Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Experimental Rules Feedback => Topic started by: Dan_Lee on December 30, 2012, 04:23:13 PM
-
Some of you may be interested in some rules for the Rak'Gol I've written. You can find them in the latest post of my blog (link in sig).
-
Interesting. Thought something along the same lines when I first read Edge of the Abyss myself though more about how I'd proxy these guys from 3rd parties/scratch builds/kitbash/etc.
I'd go with your option #3 as a basis. We already have Orks. They have lists (though one IMHO serves better under the solitaire rules - Ork lovers prepare to flame away! :) ) that totally work. I think that anyone that wants to play the Rak'Gol is going to go full steam ahead and let's just go for it regardless of tourny ready list. Not like GW is going to care one way or the other and frankly what is allowed in a tourny is totally up to the organizers anyways.
People far more versed in balance can weigh in on any changes that might be needed. However, I do have one small suggestion for flavor is that their ships are able to move fast but have worse turning radius than standard requiring more use of CTNH. Seems to fit their fluff. You've got this on their escorts but might need to special rule the cruisers.
And I note the following:
-While you refer to the Roarer beam as short ranged most lances on Imperial cruisers are 30cm as well and are not considered short range but rather the general average with Chaos, Eldar, Crons being "long". I do see that you're costing them at 10 vs the 9 ala Smotherman so that's perhaps a good start. Not sure, needs play test. I see no problem with 30cm beams provided they're costed right. Just noting that's not exactly short ranged :)
-Your Raider bays are fully too cheap and OTT and IIRC the formula uses launch Bays WITHOUT boats at like 13 (or more) points. You probably want to rethink points and/or sizes.
-Cruisers should be based on escorts IMO to be true to fluff. They're a raiding force after all.
neat stuff! :)
-
Thanks Jimmy.
I listed all three options to show how the third list evolved from the first. Cruiser maneuverability is copied straight from the Ork rules. The cruisers are no less maneuverable, but if they are AAFing then their not turning, so in a way they are less maneuverable.
The roarer beams were 15cm at one point, but they seemed pointless with that range. I didn't want to make the lances themselves too good as the Rak'Gol don't have the technology for good lances. If the Rak'Gol were to have a battleship I'd still limit their lances to 30cm (which would be short range for such a big ship).
Launch bays with assault boats are 17 points. But the Rak'Gol don't get bombers. Space Marine thunderhawks (probably the closest to Rak'Gol fighter-assault boats) are only 10 points. Sizes were again based on average rolls for Ork ships.
Fluff wise the Mangler is a light cruiser and the Butcher was a large transport (between an escort and a light cruiser in BFG terms). I just made them a bit tougher as I felt a fleet of all low-hp ships wouldn't be much fun to play with.
-
Huge fan of Rak Gol, and although it pertains little to the BFG/ship combat aspect of it I heartily recommend checking out The Koronus Bestiary for more info on them as a race.
Like Jimmy (sup buddy?) I am actually pretty happy with your interpretation, as it seems really fitting. If you want my 75 bucks worth though:
1) Is there any additional way to represent the absurdly high shot content of rak'gol howler cannons? I mean, they literally fire twice as many shots as other macro-batteries, albeit at roughly half strength. What if they always counted all armor values as one point higher (to a maximum of 6), but increased their battery value by roughly 50%? Or is that just too plain foolish of a thought? Basically they would be less accurate per shot but get a lot more to compensate.
2) No one said Rak'Gol lances are not good, just that like everything else they create it is stupidly inefficient for what it does. That said, you are right that lances are not the end all of their tech and that they should be more reliant on boarding, h&r and howler cannons for offence.
3) What if they had an ability similar to the Chaos pdf from GW for Khorne vessels. Basically they get to add +1d3 attack craft to a wave but cannot launch ordnance next turn...sort of like a big alpha strike swarm of boarding madness. Could make it like the howler cannon suggestion and make it a stat change: their launch bays are 50% bigger, but can only launch craft once every other turn, no matter what. Powerful but inneficient.
Just thoughts, try not to be offended if I sound like a cheap hooker in a run down casino in Reno with a bad case of the shakes. Just trying to incorporate my enthusiasm. ;D
-
Thanks Talos.
1) Given that there are only 3 armour values in the game I don't think increasing a target's armour by 1 will work well. What happens to 6+ armour? Also, rolling more attack dice is more reliable and therefore better in general, even if you compensate for more attacks with a higher point cost.
2) Nearly every weapon system in the game is either bog-standard Imperial or better. I wanted Rak'Gol lances to be cruder but potentially more devastating.
3) The fluff describes teh Rak'Gol as having all their strike craft attached to airlocks on the outside of the ship, protected behind one massive armoured door. You could use rules similar to what you have suggested and even have the ship's side armour reduced in the turn that they launch ordnance. In general though, I don't like "every other turn" rules. I find them difficult to keep track of in a game.
Don't worry - I'm always open to constructive criticism and enjoy discussing rules as much as I enjoy writing them.
-
Huge fan of Rak Gol, and although it pertains little to the BFG/ship combat aspect of it I heartily recommend checking out The Koronus Bestiary for more info on them as a race.
Agreed. Good fluff reading and one of the most interesting 40k races I've seen in a long while (new 'Crons... SNORE). Kinda remind me a bit of the Reavers from Firefly! :D
Like Jimmy (sup buddy?)
W00t! :D
1) Is there any additional way to represent the absurdly high shot content of rak'gol howler cannons? I mean, they literally fire twice as many shots as other macro-batteries, albeit at roughly half strength. What if they always counted all armor values as one point higher (to a maximum of 6), but increased their battery value by roughly 50%? Or is that just too plain foolish of a thought? Basically they would be less accurate per shot but get a lot more to compensate.
Loathe to suggest this but a different gunnary chart (or a modification to the existing) might work. Fundamentally at a particular range band they get +x dice and as it moves away we penalize them heavily at range?
3) What if they had an ability similar to the Chaos pdf from GW for Khorne vessels. Basically they get to add +1d3 attack craft to a wave but cannot launch ordnance next turn...sort of like a big alpha strike swarm of boarding madness. Could make it like the howler cannon suggestion and make it a stat change: their launch bays are 50% bigger, but can only launch craft once every other turn, no matter what. Powerful but inneficient.
Perhaps they must RO twice to launch? Again, unknown how that's going to effect book keeping but might be a good way to represent "the crazy" they are :D
Just thoughts, try not to be offended if I sound like a cheap hooker in a run down casino in Reno with a bad case of the shakes. Just trying to incorporate my enthusiasm. ;D
I'm trying to make you some Malcom X tea ... now shut up and find me the nutmeg!!!!
-
Another silly but interesting idea is around their completely crappy radiation leaking engines:
Perhaps when on AAF they leave 1D3 - 1 blast markers in their wake to represent the radiation bursts and other signal fuzz? The question would be where to place them with options from a player gets to choose anywhere along the path to perhaps a cluster located at the start of their move (kinda representing a colossal backfire! ha! :D )
-
No need for a new gunnery chart, just double the long range penalty to two column shifts.
RO twice is a bit cumbersome, but RO with a -1 or -2 leadership penalty could work.
The blast marker idea is great. Just place them at the start of the move. At the end would knock out all the ship's shields, and anywhere in the middle would be just that little bit more complicated.
-
We don't actually need battery modifications, I just like that in RT they have twice the hits at half the strength, it's nifty and more importantly much stronger against ships with lots of void shields, weaker against high armor ships. I just like the idea... ;)
Blast marker idea is interesting, you would have to add an additional rule stating that these blast markers do not penalize them...or increase their stats/decrease their point costs accordingly. Would escorts produce less or just be calculated as a squadron?
For the double/extra launch ability, what if their craft specified that they could only remain in play for one turn? So hypothetically your Rak'Gol vessel launches say 4+1d3 markers (or double or whatever), but at the start of your next ordnance phase you have to scrap every marker in play due to their inefficent engines/fuel source? That would be both pretty cool and make them more individual because it would significantly change the way that you play your ordnance without requiring extra bookkeeping? Just a thought....
-
We don't actually need battery modifications, I just like that in RT they have twice the hits at half the strength, it's nifty and more importantly much stronger against ships with lots of void shields, weaker against high armor ships. I just like the idea... ;)
This should sum it up=>
http://www.youtube.com/embed/5aVwxTM0ZZ0 (http://www.youtube.com/embed/5aVwxTM0ZZ0)
Eldar should be fine with holo/shadow-fields and good movement. Chaos may be a little worse but they really have good speed+long range to probably wouldn't hurt them too much. No clue about Tau and frankly Rak'Gol vs Orks seems...odd[/]
Blast marker idea is interesting, you would have to add an additional rule stating that these blast markers do not penalize them...or increase their stats/decrease their point costs accordingly. Would escorts produce less or just be calculated as a squadron?
Put the BM at the start point then no reason for special rule. Say D3-2 for escorts, D3-1 for cruisers (all types), and D3 for BB (which they lack but follows logical progression and is easy to remember).
For the double/extra launch ability, what if their craft specified that they could only remain in play for one turn? So hypothetically your Rak'Gol vessel launches say 4+1d3 markers (or double or whatever), but at the start of your next ordnance phase you have to scrap every marker in play due to their inefficent engines/fuel source? That would be both pretty cool and make them more individual because it would significantly change the way that you play your ordnance without requiring extra bookkeeping? Just a thought....
^LOVE.IT.^
-
Good point about the blast markers...would there be a minimum to the amount produced or would it be possible to produce none on a given turn?
Thanks mate, glad we think alike on this...not sure how you would implement lots of weak shots though, 'cuz you both were right in saying it's not very feasible :( Thoughts?
I thought the ordnance idea was pretty cool, but lets hear from Dan on this one...
-
The blast marker idea is good. No need for a minimum (otherwise d3-2 may as well be 1 with no need to roll).
The increased launch bay capacity coupled with ordnance only lasting one turn is interesting. It is a good way of representing both their swarm attack mentality and also their relatively poor space technology. How to cost it though? I'm not aware of a similar rule anywhere in BFG.
-
The blast marker idea is good. No need for a minimum (otherwise d3-2 may as well be 1 with no need to roll).
D3-2 = "place a BM on a 5+"
-
D3-2 = "place a BM on a 5+"
True, but then you have to say "place a BM on a 3+ or two on a 5+" for the cruisers and "place one BM, or 2 on a 3+ or 3 on a 5+" for battleships. Keeping the D3-x mechanic works a bit better when you consider all ship sizes.
-
Ok couple thoughts. First on the engines: Rak’Gol engines are fission-pulse engines which provide high acceleration but poor manoeuvrability, a technology avoided by other races due to the intense radiation output.
Why are all of their ships so slow? I would think a minimum of 30cm on escorts and 25cm on their light cruisers with +5d6 AAF instead of +2d6. At least have good AAF if theyre supposed to have high acceleration.
For the radiation burst how about something simple like place a blast marker at the rear of the base every 10cm moved when on AAF, starting with the first one before you move so you would never end with one in base contact.
Not sure about the weapons batteries but ill toss some ideas around.
-
Free AAF with only +2d6 means either move normal speed and turn, or go faster than most ships for your size but don't turn. I.e. faster than average with poor maneuverability.
Increasing their base speed and giving them even better AAF is putting their speed at the same level as Eldar and Necrons. Rak'Gol technology is not supposed to be anywhere near as advanced.
Placing a blast marker for every 10 cm of AAF could work, as long as they also were allowed to ignore the speed reduction for those blast markers.
-
Well if you place it at the beginning the end or any where along its movement the ship is going to suffer -5cm regardless. Which given the craptastic average that 2D6 AAF has anyway means the special order is pretty much useless, less than useless actually because your almost as likely to go slower than faster with it. A slow base speed would be fine but to represent the fluff (as presented I'm not familiar with these guys) they should have at least average (4D6) AAF and preferably imo the better +5D6 given the adverse effect of the radiation they have to overcome and their "tremendous bursts of speed".
-
Their rules at the moment don't place any blast markers, so the +2d6 always makes them faster. But if they were to start placing blast markers, then yes the AAF needs to increase to at least 4d6 or they need a rule to ignore the speed reduction from the blast markers placed.
Placing blast markers makes sense to a certain degree, but what I really wanted to represent was the fact that the radiation given off by their engines often gives their enemies advance warning of their approach. That is why I gave the +1 bonus to detect them in scenarios involving stealth.
-
Sorry about that, family stuff you know :D.
As for the pricing of the launch bays, smotherman puts them at 13.5 or something like that, right? How about a couple of points less since they can't stick around, averaged higher for playtesting...so maybe lets try their pricing at 10pts a bay? It will probably be more balanced at 8.5 or 9, but lets try a bit higher first.
-
Well done Dan_Lee! I have always really liked your stuff.
-
Thanks afterimagedan!
-
I have to say I like.
The Rak'Gol are one of my favourite bits of Rogue Trader - a genuinely new, fairly unique race of generic evil dudes, with - as noted - a very Firefly 'reavers' feel to them.
Thoughts and suggestions:
Whilst the orks are an easy starting point, Rak'Gol aren't disorganised; there's no reason for the reduced leadership, for example, or the auto-AAF - which is in part there because of the reduced leadership.
The overpowered drives thing is a key part of what makes them Rak'Gol.
I like the idea of placing blast markers to represent the trail of radiation, but my main concern is the idea that it becomes easy to 'blast marker bomb' a ship, like people sometimes do with tyranid drone spore cysts. Besides which, it's a continuous output rather than a 'splot' every so often.
If it was me, I'd suggest the following:
1) Firing at a Rak'Gol ship from behind counts as firing through a blast marker
2) If a Rak'Gol ship suffers an Engine Room Damaged critical hit, it suffers two points of extra damage rather than one
3) If a Rak'Gol ship is destroyed by a Plasma Drive Overload catastrophic damage, roll 4d6 rather than 3d6 for the blast radius.
Howler batteries are, as noted, high Rate Of Fire. This makes them especially effective vs escort craft and ordnance - where filling space with shells is more important than the power of an individual weapon.
One way to represent this preference for lighter ships, without giving them ridiculous firepower, would be to treat escorts as capital ships when calculating how many hits to roll for on the gunnery table.
The effectiveness against ordnance can just be incorporated into the turrets stat (which should be high)
-
Thanks for the feedback gribbly,
I wanted the reduced Ld to represent their lower level of tech more than the fact they are disorganized.
I like your drive ideas, particularly the column shift if firing on their rear ark.
Your howler batteries suggestion is also quite good. A column shift vs escorts and a turret boost (already incorporated into my rules if I recall) are a cleaner mechanic than altering how they shoot at ordnance markers.