Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on October 28, 2012, 02:29:53 AM
-
We are really close with Chaos. Anything that needs to change before it's final?
-
Well cosmetics, little things like page numbers and such. How does everyone feel about the FAQ additions, CSM, Abbadon (and all the commanders/ marks) and Daemon ships.
-
When it's all said and done and the rules are completed, I will go touch up the cosmetic stuff.
-
Er, what's the progress on Chaos?
-
It's ready for review. I forgot to put the link in this thread but it's in the "Finishing BFG:R" thread. Here it is:
++BFG:R Chaos Fleets++ (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Chaos%20Fleets.pdf)
-
I feel we should implement plaxor's take on the Marks of Chaos. As it stands they are an expensive upgrade, especially when tacked on to the price of a Warmaster/Chaos Lord/CSM crew. Do not know much about daemon ships, but they also seem pretty pricy, especially when you factor in their mark as well.
-
Plaxor's approach is way better and I highly support moving to that method. In the current method, taking a mark on your ship is a minimum of 70pts PER SHIP in the Chaos Incursion fleet and 50pts per ship in the Black Crusade fleet. It's also kind of a joke to me that in the fleets for each chaos god, you can still only take marks on vessels that have a chaos lord or warmaster. You mean to tell me that you cannot take the mark of Khorne on every cruiser in your berzerker fleet of Khorne?!
-
Only champions of chaos get marked so why should any old ship get that benifit? I dont know about CSM getting the option either but i guess theres a better chance of a CSM ship gaining the favor of a god than some pirates.
-
Only champions of chaos get marked so why should any old ship get that benifit? I dont know about CSM getting the option either but i guess theres a better chance of a CSM ship gaining the favor of a god than some pirates.
My point is, why can't each ship in the Berzerker fleet have a mark of khorne? That seems ridiculous to me.
-
They can, i have built such a fleet, use CSM. Yes its pricy but with the additional benifits they should be a bit more pricy.
-
I don't know about more pricey but the CSM and a mark is well worth it. I guess having CSM and a mark makes sense but it still seems weird to me that you would have to have a lord, warmaster, or CSMs to have a mark. Either way, not a biggie to me.
-
Well lets work out the command structrue for chaos then.
Points of interest:
Abbadon: yes no? price and abilities
Commanders: price, leadership, ability to take marks, most expensive ship and anything else you can think of.
CSM: the same mainly cost and what they add but also what marks if any they can take and whatever else that comes up.
Marks: price and function basically
Rerolls?
Daemon ships: not really command but its in there somewhere Nd theyre widly reguarded as poo.
-
So yeah, I agree marks/leaders need work, but just a quick note, and I may have overlooked this, but there isn't a fleet list that uses the Vengeful Spirit that I saw. The other thing, other legions should be able to use marks. I get that fluff-wise the Alpha Legion or the Night Lords don't get as into Chaos as Emperor's Children, but mechanically we shouldn't punish players for painting their fleet the way they want.
-
Well lets work out the command structrue for chaos then.
Points of interest:
Abbadon: yes no? price and abilities
Keep him. I think he is fine as is
Commanders: price, leadership, ability to take marks, most expensive ship and anything else you can think of.
I like the original BFG:R method where they are each 15pts, you can take them on any cruiser, and they have a smaller effect than the old marks. If we do keep the old marks, I think they should be priced a a little lower and streamlined throughout the different fleet lists. Slaanesh to 20pts, Khorne to 15pts. Tzeentch 15pts. Nurgle, 25pts.
CSM: the same mainly cost and what they add but also what marks if any they can take and whatever else that comes up.
they seem fine to me
Marks: price and function basically
Rerolls?
Seems weird that chaos incursion list fleets cannot buy an extra re-roll. I guess they are allowing him to take multiple marks. Maybe this should be changed?
Daemon ships: not really command but its in there somewhere Nd theyre widly reguarded as poo.\
I don't have enough input to add here.
-
CSM: What about a 5 pts drop because their boarding bonus is partly superflous?
As for Chaos Marks, agreed with Thane about legion limitations; restrictions for aligned legions obviously, but that's it.
As for Marks, like afterimagedan I feel like these should be allowed without a CSM/Chaos Lord/Warmaster. It just fits chaos, and it's not like they have so many cheap upgrades kicking around to clutter their stats ;D...
Mark of Khorne: 15pts sounds fine, cheap but effective, could be more but a limited tactic so its fine.
Mark of Tzeench: 20pts sounds fine, ok on regular ships but extra potent on carriers (BFG:R profile of course)
Mark of Slanesh: 20pts seems a little steep for this, especially considering limited range. I suggest either boosting range or lowering price, as this becomes pretty useful if any ship can be marked.
Mark of Nurgle: 25pts is fairly steep for this; the extra hit is worth 10 pts, so 15pt for the ability to not be boarded? Most fleets just H&R anyways, so my suggestion is 20pts.
I think all fleets should use a standardized reroll price, on every single list IMO.
Again I have no real opinion on daemon ships, but have also heard they are crappy.
-
As a quick note, Daemon Ships shold be useable in both fleets more freely. Unless we're talking heresy periode games, Chaos has always been able to use Daemons pretty commonly.
-
Daemon ships are crap. Lets rework this.
Within the Gothic sector: perhaps the power of the eye was to little to manifest daemonships.
-
Sure, they can't take them freely. But how about improved reserving? Like having a Hero (eldar hero, that is) making it 2 normal cruisers:1 Daemon Ship, without needing a special leader, obviously.
-
Also let the Non-aligned leagions take marks and the Vengeful Spirit, that way people can make other kinds of fleets, but still benefit fully from the Chaos rules.
-
Hey Dan, in the profile for Devastations, one bay has swifwings, the other bay has the two other AC.
-
Hey Dan, in the profile for Devastations, one bay has swifwings, the other bay has the two other AC.
Fixed.
-
It's time to start these babies up.
Andrewchristlieb and I were discussing the things we thing we need to vote on for Chaos and here is the list we came up with:
-Include Relictor, Desecrator, Cerberus, Heretic, Unbeliever, Schismatic, Havoc or not.
-Commander and Warmaster proposed pricing and ld8/9 or ld+1/+2?
-CSM proposed profile/prices
-Abbadon fixes and points
-Rerolls and prices
-Marks and their pricing
-Any changes to the fleet lists?
-Any changes to the specific named ships that go in the Chaos gods' lists?
-Daemon changes?
-
The commanders should be pretty cut and paste. Just setting down the leadership 8/9 or +1/+2.
The re-roll question is a straight yes or no as to wither they can purchase them the same as Imperials: upto 3@ 25pts each.
The Marks should be a straight forward setting of the price and a question of if the abilities from the Powers PDF should remain (with or without any modifications, these should of course remain as options only for their specific fleet lists: Khorne Bezerkers etc.)
CSM is really just a question of wither they should not receive the same benifit as the SM seeing as theyre paying the same price.
Abbadons much the same, hes always been pretty expensive but in light of the other fleet commanders costs being reduced its doubly so now.
Daemons may require a bit more work but these are the core questions remaining that I have seen.
-
-Include Relictor, Desecrator, Cerberus, Heretic, Unbeliever, Schismatic, Havoc or not.
- The Cerberus class is the Inferno class cruiser from FAQ2010 and therefore should be included. Can't say why the name got changed.
- The additional battleships would be nice, since they spice things up a bit without shifting things out of balance.
- Same goes for light cruisers, with the exception that they should not be a prerequisite for battleships (or grand cruisers). May sound weird and different to the "0-1" or "only 2 in 500pts" restrictions, but it is still a restriction.
- As for the Havoc raider... it fills a gap between "really cheap" and "quite expensive". Include it.
I'm playing a traitor fleet... bit obvious, isn't it? ;D
Additionally I'd like to propose that the rules for "Renegade Imperial Ships" (FAQ2010 p.23) return, especially in the case that only a few or none of the additional ships above appear in the final fleet lists. It's not that big of a deal and provides rules for all those boarded and stolen ships out there.
The advocatus diaboli rests his case for now. 8)
So long,
Brethren
-
The marks definitely need pricing; they should not cost more than 15-20pts a pop IMO.
There is a lot of opposition as far as I know to chaos light cruisers, but lets settle it by vote.
Leaders should be the same as imperial, arguably because they are just old imperials but mostly because leadership streamlining is a good thing. It should be one of the simplest parts of the game.
C:SM should cost less than loyalists, for 3 reasons:
1) They are commonly found in larger groups, so it should be made possible to run a C:SM fleet
2) Certain Legions have to be aligned: we are looking at a combined upgrade cost of 50+pts a vessel right now. A murder with C:SM and a mark is not the equivalent of an armageddon battlecruiser in any way.
3) Due to their racial benefits, chaos benefits slightly less from C:SM rules than their imperial counterparts.
-
Well I agree with the Marks being repriced. Although I have been opposed to the +1/+2 option in the past I have been feeling it a lot more lately, if just for the variety. Soemthing like Lords at +1 (max of 8) 20 pts and Warmaster at +2 (max of 9) 40 pts. The lower price than Imperials offsets the chance of a lower leadership while the randomness represents the... chaos of it all.
I think the CSM would be acceptable with a cost reduction but really 35 points would be accaptable if they only received the same benifits as SM.
-
Proposed Changes by me and AndrewChristlieb:
All Chaos Fleets...
LD +1 Warmaster 50pts
LD +2 Warmaster 75pts
-comes with 1 RR.
All Chaos Fleets...
Chaos Lords +1 LD at 30pts
-comes with no RR, but add one at +15pts
Chaos Marks (all 15pts):
-Mark of Tzeentch: the ship gets a RR to use on itself or squadron. A Mark of Tzeentch on a Warmaster costs 25pts and can be used like a regular RR.
-Mark of Nurgle: +1 hit on that ship.
-Mark of Slaanesh: Enemies within 15cm suffer -1 to their Ld value.
-Mark of Khorne: the ship doubles their boarding value.
All Chaos Fleets...
CSM :
-loses the +1 to Ld but instead, allows that ship to use the Space Marine Ld chart.
Abaddon:
-150pts
-Built in CSM rules and Terminators (Black Legion) instead of original boarding rules and H&R rules
-original RR per turn rules.
-original "angry" rules
-original double boarding value
-original Ld 10
-no Warmasters allowed in the fleet
-Abaddon may not take additional RRs
Any takers? Would you guys like to vote on this?
-
Seems really good and clear; cheers to the Danster and the Chrisanator. Question: so CSM crews are still 35pts? Still seems pretty steep, especially when combined marks. If someone wanted an aligned chaos fleet they would be paying a lot points (50pts a ship!). May as well just shoot my plans of a world eater fleet in the face :'(
But eh, otherwise really awesome. :D ;)
-
I would like to hear some more about people's thoughts on CSM. Right now, you can only take CSM on ships with an admiral and same with marks. I think it would be nice to be able to create fleets like your Worlds Waters example, but we need to find the right balance and points for it.
-
CSM can be taken on any capitol ship currently and they ahould continue to be allowed to. They offer a better leadership bonus than a Chaos Lord +++ so why should they be reduced in price? This is also the same price that standard marines pay to take a Chaos ship. All in all i think CSM are a steal.
-
The thing is a CSM force will just ocupy a ship when they travel, ships in BFG are huge and Chaos warbands small, they are no longer chapters we should remember, thisis not horus heresy and they don't have any need of maintaning a hole fleet, they just can sumit the traitors captains to have them as crew, that is how I see CSM and I guess is what game developers wanted.
Any way the problem of points is how do we do cheaper a refit that gives you, +1 to the leadership,+2 to the boarding action(froget the racial aspec is a +2), +1 hit a run atacks, thunderhawks and access to chaos marks, I am not sure If I mis something but is a really good refit. just think that torpedo bomber cost 10 point per lauch bay, if you have a big carrier it will be even very cheap.
-
CSM can be taken on any capitol ship currently and they ahould continue to be allowed to. They offer a better leadership bonus than a Chaos Lord +++ so why should they be reduced in price? This is also the same price that standard marines pay to take a Chaos ship. All in all i think CSM are a steal.
Crap, in was thinking marks.
Why not have the war masters and lords have a set LD and CSM give them +1? That way, CSM don't have the higher LD bonus compared to lords.
-
@harec Depends on the legion, I suppose: sure night lords and such are only on single ships and whatnot, but try explaining to the 40k community how the black legion is a small splintered force with only a ship in their name and see the response. ;) There certainly are some large fleets out there, said black legion having troops exceeding dozens of combined chapters and fleets to match. Makes sense that they would have some CSM on almost all their vessels.
@afterimagedan To be completely honest, I think you should be able to mark any ship in a fleet, regardless of lord. That would allow for much more thematic fleets in general, although the mark of tzeench would need some revisiting in that case....Also, are YOU heliosravensnest? Or is he a close buddy of yours? ???
@AndrewChristlieb The problem with CSM is that, like Sigoroth once explained to me about strike cruisers, they are not as good as the sum of their parts. All ships can benefit from improved leadership, but not all of them will be designed for hit and run. Similarly, not all of them will have launch bays OR torpedoes OR be good at boarding. So whilst every SM capital vessel is designed to take advantage of every one of these strengths, regular chaos vessels outfitted with said CSM can usually only benefit from about half of the CSM rules. Marked ones gain more but they are also damn expensive vessels at that point. :-\ :)
That is a pretty good way of solving your leadership problem, but it does get rid of what AndrewChristlieb so succinctly put as the "chaos"ness of it all.
-
@afterimagedan To be completely honest, I think you should be able to mark any ship in a fleet, regardless of lord. That would allow for much more thematic fleets in general, although the mark of tzeench would need some revisiting in that case....Also, are YOU heliosravensnest? Or is he a close buddy of yours? ???
The problem with CSM is that, like Sigoroth once explained to me about strike cruisers, they are not as good as the sum of their parts. All ships can benefit from improved leadership, but not all of them will be designed for hit and run. Similarly, not all of them will have launch bays OR torpedoes OR be good at boarding. So whilst every SM capital vessel is designed to take advantage of every one of these strengths, regular chaos vessels outfitted with said CSM can usually only benefit from about half of the CSM rules. Marked ones gain more but they are also damn expensive vessels at that point.
That is a pretty good way of solving your leadership problem, but it does get rid of what AndrewChristlieb so succinctly put as the "chaos"ness of it all.
That's a good perspective there about the SM ships being optimized for their bonuses whereas Chaos vessels aren't as much. Also, one of the strengths of the Chaos fleet is its range. Having CSM on board gives you some conflict here because they will want to get close and board but that will reduce their range advantage.
As far as the HeliosRavensnest thing.... I will never tell..... :-X Just kidding. I am not him but we are working on some stuff at this point. It's a blast.
@AndrewChristlieb: We were looking at the 35pts for CSM because that is the price of the upgrade for the VBB to have SMs on it, but I do think that upgrade is priced in a way that reflects some of the usual size and power of the VBB, which is usually a Battleship. I wonder if we should consider that when we come up with the point amount for CSM.
I am not against allowing CSM and marks on any ship you want. Actually, I would like it to be that way, so you can do themed fleets and stuff. We would be able to simplify the fleet lists like the original BFG:R does and not have to have the chaos gods' specific lists. We could just allow the ships in normal lists to take marks on any capitol ship, be able to take CSM on any capitol ship, and the Lord and Warmaster would just be for LD reasons.
ANALYSIS:
VBB to add SM bonuses (H&R, Boarding, Ld) is +35 pts.
SM SC with no Master is 8-10 ld, average 9. SM boarding bonus +0pts (presumably written into SM ship cost)
SM SC with a Master is ld 10 at +50pts. SM boarding bonus (presumably written into the SM ship cost)
Chaos Slaughter with +1 Warmaster would be +1 Ld, max 9, average of Ld 8.333 at +30pts with no boarding bonus
Chaos Slaughter with +1 Warmaster and CSM (old style) would be +2 to Ld, average 8.83 Ld at +85pts, CSM boarding bonus,
-side note; Slaughter is seemingly less optimized for the SM boarding and H&R bonus than a SC.
Chaos Slaughter with +2 Warmaster would be +2 Ld, average of 9.33 Ld at +75pts, no boarding bonus.
Chaos Slaughter with +2 Warmaster would be +2 Ld plus CSM, average of Ld 9.83, costs +105pts, SM boarding bonus.
Chaos Slaughter with CSM only is average Ld 9 (if we go with the new SM Ld chart we proposed) for +35pts, plus has CSM boarding bonus.
Chaos Slaughter with CSM and +1 Warmaster is average Ld 9.66 for +70 pts
(if this analysis pointed out anything, it shows me that the +1 and +2 Ld is better than the set 8 and 9 for the points. We should make Chaos be at set rates just like IN).
IN have to spend 50pts to get Ld 9 (if you factor out the RR), Chaos used to have to spend 75pts (factoring out the RR) to get a little more than Ld 9 on average BUT it came with CSM. This points to CSM on that ship costing around 20-25 points, but the Ld bonus was lost because it was included in with the Warmaster, so it would be a bit more on the higher end to add CSM to a ship because of the Ld bonus, 25-30pts. Because Chaos ships are not usually optimized for all the SM bonuses (Sig and Talos pointed this out about the SM SC, even moreso this applies to Chaos ships) they will only benefit from some of the bonuses.
CONCLUSION:
We should do something like this.....
-Warmaster at set LD (8 and 9, just like IN, and do this because the +1 and +2 averages make it better than set values, plus it's easier to keep it even with IN bonus/pts.) Chaos will have no ld 10 option, but CSM will make it attainable. They would be just like IN, RR purchasing power and all, but no Ld10 option.
-Secondary Commander (Lord) just like IN (+1, max 9, may take a RR that only affects their squadron/ship)
-CSM just how they have always been, still at 35pts. Compare CSM to the Secondary commanders which are 30pts and you will see why CSM cannot be 30pts, or 25pts unless we want to take away the leadership bonus CSM give. At this point, Secondary commanders give the ship the same Ld bonus as CSM at 30pts, whereas CSM give you the same Ld bonus PLUS all the SM bonuses, for an addition 5 points.
-If there is a Lord or Warmaster leading the ship, CSM add +1 to their Ld amount (either 9 or 10 for Warmasters, and +2 total for Lords, still max 9.)
-All Chaos capitol ships can take a Mark without the need for a Lord or Warmaster.
-MoT will need to be something other than a RR for 15pts because RRs are an option for Lords and Warmasters now.
-Alternately, we could take away the Ld bonus from CSM and make them less points, functioning under the assumption that they still will obey the regular Chaos leaders and are mainly on board to board enemies, not necessarily in the position as leaders. Plus, I don't see CSM being as cohesive as regular SM.
-Also, we could just make the Ld 8 Warmaster into the Lord and make the Chaos secondary commanders into CSM at 35 points, with the option to take a RR.
[/text block]
-
Thanks for taking the time to address all the concerns I proposed; I am personally in favor of replacing the current lords with SM crews and making the lord the ld 8; due to our streamlining of leadership this is a nice touch that really distinguishes chaos from IN in the commander department. It also synergises well with abaddon; you can no longer have extra leaders but it would make sense to have CSM in the same fleet as abaddon., and they can't buy re-rolls so problem solved there.
Again, I am strongly for allowing all vessels the ability to purchase CSM crews and marks. It just seems right, you know? ::) ;)
-
So, Chaos Ld8 Warmaster is now called "Lord" and the secondary commander position is taken up by CSMs which add +1Ld and the usual bonuses at +35pts? OR would they not add Ld at all and be less points so the option would be easier to get on more ships?
-
More in favor of no ld or reroll option, dropped price (20-25pts maybe). Truth be told, that would be quite the drastic change, and if we are aiming for little changes its probably better to just have them as the new 35pt lords, but with no re-rolls and CSM rules.
-
I am not necessarily aiming for little changes, as I have explained before, but that is up to the community. If we were only aiming for little changes, MMS Eldar would be of the table in a second, yet it is almost unanimously accepted.
-
Good point; so lets rock and roll, my amigo!
-
I would be in favor of 20pts for the boarding, H&R, and Planetary assault stuff. This would be much like the MMS Aspect Warriors upgrade.
-
Edited proposal....
All Chaos Fleets...
LD 8 Lord 50pts
LD 9 Warmaster 75pts
-comes with 1 RR.
All Chaos Fleets...
Secondary Commanders just like Imperial Navy (30pts) but no RR allowed (they need MoT for that)
All Chaos Fleets...
CSM exactly how they used to be but allows the ship to have the SM Ld chart (8-10) and instead adds +1 to the Lord or Warmaster if on the same ship.
Chaos Marks (all 15pts, on any capitol ship, 1 mark per ship, squadrons may only have 1 type of mark):
-Mark of Tzeentch: the ship gets a RR to use on itself or squadron. A Mark of Tzeentch taken on a ship with a Lord or Warmaster costs 25pts and can be used like a regular RR. (only 1 per squadron)
-Mark of Nurgle: +1 hit on that ship.
-Mark of Slaanesh: Enemies within 15cm suffer -1 to their Ld value.
-Mark of Khorne: the ship doubles their boarding value.
Abaddon:
-150pts
-Built in CSM rules and Terminators (Black Legion) instead of original boarding rules and H&R rules
-original RR per turn rules.
-original "angry" rules
-original double boarding value
-original Ld 10
-no Warmasters allowed in the fleet
-Abaddon may not take additional RRs
-
I haven't been able to keep up to date, unfortunately, so when I get the chance I will give a more complete opinion, but something I'd like to reiterate: non-aligned fleets should be able to take marks. As it stands only Emperor's Children, Thousand Sons, World Eaters and Death Guard..and the Black Legion? Can take marks. I think that restriction should be removed.
-
I agree, the non aligned fleets should be able to take any mark.
-
Which chaos fleet cannot take marks? Incursion can, 13th can, all the chaos god fleets can take their respective marks.
-
In Armada only World Eaters, Emperor's Children, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, and Black Legion CSM can take Marks all others are prohibited.
-
Again, which others? Incursion says you can take them. 13th Black Crusade says you can take them.
-
It literally say "Others". pg 45 Armada. This would be Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Night Lords, and any home grown or traitor chapters such as The Red Corsairs, The Purge, The Scourged, the Blood Disciples, the Company of Misery, the Crimson Slaughter, the Sons of Malice, The Cleaved, etc...
-
Gotcha, so it's a fluff thing. There isn't any particular fleet that can't take them, but there are other or factions that it says cannot. Gotcha. That's lame and should be changed. Hardly need a vote on that.
-
I would think they should be limited to the same mark tho.
-
While Marks are still on the go, I have recently come across the rules for the mark of Undivided in the Planet Killer mag I've dug up (yes I'm Old...)
25pts
Use once per game, declare you are using it at start of turn. The whole fleet gets to use the Warmasters Ld for the rest of the turn.
Any love for this? Or should it be re-worked/discarded?
-
I wouldn't be against that but it would only be allowed on the warmaster, I suppose.
-
As a once per game it doesnt sound unreasonable.
-
AND another attempt.....
--------------------------
All Chaos Fleets...
LD 8 Lord 50pts
LD 9 Warmaster 75pts
-comes with 1 RR.
All Chaos Fleets...
Secondary Commanders just like Imperial Navy (30pts) but no RR allowed (they need MoT for that)
All Chaos Fleets...
CSM exactly how they used to be but allows the ship to have the SM Ld chart (8-10) and instead adds +1 to the Lord or Warmaster if on the same ship.
Chaos Marks (all 15pts, on any capitol ship, 1 mark per ship, squadrons may only have 1 type of mark):
-Mark of Tzeentch: the ship gets a RR to use on itself or squadron. A Mark of Tzeentch taken on a ship with a Lord or Warmaster costs 25pts and can be used like a regular RR. (only 1 MoT per squadron)
-Mark of Nurgle: +1 hit on that ship.
-Mark of Slaanesh: Enemies within 15cm suffer -1 to their Ld value.
-Mark of Khorne: the ship doubles their boarding value.
-Mark of Chaos Undivided (25pts): May only be taken on a Lord or Warmaster. Once per game, the Lord or Warmaster may expend the Mark of Chaos Undivided and allow the entire fleet to use their leadership value for the rest of the turn.
--All Chaos fleets are allowed to take marks of Chaos.
--Squadrons may only have one type of Mark on its ships.
Abaddon:
-150pts
-Built in CSM rules and Terminators (Black Legion) instead of original boarding rules and H&R rules
-original RR per turn rules.
-original "angry" rules
-original double boarding value
-original Ld 10
-no Warmasters allowed in the fleet
-Abaddon may not take additional RRs
-
Ok so Ive been working on an idea here to split off the CSM from the standard Chaos fleets. What Im looking at here is a fleet list borrowing a couple ideas from the standard Space Marine list, a small selection of ships that fit with the SM ideal and receive the CSM rules at a slight discount (25 pts vs 35 pts), and the special rules from the Powers of Chaos PDF. My thinking here is that people could get a good basis for a pure CSM fleet AND get a discount at the cost of flexability much like the standard Marine list, most obviously a lack of line ships.
Fleet commander:
0-1 CSM Warmaster (Ld 10)........... 50 pts
0-3 Fleet Commander re-rolls......... 25 pts
Mark of Slaanesh.......................... 15 pts
-Forces of Chaos: Veil of Lust......... 20 pts
-Forces of Chaos: Siren’s Summon.. 25 pts
Mark of Khorne............................. 15 pts
-Forces of Chaos: Bezerker Tide...... Free
Mark of Tzeentch.......................... 25 pts
-Forces of Chaos: Warp Beasts....... 25 pts
-Forces of Chaos: Strand of Fortune. 25 pts
Mark of Nurgle.............................. 25 pts
-Forces of Chaos: Hives of Nurgle.... 10 pts
-Forces of Chaos: Ark of Pestilence.. 5 pts
Mark of Chaos Undivided................ 25 pts
Terminator Teleport Assault............ 10 pts (Battleships and Grand cruisers only)
Battleships:
Desecrator………………………….... 390 pts
Despoiler: ……………………………… 425 pts
Chaos Battle Barge:……………….. 445 pts
(0-1)Conqueror……………………… 380 pts
(0-1)Wage of Sin……………………. 430 pts
(0-1)Terminus Est…………………… 430 pts
(0-1)Scion of Prospero……….…… 450 pts
Grand Cruisers:
Nephilim……………………………….. 275 pts
Retaliator………………………………. 300 pts
Heavy Cruisers:
Styx……………………………………….. 285 pts
Hecate…………………………………… 255 pts
0-12 Cruisers:
Devastation…………………………… 215 pts
Slaughter………………………………. 190 pts
Heretic………………………………….. 145 pts
Schismatic…………………………….. 145 pts
Unbeliever……………………………. 150 pts
Escorts:
Iconoclast…………………………….. 30 pts
Infidel…………………………………… 45 pts
Idolator………………………………… 45 pts
So... thoughts, ideas, comments? Do you think seperating the CSM and Chaos (much like the 12th and 13th lists) could work?
-
I like it but I think the Relictor should be in there. I am highly in support of a CSM list but I don't think having this list out there should take away from the current chaos progress. But yes, I am in favor of the pure CSM fleet and I am quite happy with how this looks.
-
@AndrewChristlieb Good work bro! Good to see some out of the box thought process. I am in favor.
Dan's right though; we should tackle chaos primary, get'er done, and then hammer out this list. But so were clear that list is exactly what is needed.
-
OK, so shoukd we start taking votes on the basics of Chaos?
-
It is ok for me :D, and I like a lot andrews list :)
-
Yep, lets get it goin' :)
-
So, I think we should include these ships: Relictor, Desecrator, Cerberus, Heretic, Unbeliever, Schismatic, Havoc
Could we discuss these? The Cerberus is the inferno so that's easy to just include. I am highly in favor of the Relictor and the Desecrator, primarily.
-
deffo on the battleships, chaos need the extra variety in that field. Also in favour of the light cruisers, I know there's been some opposition to these though. Don't see the prob myself.
-
I think people are just wary of anything that doesnt have a model, the Chaos CL are so easy to make that shouldnt really be an issue.
-
True, same with the battleships. They are made from the basic Desolator kit.
-
Just be aware that purists will slate the inclusion of Chaos Light Cruisers. Just like they burned the Book of Nemesis.
-
Those purists can come and vote and make their voices heard!
-
Ok, so the vote is up for including the 7 different Chaos ships we talked about.
There are two things that come to mind that we need to vote on before we can vote to close the Chaos document:
1. Daemon Ships (what should we do about them?)
2. Chaos Fleet Lists (which to include, and which list has what)
I think it would be best to bring all the specific Chaos gods into one list and restrict it to one god at a time.
Here are the lists I would like to see:
-13th Crusade (with some Mark of Chaos Undivided options and Abaddon)
-Chaos Incurstion Fleet (representing pirates and chaos worshipping traitors)
-Chaos Space Marine Fleet (mostly CSM stuff, kind of like where AndrewChristlieb is going with his list)
-Chaos Marked Fleets (basically, a list integrating the chaos gods' lists to make it more condensed)
-Daemon List
Thoughts?
-
Damn... I was almost finished with my post and then the forum 'asks' me to login again. Now my text got lost in the warp. :-[ Here we go again.
First of all, I'd like to say that I really liked the old BFG:R lists, because they both felt 'right' and 'different' from each other.
Here are some random ideas put in order:
13th Black Crusade
- all battleships, grand cruisers, heavy cruisers and cruisers
- no light cruisers
- Blackstone Fortress available
- Daemon ships as reserves
- CSM available
- all Marks of Chaos available (maybe only if Abaddon is around or if the fleet commander is 'undivided')
Chaos Incursion Fleet
- only Despoiler and Desolator battleships
- all grand cruisers, heavy cruisers, cruisers, light cruisers
- escorts and light cruisers are requirements for cruisers as in BFG:R
- Renegade Imperial Ships (as in FAQ 2010)
- 0-1 CSM Strike Cruiser (Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment :-\ )
- no Daemon ships as reserves
- no Blackstone Fortress
- restricted access to CSM
- restricted access to Marks of Chaos (like ships with a Commander or CSM)
Marked Chaos Fleet
- I would basically make this a add-on to the 13th Crusade list.
- all capital ships have to get the same Mark
- add the unique ships
- maybe add some nifty power according to each Mark (see AndrewChristlieb's list)
- lift the reserve restriction on Daemon Ships to 2:1
Daemon Fleet
- You really want to give those nasty things a list? I don't know if they actually need one.
- I'd be happy to get them as reserves to other fleets.
On the other hand I strongly support AndrewChristlieb'S approach to a CSM Fleet. I'm not sure what would make them different to a 13th Crusade list, though.
Feel free to (ab)use these ideas in any way you want. :)[/list][/list][/list][/list]
/edit: Something's wrong with this list-function.
-
I'm with you Brethren. I think your overview is the way I would like to see it, then adding the CSM list and either fixing or dropping a.daemon list. My problem is this: what's the downside to the 13th crusade list? No light cruisers isn't enough.
-
My problem is this: what's the downside to the 13th crusade list? No light cruisers isn't enough.
That's a tough one. I can't think of any additional ship restrictions.
We could make up a rule about leadership difficulties. As the crusades consist of a lot of warbands that not always 'serve the cause' willingly, things could get messy if their common ground (here Warlord) leaves the battlespace.
Warbands and their part of the fleet could just disengage or try to disengage when crippled, lose/gain Ld... or just keep on fighting.
P.S.: The Marked Fleet List shouldn't have such a drawback. Though, it would also fit to an Incursion Fleet.
P.P.S.: The CSM List should either have an option to take Thunderhawks or be entirely restricted to Thunderhawks.
-
Why downfalls? Is there something wrong with the official lists (eg rulebook + armada)?
I say no to a specific daemon list. If someone wants to make all his vessels a daemon ship that's fine but a specific list is bot so cool.
On the single mark in the marked Chaos list: why? A Lord can have two marks (Abaddon has all/undivided). Chaos Gods work together.
Rename CMS cruiser to Renegade Strike Cruiser, Strike Cruiser tells me it is Marine, Renegade that it is against the Imperium. Not all renegade Marines fall to Chaos.
Or should we do a seperate Renegade fluff-list optional idea thing of sorts?
-
Why downfalls? Is there something wrong with the official lists (eg rulebook + armada)?
I say no to a specific daemon list. If someone wants to make all his vessels a daemon ship that's fine but a specific list is bot so cool.
On the single mark in the marked Chaos list: why? A Lord can have two marks (Abaddon has all/undivided). Chaos Gods work together.
Rename CMS cruiser to Renegade Strike Cruiser, Strike Cruiser tells me it is Marine, Renegade that it is against the Imperium. Not all renegade Marines fall to Chaos.
Or should we do a seperate Renegade fluff-list optional idea thing of sorts?
I like this. The thought about downfalls or disadvantages is this: if the 13th crusade has not/very small downsides, why play any other list if it has everything?
-
Because some people are story driven players?
Perhaps the changes must be in command and not in vessels?
-
True, but if we were all just story driven players, we could lump them all into one list.
-
I like this. The thought about downfalls or disadvantages is this: if the 13th crusade has not/very small downsides, why play any other list if it has everything?
I have to agree. The 13th Crusade doesn't need drawbacks... just as is gets no 'extras'.
On the single mark in the marked Chaos list: why? A Lord can have two marks (Abaddon has all/undivided). Chaos Gods work together.
Maybe I was getting the wrong impression. I thought this list was about giving World Eaters, Thousand Sons, Death Guard and Emperors Children a little extra. All other 'Marked Fleets' could be represented simply by the 13th Crusade if you buy the Marks.
Rename CMS cruiser to Renegade Strike Cruiser, Strike Cruiser tells me it is Marine, Renegade that it is against the Imperium. Not all renegade Marines fall to Chaos.
Or should we do a seperate Renegade fluff-list optional idea thing of sorts?
I think the Incursion Fleet is probably the best way to represent a renegade fleet.
As with the Strike Cruiser you're right. Renegade Strike Cruiser sounds better and is more flexible... with or without actual Marines.
I think of the Incursion Fleet like this: 13th Crusade + Extras (Light Cruisers, Renegade Ships) + Restrictions (Requirements for Cruisers)
This way it's the Renegades list that differs from the 13th Crusade basis, not the other way around.
-
What extras does it not get?
I think Incursion fleet and the Rebel fleet can be in the same list.
Also, why give those specific chapters bonuses over other Chaos chapters? I think the Marked fleets should generally just be chaos factions loyal to specific gods.
I agree, Renegade Strike Cruiser is the best way to represent it.
-
What extras does it not get?
Was talking about Light Cruisers and Renegade Ships.
As for the rest... I'm just popping ideas, not necessary something solid. ;D
-
If the light cruisers (only allowed in one "R" list which should alleviate any problems with having them in the first place) count towards restriction limits thats a big boon, losing it would then be felt.
-
On that note, I always thought it was weird that some of the Legion specific Battlebarges came without CSM, despite the fact that they are still owned and operated by those very same legions. I am lloking at the thousand sons and death guard here. And since we have reduced the cost of the marks, IMO we should implement something of the sort.
1) Reduce the costs of the Conqueror and the Wage of Sin by 5-10pts, due to cheaper marks and enforced CSM + fleet restrictions.
2) Increase the cost of the Vengeful Spirit, terminus est and the Scion of Prospero by 5-10pts and throw in CSM rules all of them. These vessels are legion only and running them without marines is just foolish. Possibly change the hives of nurgle to act normally, or affect boarding torpedoes (since they are manned and thus should be affected by the Hives)
What do you guys think? Am I barking mad or just barking up the wrong tree? Or am I barking right? And does that phrase even make sense?
-
Good call, the Conq and WoS both have csm as part of their cost but the Est, VS, and Scion do not. They should have CSM standard, along with the vanilla CSM barge.
-
What about including the Apostate Class Heavy Raider from the Additional Ships Compendium? Would be a nice addition.
-
Post its stats and we will talk ;) :D
-
Apostate class heavy raider (50 pts)
Escort/1 | Speed 25cm | Turn 90° | Shield 1 | Armour 5+ | Turret 1
WBattery - 30cm | 2 | L/F/R
Lance - 45cm | 1 | L/F/R
Torpedoes - | 2 | F
Even being a traitor captain I'm against including a ship with such a armament.
A '45cm L/F/R' Lance on a escort plus torpedoes? This thing makes Infidels and Idolators obsolete.
It may be an approach to a expensive 2-hit chaos escort... but like this? No. :o
The Additional Ships Compendium is quite old. Some of the ships in it appear again, like the Desecrator class battleship, the Executor and Retaliator class grand cruisers or the Hecate class heavy cruiser.
Others weren't seen again... I think for a reason. Some ships seem 'broken' even at first sight.
-
Apostate class heavy raider (50 pts)
Escort/1 | Speed 25cm | Turn 90° | Shield 1 | Armour 5+ | Turret 1
WBattery - 30cm | 2 | L/F/R
Lance - 45cm | 1 | L/F/R
Torpedoes - | 2 | F
Yes please, I'll take a dozen.
-
It is really good, if oddly fragile for such an expensive escort. At 2hits 55pts it would be probably bee acceptable, although even then swapping the battery and lance ranges seems like a better idea.
-
It is really good, if oddly fragile for such an expensive escort. At 2hits 55pts it would be probably bee acceptable, although even then swapping the battery and lance ranges seems like a better idea.
Fragile as any escort. My start would be to set the lance to 30cm forward only. 45cm on escorts is rare and should remain so.
-
Actually, I don't think it's a particularily good escort. It suffers from the same problems Hellebore used to have in eldar list - it has weapon loadout with little internal synergy. It might seem universal, having weapon for every occasion, but in practice it never can use its full potential.
Ideally, it should be both on lock-on and reload ordnance every turn - otherwise either lance is not working on full effectivenes or it can't fire its torpedoes. So in no way I see it as overpowered. It's just paying a bit extra for flexibility. [I agree it should have bigger price difference with idolator, though. Lance itself is worth it.]
I'd think about changing its lance fire arc to F. With l/f/r version it would almost always be in position to lock on, making torpedo choice inferior in most cases, and turning them into effectively one shot weapon. Reducing the range isn't necessary, I think, but I agree that 45cm lances on escorts need to be treated carefully when desigining rules.
Also, I'm fan of changing those heavily armed escorts to 2 hits. They should have more mass and size, just to house all the weapon systems.
-
It is really good, if oddly fragile for such an expensive escort. At 2hits 55pts it would be probably bee acceptable, although even then swapping the battery and lance ranges seems like a better idea.
Fragile as any escort. My start would be to set the lance to 30cm forward only. 45cm on escorts is rare and should remain so.
We can introduce overloading rule if used farder than 30cm
-
Problem with overload is that most similar overload rules would be crippling to an escort. As for its fragility, yes all escorts are fragile, but most escorts at 50pts or more have better defenses. The thing only has 1 turret!
It is fast with 90 degree turns, so forward facing would be a good choice on the lance.
On a side note, is IN now going to be the only race without a heavy escort? We are making one for chaos, and eldar, Orks, Necron and Tau all have 1. I guess that leaves SM, IN and DE. Just musing...
-
We are making one for chaos, and eldar, Orks, Necron and Tau all have 1.
I'm kind of amazed how 'can we include that one' skips so fast to 'going to be a new 2 hit escort'.
It may sound fair that every fleet got its own heavy escort, but I wasn't counting on it.
Honestly, I won't be sad if the Apostate question ends in: "Sorry, but no."
-
Problem with overload is that most similar overload rules would be crippling to an escort. As for its fragility, yes all escorts are fragile, but most escorts at 50pts or more have better defenses. The thing only has 1 turret!
It is fast with 90 degree turns, so forward facing would be a good choice on the lance.
On a side note, is IN now going to be the only race without a heavy escort? We are making one for chaos, and eldar, Orks, Necron and Tau all have 1. I guess that leaves SM, IN and DE. Just musing...
You forgot the kraken tyranids, but anyway imperium and caos have heavy escorts on the defences lists.
-
@harec Good point on the kraken forgot about it. ::)
@Brethren The thing is it's a little weak as a one hit escort, and if we were to include it we would almost certainly convert it to two hits.
But it's not likely to gain much traction either way, so better to actually polish it off before presenting it, right? Giving the community a half-assed thing to vote on will be much more likely to be discarded then a well presented idea with thought and work put into it. That's just how this community works, brethren.
-
Lol, i thought this was a joke... What would we base it on? If it uses the idolator model it needs to maintain similar displacement and weapons load perhaps drop the batteries and leave the lance as-is.
-
I don't mind the weapon layout but I am no fan of this escort.
Idolator + 2 torps and better weaponry...
nah from me
-
Good call, the Conq and WoS both have csm as part of their cost but the Est, VS, and Scion do not. They should have CSM standard, along with the vanilla CSM barge.
Alright, I think we should vote this in. Can someone give point costs for these and reasoning?
-
I suggest the following:
1) Conqueror stays the same. Occurs to me Khorne was the cheapest anyway and since we are bringing in the BFG:R battleships we need to make it worth taking the relictor which is almost identical. Total cost: 380pts
2) Wage of Sin stays the same for the same reasons. Total Cost: 430pts
3) Scion of Prospero up by roughly 10pts; we have lowered the marks cost considerably and it is already quite expensive as is. Total cost: 460pts
4) Terminus Est goes up by roughly 10pts, due to CSM crew and weaker mark of nurgle. Optionally, we could keep its immunity to boarding as a special rule unique to the 'est for some extra nurgle flavor. It does already have that pesky death to torpedoes thing going on. Total cost: 440pts
5) Vengeful Spirit up by 15pts due to forced CSM. Not sure about this one though...vanilla CSM battlebarge is the Vengeful Spirit, so it should probably have forced CSM as well.
I am open to arguments and opinions, but bear in mind these are already expensive vessels that were questionably designed as it were. Still, if someone could smotherman these vessels and lay it out, maybe we could make an even better correction?
-
Lol, i thought this was a joke... What would we base it on? If it uses the idolator model it needs to maintain similar displacement and weapons load perhaps drop the batteries and leave the lance as-is.
It uses the Infidel as a base model... with added lance turret.
(http://666kb.com/i/cbezbif9ni69oen51.jpg)
-
-5cm isnt greatly reduced speed. making it 20cm speed would be more like it. If its based off the Infidel hull tho theres no way I could see that @2 hits.
-
Agreed with Andrew on both subjects.
-
Ok, so I think we should work with Brethren's list layout...
13th Black Crusade
all battleships, grand cruisers, heavy cruisers and cruisers
no light cruisers
Blackstone Fortress available
Daemon ships as reserves
CSM available
all Marks of Chaos available (maybe only if Abaddon is around or if the fleet commander is 'undivided')
Chaos Incursion Fleet
only Despoiler and Desolator battleships
all grand cruisers, heavy cruisers, cruisers, light cruisers
escorts and light cruisers are requirements for cruisers as in BFG:R
Renegade Imperial Ships (as in FAQ 2010)
0-1 CSM Strike Cruiser (Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment )
no Daemon ships as reserves
no Blackstone Fortress
restricted access to CSM
restricted access to Marks of Chaos (like ships with a Commander or CSM)
Marked Chaos Fleet
I would basically make this a add-on to the 13th Crusade list.
all capital ships have to get the same Mark
add the unique ships
maybe add some nifty power according to each Mark (see AndrewChristlieb's list)
lift the reserve restriction on Daemon Ships to 2:1
my assumption:
-no daemon list
-i think there should be something the other lists have available that the 13th black list does not.
-I would like to work with AndrewChristleibs CSM list.
Thoughts?
-
Only doing a cursory glance, but seems good so far.
-
Also Conquerer @ 380
Wages of Sin @ 430
Scion of Prospero @ 460
Terminus Best @ 440
Vengeful Spirit @ 425
-
Ok, so I think we should work with Brethren's list layout...
13th Black Crusade
all battleships, grand cruisers, heavy cruisers and cruisers
no light cruisers
Blackstone Fortress available
Daemon ships as reserves
CSM available
all Marks of Chaos available (maybe only if Abaddon is around or if the fleet commander is 'undivided')
Daemon ships as a purchaseable upgrade, I have some ideas on this also ill get up on the DS thread. CSM available only if they dont get their own list. All marks available but retain the limit of 1/Warmaster or Lord. BSF available, limit max of 2 (no super death shot) Renegade Imperial Ships (as in FAQ 2010)
Chaos Incursion Fleet
only Despoiler and Desolator battleships
all grand cruisers, heavy cruisers, cruisers, light cruisers
escorts and light cruisers are requirements for cruisers as in BFG:R
Renegade Imperial Ships (as in FAQ 2010)
0-1 CSM Strike Cruiser (Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment )
no Daemon ships as reserves
no Blackstone Fortress
restricted access to CSM
restricted access to Marks of Chaos (like ships with a Commander or CSM)
Limit Grand Cruisers to the Repulsive, no Renegades, no CSM, upto 3 BSF (why would you have none here?) Marks as in the BBB (Warmaster can take one of each mark, lords still one only
Marked Chaos Fleet
I would basically make this a add-on to the 13th Crusade list.
all capital ships have to get the same Mark
add the unique ships
maybe add some nifty power according to each Mark (see AndrewChristlieb's list)
lift the reserve restriction on Daemon Ships to 2:1
This would be the same as a CSM list if we give them theri own
my assumption:
-no daemon list
-i think there should be something the other lists have available that the 13th black list does not.
-I would like to work with AndrewChristleibs CSM list.
I would say no to a Daemon list, they should be extremly rare ships, if theres a fleet of Daemon ships somethings like OMG.
Thoughts?
-
Aren't renegades entirely fitting for the incursion list?
Actually, I think the Incursion fleet should be given all battleships and the black crusade restricted to just despoiler and desolator. Planet killer also, of course. Limitation to the black crusade list would be only those 3 battleships, no light cruisers, no named battleships from powers of chaos (which I assume will be in the marked fleet list only.
I think the marked fleet list should be set up to be similar to the CSM list AndrewChristlieb is working on. Named chaos god vessels, heavy access to csm, etc.
Here's a question though... What about chaos space marine chapters that are undivided? What list will they take? Do we just make the incursion list able to also be the marked list, that way the CSM list doesn't have to be the marked list?
So,
Black crusade (all sorts of stuff)
Incursion (general chaos cultist type or traitor imperial, may be marked)
Chaos Traitor Marines (CSM list, optional uniform marks like a marked list)
This at, we have 3 lists to work with, which simplifies things, and we can focus our energy balancing these out. Marks could be options on all lists that way. They wouldn't be then thing differentiating the lists.
-
@13th Crusade:
- Since the crusade consists of every dark diciple that could be convinced, intimidated, seduced or pressed, there should be almost everything in it. That includes CSM and Marks.
- Restriction on battleships... funny how this works the other way around, too. But I'm with you on this.
- I did however change my mind about the restrictions of Daemon Ships. As AndrewChristlieb said, they're better as an upgrade than as reserve. This way a you can field a big gathering of daemons... around the sorcerer ships that summon them. :) That would nail the daemon list in a way.
- That said we could include the marked list here as well. Like... if every ship carrys the same one mark, you'll get access to the additional upgrades from Powers of Chaos. (Do I still get something wrong here? I hope not.) That way the CSM list would be much more different (unique ships, different marks and upgrades).
@Incursion:
- First of all I'd like to point out that the 'Renegade Imperial Ships'-rule (FAQ 2010) (http://666kb.com/i/cbi2dpt1sbp1nzv1f.jpg) isn't that much of a deal. For every 1500 pts you can get one imperial cruiser (up to 185pts, no nova, no imp./chaos upgrades, -1Ld) and/or one squadron of escorts. So except from big battles, you'll mostly see one renegade cruiser and/or one renegade escort squadron. That's no big game changer...
- Main thought about Blackstones was that Abaddon was ordering those around. So why give them to a traitor/pirate list? But honestly, the BSFs are just a footnote to me. So I'll be fine with just about everything.
- I know the Gothic War and the Badab War are a bit apart on the timeline, but I still think that some CSM should be in here. Thinking about '0-3' or '1x every 500pts' or something.
- Marks only on Warmaster, Lords and CSM. (Lords and CSM only one Mark)
- I really don't get why this list should miss any ships (apart from the unique ones). Especially the grand cruisers are around everywhere in old imperial and chaos lists. Given we use the same rules as in BFG:R (1.4) this fleet will look different than the others every time since you have to field escorts and light cruisers. You may think of it otherwise but this is a restriction. More small ships, less big ones. Further restrictions on big ships would really start to hurt.
@Daemon List:
Drop and halfway include it in the 13th Crusade as above.
@Marked List:
Include it in the 13th Crusade as above, if it's represented as intended. Horizons comment is still confusing me on this one.
@CSM List:
As AndrewChristliebs list.
Seems like I'm starting to simplify things... or at least I'm trying to. Less lists, less rules, less confusion about differences, less difficulties to get things right... right? Still having fun here. :)
-
I agree with a lot of what you said brethren. But here is my struggle with the chairs lists: the black crusade list is supposed to have pretty much everything but the more we give it pretty much everything, the less we need other lists. If we go that route, then the IN lists might as well be integrated as well. So, there has to be something that the black crusade list does not include or there has to be some restriction on it, or else the other lists are useless and we can just make one big "chaos fleet list."
So, is there any sort of restriction to the black crusade list that does go against the fluff for the crusade or abaddon?
-
I agree that there is little point in having other lists if the Crusade gets it all, especially since Chaos should be somewhat analogous with IN.
What if we restricted marks to a single squadron? As in, only one mark of each type can be applied in the fleet, although it can be applied to multiple vessels as long as they begin the game in a squadron. As in, basically you could have a nurgle contigent and a khorne one, but no random lone khornite cruiser kicking it without his buddies in addition. Unless of course that was the only khorne marked vessel in the fleet.
This also has an additional natural restriction which limits how many marked vessels there are in total, because players will not want to have large bloated squadrons, encouraging the admiral to make a mark varied fleet.
To further encourage that approach, we could make the mark of Chaos Undivided mandatory for "admirals" of fleets with opposing marks i.e. Slaanesh-Khorne, Tzeench-Nurgle.
These may seem like arbitrary restrictions, but I feel like it would make the crusade list a proper "all marks working together in (forced) harmony" fleet, whereas players looking for fully aligned fleet would look elsewhere. The restrictions would justify the greater availability of ships in the crusade list as well.
-
So basically only 1 ship/squadron can have each mark? For example, only one squadron of Carnages/Acheron can have MoT on all ships, but no more than that squadron? Hmm, I like it. That would put a natural limit and encourage different marks in the fleet, fluffwise, encouraging the "forced harmony," like Talos said. I LOVE IT. I think this is just the restriction that we need and encourages fluffy play of this list. Yes, they will have access to pretty much everything, and you could use this list to access all ships and not worry about marks, but then you are also playing in a fluffy way, because this would be an undivided style fleet. Talos, you're a genius.
Ok, I think I am going to work on a tentative list PDF tonight for review. I am also working with AndrewChristlieb to make that CSM list, and I will try to get that made also.
Black Crusade
Incursion (maybe call this the "traitor" list, even though all chaos are really "traitors?" "The Lost and the Damned (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?action=post;msg=40754;topic=4949.105)" may work.)
Marked
CSM
-
Hi guys,
estimated costs of chaos battleships. Here we go...
My friend send me his calculator. The results get very close when calculating existing ships and it does a good job on pointing out the vessels that are too cheap or too expensive. Like any other formula its numbers are estimated, so a deviation of +/- 10pts is still within tolerance. (Engineer is speaking. ;D )
Wage of Sin / Desecrator
FAQ2010: Wage of Sin -> 370pts (book: 430)
notes:
- without Slaanesh stuff
- 6 launch bays
- 6 dorsal weapon batteries
BFG:R 1.0: Desecrator -> 365pts (book: 365)
notes:
- 4 launch bays
- 9 dorsal weapon batteries
It seems like both variants got the price quite right. So it's more a matter of which version we want to add to the fleet lists. I'm somehow more friendly with the 4 launch bay-Desecrator. More all-round, less 'despoilerish'. The other one wouldn't ruin my day, though. :)
Conqueror / Relictor
FAQ2010: Conqueror -> 295pts (book: 380)
notes:
- without Khorne stuff
- 8 dorsal weapon batteries
BFG:R 1.0: Relictor -> 300pts (book: 360)
notes:
- 9 dorsal weapon batteries
I've got to admit that I was wrong. The Relictor actually turns out cheaper than the Desolator. (The calculator set the Desolator more around 320pts.) Change in firepower occured due to streamlining.
In BFG:R a lot of battleships got an increase of dorsal firepower. I think this was based on the assumtion that on broadside weaponry 1 lance roughly equals 3 weapon batteries. So when battleships usually have 3 dorsal lances it was a bit strange that others only got 6 weapon batteries instead of 9.
Is the dorsal weaponry something that we should discuss, or should I let that one rest? Because if we do there's some dirty loyalist, namely Emperor class, that would need a look, too. And that pdf is already finalized. :-\
-
I'm fine with the Desecrator with the increased WB and less LBs like you have it. Anyone else prefer to make it just like the Wages of Sin instead?
Ok, here are the lists I think will work (with some fixes):
13th Black Crusade
Pros: All ships, all marks in one fleet, Abaddon, Planet Killer, CSM, Daemon ships, BSFs, opposing chaos god marks may be taken if a warmaster is taken and given the mark of chaos undivided.
Cons: If a mark is taken, it may only be on 1 ship/squadron.
Incursion/Marked
Pros: All ships (no named or PK), much more loose Renegade options? (this list needs some help, maybe a more useful renegade option would make this a hefty perk for taking this list), 0-1 CSM strike cruiser.
Cons: limited CSM (to how much?), EITHER Marks only on Warmaster, Lords and CSM. (Lords and CSM only one Mark), OR, pick a mark . all ships can take no mark or that mark only. the previous sentence is there so we can integrate the Marked and Incursion lists because they can choose one or the other way of using marks. (we should drop the forced escort taking.), No BSFs.
Chaos Traitor Legion Fleet (CSM)
Pros: cheap CSMs, very accessible marks (pick a mark. all ships can take no mark or that mark only), cheap CSM warmaster with high LD, amazing LD
Cons: VERY limited ship options.
What do you guys think?
-
looks good ;)
-
13th Black Crusade(http://globalnetzwerk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Gr%C3%BCner-Haken.png)
Incursion/Marked
- EITHER Marks only on Warmaster, Lords and CSM. (Lords and CSM only one Mark),(http://globalnetzwerk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Gr%C3%BCner-Haken.png)
- OR, pick a mark . all ships can take no mark or that mark only. (http://globalnetzwerk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Gr%C3%BCner-Haken.png)
- limited CSM (to how much?)
Easiest way to go would be (0-3) like with lords. Though, I rarely fight battles 2000+ pts, so I can't say if this would be too restrictive.
- we should drop the forced escort taking
Since this restriction included light cruisers it wasn't that bad. But it isn't necessary, especially because it would limit the Marked List, too.
- much more loose Renegade options? (this list needs some help, maybe a more useful renegade option would make this a hefty perk for taking this list), 0-1 CSM strike cruiser.
Just how much loose are we talking about? In number of ships? In variety of ships? Both?
The most hefty, loose (and simple to include) thing I can think of right now is making the Imperial Navy lists availiable for Reserves. That way we wouldn't even need to include a CSM Strike Cruiser. On the other hand I'm really afraid to add Nova Cannons to chaos lists.
Chaos Traitor Legion Fleet (CSM)(http://globalnetzwerk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Gr%C3%BCner-Haken.png)
-
In my mind, renegade ships would be vessels who's whole crew has gone traitor or has been corrupted OR vessels that have been stolen and re-crewed by Chaos (like the Wolf of Fenris (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Wolf_of_Fenris#.USOvpaVwqSo) Strike Cruiser).
Anyways, I think it would be nice to how this fleet be allowed to be more expanded in options than the other two. I think we should change the renegade list to the following:
"For every 750pts in a Chaos fleet, you may spend up to 185 of those points on 0-6 Imperial Navy Escorts OR 1 cruiser from the Segmentum Obscurus Bastion or the Segmentum Solar Armageddon Sector fleet Lists. Ships with nova cannons may not be taken. Imperial Navy escorts need not be in a single squadron and may be interspersed within other Chaos escort squadrons if desired. These vessels do not count as reserves"
This makes it so you can put a lord or warmaster on the ships, and also CSM. Why you can't do this already doesn't seem very lore-appropriate. CSM could just, fly over and be on the captured Imperial ship... Also, the -1 Ld seems to deter this as an option for most people so I think it should be removed ( :o i know!). Also, the rule doesn't force it to be a cruiser AND/OR escort. The new rules I suggested allow for more choice from the Chaos player. Personally, I wouldn't have even used the old rules. IN cruisers need squadroning much of the time, and having 1 is a bad option ESPECIALLY at -1 Ld. It is a point sink and you consider the chaos cruiser options you could be taking. The escorts are the only think that seemed to be an alright option.
CSM:
I think 1 CSM per 750pts is a good option instead of a 0-3 number. This way, you have provisions for say 5,000pt games ;).
CSM Strike Cruisers:
This would become an option in the above listed rules. We have precedent that SCs can be loyal to Chaos. I would like to see some option for the CSM fleet list to be able to take SCs like this rule would allow.
-
This makes it so you can put a lord or warmaster on the ships, and also CSM. Why you can't do this already doesn't seem very lore-appropriate. CSM could just, fly over and be on the captured Imperial ship...
Sure. Can't wait for more boarding torpedoes. ;D
Also, the -1 Ld seems to deter this as an option for most people so I think it should be removed ( :o i know!).
I know -1 Ld seems harsh, but it somehow reflects that the crew is either recently gone traitor and not used to the new 'chain of command' or the sailors are pretty new and inexpierienced on this ship.
Plus, if the rules allow, squadroning, lords and CSM now, you can cope with that.
I don't know if I'm completely comfortable removing the penalty, yet. But adding something in between will just (needlessly) complicate stuff.
Also, the rule doesn't force it to be a cruiser AND/OR escort. The new rules I suggested allow for more choice from the Chaos player. Personally, I wouldn't have even used the old rules. IN cruisers need squadroning much of the time, and having 1 is a bad option ESPECIALLY at -1 Ld. It is a point sink and you consider the chaos cruiser options you could be taking. The escorts are the only think that seemed to be an alright option.
Huh. That was close. Got confused and almost posted something here that would have been embarassing. :o
To me AND/OR indicates a choice (either/or/or both). So no force here. :)
But here's one thing that has to be changed in the new rule. The escorts had no point limit, just the cruiser. You can't buy 6 imperial escorts for 185 pts.
And I think I know the reason to the point limit: cheapest Nova Cannon at 190 pts -> limit to 185. Happy faces on both sides of the table. :P
"For every 750pts in a Chaos fleet, you may take 1 cruiser up to 185 pts OR 0-6 Imperial Navy Escorts, from the Segmentum Obscurus Bastion or the Segmentum Solar Armageddon Sector fleet Lists. Ships with nova cannons may not be taken. Imperial Navy escorts need not be in a single squadron and may be interspersed within other Chaos escort squadrons if desired. These vessels do not count as reserves"
/edit: Oh, and there is another issue. Do Strike Cruisers gone renegade come with SM/CSM on board or not? The latter would change their point value.
CSM:
I think 1 CSM per 750pts is a good option instead of a 0-3 number. This way, you have provisions for say 5,000pt games ;).
Fine with me. :)
CSM Strike Cruisers:
This would become an option in the above listed rules. We have precedent that SCs can be loyal to Chaos. I would like to see some option for the CSM fleet list to be able to take SCs like this rule would allow.
Check.
-
This makes it so you can put a lord or warmaster on the ships, and also CSM. Why you can't do this already doesn't seem very lore-appropriate. CSM could just, fly over and be on the captured Imperial ship...
Sure. Can't wait for more boarding torpedoes. ;D
Its going to take more than defecting to attract the attention of a god, even if you do so in spectacular fashion, and I dont really see a Lord or Warmaster jumping ship like that. After all these guys are mostly on their own or in small groups not big fleets unless theres a Crusade going on and then the organisers are probably going to want to keep people on the ships theyre experianced with and not order a lot of new commands. CSM I could see maybe but I dont think CSM should be freely available in the chaos fleets if they get their own list.
Also, the -1 Ld seems to deter this as an option for most people so I think it should be removed ( :o i know!).
I know -1 Ld seems harsh, but it somehow reflects that the crew is either recently gone traitor and not used to the new 'chain of command' or the sailors are pretty new and inexpierienced on this ship.
Plus, if the rules allow, squadroning, lords and CSM now, you can cope with that.
I don't know if I'm completely comfortable removing the penalty, yet. But adding something in between will just (needlessly) complicate stuff.
-1 leadership is fine, and fluffy. There has to be something to offset their availability.
Also, the rule doesn't force it to be a cruiser AND/OR escort. The new rules I suggested allow for more choice from the Chaos player. Personally, I wouldn't have even used the old rules. IN cruisers need squadroning much of the time, and having 1 is a bad option ESPECIALLY at -1 Ld. It is a point sink and you consider the chaos cruiser options you could be taking. The escorts are the only think that seemed to be an alright option.
Huh. That was close. Got confused and almost posted something here that would have been embarassing. :o
To me AND/OR indicates a choice (either/or/or both). So no force here. :)
But here's one thing that has to be changed in the new rule. The escorts had no point limit, just the cruiser. You can't buy 6 imperial escorts for 185 pts.
And I think I know the reason to the point limit: cheapest Nova Cannon at 190 pts -> limit to 185. Happy faces on both sides of the table. :P
"For every 750pts in a Chaos fleet, you may take 1 cruiser up to 185 pts OR 0-6 Imperial Navy Escorts, from the Segmentum Obscurus Bastion or the Segmentum Solar Armageddon Sector fleet Lists. Ships with nova cannons may not be taken. Imperial Navy escorts need not be in a single squadron and may be interspersed within other Chaos escort squadrons if desired. These vessels do not count as reserves"
/edit: Oh, and there is another issue. Do Strike Cruisers gone renegade come with SM/CSM on board or not? The latter would change their point value.
Im not sure what the problem is with the current ruling? The only change I would make is allowing 1 cruiser AND/OR 0-6 escorts per 750. I would not put a restriction on escorts that can be taken (0-6 from any Imperial Navy fleet list) Strike Cruisers would not need to add +35 points, this should be addressed in the CSM fleet list.
CSM:
I think 1 CSM per 750pts is a good option instead of a 0-3 number. This way, you have provisions for say 5,000pt games ;).
Fine with me. :)
CSM should only be available as reserves if they get their own list, works out about the same as 1/750 anyway.
CSM Strike Cruisers:
This would become an option in the above listed rules. We have precedent that SCs can be loyal to Chaos. I would like to see some option for the CSM fleet list to be able to take SCs like this rule would allow.
Check.
Once again this should be addressed in the CSM fleet list.
-
Its going to take more than defecting to attract the attention of a god, even if you do so in spectacular fashion, and I dont really see a Lord or Warmaster jumping ship like that.
But there's no reason why Imperial Admirals and Commanders can't defect, is there? While they still could be adressed with their imperial rank, they would be 'in game terms' Warmaster and Lord.
I dont think CSM should be freely available in the chaos fleets if they get their own list.
We're working on that one. But limiting CSM to the CSM List and taking them as Reserves won't work out. You said that CSM could just take over any traitor ship they wanted... so why can't they be on a ship that isn't in the (very ship limited) CSM Fleet List? Plus a 13th Cruade with CSM availiable just on every 3rd ship? That doesn't get the picture right, does it?
There will be restrictions on how many CSM a list can have (especially the Renegade List). I know that you're just trying to make the CSM List more distinct, but the limit can't be 'None at all.'
-1 leadership is fine, and fluffy. There has to be something to offset their availability.
I think I'm on the same page here.
Im not sure what the problem is with the current ruling? The only change I would make is allowing 1 cruiser AND/OR 0-6 escorts per 750. I would not put a restriction on escorts that can be taken (0-6 from any Imperial Navy fleet list)
Current ruling and suggestions:
- (FAQ 2010) - 1 Cruiser and/or 0-6 Escorts every 1500pts
- (afterimagedan) - 1 Cruiser or 0-6 Escorts every 750pts
- (AndrewChristlieb) - 1 Cruiser and/or 0-6 Escorts every 750pts
afterimagedan simply wanted to loose the leash a bit, so you could choose to take 2 cruisers or 2 escort squadrons every 1500pts. Your suggestion would allow more than half of the fleet to be imperial ships. I wouldn't need that many. With -1 Ld it still could be finde, though.
Strike Cruisers would not need to add +35 points, this should be addressed in the CSM fleet list.
Of course they wouldn't add +35 points. My question was simply, do all SM ships (Strike Cruiser & Escorts) taken from the Segmentum Solar List come with (C)SM? The answer I am hoping for is 'Yes, they do.' While certainly not every boarded SM ship would attract CSM, there's a voice in my head that tells me not to invent stuff for every possibility out there and to keep it simple.
-
But there's no reason why Imperial Admirals and Commanders can't defect, is there? While they still could be adressed with their imperial rank, they would be 'in game terms' Warmaster and Lord.
Well its unlikely that the Warmaster would end up on an Imperial ship anyway with the current restrictions, I suppose a Lord could be on one but I dont think they should be able to take any Marks if they do so and thats just one more rule to complicate things :/.
We're working on that one. But limiting CSM to the CSM List and taking them as Reserves won't work out. You said that CSM could just take over any traitor ship they wanted... so why can't they be on a ship that isn't in the (very ship limited) CSM Fleet List? Plus a 13th Cruade with CSM availiable just on every 3rd ship? That doesn't get the picture right, does it?
There will be restrictions on how many CSM a list can have (especially the Renegade List). I know that you're just trying to make the CSM List more distinct, but the limit can't be 'None at all.'
Maybe it should be like the Armageddon list then? Allow them but put the same restrictions on squadroning, leadership, etc.
I think I'm on the same page here.
word
Current ruling and suggestions:
- (FAQ 2010) - 1 Cruiser and/or 0-6 Escorts every 1500pts
- (afterimagedan) - 1 Cruiser or 0-6 Escorts every 750pts
- (AndrewChristlieb) - 1 Cruiser and/or 0-6 Escorts every 750pts
afterimagedan simply wanted to loose the leash a bit, so you could choose to take 2 cruisers or 2 escort squadrons every 1500pts. Your suggestion would allow more than half of the fleet to be imperial ships. I wouldn't need that many. With -1 Ld it still could be finde, though.
I doubt many people will be taking more than 6 escorts in a 1500 pt Chaos fleet anyway and the restriction needs to be loosened to make the Cruiser choices worth a darn but it would be a shame to have to choose between taking a group of swords and a 2nd cruiser. Right now the only really decent cruiser options are the Dauntless because they match the Chaos cruisers speed and the Gothic because it doesnt require squadroning to do its job, even with 1/750 I dont think many people will be taking Lunars or Tyrants but it might make the Voss light cruisers an option.
Of course they wouldn't add +35 points. My question was simply, do all SM ships (Strike Cruiser & Escorts) taken from the Segmentum Solar List come with (C)SM? The answer I am hoping for is 'Yes, they do.' While certainly not every boarded SM ship would attract CSM, there's a voice in my head that tells me not to invent stuff for every possibility out there and to keep it simple.
Yes all Strike cruisers and Space Marine escorts have SMs reguardless of what list they come from. For ease I would say if you were to take a Strike cruiser or escort (which I dont think would fly with the current rules) they would then have CSM.
[/quote]
-
13th Black Crusade
Pros: All ships, all marks in one fleet, Abaddon, Planet Killer, CSM, Daemon ships, BSFs, opposing chaos god marks may be taken if a warmaster is taken and given the mark of chaos undivided.
Cons: If a mark is taken, it may only be on 1 ship/squadron in the fleet.
-Should they be able to use both types of Blackstone Fortresses? (fluff-masters?)
-Should we limit CSMs? If so, how should it look? 1 per 500pts? (I think Andrew is right about this, there should be some sort of limit. Ships that would show up for a crusade would not ALL have CSM on them. Also, they are 35pts each in this list as opposed to the CSM list being worked on)
Incursion/Marked
Pros: All ships (no named or PK), much more loose Renegade options? (this list needs some help, maybe a more useful renegade option would make this a hefty perk for taking this list), 0-1 CSM strike cruiser.
Cons: limited CSM, EITHER Marks only on Warmaster, Lords and CSM. (Lords and CSM only one Mark), OR, pick a mark, all ships can take no mark or that mark only. the previous sentence is there so we can integrate the Marked and Incursion lists because they can choose one or the other way of using marks. No BSFs.
-How should renegades look? I think the -1 Ld is alright if their is a secondary commander that can be placed on their ship (which would make it Ld 8). I was thinking it could look like this:
- "For every 750pts in a Chaos fleet, you may purchase 0-6 Imperial Navy Escorts AND/OR 1 cruiser of up to 185 points from the Segmentum Obscurus Bastion Fleet or the Segmentum Solar Armageddon Sector Fleet lists. Imperial Navy escorts need not be in a single squadron and may be interspersed throughout other Chaos escort squadrons if desired. These vessels do not count as reserves. Renegade cruisers subtract 1 from their randomly determined leadership value."
-1 CSM per 750pts.
-Renegade SCs come with built-in CSM.
Chaos Traitor Legion Fleet (CSM)
Pros: cheap CSMs, very accessible marks (pick a mark. all ships can take no mark or that mark only), cheap CSM warmaster with high LD, amazing LD
Cons: VERY limited ship options.
-1 SC per 750pts? This option would allow for something similar looking to the Astral Claws after falling to Chaos.
Getting close! Keep it up guys!
-
- "Any escort squadron containing Renegade escorts subtracts 1 from their randomly determined leadership value as well."
Renegade escorts didn't suffer that leadership penalty before. Want to put it in?
-
Hmm, no I don't. :)
-
I lost track. What is the current point I should nitpick?
-
13th Black Crusade
Pros: All ships, all marks in one fleet, Abaddon, Planet Killer, CSM, Daemon ships, BSFs, opposing chaos god marks may be taken if a warmaster is taken and given the mark of chaos undivided.
Cons: If a mark is taken, it may only be on 1 ship/squadron in the fleet.
-Should they be able to use both types of Blackstone Fortresses? (fluff-masters?)
-Should we limit CSMs? If so, how should it look? 1 per 500pts? (I think Andrew is right about this, there should be some sort of limit. Ships that would show up for a crusade would not ALL have CSM on them. Also, they are 35pts each in this list as opposed to the CSM list being worked on)
Incursion/Marked
Pros: All ships (no named or PK), much more loose Renegade options? (this list needs some help, maybe a more useful renegade option would make this a hefty perk for taking this list), 0-1 CSM strike cruiser.
Cons: limited CSM, EITHER Marks only on Warmaster, Lords and CSM. (Lords and CSM only one Mark), OR, pick a mark, all ships can take no mark or that mark only. the previous sentence is there so we can integrate the Marked and Incursion lists because they can choose one or the other way of using marks. No BSFs.
-How should renegades look? I think the -1 Ld is alright if their is a secondary commander that can be placed on their ship (which would make it Ld 8). I was thinking it could look like this:
- "For every 750pts in a Chaos fleet, you may purchase 0-6 Imperial Navy Escorts AND/OR 1 cruiser of up to 185 points from the Segmentum Obscurus Bastion Fleet or the Segmentum Solar Armageddon Sector Fleet lists. Imperial Navy escorts need not be in a single squadron and may be interspersed throughout other Chaos escort squadrons if desired. These vessels do not count as reserves. Renegade cruisers subtract 1 from their randomly determined leadership value."
-1 CSM per 750pts.
-Renegade SCs come with built-in CSM.
Chaos Traitor Legion Fleet (CSM)
Pros: cheap CSMs, very accessible marks (pick a mark. all ships can take no mark or that mark only), cheap CSM warmaster with high LD, amazing LD
Cons: VERY limited ship options.
-1 SC per 750pts? This option would allow for something similar looking to the Astral Claws after falling to Chaos.
Anything else before we start voting on the lists? For Chaos, all we have left are lists and Daemon ships.
-
Ok so thoughts on fleet lists:
Gothic sector list just like the Imperial list we should retain one list that is identical to the one found in the BBB with the price adjustments.
Black Crusade list this would represent a major Chaos offensive like the 13th, should include most options.
Incursion list representing smaller scale forces spread through out Imperial space, less strict on Marks like the Gothic sector list and has different ship options than 13th. Maybe allow something similar to Armageddons 1bc/ cc.
CSM list maybe. Kind of on the fence as to if this is really needed...
-
Ok so thoughts on fleet lists:
Gothic sector list just like the Imperial list we should retain one list that is identical to the one found in the BBB with the price adjustments.
Why is this needed? You will be able to get the same exact stuff with the Incursion/Marked list.
Black Crusade list this would represent a major Chaos offensive like the 13th, should include most options.
Yep, I think it is that way as it is listed previously.
Incursion list representing smaller scale forces spread through out Imperial space, less strict on Marks like the Gothic sector list and has different ship options than 13th. Maybe allow something similar to Armageddons 1bc/ cc.
The renegade stuff will add to that sort of feel. That and the SC option will allow for some different ship choices and a few less options as well (PK and BSF mainly). What do you mean by 1bc/cc?
CSM list maybe. Kind of on the fence as to if this is really needed...
There seems to be a lot of support for this.
-
Well, it is Battlefleet Gothic and the gothic sector lists should remain as the grounding force.
Armageddon can take one battlecruiser per cruiser instead of one/two. Im not saying that Chaos should have a copy of that but something similar would be a nice way to further distance this list from the Black list.
-
Well, it is Battlefleet Gothic and the gothic sector lists should remain as the grounding force.
Armageddon can take one battlecruiser per cruiser instead of one/two. Im not saying that Chaos should have a copy of that but something similar would be a nice way to further distance this list from the Black list.
True, this is Battlefleet Gothic, but it doesn't hold anyone back from saying that the Gothic Sector fleet is an Incursion fleet.
As to your other point, I'm up for hearing some thoughts on that! At this point, I am content with the distinctions.
-
Armageddon can take one battlecruiser per cruiser instead of one/two. Im not saying that Chaos should have a copy of that but something similar would be a nice way to further distance this list from the Black list.
What if this is the Gothic sector's bonus?
-
We are right at the end of Chaos stuff. I was thinking we could make the lists like this (similar to how they were a few weeks ago):
Gothic Sector List: same as BBB with updated points
Incursion List: Pros: All ships (no named or PK), 0-1 CSM strike cruiser (with built in CSM).
Cons: 1 CSM per 750pts, Marks only on Warmaster, Lords, and CSM. The previous sentence is there so we can integrate the Marked and Incursion lists because they can choose one or the other way of using marks. No BSFs.
"For every 750pts in a Chaos fleet, you may purchase 0-6 Imperial Navy Escorts AND/OR 1 cruiser of up to 185 points from the Segmentum Obscurus Bastion Fleet or the Segmentum Solar Armageddon Sector Fleet lists. Imperial Navy escorts need not be in a single squadron and may be interspersed throughout other Chaos escort squadrons if desired. These vessels do not count as reserves. Renegade cruisers subtract 1 from their randomly determined leadership value."
Black Crusade: Pros: All ships, all marks in one fleet, Abaddon, Planet Killer, CSM, Daemon ships, all BSFs, opposing chaos god marks may be taken if a warmaster is taken and given the mark of chaos undivided.
Cons: If a mark is taken, it may only be on 1 ship/squadron in the fleet per type.
Marked Lists It would be nice to just integrate the 4 different powers of chaos lists. It would be nicely organized, but either way, let's just keep them how they are and make the changes we need. These are the lists that should get the marks at a discount like we had planned for the "marked" list. That should be their main bonus overall. They can take cheap marks and CSM on all ships. All we need to do is change the point costs of stuff and remove the specific chapter references like "Thousand Sons," etc.
Basically, the original lists will all still exist but with smal tweaks. The Incursion list will be the new one.
-
We are right at the end of Chaos stuff. I was thinking we could make the lists like this (similar to how they were a few weeks ago):
Gothic Sector List: same as BBB with updated points As it should be :)
Incursion List: Pros: All ships (no named or PK), 0-1 CSM strike cruiser (with built in CSM).
Cons: 1 CSM per 750pts, Marks only on Warmaster, Lords, and CSM. The previous sentence is there so we can integrate the Marked and Incursion lists because they can choose one or the other way of using marks. No BSFs.
"For every 750pts in a Chaos fleet, you may purchase 0-6 Imperial Navy Escorts AND/OR 1 cruiser of up to 185 points from the Segmentum Obscurus Bastion Fleet or the Segmentum Solar Armageddon Sector Fleet lists. Imperial Navy escorts need not be in a single squadron and may be interspersed throughout other Chaos escort squadrons if desired. These vessels do not count as reserves. Renegade cruisers subtract 1 from their randomly determined leadership value."
This sounds ok, I think the Strike cruiser option would work well as presented in the Inquisition list.
Black Crusade: Pros: All ships, all marks in one fleet, Abaddon, Planet Killer, CSM, Daemon ships, all BSFs, opposing chaos god marks may be taken if a warmaster is taken and given the mark of chaos undivided.
Cons: If a mark is taken, it may only be on 1 ship/squadron in the fleet per type.
So you can only take one instance of each of the marks per fleet or you can take as many of each that you can afford but only one per commander/CSM?
Marked Lists It would be nice to just integrate the 4 different powers of chaos lists. It would be nicely organized, but either way, let's just keep them how they are and make the changes we need. These are the lists that should get the marks at a discount like we had planned for the "marked" list. That should be their main bonus overall. They can take cheap marks and CSM on all ships. All we need to do is change the point costs of stuff and remove the specific chapter references like "Thousand Sons," etc.
Sounds like a plan
Basically, the original lists will all still exist but with smal tweaks. The Incursion list will be the new one.
-
In the inquisition fleet, they can take a GK strike cruiser 1/500pts. Is this what you mean? With the limit on CSM 1/750pts, would this include the CSM that come with the strike cruisers?
As far as the powers of chaos fleets, I guess the marks wouldn't need to be cheaper than they are now, considering they are cheap in BFG:R.
-
I wasnt thinking about the csm limit actually but ya it could be restricted to to same 1/750. I was really thinking that it would be nice to be able to field a "csm" fleet that had recently turned, a handful of strike cruisers and maybe a barge.
-
So strike cruiser at 1/500pts, also, if a Warmaster is taken, it can have 0-1 barge? That may be one of its biggest bonuses: the ability to use limited SM vessels. Let's tip the balance a little more with this as far as marks go and make it so that the only marks that can be taken are on Warmasters, Lords, and Secondary Commanders. That would counterbalance it nicely with the nice SM stuff that would be added by this and make it harder to use marks.
Side note: This Incursion list is shaping up to be quite the renegade/traitor guard type list. I like how it's a chaos list where you can use some SM stuff and some IN stuff but there will be very little marks, if any. This is looking cool. :) It could play the part of a newly turned SM fleet with Chaos mortals who have tagged along for the fun. It could also be just a huge renegade force...
Side note 2: Should we call this the Chaos Renegade list? That seems more fitting than the word "incursion." Plus, we will already have a Gothic Sector Incursion list.
-
Hey,
agreed on renegade list. "Like"
-
Chaos Renegades? Copy that. :)
Let's tip the balance a little more with this as far as marks go and make it so that the only marks that can be taken are on Warmasters, Lords, and Secondary Commanders. That would counterbalance it nicely with the nice SM stuff that would be added by this and make it harder to use marks.
We can do that.
So strike cruiser at 1/500pts, also, if a Warmaster is taken, it can have 0-1 barge? That may be one of its biggest bonuses: the ability to use limited SM vessels.
I wonder if the 'Renegade Strike Cruiser' needs to be mentioned separately. If the complete 'Segmentum Solar' List is availiable with our 'Imperial Renegades'-rule, you can simplay acquire a Strike Cruiser that way.
On the other hand... how about keeping the Strike Cruisers' (0-1) restriction in the first place, and set it to (1/500) only if the Warmaster himself is a Marine.
(=> as in "has to buy CSM for his ship" regarding the text that says that if CSM are present on a ship, it is assumed that the captain is a CSM as well)
I've got some concerns about the SM Barge. It would add a 6+ prow to a chaos fleet, figuratively speaking. I'm not sure how such a beast would affect the balancing against other fleets.
-
Chaos Renegades? Copy that. :)
So strike cruiser at 1/500pts, also, if a Warmaster is taken, it can have 0-1 barge? That may be one of its biggest bonuses: the ability to use limited SM vessels.
I wonder if the 'Renegade Strike Cruiser' needs to be mentioned separately. If the complete 'Segmentum Solar' List is availiable with our 'Imperial Renegades'-rule, you can simplay acquire a Strike Cruiser that way.
On the other hand... how about keeping the Strike Cruisers' (0-1) restriction in the first place, and set it to (1/500) only if the Warmaster himself is a Marine.
(=> as in "has to buy CSM for his ship" regarding the text that says that if CSM are present on a ship, it is assumed that the captain is a CSM as well)
I think that's an awesome idea. We could just have it so that you can only take SCs by the renegade rule. BUT, if you put CSM on your Warmaster's ship, you will be allowed to take SCs 1/500 and 0-1 Barge.
I've got some concerns about the SM Barge. It would add a 6+ prow to a chaos fleet, figuratively speaking. I'm not sure how such a beast would affect the balancing against other fleets.
I'm not worried about it, really. It will add a different dynamic to how that particular Chaos fleet will work. That will have its own tactics developed. I think it's a good thing!
So...
Incursion List: Pros: All ships (no named or PK), If the Warmaster's ship is given CSM, it is assumed he is a CSM. Strike Cruisers can now be taken 1/500pts and 0-1 Battle Barge can be taken.
Cons: 1 CSM per 750pts, Marks only on Warmaster, Lords, and CSM. The previous sentence is there so we can integrate the Marked and Incursion lists because they can choose one or the other way of using marks. No BSFs.
"For every 750pts in a Chaos fleet, you may purchase 0-6 Imperial Navy Escorts AND/OR 1 cruiser of up to 185 points from the Segmentum Obscurus Bastion Fleet or the Segmentum Solar Armageddon Sector Fleet lists. Imperial Navy escorts need not be in a single squadron and may be interspersed throughout other Chaos escort squadrons if desired. These vessels do not count as reserves. Renegade cruisers subtract 1 from their randomly determined leadership value."
-
Chaos Lists:
Gothic Sector List: Same as BBB with updated points.
Black Crusade: All ships (including the named ships and BSFs and Planet Killer), all marks in one fleet, Abaddon, CSM on any capital ship (usual), Daemon ships, opposing chaos god marks may be taken if a warmaster is taken and given the Mark of Chaos Undivided.
-Mark of Chaos Undivided (25pts): May only be taken on a Lord or Warmaster. Once per game, the Lord or Warmaster may expend the Mark of Chaos Undivided and allow the entire fleet to use their leadership value for the rest of the player's turn.
Marks: "If a mark is taken, it may only be on 1 ship/squadron in the fleet per type. Chaos Marks may be taken on any capital ship but only 1 ship/squadron may take a mark of a specific Chaos God for the entire fleet.
Chaos Renegade List:
-All ships (no named or PK or BSFs)
-If the Warmaster's ship is given CSM, it is assumed he is a CSM. Strike Cruisers can now be taken 1/500pts and 0-1 Battle Barge can be taken is the Warmaster is a CSM.
-1 CSM per 750pts
-Marks only on Warmaster, Lords, and CSM.
Imperial Renegade Ships:
"For every 750pts in a Chaos fleet, you may purchase 0-6 Imperial Navy Escorts AND/OR 1 cruiser of up to 185 points from the Segmentum Obscurus Bastion Fleet or the Segmentum Solar Armageddon Sector Fleet lists. Imperial Navy escorts need not be in a single squadron and may be interspersed throughout other Chaos escort squadrons if desired. These vessels do not count as reserves. Renegade cruisers subtract 1 from their randomly determined leadership value."
Powers of Chaos Lists:
-same as they were except with updated costs
-Availability of taking fleet wide marks
-May take cheaper CSM on all ships (probably 25pts per ship instead of 35)
-Availability of the "Forces of Chaos" options
Any changes we need to make to this? Also, do we need to change anything about the "Forces of Chaos" upgrades in the "Powers" lists?
-
I will then silence as a good thing?
-
I think this is good, will the Powers of Chaos (CSM?) list retain the same command structrue as the black crusade list?
-
I think this is good, will the Powers of Chaos (CSM?) list retain the same command structrue as the black crusade list?
Well we have this so far...
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5136.msg40547#msg40547
Do you think it needs to be different than that?
-
Nope thats fine, is the BBB list getting that too or staying with the ld8/9?
-
At this point, it would be the same as the earlier vote I put the link in there for.
-
ok
-
Alright, so the Chaos lists vote is closed, the Daemon ships vote will be over tonight, the battleships are all fixed up, the named ships also, and it seems like Chaos is in great shape. Anything else we need to work on for Chaos before we wrap it up?
-
I think the only complaints Im aware of that I cant remember uss going over was the Activated Blackstones price. Other than that it just looks like read through.
-
Hmm, any thoughts on the price?
-
Actually, I was looking at Plaxor's version the other day.
He had it at 550, but with 6 turrets, taking +1 dam for critical hits, and Skeleton Crew (never really got to grips with his rules set, enlighten me!)
If we kept it as is, would 600 be acceptable?
Yes, it's a beast, but given that it can't use special orders (LO most tellingly), it's utility questionable, given it's massive cost. Super-Mega-Death-Shot aside of course ;D
Just a thought, how do people run crits for this beggar anyway?
You need 2-3 to knock out lances (run this to mean warp cannons), and from there you skip to reactors damaged. It can't loose orbit, so 8-9 skip straight to No shields! Get that again (baring in mind that's 3 out of 12 results, so highly likely) it's scales up to hull breaches! Please tell me if there's something I missed :(
On the other hand, Plaxor's rules didn't make it any more sturdy, hell if your fleet has ready access to H&R attacks you'll go through it in no time!
How about this for the ABF- Critical hits have no effect, H&R attacks cause 1 hit on a 6.
-
If I had to guess the skeleton crew is porobably the same as the standard rules where the blackstone does not roll a d6 for boarding actions (because it has no crew).
To be honest just about everytime Ive seen an ABSF its gone down so quickly to massed bombers I cant remember doing crits :/. I would probably lean more towards weapons cannot be hit (maybe count the weapons as lances as you had them), any 2-6 goes to reactors, 7-12 as listed (Orbit Lost is just a thruster damaged +1 hit so I think it could apply).
-
Hey everyone! I am calling for people to start proofreading on the Chaos document. I am working on the fleet lists now.
-
Just a thought on the Hecate. How would people feel about bringing it's side batteries to fpw 6.
Compared to devstation-190
+dorsal lances (given value of +30, Murder to Hades) 220
+15cm frontal WB's (usually about +10) 230
However, swapping the 2 lances for 4 WB's no sense. Seeing as 1 lance is often given as 3 WB's at the same range, surely the Hecate's side batteries should be 6, not 4.
Hell, that example only applies to the BFG-R Dev. The BBB Dev has 60cm lances, what would the 45cm WB equivalent of that be? 7/8?
-
The Murder replaces 6 of its port and starboard batteries for 2 lances, I would see this as a similar swap.
-
I don't really see the necessity to change the Hecate.
As for the number of batteries, you're missing some things.
1.) One "Side Slot" has usually not more than 6 WB or 2 lances. Only the rare combi-slots (i.e. Slaughter) provide more firepower.
2.) More than once the firepower is reduced from 6 to 4, to get a range upgrade at no cost.
3.) Instead of talking about an expensive Hecate, I say the Devastation is a bit too cheap to use it as a proper comparision.
When you take the Styx for instance things look like this:
Styx 260
-2 Launch Bays -20
-15cm dorsal range -10
+4 WB@45cm +5 (+10?)
------------------------------------------
235
Suprise, suprise... when compared to the Styx the Hecate is too cheap. Even armament costs seem to differ from fleet to fleet and sometimes ship to ship. So there's always a margin of error. Plus the Hecate doesn't really "feel off" and needs to be fixed.
I think you get my point. ;)
-
Some proofreading thoughts:
Abbadon's 13th Black Crusade fleet list offers CSM-crewed vessels the opportunity to replace attack craft with thunderhawks, halving bay strengths and rounding down.
All 4 faction fleet lists (Khorne, Slaanesh, Nurgle, and Tzeentch) reference BFG:A page numbers for CSM crew rules & options, it's a minor edit but do we want that to point instead to the relevant section inside the document? My assumption (my BFG:A book is at home and I'm at work) is that the Ordnance section I'm looking at in the faction lists are pointing at BFG:A's 13th Black Crusade list page, which give them access to the thunderhawk swap among other things.
Also, the Chaos Renegades fleet list (Relictor-class BB, chaos CLs) gives the option to upgrade to CSM crews, but omits the thunderhawk swap option. Was that intentional?
My other question concerns Marks of Chaos. The Gothic War list (page 41) keeps the original BFG Marks, while the CSM section (page 40) has a modified set of 5.
The other lists reference page 41 for CSM & Chaos Marks rules (and faction animosity for squadrons), though the section for them is page 40. Do we want one controlling set of Marks rules for all fleets, or keep the old BFG Marks for the Gothic War and point all of the other lists to the CSM/Marks list on page 40?
Edit: I realized the Abbadon's 13th Black Crusade list has the old Marks still too... Which leads me to question whether there's 2 Chaos Mark sets floating around at the moment? (I may have missed a discussion somewhere)
-
Excellent, Armiger! I will work on those.
-
Almost done with the Chaos lists. I just need to do the Powers lists then I will move on to the Daemon Ships rules.
-
Just had a butchers at Chaos- Please disregard any you're already aware of or working on ;)
Cruisers in the following lists are given as battleships-
Gothic sector incursion
13th Black crusade
Renegade fleets
Plague fleets
Allows you to take the Wages Of Sin, Conqueror and Scion Of Prospero! is this intentional?! :o What did I miss?
Chaos lords in The Khorne, Slaanesh and Tzeench need changing to 30 pts. CSM crews need changing to 25pts
Havoc
we going with the 2010 profile instead of Plaxor's?
Despoiler
Wasn't there some discussion to make it 390?
Idolator
Didn't we make this 40pts? Please correct me if wrong!
CSM, Ordnance and Marks page
Something's gone really wrong with the H&R section! looks like two versions have overlapped!
-
Just had a butchers at Chaos- Please disregard any you're already aware of or working on ;)
Cruisers in the following lists are given as battleships-
Gothic sector incursion
13th Black crusade
Renegade fleets
Gotcha. I will fix this. Already have done some.
Plague fleets
Allows you to take the Wages Of Sin, Conqueror and Scion Of Prospero! is this intentional?! :o What did I miss?
No, this is just me working through the fleet lists and copy and pasting bulks over.
Chaos lords in The Khorne, Slaanesh and Tzeench need changing to 30 pts. CSM crews need changing to 25pts
Khorne, Tzeentch, and Slaanesh haven't really been messed with yet. They will end up looking like the Plague Fleet when I am done with them. Unfortunately, the pictures will have to go, as much as I want to keep them.
Havoc
we going with the 2010 profile instead of Plaxor's?
Hmm, good catch. I will look into this.
Despoiler
Wasn't there some discussion to make it 390?
Hmm, vote 46 changed the stats, but I can't find a 390pt vote at the moment. Please share a link if you find it.
Idolator
Didn't we make this 40pts? Please correct me if wrong!
Please share a link if you find this too.
CSM, Ordnance and Marks page
Something's gone really wrong with the H&R section! looks like two versions have overlapped!
Yeah, that page for totally messed up. I will mess with it again.
-
Fleets should be done, barring mistakes.
Stuff I still need to do:
Terminus and Scion entries need editing.
Havoc messiness. I will look into it. I thought we were going with the WB version... ?
Figure out possible Idolator and Despoiler price changes.
-
Some proofreading thoughts:
Abbadon's 13th Black Crusade fleet list offers CSM-crewed vessels the opportunity to replace attack craft with thunderhawks, halving bay strengths and rounding down.
Not the Thunderhawk Gunship rules are listed in the CSM section and all fleets can use it. Did I miss what you were saying?
All 4 faction fleet lists (Khorne, Slaanesh, Nurgle, and Tzeentch) reference BFG:A page numbers for CSM crew rules & options, it's a minor edit but do we want that to point instead to the relevant section inside the document? My assumption (my BFG:A book is at home and I'm at work) is that the Ordnance section I'm looking at in the faction lists are pointing at BFG:A's 13th Black Crusade list page, which give them access to the thunderhawk swap among other things.
I will probably generalize the references to rules within the document and not use page numbers. I believe I changed these references at this point because I can't find any more references to armada except once in the lore section now.
Also, the Chaos Renegades fleet list (Relictor-class BB, chaos CLs) gives the option to upgrade to CSM crews, but omits the thunderhawk swap option. Was that intentional?
Hmm, I must have fixed this. I don't see what you are saying. Hopefully, the CSM section in the Renegade list now works that out.
My other question concerns Marks of Chaos. The Gothic War list (page 41) keeps the original BFG Marks, while the CSM section (page 40) has a modified set of 5.
Changed. That was before I got to the Gothic list.
The other lists reference page 41 for CSM & Chaos Marks rules (and faction animosity for squadrons), though the section for them is page 40. Do we want one controlling set of Marks rules for all fleets, or keep the old BFG Marks for the Gothic War and point all of the other lists to the CSM/Marks list on page 40?
Edit: I realized the Abbadon's 13th Black Crusade list has the old Marks still too... Which leads me to question whether there's 2 Chaos Mark sets floating around at the moment? (I may have missed a discussion somewhere)
Fixed. Now there is one set of rules for marks.
-
Figure out possible Idolator and Despoiler price changes.
Disregard what I said about this! :-[ Colud only find these costs in Plaxor's BFGR. Could have sworn these prices came up at some point but can't for the life of me find the threads! Just stick to what we have! :-X
-
Actually, it did come up in the "Despoiler" thread. I had just forgotten to add it to the stats when we voted on it. It was meant to go to 390 and +10 for torpedo swap. You were right!
Also, I think I have made all the changes to the document rules wise. Please proof read again! I will be going through right now to clean up the PDF.
-
Some ships have Imperial torpedoes in their description. Replace with "Torpedoes"?
Havoc- Remove the reference to weak armour, now it's armour is +5 all round?
Remove from Incursion list? It is the BBB ships after all. ;)
In the entries for the BBB ships, the text is a lot less clear than the other stuff, but I'm guessing that is a flaw with the Doc itself and not under your control.
Other than that, Looks good. :) Will look again when I get the chance.
-
Made those changes, Bessemer. Don't know how the Havoc go into the Gothic Sector list. Changed Imperial Torpedoes to Standard Torpedoes. Changed the Havoc lore section to the original Bakka lore.
Notice anything else?
-
Are we ready to vote to finalize this?
-
Yes Master
-
As threatened, here's my typos list. I'm sure there's stuff I missed too, but hopefully I got the majority of it:
Pg 11: "These vessels may purchase one of the following upgrades at the paints cost listed:" should be "points"
Pg 16: I don't recall, was there supposed to be some minor bit of text limiting the number of variant Murders in a fleet list? No more than half of the Murders fielded due to relative rarity, or something like that? Or did we choose not to bother with that restriction?
Pg 17: Slaughter-Class Cruiser has Prow Batteries str 6 30cm Front arc and Prow weapons batteries st4 8 30cm left ("port") arc. Should be strength 8 30cm Port Batteries.
Pg 30: Only realized this now, but the image for the Scion of Prospero depicts weapons batteries and lance turrets, but the rules only list weapons batteries in the loadout. Are we taking the "Slaughter" approach to gunnery (which is totally fine by me)?
Pg 33: "Ships with the Mark of Khornehave double their boarding value." Needs a space, alternatively, the "have" is unnecessary anyhow.
Pg 33: Under Chaos Ordnance, the first time Doomfire Bombers are mentioned, they're typo'd "Doomjire."
Pg 40: Chaos Strike Cruisers. I would suggest a re-wording of this paragraph: "If the Warmaster's ship is given a Chaos Space Marine crew, it is assumed that he too is a Chaos Space Marine. As such, the fleet may include 1 Chaos Strike Cruiser for every full 500 points, and may take 0-1 Chaos Battle Barge total. Chaos Strike Cruisers and Chaos Battle Barges follow the rules and upgrade options for their Imperial counterparts, except that they are crewed by Chaos Space Marines, and may take Marks of Chaos."
The last bit about being able to take Marks of Chaos is my extrapolation from the fact that they're crewed with Chaos Space Marines.
ALSO, here's a BIG QUESTION: should the 0-1 Battle Barge be limited to "Standard" Battle Barges, or should we just blow the doors wide open and permit the Seditio Opprimere and Venerable BBs? I kinda like the idea of being able to use that to backdoor in an Emperor-class BB with Thunderhawk Gunships and a CSM crew. (A) The thing certainly won't come cheap, and (B) in the lore, that ship class has been around since the Dark Age of Technology anyhow, and (C) it would generally be a decent way to demonstrate the wide variety of ships available to the Great Crusade fleets and what might still be kicking around in a Legion's arsenal (or what might have been captured and repurposed since). Dunno how comfortable other people might be with the option to "give Chaos ALL THE THINGS" though...
-
As threatened, here's my typos list. I'm sure there's stuff I missed too, but hopefully I got the majority of it:
Pg 11: "These vessels may purchase one of the following upgrades at the paints cost listed:" should be "points"
Hehe, paints. Fixed.
Pg 16: I don't recall, was there supposed to be some minor bit of text limiting the number of variant Murders in a fleet list? No more than half of the Murders fielded due to relative rarity, or something like that? Or did we choose not to bother with that restriction?
Checked through the old documents and didn't see anything like that.
Pg 17: Slaughter-Class Cruiser has Prow Batteries str 6 30cm Front arc and Prow weapons batteries st4 8 30cm left ("port") arc. Should be strength 8 30cm Port Batteries.
Fixed.
Pg 30: Only realized this now, but the image for the Scion of Prospero depicts weapons batteries and lance turrets, but the rules only list weapons batteries in the loadout. Are we taking the "Slaughter" approach to gunnery (which is totally fine by me)?
Changed the picture.
Pg 33: "Ships with the Mark of Khornehave double their boarding value." Needs a space, alternatively, the "have" is unnecessary anyhow.
Fixed.
Pg 33: Under Chaos Ordnance, the first time Doomfire Bombers are mentioned, they're typo'd "Doomjire."
Fixed.
Pg 40: Chaos Strike Cruisers. I would suggest a re-wording of this paragraph: "If the Warmaster's ship is given a Chaos Space Marine crew, it is assumed that he too is a Chaos Space Marine. As such, the fleet may include 1 Chaos Strike Cruiser for every full 500 points, and may take 0-1 Chaos Battle Barge total. Chaos Strike Cruisers and Chaos Battle Barges follow the rules and upgrade options for their Imperial counterparts, except that they are crewed by Chaos Space Marines, and may take Marks of Chaos."
Well said. I pasted your right in there instead.
The last bit about being able to take Marks of Chaos is my extrapolation from the fact that they're crewed with Chaos Space Marines.
ALSO, here's a BIG QUESTION: should the 0-1 Battle Barge be limited to "Standard" Battle Barges, or should we just blow the doors wide open and permit the Seditio Opprimere and Venerable BBs? I kinda like the idea of being able to use that to backdoor in an Emperor-class BB with Thunderhawk Gunships and a CSM crew. (A) The thing certainly won't come cheap, and (B) in the lore, that ship class has been around since the Dark Age of Technology anyhow, and (C) it would generally be a decent way to demonstrate the wide variety of ships available to the Great Crusade fleets and what might still be kicking around in a Legion's arsenal (or what might have been captured and repurposed since). Dunno how comfortable other people might be with the option to "give Chaos ALL THE THINGS" though...
At this point, it says Battle Barge and not Venerable Battle Barge. If we want both options, I should clarity it. I will go check the dialogue we had on it because we may have already intended one stance on this question.
-
I didn't see any more discussion on VBB so I think the original implication was just the standard BB.
-
That works fine with me. I mean, in a really big game, 3 BBs and you can bring over anything you want from an imperial list anyhow. I figured the intent was just to get a standard battle barge into this list, I'm just poking at stuff like this to look for loopholes ;)
-
True, true. Other than that, everything else look ok?
-
Found a minor typo. Can I keep it? :P
The Fleet Lists list the Nephilim class grand cruiser as Nephilum.
Other than that... I know I've been "away" some time now. When did we decide to leave Andrews CSM List out?
-
There are now some ways to make a CSM list in the new document though it won't look exactly like the SM list. The Powers of Chaos list have CSM for a discounted price and can take them on any capital ship.
-
Hi
I was looking through the chaos document, and noticed that I could not find any reference to the old +1 bonus to boarding. CSM still gives +2 to boarding, and reference that chaos normally get +1, but this seems like a forgotten leftover.
Have this rule been removed for chaos?
-
Hi
I was looking through the chaos document, and noticed that I could not find any reference to the old +1 bonus to boarding. CSM still gives +2 to boarding, and reference that chaos normally get +1, but this seems like a forgotten leftover.
Have this rule been removed for chaos?
It's in the rules for boarding, not in the Chaos document.
-
That depends on the rulebook. The 1.5 and 1.6 version of the BFG:R does not mention this. It mentions "aggressive", however.
This really goes to the question of what rulebook to use for BFG:R
But thanks for letting me know that chaos still have +1 for boarding
BTw, you guys are doing an amazing job for BFG. I thank you
-
There is a merged 2010 faq rules document being made. I think that will be the best to use.
-
Agreed.
-
<sigh> I'm going to be "that guy"...
Slow morning at work, was flipping through the final versions of the BFG:R Chaos & Space Marines lists (something I should have done when we were editing earlier), and realized that the VBB entry describes thunderhawk upgrades as "halve launch bays, rounding up," and the CSM thunderhawk upgrades are listed as "halve launch bays, rounding down." Now, there's only 2-3 ships where this even matters (Styx (specifically used as an example in the VBB entry), Retaliator, Exorcist), so I guess my question is, is this an issue?
I know that as a Chaos player I'd want to get 4 squadrons instead of 2 out of a 6 hangar bay CG, but taking CSMs does also open up the possibility of Marking a ship too, so the value of those +35 points isn't exactly 1:1 between the two lists. I also don't have my Armada book in front of me, and I don't remember if the original language for Chaos thunderhawks was "rounding down" either.
On the one hand it's differing applications of (nearly) the same rule, on the other hand, it's easily rationalized by "CSMs have been fighting the Long War in some cases for millennia... stuff breaks down, shortages are common, it's extremely difficult to keep things at full strength."
-
I think both should round up. Equal points for equal upgrades. Yes, it allows forms mark, but the marks costs its own amount of points. And thanks for being that guy. We need more people to fund these things!
-
Round up. If overpowered, increase cost. ;)
-
@Horizon:
Works for me. +35 points gets a carrier +1 Ld and half-strength launch bays cranking out hybrid fighter/assault boats... pretty much a chaos admiral's dream.
The risk of course is in possibly building an overpowered ship... but here's an example:
Retaliator 275pts
CSMs & Thawks +35pts
(+1 Ld Sensor Prow +20pts)
You end up with a 10 hit, 3 shield, 3 turret CG that can generate 4 Thawk tokens with a possible/likely Ld9-10 for reloading ordnance & 45cm batteries & lances... for 310-330 points.
Powerful, yes, but we're in battleship cost territory at that point to begin with, which is going to force that kind of overload into larger fleet engagements anyway.
In comparison, a Despoiler with CSMs would put out 4 squadrons of Thawks with better supporting fire with +4 battery strength & +15cm to range for 425pts base, possibly 435 if the player bought shorter stronger lances. Swapping out hangar strength for torpedoes would cap the Despoiler at 3 squadrons.
Similar strength on a SM Emperor VBB would cost 400pts (365+35) and would still massively outweigh the Retaliator for weight of fire, turrets, and shields.
I'll try to play-test it a little when I get the chance. It's hard to say definitively looking at the stats that its ok or overpowered, but given the cost it doesn't "feel" too bad... basically a "pocket" battle barge that can't quite take the same punishment.
-
That's why I voted against Grand Cruisers with six launch bays. >:( ;)
Only Styx may have that. 8)
-
Yeah... I can really understand that. Styx is amazing for its attack craft generation... But I always sorely felt its trade off - much reduced direct fire capacity - when playing it against ordnance-heavy opponents. It was always a huge juicy target for my foes.
With the changes to the Exorcist and Retaliator, it's really hard to justify taking a Styx now, especially when a Retaliator's giving you the same attack craft, better supporting fire, and more durability for +5 points.
I understand people's desire to give the hard points their "full value" on the CGs (I saw those conversations, but that was before I finally registered here), but the problem with that is that the CGs each mount 4 pairs of hard points that way, compared to a BB's 3 pairs, dorsal hard point, and prow hard point. The further option to upgrade CG Vengeance prows with torpedoes then gives you a lighter-displacement ship that actually carries more full-strength weapons sockets than a BB...problem? Without belaboring the point, I can definitely see why you voted the way you did.
Don't know if the BFG:R decisions were right or wrong on that score, but the beauty of a community-made update is we can at least test it and see if we got it right, and then modify as needs be.
-
Agreed on that.
-
I don't think those are overpowered. Thunderhawks being resilient is nice but they are still just a marker against turrets. Try playing Eldar a bunch and see why thunderhawks aren't as awesome as some think.
One of the best parts of the Styx is the FLR lances. This allows for more versatility. I recently had a game against dark Eldar and I was using a vengeance. It was pretty hard to get locked on shots, despite the range, because I was stuck with only side guns. They danced around me. The Styx being able to shoot on the prow is a serious bonus. Also, in BFGR the Styx is 15pts less.
-
The Grand cruisers have twice the hardpoints as the cruisers, they should not have the same firepower. We don't have to give them BB levels of efficiency per hardpoint, but we shouldn't ignore those hardpoints either. The Retaliator should have 6 AC. If it were a BB with 2 launch bay hardpoints per side it'd have 8 AC. The Retaliator was also a really rubbish ship so 6 is the minimum.
Compared to the Styx the Retaliator does have 2 more hits and an extra shield, which is a very good bump in survivability. It also has offside firepower, meaning it is more capable up close as a line ship and it also has a slightly tighter turning circle. So the advantages are obvious. On the other hand, the Styx is faster, has a smaller profile against enemy ordnance, has longer range, can fire forward, costs 15 pts less and has lighter composition restrictions. Since a shield would cost about 15 pts anyway it's pretty much 2 hits, offside firepower & turning circle vs speed, range, arcs, profile and composition.
Let's hand waive away the smaller profile and turning circle issues as being minor and also let's assume a parity of value for the arc/range vs offside firepower. This leaves 2 hits vs speed and composition. The hits are worth more than the speed, but the composition restriction goes some way to accounting for this.
Lastly, we already know that even at 260 pts the Styx is overpriced.
Essentially the Retaliator is a light BB flagship, best used where you can take one but can't or don't want to take a BB. The Styx fulfills the role of flagship in smaller games where you can't afford a CG (and this is perhaps the best reason to leave it overpriced). It isn't completely outshined by the Retaliator in larger games though, since they play differently.
The Exorcist on the other hand was already a very good ship. The IN didn't have a 6 AC ship at all. Making this one 6 AC has a bigger impact. The argument from the value of the hardpoints still stands though. It's ludicrous to give a ship with twice the launchbays the same bay strength as a normal cruiser. So the most obvious solution is to increase it to 6 AC like the Retaliator and readjust its value. This is what we did.
Another possible solution, and one I think we should perhaps adopt, is to simply reduce it to 1 launchbay hardpoint per side and replace the other one with some other weaponry and adjust price accordingly. This would entail editing the picture and it would also mean that those people that had one would have to remodel it. I personally think that this is a better option than giving the IN a 6AC carrier which takes up a CB slot. I would also make the extra weaponry quite weak so that the price can come back down somewhat. I'd suggest a single lance deck a la the Vengeance (so 1L@45cmL+R). The price can then come back down to ~240-245 pts.
-
Im less opposed to the Exo having 6 launch bays then say the Jovian especially because even tho it only takes a CB slot it also doesnt count towards your requirements for a battleship. That to me is a pretty fair trade off for allowing the IN to have a 6 launch carrier.
-
Argh! I didn't mean to open up this debate again, sorry! I'm happy with things as they stand at the moment since both the Exorcist and the Retaliator provide carriers that are a step up from heavy/battle cruisers but a step down from battleships at a cost that makes them useful if you can't splurge on the BB but expensive enough that you won't see tons of them (plus, they don't count toward BBs either unlike the Styx or Jovian). In my chaos fleet, I'm willing to get over my dislike of the Vengeance hull's layout relative to hard point itemization because I like having the option for a durable 6-squadron carrier if only because 275 points is a lot easier to sequester for a command carrier than 390. If I'd been posting when the debate was being made, I'd have personally argued for treating the Vengeance hull hard points as less than full value hard points, but that debate's over without my input, and it's time to playtest things and see how they perform. I'd say leave things as they are in the BFG:R lists now and see if we find we need to revisit the discussion later.
As for making Chaos Space Marine thunderhawk upgrades round up like Loyalist Marine thunderhawk upgrades for VBBs, the original 13th Black Crusade list in Armada did in fact round down, but the later marine list changes for Venerable Battle Barges are nice in that they don't horribly penalize a player for swapping over their attack craft. And yeah, AfterImageDan, as you'd noted I've never had that much trouble taking out resilient attack craft in the past. It would be nice if the 6 hangar ships could just generate 3 thunderhawks to weaken them a little, but there's no way to cleanly do that.
-
If I'd been posting when the debate was being made, I'd have personally argued for treating the Vengeance hull hard points as less than full value hard points, but that debate's over without my input, and it's time to playtest things and see how they perform.
In what way? Count them as having only 3 hardpoints or make their firepower substandard for the hardpoints they have? If the former, well, no. If the latter, I'd argue they already are. Battleships get more firepower per hardpoint than CGs do. For example, the Vengeance CG can only get 2L@45cm from its lance decks. That's pretty pathetic. Even the undergunned Acheron can do better. Hell, the original Devastation did better with half the hardpoints. It's really only tolerable given that it's a wysiwyg representation of the actual ship (the metal Vengeance lance decks only have the 1 large turret, no smaller batteries of lances like the normal Chaos lance deck.
-
Three hard points is good for them, just not 3lb per side. ;)
-
The desolator and it's amount of lances.
I have always tried to play WYSIWYG with lances. Almost every ship in BFG follows this rule from the onset. The Desolator is one of the few exceptions.
However, for some purposes, the desolator, as it stands, is an excellent battleship for the points. So, I do not feel that the default design should be changed.
I have usually added the 4->6 lance options, retaining the 60cm range for 50 points (The smotherman formula prices this increase at 52 pts).
However, reading through the Imperial document, I noticed the Victory Battleship. It can go from 4->6 lances, but reduce range to 45cm for 10 points. From the Smotherman formula, the cost should really be 25 pts.
Anyway, I would like to propose one of these options be added to the Desolator.
-
Quick Note
On page 33, the CSM section. The subsection "Capitol ship Squadrons" is located under the headen "CHAOS SPACE MARINE CREW". I presume that this is a mistake, and that the rule applies to ships without CSM crew also?
-
On page 35, the deamon ships, the end of the last column is covered by the black fluff box.
-
The desolator and it's amount of lances.
I have always tried to play WYSIWYG with lances. Almost every ship in BFG follows this rule from the onset. The Desolator is one of the few exceptions.
Yes, I felt the same way originally. However, there's nothing to say that all those lances fire at once. I assume that it cycles them so that each lance "rests" every 3rd shot.
I have usually added the 4->6 lance options, retaining the 60cm range for 50 points (The smotherman formula prices this increase at 52 pts).
However, reading through the Imperial document, I noticed the Victory Battleship. It can go from 4->6 lances, but reduce range to 45cm for 10 points. From the Smotherman formula, the cost should really be 25 pts.
Anyway, I would like to propose one of these options be added to the Desolator.
Don't use the Smotherman formula. Ever.
-
Three hard points is good for them, just not 3lb per side. ;)
Can't disagree more. Either give it a minimum of 6AC from its clearly two launchbay hardpoints per side or remove 1 bay per side and replace with other weaponry. The original stats were fine and balanced, they just did not suit the model. Having twice the weaponry of a Dictator and only gaining 2WBs and a bit of range is silly.
-
Yeah, I'm Necro-ing the thread, but I figure what I want to discuss belongs here rather than in a new thread.
By way of explanation: Yesterday AndrewChristlieb posted his dissatisfaction with the reserve rules in the ASC 2.0 Imperial Navy thread, which had me thinking for a while about fleet composition, reserve rules, and fleet lists. I'll save the parts of that for other discussions where they belong, but while spending a few hours mulling over this last night, I began to feel like we could have done some things better in the Chaos Renegades and god-specific fleet lists in the BFG:R Chaos document. I wasn't even thinking about this at the time we finalized the lists, which I'm kicking myself for.
To give you something to think about, compare the Armageddon Sector and Bastion Fleets lists (I'm ignoring the space marine vessels for the sake of this comparison). Neither one is a copy of the "core" Gothic Sector list, and they do share some similarities (the core of the list is made up of the same four cruisers, overlap in escorts), the moment you go beyond the fleet's core, things change greatly.
The Armageddon list fills out its cruiser section with a variety of locally-produced light cruiser hulls, and replaces the Overlord with the Armageddon. Players can take one battle cruiser for every cruiser in their fleet, there are no grand cruisers present, and the battleship options offer a heavy carrier, hybrid carrier, and dedicated lance boat. The options (assuming the player is not taking Marine vessels) encourage the player to build a fleet of light cruisers and up-gunned Lunars (Armageddons), and provide a number of battleship options in larger games to provide attack craft or load up on lances.
In comparison, the Bastion Fleet list brings the four core cruisers, brings back the Dauntless, and adds the Armageddon's light cruisers at the core level. At the battlecruiser level, the player is absolutely spoiled for choice with all of the existing CBs present, plus a trio of grand cruiser hulls fighting for the same slots. By contrast the battleship options are primarily gun boats, which with their availability would encourage a player to select their carriers at the cruiser and battle/grand cruiser level.
The fleets lists, by withholding some ships and offering others, as well as by playing with the numbers required to unlock certain types of ships, encourage certain types of game play without requiring it. The Armageddon list makes it easy to build a fleet from the height of the Third War for Armageddon, a combination of mass-produced light cruisers and up-gunned Lunars (now Armageddons) as the Imperial Navy struggles to match numbers parity with the rampaging Ork fleet and tries to out-range and out-gun the heavier Hammer-class cruisers and Ork battleships. The Bastion Fleets list represents the Imperial build-up for the 13th Black Crusade, desperately attempting to bring as much firepower to bare in an attempt to intercept Abaddon's forces and hold the Cadian Gate. Ships from across the Imperium are present, including lots of rarer and older hulls taken out of mothball fleets, and while the player has a lot more choice, this will probably tend toward the player designing a fleet built more heavily around line cruisers, with light, battle, and grand cruisers supplementing that core. These two lists from the Armada supplement have a very different feel to them.
By contrast, in the BFG:R Chaos lists we have Abaddon's 13th Black Crusade list, Abaddon's 13th Black Crusade list plus token Imperial cruisers and Space Marine strike cruisers, and Abaddon's 13th Black Crusade list with fleet-wide single Chaos god marks. I feel like we might have dropped the ball when it came to designing themed, characterful fleets.
So, since I'm already at the point where this has become a huge post, I'm going to include a couple of suggestions on how we could tweak some of the fleet lists to make them less...clones of each other. These are just suggestions and hopefully talking points, and I'd just like to see how people respond. I'm not looking to change things immediately, what we have is fine and choice means people could build themed lists if they want, but I feel like we could nudge that decision process along a little (hopefully without being overly restrictive) like the Imperial lists manage to do.
- - - - - - - - - -
Chaos Renegade Fleet List
- keep the commanders and marks the same as the current list
- my assumption is this is meant to be more of a rag-tag mixed fleet, a combination warfleet and piracy fleet, something similar to what the Red Corsairs might be using. As a consequence, I'd like to see it push players more toward using cruisers.
Battleships
- 1 BB for every 3 cruisers or heavy cruisers
Despoiler
Desecrator
Relictor
Desolator
The original lore suggested there were only three Despoilers built. We seem to have loosened that up a bit since then, but I like the idea of a handful of Desecrators sitting around as "venerable battle barges" in various Marine fleets, and that a few of them might have found their way into renegade Marine hands. The Relictor also seems like it would be less common.
Grand Cruisers
- 1 grand cruiser for every 3 cruisers or heavy cruisers
Retaliator
Repulsive
Nephilim
Executor
I would exclude the Nephilim, but its lore shows it as operating out of the Maelstrom, so it fits pretty well with my assumptions about fleet theme. As for the Executor, this is a personal choice related to Imperial ship selection options, more on that later.
Heavy Cruisers
- 1 heavy cruiser for every 2 cruisers
Styx
Hecate
Hades
Acheron
I considered taking out the Styx, but these were once the Imperial go-to carrier support vessel until the development of the Mars, so in terms of relative availability, I'm keeping it in for now. As for axing the Acheron, it's out for the same reason as the Executor, more on that later.
Cruisers
- 0-infinite (? - it might be worth it to cap it again at 12, or maybe 16 or so)
Devastation
Murder
Carnage
Slaughter
Inferno
Heretic
Unbeliever
Schismatic
I took the Inferno back out, mostly because their lore suggests they are relatively rare, and because of how it would impact the Imperial cruiser selections. I left the Schismatic in, although I'm still debating that one.
Escorts
Idolator
Infidel
Havoc
Iconoclast
Space Marines
- keep it the same
Imperial Renegades
- keep it the same (1 ship per 750 points, up to 185 points in cost, Armageddon or Bastion lists, which really just means the Bastion list, and -1 Ld after rolling.)
So, some explanation. A lot of my removals from the Chaos list options were meant to encourage taking Imperial ships. Why take a Gothic when you can take an Acheron or an Executor? Why take a Lunar when you can take an Inferno? Now, if you want heavy lance broadsides, your choices are to either reach for a Desolator or Desecrator, or pull in a Gothic or a Lunar. By stripping out the big beautiful carrier battleship (Despoiler), the player is now encouraged to take a Styx, Retaliator, Nephilim, more Devastations, or even a Defiant or Strike Cruiser to cover their attack craft requirements. As a consequence, a Chaos Renegade fleet would build more towards cruisers and away from battleships, and hopefully the Imperial and Space Marine list options actually look more useful and attractive than they did before. They're still not mandatory by any means, but they're also hopefully less forgettable.
- - - - - - - - - -
Berserker Fleet of Khorne
- keep the commanders and marks the same as the current list.
- my goal in adjusting ship selections is to encourage players to build a fleet that will close and engage the opponent's fleet in close-quarters barrages, hit & run attacks, and boarding.
Battleships
- 1 battleship for every 3 cruisers or heavy cruisers
0-1 Conqueror
Despoiler
Desecrator
Relictor
Desolator
I'm still debating striking the Despoiler, but I figure it might be more characterful to replace it here again with the ship meant to be a Great Crusade fleet command vessel (Desecrator), and I cut out the Desolator to remove a long-range stand-off ship in favor of the close-quarters Relictor.
Grand Cruisers
- 1 grand cruiser for every 3 cruisers or heavy cruisers
- Retaliators, Executors, and Nephilim must take the Improved Thrusters upgrade
Repulsive
Retaliator
Executor
Nephilim
I'm debating on the Nephilim, but I'd strike the Repulsive for being (a) slow, and (b) a decently ranged gunboat in favor of pushing for broadside-heavy fast grand cruisers. This is definitely me goofing around with ideas.
Heavy Cruisers
Styx
Hecate
Hades
Acheron
You're probably seeing a pattern here, but again, the Acheron is a comparatively long-ranged lance boat, and I'd rather see an Improved Thrusters-equipped Executor in the list.
Cruisers
Devastation
Murder
Carnage
Slaughter
Inferno
Heretic
Unbeliever
Schismatic
I'm prepared for wailing and gnashing of teeth here. This is probably the part where I most strongly push thematic and playstyle changes. Cutting the Carnage and Inferno strips away core long-ranged line cruisers, and in my mind leaving the player with a bunch of ships that generally have fixed forward arc & side battery weapons systems now encourages the player to maneuver to engage the enemy fleet instead of staying at arms' length. Now, a combined fleet of Hades, Murders, and Unbelievers would offer a heavy amount of massed forward arc lance fire while closing, and Slaughters, Schismatics, and Devastations could provide the side battery lances once engaged.
Escorts
Idolator
Infidel
Havoc
Iconoclast
Berserker Tide
- keep it as-is
CSM Crews
- keep it as-is
Demon Ships
- keep it as-is
Possible Addition to the fleet: Chaos Space Hulk
So... on the one hand a massive, slow monstrosity goes entirely against my desire for the Berserker Fleet to play as a close & engage fleet, but on the other hand Angron used the space hulk Devourer of Stars in the First War for Armageddon, and more recently in the "Legion of the Damned" novel, a Khorne fleet (the Cholercaust Crusade) follows a massive space hulk to Certus Minor, so there's plenty of lore reasons to justify a space hulk and its attendant fleet.
- - - - - - - - - -
So those are my first couple of suggestions. As an example of what else I'm thinking of, I'd definitely include the Inferno class cruiser in the Sorcerous fleet of Tzeentch, where long-ranged batteries and lots of lances would play more to the Chaos god & fleet's strengths.
-
While I agree in principle to tailoring the lists somewhat to produce differently themed fleets, and indeed agree with some of the choices you have indicated, I can't help but feel that any attempt at building a proper Chaos list is somewhat hampered by the inclusion of Chaos light cruisers. Seriously, these things make the entire BFG:R project seem like a joke, let alone the Chaos lists.
-
A few things:
-I don't think we should cap how any cruisers a fleet can take.
-I don't think that just because we have a Mark of Khorne fleet that we should limit the types of cruisers it can get because we want to pigeon hole Khorne fleets into a particular play style. The marks themselves already do that to some degree.
-When you say that we basically have multiple 13th crusade lists, you are only really referring to which ships can be taken and not the differences of marks, renegade stuff, CSM, etc. I would recommend going back to the thread where we talked through the differences the fleets have.
-Sig, f there is enough of a push for another vote on the light cruisers, then get some people together and call for a vote. Sorry that you discount the entire project because something you don't like is in it. :-*
-
I would recommend going back to the thread where we talked through the differences the fleets have.
This advice is a little problematic in general. I suggested a few months ago that we start cataloging what is discussed and where it is discussed because there's enough discourse and information on this forum to fill a few books. I've tried tracing back multiple times changes and their conversations, and have found it incredibly difficult and time consuming. On some points, I never found the discussion, and thus never found the reason behind the changes in BFG:R, and the earlier FAQ2010.
Regardless: I really like the idea; Arminger, you've identified the interesting nuances behind Imperial list composition that I wasn't completely aware of. Thanks for starting with those two lists. The thing with the God Fleets is that there's little besides the two purchasable bonuses each fleet gets to warrant those lists spelling out which ship is available to what list. The four pages regarding those lists could be condensed into a few paragraphs in the PDF, as so much is the same. FAQ2010 also had that issue, albeit more compact. The god lists could be more tailored to what characterizes the style by which the gods and their followers work.
The Pleasure Fleet would be the hardest IMO to define.
-
While I agree in principle to tailoring the lists somewhat to produce differently themed fleets, and indeed agree with some of the choices you have indicated, I can't help but feel that any attempt at building a proper Chaos list is somewhat hampered by the inclusion of Chaos light cruisers. Seriously, these things make the entire BFG:R project seem like a joke, let alone the Chaos lists.
Don't take them... problem solved really. They aren't required, nor are they so awesomely good that they are a must take IMO.
And fluffwise, in a way it makes sense for Chaos to have light cruisers, albiet very few of them. Since they are for the most part suppossed to be old IN vessels, and the IN uses light cruisers, it stands to reason there would have been some light cruiser classes in the style of vessel now primarily used by Chaos.
As for the God specific fleets, Armiger did have some interesting points and I would be open to developing it further, but I don't think the work done so far isn't bad either.
As for what dan said about pigeon holing- You could still create a all khorne fleet without limitations using the main list, albiet minus a special rule or two. Think of it more like Battlefleet Bakka or Corribra. They limit ship selection to encourage specific playstyles.
-
The IN fleets have restrictions based on history revolving around location. The chaos fleets don't work like that. Why restrict what a khorne loyal fleet can take when there is no precedent for it lore? 13th crusade is supposed to be a congregation of a bunch of groups. Renegade fleets need to be varied because it represents renegade fleets from all over the place. It makes more sense to not limit ships but to have different restrictions and benefits on the surrounding things like renegades and marks and CSM.
-
Sorry to go off topic a little, but was is the main opposition to the inclusion of CL's for Chaos fleets? Is it as simple as they didn't get them in the BBB? 'Cause if it is, then by the same logic IN shouldn't get Grand Cruisers...but no-one flies off the handle about the inclusion of the Vengeance series for IN fleets.
Gothmog already stated that it makes sense that Chaos should get light cruisers. Every other fleet has them (official or otherwise). That's what doesn't make sense to me. If it's the stats then I second the proposition of a second round of discussion/voting to fix the issue.
I'm a relative newcomer here, was this a flashpoint in the past? I'm not rifling through years worth of threads to find it, so if anyone can give me the rundown, either post here or PM me and bring me up to speed on that side of the argument.
-
The IN fleets have restrictions based on history revolving around location. The chaos fleets don't work like that. Why restrict what a khorne loyal fleet can take when there is no precedent for it lore? 13th crusade is supposed to be a congregation of a bunch of groups. Renegade fleets need to be varied because it represents renegade fleets from all over the place. It makes more sense to not limit ships but to have different restrictions and benefits on the surrounding things like renegades and marks and CSM.
Lore wise there is no precedent (other than more assault craft prossibly) and I am fine with leaving it as is, but game wise it may be interesting to structure different fleets for different playstyles, just for the sake of diversity. That is the real reason there are multiple IN fleets, and the fluff is just made to match. BUT this is just an entertaining thought to me, not neccessarily a critical must do one.
-
Nice Necro....
Light Cruisers for Chaos: I ain't a fan in principle. But, it is not impossible to have a Dauntless, Endeavour, Endurance, Defiant to go Renegade.
Also: with the Slaughter around, who needs a light cruiser in the Chaos fleet. ;)
Also: why add CL to the Chaos list? It is a gap-hole filler. Why fill all gaps?*
The list revamping:
Dunno. I will stick to my '99 Renegade fleet layout. :)
But taking out a vessel here and there won't change a lot in my opinion. People will start to mix in Imperial vessel for example because they like to do so.
* Gap filling: this is an issue I see to a little extend within BFG:R and evem more so if ASC2.0 will be there as an add-on: all gaps will be filled with many variant options.
-
Nice Necro....
Light Cruisers for Chaos: I ain't a fan in principle. But, it is not impossible to have a Dauntless, Endeavour, Endurance, Defiant to go Renegade.
Also: with the Slaughter around, who needs a light cruiser in the Chaos fleet. ;)
Also: why add CL to the Chaos list? It is a gap-hole filler. Why fill all gaps?*
The list revamping:
Dunno. I will stick to my '99 Renegade fleet layout. :)
But taking out a vessel here and there won't change a lot in my opinion. People will start to mix in Imperial vessel for example because they like to do so.
* Gap filling: this is an issue I see to a little extend within BFG:R and evem more so if ASC2.0 will be there as an add-on: all gaps will be filled with many variant options.
I feel in a post-GW environment, gap filling is acceptable as there will be no more official growth, so allowing hobbyists to pursue any and all avenues is the best way to keep the game fresh. And it would be by permission only with ASC 2.0 at least. Tournaments would likely not utilize it.
-
If I may derail thread a little more:
I'm also against existance of chaos light cruisers. If they really want one, there's an option for a CSM strike cruiser. They just don't really need CL's. There's nothing chaos fleet can't do without them.
So, apart from treating them as a little flavour, there's one use of them that makes any reasonable opponent hate them with burning passion: Light Daemon Cruiser. Cheap enough to never materialize and just provide stable -1 Ld for enemy ordnance ships, fast and mobile enough to make their escape impossible and impervious to any harm. True, Slaanesh Daemonbombing got cut down a bit with marks not working while spectral, but this thing is cheap enough to be worth it even with simple -1 Ld. And if you get two of them, because why not, they're cheap, we're back to crippling ordnance heavy fleets.
And if they're marked and do materialize.. well, think of one with Siren's Summon. Yes, it will probably die right after materialising, but well, that's one enemy turn guaranteed to be ruined. And if it manages to survive that one turn, crucial enemy ship is without orders for two full turns.
So, yeah, maybe we should discuss moving chaos CL's to ASC? ;)
-
Gothmog, BFG:R is only by permission too.
Horizon, by your logic, we can pretty remove escorts from the chaos list also. I do see your point about not having to fill gaps but its hard to get around Bessemer's logic.
Khar, yes that setup for LC daemon ships is nasty, but just because you found a good use for light cruisers doesn't mean we should get rid of them!
-
I don't have anything against good setups. This one, however, is more than good: Enemy can't do a single thing to counter it. You just have to live with immortal ship chasing your carriers and reducing their Ld.
Actually, I'd be perfectly fine with chaos CL's if they couldn't take Daemonship upgrade...
-
I thought we put in that they couldnt take Daemon upgrades. They make it really easy for Chaos to go top heavy too. And the Crapschematic torp issue.
-
To me they represent tinkering, the product of busy hands neglecting real balance and the needs of the other fleets. Where there is a painful gap, then I'm for additional ships being written into BFG:R. The Necrons Cartouche and Reaver were needed for a properly completed fleet list, and I find their addition welcome.
But adding ships to either the IN or Chaos? For the most part, keep them to ASC please.
-
Horizon, by your logic, we can pretty remove escorts from the chaos list also. I do see your point about not having to fill gaps but its hard to get around Bessemer's logic.
Ehm. No. Chaos was created with escorts so that was no gap intended.
-
If people want to place them in the ASC, I don't have a problem. The CL's in BFGR were from the BON, and the Pagan never made the jump. In fact in BoN you could only take 1 CL for Chaos due to rarity. Don't remember that being brought up during discussion, may have missed it.
I just didn't want to see them axed completly.
-
Horizon, by your logic, we can pretty remove escorts from the chaos list also. I do see your point about not having to fill gaps but its hard to get around Bessemer's logic.
Ehm. No. Chaos was created with escorts so that was no gap intended.
My point is that multiple ways to fill gaps aren't a problem. If you are saying they are, we should remove chaos escorts and for that matter IN escorts.
-
At some point there needs to be a stop to decisions about dropping ships that were voted in just because people don't like them. The trend seems to just make ASC the place for BFGR ships people don't like. That's silly. Anyways, if someone would like to propose votes and there is a trend that people support it, fine. Making alterations, fine. Voting out ships voted in, that's kind of stupid. Use the search function and find the chaos ships vote.
-
I'm sorry. My purpose in bringing this thread back was due to a moment of inspiration where I played around with some of the fleet lists available to Chaos in an attempt to make them more thematically interesting to me. Beyond that, my hope was that people would consider my suggestions and provide some constructive feedback as to whether or not it was a worthwhile endeavor to consider after the rest of the BFG:R updates had been completed.
Quite clearly, this isn't the particular dialog people wish to engage in regarding the Chaos fleet list, and I now quite regret accidentally rekindling this discussion. I think I'll shelve my thoughts on the matter of tweaking the Chaos fleet lists until we come back after a few years of gameplay with a completed BFG:R project to see if anything needs adjustment then. I doubt this will halt the ongoing conversation, but I feel I owe an apology to the folks attempting to finish off the BFG:R project as a whole for not thinking through the possible consequences of bringing up Chaos fleet composition again.
-
Ive never considered a light cruiser as point filler. The very idea just doesnt click for me. When i take a light cruiser its becaue i have a specific role in mind for it or because i need a budget pre-req.
-
Ya,lets finish bfg:r completely, a review can always be done threeyears from now.
@dan, no that is not what I am saying. Bfg was created with escorts for chaos and imperials, so they should exist. They are not an intended gap like no light cruisers for chaos have been.
-
My point is, the same logic applies to IN. The light cruisers for IN do the same thing chaos escorts so for chaos. They fill a similar niche so there is no problem with overlap. By your arguments, why should there by any new ships? All the niches the original creators wanted are there. Anyways, I don't really care anymore. I think a good compromise would be to limit the light cruisers for chaos.
-
I'm sorry. My purpose in bringing this thread back was due to a moment of inspiration where I played around with some of the fleet lists available to Chaos in an attempt to make them more thematically interesting to me. Beyond that, my hope was that people would consider my suggestions and provide some constructive feedback as to whether or not it was a worthwhile endeavor to consider after the rest of the BFG:R updates had been completed.
Quite clearly, this isn't the particular dialog people wish to engage in regarding the Chaos fleet list, and I now quite regret accidentally rekindling this discussion. I think I'll shelve my thoughts on the matter of tweaking the Chaos fleet lists until we come back after a few years of gameplay with a completed BFG:R project to see if anything needs adjustment then. I doubt this will halt the ongoing conversation, but I feel I owe an apology to the folks attempting to finish off the BFG:R project as a whole for not thinking through the possible consequences of bringing up Chaos fleet composition again.
Light cruisers aside I do agree with your idea of limiting certain ships, both from a fluff and gameplay standpoint. Ive probably got a half dozen things Im running through right now but I will definatly be squeezing in a better response to your op!
-
Armiger84, you shouldn't be apologising for anything! This is a public forum for ideas and you were perfectly justified in posting.
It's the rest of us who've got a little carried away with the Chaos light cruiser debate. Something I'm guilty of as much as the next man :-[ If I'd known it would have got this heated I would have kept out, but then I go and run my mouth! So sorry on my account :-[
Lets drop it for now people and steer back towards Armiger's OP
In response to your original post, I do get your points on the Renegade list regarding the dropping of certain ships. Not too sure on the removal of the cruiser limit, though. I see your point on doing so to encourage the taking of cruisers over battleships, but wouldn't a 0-1 limit on BB's do the same? I take it the Renegade list is tailored towards a leaner, resource poor fleet compared to a full-on Incursion fleet?
As for the Marked fleets, I think Dan's point on Marks forcing a certain play syle hold some ground. I know the Slaughter and Relictor are often regarded as "Khornate" vessles due to their speed making the taking of lords/warmasters with the MOK a shoe-in for these ships.
However, full-wise these ships make excellent raid ships. Something Chaos has a dependency on as opposed to the more regimented IN. In effect, the Slaughter and Relictor are just as attractive a pick for a Slaneshi warmaster as a Khornate Warmaster. Get in quick and get those slaves! Or Nurgle Warmaster to destroy all that is clean and pure.
A restriction based on Allegiance is a little hard to make IMO.
Hope that helps. And keep those ideas coming! ;)
-
@Bessemer
Yeah, that's especially why I was looking for input/looking for people to refine & check my work.
The challenges in trimming a list down to fit a certain theme are:
1) Do I even have an appropriate/correct theme/play style in mind for this fleet?
2) Do my restrictions and selections actively support that play style I have in mind appropriately?
and
3) Am I being too heavy-handed in my restrictions, forcing certain fleet composition decisions rather than encouraging them?
It's not easy to answer those questions on the scale of an entire fleet list, and especially not if its a project you're invested in.
In the case of the Khornate fleet, I was trying to skew the list options toward vessels with medium to close weapons range bands or above average mobility not simply because certain ship types seemed to fit Khornate archetypes, but because I hoped that the remaining ships as group, with the mark and upgrade available in the list, would encourage a certain baseline play style.
As an example: an Inferno-class cruiser is basically an alternative armament Murder ( I think of it as "Plagueclaw pattern") with the 2 60cm prow lances swapped for Str 6 60cm L/F/R batteries. It's a minor change with immense consequences. There is no need for an Inferno to close head-on to the enemy fleet to maximize its firepower, and like a Carnage it can run abeam to the enemy fleet at about 45cm out, pumping salvos into the enemy fleet and moving to encircle them.
There is nothing wrong with that tactic at all, in fact it is largely how I used my Carnages and Devastations and Acherons and Styxes for years, but that didn't feel terribly Khornate to me. So, by relegating Carnages and Infernos to reserve options (off the list doesn't mean out of the fleet necessarily!), the Khornate line cruiser options shift to the Murder and Slaughter. You could use Murders and Devastations and Unbelievers to circle at a distance... But you would be wasting your prow armament. Alternatively, without the Carnage as a go-to line cruiser, I was hoping a player would be encouraged to instead play to the fleet's massed prow lances advantage (and the moment you line up across from an Imperial player with 8+ locked-on prow/dorsal lances aimed at their command vessel, they begin to forget about the "advantage" of nova cannons for a bit and push to get abeam of you quickly!), which would by necessity leave them eventually mingling their ships with their opponents somewhere near the middle of the table, at which point doubled boarding values and the ability to double your attack craft for a turn can crush softened targets.
I'm still not sure about my grand cruiser & battleship selection options, in fact I'm having a hard time justifying it to myself at the moment because it seems to play to 40k Khornate stereotypes and not necessarily Khornate fleet tactics. That said, it's tempting to hang back with a Despoiler, and not at all with a Relictor (see that point about whether or not I'm being too heavy-handed instead of encouraging).
My hope was to encourage/guide players toward Khornate tactics by limiting ships to those that would support those tactics rather than building a fleet of "archetypically Khornate" ships. I realize it is a bit of a fine distinction.
Slaanesh and Nurgle will comparatively be difficult to theme. Everything uses the same ships, but "how" is the hard part.
-
I think your over thinking the god lists, they should be viewed more as add ons to the 13th list than their own individual lists (even tho they are seperate).
What I would look for on a basic level is the 13th and renegade lists to be the main differentiating point. The 13th can largely remain the same and its focused on the grand fleet ideal, no light cruisers but most of the other ship options and the mark limitations.
Adding on to that base would be the PoC "god" options, having the same focus on a grand fleet with the same ship choices (adding the unique ships of course) but more limited command, marks, etc. The playstyle for these doesnt need to be shaped by the ship selection because the special abilities direct that well enough.
Now on the opposite we have the renegade list which would be much more restricted for certain ships but wide open with special options like a variety of marks, special ships, etc. Right off the top I would fluff cut at least the Despoiler, Acheron, and Slaughter. Probably the Idolator as well.
-
Armiger, in your example of the khornate fleet using carnages, acherons, and devs, the player who puts the mark of khorne on those ships has wasted points. It self-regulates. See my point? So, the marks themselves encourage particular play styles. I don't think that we need to force that play style by writing it into the rules.
As far as the renegade list having more restrictions, I could see some work being done if a good case is made for dropping ships to reserves only. Andrew, the few ships you listed to be fluff cut, I would like to hear more on that including some sources for those who don't know the fluff you are referring to.
-
Armiger, in your example of the khornate fleet using carnages, acherons, and devs, the player who puts the mark of khorne on those ships has wasted points. It self-regulates. See my point? So, the marks themselves encourage particular play styles. I don't think that we need to force that play style by writing it into the rules.
As far as the renegade list having more restrictions, I could see some work being done if a good case is made for dropping ships to reserves only. Andrew, the few ships you listed to be fluff cut, I would like to hear more on that including some sources for those who don't know the fluff you are referring to.
Well the Idolator at least is built in the EoT, so I can see how that is rare for Pirates and Renegades through out the Imperium
-
Sure Despoiler: Only three were ever built, all of which were active in the Gothic war. Now Im sure the FW in the EoT can probably make more, but its pretty unlikely that any pirates would have one.
Acheron: Only one was ever built... same as above, Sure they may be able to build others in the EoT but its very unlikely anyone else would have them.
Slaughter: Although this one is not as uncommon as the others the designs for its drives were destroyed so that would probably make replacements hard to come by, by removing this from the list it also opens up the gap for light cruisers.
Idolator, Infidel: Both of these are Chaos designs presumably built entirely within the EoT and no Imperial counterparts exist.
-
Not bad. I did my research as well. I agree; taking out the Despoiler and Acheron seems appropriate. I have a harder time seeing the carnage, isolator, and infidel removed. I could budge on the carnage but dropping the carnage and both the isolator and infidel I don't think we should do.
-
Why drop the Carnage?
The escorts really wouldnt be a big loss either. You will have access to Iconoclast, Havoc, Sword, Firestorm, Falchion, and Cobra.
-
Sorry, slaughter.
-
Sorry, slaughter.
-
Sorry i meant slaughter. Seems weird to has much more options for imperial escorts than chaos ones.
-
At least the Havoc. And I could see pirates and renegades boarding and taking over a lot of IN frigates on deep space/system patrols.
-
Fine but the same could be true of the chaos vessels. Chaos doesn't always get along. We are taking out a handful of vessels from the renegade fleet. I think we shouldnt drop more than the idolator for escorts.
-
I could see the Idolator being more specialized/limited perhaps. Iconoclasts and Havics should be pretty common (especially Iconoclasts). It's hard to get a feel for how long the Infidel's been around, but the lore makes it sound like Battlefleet Obscuras has been dealing with them ever since the design went missing. I kinda wish GW did more with the Maelstrom. It could be fun to work on a Battlefleet Ultima/Maelstrom Wardens vs. Red Corsairs/Ultima Pirates campaign book & lists...
-
I could see the Idolator being more specialized/limited perhaps. Iconoclasts and Havics should be pretty common (especially Iconoclasts). It's hard to get a feel for how long the Infidel's been around, but the lore makes it sound like Battlefleet Obscuras has been dealing with them ever since the design went missing. I kinda wish GW did more with the Maelstrom. It could be fun to work on a Battlefleet Ultima/Maelstrom Wardens vs. Red Corsairs/Ultima Pirates campaign book & lists...
Imperial Armour Vol 10 has Maelstrom lists. I need to email FW again about them letting us publicaly host those lists now that BFG is defunct AND all other BFG resources are free and public (including their own Tau fleet list!)
-
Aye, having FW for free would be the last thing they could do... instead of a t-shirt...
as for the Infidel: keep it free to the renegades.
As a sidenote: Renegades: can be from various sources. Not everyone who turned from the Emperor went Chaos/into the Eye.
So I would say that even rarer vessels are available in those fleets.
If I field Styx/Carnage/Carnage I can reserve in the Slaughter so my renegade fleet remains playable. ;)
But I also field 6 Infidels..... :)
-
Well the Infidel is the go to Chaos escort so it should be a really good reason to drop them (like adding a similarish ship in its place ala Sword~Falchion).
-
We could vote on it if you want. I would like to see it kept in.
-
As an alternative to dropping the Infidel, what about increasing the cross-bleed of escorts? Say, something more like 0-6 Imperial escorts per 500 points (rather than 750) or part thereof. Even if it's just an option, that might encourage people to build more rag-tag escort squadrons out of a mix of Imperial and Chaos escorts. A combination of Cobras and Iconoclasts and Infidels could get you a torpedo squadron that could also throw a few punches too, for example (alternatively, the Iconoclasts could end up being used as ablative shields for the Cobras... not a bad idea and not necessarily overpowering either). There probably aren't too many people (other than me) who'd be sorry to trade out their Idolators for Firestorms in an escort squadron either I suspect.
For that matter, what about adding the Recommissioned Escort from the Rogue Trader List? (the inverted Cobra, 1 torpedo, 2 guns).
-
Light Cruisers for Chaos: I ain't a fan in principle. But, it is not impossible to have a Dauntless, Endeavour, Endurance, Defiant to go Renegade.
Also: with the Slaughter around, who needs a light cruiser in the Chaos fleet. ;)
Also: why add CL to the Chaos list? It is a gap-hole filler. Why fill all gaps?*
^ This. First; there's no particular reason why there'd have been pre-heresy light cruisers. The Empire was in a conquering/expansionist phase, not a patrol/protect phase. (If they did have them and some went rogue then they'd have been the first ships to have suffered extinction by attrition in the intervening millennia.)Second; later CLs may have turned renegade, but if so these would be adequately accounted for by Dauntless, Endeavours, Endurances, Defiants and Siluria. Third; Chaos fleets have no need of CLs, either in game or in fluff. Fourth; it's hard to imagine any Chaos captain wanting to command a CL. A ship slow enough and fragile enough to get hunted by escorts and yet still unable to do appreciable damage one-out against a ship of the line. If a Chaos captain has enough influence to commandeer resources and crew for a capital ship then they would opt for a larger ship, not a CL. Fifth; the Slaughter pretty much obviates any CL for Chaos. Sixth; the models suck. I mean really, a cruiser with one deck cut out. Fanbloodywootashootic.
I mean, taken altogether, the inclusion of a purpose built Chaos CL just for the sake of it smacks of fanboyism. Or just an unrestrained eagerness to fill every single niche, gap or hole. There is no reason whatsoever to give Chaos CLs. It's a terrible idea.
Ok, so, for the sake of flavour some Chaos lists can include current IN ships and vice versa. In this scenario, yes, it'd be possible for Chaos to take an IN CL. Fine. No argument. It might also be possible under certain circumstances for a pirate or renegade fleet (ie, not "Chaos") to have a CL as a flagship. Ok, fine again. Dauntless or what have you. Just ... not ... these ... dreadful ... concoctions.
-
And in order to not make the conversions people did obsolete they can be used as count as Dauntless, Endeavour, etcetera.
The Chaos CL model itself and how one appreciates it aesthetically is entirely subjective.
-
Conversion may also be used as quite fitting pre-heresy strike cruisers. Suits them even better than counts as Imperial counterparts.
Sigoroth, as for your mention of fanboyism, well, I've been talking with one of BoN creators about how Chaos CL's came to be (it was his old opponents' work) and it turns out they were nearly custom made for slaanesh Ld-daemongombing and/or making very top-heavy chaos fleets. Who would've thought. ;) He was a bit shocked they found their way to the revision.
Making then unable to take daemon upgrade and making them 0-1 agains sort of fixes both problems... But in general, if anyone wants to get rid of them, he has my vote. Separate thread for them, maybe?
-
How about requiring light cruisers to be squadroned with at least one line cruiser?
That way they wouldn't be plugging much in the way of holes the faster line cruisers don't already fill.
-
if they could stay in it would be better for me as i have one of each with a plan for a campaign involving them. a limit of 1 of each type per fleet or 1 of any type per 500 or 750 would work, cutting out the chances of them being spammed but not giving those who have built them the finger? :)
-
If the major issue is demon-bombing with light cruisers, then I wouldn't have a problem restricting demon ships to 8+ hull points. It would basically put a 40pt virtual tax on a demon ship compared to a Heretic or an Unbeliever, but it would also make sitting phased in the middle of someone's fleet a more expensive & wasteful proposition.
If the Heretic seems a little unimaginative as a CL, it could get swapped for the Siluria, whose lore makes it an ancient light cruiser design. Of course, that gets Chaos an even cheaper light cruiser, but I could see letting people use their Heretics as Silurias, and it would keep the reserves bleed going from the Havoc frigate.
Under the updated fleet list costs, 3 Dauntless and an Emperor clocks in at 695pts, 3 Unbelievers and a Despoiler would cost 765pts, 3 Unbelievers and a Desecrator would be 740pts, and a Desolator/Relictor + 3 comes in at 675pts. Of the three builds that could squeak in under the 750pt cap, none of them have the threat projection that the Emperor could bring to the table (ok, maybe the Relictor, but in a different way), so I'm not sure the option to go top-heavy is, comparatively at least, that much of an issue (not that I'd want to face 3CLs + an Emperor either, and a raiding fleet player would probably love it less). Of course, swapping out the Heretic for the Siluria would make a Despoiler bomb raid fleet viable, so be careful what you wish for. These kinda of fleet comps make me really want Horizon's mandatory escort-to-capital ship ratio, even if its just 1:1 for cruisers and 2:1 for battleships, since that would kill the "battleship in a raid" option.
-
These kinda of fleet comps make me really want Horizon's mandatory escort-to-capital ship ratio, even if its just 1:1 for cruisers and 2:1 for battleships, since that would kill the "battleship in a raid" option.
8)
On the Chaos CL: lets we not forget: in the past runs they got voted in by the community. First in the Plaxor run and now in the new run by Dan. So, we can disagree with it but at one point we just need to accept the outcome.
In 3 years we do a revision. ;)
-
These kinda of fleet comps make me really want Horizon's mandatory escort-to-capital ship ratio, even if its just 1:1 for cruisers and 2:1 for battleships, since that would kill the "battleship in a raid" option.
8)
On the Chaos CL: lets we not forget: in the past runs they got voted in by the community. First in the Plaxor run and now in the new run by Dan. So, we can disagree with it but at one point we just need to accept the outcome.
In 3 years we do a revision. ;)
Yes. Thank you. If we want to vote in restrictions and qualifications, that's fine.
-
So, if we're talking restrictions, maybe we could vote on this:
a] bring back original BoN restrictions to chaos CL's. To quote 'Light cruisers are very rare vessels in Chaos fleets and should not be counted as core ships. They are rather a fine addition to it – the true 'pearls in the crown'. You should limit number of Chaos light cruisers to 1 per 1500 point of the fleet unless you are using Warhost Nemesis fleet list.'
So, disregarding Warhost Nemesis part - 1 per 1500 pts. As their author intended.
b] it was mentioned many times before - CL's can't be daemonships. It's worth noting that Warhost Nemesis, where these vessels originated, couldn't use any daemonships at all. So if you wanted to take light daemonship you were forced to use normal chaos list, with 1/1500 restriction. And it was still considered OP.
If we put in these two restricions, I'm completely fine with Chaos Light Cruisers' existance, and I guess most of their other opponents will too.
-
Deal.
-
I'd personally like to see the availability upped a little, or perhaps for a specific list. I can totally understand & do support discouraging light cruisers in the 13th Black Crusade list, but maybe drop the restriction to 1 per 750 points or 1 per 500 points for a Renegades list? Make them slightly more common among those who have to make do with whatever they can capture/steal/refurbish or pull out of mothballs?
-
Access to small numbers of Imperial light cruisers would fit that function better, I think. Equally small number of dedicated chaos CL's, + a bit more salvaged imperial ships. Just a thought.
-
Why not just give them the same restrictions as endurance/ defiants?
-
Why not restrict them to zero per fleet? That solves the problem of them being inappropriate for the list without actually removing them and as such invalidating previous votes. You know, the more crap like these you put in the less valid the project as a whole becomes. The more instances of bad that people have to pour over and make individual decisions on the less viable it all becomes. For example, when someone says "hey, you wanna use the BFG:R lists?", we would ideally like the reply to be "yeah, sure, why not?", not "ah f*ck that sh!t, they put in those gay CLs" (or whatever other absurd notion).
The bottom line is that if people are both willing to play the CLs then they can anyway. Leave them where they are in the BoN, or put them in the ASC. If someone isn't willing to play against them though (which is quite reasonable) then it's just another mark against BFG:R. People gotta learn to be a bit more conservative with these changes.
-
I'd personally like to see the availability upped a little, or perhaps for a specific list. I can totally understand & do support discouraging light cruisers in the 13th Black Crusade list, but maybe drop the restriction to 1 per 750 points or 1 per 500 points for a Renegades list? Make them slightly more common among those who have to make do with whatever they can capture/steal/refurbish or pull out of mothballs?
I agree with this. You'll have to make sure that it is clear that they can't be taken as reserves in a 13th Black Crusade list as well.
-
Basic vote please? First round, decide whether to put the Cls in ASC, a valid side project in it's own right.
If they're elected to remain, then start a new round of discussion on restrictions. ;)
-
We have already had the vote to include. Hope many people who read this want them to remain included in BFG:R? Let's start with that at least.
-
We have already had the vote to include. Hope many people who read this want them to remain included in BFG:R? Let's start with that at least.
I agree, they were already voted in. I just say a new vote on restrictions as follows:
13th Black Crusade List- 1 per 1500 points
Renegades Lists- 1 per 750 points
vs
The currently voted on document.
-
What do you think the restriction on the powers lists should be?
-
>:( >:(
Splitted of a whole bunch of posts. Stored in the moderation section.
Apologies may be handled through pm.
Warning has been given.
-
Hello all,
I have spent some time this morning looking trough the Chaos Fleet list that afterimagedan is hosting here:
http://afterimagedan.blogspot.co.uk/p/as-any-of-you-know-i-am-supporter-and.html (http://afterimagedan.blogspot.co.uk/p/as-any-of-you-know-i-am-supporter-and.html)
This is, I believe, the now finished BFGR Chaos List. Has the Vengeful Spirit been removed?
I've been trying to find reference to the Vengeful Spirit in that list but cannot seem to find it. I've been searching this thread but can only find reference to a points increase for the VS. I thought I remembered seeing a proposition that it be dropped all together in favour of using the Despoiler Battleship, but this has a significantly different profile, and doesn't mention the Venegful Spirit as a historic ship (not that it necessarily should). A copy of the BFG: Chaos list I have from May of this year has a listing for the VS, but that document is substantially different to the 'current' one.
Can anyone shed some light on the Vengeful Spirit for me? I apologise if this is revisiting previous discussions, but I cannot find any reference to it.
-
It appears I was too quick and trusted in my meagre search skills too much! ::)
I have found the thread where this decision was made, the relevant part being:
Wohoo! Talking time... ;D
One question first. I'm looking at the beta pdf afterimagedan put together on his site. Is this the Despoiler class (http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3180/vpyhpnzh_jpg.htm) we're taking in? I really hope so, because the bigger part of my thoughts is based on it.
Vengeful Spirit: Drop it.
Despoiler class and Chaos Battle Barge are almost the same ship. And since the previous works on BFG:RPlaxor "repaired" the Despoiler, the Vengeful Spirit won't be needed anymore. If there's need we could add similar upgrades to the Despoiler entry. But there's only one option left that would be missing... changing the dorsal lances to "str 4 / 45cm (+10pts)".
...
Brethren
So a clear decision which does make it simpler and more straight forward. For completeness' sake, could I suggest that some text be added to the fluff/description to indicate the Despoiler class as representative of the Vengeful Spirit? Appreciate that might not be too easy to do, but no mention at all of the Black Legion/Abaddon's flagship seems amiss to me! :)
Cheers,
G[/list]
-
Hi,
Check this:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5203.0i
VS is in official chaos document of FAQ2010/compendium.
BFG:R is different fan development.
-
Ok guys, what is going on with the points cost of Marks of Chaos in the BFG:R Chaos Fleets pdf?
p33) Chaos Undivided 25 points, all other marks 15 points
p38) Gothic Sector Incursion Fleet List. May take marks, but there are no point costs
p39) Abbadon Black Crusade Fleet List. May take marks, but there are no point costs
p40) Chaos Renegade Fleet List. May take marks, but there are no point costs
p41, 42, 43, 44) God Fleet lists may take marks for 35 points
Are marks supposed to be 15 or 35 points?
Thanks,
Tim