Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on October 24, 2012, 12:45:11 AM
-
180pts, 12wb L&R 30cm, +10pts for 10wb at 45cm. (Sigoroth option)
-
To be honest, and to clarify, I don't personally care whether this goes through or not. I just think that if you're going to remove the option from the Tyrant then you should remove it from the Lunar and Armageddon too, for consistency's sake.
Also, some people, for some unknown reason, play the current Tyrant with range and NC upgrades. Not something that I'd do, but hey, that's their look out. Removing the option would unnecessarily penalise these people.
-
Fair point Sigoroth, I suppose leaving an option that hardly anyone uses has merit, since it will never be really used anyway. It seems so messy though...
-
Well you could always just drop the Tyrant, give the Dominator torps for -10 and an option to boost range to 45 @str 10 for 10 points. Alternativly for the original price you could modify the weapons to be dual purpose: The Tyrant is equiped with weapons batteries that make use of superfired plasma technology allowing them to be fired at a greater distance while allowing it to maintain the same weight of fire as comparable cruisers. 12 30cm weapons batteries standard. May fire upto 45cm but at a reduced strength of 8. The Tyrant may replace its standard weapons batteries with str 10 45cm weapons batteries for +5 points.
-
Well that is certainly the simplest and most effective way to do this...except the tyrant is a fairly well established (if loathed) ship and people would certainly be unhappy if it was replaced in by a quote unquote rarer ship...you people know who you are. :)
-
For the record, I don't like the idea that the tyrant has a nova cannon option. But I voted yes.
You'd need a pretty ironclad reason to remove a non-abusive game rule. 20 points and -6 torpedoes for a nova cannon is not "overpowered" and so the only real reason to remove the rule would be if the fluff was contradictory. It doesn't seem like it is.
I love the short range fp12 with torpedoes. That will make the tyrant an instant favorite of mine. Two lunars in a squadron works for some people, but I prefer the freedom of solo cruisers, a tyrant and a gothic will deliver that for me with no loss of firepower due to intervening blast markers.
Is there going to be a discussion on changing the fp and range of the dominator weapons to make it more "unique"? I would love to see him with fp10 45cm batteries.
-
Don't worry shephammer old pal; no one in their right mind finds the nova cannon overpowered; in all actuality its generally weaker than an equivalent (6 strength) volley of torpedoes. Some people are just terrified of nova spam, because like any spam it is annoying and takes away from the game. The only reason I personally don't like it having a Nova is that it then resembles the dominator quite a bit, not that it is overpowered.
Consider average target with 2 turret, 2 shield and 5+armor:
On it's own it it will deal 1.5-2 hits (1.65 or something but you get the drift)
Against same target Nova will average 0.33 hits (since it only hits one time in three and deals 3 damage, 1 past shields)
The torpedoes synergy with AC, and if combined are obviously uber-destructive.
The Nova combines pretty well with the long range dorsal lances on most IN battlecruisers; fire off your NC and if you hit blast at it with lances.
As far as I can tell in my time playing it, the only real advantage it has is increased range, and although it limits your movement it does not actually consume a SO, which can be a boon to most ships.
In short, Nova Cannon is the long range IN players best bet, or for those who love gambling (includes me). But even then it takes quite a few to be abusive. People point out that 6 NC 1500pts fleets are likely to deal a lot of damage to a cruiser. True, but pumping 36 torpedoes into that target will do a hell of a lot more damage.
Not to mention, unlike 40k pieplates the NC's is so small that although it can scatter and hit other targets it cannot do like in the novels and other fluff and wipe out a squadron of escorts unless they are base hugging in a carebear countdown circle of oh-sweet-god-please-end-my-misery.
All that considered, I don't even know why it costs +20pts. I suspect it's to reinforce the fact that it is considered much rarer in most battlefleets.
-
I've still got a little bit of a lingering concern that the tyrant and the dominator are getting a little homogenized. I am absolutely on board for making this tyrant change. But I would like to appeal for another look at the dominator.
For people who don't focus on IN, if this change goes through, the tyrant is probably going to almost always be fielded at 180 points. It would be the perfect shotgun-then-broadside compliment to the naked lunar and gothic.
If you aren't playing against MSM eldar, then you can use actual normal IN tactics to beat them, and not have to build in wacky sources of long range WB. Meaning, in a BFGR world, the range upgrade to the tyrant is nice and fluffy, but wouldn't be particularly powerful.
So my implication is that, flavorful upgrade options aside, we are about to have two ships that look like this...
tyrant fp12 30cm l/r 6 torp front
dominator fp12 30cm l/r nova cannon front
Now the "fluff" of each ship could serve as a guiding hand to create some uniqueness.
The dominator was "designed as a fleet support vessel" whose purpose was to "hang back".
The tyrant makes mention of powerful plasma batteries which added to range, but that its long range firepower was barely enough to take out an escort.
Is it viable to 'switch' the range options? Essentially giving the tyrant the 'poor' choice of 45cm fp6 (or 8), while the dominator gains the option to pay more and get a full compliment of 45cm fp12? The dominator could also simply have a fp10 45cm range l/r WB.
The torpedo toting tyrant won't miss the range nearly as much as the "hanging back" fleet supporting dominator. And this would add a little more "role clarity" to the two cruisers. Tyrant does the drive-bys, domintor provides the firepower support to the mars/emperor play style.
-
Role clarity is a good way to put it. Personally, I don't have too many opinions about the Tyrant and/or Dominator changes except that I really like Sig's Tyrant stats. I would not be against switching the ranged upgrade option from the tyrant to the dominator and keeping the tyrant with sig's stats and the option for the NC upgrade. That would help with the role clarity. Both can take NCs, but if you are using the fleet list that can take Dominators, you will be able to save points. The one thing I am not a fan of is to have the Tyrant lose the upgrade option. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable with not having the non-battlecruiser upgraded range option that doesn't have torpedoes. Basically, I would miss the option to take that Tyrant.
-
If we want the Sig profile but want the dominator to stand out, what are the options then? I completely agree with role. As I envision it, the tyrant is a better brawler, the dominator a better long range fleet support. As it stands, although the tyrant is supposed to be mid-range the dominator would benefit from it more I think. As has been pointed out, NC one target and broadsiding another is one of the best uses for the NC. If we are not removing the Nova, perhaps we can work out a long range option for the dominator? It should be pretty strong, I think. Strong enough that the dominator is the defacto choice for ranged support and the tyrant the no-brainer for the lineship role.
-
Keep dominator as is (although variant is not needed imo).
Tyrant per Sig with NC upgrade and 10wb @ 45cm variant option.
Everyone served.
-
Keep dominator as is (although variant is not needed imo).
Tyrant per Sig with NC upgrade and 10wb @ 45cm variant option.
Everyone served.
Agreed on all counts (particularly that the Dom variant is not needed, it's worthless).
I do like the directions that people's thoughts are going. They're constructive and problem oriented, rather than knee-jerk or inflammatory as I've seen in the past, so I'd like to compliment all on that. The reason I agree with Horizon though, and as such disagree with the good ideas put forward, is that we should be aiming at as conservative a change as possible. The Dominator isn't a broken ship. It doesn't need fixing.
Those that like the Dominator for what it does should still be able to take it as-is in those lists that allow it, rather than being forced to pay an extra 10 pts in the form of a NC Tyrant. Also I'd like to point out that the Dominator does have a complementary weapon load. At the point where the NC cuts out the WBs can take over. This allows the Dominator to go from artillery vessel to knife-fighter. The range/NC upgraded Tyrant works differently to this. So the Dominator does have a role and fulfils a niche. A NC Tyrant (no-range) could replicate this at a cost.
-
I voted no to the NC, because otherwise I see no point to a Dominator. I only ever took it for WB12, and I'd never take a NC over torpedoes given the option, let alone for a premium (let alone for a premium of 20pts).
There doesn't need to be a limit on NCs either. When we playtested a pure torp fleet vs a pure NC fleet, the NC fleet was annihilated every time. If the NCs are getting more than one shot off in a game, the other fleet is doing something wrong.
-
Did you maybe test them against other fleets? Nova cannon rape orks who cant move fast enough and have low shields, gw tau for the same reason, they really screw up most chaos fleets also forcing them to close takes away all their protection, msm Eldar get eaten alive by blasts (using the original rules). Sure the nova spam will be less effective against the fleet that is designed to close rapidly, but not all fleets are. Infact there are not many at all that are as focused on closing as the IN torp wall.
I have found Novas to be a bit underpowered when used by themselves but with four or five or even more in a fifteen hundred they can really hurt the enemy even with only one volley. The real kicker to the nova isnt when they do less than average its when they get the first turn kill because of good rolls, or heck even average rolls with 6 of them, and just obliterates something, typically a carrier. Its less so in lower games, although three dominators in a seven fifty is really hard to work around for a lot of fleets.
-
@ Sigoroth I suppose the whole point of this project is to make a better game together. *Sigh* With that in mind, I will step down on this one for the sake of getting this over and done with. It's not the end of the world anyway if tyrant is good; it spent so long sucking that it should really be given a chance :D
I will fight until my dying breath saying that the Nova Cannon is underpowered; I think it's mechanic just draws attention to its inherent randomness. You roll only one die, and that one die determines whether a random blast marker appears or a ship takes potentially heavy damage. With that same volley of torpedoes you have six dice and the laws of mathematical probability and average come into account more often. For every time my NC's have struck a direct hit for 6 points they have just as often dealt no damage at all, or been fired from long range and not gotten bast shields, turning into a very expensive turn 1 speed bump and that's it.
No one would ever agree with me or they would accuse me of being a closet Nova spammer, but in reality as I mentioned I will never understand why they cost +20pts. That is a lot of points for variable and usually worse effectiveness. You guys would kill my family if I suggested lowering though, despite the fact that you probably agree with me ::).
-
The problem with the NC isn't its actual damage output, it's the unpredictability, as you've mentioned. This means that it becomes very difficult for the opponent to decided whether or not to brace. Over-bracing can be just as bad as under-bracing, and both will likely occur, since it's a crap shoot either way. Spamming NC can either relieve or exacerbate the problem. If the NC player focusses his fire on 1 or 2 ships, the problem is alleviated; the defender knows to brace. If he spreads his fire across the opponent's entire fleet however, the problem is exacerbated; the defender now faces this dilemma en mass.
In my experience people typically tend to focus fire. However, the fear of mass NC spam derives from people's reaction to a single NC and simply imagining more of the same. I do not think that massed NCs is really all that much of a problem in a typical game on a typically sized board.
However, consider that no ships had the option to take the NC. Not the Tyrant, Lunar or Armageddon or even Ad Mech ships. Then the only sources would be Dominators (not available in every list), Mars (fairly expensive ship) and Apocalypses (not tremendous vessels and a large points sink to get a NC). Even if you had a list that had access to all 3 ships and wanted to spam NC you'd have a boring fleet.
Having the option to take NCs on different ships allows for NC spam with a little versatility. Having to pay way over the odds to get it is just a price you pay for getting easy access to something that makes a lot of opponents uneasy.
-
Actually, I do think we should have a NC change, and probably do it now that we are talking about the IN fleet. Personally, I would like to see it more accurate but do a little less damage. When we played a game with the NC rules that are in the current BFG:R, (D6 if the hole is over the stem, D3 if it is not on the stem but still touching the base, and 1 if the template touches the base but the hole is not over it, PLUS the ability to lock-on which allows a RR of the shot), the NC was really powerful. In fact, there was a game where two of his AdMech cruisers NCed my Despoiler, he hit with the first, I decided not to brace, he rolled a 6, shot it again, I braced, he rolled a 5, I braced 1. Crippled battleship in 1 turn. We were both bored after that. True, the rolls were extreme, but fluke rolls should be drastic in climactic parts of the game, not just a turn one lucky nova shot.
WIth a lock-on option, NCs hit with D6 damage about 55% of the time. 33% to roll at hit on the scatter, and if it's a miss, ad additional 33% to hit again.
SO, I think NCs should have the lock-on capability, making them a bit more accurate, but make their damage D6-1 (min 1), D3, and 1. This would make the NC more consistent in it's damage dealing but not have as much of a chance to have game-ruining results. Commence tomato throwing... ;D
-
@ afterimagedan Tomatoes? Where are you from buddy? In canada we throw snowballs, or if it's summer maybe a potato because it has more heft.
You are right that the reroll makes it much better, and I agree it could be difficult to deal with a bunch of good rolls.
But again, I have had 2 strength torpedo volleys deal 2 damage and 2 criticals once to my emperor battleship, with turrets active, so NC is hardly the only weapon capable of being swingy.
I don't want the reroll because it's mechanically sound; I want it because I love the novels and more importantly am a long time rogue trader fan, and locking on to try to give your 2-gauge shotgun a bit less recoil seems like a good idea.
I also which the template was bigger, even if it means only d3 hits. Fluff has this thing terrifying escort squardons, whereas currently your better off launching a torpedo volley into that same squadron instead.
-
@Talos I don't think I hit your Emp with small voleys like that, that was your CLs, which admittedly I got lucky with some crits. The ones for your Emp were custodian I believe, as my emmissaries were taken out pretty early. And they have str 3 ;).
I agree that the randomness of the thing makes it hard to invest 20 points in it, but it's destructive potential is amazing. I've seen Talos fire and hit with 2 novas in the same turn, and not even get through my shields (custodian), but a glancing BFG:R hit one-shoted my ship (with the help a crit). So while the first voley sucked, and were worthless, they still made me consider bracing and psychological impact (and torpedoes would never have hit at that range anyway), while the second, torpedoes would still have done nothing, and that ship was an enormous setback, ending in a game loss for me. the ship was an Aurora, by the way.
So all that to say I don't think it should have a larger blast (imagine destroying my 6 strong squad of aconites/hellebores with a single shot, there's the game), nor should it be cheaper. If you have the ability to destroy my ships at huge range while I can't do a thing about it, you better be paying through the nose to have that ability (even if it doesn't always pan out). Even long range lances are epensive to get (in the form of battlecruisers) and they are more consistent, but less potentially damaging. I do agree that if it can lock on, it should be slightly less damaging, or more consitent (1d6-1, or like 1d2+2 or 3 or something, so that it has a minimum damage that is effective as well, thus negating a potential useless point sink).
-
Hmm, I like your D2+2 option. That means a consistent 3 damage, at least, and half the time 4. Not able to get 5-6 anymore, but also not able to get 1-2. I like it.
-
I need to poke admiral d' artagnan. He had some solid NC ideas.
//and if we can't agree on a new mechanic let us atleast lower the scatter range to 2d6.
(I do like the scatter aspect).
-
I like the scatter, but I like the varying scatter. If we make it 2d6, then it should consistently be 2d6. I prefer 1d2/2d6/3d6 ranges, but that's just me.
As an aside, is it inconceivable that a mechanicus reffit could be made to lower/change the way things scatter? make their novas slightly better than standard IN novas, for a (further) cost?
-
BFG:R has the updated scatter ranges 45cm and less: 1d6 46-90: 2d6 over 90 3d6cm.
The template thing would never work in BFG, admittedly. It was more just whimsical thinking of the flufftastic awesomeness.
Making it less potentially damaging is somewhat of a hit, but I don't mind listening to the community some more before I cry too much. ;D
Interesting point on AdMech, I'm not sure how but maybe someone else has a suggestion?
-
Ah didn't notice the bands in BFG:R.
It may hurt that they have less potential, but if you hit two on my custodian again, it would for sure deal damage this time. It's a give and take, right? Slightly less max damage, way more min damage. 3d12 vs 2d12+6. It just makes it more consitent, and worth the 20 point investment, without having the ability to uterly destroy half my fleet bofore I can even move.
-
Like I said, I really doubt people would ever shift on making the NC cheaper. It wouldn't be overpowered no, but it works right now so why change it? That's what most people think it seems.
@ThaneAquilon I stand corrected on the torpedo volley, it was a shrunken down emmisary volley into an endeavour as I now recall.
d2+2 hmm? That's actually pretty nifty and I could play it as that, but it does mean you need multiples to be really effective, unlike torpedoes where 1 strength 6 volley is dangerous, even without counting combined ordnance or 1 turret targets.
Still, that seems pretty functional actually, even if it does deviate from the established fluff. But were doing that on the tyrant and no one (including me) gives a hoot, so we shall see.
-
@Talos I do think it would be close to broken without the premium. I know you'll USE 2, you generally do, but you don't NEED to, having one component deal 1-2 damage on standard cruisers, and destroy 1-4 escorts (depending on climping) beyond extreme range is really good, and that's with just one. And with lock-on you're reeeeaally likely to get a Hit!.
-
Well ya the Nova should be free. Reguardless of actual output it should be limited due to the rarity. Bring the hate.
-
Well ya the Nova should be free. Reguardless of actual output it should be limited due to the rarity. Bring the hate.
(http://chzmemeanimals.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/advice-animals-memes-happy-kitten-i-secretly-hate-you.jpg)
-
Andrew is spot on.
The Nova Cannon is a rare weapon. Making it stronger and then heavily restricted is, in my opinion, a good idea. :)
-
BFG:R restricts it to one per 500 point portion.
So basically 2 in small games, 3 in big games. Which is honestly pretty the much the max IN players run, since you also want a stroing torpedo presence.
-
Stronger NC -> 1 per 750 or 1 per 1000, hey why not.
The restriction is to avoid spam.
-
IN: NC, can lock on, uses current BFG:R rules, D3+1 damage, limited to 1 per 750pts.
AdMech: NC, can lock on , uses current BFG:R rules, D2+3 damage, limited to 1 per 750pts.
-
True...it's sad that we have to; if someone came to a game against me with 8 slaughters, 5 iconoclasts and a basic leader, it would be perfectly legit. But I would give them a look, sort of like "Why don't we just go play chess then?".
Spam is spam and is never inherently the fault of the system, unless the spam is the only viable way to play the mechanic.
Ex. Tyranid capital ships in faq 2010 without evolution of the hive mind are stupidly weak. Almost hilariously so. But with those options people make the Uber-Hive Ships because any other combination is too weak.
Ex. IN can spam NC. But you can play IN quite fine without NC at all, let alone a half-dozen, so the problem is entirely players, not the game mechanic.
@ afterimagedan d2+3 across board, but AdMech have easy access i.e. one per 500.
-
D2+3 including lock-on seems excessive to me.
-
Still less damage potential then the torpedoes (max 5 on unshielded target vs. 6 hits on 6 turret target)
And if your basically only allowed two, that's hardly abusable at all. Heck, considering your paying twenty points for less damage, all your gaining is range which even then has many restrictions like minimum firing distance, no firing it on AAF, CTNH, BR or BFI.
-
d3+2 is too much. You have more than a 50% chance to hit with lock on, torpedoes have 1/3 per torpedo (assuming armour 5). Even with d2+2 it will still be more damaging on average than 6 torpedoes (counting dropping shields). Plus with all those restrictions, remember that you are gaining the ability to destroy ships at 100cm with no retribution! That is insanely powerful, and no torpedo fired by IN will do damage at that range, ever.
-
People still use the NC now without the rules changes or even lock-on and we are looking for a way to restrict NC spam. Why? Because people are aware of the NCs power. We are looking to boost it, or at least make it more consistent. My question is, how much are we going to do this? At this point, it is proposed to add a lock-on feature (making it hit more than 50% of the time), and making the damage much more consistent. I am just worried about making it a guaranteed 4 damage, with the option of getting 5.
NCs cannot be blocked by ordnance, cannot be negated by turrets, and cannot be show before they hit you. Yes, you can't use AAF, CTNH, BR, or BFI while using it, but who's going to do that all that often? LO orders are going to be what is done every turn except maybe 1.
Also, how do you guys deploy before a game? This makes a big difference as to how effective NCs are.
-
d3+2 is too much. You have more than a 50% chance to hit with lock on, torpedoes have 1/3 per torpedo (assuming armour 5). Even with d2+2 it will still be more damaging on average than 6 torpedoes (counting dropping shields). Plus with all those restrictions, remember that you are gaining the ability to destroy ships at 100cm with no retribution! That is insanely powerful, and no torpedo fired by IN will do damage at that range, ever.
That's why D2+2 with restricted numbers and LO makes sense to me. Consistent damage while retaining rarity. This makes 2 NC per IN fleet the norm now, and I expect those will be devastating.
-
People still use the NC now without the rules changes or even lock-on and we are looking for a way to restrict NC spam. Why? Because people are aware of the NCs power. We are looking to boost it, or at least make it more consistent. My question is, how much are we going to do this? At this point, it is proposed to add a lock-on feature (making it hit more than 50% of the time), and making the damage much more consistent. I am just worried about making it a guaranteed 4 damage, with the option of getting 5.[\quote]
This. No other component will do 4-5 dmg more than 50% of the time. Frankly with our rules modifications, I'm worried about facing even two, as the potential is great (I do play some pretty fragile fleets to be fair) to wipe me turn 1 (effectively).
-
He (me and Thane) have only played on small tables so far (6x3 1/2 dinner table, deployed width wise is pretty typical) and so the long range of a NC has admittedly never been a big advantage, since I am firing 60cm lances turn 1-2, depending if he starts or I do.
@ ThaneAquilon I don't really understand this wiping the field thing you speak of. Assuming two success SO checks, you are still not supremely likely to hit with both of them, and against eldar that's one escort, two if you hit with both. If it was fired at the Voidstalker (which would probably brace, it being first turn), you would probably inflict glancing damage (1-2) damage, even if both were to hit. Doesn't seem mathematically overpowered anyway....
More extreme, but you could also drop the damage to d3 but make that the damage for the entire template, less powerful generally but more in line with fluff.
-
it scores 3-4 hits. An elday ship has 1 shield, that's 2-3 hits through, plus 1 crit is likely. That cripples almost every eldar ship. That's with 1 nova. And for the 1500 game we're playing tonight, I'll have 3 CLs that would get instagib'd by that, losing liek 450 points plus leaders right off the bat. Hollofields force rerolls on hits, but against every other fleet, it is more liekly to hit than ANYTHING else. so it's way more consistent.
-
Could be wrong but how many CL does the average eldar fleet run? To my knowledge it was always just VS, tons of escorts and 1-2 light cruisers. And for MMS, what are the odds of a NC actually getting to fire twice? Somethings seriously wrong if you haven't closed the gap/ found cover by then (and against eldar lock-on turning restrictions is a pretty big liability). My observations were against a normal eldar fleet composition; obviously like any other weapon or ability it has the potential to devastate a very specific fleet, but that's not unique to the NC. Running an all carnage/iconoclast fleet would be hard on eldar, but is that the fault of the carnage? No.
As horizon would say, if you can't cope with a rare long range weapon then you deserve to get pounded. He may have been referring to getting within 15cm of batteries but the spirit of the argument is the same.
As for accuracy, how do you figure? Even through turrets a torpedo volley will equal or exceed that since it can fire every turn and can turn while doing so.
-
Were off topic guys, Tyrant remember :).
I say since we are so on the fence about this why not allow the nova optuon BUT only in the gothic sector list and lessen the restrictions on other fleets taking a Dominator. Heck do that for the Lunar with nova as well. Retcon an Apoclapyse in and the Gothic sector has its nich.
Nova discussion thread?
-
Well, I suppose we can keep this thread on the Tyrant and NC because at this point, the discussions are related.
-
Well then since were on Novas they should not be more accurate but they should be obscenely powerful according to the fluff.
Whats the average damage for a spread of 6 torps, armor 5 2 turrets vs the current nova cannon factoring in scatter?
-
Well then since were on Novas they should not be more accurate but they should be obscenely powerful according to the fluff.
Whats the average damage for a spread of 6 torps, armor 5 2 turrets vs the current nova cannon factoring in scatter?
1.somelownumber damage per turn.
-
NC
scatter band:
0-60 1d6
>60 2d6
lock on option
Good enough for me.
-
The scatter I can agree on, the lock on option should be strictly to modify the damage. A re-roll of the die for damage should be sufficient.
-
So it looks like were looking at four profiles of NC:
1) Full damage with lock on damage reroll (The Liebanator for short)
2) Full damage with lock on accuracy boost (Fresh Horizons if you will)
3) d2 +2 damage with lock on accuracy boost (Same Damn Thane in local parlance)
4) Regular profile from BFG 2010 FAQ/BBB (Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas Edition)
Everybody so far seems fine with the d3 for scatter damage, so if we nail down what scatter profile to use from the following four we can make another mini-vote.
1) Regular Scatter
2) BFG:R Scatter (30-45 1d6, 46-90 2d6, 91+ 3d6
3) Horizon Scatter (0-60 1d6, 61+2d6
4) Fixed Scatter (2d6)
@afterimagedan If it's possible, maybe you can double poll in one thread to finish this issue once and for all?
-
Blah on any d3 d2 whatever nonsense. The last thing the Nova needs is a nerf requiring it to hit a SMALLER area.
-
Blah on any d3 d2 whatever nonsense. The last thing the Nova needs is a nerf requiring it to hit a SMALLER area.
What do you mean by area? D2 and D3 "nonsense" does exactly what we want: more consistency in damage.
-
Reading material:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=4781.msg35662#msg35662
Warp Rift 14
Nova Cannon rules from admiral d'artagnan
(issue also has article on 2 hit escorts)
-
Alright, I have to say, I am sold on the warp rift 14 rules. we would need to tweak the holofield section slightly with MMS but I think it's a great compromise of each view here.
30cm to 60cm, D6 scatter. 61cm to 150cm, 2D6 scatter. D6 damage, D3 in hole is only on base, 1 damage if the hole is off the base but template touches. Can lock on which is a RR to the scatter die. Cannot lock on against holofields/shadowfields. Also reduced damage to necrons. 1 per 500pts.
-
I think these rules work vs Eldar MMS holofields as well.
-
No D3 if hole is only on base, thats silly the template is too small for such nonsense, if someone is worried about a ship potentially taking damage on the scatter they should have braced it. D3 damage makes the nova worth even less. The Nova should not get to reroll the scatter die, it is supposed to be innacurate. If a nova scatters within 30 or over 150 there is no reason for it to just not happen at all :/. Holofield rules are convoluted. They should just force a reroll of a "hit" result. Necron reactive hull rules are silly too.
-
LockOn rejustifies the D3.
Because a scatter onto base is no direct hit (remember stem is what counts for shooting).
And the template isn't to small for this imo.
-
No. Those rules state D3 if it scatters, thats crap. D3 if it doesnt touch a stem is crap. Its an area of effect weapon nit a direct fire weapon.
-
@afterimagedan What do you mean by reduced damage to necrons? They don't take less damage from standard plasma torpedoes, so why would they take less from a massive plasma explosion? More importantly, what is the WR #14 rules vs. necrons?
I kind of see both sides of this argument; one hand the suggested profile makes the Nova Cannon impossible to spam and generally more deadly, albeit requiring yet another special order from a fleet that has to make one for every other ship, every turn. That is a fairly significant drawback, we are suggesting all these profiles on the thought that the NC vessel will be locked on: as an IN player I know as well as you all do that over two thirds of your ships already require RO special orders or LO, and making NC lock on to be effective makes it so that literraly everything but your gun escorts will be on SO all the time, and IN have only stock leadership. On the other hand it does really go against the spirit of the NC, which is a devastating mega doom blast that can envelop whole escort squadrons and reduce them to ash.
Not sure which side I stand on, but I do know this; in fluff anyway (plus rogue trader), it can fire less often (every other turn). I know in BFG if it only fired every other turn, it could be a lot more powerful at any rate.
And that a bigger pieplate isn't feasible for this game, even though the NC template should be the small blast template from w40k.
-
In the old rules without the D3 when it wasn't over the stem, you would have 38.88% change to hit where you get to roll D6 to damage. In the rules we are talking about, with lock-on, it's 59.26%. What this new rules is about is direct hits doing more damage that not direct hits. Even AOE things have that effect too.
-
@afterimagedan What do you mean by reduced damage to necrons? They don't take less damage from standard plasma torpedoes, so why would they take less from a massive plasma explosion? More importantly, what is the WR #14 rules vs. necrons?
against Eldar and Necrons, it has reduced damage because the Eldar had the 2+ Holofield save but no shields to get through before doing damage. This makes it not able to lock-on while shooting at Eldar (because of holofield targeting problems) and D3 to Necrons because they do not have shields. Personally, I don't think we should have either of these rules anymore because Eldar will receive the benefit on not having lock-on against them, and in MMS, Eldar have higher hits and shields. Also, against Necrons, it depends if we take the Necron armor saves from the old rules or the BFG:R ones that streamline it at 4+ (which I prefer).
I kind of see both sides of this argument; one hand the suggested profile makes the Nova Cannon impossible to spam and generally more deadly, albeit requiring yet another special order from a fleet that has to make one for every other ship, every turn. That is a fairly significant drawback,
it isn't really in my games. When the IN or AdMech player takes NCs, he holds the whole fleet back (like against the back of the table) to get some shots off before engaging. He almost always keeps his launch craft back by his vessels and so there is hardly any need for special orders until you are getting closer. Our table is the standard 6ft by 4 ft (or around 180cm by 120cm.)
we are suggesting all these profiles on the thought that the NC vessel will be locked on: as an IN player I know as well as you all do that over two thirds of your ships already require RO special orders or LO, and making NC lock on to be effective makes it so that literraly everything but your gun escorts will be on SO all the time, and IN have only stock leadership. On the other hand it does really go against the spirit of the NC, which is a devastating mega doom blast that can envelop whole escort squadrons and reduce them to ash.
Not sure which side I stand on, but I do know this; in fluff anyway (plus rogue trader), it can fire less often (every other turn). I know in BFG if it only fired every other turn, it could be a lot more powerful at any rate.
And that a bigger pieplate isn't feasible for this game, even though the NC template should be the small blast template from w40k.
-
But to maintain maximum distance, your going to need to do some BR special orders to hold there, and the NC is stymied by terrain, which since torpedoes are shotgunned is not an issue for them. If your opponent is SM or Eldar, they will have no problem hiding behind some celestial phenomena until you rolls fail and you have to move forward.
As for save based stuff, the reroll works fine; I don't like the idea of any kind of "save" for eldar, because it doesn't seem to adequately demonstrate their ability to not be their in the first place. That's why although horizons MMS rules for lances (invulnerability save at long range) works fine, but I prefer the penalty to hit from plaxor's work (lances requiring higher rolls to hit). If we keep saves to BFI and necron it helps distinguish the holofield/agility of eldar from the living indestructible metal of the 'crons.
Speaking of the tinheads, I am in favor of across the board 4+ saves, with the modified prices of course. Same metal after all. ;)
As for the AOE, the NC should not even have a 1 damage zone if we are catering to fluff on this; 1d3 is fine, but really it should affect anything under the template; the thing creates a freakin' localised sun. I know necrons bathe in those but everyone else tends to die when thrown into the sun.
-
Let's try to make playability the number one concern.
Trying to match the nova cannon to the fluff could lead to game rules that are not fun. And fun is the only thing we are trying to have.
What is NOT fun for the imperial navy player?
Watching 4 or 5 of his novas scatter completely off target due to large scatter distances.
What is NOT fun for his opponent?
A turn 1 crippled battleship or 4 or 5 different capital ships on brace for impact.
I don't care what the fluff says a nova cannon does. The range of potential scatter distance should be tightened up so that the imperial player enjoys the shooting phase.
And likewise the range of potential damage caused by a hit should be tightened up as well. The variation between rolling a 1 and rolling a 6 on a D6 is outrageous.
If the nova changes are handled well, then there would be no need for nova spam restrictions.
I'm currently in support of the <60 D6 scatter, >60 2D6 scatter, and I'm also in support of "If central hole is over the BASE of a model it takes D3 hits, if the nova marker is over the base but not the hole, 1 damage."
I don't think the stem should be invovled. If you include the stem, what you are saying is really, "if you roll a hit, extra damage" I don't like that. I like that the larger ships are more vulnerable to novas. If the D3 was stem only, then a space hulk is as easy to hit with a nova as a cobra destroyer. Lets have large bases be a vulnerability on this weapon.
To people who fear the nova cannon getting out of hand. It helps to keep in mind that it is the only weapon that can't be fired at targets within range, it is exclusively front firing on a ship with poor turning, and it doesn't fire through almost all terrain. It needs to get fairly impressive damage up early, becuase it will be literally shut-off after one or two turns.
If anyone wants to get a little bit more intimate with current nova cannon accuracy, I cooked up these numbers about the BBB nova. They take into account a miss and scatter as well as hits.
D6 damage on large based ship within 45cm: 66%
1 damage on large based ship within 45cm: 22%
D6 damage on large based whip between 46cm and 60cm: 37%
1 damage on large based whip between 46cm and 60cm: 15%
D6 damage on large based ship between 61cm and 150cm: 33%
1 damage on large based ship between 61cm and 150cm: 3%
D6 damage on small based ship within 45cm: 55%
1 damage on small based ship within 45cm: 22%
D6 damage on small based whip between 46cm and 60cm: 35%
1 damage on small based whip between 46cm and 60cm: 4%
D6 damage on small based ship between 61cm and 150cm: 33%
1 damage on small based ship between 61cm and 150cm: 1%
-
@shephammer You humble me with the truth; nothing trumps fun. Nothing. Having slapped myself for you, lets proceed.
Interesting point on the NC central hole thingymabobber; large ships being more vulnerable is both mechanically and fluffingly sound. I will be having a game with ThaneAquilon vs. his eldar in a couple of hours; I will let you know how that goes, because we are going to try LO NC with d2+2 for direct hits. Hopefully I get a shot in...
-
Fair points by both.
So if we make it the old rules where the hole just has to touch the base, I think we should make it a more consistent damage ESPECIALLY because there are times where terrain only allow you to take 1 NC shot per gun per game. So, what about:
-lock-on, but lock-on negated by holofields.
-D2+2 is the hole is on the base
-Admiral Warprift 14 range bands (much less scattering means more D2+2 hits without the hole over stem rule)
?????
-
That would work pretty good actually.
-
what about choosing either D2+2 or D6? like different types of ammo? You can play conservatively or take the gamble.
-
Why not just make it an automatic 3 hits then??? Oh and ill be spamming those, because with a greater than 50% shot at hitting im taking 6 and nuking a cruiser first turn every game.
-
automatic 3 is less than D6. I'm not sure what you are proposing dude. Can you write what you think it should be?
-
@AndrewChristlieb Hey man, its just a game. I can't speak for everyone else here, but were trying to improve the overall experience of BFG. Like with allowing the NC on the tyrant, which I do not support, it's impossible to make everyone happy, so we have to make compromises to enhance the overall experience. If you are very strongly opposed to the current NC discussion, throw out the closest NC rule system to the proposed one that you are willing to accept, and like me (I love NC very, very much) you will get some say, but have to compromise somewhat.
As for different ammo types, it is interesting but it seems most BFG players prefer the game as simple as possible; in some instances I think people almost want a game of checkers over an actual miniature game, but I digress.
I think d2+2 would be fine, with d2 for splash damage and our LO and new range bands, with restrictions. Its more accurate against capitals (if SO intensive) if less explosive while being less damaging but much more disruptive to escorts (clumped up escorts are fair game, scattered ones are low profile). Not too much different than torpedoes in that sense: easier to hit a large base, but likely to inflict less damage. Smaller bases are harder to hit, but if they are grouped up too closely you'll throw the whole squadron into disarray. And this keep the benefit of the direct hit tangible; more damage but not overwhelmingly so.
-
Viewing it from a higher level a d2+2 mechanic seems rather unfriendly if you want to streamline something.
I dislike it.
D3 & D6 are known & used variants.
Talos,
simple/less rules means it is easier to balance. The more you add the harder it is to maintance balance.
At the moment I prefer the admiral d' artagnan variant. The Eldar effect to be discussed.
-
well, we could just use the D6, hole on base, lock-on but not for Eldar rules.
-
...plus fleet restrictions of course
-
Id be ok with D3 on the base if a stem hit was supremly devistating D3+3 would be a good start. Justifies the upgrade cost and the restrictions.
1D6 under, 2D6 over 60 is fine for scatter. Scatter under 30 or over 150 works as normal. (an interesting although more complicated alternative would be for shots that scatter under 30 or over 150 that hole over stem cause d3 only (under due to no explosion, over due to kenetic loss) and hole over base one auto hit only, under 30 the "blast" has no effect.
I know some people hate the idea but i still like reload on the nova, especially with lock on now.
Eldar reroll scatter die (automatic even if it missed)
Necron take their saves and stop complaining something might scratch the finish.
-
what about this... D6 if touched by the hole, can lock on, Eldar can make you reroll scatter die, cancels with lock on, limit 1 per 750. necrons don't need special rules if we have the new reactive hull rules.
-
Not sure on the Necron hull ill have to reread it. 1:500 should be fine unless its getting a significant boost in average damage. Lock on lets you reroll scatter and damage?
-
No, just for the scatter.
-
Well it all seems fine then, like I said the 1:500 should be ok and will really only allow one more at 1500 compared to the 750 (average anyway for what most people play, of course the higher you go the more you will be able to take.
1:750 if the average damage is raised or if the average is leveled off (such as d2+2 which drops 1,2,5,6 in favor of a much more consistant output and therefor spam).
As I said previously the D3 on the base would be fine so long as the stem hit was boosted, otherwise its a pointless nerf (1d6 represents the same chance all across).
-
Well it all seems fine then, like I said the 1:500 should be ok and will really only allow one more at 1500 compared to the 750 (average anyway for what most people play, of course the higher you go the more you will be able to take.
yeah, 500 does seem more appropriate
1:750 if the average damage is raised or if the average is leveled off (such as d2+2 which drops 1,2,5,6 in favor of a much more consistant output and therefor spam).
I don't see why more consistent would have any more or less spam. Making the damage more consistent makes games less random, which is something I would rather have more of. D6 damage on the NC makes it too varied for my taste.
As I said previously the D3 on the base would be fine so long as the stem hit was boosted, otherwise its a pointless nerf (1d6 represents the same chance all across).
you have swayed me in this argument. If we go with the D3 option, we are making it less of an AOE template weapon and more of a direct shot weapon with some (very little) area effect.
However, giving the NC a boost like this with no downside, we will see people max out NCs and that will be one of those things you just have to do. Tighter scatter (the tighter the scatter, the higher the percentage to get the full D6 damage roll), lock-on option (a massive boost, makes it more than 50% to direct hit), and D6 with hole on base (again, adds to the percentage of D6 damage hit, cumulative with the fact that the scatter ranges are smaller), makes the NC much much more powerful than any version we have seen so far. There needs to be more restriction to this than 1 per 500. Be prepared to see 3 NCs with these new rules every game against IN if this rules set is adopted. Plus, 1 per 500 is not making the NC look very rare. In 1500, you will have 5-7 cruisers and 3 will have NCs = not rare.
-
Ok im confused now are you for or against 1:500?
The consistency makes the weapon a much better choice. I dont take novas very often now because for every shot i take theres a really good chance that i do nothing at all, even on a direct hit. If you give the nova a boost to accuracy and eliminate the high/low it becomes a gimme. Why wouldnt i take as many as possible and hammer at least a point or 2 of practically guaranteed damage? With the D6 theres still a chance that it might be absorbed by shields, and its not an automatic "i am or I am not bracing" theres some arguement either way, 50% chance of scatter and a 50% chance of one hit or less on a two shield ship i might risk it if i need another special order. Guaranteed 1 or 2 hits? Ill just take them if i need another special order no question.
I agree the boost to damage is not required if the accuracy is boosted. Although a 4,5, or 6 on a hit and a 1,2 or 3 on a miss would be sweet ;).
So like i said with an accurate but large swing i think 1:500 is fine, accurate and increased chance of either more consistent average or just higher average damage then 1:750.
-
Ok im confused now are you for or against 1:500?
The consistency makes the weapon a much better choice. I dont take novas very often now because for every shot i take theres a really good chance that i do nothing at all, even on a direct hit.
true, but the question is how accurate do we want it to make? We went from 33-38% to 55-58%.
If you give the nova a boost to accuracy and eliminate the high/low it becomes a gimme. Why wouldnt i take as many as possible and hammer at least a point or 2 of practically guaranteed damage? With the D6 theres still a chance that it might be absorbed by shields, and its not an automatic "i am or I am not bracing" theres some arguement either way, 50% chance of scatter and a 50% chance of one hit or less on a two shield ship i might risk it if i need another special order. Guaranteed 1 or 2 hits? Ill just take them if i need another special order no question. Still, the damage of 3-4 or 1-6 averages the same. 3-4 is a better choice because it isn't as extreme based on on single D6 roll. EIther it does next to nothing (roll a 1 or 2), or it is massive (5-6). 3-4 does make it more consistent and the NC becomes less game changing based on one dice role. BUT, I am willing to compromise.
I agree the boost to damage is not required if the accuracy is boosted. Although a 4,5, or 6 on a hit and a 1,2 or 3 on a miss would be sweet ;). and you are worried about rules that encourage spamming? 55% chance to do 4-6 damage?!? :o
So like i said with an accurate but large swing i think 1:500 is fine, accurate and increased chance of either more consistent average or just higher average damage then 1:750.
agree to disagree. I thought we were trying to make novas rare but powerful. This is just making it powerful but not more rare.
-
Oh im good with this:
what about this... D6 if touched by the hole, can lock on, Eldar can make you reroll scatter die, cancels with lock on, limit 1 per 750. necrons don't need special rules if we have the new reactive hull rules.
, Im just not sold on the need to restrict them to two at 1500. What i was trying to get across is that these rules should be fine at 1:500 and with a damage boost 1:750, its not really much of a boost anyway that other 45% of the time you going to do no damage (maybe one point on the scatter :/) and you would get less shots. But i can live with 750, just not sure how te nova lovers are going to feel about it :P.
-
I don't really know how I feel any more...I personally think that since everyone one of us working on BFG:R right now prefers balanced fleets, NC spam is not something we need to worry about. I personally would never run more than three in 1500pts, because you really lose out on torpedoes if you do. And therefore suck a lot more at close range, which is what your trying to close to as an IN player. I always felt the NC was intended, in BFG, to be used to soften up the enemy as you close in, right before you scatter/blow them to shit with your torpedoes and then turn to port and waste them with broadsides. I know there are many ways to play IN, but I never see long-range sniping as the way to go. So for me, restricting past 1:500 is pretty needless, when any player worth their salt is going to abide by that normally, even without it written down. Barring unique scenarios and purely casual silliness. ;)
-
Before making these rules, how many NCs would you consider NC spam at 1500 pts?
-
At 750 pts:
1-2 reasonable, 3 questionable 4+spam
At 1500pts:
1-3 reasonable, 4 questionable, 5+spam
Just my opinion, though. For some people 2 at 1500pts is mad spamming whereas others like their 4 dominator + admiral fleets at 750pts.
-
At 750 pts:
1-2 reasonable, 3 questionable 4+spam
At 1500pts:
1-3 reasonable, 4 questionable, 5+spam
Just my opinion, though. For some people 2 at 1500pts is mad spamming whereas others like their 4 dominator + admiral fleets at 750pts.
You can't have 4 novas at 750. 3 NCs is 570 minimum. That's 76% of your points into NC armed ships.
-
3 is the max at 750. Id be ok with 2 at anytime, id be ok with 4 in a 1500-2000 larger games? Im looking at facing about 10 at least this weekend (unless my admech buddy has decided on a new tactic...) plus the typical 2 or 3 that i expect the IN players to bring and im ok with that.
So what will the requirements be for Admech also?
-
OK, 1 per 500pts, D6 when the hole hits the base, lock on, 30-60cm D6 scatter, 61+cm 2D6. holofields make you reroll scatter dice, cancels with lock on.
-
Admech are going to be the issue now. Do they remain unrestricted, have the same 1:500, or something else? No more Nova armed capitols than those without a Nova?
Oh and the Tyrant issue, were still split on the matter.
-
@afterimagedan Errr...right, sorry about that. Logic escaped me there, but I caught it and its back in its cage.
@AndrewChristlieb 10 NC's? That's pretty spamarific. If IN is limited to 1:500, maybe 2:750 for AdMech? That would give them an extra one at 1500pts, along with more access.
I am quite happy with the profile presented below, with the 1:500 restriction of course (for IN anyway). As for the tyrant issue, as the most vocal supporter of no NC on it, I am changing my vote to allow it. As Sig has pointed out, it will almost never be used anyway, and even then only with the long range batteries...which costs a lot more than a dominator, so whatever. Community, you have won this round but I will be back :D ::)!
-
2:750 is what I was thinking too. Glad you came around to allowing the NC on the Tyrant! Ok, so it's official
Everyone, vote for those NC stats.
-
To be fair its looking like its going to be around 10k a side and probably something like 20 odd novas including one "massive" ground based Nova, havent quite worked that one out yet tho :/.
-
To be fair its looking like its going to be around 10k a side and probably something like 20 odd novas including one "massive" ground based Nova, havent quite worked that one out yet tho :/.
Dude, sounds like an awesome game. Keep up updated! Maybe some pictures?!
-
Ya Im going to be taking pics :) were still trying to work out the details tho so it might be another week :/. Right now were looking at a double Planetary assault and maybe the rules from Above Belis Corona for defenses and I have to figure out this moon based nova cannon all on an 8x8, maybe... ok theres a lot of maybes still :P.