put the price up myself (10-15pts). It's cheap for what you get anyway.
-
When did the Desolator get dorsal wb9?
I'll look into that.
-
Just reading through the AM pdf, and on page 3 in indicates that capital ships have to roll randomly against the gifts table, despite the fact that elsewhere it suggests that the gifts may be selected.
Equally, a roll of 6 for leadership allows you to select a gift. Does this mean the gift is free?
-
Just reading through the AM pdf, and on page 3 in indicates that capital ships have to roll randomly against the gifts table, despite the fact that elsewhere it suggests that the gifts may be selected.
Equally, a roll of 6 for leadership allows you to select a gift. Does this mean the gift is free?
This should be fixed now. Thanks! I don't know how I missed that.
-
AM again; on page 8 it reads "in addition to (and before) the refit the ship rolls for normally." It then goes on to discuss other aspects of the rolling. Presumably this needs to be corrected too?
Also, I'm not clear from the rules whether the subplots on page 4 are only used in campaigns, or also in pickup games. If used in pickup/tournament games, what impact, if any does the +/- renown have? If it does nothing, can't most of the subplots be effectively ignored?
Equally, are the subplots rolled for and triggered before or after deployment?
-
AM again; on page 8 it reads "in addition to (and before) the refit the ship rolls for normally." It then goes on to discuss other aspects of the rolling. Presumably this needs to be corrected too?
Fixed.
-
Alright, so far we have 1 list done and that's Imperial Navy. We have had a lot of discussion on changes to Tau and Space Marines. We are also very close on MMS Eldar (which pretty much just needs to be voted as finalized with the 2 hit escort rules) and with Necrons.
I am sort of stuck with this at the moment and need some of you guys with opinions about the final changes to these 4 fleets to propose the changes before we can start up a vote for them.
P.S. sorry for my absence for a while. I have been overloaded with school stuff (grad school is rough).
-
Sorry, I've been well out of action in the Specialist Games side of things for quite a while now, so I'm curious: what is the point of BFG:R? I'm not taking the piss, I assure you, but I am seriously curious, as 2010 has worked more then well for me and those I play with since it's posting.
-
BFG:R is a try to balnce the fleet lists more than FAQ 2010. Makes some weak ships stronger and remove some too good options.
@Dan: Where are the rules for NC? I don't find them in the IN List.
-
@Ironmonger
Also to give a little attention to fleets that need it (Dark Eldar, Tyranids) or that were never really developed properly (Orks).
-
Interesting.... someone has Acrobat Professional.
-
This actually still being worked on? I didn't even realize these forums were still back up. I have been using the documents from Plaxor for all my games since I guess last year? They work out pretty awesome actually. Orks are still a bit underpowered but myself and Pthisis still work on our own minor changes here and there.
-
We have been working on and voting on stuff over the past while. I wish I could contribute more to this but at the moment, school stuff is swamping me. I am hoping to take up some more votes soon.
-
Hi. I'm new here, though not new to BFG. Horizon probably remembers me, rest might have seen my pictures in Starblade, Distant Sun and some other places. Nice to meet you all, glad to see this project is still being worked at, BFG needs some new life...
Also, I offer my help when it comes to editing rules pdf's - seems like something I could to help. If you need it, of course.
-
Definitely! All the PDFs are public at this point and the Imperial Navy is the only finished one. If you are up for it, proofreading would be very helpful! Please let me know if you find anything.
-
Hi, sorry if this is answered already elsewhere, but there are a lot of documents for BFG:R and I was just wondering if all of it/bits of it are finished, and if so which docs/files are the fully finished ones?
Thanks :)
-
Hi, sorry if this is answered already elsewhere, but there are a lot of documents for BFG:R and I was just wondering if all of it/bits of it are finished, and if so which docs/files are the fully finished ones?
Thanks :)
Any of them are finished at any time you like, as it's a fan made rule set, so people will just cherry pick the ones they like anyway. Unless you go to tournaments like Adepticon, at which point you're using FAQ 2010.
-
To be precise:
Revision is not yet complete.
http://afterimagedan.blogspot.com/p/as-any-of-you-know-i-am-supporter-and.html - you can see what's done and what's not here. From those not done, Dark Eldar and Chaos are already nearing completion. Most fleets are ready, as you can see. From the 'mainstream' ones only Orks and Nids still require significant amounts of work.
-
That's great.
Thanks :)
-
Hi guys. I wanted to report a typo: in the Chaos fleet file, at the Slaughter entry, the prow batteries are listed twice, instead of Port Batteries.
Cheers
-
I'll make the change! Thanks!
-
OK, we have most fleets finalized, Tyranids being worked on, Chaos pretty much done, and Bakka being worked on. Time for Orks?
-
Unfortunately it seems that the entire BFG range is being discontinued along with other SG ranges, and is now selling out as we speak. Having recently started playing BFG I am disappointed. I have 3000 points of orks, and a number of other fleets in progress.
Nevermind. Similar to Epic, I regard the true heart of BFG as being in all the hard work put in by players here. Thank you for all the BFG-R documents produced so far that are such a great resource for a new player like myself. I sincerely hope the BFG-R project is finished off given how close it seems to completion? I intend to continue on with BFG even if that means using other manufacturers figures for some ranges, as I think it is a great game.
-
Well if nothing else Nid fleets will survive as long as GW produce plastic Nid bits for 40k and Orks will never run out of ships because they can be made out of pretty much anything.
While I'd like to finish my Chaos fleet and always wanted to build an Imperial fleet AND rebuild the eldar fleet I bought as a kid only because I liked the models but then later sold before I actually started playing BFG ... I'm not willing to give GW money these days for a whole host of reasons, as if the crazy prices weren't reason enough.
On the Ork front, personally I'd love to see Orks having a system more akin to Nids. Choosing a basic hull, then having a choice of upgrades, downgrades and weapons. It just seems so un-Orky to me for them to have a dozen ship designs that are all but fixed except for a handful of options.
Seeing as that's just my feelings though it'd probably be better left to some kind of loota/scrap fleet list.
-
So it has come to this... [ha! always wanted to use this line in appropriate context! :D]
I, for one, don't intend to quit just because there might be no models sold anymore. We're all clever people, we'll find our way around this.
We'll finish BFG:R, make it into a one complete rulebook, maybe now, when GW has abandoned us entirely, those still clinging to the official will be easier to cooperate ;)
We'll need ways to get new players still, but that's not out of question - first of all, there are tons of other companies making spaceships in similar scale. Every single one of them cheaper. Many of those ships are great bases for building 40k vessels. Also, there is scratchbuilding. Orks, Nids and Dark Eldar have been doing it for ages anyway. Others can too.
I've been thingking about making some 'how to' articles anyway. Well, looks like they might be useful about now. :D
We'll finish this. And we'll live.
-
Well said!
Hell, been meaning to get into using plasticard, now I've got motivation!
Ebay will still be the major resource for minis, just be prepared for inflated prices :'(
-
People already pay too much on ebay :P. I guess this clinches my decision to go with FSA for the Necrons Ive been planning next :D.
-
This means we also must keep things like warp rift really alive.
Plus mangozac needs to expand his range... ;)
-
Agreed and agreed, Horizon.
-
I guess this is as good a place as any to post this. Couple little things: on the marine fleet list the imperial escorts are still listed as rsvs and have their +5 point cost. On the MSM document under pulsar lances it says that lock on only allows you to reroll the first miss. Thats really poorly worded as it makes it sound like you can only, well, reroll one miss.
-
Thanks for pointing this out. I will get on it. I think RSVs should be put at the appropriate point cost but I still think calling them RSVs is ok.
-
They are Rapid Strike Vessels. It isn't really a class thing, but rather the roll they fill. Most of the time SM don't deploy a whole fleet or even a whole company for that matter. 1 Frigate sized vessel with 2 squads or so onboard rapidly responding to a crisis is typically all that is needed.
-
On the MSM document under pulsar lances it says that lock on only allows you to reroll the first miss. Thats really poorly worded as it makes it sound like you can only, well, reroll one miss.
Yes, you may only re-roll the first miss (per shot). That is the intention.
-
Heres another that was brought up on Warseer: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?374652-scion-of-prospero (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?374652-scion-of-prospero)
The scion is listed at 365 and was voted at 440 (unless i missed something) its also still got the wording for the original version of the MoT.
One the pulsars Im assuming they work like this: 4 pulsars locked on 2 hit 2 miss, reroll both the misses and get one more. Now roll 3 and 2 hit, do not reroll the miss. And finally roll two and one hits do not reroll the miss.
The way it is written say this tho: 4 pulsars locked on 2 hit 2 miss reroll only the first miss, not both. Do not reroll any subsequent misses as they are not the first miss either.
Or I could just have this all wrong and it should be something different but the first example is how we've normally played it.
-
Horizon's "per shot" statement confirms it for me. Per lance shot is the most clear.
-
It's the first miss per lance, regardless of where in the sequence that miss occurs. So if you roll a hit hit miss you get to re-roll the last dice. If you roll miss RR hit miss you don't get another re-roll. So if you were shooting with, say, 4 pulsars, you would want to use 4 different coloured dice so you could track which ones still had a re-roll available.
-
Really? Well thats cool, how can we make that more clear then?