Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: unseelied on June 09, 2013, 06:08:02 PM
-
I recently tried out a proxied Slaaneshi fleet using the 2010 compedium rules and was fairly underwhelmed. I want to make a new chaos fleet that plays differently than my normal chaos fleet so I thought the slaaneshi one would be both different and a good excuse to build something. The idea was to take advantage of the upgrade that allows no special orders for the enemy within 15cm. The plan was to dump the daemon ships with that upgrade into his fleet and then smash it with the rest of the fleet, causing swift damage due to his being unable to BFI. Does work to some degree but the daemon ships are a big points sink that isn't really on the board for a lot of the game so I am basicly playing down in points the whole time. Anyone have any good sneaky ways to use the daemonships? Does anyone use them? What ship classes would you use as daemonships?
-
Daemonships in the official rules are what they are... crappy.
Really, I can't say anything useful for them.
-
The general consensus is that they needed some help so BFG:R worked on the daemonship upgrade.
-
They do a really good job of holding papers down on your desk.
-
Yeah, they seemed a little lacking. I was hoping someone had some way of using them that I hadn't thought of. In the game I used them in they were interesting at least. I just kept dropping them into the midst of the enemy formation, giving him a -3 leadership mod, while the rest of my fleet shot from afar. It did hamper his plans but I think not enough. I am going to take fewer daemonships, give them the special slaaneshy upgrade and see how that goes. I think that if it is correctly timed, not being able to go on BFI or disengage could be an enormous problem for the other fleet. I will have to play around with it some more. I think its destined to be a "fun" fleet like the orks not a powerful fleet.
No one around here uses BFG-R so those rules aren't really going to help me. I do agree that daemonships seem to be something that could use an extreme overhaul but I can't really see BFG-R being accepted in my area even if the rules are better.(with out even looking it up I am sure that the daemonship rules are better) Without the official sanction of GW, any other rules set is just house rules and that just leads to disagreement and discord.
-
With the demise of GW (BFG no longer produced) the question remains on how long they will have the rules available.
You could talk to your group and take daemonship rules from BFG:R and nothing else.
-
As tempting as that is, it would only open the doors to nonsense. If we allow BFG-R rules we'd have to allow other online rules or even rules someone in the group just made up himself as there really isn't any real difference. I'd rather not use daemonships at all than have to face some idiot's 800pt preheresy superbattlefortressofdoom constantly. Its all subjective to some extent. Superbattlefortress Man thinks his ship is great and very much correctly pointed. Now for fun, shits and giggles and all that, I'd play someone if they wanted to try some special ships or rules. However, I'd never let it be "official" in event I'd run and I'd strongly bitch about it if someone else wanted to run something and include it. BFG isn't perfect certainly but it is still a great game just how it is. Sometimes change is bad. Without any real way of limiting the bad changes people want to make its hard to make the good changes. Long story short, I am stuck with the daemonships how they are.
-
Unseelied's concerns are why I sometimes wish the HA took part in our conversations from time to time. BFG:R could do with a bit more rogue official elements. I recall reading the long threads on FAQ2010 back in 2010/2011 when the three were around, and yeah... not everybody agreed with them, but they had their experience.
Along with having a few inaugural ships sold as dedicated vessel types for BFG:R ship additions, a qualifying statement that the HA has reviewed and approved the community effort would go a long way towards general acceptance of what has been a long-time-in-the-making "game patch" by BFG veterans. The quality is there in the new edition, it just needs a more official creditability than just 'from the spiritual successors of the High Admirality.'
Unseelied- does your group freely accept the HA's FAQ2010?
-Duke
-
Yes, the 2010 FAQ is accepted but surprisingly not used by a lot of people. Most of the players around here are "Old School" so they are pretty much happy with bluebook and armada and the fleets they used when the game first came out.
The 2010 update was accepted because it was written by the HA, the last official keepers of the rules. They may not now be the keepers of the rules or even active at all in the community but they wore the offical hat last and since no one else got the hat they are the next best thing to official we have at present.
The second reason it was accepted was that the only two regular BFG tournaments I know about both use it. Adepticon and Mechanicon. Adepticon because it is a really big name deal and Mechanicon because its close enough that we locals could actually participate in it. Once again it gives the ruleset an officiality if that is a real word.
Third reason was that I liked it and I am the local organizer of BFG so I pushed for it. I couldn't have convinced my fairly old guard crowd to go for it without the other two reasons but since it really didn't change much for a lot of them it was fairly easy for them to just go along with it.
I think that is what BFG-R most difficult problem will be. The 2010 FAQ didn't really change a lot. It added some stuff but everything that was already around was left fairly untouched. I honestly am not following the BFG-R very closely but from the little bit I've picked up it seems( correct me if I am wrong) that a lot is changing. Too much for the average player who busts out his ships three times a year. They might be good changes, they might be bad ones but nobody wants to learn the game all over again and change the fleet they've been playing with for the past 10 years. If in some alternate universe GW released BFG2 or something we'd all lump it just like we did when 6th ed 40k came out but baring that its going to be a tough sell to get these old dogs to learn new tricks without GW's offical seal of approval.
Maybe if you guys released something smaller, like an Ork fleet list/revision that didn't suck and that worked with the present ruleset people could slowly get to know what BFG-R is about. Thats just the first idea that came to me. I could maybe sell a new ork fleet list( as the present ones suck) but I just don't think that the average BFG player is ready for, or desires all the change that BFG-R represents all at once.
-
The thing is BFG:R isn't changing the core mechanics of the game, it is just trying to rebalance everything against each other and expand the game selection, especially for those fleets that had 3-4 ships in the entire list. So you wouldn't have to learn a new game, just your fleet has some different stats.
-
I think that you may be too close to the project to actually see it from the perspective of someone who has never really looked at it before. i just checked in the experimental rules section there is a post by plaxor that says BFG-R erratta or somesuch. I just wanted something quick to look at. Just in the first quarter page part of it it talks about 'Qualities", changes the rules for escorts moving through asteriods and adds several escort ship classes. Thats the first quarter page. These are all additions to BFG and I doubt they are the only ones.
I also quickly skimmed the IN list. At least half of the ships are changed in some way, either points or stats. Its a lot of change for a fleet that worked very well to start with. What did you have to do the the crappy fleets? Maybe if I read it all and digested it it would all become so easy to use and understand but right now it just seems like a lot of needless changes. For me BFG just could use a patch and this just seems like you are rebuilding the entire wall. I just think that with all of this repointing it will just end up like 40k. Fifth ed had problems and now sixth has its own different set of problems. Some units that used to be good in fifth now suck and some bad units are now must takes. The emperor class was the best battleship in IN BFG will the Ret now become the go to unit in BFG-R? Something will as no system is perfect.
I've been playing the same game since it came out. I am pretty happy with it. Most people are I think. It could use some tweaks here and there but I think that BFG-R, the small part I've seen of it, doesn't strike me as just a tweak. It seems like a different game.
-
As far as I'm aware, no actual core rule changes have been made [ok, nova cannon range got modified a bit]. Plaxor's rule modifications are from his own, earlier, version of revision, which did try to change the game.
We're not doing it now. Only ship stats are changing. So there are, in fact, two different projects called BFG:R...
(Seeing how often I stumble upon 'but in plaxor's version there are changes to core rules' I'm starting to think that maybe project should've been renamed to avoid confusion ;))
-
To echo Khar, as far as I know, the plans are to maintain the 2010 FAQ, and tweak ship costs/stats where it has been deemed necessary or beneficial by the community across about a decade's (or more) worth of playing to better balance some things. In some cases (Retribution's range being shortened, firepower increased), this has been done to better balance a ship relative to others in its class (like you said, given the option of an Emperor, which was until the FAQs massively undercosted AND nearly matched a Retribution in weight of fire before you even factored in attack craft, or a Retribution, which one ever got fielded?), in other cases, entire fleet lists are getting restructured to make them more playable (Orks), or a major alteration has been made in terms of how the fleet plays in order to make them more balanced/enjoyable to play with (Eldar "move-shoot-move" in the rulebook going to "move-move-shoot").
If you're looking for what's been changed, I'd point you to AfterImageDan's blog, specifically, his BFG:R section:
http://afterimagedan.blogspot.nl/p/as-any-of-you-know-i-am-supporter-and.html
Things that have survived rounds of debate and voting have made it to the "Finished" list, and things in progress are being discussed on the forums here.
-
Yeah, our attempt to display the distinction between plaxor's BFGR and ours isn't the best unfortunately. There are basically two BFGRs. The current version does not have a rules document because it works off of 2010.
Unfortunately Armiger, I just deleted the piece about the changes. Im hoping to remake that part to be more simple than it was.
-
Quick note: the BFG:R rules errata was from the previous BFG:R run. This has been dropped.
So all rules from Corebook-Armada-FAQ2010 stay in place.
BFG:R is now about ships and fleet lists.
The most mayor change is perhaps the Eldar MMS (rules which are used by the HA as well ;) )
-
That whole having two BFG-R's is a bit confusing. So what you are saying is that I could perhaps take bits of the BFG-R and introduce it slowly rather than taking the whole thing? Certain fleets, Necron, Orks, and to some extent Tau and SM have issues as they stand now. I honestly never saw the need for MMS. I might be a thing to try to introduce an improved Ork fleet as they really need something to make them more competitive. When the time comes I will look into it.
-
I honestly never saw the need for MMS.
There's a simple two part excercise that helps to see this need:
1. Take Eldar Fleet. Set up table with no asteroids or planets. Try to win.
2. Have your opponent take Eldar fleet. Set up table with lots of asteroid fields. Try to win. ;)
It is truly an enlightening experience. :D
In all seriousness, though, yep, even though BFG:R lists are intended to be balanced mostly against one another, introducing revision piece by piece could be viable. Especially starting with fleets that need it the most.
-
Sure, with no terrain at all the eldar will be at a disadvantage. However, in my experience having asteroids on the table is not an auto win for the eldar. The fleet has a steep learning curve and mistakes will be severely punished at any level. A beginning eldar player will be at a disadvantage against everyone but as time passes he will become very competitive. However, I think that the average eldar player playing against an equally average other player with average terrain will have an average chance to win.
Now at an infinitely high level of play, where Yoda Eldar guy and Yoda IN player play maybe there is something to it but I'm not seeing that down here where I am. I don't know any eldar Yodas. The local eldar players do well against most people. The only real problem they have is they have difficulties with the Necrons. Other than that they win some and they lose some just like everybody else.
I have an eldar fleet. CWE as well. I don't like the play style as much so I don't use them as much as my other fleets. Its a strong fleet but not unstoppable, terrain or not. That's been my experience.
-
That's a good experiment to try. MMS Eldar is the best. More accurate to lore and more balanced. Another experiment: try playing against Necrons with Eldar. Necronautowin.
-
Hi,
I won't comment on Eldar MMS. ;)
But look at official Eldar rules:
1)it breaks the core mechanic of BFG: it lets ships move in the ordnance phase.
2) 4+ armour is not a good way te represent Wraithbone
3) Why would an advanced race be so easily hurt by the mosty common weapon mon-keighs can make? Weapon batteries: no save for Eldar. 1 weapon battery can kill thousands of Eldar. That's just wrong.
4) No protection versus space rocks
5) Play surprise attack:
Eldar move on table, destroy enemy ship, move away from table. Eldar win before opponents moved. Given : if someone plays like that he's an a$$. But the rules do allow it and it isn't illegal. So, bad rule writing.
Craftworld Eldar: alternatively I once said this:
Corsair Eldar use MSM
Dark Eldar MS (with mimics)
Craftworld Eldar use MMS
Three Eldar with different rulesets. So, just give your CWE a go with them.
//
ahem
On BFG:R
Yeah, talk with your friends about BFG:R. Pick the elements your group likes. I mean, Marines2010 are a really good improvement over the original Marine rules. BFG:R doesn't change it a lot but finetunes the Space Marine rules a bit more.
-
Well, breaking the core mechanic does make the fleet unique. Its kinda what they are about.
I am not up on the lore behind wraithbone but I thought it was supposed to be some kind of organinc thing like bone. If spaceships made of metal are 5+ why wouldn't super bone be less strong?
I had always imagined weapons batteries were like shotguns, just filling space with tons of crap. If you depended upon not being seen as your defence then the shotgun being your weakness would make sense. Why they only rely on only that is a mystery but we play in a world where people punch tanks to death with giant fists so I can let it go.
Space rocks are the bane of the eldar. The fall is just propaganda. Space rocks are the real reason they are nearly extinct. I don't know how many times I've lost a ship with high leadership popping thru to shoot and then to scoot back. Not a perfect rule by any means but it keeps you from just doing that endlessly without risk which really would make them OP. An annoying rule but needed as things stand.
Surprise Attack is not a very balanced scenerio no matter who you play against. Try Planetary assault against the Necrons too. I'd have to say the scenerio was bad not the Eldar fleet rules.
A lot of people, at least here, are very pro MMS and anti regular way. I hear what you are saying and I agree that the rules are not perfect. I can only tell you what I see here around the Philadelphia area. I am not seeing the eldar fleet as broken. I had a tournament here a few months ago and we had set terrain. A planet, some asteriods and some dust. According to the responders here on the forum the eldar player should have crushed all other nine guys easily. He came in 3rd or 4th. He won two and lost one. He is an experienced player who has been playing eldar since they came out in 1999? or was it 2000? His results were very average and not overpowered at all. All his games were close. I am just not seeing it. If any of you guys live near philadelphia and are Eldar fleet masters, please come here and show me the way. Beat me down mercilessly. Seriously though the data I am seeing just doesn't support the need for MMS.
I haven't yet run my eldar against the evil Necron menace but the eldar players( all two of them ) around here haven't faired well so I will have to make time to try it soon.
-
I never had any problems with an autowin eldar either (although no terrain is really rough on them) but mms is a solid system and it seems a lot easier for someone just starting.
-
well, ok I agree. Autowinning isn't that obvious and still require good understanding of your fleet.
Autolosing, thogh, can in some cases be mitigated only by 1st turn disengage to cut your losses.;) It's not fun for either side, and MMS always gives Eldar player a fighting chance.
I've used MSM for years before discovering MMS but after some games I just had to agree it's superior ruleset.
-
I never had any problems with an autowin eldar either (although no terrain is really rough on them) but mms is a solid system and it seems a lot easier for someone just starting.
That's exactly the same opinion Bob Henderson has.
-
Sure, I can see where you are coming from. It may be a really, really good rule set but the old one works fine for most people so there really isn't a "need" for MMS. There could be a desire for it in some but not a need so it isn't a huge surprise that it hasn't really gained popular support amongst the unwashed masses. This is also true for IN and many other fleets. They work fine so why go through the trouble of finding new rules/lists, changing your fleet and then having to convince your gaming group to accept these "fan rules"?
The Necron fleet, in my opinion, needs to be toned down but that's going to be a hard sell to Necron players who basicly want to keep their 2++. I have to somehow convince someone to replace there fleet with basicly a crappier fleet. I don't think new Necron rules will be popular with anyone who plays a necron fleet unless they remain OP and that kind of defeats the purpose.
The Ork fleet is terrible. The new 2010 FAQ seemed not to make them any better (although to be fair I really play tested only twice) Why does the most disorganized race have the most strict fleet list? New Ork rules could be the break that BFG-R has been hoping for. There is a definite Need as they suck out loud now. If the new rules are great then people will be more likely to give the other BFG-R lists a chance and that could be the path to greater acceptance. Also I would honestly think about changing your name. If there is a previous version of BFG-R out there it will only confuse people. If it isn't clear and easy people are not going to go for it.
-
On MMS: suit yourself and agree to disagree.
On Necrons: the BFG:R necrons don't have the annoying VP system and just integrate it into the point cost. If anything, it makes the Necron ships feel more appropriate to their killing value and makes the VP system more easy to deal with. Also, that makes whatever size necron fleet they have a bigger fleet points wise.
On Orks: nice.
On the name: I proposed that too but it didn't take. I agree though, changing the name would be a good option. Now to find a sweet name... Battlefleet Gothic: Transformed? Implies too much change. Most of the other names out there are also R's. Battlefleet Gothic: Reformed would be my favorite at the moment but that won't do.
-
BFG:TNG? To Boldly Go Where We've All Gone Before
NetBFG, similar to NetE:A, which also uses the last major FAQ and has expanded/tweaked the army lists?
BFG:U - "BFG: Updated", also works from a marketing perspective because the fleet adjustments have been voted on by the community (at least those who are aware of the S-A forums and want to participate), so it's also BFG:"You"
Man, I should apply for a marketing job at Nintendo.
-
I love BFG-U. It is funny also because it sounds a lot like F--K You as well. It works on so many levels and it makes it all seem less "SERIOUS" and more fun and approachable. It is a game about little spaceships after all.
That's the great thing about living in a free country we can agree to disagree. mms ,may never become mainstream but it exists and for those who use it it's like a beer and a bag of chips. For the rest of us its always there to try in the future as a little something different to spice things up or even if we never use it it doesn't hurt that's its around.
-
Well, breaking the core mechanic does make the fleet unique. Its kinda what they are about.
Yes, but the MSM rule breaks the abstraction of the game.
I am not up on the lore behind wraithbone but I thought it was supposed to be some kind of organinc thing like bone. If spaceships made of metal are 5+ why wouldn't super bone be less strong?
It's psychically grown and stronger than adamantium.
I had always imagined weapons batteries were like shotguns, just filling space with tons of crap. If you depended upon not being seen as your defence then the shotgun being your weakness would make sense. Why they only rely on only that is a mystery but we play in a world where people punch tanks to death with giant fists so I can let it go.
Eldar also hide out in asteroid fields. Asteroid fields are also a form of "shotgun". Why would Eldar be trying to "trick" the rocks into not seeing them? It is absurd to think that the Eldar would rely upon holofields to the exclusion of all else.
Space rocks are the bane of the eldar. The fall is just propaganda. Space rocks are the real reason they are nearly extinct. I don't know how many times I've lost a ship with high leadership popping thru to shoot and then to scoot back. Not a perfect rule by any means but it keeps you from just doing that endlessly without risk which really would make them OP. An annoying rule but needed as things stand.
It is an annoying rule, mainly due to its absurdity. However, it is by no means necessary. You can prevent Eldar from safely playing peekaboo all day long by simply removing the second movement after the shooting phase.
A lot of people, at least here, are very pro MMS and anti regular way. I hear what you are saying and I agree that the rules are not perfect. I can only tell you what I see here around the Philadelphia area. I am not seeing the eldar fleet as broken. I had a tournament here a few months ago and we had set terrain. A planet, some asteriods and some dust. According to the responders here on the forum the eldar player should have crushed all other nine guys easily. He came in 3rd or 4th. He won two and lost one. He is an experienced player who has been playing eldar since they came out in 1999? or was it 2000? His results were very average and not overpowered at all. All his games were close. I am just not seeing it. If any of you guys live near philadelphia and are Eldar fleet masters, please come here and show me the way. Beat me down mercilessly. Seriously though the data I am seeing just doesn't support the need for MMS.
I "mastered" Eldar in the first game I played with them. I have played scores of MMS games and lost once. That was with a tremendous amount of bad luck and an opponent who went carrier heavy with old ordnance rules. I would have lost a lot more games had there been no terrain of course, but we set up terrain according to the rules for battlezone selection and strategy rating. This greatly skews things in favour of Eldar. Regardless though, my opponents should have had more of a chance despite the heavy terrain and I should have more chance in its absence.
All that aside, the most compelling reason to dump MMS is that it breaks the abstraction of the game. It is quite literally like trying to mash two different game systems together.
-
I "mastered" Eldar in the first game I played with them. I have played scores of MMS games and lost once. That was with a tremendous amount of bad luck and an opponent who went carrier heavy with old ordnance rules. I would have lost a lot more games had there been no terrain of course, but we set up terrain according to the rules for battlezone selection and strategy rating. This greatly skews things in favour of Eldar. Regardless though, my opponents should have had more of a chance despite the heavy terrain and I should have more chance in its absence.
Mms or msm?? This is getting confusing!
-
Eh, Sig means MSM where he says MMS.
@ Unseelieed:
Necrons: while the vps table is crappy I never seen them as overpowered but structurly bad designed due the dependance on said vps table.
Orks: original/armada Orks are created wrong in the fact that an all Terror Kroozer fleet is a top-notch fleet (see Adepticon:Deadshane).
FAQ2010: a good list with good power albeit confusingly and clunky written in terms of fleet selection.
//
Battlefleet Gothic. Why keep Gothic? It sounds cool though.
Battlefleet : Rise of the FanRules
Battlefleet: Galaxy
-
Eh, Sig means MSM where he says MMS.
Yeah, I had MSM in my head, my fingers just didn't type it.
-
Apparently there is an Eldar Yoda. Mastered them from the very first game. Lost one game out of at least forty. Either you are a prodigy or your competition is very bad. You do see that your experiences are not the norm? If you are indeed the eldar master we shouldn't change rules to suit you. If you are burdened with horrible opponents we shouldn't change the rules for them either. Its the middle of the bell curve that counts and down here amongst the average BFG player the MSM rules work fine. MMS may very well be an awsome system but since no one plays it around here, and will never play it, I am going to give it a pass.
@Horizon- I do have an Ork fleet and I do field it but its an uphill battle. Sometimes it can win, sure, but I'd have to say if I had to rate the fleets before the 2010 update according to their power I'd put them dead last. I haven't really messed with the 2010 FAQ Ork list enough to really grasp them so I can't comment but hopefully there are some gems in there that I missed.
As to the Necrons I find them to be too random if that makes any sense. Sometimes they roll ones like there is no tommorrow and they are fine. Sometime, though, they will just not roll any ones no matter how much fire you throw into them and then they are just unstoppable. Also I find the tombship to be a little bit much. Cruisers are fine and the escorts are actually on the weak side but that tombship is just over the top.
You have a point about the Gothic. A fresh start. Battlefleet something else. There are plenty of areas of space that have battlefleets.
-
Battlefleet 40,000 would tie it back to the core game.
-
It might turn GW's eyes looking for any copyright infrigements towards us, though. Let's call it Grimdark Armada :P
-
Hi Unseelieed,
Deadshane won Adepticon once with an blue book Ork fleet (pre FAQ), got second twice (iirc///with being best admiral as an award as well). I do not rate that as a bad fleet.
Sigoroth's track record with msm Eldar is really good, yes. But the rules of MMS are not suited to him, yes he is the original creator, the rules are written for people who are fed up with the original rules (be it because they do not like them fluffwise, or because they are to strong/bad, break a rule mechanic, etc).
But if players keep using official rules and do not have issues that's fine.
///
Back to official daemonships:
crap.
Solution within official realm: does not exist.
Solution outside official realm: BFG:R daemonship rules.
-
These are all interesting topics you bring up. I will start another thread about the ork fleet thing as I am curious about what people are bringing. Just because I haven't found the killer Ork list doesn't mean there isn't one.
Also I ran a tweaked daemon ship list last night and it did OK. I think I cheated though, now that I look at the rules again. I will post the question up in the question section. It seems a little grey to me but I sometime tend to see certain rules the way I want it to be rather than how other might see them. I think that having the forum is a valuable asset, in that respect, as it tells me things about the rules I deep down already know but don't want to.
-
Apparently there is an Eldar Yoda. Mastered them from the very first game. Lost one game out of at least forty. Either you are a prodigy or your competition is very bad. You do see that your experiences are not the norm? If you are indeed the eldar master we shouldn't change rules to suit you. If you are burdened with horrible opponents we shouldn't change the rules for them either. Its the middle of the bell curve that counts and down here amongst the average BFG player the MSM rules work fine. MMS may very well be an awsome system but since no one plays it around here, and will never play it, I am going to give it a pass.
I do not consider myself a "Yoda" at Eldar. My game group are quite competitive and they all saw the same things with Eldar that I did. Had I been the Imperial or Chaos player and one of my friends the Eldar player the story would have run the same. When I created the first set of MMS rules the Eldar were exceptionally overpowered. The first test game I annihilated my foe with consummate ease. They (he and my other opponent looking on) were happier with that game than they had been in any of my many MSM games. When asked why the response was "because I could actually shoot at you". MSM Eldar are not fun.
As to the Necrons I find them to be too random if that makes any sense. Sometimes they roll ones like there is no tommorrow and they are fine. Sometime, though, they will just not roll any ones no matter how much fire you throw into them and then they are just unstoppable. Also I find the tombship to be a little bit much. Cruisers are fine and the escorts are actually on the weak side but that tombship is just over the top.
Yes, I quite agree. I have found Necrons to be quite confounding. I have won against them once with a pure gunnery Chaos fleet, but all other experiences I have lost, both against them and with them. In one case I lost against them due to splitting my fleet. In another case I lost with them due to them becoming too spread out (stray AAFs on some ships combined with bracing on others). However, in all games, including the two mentioned, the sheer randomness of the Necrons played a large factor. I seem constitutionally incapable of choosing the right time to brace with them and likewise incapable of delivering that much needed coup de grace in the face of a wall of successful saves.