Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Islacrusez on July 10, 2013, 12:22:16 AM
-
So I'm new to BFG, but not new to game design. I came across some rules I didn't like, and promptly changed two of them. There's still plenty more that I don't like, but changing them will change the very core of BFG, and that's a hefty proposition. I'm going to do it anyway, but it'll take some time. My main problem is that I don't know enough about any of the races. I'm still new to 40k, and newer still to BFG.
So, I ask you all to help me out with this question - in two parts:
In BFG, what are all the races good for? What're they good at, and what are they bad at?
In the 40k universe as it relates to BFG, what are the races good and bad at?
I ask this in these two parts simply because the rules don't always add up to what the story says.
As far as I can tell, the basic idea in BFG is that:
IN: Slow, tough, with heavy broadsides, torpedoes
Chaos: Fast, long range, non-torp ordnance
Eldar: Fast raiders
Dark Eldar: Fast raiders
Orks: Chewing gum, duct tape and willpower.
Tau, Tyranids, Necrons - honestly don't know.
As for the rules side of things, I don't know what they really come out to, but Chaos has a tougher broadside than it's given credit for, Orks are for loaded dice, and Necrons are OP. (Or so it sounds)
So, what makes each race unique?
-
Tau. Ordinance, only fleet with natural turning non-boarding torpedos and LARGE amounts of launch bays in the Armada list. Powerful front pointing guns, most broadside weapons can also fire forward.
Tyranids. Boarding, non boarding "melee" attacks, customizable ships, Instinctive Behavior.
Necrons. Extreme speed when AAF, extreme durability (gets a save instead of shields, increases to 2+ when braced), able to disengage at will without a roll. No ordinance.
-
I suggest playing a few times before changing rules. I think you may find the game more balanced than it seems you do.
-
Agreeing with both posters.
Tell us first what rules you do not like. (Not that I disagree with not liking rules, per example we still use the blastmarker rules from v1.0 and we do not use the stacking rules from FAQ2010. Plus we have Eldar MMS).
-
Duly noted! Indeed, my experience of BFG is a little bit limited. However, it's not strictly balance that I'm struggling with... My main issues are torpedo reloading, escort usefulness, shields after armour, and relative ship directions for working out ballistics.
In a little more detail:
Torpedo Reloading
Current rules: Torpedoes must be reloaded using a Reload Ordnance special order before firing again. The means rolling leadership, and failing to do so results in the entire fleet no longer being able to use special orders. It also means if any other ship fails special orders first, you cannot reload.
Really: Torpedoes are a primary function of the ship, just like any other weapon. If you're a Viper destroyer with no other weapons, it's your only function. Your crew should be able to perform this function in combat and it should be no great feat to do so.
Proposed: Torpedoes are automatically reloaded, but a special order may be undertaken to reload them faster.
Specifics: Torpedoes fire in the shooting phase, and get moved in the ordnance phase. They may be reloaded by RO during this ordnance phase, and be ready to fire again next turn. If not reloaded by RO, they are reloaded automatically during the following turn's ordnance phase, allowing them to be fired in the next shooting phase. In short, torpedoes fire every other turn unless you roll for them.
Problems: Torpedo cheese fleet, torp value increase (potentially above acceptable levels).
Solution: Escorts
Escort Usefulness
Currently: They're just not that good. They don't do much of this escorting business, they fall to bits at the first sign of hostility, and their weapons do very little.
Really: Escorts should be there to protect the larger ships from smaller threats, for two main reasons; one so that the big guns can hit big targets, and because the big guns aren't good at hitting small targets.
Proposed: First, escorts gain 1 hp for a total of 2 except where otherwise noted. Generally only the smallest ships will get stuck with 1 hp total. Escorts still go squish on a critical hit (no roll on critical hit table).
Second, the gunnery rework (detailed later) will make escorts harder to hit, and more likely to hit other escorts or ordnance than other ships.
Third, the special order of yet undetermined name, allowing escorts that haven't yet fired to fire on ordnance that moves into their defensive range. This order must be undertaken during their own turn. This range will be short. Turrets will still function normally for ships on this order, but it can only be undertaken by escort vessels (subject to change).
Problems: Escorts OP maybe.
Solution: Test, test more, test again, analyse results, identify specific problems. Point increase?
Ballistics
The big one. This covers the ballistics change alluded to in the Escorts section, the shields after armour, and the relative ship directions.
Current: Ships that are shooting must first penetrate armour, and the shields then negate a number of hits.
Really: Shields should take effect before working out armour penetration.
Current: Two ships abeam, heading in the same direction at the same speed practically can't hit each other.
Really: At short range these two ships would be as good as defences to each other, at longer range they still shouldn't suffer such huge penalties.
Current System In Brief: A ship firing at another notes its weapon strength, range to enemy, enemy heading, and enemy armour. The number of shots that "hit" are based off the weapon strength, range and heading. This is then rolled against armour, with shields negating.
Proposed System In Brief: A ship firing at another notes its direction and the enemy direction, and range. This is read off the table and is given as gunnery modifiers (which can be math'd or off a second table). These are applied to the weapon strength (and is pretty much always going to be a penalty). This is rolled to hit, with larger ships being easy to hit and smaller ones being harder. The dice that hit, minus shields, are simply picked up and rolled again for armour penetration. Hits soaked by the shields drop shields as normal, those that penetrate armour do damage as normal, and roll for crit as normal.
Problems: It's longer, with at least one extra step in there. A much smaller number of lances are required to put holes in battleships. Escorts OP. Eldar OP? Complicated and potentially unwieldy.
Solution: Still in development, looking at ensuring the process is streamlined.
So that's my thoughts on the subject so far, with various bits and pieces about other races still jumbled in my head. I want to keep all the races with individual strengths, and some unique rule for each one. Chaos seem to be missing out, marks of Chaos notwithstanding.
I do have a question, do Necrons really have no ordnance in this world? It seems almost odd, as I picture them with swarms of space-scarabs... But then, that's why I want to compare the ... is it fluff you guys call it? ... and the actual game rules.
-
check the 2010 FAQ. Reloading torps is different
escorts are not nearly as Underpowered as you believe. placing them in a squadron does wonders. I would be worried that your proposed change for a special order wind make ordnance obsolete and by doing so you would ruin several fleets
as for the gunnery tables and what you perceive to be close range you must remember that on the combat is actually taking place over thousands of kilometers close range is a relative term
as for your Gunnery table change, it seem s a little cumbersome. As well the idea of rolling "to hit" makes sense in 40k, but I imagine starship sensors to be highly accurate. But misses do happen. That is why the strength of the salvo changes based on aspect and range on the current table. Basically predetermined hit percentages. So the number of dice you roll are "hits" you just then need to penetrate armour. At least that is how I always perceived it
-
Hey,
cool.
Dissection time. 8)
Torpedo Releading.
i. Torpedoes are only in limited quantities on a ship.
ii. Reloading is a hazardous task
(Background embedded).
Failing a Special Order can happen, thus do them in the correct order. Do not waste torpedoes. Make a shot count. It are expensive things.
And do not forget re-rolls. ;)
Your idea will lead to torpedo spam. Eldar will love this, Imperial as well. Tau will just have more fun.
Escorts
You have to little experience. ;) Escorts are good.
5 Swords cost 175pts and bring 20 weapon batteries with 30cm on a mobile platform.
They have a strike range of 30+25 = 55cm. A Lunar or similar can only strike 30+20 = 50cm with less mobility.
Currently they can protect bigger ships (eg massing turrets), fly into large ordnance waves etc. Also, do not waste them. Use them wisely. They're cool.
All my fleets use escorts with great effect. Only fleet I would not field them is Craftworld Eldar because of the background to that fleet.
Even my Chaos fleet has 9 escorts in 1500pts. My IN has 9, AdMech ~5-7. Corsair Eldar everything escort next to Void Stalker/Flame/Aurora or Solaris (depends what I fly), Tau CPF between 6-12. DE 9, Novamarines ~ 9-12.
Rogue Trader varies a lot.
Note: some escorts may have two hits because of their size (Hellebore, Tau Defender, the large Ork escorts). That's about it. Everything else is fine at 1.
Just do not waste escorts into the line of fire. At the back they are much more worthwhile. Engage when lines close.
ballistics
urgh,
The gunnery table is thing of genious in Battlefleet Gothic!!
Have eye on perception: in BFG 1cm is 1000km. So a ship with 15cm in between is 15000km distance, shooting at fast travelling ships being around 3-5km in size. And with 15cm you get a left shift on the table already.
The gunnery table is awesomesauce as one dice roll incorporates both to hit and to damage. On a table that factors in heading and distance! It also takes care of bigger and smaller ships.
Whoa 8)
Now, one small thing that you should work with:
use the blastmarker rules from v1.0 and not from the 1.5 rulebook/FAQ2010.
Basically:
i. Blastmarkers are placed in line of fire (fanning out left/right if more are place). A player cannot select where he wants to place a blastmarker.
ii. Blastmarkers only intervene in line of fire. So if a Lunar has blastmarkers on port side, it has no intervening blastmarkers on starboard. So if I nip another vessel to the other side I can fire at that vessel (with shields down) but without a blastmarker causing a columns shift.
Now see, escorts benefit a lot from this as they are suited to nip around enemy ships and do this trick. :)
(have to go, perhaps later more)
warning-
eh, reloading torps is dependant on ld test/special order per usual.,..
-
What game are you playing? :P :D
Torp RO
Torpedos reloading automatically would upset the ordnance balance (IN, Tau, Eldar - lord they would be OP) and simply create spamming, instead of the current situation where they require the player to decide when to use them most effectively for tactical reasons - like the valuable missile ordnance they are.
Escorts
Escorts are very useful as is. Of course they fall to bits if you get them in the close crossfire of big ships. But what are they doing there!? And if they were so pointless as you say, why are the bigger ships firing at them? Because they are cheap for the raw firepower they can lever on the table, and the flexibility in positioning they have.
You don't just throw them into the melee along with the gunline - flank or keep them back, out of range or firing arc - then dart in from an awkward/uncovered angle of the enemy formation when the main fleets lock horns (usually from the rear). 30cm movement and tight turning are what keep them alive, by minimising enemy fire wherever possible. Its up to your skill in positioning to keep them alive, not their ability to soak damage. And for their cost, whenever the enemy is shooting at them, they are keeping your cruisers safer. You get less bang for your buck when you shoot at escorts - against them you roll the least on the battery table, and lances are valuable and usually too few in number.
Which is why escorts are also the best hunters of other escorts :D Nimble enough to get close to offset column shifts for their small size on the gunnery table (if attacking with batteries) and packing enough firepower to demolish the other squadron, while being cheap. Escorts are also effective to intercept ordnance with their massed turrets, speed and low cost (you can force an entire multi-bomber wave to waste itself on a single escort).
Gunnery
Part of what I like about Gothic is that it streamlines the most boring statistics and dice rolling, focussing on the player's skill and finesse of positioning, timing and orienting his forces to bring weapons to bear most effectively. I can't see how your changes to the gunnery mechanic would do anything to actually deepen the tactical considerations in gameplay - instead adding complication and time for mostly intellectual immersion. :-\
I also use the rules regarding blastmarkers as Horizon said above. Works well.
-
Do you play Firestorm Armada? Your changes sound really similar to how it plays. Torpedoes are basically standard weapons that get targeted by turrets and are auto loaded and smalls have two hits each in that.
Escorts take some time to use effectivly. I see alot of people do away with them all together tho. They are significantly weaker than the cruisers and despite their cost/ firepower they still dont stand up very well. Of course theyre not designed to go head on with cruisers either :D.
-
warning-
eh, reloading torps is dependant on ld test/special order per usual.,..
Yeah. I phrased that wrong.
-
Another few things to thing to think about before you go changing the rules. First, are you intending to play with anyone else besides your close circle? When I first started playing gothic like 1000 years ago, I had a close crew of guys that I played BFG at home with. We house ruled some stuff. ( we used to BFI on a 5+ for instance and had our own Ork fleet version). As time passed, guys moved away and some lost interest so I was forced to reach out to the larger world to find people to play with. House rules are all good and fine in your house but not so good out in the larger world. When I had to go out to the real world the transition was harder.
Second thing, I noticed in an earlier post you are playing at a low points value, with no ordance and in a smaller field. That is going to give you a strange baseline on deciding what needs to change and how much. As someone who had some game design experience you will know this will give you skewed results. The slaughter seems like a great ship and it is but in a larger point game with a larger field the 30cm range makes it far less viable. No one runs a 1500pt chaos fleet with over 50% of it being slaughters unless they want to lose. Same thing goes with torpedoes. Four Imperial ships auto re-loading might not seem game breaking but eight might be an entirely different thing. Its like you are playing 40k on a 3x3 board and saying that assault units are overpowered. As the points, scenerios or conditions change various units will rise in fall in power. 1500 on a 4x6 foot board seems to be the gold standard. I'd give that points level and board size a shot before I go changing things around.
Third thing is experience. Your experiances will change the way you look at the game. I am from the big gun school and I am not a fan of escorts, generally. If I do take any it will be one large squad. Escorts are harder to use, especially for someone new to BFG, so when I started out I stuck with big ships and only later as I learned how to actually play the game I was able to understand and use escorts. Now I can use them, they do have uses but I guess I am a creature of habit so I still mostly avoid them. The guys from the next county over, Berks, were all taught by the same guy and he loves escorts. All their fleets are mostly escorts with a sprinkling of capital ships. Its weird, and its not my style but it is surprisingly difficult to stop. Just so many threats zooming about that you can hurt the squadrons but if you actually spend the guns to kill one that leaves too many unattended to do what they want to your fleet. Anyway what I am trying to say here is that escorts are difficult to use for the begining player and that is going to color your opinion of them. Your problem with torpedoes and the wb chart also is something that time and experience might change also.
A lot of people on the forums like to house rule stuff. I did when I first started too. We changed the BFI to saving on a 5+ because we felt that the ships weren't individually strong enough. The 5+ just let more hits through. Kind of the same thing you want to do but from a different direction. Later we changed it back. What really was happening was we weren't moving our fleets very well at first so it seemed like nothing was getting done. Ships have to act together in BFG to really work well. As time passed and we were beter able to move our fleets like fleets rather than a bunch of individual ships we realized that the 5+ brace just wasn't enough and it unbalanced the game. I think that if you stick with the game you are going to find out that a lot of the changes you are advocating are going to be similar. The game is very well balanced as it is and I think you will be better off using it as it is rather than making a new game. Having said that, however, it is fun to make your own way and make up your own ships and such. The game is about having fun and if you think your rules will make it more fun for you then you should go right on. It may be a phase we all go through" improving" the game. Some people are still doing it.
-
When I first played my brother and I thought bfi was useless. Just shows how skewed perception can be
As for changing rules I think youll find most problems lie within the original original cost or stats of a ship vice the mechanics. Thats why there are projects like bfgr
-
Yikes! Leave you guys alone for a few minutes and you take my idea to bits and leave the chassis sitting on concrete blocks!
Well ok, admittedly I've been watching this thread like a hawk... I'm seeing some love for the old system, so I probably won't make too many friends by turning it upside down, and I'm also seeing a lot of fair comments and criticisms. So without further ado, let there be discussion!
check the 2010 FAQ. Reloading torps is different
You mean the lack of the running out rule as mentioned earlier in this thread?
escorts are not nearly as Underpowered as you believe. placing them in a squadron does wonders. I would be worried that your proposed change for a special order wind make ordnance obsolete and by doing so you would ruin several fleets
Obviously some ordnance changes would be included, and the short range would mean escorts have to stay very close to the ship they're protecting. The main reason for this thread is so that I don't ruin races outright. Certain fleet compositions might become inadequate, but that's expected.
as for the gunnery tables and what you perceive to be close range you must remember that on the combat is actually taking place over thousands of kilometers close range is a relative term
Noted. Mind you, I don't particularly buy any particular claim as to what the scale actually is, just that it is kinda big.
as for your Gunnery table change, it seem s a little cumbersome. As well the idea of rolling "to hit" makes sense in 40k, but I imagine starship sensors to be highly accurate. But misses do happen. That is why the strength of the salvo changes based on aspect and range on the current table. Basically predetermined hit percentages. So the number of dice you roll are "hits" you just then need to penetrate armour. At least that is how I always perceived it
I'm aware that the table does a lot of these things, and I simply disagree with them. For example I disagree that ships abeam, moving in the same direction and at the same speed should really not be subject to the same penalties as those moving in opposite directions. Seeing as they're providing the largest target and the most stable one, why the hell do they miss so damn much?
Also to note is your perception of the tables being hits, and the rolls being for armour - why do the shields only take away from the penetrations then? If I accept that approach, and keep the table, shields will take from the dice pool, not from the penetrations.
I also don't think these spaceship sensors are all that advanced seeing as the Imperium of Man is the least technologically advanced race in the known universe.
Hey,
cool.
Dissection time. 8)
Woot woot! I like idea dissections, they're fun ^^
Torpedo Releading.
i. Torpedoes are only in limited quantities on a ship.
ii. Reloading is a hazardous task
(Background embedded).
This is true, and speaks to my lack of experience in BFG - because I've never seen a ship fire more than one salvo. The battle was over by the time a reload was made.
Failing a Special Order can happen, thus do them in the correct order. Do not waste torpedoes. Make a shot count. It are expensive things.
And do not forget re-rolls. ;)
I'm not sure I want to spend my one reload on a torpedo, when I really need it to make a burn retros to not fall off the table. I also do not feel that torpedoes (one of the most common weapons in the Imperium fleet) should fire less frequently than the big bad nova cannon that fires skyscrapers at the enemy fleet.
Your idea will lead to torpedo spam. Eldar will love this, Imperial as well. Tau will just have more fun.
There are balance points to tweak, of course. The length of time for the standard reload. It could be the 1 turn delay, it could be 2 or 3.
Also important to note is that the main purpose of this thread is to keep an eye on the effects any changes would have on the other races. Probably the only post that's done so is the first response xD No rule revamp would be complete without a complete examination of every ship - the ships are made for the system, not the other way around.
Escorts
You have to little experience. ;)
I'll put my hands up to that one; you have me there ^^
Escorts are good.
5 Swords cost 175pts and bring 20 weapon batteries with 30cm on a mobile platform.
They have a strike range of 30+25 = 55cm. A Lunar or similar can only strike 30+20 = 50cm with less mobility.
Impressive... But a Slaughter class can strike to 60cm with firepower 14 weapons battery broadside (assuming it doesn't have a closer fwd target), plus a strength 2 lance. And it still gets 2 lance and 8 weapons in the other direction. It'll still stand up to the same amount of punishment as your entire squadron put together, and it your squadron will lose firepower for every two hits that land. The cruiser is a slightly bigger target, which will draw some fire, but then again it needs to take 3 hits per turn just to take damage. Your squadron loses a ship on every second it hit takes per turn (unless you're shooting from opposite sides).
Head to head, I think the cruiser wins out. It's cheaper too. You can manoeuvre to get into a blind spot, but I can outrun you. If you get in front of me, I still have weapons to bring to bear and if you sit there long enough I'll plough into the middle of your squadron and there will be nothing left when I am done. More importantly, with the faster ship I have a better chance of choosing my engagement, and if I fire first, your strength 20 weapons battery will drastically diminish at a rate of 4 per 2 shots landed.
I'm perfectly happy to put this theory to the test if you have some sort of online system we can use? If not, I'm sure one can be found.
Currently they can protect bigger ships (eg massing turrets), fly into large ordnance waves etc. Also, do not waste them. Use them wisely. They're cool.
They can mass turrets. And I guess you can fly into ordnance, if you're feeling lucky. A max squadron of swords, that's 6 turrets; a max squadron of infidels, that's a strength 12 salvo; a max squadron of vipers will give you 18. Are you feeling lucky?
All my fleets use escorts with great effect. Only fleet I would not field them is Craftworld Eldar because of the background to that fleet.
Even my Chaos fleet has 9 escorts in 1500pts. My IN has 9, AdMech ~5-7. Corsair Eldar everything escort next to Void Stalker/Flame/Aurora or Solaris (depends what I fly), Tau CPF between 6-12. DE 9, Novamarines ~ 9-12.
Rogue Trader varies a lot.
Fair; I'd like to play against you; it would be interesting.
Note: some escorts may have two hits because of their size (Hellebore, Tau Defender, the large Ork escorts). That's about it. Everything else is fine at 1.
I still believe escorts should be more durable on the whole.
Just do not waste escorts into the line of fire. At the back they are much more worthwhile. Engage when lines close.
Alas, another problem of my lack of experience. When lines closed, there was nothing left to engage.
ballistics
urgh,
The gunnery table is thing of genious in Battlefleet Gothic!!
Fangirl squee? ;)
[/quote]
Have eye on perception: in BFG 1cm is 1000km. So a ship with 15cm in between is 15000km distance, shooting at fast travelling ships being around 3-5km in size. And with 15cm you get a left shift on the table already.
The gunnery table is awesomesauce as one dice roll incorporates both to hit and to damage. On a table that factors in heading and distance! It also takes care of bigger and smaller ships.
Whoa 8)
I reserve the right to question both methods and results of this table =P
The fact that to hit and to penetrate rolls are done before shields is a personal pet peeve of mine.
Similarly, two ships travelling at the same speed in the same direction with a net relative velocity of 0 are subject to the same penalty as the same ships heading in opposite directions with a a relative velocity of stupid.
Now, one small thing that you should work with:
use the blastmarker rules from v1.0 and not from the 1.5 rulebook/FAQ2010.
Basically:
i. Blastmarkers are placed in line of fire (fanning out left/right if more are place). A player cannot select where he wants to place a blastmarker.
ii. Blastmarkers only intervene in line of fire. So if a Lunar has blastmarkers on port side, it has no intervening blastmarkers on starboard. So if I nip another vessel to the other side I can fire at that vessel (with shields down) but without a blastmarker causing a columns shift.
Now see, escorts benefit a lot from this as they are suited to nip around enemy ships and do this trick. :)
This is useful...
(have to go, perhaps later more)
Looking forward to it!
What game are you playing? :P :D
It's this strange thing with all these space ships and flying cathedrals and speedboats made of stupid! ;)
Torp RO
Torpedos reloading automatically would upset the ordnance balance (IN, Tau, Eldar - lord they would be OP) and simply create spamming, instead of the current situation where they require the player to decide when to use them most effectively for tactical reasons - like the valuable missile ordnance they are.
I don't want to play with one-shot weapons, thanks.
While the spamming is a serious potential issue, there are balance points to tweak. Such as the length of time the auto-reload takes; a potential requirement for a leadership roll to be made after a certain number of shots (this would simulate the limited stores of torpedoes on hand in the torpedo "room", and having to fetch them from the cargo bays, or requiring a resupply drop).
Torpedoes could also get changes in the way they operate. If their overall strength is kept the same as their amount increases, each individual torpedo would be less powerful. An extra point cost could be used to bring along the good stuff, using the original torpedo rules.
Also remember that any major core rule change is also going to cause changes in the ships that use it. It's possible that the auto-reload could have a points cost attached to it, or a points cost attached to a faster reload speed.
However, more torpedoes will be put into play, that is an undeniable fact.
Escorts will gain some extra bonuses against torpedoes, as mentioned above. Plenty of balance points in there too.
Escorts
Escorts are very useful as is. Of course they fall to bits if you get them in the close crossfire of big ships. But what are they doing there!? And if they were so pointless as you say, why are the bigger ships firing at them? Because they are cheap for the raw firepower they can lever on the table, and the flexibility in positioning they have.
The bigger ships were shooting at them because the bigger ships have offside cannons. Or they're the closer target and leadership tests have proven difficult. Or because they're all that's left. Occasionally they can be threatening, but it's usually a suicide run. Which is hilarious when their ideal attack position is also the ideal place to drop a metric fuckton of blast markers.
You don't just throw them into the melee along with the gunline - flank or keep them back, out of range or firing arc - then dart in from an awkward/uncovered angle of the enemy formation when the main fleets lock horns (usually from the rear). 30cm movement and tight turning are what keep them alive, by minimising enemy fire wherever possible. Its up to your skill in positioning to keep them alive, not their ability to soak damage. And for their cost, whenever the enemy is shooting at them, they are keeping your cruisers safer. You get less bang for your buck when you shoot at escorts - against them you roll the least on the battery table, and lances are valuable and usually too few in number.
Again, big ships have offside weapons; and with forward-only firing weapons on one squadron, it'll take a really bad split to keep an angle open for your attack. Even worse is that they have to stick around after they've fired. It's really unlikely that a firing arc will be blank on consecutive turns, especially when there's targets in it. And the harder you hit, the bigger priority you get.
Admittedly, this starts to come down to effective usage of ships, and higher level tactics.
Which is why escorts are also the best hunters of other escorts :D Nimble enough to get close to offset column shifts for their small size on the gunnery table (if attacking with batteries) and packing enough firepower to demolish the other squadron, while being cheap. Escorts are also effective to intercept ordnance with their massed turrets, speed and low cost (you can force an entire multi-bomber wave to waste itself on a single escort).
Fair points there. However, I'm not taking escorts just to hunt other escorts when I can put a lot of hurt on the main fighting ships for the same cost. Escorts are easy to hunt when everything's dead.
Gunnery
Part of what I like about Gothic is that it streamlines the most boring statistics and dice rolling, focussing on the player's skill and finesse of positioning, timing and orienting his forces to bring weapons to bear most effectively. I can't see how your changes to the gunnery mechanic would do anything to actually deepen the tactical considerations in gameplay - instead adding complication and time for mostly intellectual immersion. :-\
Streamlines it yes, but it means it can't do everything. And I want to do the things it won't.
I also use the rules regarding blastmarkers as Horizon said above. Works well.
Certainly sounds interesting. Will put those to the test before bringing other changes into play.
Do you play Firestorm Armada? Your changes sound really similar to how it plays. Torpedoes are basically standard weapons that get targeted by turrets and are auto loaded and smalls have two hits each in that.
Interesting. Will have to find the rules for that. I do know some of my changes were taken from (or inspired by) the Rogue Trader rules; do they share a ruleset?
Escorts take some time to use effectivly. I see alot of people do away with them all together tho. They are significantly weaker than the cruisers and despite their cost/ firepower they still dont stand up very well. Of course theyre not designed to go head on with cruisers either :D.
That's kinda my problem. All they're really good for is sacrificial armour against a torp/bomber wave, distracting other ships by requiring a leadership roll to not hit them, and adding turrets. Their firepower is reasonable, but I can field that firepower in a cruiser package and I'm better off for it. I think that's not right.
A number of escorts should either contribute very significantly to another ship's performance, or be able to take on a ship of equal point cost (isn't that the point of the point costs?).
For example as mentioned above; the five swords against one slaughter. Can tell you now they swords would make a fine mess of it with an extra hitpoint. As it is I can wipe out a squadron of swords with a single good salvo; with 2 hp it becomes near impossible.
-
Another few things to thing to think about before you go changing the rules. First, are you intending to play with anyone else besides your close circle? When I first started playing gothic like 1000 years ago, I had a close crew of guys that I played BFG at home with. We house ruled some stuff. ( we used to BFI on a 5+ for instance and had our own Ork fleet version). As time passed, guys moved away and some lost interest so I was forced to reach out to the larger world to find people to play with. House rules are all good and fine in your house but not so good out in the larger world. When I had to go out to the real world the transition was harder.
I don't even have a close circle atm; I have one opponent. And if some people here are right, we're not even in the same class of player. Do you guys have any online system to play against others on the forum? It would aid my journey significantly!
And aye, house rules stay in-house. But I don't have anyone else to play with so it really doesn't make a difference right now =[
Second thing, I noticed in an earlier post you are playing at a low points value, with no ordance and in a smaller field. That is going to give you a strange baseline on deciding what needs to change and how much. As someone who had some game design experience you will know this will give you skewed results.
This is very true. Are the rules optimised for a larger fleet, a larger field, and a few extra hours? It might work in BFG's favour to cater for smaller engagements... It sounds like IN doesn't get good until the battleships are brought out.
And indeed, I can't rebuild a system from just the experience I have. However, sometimes the changes give more insight than playing by the rules (especially when the changed rules were actually crucial in some obscure way).
The slaughter seems like a great ship and it is but in a larger point game with a larger field the 30cm range makes it far less viable. No one runs a 1500pt chaos fleet with over 50% of it being slaughters unless they want to lose. Same thing goes with torpedoes. Four Imperial ships auto re-loading might not seem game breaking but eight might be an entirely different thing.
For the last game with the changed torpedo reloads, iirc my opponent fielded torpedoes on every single ship he had. That's close to 8, perhaps more. It resulted in hilarity and stupid. But it was more fun than never reloading, I'll tell you that now. Not to mention the strength 12 salvo that wiped out on a blast marker ;)
Its like you are playing 40k on a 3x3 board and saying that assault units are overpowered. As the points, scenerios or conditions change various units will rise in fall in power. 1500 on a 4x6 foot board seems to be the gold standard. I'd give that points level and board size a shot before I go changing things around.
I'll do my best, but who and where can I play against? I'm in the arse-end of nowhere and GW has abandoned BFG. What do?
Third thing is experience. Your experiances will change the way you look at the game. I am from the big gun school and I am not a fan of escorts, generally. If I do take any it will be one large squad. Escorts are harder to use, especially for someone new to BFG, so when I started out I stuck with big ships and only later as I learned how to actually play the game I was able to understand and use escorts. Now I can use them, they do have uses but I guess I am a creature of habit so I still mostly avoid them. The guys from the next county over, Berks, were all taught by the same guy and he loves escorts. All their fleets are mostly escorts with a sprinkling of capital ships. Its weird, and its not my style but it is surprisingly difficult to stop. Just so many threats zooming about that you can hurt the squadrons but if you actually spend the guns to kill one that leaves too many unattended to do what they want to your fleet. Anyway what I am trying to say here is that escorts are difficult to use for the begining player and that is going to color your opinion of them. Your problem with torpedoes and the wb chart also is something that time and experience might change also.
I need to find an experienced player that likes escorts then; this sounds like fun ;)
I don't have many problems with the ballistics table, just pet peeves really. The abeam issue is one, the shields are another. The shields are probably the bigger issue - it just doesn't make sense to me.
A lot of people on the forums like to house rule stuff. (snip) Some people are still doing it.
Some fine points in here, and indeed. It's a natural way of things, to want to change the rules to your will; the urge tends to go away when you learn to exert your will through the rules.
The problem is I can already exert my will through the rules against the opponent I have. His fleet is so squishy. It shouldn't take a master tactician to defend against a bull rush.
When I first played my brother and I thought bfi was useless. Just shows how skewed perception can be
As for changing rules I think youll find most problems lie within the original original cost or stats of a ship vice the mechanics. Thats why there are projects like bfgr
It's one way. However BFGR didn't adjust the costs in the way I was hoping, so apparently we're either playing badly or the rules don't work for us. Or both. We went as far as to suggest a 25% decrease in point cost for Imperial ships, that's how badly he was getting smashed.
Whew, that was a long post!
Some very good points out there. Especially the lack of experience. Anyone up for a few games against me to teach me the might of the Imperial Navy?
Now someone tell me why the Necrons don't get swarms of scarabs as ordnance.
-
Hi,
On necron ordnance: I think they should get them. :)
You cost imperial navy 25% down. You think after more then ten years such a drastic lowering wouldn't have been done already. If the navy was that weak we would have seen complaints every other day all those years. Right?
But yes in time there will be people who find things unbalanced. I remember people who said the IN was to strong if they applied the shotgun tactic based on a fleet with dictators.
That happens. Discussing such things is fine and cool. Can't your friend come online so we can help him through somewhat? Tactical discussions and tips I'd always fun.
On reloading: on worst he has a leadership 8 admiral on his flagship. With enemy ships on special orders you will have +1 to it. On average he should succeed some leadership tests. And if your fleet depends on ordnance and torpedoes using a re roll is perfectly fine! Or for which occasion do you spare them?
-
Hello there Islacrusez :)!
Very interesting to read your thread here! I am also new to BFG (played some 4 games perhaps) and I've been thinking about a couple of the issues that you've brought up here as well. First of I'd like to say that we don't really follow the rules 100% in our gaming group, we have added a few things that we like and since we are all pretty new to the game we try out different things almost every game. However, I'd like to add my own interpretation to some of the things you had issues with and how I justify (for myself) their mechanic in the game.
First of: Shields taking place before armor penetration. This one bugged me at first as well. But after going through the fluff for titans in 40k I realized that the tech priests often redirects the power of the titans shields so that they are stronger from the direction they are expected to take the worst fire. Although meddling to much with the arcane technology could be considered a tech heresy. So I simply decided for myself that: current Imperial ship engineering and fleet tactics dictates that the ships require an armored prow and even more durable shields at the front to be able to perform the duties laid upon it by the God Emperor of Mankind! While the older Chaos vessels for example wasn't constructed like this. I don't think it require to much imagination to believe that for example that the Ork mekz constructing a kroozer would direct most of the shields power forward while leaving the aft of the ship relatively vulnerable. Of course this could have also been translated with different number of shields facing in each direction but that would be a cumbersome change since most ships have 2 or 3 shields and not a dozen to be distributed to all the different facings. But you could easily explain the difference between number of shields and the "power" of the shields by the shield generators ability to vent excessive energy from that direction or whatever other reason you can come up with that works for you :).
Secondly: Two ships heading in the same direction abeam having a hard time hitting each other. This one bugged me as well, that's why I figured out another fluff explanation to make this mechanic "feel right" to me ;)! I figured that: if a Sword was running parallell to a Retribution in the same direction, the commander of the Sword would have enough wits to know to stay away from the Retributions fire arc the best he could or be blown away immediately. So would basically not be running completely parallell but also in one of the directions not represented in a 2d game (like down into the table). Of course this couldn't be seen by just looking at the models position on a 2d board, but it's just a justification that works for me to explain the game mechanic. If you add this third dimension it actually feels (to me at least haha!) plausible that two ships running abeam would have a pretty hard time hitting each other as they would have to not only consider the new dimension but also the vessels' different speeds (even if they game wise travelled at the same speed I believe the Sword would try to feint and alter the input to its engines as much as possible to try and complicate the targeting for the Retribution. Even though these feints would surely see the Sword's focus and the accuracy of its own firepower reduced as well as represented by its own column shifts.).
As two your other two major concerns I'm going to be brief because 1) I don't have enough experience and 2) I really need to sleep ;)... So!
Reloading ordinance: This one I've actually never had a problem with! I run IN as well with loads of torpedoes. Do you squadron your cruisers if some of them get a bad ld roll? Have you tried secondary commanders? I'm afraid I can't help you with that one because I've never had any issues with that. Bad dice rolls perhaps?
Escorts effectiveness: I can understand where you're coming from here. I have also had a hard time making my escorts pay for their rations (and I'm using 13 of them!..), but I've heard I'm using them the wrong way.. I can't tell you how to use them though (except for that you shouldn't use them like me haha!), but my most frequent opponent has actually got a good hang of them and is using his escorts to deadly effect. Believe it or not but they are actually the top priority target when I face him. The amount of mobile firepower some of them hold is just absurd!
Hope some of this helped :)!
-
I don't even have a close circle atm; I have one opponent. And if some people here are right, we're not even in the same class of player. Do you guys have any online system to play against others on the forum? It would aid my journey significantly!
I had heard some people were doing some kind of program called vassal but I really am not very techie. Maybe someone else knows something about it?
Head to head, I think the cruiser wins out. It's cheaper too. You can manoeuvre to get into a blind spot, but I can outrun you. If you get in front of me, I still have weapons to bring to bear and if you sit there long enough I'll plough into the middle of your squadron and there will be nothing left when I am done. More importantly, with the faster ship I have a better chance of choosing my engagement, and if I fire first, your strength 20 weapons battery will drastically diminish at a rate of 4 per 2 shots landed.
Yeah escorts can be good but not every escort and not for every fleet. Chaos honestly doesn't need escorts as the slaughter can pretty much take over their role. I am going to have to agree with you on this one. The only escort I might be tempted to take in a chaos fleet is the torpedo one as six of them can unleash a massive torp wave and torps are not easy to come by in a chao fleet. If you remember I am from the big gun school and I am sure many here will disagree with this but there you have it. Can you use escorts and will they be viable? Yes. Do you need to take them in a chaos fleet? No. Will chaos escorts be the most optimised choice? Probabally not but you don't need the most optimized fleet selections to play.
I'll do my best, but who and where can I play against? I'm in the arse-end of nowhere and GW has abandoned BFG. What do?
Well thats the basic problem with BFG. Its a great game that not enough people play. First thing I'd try is to post here what country and city you are near. Maybe someone is near by. If you live near Philadelphia, PA in the USA I'd be happy to play you. Failing that go to your nearest game store and ask them about players. Failing that there are other online forums, Dakka Dakka, Warseer etc that may have some one on there that lives close enough to you to get some games in. Failing all that you will just have to make sure you keep your only opponent interested.
The problem is I can already exert my will through the rules against the opponent I have. His fleet is so squishy. It shouldn't take a master tactician to defend against a bull rush.
When I first started to play it was important to win. After awhile I realized that just winning wasn't really what I was looking for. What I was looking for was a close game that I then win. I think thats what you are looking for as well as you are already winning. Rather than change the rules to strengthen your opponents fleet( that everyone here already thinks is strong enough) why don't you just weaken yours? First Chaos is one of if not the most powerful fleets. If you count the 2010 FAQ fleet lists there are six chaos lists and you are most likely using the blue book one which is the most optimized. The other five are more fluffy and well you pay for fluff so you spend more per ship. You are using slaughter class cruisers in a tiny area which maximises their potential. Why? Use something else if slaughters are making it too easy. Your opponent has a more difficult fleet to master and he may just be slower at picking up this kind of game. In a perfect world we'd all be equal but it doesn't seem like your opponent is ready for equal. Thats not to say he won't someday be. Scale back the volume a little and challenge yourself until he can catch up. You think escorts are weak? This is the perfect time to experiment with them. If that fails try playing down two hundred points. If that fails proxy your ships as ork kill Kroozers. If he still can't beat you well then I am out of ideas. :) Eventually you will find a place where he wins or almost wins. Slowly work your way up from there. I think both of you will have a lot more fun that way and you will get to try out all different kinds of ships and combinations. Not to mention he is your only opponent and he will not just stick around endlessly getting his ass kicked. Even doing the kicking will get old real fast for you. This one sided slaughter is not fun and people don't continue to play games that aren't fun. .
-
Hi,
On necron ordnance: I think they should get them. :)
My personal feeling is a sort of special rule bomber type ordnance. Except like friendly fighters can go CAP on a ship, the Necrons would have Scarabs that land on your hull and start carving you a new one. For every turn that the swarm is on you, it rolls for damage. The afflicted ship cannot bring its main ordnance to bear against this target, but may mass turrets. I also suspect that Necrons would get the resilient modifier on these, because Necrons.
You cost imperial navy 25% down. You think after more then ten years such a drastic lowering wouldn't have been done already. If the navy was that weak we would have seen complaints every other day all those years. Right?
I wouldn't take it that seriously. It wasn't a proper design change, but more of a handicap change. Plus, as others have mentioned, the game is different at these point levels. Skewed perhaps?
But yes in time there will be people who find things unbalanced. I remember people who said the IN was to strong if they applied the shotgun tactic based on a fleet with dictators.
That happens. Discussing such things is fine and cool. Can't your friend come online so we can help him through somewhat? Tactical discussions and tips I'd always fun.
I can point him here. ^^
On reloading: on worst he has a leadership 8 admiral on his flagship. With enemy ships on special orders you will have +1 to it. On average he should succeed some leadership tests. And if your fleet depends on ordnance and torpedoes using a re roll is perfectly fine! Or for which occasion do you spare them?
Not flying off the table mostly. Then again, we're still kinda getting to grips with leadership. The +1 to leadership was probably forgotten the three times in total that special orders were in use (three games and about three special orders; go team). The problem is partly game mechanic, partly the idea of it, and partly the fact that rogue trader didn't have this problem.
-
Back to the gunnery table briefly. I know you havw an issue with ships abeam in the same direction. My counterpoint to that is you must also remember that this is a simulation of 3D combat on a 2D game board. Just because the ships are pointed the same way does not mean they are heading the same direction. Think of it like the nebula scene in the Wrath of Khan.
-
On points levels: BFG plays fine from 250pts and upwards. :) Above 3000pts it could become unwieldy.
1000-1750 I consider perfect.
Forgetting the +1/-1's to leadership tests is pretty important. ;)
Rogue Trader has a lot more leadership variables then BFG will ever have. Rogue Trader itself is based on Battlefleet Gothic but has more focus on story then game balance.
-
If anyone is interested in Vassal let me know and Ill shoot you the info.
On the whole I don't think having torpedoes reload automatically would be a huge deal if they can only fire once every other turn as you said. As it is now they fire every turn you can reload, I'm probably going to have terrible luck for a month now but I usually don't have a problem with reloading...
Sub 250 is cool too. I still like to throw up a straight cruiser clash with a ton of space terrain every once in a while. 10k+ is doable but it really starts to skew the game balance when you get too high in points as one turn can see entire fleets wiped out. I find its best to do large games in sub factions, so 10k a side is really 5 2k fleets a side.
Firestorm Armada (http://www.spartangames.co.uk/products/firestorm-armada) Im actually just recently getting into this but its pretty fun.
-
Back to the gunnery table briefly. I know you havw an issue with ships abeam in the same direction. My counterpoint to that is you must also remember that this is a simulation of 3D combat on a 2D game board. Just because the ships are pointed the same way does not mean they are heading the same direction. Think of it like the nebula scene in the Wrath of Khan.
To which I reply that none of these ships (except maybe the eldar) have weapons that point in a direction even remotely related to "down". Thus the battlefield can only be at least so flat, otherwise the idea breaks down. Sure it can represent three dimensions, but if you consider the vertical firing arcs, you have to turn the ship; if you turn the ship, you expose your underbelly to someone else and lose that firing arc instead.
No, I'll stick with the idea that the battlefield is somewhat flat, and thus anyone moving the same distance in the same direction is moving the same distance in the same direction.
More to the point, if you're moving your maximum distance in a direction, how would you explain that you're also moving the same amount, or indeed any amount, UP which increases your speed significantly?
You can't say "this is a 2d representation of a 3d battlefield, but only for the purposes of" and pick the ones you like and skip the ones that you can't make work. It's not how it's done.
-
As I said it is a simulation. My point being that realistic details like what you said go out the window. The closest I have seen a 2d game get to being 3d is Aeronautica imperialis but even that ignored roll (which is much more significant in space as well). Since adding demensionality to the gane would instantly complicate everything, it is largely ignored for rules purposes. This how ever does not mean it does not exist.
For saying the guns only point in one direction remember each arc is 90*. The ship isn't turning to get that angle, the guns move. I would assume they can also vertically traverse if they can (and do) horizontally traverse.
You are also applying the idea of same course and speed to a turn based game. In reality everything would be happening simultaneously, so to say that you fired on them when the are perpendicular isn't really what happened. And ships dont turn on a dime at exact 45* angles. Thst mechanic is an approximation of the set and drift they would have turning in an arc. So while they may be perpendicular at the end of thier turn/start of yours, once again "in reality" they could have been on a constantly changing vector.
Lastly it is all fictional anyways, bordering more so on the realm of fantasy. Would we really fly giant cathedrals through space? Why would bridges be mounted externally rather than in the heart of the ship? Its not like you can see the other ship thousands of km away. And greater than light travel is done by sailing through the 9th circle of hell? Since it is this way and most of physics is just tossed out like an unwanted dumpster baby already, I am willing to ignore that there are innacuracies. I would play computer simulators if I wanted wanted accuracy. The point of this game is tactical/stategic prowess. If the rules are realistic or not doesn't matter to prove who is the better "admiral" so long as your forces are roughly even and you both understand the rules you are operating with
-
When firing WBs you must account for your own course changes and speed and the enemy's and calculate significant lead times. You know your own course, but you cannot predict the enemy's. The enemy will not match your course to make it easy on you.
If they're coming right at you, any course change on their part will result in little change in where you have to aim with lead because they are essentially moving along the line your projectile will travel.
If they're moving perpendicular to you, any course change on their part will result in major changes in where you have to aim.
The line of their travel and your shell flight intersect at only a single point when firing abeam, but overlap along a long segment when firing head on.
-
As I said it is a simulation. My point being that realistic details like what you said go out the window. The closest I have seen a 2d game get to being 3d is Aeronautica imperialis but even that ignored roll (which is much more significant in space as well). Since adding demensionality to the gane would instantly complicate everything, it is largely ignored for rules purposes. This how ever does not mean it does not exist.
Which literally comes down to "this exists because we said so", as I already pointed out. As I also pointed out, I don't like that approach.
For saying the guns only point in one direction remember each arc is 90*. The ship isn't turning to get that angle, the guns move. I would assume they can also vertically traverse if they can (and do) horizontally traverse
And are you proposing that dorsal weapons, or most chaos weapons shoot holes in their own ship? I don't care how much traverse you have, if you're mounted on top of something you can't shoot any further down than the thing you're mounted to.
And as far as how much vertical traverse you can get... You tend to get a lot less than horizontal, especially in a turret-mounted weapon (ALL chaos guns, all lances, all dorsal weapons) You might get a little more play in a gun-port mounted weapon like imperial batteries, but then you've got to somehow lift the bulk of those guns with manpower alone. If they're mounted to balance the weapon, you lower the traverse because you're hitting the gun port; if they're mounted for maximum traverse, you'll have a hard time moving it that far and will probably hit the floor or the ceiling before you hit the target.
Lastly it is all fictional anyways, bordering more so on the realm of fantasy. Would we really fly giant cathedrals through space? Why would bridges be mounted externally rather than in the heart of the ship? Its not like you can see the other ship thousands of km away. And greater than light travel is done by sailing through the 9th circle of hell? Since it is this way and most of physics is just tossed out like an unwanted dumpster baby already, I am willing to ignore that there are innacuracies. I would play computer simulators if I wanted wanted accuracy. The point of this game is tactical/stategic prowess.
And here I thought the point of this, and any other game, is fun?
If the rules are realistic or not doesn't matter to prove who is the better "admiral" so long as your forces are roughly even and you both understand the rules you are operating with.
I think we've already proven this one with a thus far unbroken win-streak against my opponent. You've played with the rules long enough and you've grown accustomed and attached to them. I have not, and I reserve the right to change them as I see fit. I'm not going for hyper-realism, I'm just taking a different approach, because I don't like the way the game has done it.
When firing WBs you must account for your own course changes and speed and the enemy's and calculate significant lead times. You know your own course, but you cannot predict the enemy's. The enemy will not match your course to make it easy on you.
If they're coming right at you, any course change on their part will result in little change in where you have to aim with lead because they are essentially moving along the line your projectile will travel.
If they're moving perpendicular to you, any course change on their part will result in major changes in where you have to aim.
The line of their travel and your shell flight intersect at only a single point when firing abeam, but overlap along a long segment when firing head on.
But following this logic, why do Closing and Moving Away suffer different penalties?
-
I would just like to add that I am happy to engage in discussion and accept feedback, but I don't want to be going in circles. "Don't do this because I think it's a bad idea because I disagree with you" is not particularly helpful. More or less everything else in the thread has been, even if it has had a counterpoint in response (because causing a counterpoint to be generated is useful in itself).
-
But following this logic, why do Closing and Moving Away suffer different penalties?
This is, in fact, very sound logic. We just have take sensor operations into account - in 40k engine emissions are canonically known to disrupt sensor operations [one of the main reasons few ships have rear weapons] and on the other hand, ship coming at you is likely actively scanning you and masking its engines distruptive effect with entirety of its hull, thus being easier to target.
Also, when it's moving away your projectiles need more time to hit it - they need to, basically, chase it down. Longer time of flight leaves more room for deviation. When it comes at you, they hit faster, thus being more accurate. Remember that it doesn't really happen in turns. You fire at it while it's moving.
That's all completely ignoring 3d aspect, because, as you say, it's basically 'bacause we say so.'
-
Lag time. Being 1000's of km apart, it's not like two cars driving next to each other. Solid munitions need to be targeted to a spot in space where they would intercept it, and since ships can fly in three dimensions, the target can simply move up or down the lateral plane and avoid them. This is what the gunnery table takes into account, and I think it works perfectly, since it's taking many things into account all at once. Laser light doesn't have that problem, and so lances aren't affected by orientation, another perfect set up, in my opinion.
"What about close range, it should be easier to hit!" I hear you cry.
Well of course it is. Left column shift.
As to the OP, nobody mentioned Space Marines.
If IN are a shotgun, then Marines are the blunderbuss that's wielded like a scalpel. Plow forward into close range and unleash BOMBARDMENT and boarding actions.
-
Hi Islacruz,
Small note on the abstract 2d/3d aspect of bfg:
If BFG was hundred percent two dimensional you would agree that a ship would block line of sight and fire? That you cannot hit a cruiser if its stem is directly behind the stem of an escort in front of it.
But this ain't so. So, if you like it or not (both is fine) BFG uses a semi 3d mechanic in circumstances. They explained it in the rulebook as well.
-
I would just like to add that I am happy to engage in discussion and accept feedback, but I don't want to be going in circles. "Don't do this because I think it's a bad idea because I disagree with you" is not particularly helpful. More or less everything else in the thread has been, even if it has had a counterpoint in response (because causing a counterpoint to be generated is useful in itself).
Sorry if I came off that way. I am just trying to explain, to me a at least, why the game plays the way it does. Simply put a 2d simulation of a 3d game, the biggest failing of which is the motion of roll. I always thought it would be cool to roll a ship over say if its port batteries were damaged and I had targets to port. Why not roll and use my starboard. As cool as this is though I find the gane to be really well balanced and some of the best mechanics in terms of balancing simplicity of rules with tactical depth of game play. So in a way I am defending it yes. But this is to try and let you discover and fully learn the game before altering core mechanics. As you said you are relatively inexperienced. Might I suggest swapping fleets and/or trying IN on IN or chaos on chaos. This may give better perspective as to the strengths and weaknesses. As well start introducing ordnance, ramming and boarding action/hit and runs to your games.
lastly the point of the game is to have fun, but you knew what I meant :P.
-
Belly up, another fine addition from Firestorm and one I wouldnt mind seeing added to BFG.
-
3 pages and noone has mentioned the effect of inertia in space?
I have massive engines, I burn them, and start travelling in a direction
At this point I do not need to continue to burn engines to travel in that direction.
I can, in fact, turn my ship to be facing backwards (or any other angle i wish in any of the three axis, lets not forget things like tilt and yaw, i can roll my armoured section towards your attack, and still point my guns at where you're going to be by the time my projectiles get there) and continue to travel in the same direction at essentially the same pace as before.
Ship Orientation and Direction of Travel should not be so closely linked as they are.
But they are, because three dimensional interactions are significantly more complicated than two dimensional ones. thus we introduce small fixes (like the "flying over and under ships/planets but apparently not blast markers or nova cannon explosions" rule)
BFG is "Ships In Space" not "Spaceships"
if you want a more realistic interpretation, there are rulesets out there to cater to you. If you don't like the rules, and don't like/know the background, why play BFG at all? play Full Thrust or Attack Vector Tactical
If you want rules that provide a different flavour, try Firestorm Armada or X Wing or Call To Arms or any of the Star Trek and Bab 5 games to name a few?
-
Belly up, another fine addition from Firestorm and one I wouldnt mind seeing added to BFG.
This sounds like hilarity. Special Order: Barrel Roll. xD
3 pages and noone has mentioned the effect of inertia in space?
I have massive engines, I burn them, and start travelling in a direction
At this point I do not need to continue to burn engines to travel in that direction.
I can, in fact, turn my ship to be facing backwards (or any other angle i wish in any of the three axis, lets not forget things like tilt and yaw, i can roll my armoured section towards your attack, and still point my guns at where you're going to be by the time my projectiles get there) and continue to travel in the same direction at essentially the same pace as before.
Ship Orientation and Direction of Travel should not be so closely linked as they are.
Nope. No, no, no, nonono. Nope.
*claps hands over ears*
LALALALALAnotlistening.
Both myself and my opponent are well-versed in physics. Inertia in space is a pet peeve of his. However, your brain can and will explode by the time you work out all the things you need to account for, let alone make rules for them.
But they are, because three dimensional interactions are significantly more complicated than two dimensional ones. thus we introduce small fixes (like the "flying over and under ships/planets but apparently not blast markers or nova cannon explosions" rule)
Blast markers are different. Not least because there's nothing to indicate that blast markers do not spread equally in all directions, making them rather tall as well; significantly more so than the average ship. That said, the BFG scale is fudged so bad.
I'll do this next bit piece by piece:
BFG is "Ships In Space" not "Spaceships"
More or less what I'm actually going for. I just want to port ships to space in a slightly different way to how BFG has done it. ;)
if you want a more realistic interpretation, there are rulesets out there to cater to you.
I'm not going for hyper-realism. I just want a different flavour.
If you don't like the rules, and don't like/know the background, why play BFG at all? play Full Thrust or Attack Vector Tactical
Because BFG is the one I was introduced to while playing Dark Heresy, Black Crusade, and Rogue Trader. I do like the background, but I just don't know enough of it; and I also don't know the specifics of how the world applies to BFG because world and rules don't always line up.
If you want rules that provide a different flavour, try Firestorm Armada or X Wing or Call To Arms or any of the Star Trek and Bab 5 games to name a few?
Firestorm Armada might be worth a shot. However, Star Trek? Just how does a saucer with engines compare to cathedrals in space? If there's one stupid thing I love about BFG it's the cathedrals in space. That and the fact that all of the races are so different. You just don't get that sort of variety in Star Trek - they might look different but at the end of the day most of their tech is the same.
BFG might not show it as well as it could (something I'm also aiming to look at) but all (most) of the races are different at a fundamental level and that's what makes it so awesome.
-
hm,
perhaps Hostile Stars:
http://www.darkrealmminiatures.co.uk/downloads/hostile-stars-rules-v2-02.pdf
has movement rules which are more in depth (eg nose pointing starboard, ship moving other direction).
Or go really complex:
http://www.adastragames.com/downloads/AVT_Tutorial.pdf
-
Hmmm, sounds interesting! I shall keep hold of those...
However, you're not going to flog me off on some other unsuspecting community that easily; you're stuck with me until I get bored :P And I think we've strayed from the original topic, to a slightly different but related topic, to a completely different topic xD
So while I'm here... What's up with Eldar? I've heard reference to MSM and MMS; I assume that's move-shoot-move (shot on the run, in space) and move-move-shoot?
-
Original eldar rules are move shoot move. While their ships are very fragile this led to terrible shenanigans. Basically if there was an average amount of terrain, eldar would hide behind it, pop out, shoot, run back behind terrain. Once they did some damage they would then disengage and claim victory. On the other hand if there was almost no terrain, eldar would get slaughtered. Either way made for really onesided games, and as you know onesided means not fun. From personal experience my first time playing eldar had a gas giant on the table that hid the entire eldar fleet. I never got a shot at him but he killed a cruiser and left the board saying he won. Imagine how cheated I felt knowing I didn't even roll a single dice offensively and he won by running away.
THus mms or move move shoot was born. The ships were toughened up a bit and the eldar were kept just as fast and manueverable but no longer had potentially game breaking rules with the added benefit of making them less reliant on terrain
-
It also reworked holofields to work based on range bands (e.g. You're within 15cm you're a dead eldar, as you should be :) )
-
I agree that abeam same direction should be equivalent to moving away
I don't have a problem with torpedoes auto loading with either a) running out or b) a failed reload this turn = loaded for next turn