Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on October 25, 2012, 04:37:05 AM
-
++BFG:R Imperial Navy++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Imperial%20Navy.pdf)
Besides the impending end of the Tyrant stat changing thread, does anyone else see changes that need to happen to the IN list before we call it "final?"
The only I can think of at this point is to vote on a change to the nova cannon. Personally, the rules that BFG:R have at this current moment have worked well in our games. The D3 hits when on the base but not the stem has been a good change, and the ability to lock-on has actually made the NC more of an option for me as opposed to torpedoes.
-
I'm all in for BFG:R NC rules; makes scattering way less effective, but the improved direct fire makes up for it, IMO.
Poll it up Danny Boy! ;D
-
Now that, presumably, we will have the new NC rules set in stone, who's ready for a vote to finalize the IN document with the NC rules included (the Holofield/NC rules will be in the Holofield document).
-
Vote! VOTE! VOOOTTTEEE!!!!
Let's go buddy. Let's lock this cee are ayy pee down for the count! Chaos should be pretty soon after, and it's a downward slope from there!
-
Votee? is that one of the people voting? Is one of those poeple me? Yes it is.
-
Toothpick being sharpened.
-
To stab me in the eye? Seems like you have a bone to pick (I jest) ;D
But seriously I completely see why you prefer to keep things simple; easier to adjucate. I just think sometimes a slighly liberal approach can yield strong results too!
-
Wasn't referring to you, just aiming at the pdf. lol ;D
Dan, some note:
Retribution mentions in the stats: prow torpedo salvo -- Imperial Torpedoes. Other vessels have just the standard: prow torpedoes -- 30cm.
It is incosistent. Some have it as Retribution, some as standard. I prefer standard layout for all.
AvengerDid anyone ever test this variant? I know the standard one is crap but this one seems pretty cool now...
TyrantWhere is the new profile!
Armegeddon list
List mentions Space Marines escorts & Vessels. But these ships are not in the document. Iffy.
-
Armegeddon list
List mentions Space Marines escorts & Vessels. But these ships are not in the document. Iffy.
Problem here is we're either including this, or putting a blurb in the SM document, which is jsut messy or IN players.
-
@ThaneAquilon Speaking of eye stabbing, apparently it's not just Sigoroth who is unleashing the retinal assault anymore I see.
I am thinking we could link the documents, keeping all Loyalist factions (IN, AdMech, SM) in one document. Keeps it simple to reference.
-
Oh hold on, what about inquisition/rogue trader?
@talos that seems like it could work, like the xenos document GW puts out.
-
Id say just put in the Armageddon list that they may select ships from the codex asteres list, similar to how bakka can take admech as battlecruisers.
What about bakka? Are we just abandoning it? Also what about the commanders? Is IN getting a special char or keeping rath, Point costs?
-
Oh hold on, what about inquisition/rogue trader?
They will be in later documents.
-
Id say just put in the Armageddon list that they may select ships from the codex asteres list, similar to how bakka can take admech as battlecruisers.
They were voted out in the original voting and the Sword was put back in.
What about bakka? Are we just abandoning it? Also what about the commanders? Is IN getting a special char or keeping rath, Point costs?
I was thinking we could vote on Bakka separately because it is generally held to need more work. Plus, it's a lot of changes ass opposed to Bastion vs Armageddon, for example.
-
Wasn't referring to you, just aiming at the pdf. lol ;D
Dan, some note:
Retribution mentions in the stats: prow torpedo salvo -- Imperial Torpedoes. Other vessels have just the standard: prow torpedoes -- 30cm.
It is incosistent. Some have it as Retribution, some as standard. I prefer standard layout for all.
AvengerDid anyone ever test this variant? I know the standard one is crap but this one seems pretty cool now...
TyrantWhere is the new profile!
Armegeddon list
List mentions Space Marines escorts & Vessels. But these ships are not in the document. Iffy.
I will get to work on these things. Mainly, the vote is about the rules and that sort of stuff. I will put the Tyrant stats in right now and fix the other stuff you mentioned.
-
I knew the rsvs got voted out, didnt realise that ALL soace marines got voted out of Armageddon.
-
They didn't Do you see something that's missing from the document?
-
Armegeddon list
List mentions Space Marines escorts & Vessels. But these ships are not in the document. Iffy.
Hmm, do you guys have the right document? I am looking at them right now.
-
Ok, I made the changes. All torpedoes say 30cm instead of "Imperial Torpedoes" now. Tyrant has ITS NEW PROFILE! ;D
-
Just noticed the Exorcist, Didn't it used to have an option for 30cm fpw10 batteries?
-
Just noticed the Exorcist, Didn't it used to have an option for 30cm fpw10 batteries?
Good eye! I'll fix that right now.
-
Last thing, since were closing up shop: why is the mars battlecruiser the only cruiser in the game without the extra turret? Can someone explain this?
And second, in BFG:R the dauntless CL has 2 turrets. Although there is no real justification for them, it was always odd that they are the only 1 turret vessel in IN, other than the cobra (which is, excepting unique vessels, apparently the smallest capable human warp vessel). It is designed for self-sufficient long-distance patrols, and having decent turrets would seem like a must have. Just me?
-
Both the Mars and the Overlord have it as an upgrade from 2 to 3. I'm confused.
-
Yes yes but every other carrier has one more turret in its profile than other cruisers;dictator has 3 vs. 2 for IN cruisers, devastation has 3 vs. 2 for Chaos cruisers, hero and protector have 3 (in a vacuum) etc...
I just find it odd that the mars does not come with the turret stock, that's all. And that the dauntless has less as well.
-
Not sure why the Mars is like that.
-
It is because they could.
-
Could be a similar reasoning as for the repulsive's oddities. The other thing is the mars was the first battlecruiser, right? There have been advances since then.
-
No the Repulsive was meant to be 2 shields and to be shipped with a small base.
Then GW started shipping the model (after first batches) with a large base. So the 3shield rule was created.
-
Ahh, my understanding was that Grand cruisers having 3 shields was a standardisation that happpened after the creation of the repulsive (I didn't mean the base thing).
-
That too.
I always though it was a mixup between the acheron and the mars...mars has two (but is a carrier) and acheron has three (one more than a standard cruiser, but is not a carrier). Strange little mix ups that don't really get justified.
Just me then that wants the acheron at 2 and the mars at 3? Neither ship is crippled/overpowered, but this would make a lot more sense.
-
While we're there, something else that occured to me recently.
The standard Chaos hull. 8hit, 2shield, 2turret, 45degree turn 25cm speed
The standard IN hull. 8hit, 2shield, 2turret, 45degree turn 20cm speed
Why did the Imperium downgrade their hulls when the heresy happend?
(@Talos You do not have my vote for that change;p)
-
Supposed to be loss of more advanced technology as time goes on. Either that or the armoured prow slows IN down ;)
Do agree with the Mars's turret, though. back to 270 it is! ;D
-
Because the IN lost a lot of tech and they ditched designs that happened to attract Chaos influences and build vessels that were better warp protected.
And you do know that the Imperial Navy has a tighter turn. A full circle without special orders is in favour of the IN.
Na, Acheron must stay 3 because it is like cool. And the Mars lowered points and got the option. Yay all.
-
@horizon...And that makes you, like, cool? Did I miss my mark? ;D
But seriously, that's the in-game justification? The acheron gets three turrets because its cool? Emperor BB with 25 shields would be pretty cool too... :P
And as for the mars, grumble grumble but point taken.
-
yeah, i know about the turns, but it seems to me like something so widely used as a plasma drive in every signe ship produced wouldn't get lost. The could've just ported the drive into what is now the IN cruiser, and it would still go faster. I guess the armoured prow is a..decent explination.
-
And perhaps the plasma drive is the source of infestation. ;)
@ Talos, no. No other justification. :)
-
The Acheron really needs the boost to help justify its cost too tho, as it is its just barely a Heavy imo being woefully undergunned for its weight. I always found it funny that carriers have better anti ordinance than gunships but it is a point, the Mars also gains the 3rd turret for free already tho so I see no real problem.
-
@AndrewChristlieb Wait wait wait a sec...what do you mean the mars gets it for free? As far as I know it has 2 turret stock and mus purchase a third.
As for acheron, I don't think it should have it from a flavor perspective, but you are right that it barely outguns a regular chaos cruiser as is, so...
-
Mars got a price drop of 10points and the option to take the extra turret for 10 points. I just take them at the old cost and add the turret. Sorry didnt intend to confuse.
-
Ehm, no wrong on the Acheron.
The Acheron is the best mid range cruiser Chaos has to offer. It outguns every other cruiser with focusable fire in the 45cm range department.
And that ofr 200pts is good.
An excellent support ship.
/
Mars need to pay 10pts per FAQ2010 of 3rd turret (same applies to Overlord).
-
@horizon Really? Huh, maybe I am underestimating it. It teams up really well with carnages, admittedly. But again, no one has given a single good reason for why it of all vessels breaks the mold and has 3 turrets. It just doesn't make sense to me.
-
Fluffwise there is justification. It was test bed vessel using Xenos technology. Only one was made by the Navy. Chaos took it and copied it.
I buggered it, it is even 190pts, not 200pts.
Discussing the ship further should be transferred to the Chaos thread.
-
I touched up the document to look more clean, mainly cleaning up the lines on the side, etc. Hey, two people who voted no on finalizing this document: what needs to change? I am unaware of even suggested changes at this point.
-
I had some ideas shot my way by Talos:
"-Open up voting for Defiant; normal profile, dorsal battery profile, batteries instead of lances (dropped cost as per Sig, additional prow batteries profile seem to be the contenders.
-BFG:R has the Dauntless at 2 turret; perhaps general discussion is in order, poll maybe not even necessary.
-Adress Command Structure; keep original or (my hope anyway) revise and reduce costs like plaxor did, which also means reworking Battlefleet Cadia. Originally a cool concept, but as we played and discussed an modified stuff it's pretty obvious that a 50pt captain with a reroll is not worth the leadership drop or 50pts."
I don't think we should bring up a vote on the Defiant because that has already been voted on to go with Horizon's profile.
I am going to lock the poll until we have a discussion about the Dauntless turret and command structure.
-
Oops....forgot that the prfoile had actually been voted on....sorry horizon :-[
-
Oops....forgot that the prfoile had actually been voted on....sorry horizon :-[
But, you make good points about Battlefleet Cadia and the Dauntless.
-
I dont know about the extra turret, the Dauntless already packs alot into its price. Not nearly as much as the Voss light cruisers tho (that 6+ prow with no negatives is a hugh boost to value) so I guess it would be alright.
Fleet commanders, I like Plaxors approach with the commanders:
Fleet Admiral 50 points leadership 8
Admiral 75 points leadership 9
Solar Admiral 100 points leadership 10
Re-rolls 25 points each, maximum of +3
Secondary commanders, Im not so much a fan of the +1 leadership one reroll commander from BFG-R (30pts). Should be like Chaos Lords:
Veteran Captian 25 points leadership 8
May purchase one extra reroll for 25 points.
-
It's just weird that the veteran captain is the same thing as a fleet admiral for half the points. But yes, I am more in favor of Plaxor's layout.
-
Veteran captians do not come with a free reroll, fleet admirals do. The admirals also have access to additional rerolls something that the captian does not. So fleet admiral is ld8 w/rr for 50, vets are ld8 for 25 and may purchase one reroll for 25, no more.
-
Veteran captians do not come with a free reroll, fleet admirals do. The admirals also have access to additional rerolls something that the captian does not. So fleet admiral is ld8 w/rr for 50, vets are ld8 for 25 and may purchase one reroll for 25, no more.
True, true. Good call. Forgot about that. What do you think about the points cost of Veteran Captains?
-
I am thinking more like 60-75pts
-
It really depends on which direction we are taking the game, and on how important you find the characters to be. Personnaly, I don't like that that Admirals cost points out of your ship total, thus depriving you of upgrades/vessels. It only makes sense that the better the admiral, the bigger the fleet, you know?
I always thought that Admirals should be free and at a static value; Ld 8 up to 1000pts, Ld 9 up to 2000pts, Ld 10 at 2001pts+. Only if you want a better admiral than the stock one should you have to pay, and to add a bit of flavor I thought they should have a unique minor ability, sort of like Warlord Traits from W40K only much better done. Veteran captains would be similar, getting one freebee at 750pts or less, 2 at 1500pts or less and 3 at 2250pts or less, so on and so forth. Like the admirals if they want a reroll then the player can fork out some points.
But due to the fact that my blasphemous and innovative ideas are anathema to most gaming groups, I shall only say that I too approve of the BFG:R captains, except that I also think that 60-75pts it had better come with some pretty good benefits; you can get 1-3 escorts for that price.
-
But due to the fact that my blasphemous and innovative ideas are anathema to most gaming groups, I shall only say that I too approve of the BFG:R captains, except that I also think that 60-75pts it had better come with some pretty good benefits; you can get 1-3 escorts for that price.
+1LD on ANY ship you want (even after you roll) plus 1 reroll for that ship/squad is a great boost. Worth 50pts-75pts? Certainly can be. I'm actually mentally walking back down to 50pts for the Veteran captain, due to the fact that you can only use the RR in their squad.
-
I really despise the +1 leadership option but i suppose it can work well for them, although it should have a cap of 9 like chaos lords from the 13th if we do that. The restrictions stating they must lead a squadron and that their reroll (if they have one) can only be used for their squadron should remain in place.
Why would a vet be 75 points o_O. Giving them the option to purchase the reroll seperatly keeps the price down so they become an option in smaller games.
I also agree with the fixed point values getting a free admiral and have been saying that they should be more like campaigns for a long time, but that is a really big change. Its one thing to adjust the ridiculous costs, another entirely to try putting in something compleatly different.
-
Alright, so could you guys put together a list of how it should look and we can vote? I agree with where you guys are going with it. Also, how expensive would you make the veteran captain if it didn't come with a RR, and how much would the RR option (considering it would only work with 1 ship) cost?
-
Fleet commanders:
Fleet Admiral 50 points leadership 8
Admiral 75 points leadership 9
Solar Admiral 100 points leadership 10
Re-rolls: Fleet commanders receive one re-roll included in their cost and may select upto 3 additional re-rolls for 25 points each.
Secondary commanders:
Veteran Captian 25 points leadership 8
May purchase one extra reroll for 25 points.
As previously stated this is what I believe the command structrue for IN should look like.
I can maybe see a price drop to 20 points for the Veteran Captians reroll due to the limited use but its not something I believe is nesscarry.
Likewise the option of +1 leadership instead of a set leadership 8 has been presented and I believe this would be an acceptable alternative at the same cost, althought I far perfer the set value. If the option of +1 leadership is selected I would advise a maximum leadership of 9, note that unlike a standard commander which replaces the base ships leadership with his own this would modify the base ships leadership allowing for a value of 7-9 (maximum before other modifiers).
-
Fleet commanders:
Fleet Admiral 50 points leadership 8
Admiral 75 points leadership 9
Solar Admiral 100 points leadership 10
Re-rolls: Fleet commanders receive one re-roll included in their cost and may select upto 3 additional re-rolls for 25 points each.
Secondary commanders:
Veteran Captian 25 points leadership 8
May purchase one extra reroll for 25 points.
As previously stated this is what I believe the command structrue for IN should look like.
I can maybe see a price drop to 20 points for the Veteran Captians reroll due to the limited use but its not something I believe is nesscarry.
Likewise the option of +1 leadership instead of a set leadership 8 has been presented and I believe this would be an acceptable alternative at the same cost, althought I far perfer the set value. If the option of +1 leadership is selected I would advise a maximum leadership of 9, note that unlike a standard commander which replaces the base ships leadership with his own this would modify the base ships leadership allowing for a value of 7-9 (maximum before other modifiers).
Agreed on the max 9 thing. I have always like the pluses to leadership instead of the set number. Would we be getting rid of the veteran captains ability to choose after leaderships are rolled?
-
Well thats a tricky one. I would say that they should be in charge of their own squadron, but squadrons are determined after rolling for leadership. I would think it would be ok for the vets to be placed after squadron selection. It will allow them to be placed on a ship that already has a higher leadership, but the real benifit to a leader comes from their ability to raise a mediocre ship to good leadership, an 8 is good already but if you have a pair that gets a 6/7 theyre the ones that need that boost more. It also helps to keep down on rules as thats when fleet commanders are placed already.
-
Well thats a tricky one. I would say that they should be in charge of their own squadron, but squadrons are determined after rolling for leadership. I would think it would be ok for the vets to be placed after squadron selection. It will allow them to be placed on a ship that already has a higher leadership, but the real benifit to a leader comes from their ability to raise a mediocre ship to good leadership, an 8 is good already but if you have a pair that gets a 6/7 theyre the ones that need that boost more. It also helps to keep down on rules as thats when fleet commanders are placed already.
So keep it how it is? I don't see how that's different than the current rules.
-
Two things:
1) In the current rules, BF Cadia has to pick the worst of two leadership rolls just to have the option of getting captains; there should be no such penalty and the captain should be available to all fleets. If we keep the penalty, we should allow BFC to get the captains at a reduced price, or even a free one to fit with the established fluff and make the overall leadership penalty worthwhile.
2) We are making the reroll an option instead of being forced to take it.
-
Two things:
1) In the current rules, BF Cadia has to pick the worst of two leadership rolls just to have the option of getting captains; there should be no such penalty and the captain should be available to all fleets. If we keep the penalty, we should allow BFC to get the captains at a reduced price, or even a free one to fit with the established fluff and make the overall leadership penalty worthwhile.
2) We are making the reroll an option instead of being forced to take it.
So basically, you can buy a veteran captain and it adds +1ld to a ship after you roll LD values and make squads but it does not come with a RR. Right?
-
That's what I have gathered so far.
-
Ok, then how much do you think we should price it at, knowing you can put the VC on a ship after LD is rolled? And I'm assuming 25pts for 0-1 RR for him?
-
Yup, 25 pts for a reroll, max of one. And that would make the captian 25 points. Or you could do the captian at 30 and the reroll at 20 or any combo really so ling as the total for both doesnt go over 50, otherwise its not worth the cost.
-
But with this cheap Ld boost or re-roll boost, who wouldn't load on to them?
Will there be a restriction?
-
30/20 seems appropriate.
-
In Plaxor's BFG:R, The Eldar (Corsair variety) Have Gryphon Knight sub commanders, which give +1Ld for 25pts. I can't remember if they get rerolls or not...
-
Eldar MMS 1.9b:
Corsair Eldar
0-3 Gryphon Knight .. 25pts
Ships led by Gryphon Knights may attempt a command check even if one has been
failed this turn.
Craftworld Eldar
0-3 Farseer .. 15pts
Furthermore you may include three extra Farseers, purchased at 15 points, in your fleet, each whom must be assigned to a ship and gives their vessel a re-roll which may be used on this ship only. A Farseer may be placed aboard a Ghostship.
-
Veteran captian would in my mind be 0-5 25 pts, may purchase a reroll for 25 pts. They must lead a squadron and their reroll may only be used for their ship or squadron.
-
Sounds good. That's essencialy the same Chaos Lords right? Only they don't need to be assigned to squads. The limit of 5 seems a little high. I know the leadership for the Cadian list could put you a disadvantage, so a limit of 5 suited them, Otherwise 3 would be good number, brings it level with the Chaos lords.
-
I just think we need to be more clear about what we are trying to accomplish. If we are trying to basically have a Chaos Lord variant for IN, then let's make that. If we are trying to have a specific character type for those who are playing Battlefleet Cadia, let's do that. Or, we can do both.
1. Personally, if we make a Chaos Lord variant for IN, it should be allowed in each fleet. Every Chaos fleet has a Chaos Lord choice but none of the IN fleets have secondary characters.
2. I would like to see Battlefleet Cadia be somewhat usable. At this point, it's a terrible option. The fact that your entire fleet has to roll 2 dice and pick the lowest for LD is atrocious. Yes, they can pick Veteran Captains, but I don't think that makes up for the downside. Even at 25pts, I don't think it's worth going with BFC.
-
Well, I would like to see every fleet get some form of Chaos lord option (weather Gryphon knights or whatever flavor) with the possible exception of Tau, who have a weirdly costed command structure. For all these fleets, including Chaos, I'd also say that to put the leader in a squadron should be a choice, representing bringing in an outside commander, highly lauded with his own ship, to whom a squad is assigned, if you so wish. (Example could be a Thousand sons fleet bringing in an Emperor's children carrier that is Marked, without other Children ships. The captain of that ship could be a celebrated Chaos Lord)
-
It is a little strange that some lists get a secondary commander wile others don't so adding veteran captains (Lord captains?) does redress that.
Rather than rolling Ld for Cadia as is, would saying that ships with Ld 6-7 MUST Form squadron with another ship of higher Ld, whenever possible. But then, don't most people do this anyway? Know I do.
As for Tau, they have Kor'el and Kor'O, why not have Kor'Vre? Has the Air cast leadership structure ever been described more fully in any of the Rogue Trader books?
-
Tau are mostly in Deathwatch, I believe. But in the Tau Codex it explains pretty clearly the basic structure as being pretty similar to the Shas.
As I said, I think every list, every race should get sub-commanders of some kind.
-
Seconded.
-
Agreed.
-
Okay, well will we follow the
50pt ld+1(max 9, unless racially higher) 1RR, 100pts ld+2(max 9 unless racially higher) 2RR
Subs - max 3@ 25pts Ld+1(max 9 unless racially higher) 0-1 RR each for 25pts usable only on his ship/squadron
Personally I think the Ld +2 one should set the max to Ld10, to represent legendary leadership (also to make it more useful) but possible for his ship only, that way it makes it worth it to use you higher leadership rolls on him. (also putting him on the Emperor battleship/Custodian/Biggest Chaos ship becomes more appealing).
As an aside, what is the leadership max for corsair eldar? I thinks it's 9, but I think it should be 10.
Also should subs have the Gryphon Knight ability included/as an upgrade, that is to continue to be able to do Ld checks with that squadron after having failed one?
-
Corsairs are ld7-10 their PP is 10.
*edit*
I dont know how everyone else feels but a ??simplified?? leadership chart that covers all the races would be nice. Something like:
Eldar(all)/ SM
1=7
2-3=8
4-5=9
6=10
Human/ Tau/ Necron
1=6
2-3=7
4-5=8
6=9
Pirates/ Orks/ Merchants
1-2=6
3-4=7
5-6=8
-
I take it Admech would come under Human?
Does make more conveinient to list Ld's like this, and makes it easier for Orks (not sure how many SM players would like it though ;D)
-
I'm fine with that format. Do SM usually get better leadership than that? I thought they had the same as eldar? Also I thought Admech had eldar leadership as welll.
-
SM get only 8-10 LD, and AdMech get 7-9 (basically like imperials, but can't get a six.
-
Oh, so they both get slightly worse simply to standardise? Aren't both those fleets a little underpowered anyway?
-
Very true...but not a huge loss for AdMech, and SM still have the best leader hands down, so probably not too crippling...also, with the new changes AdMech and SM may very well be strong and competitive (SM bombardment cannon spam is already pretty good, as the tournaments have shown us...)
-
Very true...but not a huge loss for AdMech, and SM still have the best leader hands down, so probably not too crippling...also, with the new changes AdMech and SM may very well be strong and competitive (SM bombardment cannon spam is already pretty good, as the tournaments have shown us...)
SM bombardment cannon spam is powerful and unreasonably good. That's why it's better to make the SM strike cruiser bombardment cannon upgrade to 3FP instead of 5fp.
Anyways, I don't think we should change the leadership charts. I do think adding secondary commanders is a good thing though.
-
So now that we've got subcomanders down, and we've updated ships...is that it for IN, are we done? (aside from proof-reading) Or are we reworking the general fleet lists as well?
-
Bakka? Even if the fleet list is dropped the ships should remain. I dont know if the fleet lists really need reworking, the only ones that are really "bad" are Bakka and maybe Armageddon.
-
Out of curiosity, what do people not like about Bakka (potentially Armageddon)? I have my own problems with them, but why do other people dislike them?
-
I'm surprised, honestly. I figured at 1500 Bakka would be a pretty good fleet, being able to either res in Dictators or use an Emp (which I am under the impression is in it's fleet list) With some standard lunar pairs or Gothic with Dominator groupings. Having the higher turret rating seems really solid. And being able to use admech is just icing. Am I completely wrong? (clearly, but please enlighten me as to why)
If I'm wrong and the Emperor is not in its list, is that what makes the list "bad"? Cuz that's a pretty telling indication of the state of the IN fleet if that's the case...
-
The Emperor is reserve only in Bakka, unless you take the special character, who is 200 points and can only be played in 1500pts+. It is true that you can reserve in a dictator, and if you do so and grab a dominion battlecruiser you will have the required 8+LB for IN. They have a pretty restricted escort list, I suppose. And they can't touch all the gunships, including the overlord, surprisingly.
By the By, are we keeping the Chalice Battlecruiser? If we keep Bakka, it would fit in... swimmingly. And with which profile? A few were discussed, I will see if I can find the thread.
-
If we're talking the Bakka list, what about the Victory? Does it have any fans out there, can't ever remember taking it myself. Yes you do suffer for AC, but get Free access to extra turrets and the Fleet Defence Batteries. As for no Overlord, what's wrong with the Mercury?
What do people dislike about the Armageddon list? OK you don't get Dominators as standard, but you gain SM ships as per your normal choices and a Battlecruiser for every cruiser.
Working with a lists strengths/weaknesses is what keeps it fresh for me, nothing worse than doing the same stuff over and over.
-
@Bessemer I agree that every fleet list should have a feel to it, a few combinations that just are not possible with other lists. But people seem to think that Bakka is questionably powerful, and Armageddon too apparently?
I do think the lists should be revised somewhat to account for the fact that many new ships were introduced since inception.
-
No problems with any list. Let all of them as is.
-
Bakka adds lots of cheap turrets AND really good carrier options...
Armageddon allows extra battlecruisers for no apparent downside...
-
I would really like to wait on bakka personally.
Any consensus on the dauntless turret issue? there was a pretty nice thread on the older specialist games where some people had some good points about it having 2 turrets.
There are a lot of ideas going around about IN secondary commanders. Could someone (probably andrewchristlieb) make a statement like "I propose (insert change)" and we can tweak and vote?
-
It looks like the current proposal is as follows (for IN anyway), based on BFG:R and this discussion:
Ld 8 50pts
Ld 9 75pts
Ld 10 100pts
+1 Reroll 25pts
+2 Reroll 50pts
+3 Reroll 75pts
Secondary Commanders (Uncertain as to quantity, 0-3 maybe?)
25pts +1Ld/Ld 8 (tossup)
+1 Reroll 25pts
Does that sound like our current thing? Just modify from this list and then toss up the proposal.
-
To add, fleet leaders come with 1 RR automatically
3 max for subs for sure.
I prefer +1 Ld, if only to put them on the Emperor ;) Also if you super lucksack it out, and get a fleet with 9s, you don't want to be penalized.
-
I think the wordings on fleet commanders should say; this value replaces only the usual rolled value; it is then modified as per normal, meaning that it can be boosted by ships that improve leadership normally. Or they can specify that they cannot lower a ship's leadership, regardless of value.
-
Bakka adds lots of cheap turrets AND really good carrier options...
Armageddon allows extra battlecruisers for no apparent downside...
' kay. Bakka could need a look.
Armageddon:
No Retribution
No Overlord
No Grand Cruisers
No Dauntless
No Dominator
Standard IN Escorts +5pts
Plus 1:1 battlecruiser vs cruiser means less ships, or more points spend on 2 ships.
-
It looks like the current proposal is as follows (for IN anyway), based on BFG:R and this discussion:
Ld 8 50pts
Ld 9 75pts
Ld 10 100pts
+1 Reroll 25pts
+2 Reroll 50pts
+3 Reroll 75pts
Secondary Commanders (Uncertain as to quantity, 0-3 maybe?)
25pts +1Ld/Ld 8 (tossup)
+1 Reroll 25pts
Does that sound like our current thing? Just modify from this list and then toss up the proposal.
And what about veteran captains for Battlefleet Cadia? I suppose it should be less than the secondary commanders knowing that they get the crappy leadership.
-
For Cadia, the limit for VC's was 5 iirc, and came with 1RR as standard (50pts).
Using the proposed rules, you could just us the VC;s to get the Ld bonus and save on taking RR's. The limit of 5 seems OK. In fact just been looking at the 13th BC list and there's NO limit for Lords!
As for the proposed Commanders, I'm more in favour of: 50pts +1 Ld (Max 9)
100 +2 Ld
Gets rid of any chance of having a ship with Ld 9 getting a Ld8 commander! The VC is fine by me tho.
As for the Dauntless, why not just add an option for +1 turret (+10 pts)?
-
What about this... The VCs for BFC are the same as the secondary commanders but are placed after LD is rolled. They can both be 25pts for +1 ld (max ld9) and 25pts for 0-1 RR. Cool?
-
I always thought you placed comanders and such after rolling Ld anyway, don't tell me I've been doing this wrong all this time... :o
-
I always thought you placed comanders and such after rolling Ld anyway, don't tell me I've been doing this wrong all this time... :o
I have always played it that you place the commander when you pay for the ships, etc. THEN, you roll Ld values, THEN form up the squadrons. The reason I think the VCs are nice is because you can place them after all this.
-
Talos Bessemer did it correct.
First Ld roll, then admiral placement, then squadrons.
-
I have been swayed.
Veteran captian 0-3 Must be assigned to a squadron.
+1 leadership for 30 points
May purchase upto one reroll for 15 points, this reroll may only be used for the veterans ship or squadron.
Cadia may take upto 5 veterans at a cost of 25 points each to represent the large number of highly trained officers.
-
I prefer the 25pt buy(+1ld), 25 pt RR.
-
I have been swayed.
Veteran captian 0-3 Must be assigned to a squadron.
+1 leadership for 30 points
May purchase upto one reroll for 15 points, this reroll may only be used for the veterans ship or squadron.
Cadia may take upto 5 veterans at a cost of 25 points each to represent the large number of highly trained officers.
Why does the Veteran captain have to be squadroned in the non-cadia fleet? I mean, Chaos lords don't have to do that.
1. The regular non-cadia fleet; are we looking to make it like Chaos Lords? I am thinking Secondary Commander 25pts Ld8 +25pts for 0-1 RR.
2. Cadian Fleet: they have a negative in their leadership problem. They need some sort of positive to make up for it. At this point, they are pretty much just worse than every other imperial fleet.
"You may wait until after rolling for
leadership before deciding which ships to
assign your veteran captains to."
This statement in the BFC rules makes it seem like you regularly cannot roll for Ld then apply commanders but that these VCs have the ability and that's how players of BFC make up for their crap leadership. If we are going to make it clear that everyone can now apply their commanders to their ships AFTER leadership is rolled, then this bonus of the VC is not a bonus anymore. They need some other bonus to make them exceptional so that BFC doesn't just suck OR we need to change/implement something else that makes BFC a usable choice.
-
I see, so what your proposing is-
1. Bastion Fleets- Place Commanders, roll Leadership, Place VC's, form squadrons.
2. Other fleets- Place commanders, place VC's, roll Leadership, form squadrons.
Did I get that right? I can live with that.
-
Well I guess it does make sense that the fleet commanders are placed before leadership is rolled when you put it like that...
I dont think we should be trying to emulate Chaos Lords for IN. Theyre both very different and I see no issue in restricting them to leading squadrons as this represents what a senior captian would infact be doing (Commodore in the Royal Navy, and actually a much better name IMO than Veteran Captian)
So what we are down to is a decision of wither to make them a flat leadership 8 which I would price at 25 points or +1 leadership (max of 9) which I would price at 30 points.
One fleet commander reroll available is apparently agreed upon. As stated I see the limited use rerolls being priced lower, to 15 points as in MMS (I would apply this change to the Chaos lord also if its adopted).
Cadia it seems is agreed that they should have upto 5 and I would also apply a 5 point per unit discount to help offset the leadership penalty.
-
Agreed on limited rerolls being cheaper along with cadia discount.
-
I disagree Dan.
Picked from Ships of Mars pdf:
FLEET COMMANDER
0-1 Mechanicus Archmagos
You may include 1 Mechanicus Archmagos in your fleet, which
must be assigned to a ship and replaces its Leadership with the
value shown. If the fleet is worth 1,000 points or more, a
Mechanicus Archmagos must be included to lead it.
Very clear wording: Fleet Commander replaces Leadership (rolled for).
And here, from the Official Rulebook page :
Fleet Commander.Your fleet can be led by a commander, such as an Imperial Admiral, Chaos Warmaster, Eldar Prince or Ork Warlord. Your Fleet Commander's leadership supersedes that of the vessel it is assigned to, even if it is lower!
and page 115:
0-1 Admiral
You may include 1 Admiral in your fleet, who must be assigned to a ship and improves its Leadership to the value shown. If the fleet is worth over 750 points an Admiral must be included to lead it.
I think these examples show that fleet commanders improve (or lower) the ship's rolled value.
Lowering happens in case of Chaos per example (most expensive ship).
-
I'm convinced.
But that means that whoever wrote the still for BFC didn't know the rules or played them like I did (wrongly). So yes, considering I had this wrong, BFC needs a drastic change.
-
Ok, so I favor this:
Ld 8 50pts
Ld 9 75pts
Ld 10 100pts
+1 Reroll 25pts
+2 Reroll 50pts
+3 Reroll 75pts
Secondary Commanders 0-3
30pts +1Ld
+1 Reroll 15pts
Battlefleet Cadia:
Leadership for all ships 2D6, apply the lowest.
Veteran Captain 0-5
15pts +1LD
+1 Reroll 15pts
Here's my argument: The average Ld for the regular IN is 7.5 and the average Ld for BFC is 7 (is went through the math). IN has a 50% change to get Ld 6-7 and BFC has 75% to get Ld 6-7. About 3% to get Ld 9. The negative of this leadership problem will probably show up in 3-4 squadrons in BFC because of heavy heavily forced squadrons. Because of this, BFC will need to take probably 2-3 VCs to make up for the leadership problem, totaling 40-60pts. This is a Sword escort or two. The -15pts to the VCs helps account for it. That will be a 30-45pts made up for it, depending on how far you want to go. This will help make up for the downside.
-
Looks good, mate. Your solution to the Cadian Problem seems reasonable too. Will we be voting on this?
-
Yep. let's vote if we hear mainly agreement and no contradictory convincing evidence.
-
Here's my argument: The average Ld for the regular IN is 7.5 and the average Ld for BFC is 7 (is went through the math). IN has a 50% change to get Ld 6-7 and BFC has 75% to get Ld 6-7. About 3% to get Ld 9. The negative of this leadership problem will probably show up in 3-4 squadrons in BFC because of heavy heavily forced squadrons. Because of this, BFC will need to take probably 2-3 VCs to make up for the leadership problem, totaling 40-60pts. This is a Sword escort or two. The -15pts to the VCs helps account for it. That will be a 30-45pts made up for it, depending on how far you want to go. This will help make up for the downside.
More support for this argument:
Upgrade for +1 Ld is +20pts for the Vengeance. This is increasingly more important because it has a 50% change to have a higher leadership than a BFC Vengeance (depending on the number). Ships will have .5 less leadership, squadrons will help mitigate that but it pretty much forces squadrons. You will have about 2 squadrons per 1500pt game at -1 Ld, which costs about -40pts (based on vengeance point cost) total. So, BFC is a 20pt penalty per 750pts of a game.
Therefore we want about 2-3 VCs to make up for it to be about about 15 pts less (total at 30-45pts less than the regular IN fleet) considering it makes up for the LD decrease and a way to make up for it, but also forcing some squadroning to make up for it. 3 VCs make up for the BFC Ld problem and more, but also demands squadroning.
Conclusion: 15pt VC with 0-1 RR at +15pts is the best option for BFC.
-
Sounds good to me.
-
Good I think.
-
Good solution I think; on to the voting I suppose. ;)
-
The Endeavor smothermans out to 125.5 and that's not including the boarding bonus they get.
The Endurance smothermans out to 125.5 without the boarding bonus.
The Defiant smothermans out to 126.2.
I propose the Endeavor light cruisers be moved back to a 45 degree move and each of them put at 115pts.
-
Nope, disagree altogether.
90* + 6+ prow is a must.
/signed the Voss team ;)
-
I'm fine with that but 125pts is what they should cost if we do that.
-
Eh, 90* and 6+ is crap imo and not needed at all infact the entire option for 90* turns are not needed. They are seriously underpriced tho.
-
Then the Dauntless even more. A Dauntless can eat Endeavours. Because of its weaponry plus speed & turns.
-
O_o in what alternate reality are Dauntless better than Endurance lol.
-
O_o in what alternate reality are Dauntless better than Endurance lol.
Speed, turns, first shot, damage inflicting capacity and first shot:
A torp dauntless can destroy an Endeavour with 1 salvo.
-
An Iconoclast can destroy a Dauntless in one turn, doesnt make it very likely tho. I like Daunts but I just dont see them being better. The Endurance is tougher and their armament is better suited to supporting other cruisers directly instead of acting as heavy escorts like Daunts. When exploited to their strenghts they are quite superior especially in Armageddon lists when you can partner them with a battlecruiser for some cheap smackdown. These were fine at 120, the extra turns are not required for their role and suits only to drive the cost up. An extra shield option sounds ok but then Strike cruisers are pretty overpowered with 2 shields @160 and I dont see an Endurance being any less overpowered for its price with 2 shields @125-140.