February 27, 2021, 12:14:20 AM

Author Topic: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Dec. 25th 2020 Update!)  (Read 144724 times)

Offline Thinking Stone

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 164
    • Loc: The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Dec. 25th 2020 Update!)
« Reply #390 on: January 09, 2021, 04:09:27 PM »
Now time to look at the Eldar! One thing already stands out: I think the Supernova should ditch the Weapons Batteries, since the coolness of the ship is that it relies solely upon pulsars :P

It will be interesting to see how the MSM and MMS elements balance themselves out.

I do still like my idea of holofields causing lances to count as weapons batteries, but the tracing mechanism is pretty cool. Another way to do it might be to remove the turrets and give Eldar the holofield save against sundry attacks, but have it reduced by tracing (you could even simplify tracing so that any blast marker on the Eldar ship reduces holofields).

Do the Void Stalker's shields work out at 2 instead of MMS's 3? And with the cruisers all having just 1 shield, does that mesh well with the escorts also having 1 shield? That seems to push the equilibrium back a bit towards escorts.

There are still so many ways to explore Eldar; it'd be interesting to tweak the differences between Craftworlders and Corsairs to differentiate them a bit (e.g. 5+ armour for Craftworld ships, but slower). But perhaps that's thought for a future point when this 1.5 edition of XR is complete.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3998
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Dec. 25th 2020 Update!)
« Reply #391 on: January 09, 2021, 09:21:24 PM »
Corsairs may have a small tilt towards escorts, that's fine.

Upon rereading I think this new variant goes back to a core rule breaking mechanic but also makes it all a bit more rule heavy. One point of MMS was bringing the rules back into the core rules. Which, admitted, was only achieved after several updates. ;)

Offline Thinking Stone

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 164
    • Loc: The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Dec. 25th 2020 Update!)
« Reply #392 on: January 10, 2021, 10:37:05 AM »
@horizon What I mean is that the pre-existing tilt to escorts is increased when they get 1 shield per HP and cruisers get only 1 shield for every 6 HP! ;D It would be interesting if Corsairs had no shields but Craftworlders did.

Not that any of this is new, but I think the biggest mechanical issue with BBB Eldar is how the second move exploits the biggest weakness of the IGoUGo system’s representation of simultaneity (giving artificial resilience because nothing can react). I don’t think the holofields in BBB are as much of a problem except that they disproportionately affect lances to an extent that’s bad for game balance, but they’re pretty easy to tweak.

But the MSM mechanic seems pretty core to at least Corsair Eldar and you lose a lot of the feel when going to MMS (as well as you miss out on the Uboat-like tactics). Ideally, one could fix this with alternating activations (BFG2020 away!), but if you’re sticking with IGoUGo and you want to keep the MSM character, I think you’d need one or some combination of the following: a reaction fire mechanism, a firepower output reduction when using MSM, reduce the success rate of MSM, or everyone gets a ‘submarine’-type unit that uses similar rules to MSM (probably + holofields).

If you make MSM harder then you get the issue MMS had where you need to up the resilience a lot because BBB Eldar are fragile enough that pulling MSM off becomes a bit of a binary ‘no cost to Eldar’ versus ‘maximum cost, Eldar ship dies’.

I like the idea of using CTANH to reduce firepower because it gives the player a meaningful choice about whether they want to risk the lower firepower and chance of failure for a MSM ambush versus setting up an ambush the hard way without relying upon MSM’s ability to almost-trivially escape.

Now for the unpopular ideas :P I personally like the idea of escorts being able to fire reaction fire (i.e. shoot their guns in the opponent’s move phase, in lieu of their own shooting phase). It gives them a solid role that they really want for (at the moment, everyone but Corsairs basically has ‘torpedo boat’, ‘supplemental firepower’, and ‘a few more turrets’) and follows history by allowing escorts to deter ‘submarine’ attacks.

Giving everyone a escort submarine with Eldar the only ones with cruiser+ subs is an interesting idea for balance, but I’m not sure it really suit BFG so well. 

Now obviously the overall question is whether any of these things do enough to counteract the egregious turn order artefact that allows MSM to work in IGoUGo. I’m guessing MMS tried out some of these ideas? If it were me doing this round of XR, I would have probably taken MSM Corsairs and added the CTANH requirement, and changed holofields to either use the tracing mechanism or made lances count as WBs against them, and just done some balance tweaks. Maybe Craftworlders could have some shields (probably 5+ armour at least); it makes sense to me that they’d have shields where Corsairs might not, but I know they’re there primarily because of the MMS changes. I’m not sure how much @Xca|iber considered those ideas, but maybe some food for thought to at least settle some questions!

(obviously, @Xca|iber, this is theoretical and I don’t mean to unduly influence ye to throw the hard work out the window!)
« Last Edit: January 10, 2021, 10:47:07 AM by Thinking Stone »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3998
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Dec. 25th 2020 Update!)
« Reply #393 on: January 10, 2021, 10:59:26 AM »
Officially it is still msm all they way.

For XR is said xabre should see if
Corsair Eldar could be msm
Craftworld Eldar MMS
Dark Eldar MS (as is)


Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3998
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity

Offline Xca|iber

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • *Transcribing Intensifies*
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Dec. 25th 2020 Update!)
« Reply #395 on: February 01, 2021, 08:48:53 PM »
I'll make a note to increase the number of allowed SCs in the Armageddon list. In retrospect 3 is a little low, especially for fleets larger than 1500 points. The purpose was more to softly turn off the IN Armageddon list from allowing a "pure" SM fleet.

He is correct about the IN reserves in the SM Dominion list as being reserves. The exceptions in that list are that an SM captain can be assigned to it to remove the "allies of convenience" restrictions (aka the previously unnamed limitations on cross-faction reserves from the classic rules, for re-rolls, squadrons, etc), and/or that the IN reserves in a Dominion list use a different ratio than normal reserves.
++Ask Not, Fear Not++
-------------------------
BFG:XR - The Battlefleet Gothic Expanded Revised Rules Project