No brought up RSV's in the Marine fleet.
20 was an arbitrary number, honestly I think I wanted it increased initially due to the fact that every IN fleet I seemed to face had one. I don't plan on changing its cost, though thinking about it 10 seems proper, but not worth the whinefest.
Dictator at 210 seems palatable, but yes, I'm afraid that since the Dictator and the Mars were overpriced, and the Exorcist was much more so the Emperor reigned!
Defiant has prow torps and lance is this intentional and would it not be under priced adding the torps? Maybe the weps that are standard on the endeavour and the lances if you want 2 prow weapon types.
Also was it intentional for the voss pattern ships to get the 6+ prow AND 90* turns? On that note is there a chance of seeing an option to increase the armor on the other light cruisers or even better (to keep the voss originality) a +1 to shields on dauntless types.
How about seeing an option to upgrade the hydra's 6 30cm with 45cm batteries for +15 pts ala tyrant but with a higher cost (as your "upgrading" more weps)
What happened to the viper... This is an awesome little ship and much loved.
Option to increase turrets for armageddon? Only reason for mentioning this is its currently the only cb that does not either already have or have the option to get 3 turrets.
Avenger cg is listed as 12 hits
Dominator should be listed as -nova +6 torps for 180 instead of +4 torps imo as this fits better with the other in cruisers in terms of weapon loadout/ cost.
On the last note can we see the cost to upgrade armageddon/lunar/tyrant to nova drop to 10?
And on space marine ships how about getting the nova frigate an additional turret, its the only frigate with 1 turret and its the most expensive ::)
I'd like a puppy too :D
Steamroller yes, aaf no. I see a lot of people showing love to the "aaf imp fleet", but I can't really think of a time I've ever used aaf as a tactic. Everytime I've played against someone playing this way I've been able to use it to my advantage. Aaf orders more often than not causes your fleet to become scattered and disorganized due to the random nature of the move. This works well for say orks where you should see what 30ish escorts?, but for a cruiser heavy fleet (most) with minimal squadrons (2 ships typically) its poor form. When your talking about in and aaf your looking at the fleet either being split into two sections (torp armed line and nova/carriers) which allows them to be destroyed peacemeal. Or the fleet has torp armed only, meaning at best your looking at 2? Dictators in a 1500, and they're going to be running TOWA0RDS the guns. How lovely. So yes aaf is a stupid tactic that is easily overcome with some rather simple placement of ships and ordnance. The retribution in this example would likely be the primary target and altho it has the ability to absorb a lot of damage will be lucky to reach the enemy crippled and not destroyed. Now while I do believe that it would take most of a fleet to kill/cripple it while its closing that's an awfully expensive ship to throw away as what? a meat shield for a handful of cruisers to get off early shotguns?
QuoteDefiant has prow torps and lance is this intentional and would it not be under priced adding the torps? Maybe the weps that are standard on the endeavour and the lances if you want 2 prow weapon types.
It is completely intentional, it was the only option that could be agreed upon for the vessel whilst leaving it in the game. Simply giving it 2 launch bays per side (as it should have by the size of the bays), was regarded as too easy access for the IN. Some suggestions were made for this, such as requiring players to have one Endeavor or Endurance with it, however that is an echo of the old restriction, which was removed with FAQ 2010. Players generally feel that it isn't in the Imperial fleet's character to have low launch bay to vessel cost ratios (they sit at about the highest of any fleet, at 52.5 for their base cruiser, chaos is at 47.5 and Orks at 45.)
So we took some creative initiative, and presumed that the vessel has increased capacity due to the limited launch bays, and is able to fit in the more powerful weapons. This allows it to be an option, like Horizon said, It isn't the best thing in the world, but you won't feel bad for taking it.Quote
fair enough, and IN should have the slightly overpriced launch to counter the easy access to torps so this is a nice... balanceQuoteAlso was it intentional for the voss pattern ships to get the 6+ prow AND 90* turns? On that note is there a chance of seeing an option to increase the armor on the other light cruisers or even better (to keep the voss originality) a +1 to shields on dauntless types.
Yes. This was an absolute necessity to make them more competitive with mainline cruisers, allowing for the 'CL' Armageddon fleet to be viable. Voss' Cls function more like standard IN cruisers, so they need a competitive edge vs the cruisers. The Dauntless has speed and a powerful concentrated firepower, something quite valuable to the IN.Quote
ah didnt even notice the speed variation ::)QuoteHow about seeing an option to upgrade the hydra's 6 30cm with 45cm batteries for +15 pts ala tyrant but with a higher cost (as your "upgrading" more weps)
No. See my post above about perfect weapons. The Hydra is meant to be a 'throwaway ship', it is the cheapest IN cruiser available, and is treated as such in its fluff. It makes no reference of being able to take more powerful weapons as per the Tyrant.
The Hydra's long ranged weapons are simply a 'quirk' that may help you, but are much more likely not to do anything. The vessel is not intended to fill the role of a long range support vessel, and simply functions as a cheap baseline cruiser. In the Warden's fleet, one would likely look towards 'downgraded' dominators, with their increased range for such a vessel. Then again one of the themes of the Warden's fleet is its limited supplies and sub-par fighting vessels.Quote
Thats fine i see what you mean about the dominator, however I think that because of just that youll never see a hydra :PQuoteWhat happened to the viper... This is an awesome little ship and much loved.
This is comparable love that people had for the Sedito Opprimere. The Viper is strange in a number of ways, just a Cobra (best non-eldar escort!) but better. The vessel didn't really provide anything unique to the fleet, and wasn't worth the pages.
That said I'm not completely opposed to it being included, particularly if the Bakka fleet makes it back in. Probably would be modelled out of 2 cobras, extending the chassis.QuoteQuoteOption to increase turrets for armageddon? Only reason for mentioning this is its currently the only cb that does not either already have or have the option to get 3 turrets.
Not really necessary. The Overlord/Mars upgrades were just hangovers from BFG 1.0, when apparently they thought such an upgrade was valuable. The two new BCs have the turrets, primarily for balance. Again..... not every option forever.Quote
ok, just thought it was odd that this is the only cb withoutQuoteAvenger cg is listed as 12 hits
Apparently the Avenger is now the Greatest vessel ever.
J/K, whoops, I'm disappointed I missed this. Oh well, can't catch every mistake.QuoteQuoteDominator should be listed as -nova +6 torps for 180 instead of +4 torps imo as this fits better with the other in cruisers in terms of weapon loadout/ cost.
No. Players wanted such a trade-off, but the Dominator receives its Nova for a discount. In an attempt to influence players to prefer the NC, the cost wasn't decreased as much as it would suggest. The 4-torps is from Kar Duniash Cruiser design, which utilize fewer torpedo tubes. Although this isn't necessary, the Dominator is only currently available in the Warden's fleet... if you look at their fleet list you will notice that all cruisers have only 4 torps. This was the method used for making the fleet unique from other IN fleets, allowing a slightly easier access to AC, but fewer torps to compensate. Again the Warden's fleet has a significant loss in firepower/survivability ratio per point of cost as compared to other IN.Quote
ah i see I havent looked at the fleet lists yet, just ships, wheres the gothic sector list?QuoteOn the last note can we see the cost to upgrade armageddon/lunar/tyrant to nova drop to 10?
I feel the NC is adequately priced, certainly you're losing a weapon, but they are much more viable with the new bands and LO. Besides reducing the cost would only see you 30 points at 1500. Also note the 'cheaper' NCs in the Wardens, as they lose less torps.Quote
fair enoughQuoteAnd on space marine ships how about getting the nova frigate an additional turret, its the only frigate with 1 turret and its the most expensive ::)
The Nova Frigate allows SMs access to Lances, it is faster than the Gladius, and is able to fire its lance LFR. It is adequate. Besides, I thought it dropped 5 pts?Quote
same as the cb option why is it the only one without?QuoteI'd like a puppy too :D
-Your fleet may include a single puppy as it's pet. If it is at least 600 points it must include a puppy to lead it.Quote
sweet
Not looking at the document but 1 lb strike cruisers is as it must be. Why?
Following is the line of thinking sig, adm d'art, rcg, I and others had:
- The standard variant has 2 shields per standard.
- Assault variant with more lb
Armageddon is still incorrect. You increased the Batteries but not the lances to 45.
Vanguard...shouldn't it have 2 LB's?
Nope, the Vanguard is meant to be a cheaper strike cruiser it gains:
+1 turret
-10 points cheaper
+1wb each side
+4 torpedoes
It loses:
-1 shield
-str.3 prow Bombardment cannon
-fewer options
Fairly balanced I hope, I thought it was a little on the cheap end when I had it at 130 (the Forgeworld Stats), and I think Horizon or Admiral D said something a while back. Now at 130, and looking at this exchange comparison....I'm wondering if the vessel should be returned to 130. You could say that the loss of the shield is 'about equal' to the 10 points and the turret benefit, and the bombardment cannon (1BCFP=2wbeq), roughly means a loss of 5 Concentrated firepower on the sides. With the torps it is roughly equal to the front, and there is some advantage of having a vessel with torps and launch bays.
So we can say that the vessel is losing '4' firepower over what it should.... I think I will reduce it back to 130.
The vessels are perfectly balanced relative to each other, at least in theory. Players will likely have a slight preference for the Dominator, but this is fine.
On that note I am considering removing the Gothic as an option from the Warden's fleet, to try to further influence players to use the two standard 'Ultima' fleet cruisers. However a more reasonable solution would be to return it and the lunar to 180 points in the fleet, whilst still reducing their torp strength. This would allow for consistency between the datasheet and the fleet list, as I'm certain that is something that will be asked often....
I remembered my reasons for removing the IN escorts from the Admech fleet, it's along the same lines as the removal of RSVs.
Basically the IN escorts can't be balanced vs. the SM escorts on a 5 point increment. Since the SM escorts are 5 points cheaper, due to their loss of SMs, they are substantially better than the IN escorts.
135 sounds fair but really 5 pts here or there... meh at least it balances out the overpricing on the battlebarge... made worse now that it loses the only bit of range the sm fleet had to begin with.
Sounds good, though I think a seperate cut out for fleets/races/ships would be lovely too. This will make it easier to update as well in my opinion.Quote from: horizon
There are some advantages to this, forming ships into a 'codex-style' format. This would allow proper modifications to vessels' in those fleets/races, more in-depth fluff and your comment. However this needlessly increases the pagecount overall, and though I would enjoy doing it, it is far more work than it is worth. At least for now, I would like to do less until I can at the very least complete what it is.
Perhaps in the 2nd edition I will make the Individual Races in to Seperate documents. Likely going further to seperate fleet lists within those documents. As my current plan means 16 races..... this would be a whole project of it's own.
As far as updates go, yes it would be easier. However, my plan is to do 'editions' and lock books for a period of time (likely a year) before updates are performed. Besides, how many changes can accumulate?Quoteedit: ship point costs should remain in data sheet.
OK.QuoteI think that scenarios should go into book II as well. Not sure... hmm...
I would agree, however the way I plan to format the scenarios forces them to be in book I. The design is so that a player would only ever need Book I to play a game, or to carry around. Since scenarios will be more 'normalized' like in 40k 5th edition, it is a mandatory carry item.
There is a minor question of order however, and it is worth considering placing the scenarios section after the core rules. Hmm...Quotealternative rules should be seperate all together.
Ok, Book IV: (Alternative Rules) The Book of the Enginseer: The Void AbacusQuotebook III: nice, who will contribute?
I imagine whoever is interested. In fact.... it is a fair thing to delegate this book, as well as Book II to any willing. I would be very happy with this. Photoshop/PDF forming/layout ability isn't necessary, as it would more or less be filling in a format for me or someone else to do (which is fairly easy).
Simply one would type out the text noting the locations of diagrams, images etc.
Since Book III would not be so standard; It would be in colour. This has a lot more looseness to it, and really anyone with limited software capacity could build much of this .PDF, or at least determine which pictures will be incorporated, write/transcribe articles for terrain building etc.
Eldar now follow more standardized rules, they lost their unique ability to remain stationary (as this causes problems with certain fleet compositions.) They also follow standard rules for moving through celestial phenomena and are able to ram (as the exception didn't provide much).That's a big no from me on these rules. Fleet compositions dictating minimum movement, no way.
CE have a leadership bonus, so long as they take the 'militant' philosophy. That 'path' is the way to take CE in their standard format. Seemed easier to make seperate philosophies where the CE fleet sacrifices that for something else rather than make an expense for it. For the marines it was easy, as all I had to do was make their MoF more expensive for a minimal gain, here the gain is larger, as each vessel sacrifices ~25 points of its value.Dunno, more players input needed I think on the Ld bonus for Eldar. Personally I do not think it has to do with a path, it is race specific thing to reflect that they are master star sailors.
So if a player wants to make their fleet with +1 LD as it has always been they would select militant, however if someone wanted to do another option the rules are laid out there.
I believe you are mistaken on your ratios Horizon, 1:2 would mean that 1/3 of the fleet is non-corsair, and 2/3 corsair, as it is here. 1:1 would mean equal points on either side, as Heroes normally do.I mentioned the mms v1.9b (and all versions before) ally ratios with and without a Hero. With 1:3 I mean: 1 CWE vessel per 3 CE vessels (or vica versa) with 1:2 1 CWE vessel per 2 CE vessels (or vica versa).
Last argument for min-movement; how about auto-success on burn retros? See my only issue is the ability to remain stationary and reload ordnance simultaneously.Not convinced. ;)
Should the Hellebore be 2? or would it be better as 1? I think that the Corsair would work better as 2, and that a smaller alternate DE escort could be made, in a similar method to the Succubus class.If the concept of 2hits escorts is introduced the hellebore should be one of them.
Ulthwé = seer thing related.Perhaps an ability to decide to BFI after damage is rolled from a single attack each turn on vessels carrying Seers?
Iyanden = pre-nid attack = yriel led // after-nid attack = ghostships related (more / bonesingers)
Biel-Tan = aspect warriors (cheap)Sure.
Saim-hann = pack hunters = squadron bonus? = ce escorts bit more available?Hrmmmmm.....
Kaelor (Koronus Expanse) = something shadow-y. +1 attack rating?I was thinking that they would always be considered as 'behind BMs', but I don't know how that would play out. Perhaps Enemy vessels are considered Innacurate when firing at them, meaning they do not benefit from left shifts for range.
Altioc = pathfinders = pre-movement = setting up ships 'outside of the box'Unfortunately pre-movement seems to have potential hazards. However it is possible to allow escort sized vessels to deploy within or near celestial phenomena after both fleets have been completely deployed, I've been working on a similar concept with Leviathans. A redeployment concept could also work, perhaps they could redeploy half their ships/squadrons after both fleets have completed deployment but before the game begins.
Holofields
Holofields are a very unique creation of the Eldar, that confuses enemy sensors as to the exact location of the Eldar vessel. Due to this fact any Gunnery weapons suffer a right shift when targeting a vessel with Holofields. Lance weapons suffer a -1 to their hit roll if firing over 15cm, and a -2 if they are firing over 30cm. Such weapons will always hit on a roll of 6 regardless of distance. If your opponent has any Scatter weapons. Then if his opponent places the template in contact with a ships base with an active Holofield, then the defending player may force his opponent to Re-roll a ‘Hit’ result on the scatter die. Note that this cancels with Lock On orders. Holofields have no effect against Area Effect weapons. Any other Direct Fire weapons simply fail on a D6 roll of 6 (by the attacking player). Any ship attempting to ram a ship with an active Holofield must roll an additional D6 with its leadership test to ram. Vessels attempting to board a ship with an active Holofield must pass a leadership test to do so. Any other effect not mentioned that would ignore shields also ignores Holofields.
Holofields: The Eldar are protected not only by shielding but also by sophisticated ECM that actually produce multiple local engine signatures whilst actively masking the parent ship’s engine signature. The effect of this is a general interference that makes accurate targeting extremely difficult.
Against attacks which make use of the gunnery chart the Holofields force one extra right shift on the gunnery table, this in addition to any other shift on the gunnery table. The holofield does not work under 15cm.
Against attacks which make no use of the gunnery table and target the ship directly (like Lances but not Nova Cannons or Armageddon Guns), the holofield offers a save to represent the difficulty of targeting the Eldar vessel. Whenever an Eldar vessel is hit by such an attack roll a D6 per hit and compare it to the holofield save. If the roll equals or exceeds the holofield save then do not place the blast marker, the holofield has thwarted the enemy sensors . If not then place the blast marker as normal, a shield has overloaded. The holofield keeps on working even if all shields have been overloaded.
The Holofield is more effective the further away the Eldar vessel is. See the following table for which save applies to the holofield:
• Above 30cm - save on 5+
• Between 15-30cm - save on 6+
• Under 15cm - no save
Note: Against attacks which normally ignore Holofields like the Star Pulse Generator or from an Activated Blackstone Fortress the Holofield offers no protection.
Holofields do not save against ordnance.
I'm glad you're so enthused with this. I made a mistake with the DE, they should have no minimum movement speed, these 'Alpha' versions are more or less a complete rebuild of my earlier documents, as earlier in the project I knew little about how to use the software. Essentially I have made a number of templates and I fill in the blanks for the fleet, and I know that I generally miss at least a few things (look at the IN Dictator, with Str 2 Weapons Batteries). However the benefit of doing this has provided a far greater uniformity to the documents, and eliminated a number of 'random chance' errors. Ultimately my plan is to form an 'Alpha' for each fleet, and then correct these mistakes after public review for the 'Beta' versions in the next month.
Slavetaking is a funny thing, at 5 points the ability was almost never used, so I increased it to ten. The only issue here is that a suitably built DE fleet of Impaler Corsairs at 1500 points could make off with an average of 500 points in a single turn against an IN fleet, without being subject to retaliation. I know this sounds a bit astounding, but since the attacks would not destroy the enemy vessel, a single Cobra Class Destroyer that straggled a little outside of the CAP could be the sole target of all these attacks while the DE sit hidden behind an asteroid field and promptly disengaging the next turn. Now thinking about it there should be some limit to this rule, either a cap on the number of points gained in a single battle, or more likely a rule that limits the number of slavetaking raids one can perform on a vessel in a single turn (Likely 4 AB or 1 Impaler), unless the value is reduced.
Leech torpedoes are a bit experimental here, however you must remember that most '8' results grant a point of damage. As I stated earlier Critical hit tables will need to be modified so that 8 has something to do with engines and 9 has something to do with leadership. Since there are 5 critical hit tables for ships and another 5 for defences, specifying the result is far too complicated. It is easier to simply specify a number on the opponent's crit chart. This ruling is far simpler than the previous version which 'created' its own critical effect.
The Haemonculi coven is essentially a Mark of Nurgle. For Chaos it was ultimately determined that an additional hit was worth around 10 pts, as the true benefit is a much wider gap to cripple the vessel. 5 points were tacked on for the Hostile Environment quality, which is quite circumstancial but still a useful ability. Dark Eldar vessels are much higher in comparative cost, and with fewer hits an additional 1 to cripple means adding 1/3 the requisite damage (for the Torture) as opposed to 1/4 (for Chaos Cruisers). Given this concept one could assume that this upgrade is around 1/12 more valuable, perhaps a small benefit, but more importantly is the fact that DE cruisers are slightly more expensive. However I will likely reduce the cost to 20 points, thinking this though again.
The Mortalis was made regarding CE and CWE vessels of similar size. For some reason Eldar vessels do not go above 4 launch bays on any given class. I'm not sure why, but increasing the strength seem to be a bit.... risky. I could see 6 launch bays and an increase of +20ish points.
The Subjugation should have torpedoes, as the concept is more of a 'run in and deploy leech torpedoes' kind of idea rather than cause damage. 45 points makes sense.
The mandatory Fleet Commander was actually a typo, however I was considering changing the commanders to Drachon (Ld+1)@50 and Archon (Ld+2)@75. With the adjusted escort costs and new vessels I need to do some theory building with the fleet. Seccondary Commanders would be renamed 'Heirophants', which is more true to fluff.
Holofields
Holofields are a very unique creation of the Eldar, that confuses enemy sensors as to the exact location of the Eldar vessel. Due to this fact any Gunnery weapons suffer a right shift when targeting a vessel with Holofields. Lance weapons suffer a -1 to their hit roll if firing over 15cm, and a -2 if they are firing over 30cm. Such weapons will always hit on a roll of 6 regardless of distance. If your opponent has any Scatter weapons. Then if his opponent places the template in contact with a ships base with an active Holofield, then the defending player may force his opponent to Re-roll a ‘Hit’ result on the scatter die. Note that this cancels with Lock On orders. Holofields have no effect against Area Effect weapons. Any other Direct Fire weapons simply fail on a D6 roll of 6 (by the attacking player). Any ship attempting to ram a ship with an active Holofield must roll an additional D6 with its leadership test to ram. Vessels attempting to board a ship with an active Holofield must pass a leadership test to do so.
Umm I think you said that backwards. Did you mean to say 4+ shield save and 6+ hull save?
You could try taking away bfi and adding shields that have whatever level of save bfi offered with the hulls having they're same base save as now. Escorts have 6+ hull save and 1 shield with a 4+ save, cruisers have 5+ hull save and 2 shields with a 3+ save, and the tomb has a 4+ hull save and 4 shields with a 2+ save. Shield hits saved do not create a blast marker.
p18, Col3, Types: Normally a colon ":" is used to introduce lists, not a semi-colon ";".
p20, Holofield Breakout: Lock-On only applies to Scatter weapons? The way it's phrased right after rerolling Scatter makes it seem like that's the only thing it affects. Is that intentional, or does Lock-On also cancel the Lance Penalty and/or Battery penalty? I know that lock on used to cancel the reroll for lances, but that was before the change over to penalties for range.The re-roll cancelling thing with lances was before this style of Holofields. Since scatter weapons use Scatter die to hit, it is somewhat difficult to make them less accurate, as adding additional D6s of scatter changes the hit ratio by only a small amount. Re-rolling the scatter is the most reasonably effective method, as a Nova Cannon fleet would devastate the Eldar without such hit modifiers. Since LO allows you to re-roll hits, this would mean that there would be a re-roll in favor of both sides, so for simplicities sake they just cancel.
p21, Multiple Criticals: Probably needs to clarify if criticals roll over when a weapon system exists but is already damaged? e.g. If an Eldar Wraithship's keel weapons are already damaged by a critical, and another keel damage is rolled, does this simply mean both must be repaired to access keel weapons, or does the crit roll over to the next thing on the chart as if there were no keel weapon?
p21, Col 3, Effects of Hulks on battlefield: I've always found the rule that you cannot fire on friendly hulks strange. This is the grimdark of the 41st millenium. Shooting your (now ex-) comrades to destroy your enemies is the new hotness. Their heroic sacrifice to destroy the infidels/traitors/xenoscum will be honored by their gods/masters/demon/ancestors/descendants. Imperial Commissars encourage this sort of thinking all the time, Eldar forsaw the need, Tau accept it for the greater good, Orks and Chaos think its funny, Nids and Necrons probably don't even notice. I'd almost be inclined to make the inability to do this the exception, rather than the rule. Is there a compelling game balance reason that you should not be able to shoot at friendly hulks?
p23, Col 1, Fleet Ordnance Limits: Augmented Launch Facilities should be in bold for consistency.Another good catch.
p24, Hardy: Interesting, I like it.Had to come up with something so that Impalers wouldn't be so easily destroyed.
p25, Col 2, Torpedo effects: suggest "on the facing hit" rather than "on the side hit". Side is a bit ambiguous, and facing is the technical term introduced elsewhere in the document.
p26, Col 2, Fighters vs Torpedoes et al: Interesting. I like the 2d3 mechanic, rather than simply wiping out the wave.RC repeatedly complained about torpedo weakness. 1 Fighter=Infinite Torpedoes but only one Bomber? This was for some consistency.
p26, Col 2, Fighters vs Bombers et al: Not sure I like this change as much; I can see how it would increase the attractiveness of mixed waves, but d3+1 and d3 seems pretty harsh. A single fighter on cap could potentially neuter an entire bomber wave of 4, even before turrets, which makes it seem to me that you now almost have to devote fighters to CAP, especially with the changes to bombers that get through. My gut reaction is that these values should probably be d3 bombers and d2 for fighter-hybrid types, especially given how many resilient fighter types there are out there.
p26, Col 3, Bombers vs Ships: The change to increase bomber damage is interesting. Likewise, I can see how this is trying to balance out the increased efficiency of fighter types vs the bombers. Not sure if the exact balance is right; has there been any significant playtesting with these values?
p27, Col 2, Fighter Boats: Fighter boats function as Fighter boats? I think is supposed to be 'behave as Fighters against'.
p27, Col 2-3, Torpedeo craft: Might be worth a note describing how waves work. I imagine you simply combine the strengths of each squadron in the wave, rather than producing individual salvoes of 2/1 for each point of strength in the wave. I do like the Torpedeo Fighter concept, though I'm not entirely sure which races would use such craft. The "Evil" trifecta of Orks, Chaos, and Dark Eldar seem most likely.
p27, Col 3, Mines: These seem really powerful, especially in fleets like most Eldar and Ork variants, where getting to within mine range is par for the course (either via armor or speed). I'm just imagining a Torture or Eclipse class dashing up behind an Emperor from over 40cm away and dumping a load of 4 mines out. Even with average rolling for both turrets and hits per wave, that's going to end up doing 3-4 direct hits, and if the 'halves' go for you instead of against you, that's around 7 hits (because a second mine sneaks through the turrets adding 3.5 more hits on average). And against a cruiser with only 2 turrets, instead of 5, that's going to be an average of 10 hits. Complete destruction of a Lunar or Murder in one attack, from an effective range beyond their weapons? Seems too good. Again, gut reaction without any play testing, but I'd be inclined to make these work like as to Lances as normal Torpedo and Bomber's are to Weapon Batteries. d6 attacks per remaining Strength, each of which inflicts a hit on a flat 4+, rather than using the armor value the way bombers and torpedoes do. That roughly halves the damage, meaning a typical line cruiser with 2 turrets is only going to take 5 hits from a wave of 4. Still enough to cripple (at the cost of having to get to within 10cm), but not outright destroy.
Random related thought: I can totally see some races, especially Orks and Nids, making Mine-Bombers (aka Kamikaze Bombas), loaded up with mines the same way a Torpedo Bomber drops torpedoes. Cram as much explosives onto their frame as you can and fly 'em straight into the enemy one way for "precision" delivery of huge booms.
p29, Col 1, Hit and Run: "Essentially causing a critical hit on the lower end of the table." This clause needs to be a sentence. "This will essentially cause a critical hit result from the lower half of the table", perhaps.
p30, Col 2, Numerical Superiority: This is awkwardly phrased. How about: "Larger squadrons are more likely to contain a veteran commander, whose experience can bolster the efficiency and morale of the entire squadron. Any squadron of Escorts or Orbitals which contains 5 or more members may re-roll the die when randomly determining Leadership for that squadron."
.Thanks, this type of stuff is quite helpful, I've spent a lot of time staring at the same words, and since I wrote them I know what I was trying to say.... so these tend to pop up more often than I think.
p30, Col 3, Ordained Duty: "Capital Ships, which expense" should be "whose expense", and in the following sentence, "Despite this" should probably be "Because of this" or "Due to this".
p32, Col 3, Shooting By Squadrons: When you say "identical" does this mean identical by type, or exactly identical? Could a squadron of a Dictator and Overlord combine their weapon batteries, even though they have different strengths?Another thought error. I meant to say that they may combine identical weapon systems.
p33, Col 3, Launching Ordnance: I don't like the change of mandating that only those ships in contact-chain with the Lead ship can benefit from this. Especially since the Numerical Superiority rule encourages larger squadrons. I should be able to form up into, say, a group of 3 and a group of 4 and have both groups benefit.
p36, Col 2, Placing Celestial Phenomena: It seems slightly counter-intuitive to me that fleets with aggressive attack ratings are more likely to be able to force conflicts in the further out regions. The math makes sense when you dissect it, but it just feels a little backwards.
p42, Col 1, Fighting in Low Orbit: This column cuts off mid sentence.Cut and paste error.... whoops.
From the Section on Leadership on, the page numbers are clearly not fixed yet, as you mentioned, so I'll switch to referring to things by section/subsection.
Leadership, Starting Leadership, Col 2: Instead of "each race uses a different column to determine their resultant leadership score", I recommend "each race uses a particular column". Different implies no two races can use the same column, which is clearly not the case. I also recommend swapping columns 1 and 2 on the table, so that roughly speaking, the columns get better from left to right, just as the scores get better from top to bottom. I understand why they're set up the way they are (I being the "standard" table, while II is "bad" and III and IV are better than average), but since we're already divorcing the table from the fleet entries, you might as well make the table more consistent and adjust the numbers accordingly in the fleet entries.
Fleets of the 41st Millenium: Lots of this is replicated from Ship Types, The Fleet, Characters and other sections. The information here that I don't see in a newer section are the base sizes (which should probably go into Ship Types) and the rules for allies (Not sure where to put this, probably under The Fleet, but maybe not). Also, just as a general note, large flight bases are 60mm, not 50mm, as mentioned under Battleship and Grand Cruisers.
Armaments, Pulsar Lances: The wording on how this works feels cumbersome to me. Perhaps: "If a Pulsar Lance successfully hits, immediately roll a second attack. If the second attack successfully hits, roll a third and final attack. If the firing ship is on Lock On orders, only the first attack with each Pulsar Lance may be re-rolled".Nice I needed a better way to word this, it is actually a C&P from MMS 1.9B
Yes and no. For one thing it is a bit irrational for a fleet to fire upon its hulks instead of directly at the enemy, though it could potentially cause more harm. For balance reasons, it prevents certain 'suicide tactics' such as rushing in your Avenger GC to ensure that it explodes catastrophically as a bomb, as this strategy would assuredly cause problems against fleets with fewer hits (Eldar) or ones that are normally difficult to damage (Necrons), and Escorts would explode by the thousands. Another reason is for victory points when holding the field. Simply, only two races are permitted to fire upon their own vessels, the Necrons and the Adeptus Mechanicus.
RC repeatedly complained about torpedo weakness. 1 Fighter=Infinite Torpedoes but only one Bomber? This was for some consistency.
Hmmmm... unfortunately people deteste D2s for some reason. I am actually curious how this plays out. With these rules turrets are a bit less effective at stopping bombers, and experience with CAP generally means that the vessel without a CAP gets attacked. Additionally the person attacking would be able to account for this, and send a number of fighters alongside the bombers as necessary. Furthermore, when your opponent is using his AC for CAP, he isn't using them against you. This will need playtesting of course, and I initially intended it to be a D3, but with this system there is a boost to bombers and none to Assault Boats, so it was a little compromise. Who knows, perhaps a D2/D3 system is the correct answer. Additionally the Mixed-Type loss was to compensate for the bonus that Space Marines get against Bombers, whose relative damage potential is reduced slightly.
Mathematics in the general section shows them as slightly more effective against 'normal' turreted vessels and more against 'higher-turret' vessels. I have played 4 games using these rules, with traditional ac fleets. The first; IN vs Demiurg, the game went like you said, ordnance seemed to be played much more defensively as opposed to offensively. However the comparative Torpedo boost likely played an effect. The Second was Tau vs. IN, which seemed about average, the third Chaos vs. Tau, of which the Chaos player was defensive (fairly normal), but still picking and choosing worked fine for the Tau and they won. The last was Dark Eldar vs. IN, of which the Dark Eldar lost badly, but I think this was due to the player being newish.
I was thinking an Ork upgrade instead of giving them full torpedo bombers (which proves problematic).
It's a pretty gutsy move I do agree, but remember, vessels which become minelayers lose their other ordnance types, and Mines are quite slow/easily destroyed by fighters.
Quotep33, Col 3, Launching Ordnance: I don't like the change of mandating that only those ships in contact-chain with the Lead ship can benefit from this. Especially since the Numerical Superiority rule encourages larger squadrons. I should be able to form up into, say, a group of 3 and a group of 4 and have both groups benefit.
I'm a bit confused here, squadrons cap out at 6, and most players use either groups of 3 or 5 due to victory point rules. There is some merit to a group of say 3 and 3 combining ordnance, however this is quite complex to explain, and very situational. This method works simpler, and should still allow you to fire your ordnance in multiple waves/salvoes, but I know I need to add more wording there.
Quotep36, Col 2, Placing Celestial Phenomena: It seems slightly counter-intuitive to me that fleets with aggressive attack ratings are more likely to be able to force conflicts in the further out regions. The math makes sense when you dissect it, but it just feels a little backwards.
I know.... I actually don't like this rule all that much and may change it to something else, like how missions work (pick 2 and a definite no, overlapping etc.)
@Transports, I'm actually not sure about this one, Transports are made in respect to the IN transport, which is rather slow, and I will almost assuredly remove the tie in with Inefficient Engines and simply have slower transports be dirt cheap. Hits=transport capacity is the most efficient way to balance large transports vs smaller ones. Furthermore the point system was added to correct for the dumb need for half-transports, in this case the player simply chooses to pay for more transports, or more weapons. Q-ships will prove to be interesting, but they will have a normal transport capacity for their size, simply being equipped with more weaponry that could prove surprising to his opponent when revealed.
| vs | Classic BFG | BFG:R Pre 1.6 | BFG:R 1.6 |
| Batteries | Right Shift | Right Shift + Shields | Right Shift over 15cm + Shields |
| Lance | 83% (+BM on move) | 50% + Shields | 0%/33%/66% (0-15/15-30/30+) + Shields |
| Bombers | 83% (+BM on move) | 75% upto ~turret max | 75% upto ~turret max |
| Torpedoes | 83% (+BM on move) | 50% upto turret max | 50% upto turret max |
| Hit & Runs | 83% (+BM on move) | 50% upto turret max | 50% upto turret max |
| Teleport Attack | 83% (+BM on move) | 0% (have shields) | 0% (have shields) |
| Boarding Attack | 83% (+BM on move) | ~33% (Enemy Ld Based) | ~33% (Enemy Ld Based) |
@TheDaR Wow you replied while I was typing....
Ordnance and squadroning is going to be changed to a different version. Now there will be a 'primary' firer, instead of the Lead ship, so a group of 6 cobras could combine their fire into 3 groups of 2 they just need to declare one ship from each group to be the primary firer.
Regarding Torpedo Sizes;
I guess that you weren't around for the whole thing about it in FAQ 2010. This has been argued quite a bit, and in fact according to that system any number of torpedoes would only ever be represented by 1 marker! That system made combining torpedoes somewhat of a waste. The main reason this was done by the HA was due to the fact of Torpedoes significant exponential performance increase when they increase in size. For example; a group of 18 torpedoes was much more than 3x as powerful as 6, as their size meant they could hit ships in an 18cm width, with ALL the torpedoes.
Regarding Mass Turrets:
Conceptually here this was something to add reason to take larger squadrons of escorts. Most escorts have 2 turrets, so the increase is likely small. Additionally, once a vessel was destroyed, the remaining vessels would reduce their turrets accordingly. Also, mass turrets don't work when the squadron is under orders, so unless the Cobra squadron was not using Reload Ordnance it would perform normally. Perhaps you did not take this into account? Generally squadrons would be under orders reducing the power of their turrets, and with bombers not being so related to turret strength this seemed OK regarding them. However this rule may be removed or changed to a limit (maybe 4), I would like to see how it plays out a bit first.
Regarding DE and fleet selections:
I may be mistaken in how this works.... but didn't I just put up the 3 escorts per capital ship rule? Perhaps a change is necessary, but remember, a fleet with only CLs could have more capital ships than one with only Cruisers.
I'm surprised you didn't see protection from Lances at all, as it is difficult to get within 15cm of an Eldar ship. Personally I would prefer a -1 (perhaps a -2) to hit from lances regardless of range, but again.... this is Horizon's thing so I don't have that much influence over it.
Fast Tracking turrets work against all ordnance, so they all should be 75% unless I'm missing something.
ehm wait.
The Dar, you used them in the Dark Eldar?
Under official rules Dark Eldar end up closing as always. Under official rules Dark Eldar never got the second move.
Now fill me in: do Dark Eldar have shields under bfg:r?
If not, still:
Official DE: no shields // no second movement // end up within 30cm // Holofield: 2+ vs lances / right shift vs batteries.
Holofield BFG: R: // no second movement // end up within 30cm // Holofield: right shift vs batteries except under 15cm / lances 4/5/6 to hit.
hmm. DE have shields in bfg:r right?
Otherwise I understand the Dar's problem. It is about the DE not CE or CWE. And MMS1.9 is CWE/CE ;)
For what it's worth, I just finished whipping up that spreadsheet that shows the rough effectiveness of each weapon type against typical CE, DE, and IN cruisers for various rule set/fleet list combinations.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Apqs5-oxdPArdF9mclBNTmYzVGptLXJRa01MMDN5blE
I present it without initial editorial.
About the DE list selection, I do think I mentioned something about having to make sample lists before I was sure. I think that maybe a 2 Escort per Capital Ship may do the trick. Max 12 was always a funny limit, and doesn't make sense for a pirate fleet, instead a split seemed sensible, besides most fleets would have to spend 2000 points on just cruisers to get to 12 so it isn't a real limit. With 6 you are given a true limitation, and one could spend 2000 points just getting Cruisers and the neccessary escorts/characters before they hit their limit.
?
I cannot make cheese of it.
Left most column: classic bfg eldar
lance <15cm needs 10 lances to do 1 hit = that what you mean?
Isn't that 'off'?
Did you factor in the blastmarker effect? Save = blastmarker = 6 is damage.
Did you factor in vs the Lunar that Eldar batteries have a left shift?
And if I am honest I am quite pleased with the battery values in BFG:R 1.6 vs the Lunar.
Where is Sigoroth when you need your math done?
@TheDaR
I think your 1.5BFG:R statistics for Bombers is incorrect. If I am not mistaken it would take on average 3.28 Bombers to cause the first hit on the Torture and 5.07 for the second and 7.85 for the third. This is because 2 Fast Tracking turrets would kill on average 1.5 bombers, and each bomber would do an average of 1.667 attack runs against it. So each would effectively cause .56 hits if they survived. I was wondering about your math there as it seemed out of place.
Here you see an increased overall resistance vs. Bombers from 1.5 to 1.6.
DE do have Mimics to assist, and with a higher Attack Rating would likely have the first turn. So in a game with 15cm (90cm gap between fleets) deployment vs IN, I find my general strategy works something like this;
1st DE turn: AAF towards enemy, and are now ~50cm closer.
1st IN turn: Drift aimlessly forward minimum distance ~10cm closer.
2nd DE turn: Now about 30cm from the enemy, I move forward, turn and do not fire as Mimics still work. Gap is now 0cm (so we're right next to each other).
2nd IN turn: A smart player would AAF or use Come to New Heading, but this probably won't help much. They can't attack you still.
3rd DE turn: Lock on if possible, turn at start of move and follow poor IN ships in rear arc!
lol have your IN players not herd of torpedoes? Espically with the DE being untargetable for 2 turns now its vitally important to throw up a screen to protect your front. This is also a perfect example of why you should have some escorts to protect your rear, along with whatever attack craft you can muster.
Another funny method of doing this is that since DE ships have Nimble, I have often found myself ~30cm in front of an enemy, and much to their surprise used Come to New Heading to pass them then use both turns to make a 180 in their rear arc. Here you would use leech torpedoes and fire to prevent their turning ability. Damage isn't critical at this moment, just preventing retribution.
I agree this is a very good destroyer tactic I have use quite often with IN and Corsair
@Horizon
Why are Lances and WBs equalized by the within 15cm rule? There already is a range shift, and looking at TheDaR's table you can see that Weapons batteries are around 1.5x as effective as they should be vs Holofields overall. As from a 'Moving Away' standpoint at all ranges 22 WB firepower=11 Lances in efficacy when fired at Eldar ships? Shouldn't this be 33 to 11? I still am confused about the discrepancy.
Lances and weapons batteries received a significant boost to attacking Eldar within 15cm to offset the fact that they got an over 30cm nerf (weapons batteries anyway lances actually got a large boost across all ranges over msm) The point remains that you should now be using your superior speed and weaponry to set up a crippling close range attack instead of bouncing back and forth into and out of range pecking the enemy to death. against certain fleets this will be a problem yes, space marines obviously but also necrons and other eldar especially as they tend to fight the same way. This once again shows why these fleets should have objective based battles, defend this attack that etc, a fleet engagement between 2 Eldar for instance can take all day as they play cat and mouse trying to expose a weakness (which can be a lot of fun especially with lots of terrain)
DE do have Mimics to assist, and with a higher Attack Rating would likely have the first turn. So in a game with 15cm (90cm gap between fleets) deployment vs IN, I find my general strategy works something like this;
1st DE turn: AAF towards enemy, and are now ~50cm closer.
1st IN turn: Drift aimlessly forward minimum distance ~10cm closer.
2nd DE turn: Now about 30cm from the enemy, I move forward, turn and do not fire as Mimics still work. Gap is now 0cm (so we're right next to each other).
2nd IN turn: A smart player would AAF or use Come to New Heading, but this probably won't help much. They can't attack you still.
3rd DE turn: Lock on if possible, turn at start of move and follow poor IN ships in rear arc!
lol have your IN players not herd of torpedoes? Espically with the DE being untargetable for 2 turns now its vitally important to throw up a screen to protect your front. This is also a perfect example of why you should have some escorts to protect your rear, along with whatever attack craft you can muster.
Another funny method of doing this is that since DE ships have Nimble, I have often found myself ~30cm in front of an enemy, and much to their surprise used Come to New Heading to pass them then use both turns to make a 180 in their rear arc. Here you would use leech torpedoes and fire to prevent their turning ability. Damage isn't critical at this moment, just preventing retribution.
I agree this is a very good destroyer tactic I have use quite often with IN and Corsair
@Horizon
Why are Lances and WBs equalized by the within 15cm rule? There already is a range shift, and looking at TheDaR's table you can see that Weapons batteries are around 1.5x as effective as they should be vs Holofields overall. As from a 'Moving Away' standpoint at all ranges 22 WB firepower=11 Lances in efficacy when fired at Eldar ships? Shouldn't this be 33 to 11? I still am confused about the discrepancy.QuoteThis once again shows why these fleets should have objective based battles, defend this attack that etc, a fleet engagement between 2 Eldar for instance can take all day as they play cat and mouse trying to expose a weakness (which can be a lot of fun especially with lots of terrain)
Xisor, is that you?
Dark Eldar fleet selection:
1 cruiser per 3 escorts
1 light cruiser per 2 escorts
following allowed as well: 1 cruiser, 1 light cruiser, 2 escorts.
next level would be: 2 cruiser, 2 light cruisers, 4 escorts
Dark Eldar fleet selection:
1 cruiser per 3 escorts
1 light cruiser per 2 escorts
following allowed as well: 1 cruiser, 1 light cruiser, 2 escorts.
next level would be: 2 cruiser, 2 light cruisers, 4 escorts
Following is decent, but I think your numbers are wrong here..... shouldn't it be 1 Cruiser, 1 Light Cruiser & 3 Escorts?
@TheDaR
Did you play any more games with your Eldar? I was curious if you noticed any changes.
I think this (https://docs.google.com/?tab=wo&authuser=0&pli=1#folders/0B1Nr32u9sF3EYWQxMjcxMmItMGU1MS00NzdlLTk1YTktZWQ2MmIwYjU2ZGUz) is the correct link
The End?
I come to you now solemnly, I fear that I have come to a crossroad and have chosen to put the Revised project on indefinite hiatus. There are a number of reasons why I came to this decision, the foremost being that I cannot complete it in a reasonable amount of time. I estimate that completion of the core rulebook would take around 200 hours of solid work, and at my current rate of 2-3 hours per day, this would be around 4 months from now. To complete the fleet rules as well would take an additional 6-10 months. Unfortunately this is far longer than I would like to devote to the project, and more hours is impossible without me forfeiting something else in my life. I had hoped that I could perhaps find funding through donations, but this wasn't the case.
Remember that people who design game systems usually spend full time on the projects, and consist of a group of 3-5 people actively working on it. In a sense what I had hoped to do was a bit quixotic from the start. Although I would very much love to complete BFG:R and I adore the game itself, I must discontinue my work in the interest of furthering personal goals. I am quite disheartened having to abandon the work I have already completed, and hate to disappoint BFG:R's loyal fans, but unless something changes it is no longer plausible to continue.
I know that BFG:R remains widely unknown, mainly due to my decision to avoid advertizing the system until complete, and that there was a possible route to it becoming widespread and perhaps even recognized by GW. Since I am still somewhat on the edge, I give it to you, the fans, to choose if you want me to continue the project.
<zip>
Regardless of outcome, I would like to thank you all for your support, and I hope that you enjoyed my current works. All the best,
Plaxor
I agree with Zimms and Horizon; even if nothing else is kept the ship revisions were simply ideal; although I did quite like the new escort rules...
I also liked the reworked holofield rules as it helped reinforce the way to play fluffy Eldar. My opponents here took to it right away despite being a change to the ability of the ships the general consensus was, "if you're an eldar player and get caught within 15 cm you deserve to get creamed".Those Eldar rules will never be lost. As BFG:R used an almost 1:1 carbon copy of the settled Eldar MMS v1.9b ruleset. (An upload link will appear monday).
The BFG:R blog/site is gone. :(
I'll be around. It's interesting you guys went back to voting for everything. Seems a bit tedious.
Strange.... didn't close my Facebook.... people talk about me like I'm some sort of ethereal monster.
I'll be around. It's interesting you guys went back to voting for everything. Seems a bit tedious.