The BFG: Expanded Revised Project (Formerly BFG 2015).[/spoiler]
...Or in other words, my attempt to stand on the shoulders of some community giants and produce a complete set of self-contained BFG rules, for the sole purpose of satisfying my wholly irrational desire for document uniformity and extended explanations of all the things that confuse me (in terms of BFG that is). Really it's all just a silly personal thing that's helped me learn the rules, but I figured I should share it for posterity.
So what does that all mean? Basically, I'm going through all of the core BFG Rules (including Armada and FAQ 2010), plus the BFG:R fleet lists (for balance reasons), and re-writing and re-formatting them to reflect the style and polish of the original release of the Battlefleet Gothic Rulebook. In other words, it's mostly just editing. Now I have to admit, my creative side got the better of me and I've expanded a tiny bit to include some house-rulings my group uses for a few of the fleets and Armada upgrades. On the whole though, BFG:XR is 90% BFG Rulebook + Armada Ordnance + FAQ 2010 + BFG:R Fleet Lists.
Impressive start, Xca|iber! It's good to see someone back working on this sort of project! I wonder if it might be a more achievable goal to have some kind of annual updating scheme, giving people a year to test things and reducing the pressure to get things absolutely 'correct' in one go (assuming that is possible in the first place, of course...).
Cool beans!
My only concerns would be
1. Naming convention makes it appear to be "official rules", whatever that even means, versus a really awesomely polished fan alternate.
2. Denoting somewhere what's fan additions (aka your local house-rules) to the core text
As the original had a designers notes at the end, that would be the best place to put a change log, as a nod to the BBB :)
However, did you notice Xca|iber that all your pages are right pages? So if you print them double sided all the page numbers are in the bottom right corner...
Concur. To me the official rules are easy enough to find here or via friendly gamers on the FB community. No need to clutter such a lovely rule set with notes all over the place.
Hey Xca|iber, glad to hear that you are still working on the project. You’re doing a great job. I was already wondering why the Chaos and Imp fleet lists are still missing. Is there a reason you are avoiding these two core fleet lists? Is it because they are a lot of work or are you less interested in these two factions? And is there a way I can motivate you to prioritize the Ork fleet list over the Tau fleet list?
Thanks Boss! Left column shift................. Reminds me ta send ya some extra teef fer dat wun!
Maybe "BFG 2015 - Unofficial" would be best?
Maybe "BFG 2015 - Unofficial" would be best?
If people are searching for rules, they will see "2015" and will asume that this set of rules ist the "unofficial but most up to date set of rules everybody uses". So, "2015" should not be there. New players (or - old players which found there old fleet in the attic and wanted to use it again) should not get the impression "Eldar MMS" is the "semi-official" way to play.
And yet many people still believe 2010 is official, when it isn't.
Plus, I think part of Lotus's point was that putting a year without qualifier makes it seem like it is generally accepted, aside from whether it is official or not. MMS and 2 hit escorts may be widely used, but I wouldn't be brave enough to say they are generally accepted (for instance, I don't accept either).
And yet many people still believe 2010 is official, when it isn't.
Plus, I think part of Lotus's point was that putting a year without qualifier makes it seem like it is generally accepted, aside from whether it is official or not. MMS and 2 hit escorts may be widely used, but I wouldn't be brave enough to say they are generally accepted (for instance, I don't accept either).
Since Xca|iber's project is based on BFG:R, which I think can be safely described as a minority adopted rules set, I don't think Lotus is entirely off the mark. But, as I indicated, I'm not sure how many other ways the file can be named.
BFG:FR doesn't represent all of France. I think people will understand that it is a community developed version, but not necessarily everyone.
Ooo, BFG.EXE for Expanded Xcaliber Edition. Makes it sound like an awesome computer program. :P
Well, I've been reading through all the released documents and I have to say, I LOVE THEM!Thanks! I'm glad to hear it!
A few issues to address:That is correct; all the refit and skills tables will be in the campaign rules. I was not aware of the Tau refits in Warp Rift 2, but now that I am, that sounds like something I'd be happy to include.
1. The Eldar book is missing the refits and crew skills table.
2. The same is true for the Dark Eldar.
3. And for Orks.
4. And Necrons.
I'm guessing think that 1, 2, 3 and 4 are addressed in the campaign rules. Will you also add the Tau refit rules that came out in Warp Rift 2 for or the standard ones will apply for them?
5. The Ork Brute Ramship has the wrong image, it should have the one from the rulebook.I'll take a look at it. AFAIK I was using the image from the existing BFG:R document, but I'll swap it out if I can.
On a different note:Since the ASC is still an active, ongoing project (props to Gothmog for his work!), I'm probably not going to directly include them in BFG:XR. I might try to get the Vanguard Strike Cruiser and Imperial High Conveyor into the SM and IN books, because they're from an "official" source (Forgeworld), but since the ASC already has them, it's not a high priority for me.
Will you add ships from the Additional Ship Compendium or the Nemesis book? Also, how about the ships that show up in BFG:FR's Addons? You can find them in the sticky post with Official and Unofficial rules in there.
And how do you achieve such a clean look for these documents, I would like to know so I'd be able to edit them so I can add some of my homebrews in the future. I have a single ship you might want to add to the Chaos supplement (Dethroner class Battleship) which came from the makers of the Nemesis book.All of the PDFs are made from scratch using Adobe InDesign, by carefully studying the sizing, layout, and format of the digital BFG documents currently available. Custom (or manipulated) artwork is made using Adobe Photoshop. Many of the art assets (such as background images, textures, etc) were made by extracting images out of the hi-res digital BFG rulebook released by GW. I'm currently using a mix of Caslon Antique, TNR, and Arial for my fonts.
PS: I'm guessing you're not using each race's spread from their original appearances in the rulebook due to consistency, but it'd be a nice touch of individuality for each of them :)If you mean the cover spreads for each of the factions (such as those found in Armada), then yes. It was also a matter of readability, in that some of the text on the Armada/FAQ2010 spreads was almost unreadable. This is an issue of some of the images not having a "designated" area for text, so the font tends to get lost in the jumble. Down the road this may be something on my radar (or I may add additional cover pages with the specific faction stuff), but right now I'm just trying to stay in gear to finish ;)
6. Ork Basha Light Kroozer should have 6 hits, not 8 as it's a light kroozer. Ork Terror Ships and Kill Kroozers should have 8 hits, 10 hits is the realm of the Hammer Battlekroozer. If you're trying to make it so that they have more hits than their imperial equivalents, then the Hammer should have 12 hits and the Battleships 14. Although IMHO it should be as it were in the rulebook, as this causes really cheap ships so that you can spam them as an ork ramshackle fleet.Ah, I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up. The reason for the multitude of changes to the Orks was the result of this (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5276.150) thread in which the community discussed numerous issues with Orks as they appear in the classic rules. (There's a pdf in there with most of their initial work). Unfortunately, afterimagedan never actually published a finished product, but most of the changes were already voted on and decided. You can read about the reasons in that thread.
7. Why did you get rid of so many random-strength weapons for the Orks? It's their flavor!
8. Ork Heavy Gunz should have shorter ranges than normal Gunz, otherwise they're OP as even with the column shift, they'll deal double the damage of the Gunz. With shorter range, they encourage the Ork ships to close in even more to use their heavy gunz and getting in range for boarding (which is as fluff suggests they fight).
9. The Imperial Navy is missing the Jovian class Battlecruiser from BFG2010
PS2: I'll keep modifying this post with whatever other things I find in the documents.
6. Ork Basha Light Kroozer should have 6 hits, not 8 as it's a light kroozer. Ork Terror Ships and Kill Kroozers should have 8 hits, 10 hits is the realm of the Hammer Battlekroozer. If you're trying to make it so that they have more hits than their imperial equivalents, then the Hammer should have 12 hits and the Battleships 14. Although IMHO it should be as it were in the rulebook, as this causes really cheap ships so that you can spam them as an ork ramshackle fleet.Ah, I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up. The reason for the multitude of changes to the Orks was the result of this (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5276.150) thread in which the community discussed numerous issues with Orks as they appear in the classic rules. (There's a pdf in there with most of their initial work). Unfortunately, afterimagedan never actually published a finished product, but most of the changes were already voted on and decided. You can read about the reasons in that thread.
7. Why did you get rid of so many random-strength weapons for the Orks? It's their flavor!
8. Ork Heavy Gunz should have shorter ranges than normal Gunz, otherwise they're OP as even with the column shift, they'll deal double the damage of the Gunz. With shorter range, they encourage the Ork ships to close in even more to use their heavy gunz and getting in range for boarding (which is as fluff suggests they fight).
9. The Imperial Navy is missing the Jovian class Battlecruiser from BFG2010
In short though, the HP changes were, as you said, to make them a bit beefier than their Imperial counterparts, but I think they felt upping the Battlekroozer and Battleships was too OTT. Random weapons were toned down (at the cost of flavor, I'll agree) to simply make gameplay with Orks a bit less headache inducing. There were also power level issues with some of the weapons being too weak. A similar argument was made for the Heavy Gunz, which were deliberately buffed in BFG:R. I can't comment as to whether that makes them too powerful, but the consensus by minds much smarter than me was that 30cm range with relatively low strength and an extra column shift outside of 15cm was enough drawbacks to offset their additional damage.
As for the Jovian, that was the result of a similar thread (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5545.msg46897#msg46897) in which the BFG:R team discusses many issues which plagued Battlefleet Bakka, mostly on the flavor and playability end as compared to the other Imperial Navy lists. They removed the Jovian on account of it a) being an odd 1-off ship whose use was absurdly restricted and b) for going against the majority of the Imperial Navy's faction flavor. It was replaced by the Cardinal class instead. The current BFG:R document for Bakka (not the list in the BFG:R Navy doc, but the separate one) doesn't have the Jovian either.
It would probably make for a good ASC ship though (*hint hint* Gothmog ;))PS2: I'll keep modifying this post with whatever other things I find in the documents.
For ease of replying, it's actually better if you make new posts. I'm more likely to see them that way in case I don't scroll back up the page.
I thought you weren't online while I was updating, so to avoid spamming I just kept on modifying, won't do that again ;)
On a different note, how hard is it for you to edit these files if we wanted to enact those changes?
What's the next fleet coming out for review?
Hey, maybe I'm blind but do the orks get boarding torpedoes? I can't seem to find it in their list.
Hi there, love the XR rules so far. I had a few question regarding the Ork XR rules. The Ork Clanz has some upgrades and gubbinz that are not in the Ork XR rules, was wondering why some of the upgrades were not put in the new rules. Specifically the tellyporta, shokk attack gun, and assault karrier rules.
Also, it says in the Ork XR that you must replace lances and nova cannons with the ork version. When taking an imperial cruiser with a nova cannon, what would the strength of the killcannon be, and also when replacing lances, is it a straight replacement or do you get a d3 value?
Do Tyranids follow the normal rules for being crippled now? They're pretty strong and stopping them from pumping out millions of assault boats was a good balance I thought.
Yes, Tyranids follow normal rules for being Crippled. In addition, Massive Claws and Feeder Tendrils may not be used if Crippled, but are otherwise unaffected by SO's.
As for moving while grappled, it depends on relative sizes of the ships involved. If both ships are the same size (Escort to Escort, Cruiser to Cruiser, etc) neither vessel can move. If the grappled ship is larger (Cruiser grappling a Battleship, etc), the grappled ship may only move 1/2 speed and can't turn.
In any case, both ships can shoot, but at half strength, Nova Cannon and similar weapons cannot fire.
I'm assuming that the Ork versions works in a similar fashion, but I wasn't involved in the Orks development so can't tell you with any certainty, sorry.
As for the Bio-Plasma arcs, F/L/R was the intention. My experience from playtesting found the range to counteract the ignore shield ability. However, more feedback is always welcome. Maybe making the port/starboard BP L/R may be a good thing for the capital ships. Iwould leave this for the escorts however.
Hope this helps! And keep it up, sterling work!
From my reading of the 2010 FAQ, I thought that the intent was for the smaller ship to get dragged along by the movement of the larger one.
Here's what I've got laid out for some small tweaks to the Tyranids:
- Charybdis Port/Starboard Bio-Plasma is now Left/Right only, respectively. Scylla Port and Starboard Bio-Plasma is now Left/Front and Right/Front only, respectively. All the other ships remain the same. Hopefully this should be all that's necessary to cut down on overly-heavy BP salvos without gimping the weapon/build.
Fully Agree
- Massive Claws have been reworked. They now specify that the smaller ship is dragged along with the bigger one, and the larger ship halves its speed and cannot turn. In addition, the End Phase rules have been replaced - now, a successfully captured ship suffers 1 damage at the start of each player's movement phase while it remains grappled. In each Tyranid movement phase, the Tyranid ship must re-attack the target to maintain its hold (resolved the same as the initial claw attack). If it fails to inflict 2+ hits, the target escapes and both ships return to normal. Finally, the rules now specify that a Tyranid ship that loses the use of its claws (by being crippled) lets go of its target automatically, if any.
Much clearer than we wrote, and like the addition of the Tyranid ship loosing it's grip. Fairer and reduces chance of a 'Nid squadron being forced out of coherency. An unlikley scenario, but possible.
Nice one!
While browsing your Necrons list I noticed that the Jackal Raider's portal got boosted to 2. Is that intentional? I know you upped the portal attacks to compensate removed regular teleport attacks. However, the Jackal being an escort wouldn't have one without the portal...
If that is a non-teleport-related rebalancing feel free to ignore the question of course ;)
Wow, this looks really good! Looking forward to Chaos coming out.
So much progress since I last check on it! Sorry I haven't been posting or proof reading much, though it all looks super awesome. Just trying to plug away on the ASC 2.0 myself. Your progress is much more applaudable than mine.
Progress is coming along slowly for the Chaos book. It should be ready for release SoonTM.
Thanks, been waiting for this!
Looks great! The ships seem well-balanced at first blush (didn't note that much had changed), and the fleet lists are much better organized and laid out.
Two minor disappointments: the Hellbringer Light Cruiser from Battlefleet Gothic: Armada is nowhere to be found, and I think I'd heard that wasn't a ship made just for that game, but I could be wrong. I was also hoping to see variations of old-school Chaos "Battle Barges" and "Strike Cruisers," what they would have been before and during the Horus Heresy. But, all the research I've done indicates ships like that didn't really exist at that time, so it's understandable they aren't statted. I like the ability to purchase "actual" Space Marine Battle Barges and Strike Cruisers from the right fleet list, that'll tie in nicely with my campaign rules.
Hey,
First of All strike cruisers are post heresy so there are no pre heresy strike cruisers.
BFG: Armada has not contacted me during development so all of their designs are bollocks anyway. Lol j/k
Grand cruisers look cool and the schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!
... schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!Copy paste error detected! I'll fix it this evening after work. :-[ (Don't want to add more fuel to fire of the Chaos CL controversy hahaha)
... schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!Copy paste error detected! I'll fix it this evening after work. :-[ (Don't want to add more fuel to fire of the Chaos CL controversy hahaha)
@ErikModi, Yes, the PK returned in the 13th Black Crusade.
Page one, near the bottom: "and for the next ten thousand years they continued the Long War against the Humanity and the Emperor of Mankind." Should be "Humanity," not "the Humanity."
So, don't take this as a criticism, but rather a question.
The Desolator was my favorite of the two Chaos battleships in the bluebook. I like the speed (which I feel is Chaos' main advantage over IN, and I think I've gotten pretty good at using it) and the lances. The torpedoes were always kinda "meh" to me, but with boarding torpedoes, they really come into their own. My problem is the anemic dorsal weapons. They just don't seem to be worth firing 90% of the time, as you'll probably only be rolling one or two dice. Now, looking at the other Chaos battleships in XR, I see two basically Desolator variants with 9 firepower dorsal batteries with the same 60cm range. So I'm curious what the design and balance considerations are that keeps the Desolator with its 6 FP weapons.
So, don't take this as a criticism, but rather a question.
The Desolator was my favorite of the two Chaos battleships in the bluebook. I like the speed (which I feel is Chaos' main advantage over IN, and I think I've gotten pretty good at using it) and the lances. The torpedoes were always kinda "meh" to me, but with boarding torpedoes, they really come into their own. My problem is the anemic dorsal weapons. They just don't seem to be worth firing 90% of the time, as you'll probably only be rolling one or two dice. Now, looking at the other Chaos battleships in XR, I see two basically Desolator variants with 9 firepower dorsal batteries with the same 60cm range. So I'm curious what the design and balance considerations are that keeps the Desolator with its 6 FP weapons.
Hey,
First of All strike cruisers are post heresy so there are no pre heresy strike cruisers.
BFG: Armada has not contacted me during development so all of their designs are bollocks anyway. Lol j/k
Grand cruisers look cool and the schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!
As I mentioned in the other thread the HH series buggered up the already skewed history of ships in Battlefleet Gothic.Hey,
First of All strike cruisers are post heresy so there are no pre heresy strike cruisers.
BFG: Armada has not contacted me during development so all of their designs are bollocks anyway. Lol j/k
Grand cruisers look cool and the schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!
That's no longer the case as-of HH3:Extermination - PG15 lays out the broad makeup of the Imperialis Armada and it includes Strike Cruisers(describing them as Light Cruisers heavily-modified by the Astartes for boarding and planetary assault, in the same way that pre-Heresy Battle Barges are modified Battleships).
In retrospect it seems FW were anticipating the possible reintroduction of SGs even then(or at least acknowledging that some of us crusty old folk still play them) and structured the IA so as to allow as broad a selection of Chaos, IN, and SM ships as possible.
As I mentioned in the other thread the HH series buggered up the already skewed history of ships in Battlefleet Gothic.Hey,
First of All strike cruisers are post heresy so there are no pre heresy strike cruisers.
BFG: Armada has not contacted me during development so all of their designs are bollocks anyway. Lol j/k
Grand cruisers look cool and the schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!
That's no longer the case as-of HH3:Extermination - PG15 lays out the broad makeup of the Imperialis Armada and it includes Strike Cruisers(describing them as Light Cruisers heavily-modified by the Astartes for boarding and planetary assault, in the same way that pre-Heresy Battle Barges are modified Battleships).
In retrospect it seems FW were anticipating the possible reintroduction of SGs even then(or at least acknowledging that some of us crusty old folk still play them) and structured the IA so as to allow as broad a selection of Chaos, IN, and SM ships as possible.
Fluffwise it makes more sense to me that Strike Cruisers are from after the heresy. Ya know, marines may no longer be the strongest fleet in space. Trias politica yadiyadi etcetera.
Plus I never read a single HH or FW book. Only thing I read from FW is the Taros Campaign because of the Tau fleet introduction and that was because of that was a FW fleet.
@Xca|iber: not a single mention from Project Distant Darkness? :'(
;)
A Battleship would need to be able to move 30cm to take advantage of Come to a New Heading (15cm minimum move, turn, 15cm second minimum move, 2nd turn). Why not make the upgrade reduce the minimum movement before turning to 10cm? It could still only turn once but that 5cm makes a big difference when trying to get that perfect shot lined up.
Suggestions:
- Perhaps another choice of Archmagos fleet-wide rule could be Advanced Attack Craft, making attack craft Resilient? I think this would be nifty to replace one of the less desirable upgrades in the same manner as FDTs under the old individual choice system but then you have to account for which ship launches which craft. This fleet-wide version could make for an interesting carrier fleet option for people who want it.
- Emergency Energy Reserves did conjure an idea of having something to do with Special Orders (maybe one ship per battleship per turn could pass automatically?) partly inspired by the Tindalos BFG Armada. Maybe that could sweeten the deal?
- It would be nice to avoid the direct overlap of Move-Move-Shoot Eldar holofields and Advanced Shields but if there's no better way to do it, it's not world-ending
- One other option to get rid of the problem of weak/powerful upgrades is to allow a ship to choose between them every turn. This could also allow situational ones like Advanced Shields to be linked to Bracing for Impact without gimping the ship. Of course, one would also have to make sure double-hit lances every turn aren't too powerful.... But, if nothing else, it would represent all the nifty Imperial relays, Dark Age technology, etc. that the Mechanicus keep hidden away....
Anyway, some food for thought,
Thinking stone
Editation: O, and one other thing, Xca|iber: is the Archmagos upgrade in addition to the upgrade that each ship can choose? I presume that would be made clear in the final document. Some nifty ships they would be indeed!
Edit x 2: And just saw an uncapitalised 'sword' on page 13, Gladius background entry.
I'll add more tomorrow but for now:
Resilient AC in a fleet that has high turrets plus an upgrade that boosts turrets? No way. I would advice 100% against such an idea.
Yes, still to much. No resilient AC for AdMech. :)I'll add more tomorrow but for now:
Resilient AC in a fleet that has high turrets plus an upgrade that boosts turrets? No way. I would advice 100% against such an idea.
Overall, this is my feeling as well (straight-up resilient AC in a turret-heavy Imperial fleet starts to kinda put Eldar to shame, doesn't it?), which is why I suggested maybe a 6+ save instead.
Or is that still too much? ;D
Yes, still to much. No resilient AC for AdMech. :)I'll add more tomorrow but for now:
Resilient AC in a fleet that has high turrets plus an upgrade that boosts turrets? No way. I would advice 100% against such an idea.
Overall, this is my feeling as well (straight-up resilient AC in a turret-heavy Imperial fleet starts to kinda put Eldar to shame, doesn't it?), which is why I suggested maybe a 6+ save instead.
Or is that still too much? ;D
If Advanced Engines was toned down, it could be changed to 'Omnithrusters' (nice pun on Omnissiah, it seems! :P) and another option added with +5 cm speed. A plain speed increase seems appropriate given the technological origins of higher Chaos ship speeds.Hmm, I like this idea. Gives us the nice symmetry (in case rolling is desired in some edge cases, like campaign reinforcements or whatever). So we'd have:
As an aside that's unrelated to Mechanicus but could be related to BFG:XR, I wondered if anyone has thought about adjusting the boarding action rules? I forget what was discussed in those olden days with BFG:R (except one anomaly about Chaos escorts brutalising an Emperor on Special Orders...) but a change between Epic40K and Epic:Armageddon in how assaults are resolved seemed like it could be useful in BFG for the same reason. The roll-off in BFG and Epic40K is 1D6 per player, which gives it high variance. In Epic:A, this was changed to roll 2D6 per player and choose the highest D6 to compare. I thought it was a nice and sensible change because it keeps the random but lowers the variance but I've not seen it discussed for BFG (please correct me if I've missed it!).A change to boarding was on my radar when I was going through the BFG:XR main rulebook, but I set aside any plans for changes since it would require a lot of cross-checking with different factions, since so many rely on boarding as a core strength or balancing drawback. As a result, any modification to the boarding rules will have far-reaching consequences. 2D6 pick-the-highest is on the less radical end of the spectrum, to be fair, but would still need to consider things like Tyranids (who already get to do this), as well as thing like re-rolls and other unusual modifiers. For the moment, I think I'd like to hold off. But it's definitely something to consider for the future. :D
Yes, still to much. No resilient AC for AdMech. :)I'll add more tomorrow but for now:
Resilient AC in a fleet that has high turrets plus an upgrade that boosts turrets? No way. I would advice 100% against such an idea.
Overall, this is my feeling as well (straight-up resilient AC in a turret-heavy Imperial fleet starts to kinda put Eldar to shame, doesn't it?), which is why I suggested maybe a 6+ save instead.
Or is that still too much? ;D
Understood! o7 ;)If Advanced Engines was toned down, it could be changed to 'Omnithrusters' (nice pun on Omnissiah, it seems! :P) and another option added with +5 cm speed. A plain speed increase seems appropriate given the technological origins of higher Chaos ship speeds.Hmm, I like this idea. Gives us the nice symmetry (in case rolling is desired in some edge cases, like campaign reinforcements or whatever). So we'd have:
Each capital ship chooses one of the following:
-AWR (Lock On only version)
-FDT (No bonus turret version)
-AS
If an Archmagos is taken, you also choose one of the following fleet-wide bonuses (applying to capitals only):
-EER (50% armament penalties reduced to 25% only)
-Anti-graviton Boosters (+5cm speed)
-Omnithrusters (-5cm minimum turn distance)As an aside that's unrelated to Mechanicus but could be related to BFG:XR, I wondered if anyone has thought about adjusting the boarding action rules? I forget what was discussed in those olden days with BFG:R (except one anomaly about Chaos escorts brutalising an Emperor on Special Orders...) but a change between Epic40K and Epic:Armageddon in how assaults are resolved seemed like it could be useful in BFG for the same reason. The roll-off in BFG and Epic40K is 1D6 per player, which gives it high variance. In Epic:A, this was changed to roll 2D6 per player and choose the highest D6 to compare. I thought it was a nice and sensible change because it keeps the random but lowers the variance but I've not seen it discussed for BFG (please correct me if I've missed it!).A change to boarding was on my radar when I was going through the BFG:XR main rulebook, but I set aside any plans for changes since it would require a lot of cross-checking with different factions, since so many rely on boarding as a core strength or balancing drawback. As a result, any modification to the boarding rules will have far-reaching consequences. 2D6 pick-the-highest is on the less radical end of the spectrum, to be fair, but would still need to consider things like Tyranids (who already get to do this), as well as thing like re-rolls and other unusual modifiers. For the moment, I think I'd like to hold off. But it's definitely something to consider for the future. :D
Each capital ship chooses one of the following:
-AWR (Lock On only version)
-FDT (No bonus turret version)
-AS
If an Archmagos is taken, you also choose one of the following fleet-wide bonuses (applying to capitals only):
-EER (50% armament penalties reduced to 25% only)
-Anti-graviton Boosters (+5cm speed)
-Omnithrusters (-5cm minimum turn distance)
*Edit* I just realized the Dominion doesn't appear in any of the fleet lists. I'm assuming its meant to be one of the BC options for Bakka, as that's where it used to be if memory serves.
Heya,
not very keen on the fleet wide bonus through the archmagos. Keep the current system with the pool as you had with slightly changed gifts (the FDT for example).
But hey, that's my opinion. :)
Leadership & Knowledge Values:
When generating random leadership for an Admech capital ship, the result on the D6 is used as the vessel's "Knowledge value" (Kn), representing the level of technological knowledge and secrets aboard the ship.
So the Ld table for the Admech would look like this:
D6/Kn.........Ld
1.................7
2-3.............8
4-6.............9A ship led by an Archmagos has Kn6 by default. A ship led by a secondary commander (new, to be added) adds +1 to its Ld (max 9) and +1 to its Kn (max 6).
Archmagos Explorator (Ld9, Kn5).......same cost
(0-3) Magos Explorator (Ld8, Kn4)......25pts
Vault of Technology (+1Kn upgrade for any capital ship).......10pts
A battleship, due to its size and age, adds +2 to its Kn, while a battlecruiser adds +1 to its Kn (max 6 for both).
Mechanicus Gifts:
At the start of the game, after rolling for Ld, a capital ship may choose one Gift from the following list for which its Kn equals or exceeds the upgrade's requirement:
Req Kn............Gift
1......................EER (50% armament penalties reduced to 25%, speed penalties cannot exceed -5cm)
2......................Efficient Launch Bays (Launch bays count double for launch capacity, ACs from the ship get +10cm speed on the turn they are launched)
3......................Adv Engines (current book version)
4......................FDT (re-roll only version)
5......................AS (current book version)
6......................AWR (Lock On only version)
Edit: In other project news, I've updated the Main Rulebook and Dark Eldar documents to reflect the relevant rulings from the 2016 Mini-FAQ posted in the Rules subforum. The scenario rulings will make their way into the BFG:XR scenarios document when it gets written. That's all for now!8)
Looks good. I personally prefer the idea previous, but both work for eliminating most of the random and making all the choices workable.
Quick clarification though, by battlecruiser you mean ordinary cruiser, seeing as the Ad Mech doesn't have formal battlecruisers, correct?
Looking forward to the scenario/campaign rules.
Edit: In other project news, I've updated the Main Rulebook and Dark Eldar documents to reflect the relevant rulings from the 2016 Mini-FAQ posted in the Rules subforum. The scenario rulings will make their way into the BFG:XR scenarios document when it gets written. That's all for now!8)
So, unrelated to AdMech, I've been going over the IN fleet again in prep for building some cruisers I recently won on ebay (those bidding wars get vicious!) and I just don't understand the Cardinal class. I've personally longed for a Gothic based BC, and while the Cardinal attempts this, I don't feel like it really fits with the general theme of 6+ prow and torps.
Plus, the cost seems off to me. Its the same cost as the Dominion and a nova cannon equipped Armageddon, both of which have the exact same lance armaments, but have a few extra bonuses. Namely, the 6+ prow armour, the torpedoes or nova cannons, and sporting either the same strength broadside batteries (at 15cm less range and not firing forward) or launch bays. The Cardinal's primary advantage is the 60cm batteries that can fire forward with the dorsal lances and an extra 5cm of range.
When compared to the Acheron, it seems odd to pay an extra 70pts for some minor range swaps on the lance and weapon battery armaments.
I guess I'm just confused at its price when in the Bakka list you have the Dominion which sports the exact same lance configuration, but with the ever versatile launch bays and torpedoes (plus, one RO order for both weapon systems, yay!) for the exact same cost. Outside of fluff reasons, I don't see a reason to ever take a Cardinal. If it was priced more like an Overlord, I could see its usefulness as a cheap lance boat.
Plus, I'd love for a standard IN battlecruiser with all lances. S2 45cm broadside lances with S2 60cm dorsal lances, 6+ prow armour and torpedoes.
I also noticed that the shield portion of the XR ruleset doesn't expand on when shields come back online. The base rulebook explains that they have to escape the BMs in a subsequent movement phase, while the XR rules don't.
Clarification would also help new players as to specifically when the shields come back online (beginning of movement phase, end of movement phase, beginning of shooting phase) so its clear how it interacts with the BM rules for moving away from them in base contact.
Finally had a chance to read the revised system fully! I like it, it's a cool way to re-use existing mechanics (and is easily extensible or modified by future rules) and it gives the player ways to mitigate the randomness if they choose. Though like @Blacksails, I did like the other, less random option (not just because I helped with it :P) but this one regains that 'experimental' feel for an Adeptus Mechanicus floating throughout the Galaxy pillaging technology as they go.
Thanks! I also liked the totally non-random setup, but it's such a radical departure from how the AdMech played previously; I can see horizon's point about it being too much. This way is more of a compromise. ;)
Maybe the AM could swap one of their battleship choices for a Mars? ;) :P Though I suppose you do get the Mini-Mars (Dictator with Nova).... All silliness aside, one question I've had for a little while is the placement of upgrade options in the list. In the original rules, most of the upgrades were almost like 'character ships', relatively unique instances of certain modifications performed throughout the Gothic war, and so it made a bit of sense to keep things like the Lunar Nova cannon in the Lunar description rather than in the fleet list. The downside is that you have to flip through the fleet list to find all the actual list point options.
Now, some upgrades are seen as general upgrades (and, with the AM, all cruisers have access to Nova cannon). Is it worth moving these upgrades to the Fleet List? Is there a reason they're kept within the profiles section (like formatting, etc.)? Just out of curiosity! It seems like it would be helpful to include them in the Fleet Lists so you only have to look in one place when making a fleet (maybe even as footnotes?).
For the most part, I've tried to balance keeping the original formatting intact, whilst also collecting more general upgrades together at the final list level. That said, in this case I think you're right actually - the nova cannons and some of the other upgrades could be put directly in the fleet list (I have the space for it, thankfully). Usually this isn't possible because of discrepancies between individual classes (such as slight cost changes or effect differences like in the Dark Eldar book). For AM though, I guess I got distracted and didn't notice... I'll work on it next time I'm in the AM document.
On another unrelated note, we should send someone over to WargamerAU to talk about BFG:XR! There has been a little discussion recently about a new player starting but my acquaintance ZenithFleet (who frequents many fora, like this one on occasion) couldn't say much about the R/XR options because he's not familiar with them.
I'm not personally familiar with WargamerAU, but I'd be happy to answer any questions they have - just point me in the right direction :)
Thinking Stone
PS: @Blacksail's comments about home-brewing (what's essentially) a model option missing in the rules reminded me about a discussion that was once had about having meaningful differences between different weapons battery types on models etc.. For example, Dominators look the same as Tyrants with Nova cannon: but they're different! Might be a discussion for another time and place but my mathematics/physics-inclined mind would like to classify weapon options more rigorously and orthogonally (maths speak for mutual exclusive existence :P). Which might already exist with some lance representations but weapons batteries are more askew!
This is interesting, but a bit outside the scope of the BFG:XR project at the moment. If you're looking for a place to start though, the BFG: Armada videogame actually does this to a certain degree, differentiating macro- and plasma- batteries, as well as giving them slightly different damage amounts (partially representing "Firepower/Strength" from the tabletop stats, but also to allow for slightly more granularity between ship broadsides). What this idea might be most interesting for would be some kind of BFG "Kill-Team" equivalent where you only control like 1-3 capital ships, but the focus on each one is much greater and the individual interactions are less abstracted. (So you really get into the minute details between each ship and its customizations).
Friendly bump. I'm happy to lend a hand now that I'm home for a while.
I can't find the option to equip boarding torpedoes anywhere in the fleet lists. Am I just blind or is this an oversight?
Which list in particular? Not all the fleets have access to boarding torpedoes, but I'm pretty sure I got all the ones that are supposed to have them. On a quick look through, there's:
^^ That should be everything, unless I've missed an option from BFG:R that I forgot to transcribe. Hope that helps! ;)
So I have a few questions/comments about the Ork:XR rules
Regarding ork lances, I understand from a fluff point that ork lances are looted/haphazard weapons, but why make them a bad choice? Placing a blast marker behind the ship when you fire any lances is something I'd rather not do. Losing a shield just because I fired a weapon seems to me, less than balanced, and no other fleet has any weapons that are detrimental to fire.
Orks are already a fairly short ranged fleet with little access to reliable lances, and even then they are they are pricey. A kill kroozer with its front and P/S heavy gunz replaced with lances costs 190pts before any other upgrades, where the closest thing IN gets, a Lunar crsuier, is 180pts. Yes the Lunar has 2 lances on each side, and none to the front, but Lunars also have 1 more shield, better rear armor, and more reliable turrets and Ld.
And before you say anything, I know orks can get double or even more lance shots if you roll well, but on average you will get 3 shots per arc, and until my other question about fire arcs is resolved (in the main BFG page), I'd rather not take ork lances as losing my 1 shield is not worth it.
Another question about one of the Warboss upgrades-
The Ork Soopa Tellyporta (the ship may conduct its teleport hit and run at 30cm). This upgrade too me seems a little overpriced. It is currently 30 points for an upgrade that has a very specific purpose, and may only be used as long as the enemy ship has no shields, and the ork ship is not crippled. I would suggest reducing it down to 15 or so, as it costs 10 points for space marines to get a second teleport attack in addition to their normal one which also gets to roll 2 dice and pick the result, and all are at their +1 to H&R attacks.
I know space marines may also buy Terminators, which at 50pts seems like too much.
TL;DR Ork lances are bad and the soopa tellyporta is overcosted
Are the following a typo/copy-paste mistakes or intentional?
Chaos Grand Cruiser Retaliator buys torpedo bombers at 40 pts for str 6 launch bays.
Chaos Styx class Heavy Cruiser buys torpedo bombers at 80 pts for str 6 launch bays.
Chaos Hecate class Heavy Cruiser buys torpedo bombers at 80 pts for str 4 launch bays.
P.S. any news of the Rogue Trader list? ;D
I have a question, is there any particular reason for the turret value changes in the Bakkafleet.
In revised there were 2 variants of the bakkafleet.
#1 in the seperate Bakkafleet document you have the ships with the extra turret value already included in the stats.
#2 in the Imperial Navy Bakkafleet list you had the option of purchasing +1 turret value at 5 points.
In the BFG XR You have in the bakkafleet list all the cruiser types with +1 turret value already included and payed for (via footnote) and all of a sudden the option of purchasing addititional turret values. Ending up with a 180 point Lunar with a Turret value of 4.
Also on a side note, is there any reason the Dominator class cruiser dropped from the bakkafleet between editions?
Orks (credit goes to AJCHVY and Green_Squad_Leader for their takes on the rules):
- Zzapp Gunz are now lances that hit on a 5+, and only generate a blast marker on the firing ship if it rolls a 1 on a D6 after firing (rolling once per ship, not once per zzapp).
- Soopa Tellyporta is now +10 points. (I am not sure what I was thinking when I made it 30 points...)
Adeptus Mechanicus (credit goes to Yodhrin, Blacksails, horizon, and Thinking Stone for their input):
- EER is stronger and now useful even to non-crippled ships
- FDT no longer grants +2 Turrets
- GSTM has been replaced by Efficient Launch Bays, which doubles the ship's contribution to AC capacity and gives +10cm max speed to the ship's attack craft on the turn they launch
- AWR only functions during Lock On special orders
- Acquiring gifts is now done through the Knowledge Value system. When rolling Ld, the score on the D6 is your Knowledge (Kn) value. You then choose an upgrade for that ship whose Kn requirement is equal or less than the ship's Kn value. Battleships add +1 to their Kn (or that of a commander aboard).
- The Archmagos has a fixed Kn of 5, and the new (0-3) Magos has Ld8/Kn4
- Capital ships may take a Vault of Technology for +10 points, which increases their Kn (or that of a commander) by +1
On the subject of Orks.
On Page 10, the Hammer Class there is the following in the gray text box "Equip Deff Kannon with looted torpedoes" But in the profile and text box the weapon is refered to as Kustom Kannon.
In addition, any Ork capital ship with launch bays may be designated as an assault karrier, increasing the strength of all its launch bays by +1 at the cost of losing the ability to launch any attack craft besides assault boats.This is somewhat unfair for the larger ships, which have just one dorsal launchbay (D3+1), compared to the 2 launchbays of the Terrorship.
A few modifications I would really like, but haven't playtested.
Chaos - Desolator Battleship
Add this rule from the Imperial Victory Class
Special Refits: A Victory class battleship may reduce the range of its port and starboard lances to 45cm in order
to increase their strength to 6 (from 4), for no change in cost.
Reason: The model is equipped with 6 lance turrets, and I really like that the number of lance turrets to match the number of shots. At least for Imperial/SpaceMarines/Chaos which have a broadly similar level of technology.
And as the refit is allowed on the Victory, it would probably not be game breaking on the Desolator.
Ork Battleships Hitpoints
I am very happy with what you have done for the Orks. Removing the randomness in the Blood Axe rules makes me actually want to play them again.
My ork ships are custom build, and the battle ship is almost twice the size of the cruisers. It has at least 25% more mass than the big chaos battleships. (The models are based on Legos). I should really post pictures of them soon. Anyway.
10 Hitpoints for the cruisers seems fair and works well. But only 12 hitpoints for the battleship does simply not match it's size. I would like an optional refit that gave the ship 14 hitpoints instead.
The rule does not need to be official, as all my games are against specific friendly opponents, but I would like to pay the extra points to not get an unfair advantage. So if you could advise about the price of such a refit? Perhaps 20 pts?
The Hammer Class cruisers
Since the term Grand Cruiser is not a proper ship size, I am unclear if they are intented to be Ork Grand Cruisers (more hitpoints and shields) or upgunned cruisers (battle/heavy cruisers).
If they represent ork grand cruisers, I would like a refit that allowed me to add +2 Hits. If they represent Battlecruisers, all is fine.
Assault Karriers
And then a little possible error
In the Green Tide list, this entry is foundQuoteIn addition, any Ork capital ship with launch bays may be designated as an assault karrier, increasing the strength of all its launch bays by +1 at the cost of losing the ability to launch any attack craft besides assault boats.This is somewhat unfair for the larger ships, which have just one dorsal launchbay (D3+1), compared to the 2 launchbays of the Terrorship.
One thing that's been bugging me. In the Bakka sector fleet. Bakka can take reserves on a 4:1 ratio but it then states that it is a high priority for the Admech. From what I'm reading though the Bakka fleet still follows the 4:1 ratio even when taking AdMech ships. The only bonus seems to be the fleet defence turrets.
Is this right?
The big thing with the clan upgrades is I feel the Bad Moons ability should stay as is. A once per game ability is not that great, I'd rather pay some points to be able to do it each turn. And I play mostly Goffs so I'm partial to the additional ramming bonus and boarding bonus. I do like the changes to Blood axes and Deathskulls, but I also feel they should get a looted torpedo for free. I don't think I've ever used burn retros so the Evil Suns change seems fine.
As for the escort, you could roll a 3 and get 3 lance shots that still hit on a 5+. That will average you only 1 hit "if" you roll the 3 shots and also rolling a 1 will also kill your shield. I feel it will be fine as on average you will get 2 shots per ship per squadron, which will balance the ability to get 3 or the downside of losing your shield.
Anyway, the point of my reply. How are the rules going for the Rogue Traders?
Also, will you be including any of the ASC ships in the BFG:XR fleet lists? With potential for new ships types/classes?
Xcaliber thanks for the feedback, I really like your wording for how clan affiliations could work across a fleet. Overall that method is great as it makes it so that additional clan ships are effectively mercenaries for hire for your larger list. Very simple and very fluffy.
As for the Zzap gun strengths I REALLY suggest that Savages with the "Berserker" variant weapons have at least str 2 zzap guns. As it is a savage with a zzap gun is worth maybe 15 points but we are paying 40! Firepower 2 Zzap Guns are pretty mich equivalent with firepower 1 lances, so that puts them in line power wise with nova class escorts and the like. Lacking the fluctuations rule for Savages is easier to keep track of, less rolling and in squadrons it doesn't work as well to figure out which ship individually needs to have a a blast marker if you rolled a one.
The only downside there is that every other lance escort also has a low firepower gun, which the Berserker Savage wouldn't have unless we gave it a firepower 1/2 Gunz battery.
For the Mob Rule specifying that they arent worth victory points would help, it just starts getting really wordy. The 5 point reduction accross the board is the most important thing for escorts really, it solves a lot. Using both the reduction and the Mob Rule would be great.
As for Clanz I strongly disagree with keeping the current clan rules as is for a few reasons. First off the rules are REALLY wordy for some of the rules. Also the benefit for some clanz is extremely inconsistent depending on what ships you want to take. We also have redundancy between a bunch of upgrades/refits/skills with the current version of goffs, evil sunz, bad moons, and blood axes.
These things have been rewritten a TON since the original concept, so we habe a fair bit of freedom with them. As is we are looking to add a big paragraph explaining how they are purchased and apply to the fleet, so revising the rules in ways that cut down on word count would be wise.
Another thought for Goffs would be for the target of their boarding action to not add its turret value while defending. That helps more than the +1 currently (being anything from a +2 to a +4 on average) and rewards agression (no defensive bonus at all). In essence this would amount to a "charge bonus" for Goffs, which is pretty fluffy.
The Blood Axes ability as is is insane. The entire fleet gets free left collumn shifts!?! Even the Imperial Navy doesnt get that, so I'm confused as to why we have it. I think that we can come up with something a bit more balanced. Blood Axes are supposed to be Sneaky Gits after all and use stealth and ambush tactics. Perhaps a good alternative would be to make it so that enemies firing at Blood Axe ships that aren't on special orders (ie: silent running) suffer a rightward shift on the gunnery table.
I get the arguement on the snakebite ability, but its essentially worthless as is and probably will never be taken by anyone.
As for Evil Suns if you're only paying once and its cheap then this ability is pretty broken. If ALL your ships are 5cm faster for a 20 odd point upgrade on your commander with no downside that seems rather rediculous. Potential ways to make it slighly less awesome would be to make it so that ships no in contact with blast markers go 5cm faster or the burn retros penalty idea. It just seems like that wpuld be tought to balance without any restrictions/downsides.
Lastly what are ASC, AFIAK, and MANZ?
Also Here's the art I made for a Zzap Gun Escort if we did add one.
Gotcha, thanks for the definitions. Two more ideas I had:
1. Make the Mob Rule a check that you take when you want to go on special orders. When you declare that you are going to use a special order roll 2D3, if you roll equal to or under the number of ships you have add 1 to yoir leadership. Just a thought, not very practicle.
2. Another idea for Blood Axes which would be extremely fluffy.
Renowned for their sneaky and underhanded (some might say un-Orky)tactics the Blood Axes clan are well versed in.the use of stealth and ambush tactics. During Deployment instead of deploying your vessels you may deploy a number of contact markers equal to the number of ships/squadrons in your fleet. These markers may not use special orders or attack/be attacked, but otherwise move exactly as the ships they represent would. Markers are revealed when an enemy ship/attack craft squadron comes within 30cm or at the start of one of the Ork Player's turns if he chooses. Replace revealed contact markets eith the appropriate ships facing the same heading the marker was.
This gives Blood Axes a rather unique ability to stage ambushes and get innyour opponent's head. A bit Wordy but we csn bring that down
Liking all the discussion on orks so far.
I think we are in a good spot with Zzap Gunz.
I had an idea for Blood Axes if we don't go with the "invisible" ships rule. We could give them the ability to roll on the normal Ld chart when rolling instead of lowering by 1 as well as getting a +1 ld bonus for orders. This could represent their having better commanders and "Taktiks"
The change to Goffs will really only make a difference when boarding ships with more than 2 turrets as ork ships tend to have 2 or more hp than their imperial/chaos counterpart. Also the +1 ld bonus to ramming is nice.
I like that idea Xcaliber for the mob rule, honestly I'd say that we cpuld go as low as 4 escorts with that rule. Very fluffy, and it also helps make ravagers a lot less useless.
As for the turrets not effecting the outcome, boarding value DOES effect the outcome. Right now if I had a slaughter board a sword class frigate the slaughter has a boarding value of 2 and the Sword has a boarding value of 3 (2 turrets) base. Same for Ork cruisers boarding Imperial cruisers (11 vs 10). That means that the Sword class frigate has a +1 bonus over the slaughter. If Goff clan affiliation just gives another +1 that means that the slaughter and sword will both have a boarding value of 3, so it really just levels the playing field.
If the goff clan affiliation removes the turret defense bonus then the numbers are 2 vs 1 for the escorts and 11 vs 8 for the cruisers. These already are the numbers if the fight lasts more than one turn. So instead of giving a persistent bonus all we are doing is making all boarding actions work the same for Goffs. Honestly I was really surprised to learn just how much boarding actions advantage the defender.
Oh and for campaign use I've also got the Eldar Refits and Skills tables from BFG Annual 2002, I'll retype those as well for you.
One more thing which I've done some thinking on is the Traktor Cannon and Shokk Attack Mega-Gun ideas. My current version is for both to be a Kapital ship only Kustom Upgrade. The Traktor Kannon is a prow weapon with a 45cm range that hits exactly the same way as a ramming attack would. If it hits the target is moved 2D6cm towards the firing ship, if the target has fewer starting hit points then it is dragged 3D6 instead.
The Shokk Attack Mega-Gun is a prow weapon with a minimum range of 30cm and a max of 90. It is a hit and run attack which has no bonuses (No mega armor for snotlings) and which can penetrate shields. The attack suffers a -1 penalty for every shield the defender has active. If it fails place a blast marker on the enemy ship to represent the cloud of frozen snotlings.
The original concept for the Shokk Attack Gun ing BFG was that it would primarily cause a leadership pemalty on a target ship. The blast marker does that, and vs most ships in the game the hit and run attack only hits on a 4+. Essentially both of these upgrades provide Orks some long range "herding" tools to discourage enemies from staying very far away.
I like that idea Xcaliber for the mob rule, honestly I'd say that we cpuld go as low as 4 escorts with that rule. Very fluffy, and it also helps make ravagers a lot less useless.
For the moment let's start with 5, since it's already an upgrade. The numbers can be fiddled with later if it's still a big enough problem.As for the turrets not effecting the outcome, boarding value DOES effect the outcome. Right now if I had a slaughter board a sword class frigate the slaughter has a boarding value of 2 and the Sword has a boarding value of 3 (2 turrets) base. Same for Ork cruisers boarding Imperial cruisers (11 vs 10). That means that the Sword class frigate has a +1 bonus over the slaughter. If Goff clan affiliation just gives another +1 that means that the slaughter and sword will both have a boarding value of 3, so it really just levels the playing field.
If the goff clan affiliation removes the turret defense bonus then the numbers are 2 vs 1 for the escorts and 11 vs 8 for the cruisers. These already are the numbers if the fight lasts more than one turn. So instead of giving a persistent bonus all we are doing is making all boarding actions work the same for Goffs. Honestly I was really surprised to learn just how much boarding actions advantage the defender.
So I've gone back and looked at the numbers and the ignoring turrets is superior, but only for Escorts (it's the same for cruisers). However, there seems to be a small misunderstanding on your end. The Ork race bonus and Goff bonuses are "result" bonuses (on the D6 itself), not boosts to boarding value. So in your example we'd have:
Goff Escort (BV1) vs Sword (BV1+2 Turrets = BV3). Assuming no other bonuses, the Goff would roll D6 + 1 (Orks) + 1 (Goffs) for a total of D6+2. The sword would roll D6 + 3 (BV Advantage). In this case, ignoring turrets would be superior, as you'd instead have the Goff Escort rolling D6+1 vs the Sword's D6 alone.
For cruisers though, you'd have: Goff Cruiser (BV10) vs IN Cruiser (BV8+2 Turrets = BV10). So with the old bonuses, the Goff Cruiser would roll D6+2 against the IN Cruiser's D6. Under the new bonuses, it's actually the same, since you'd have: Goff Cruiser (BV10) vs IN Cruiser (BV8), so the Goffs are still rolling D6+2 (1 for Orks, 1 for BV Advantage), and the IN is still rolling D6.
On a side note, it seems that the proposed buffs to Orks seem to stack all too well at this point. Take a Blood Axe torpedo escort and apply every bonus that is being discussed up to now: 5 Points cheaper, regular leadership table, +1 on special orders, able to do special orders even whenever another ship has already botched their attempt... I fear the Orks are losing their unreliability here.
While an Ork escort squadron has at least five remaining vessels, it may attempt a command check even if one has already been failed this turn.I would go further and just make this a general rule for the entire fleet
Ork ships and squadrons may attempt a command check even if one has already been failed this turn.
Clanz:
> Clan upgrades are purchased on a per-commander basis. To buy any clan affiliations for your fleet, you must first pay +30pts for clan support, which unlocks the options for individual commanders. (Thus, the first clan upgrade you buy has an additional cost, to offset its wider applicability).
> A commander's clan affiliation (or lack thereof) applies to every ship under his authority, determined as follows:> A ship can only ever have one clan affiliation, and a squadron may never have multiple commanders with different clan affiliations. Note that a ship's clan does not change during the course of a game, regardless of any commander's status. Finally, a commander's re-rolls may not be used for ships or squadrons with a different clan affiliation (commanders and vessels without a clan are exempt from this restriction).
- A commander always has authority over his own ship and those of his squadron.
- The Boss with the biggest ship (Space Hulk > Battleship > Cruiser > Rok > Escort) has authority over all other ships in the fleet, except those under the authority of a different commander.
> The bonuses are as follows (and cost +20pts each, except Snakebites):
Goffs: +1Ld to ramming attempts. When initiating boarding, the enemy ship does not add its turret strength to its boarding value.
Evil Suns: +5cm to speed and minimum turn distance when not touching blast markers.
Bad Moons: Unchanged (May re-roll one random firepower/str weapon; combines with More Dakka).
Deathskulls: May add +1 or -1 to Critical Damage rolls received. A Deathskulls commander may buy looted torps for his ship for +10pts instead of +20pts.
Blood Axes: +1Ld (Ork vessels only, not looted ships) until it fails its first Ld test.
Snakebites: +1 Assault point when scoring during Planetary Assault. This clan affiliation may be given to any ship or squadron without a commander, for no extra cost. This overrides any other clan affiliation the ship would have.
The issue with that is orks are supposed to be more unreliable with their leadership rolls. Giving them a re-roll is a huge bonus that to me doesn't feel appropriate for them.
They the get auto pass on all ahead full to represent their willingness to drive forward regardless of casualties and attempt to ram/board. Trying to get them to lock on or reload ordnance puts you at a risk of failing when you could instead just drive forward and board them.
Yes it sucks when you fail the key reload ordnance, or even the more important brace, but that is what you get when you play orks.
Also orks have access to the most and cheapest fleet re-rolls.
The issue with that is orks are supposed to be more unreliable with their leadership rolls. Giving them a re-roll is a huge bonus that to me doesn't feel appropriate for them.
They the get auto pass on all ahead full to represent their willingness to drive forward regardless of casualties and attempt to ram/board. Trying to get them to lock on or reload ordnance puts you at a risk of failing when you could instead just drive forward and board them.
Yes it sucks when you fail the key reload ordnance, or even the more important brace, but that is what you get when you play orks.
Also orks have access to the most and cheapest fleet re-rolls.
I didn't want them to get a reroll. Perhaps I did not understand the proposed rule correctly.
AFAIK, if you fail a special order check, no other ships can go on special orders this turn.
I wanted Mob Rule to override this, so that if one squadron failed to reload ordnance, another squadron could still try.
Yeah that is way different, I would be fine with allowing orks to try one order per squad/model. Re-rolls could be used as normal but each squad could get one order always.
Yeah that is way different, I would be fine with allowing orks to try one order per squad/model. Re-rolls could be used as normal but each squad could get one order always.
Yes, exactly. It would go something like this
I try a Reload Ordnance on a Terror Ship
I pass
I try a Lock On on a squadron of Onslaught Attackships
I fail.
Now, with the existing system, I could try no further Special orders (Brace excepted, AAF excepted as there is no LD check) for any ships in my fleet.
I propose that Mob Rule should overrule this, so that the failure of a special order in one ship/squadron does not prevent another ship/squadron from attempting to go on a special order.
But the squadron that failed the special order still failed, and gets no special order this turn. Only, they do not get in the way of other squadrons trying to go on special orders.
I REALLY like the fleet wide clan bonuses. So, the clan of the commander is the clan of the fleet. Only ships/squadrons with characters can have a different clan.
Thanks. I think it's definitely desirable to have the Clanz be able to take a front and center role in the Ork fleet if the player desires it. This way makes it much less cost-prohibitive.
About my Klan bonuses
Goff: +1 Boarding VALUE. +1 LD when Ramming.
Goff hordes are usually numerous, so they add to the Boarding VALUE.
The symbol of the klan is the bull, so ramming bonus seems appropriate.
The problem here is that +1 boarding value is hardly ever useful. Making it ignore enemy turret values provides a more consistent damage bonus to boarding actions. This can be thought of as their great numbers overwhelms the ability of enemy turrets to effectively defend against the boarding attempt. Similarly, this also encourages more aggressive gameplay, since it only works when boarding is initiated. If you try to sit back and wait, you don't get any bonus.
Evil Sunz: +1D6 when AAF. So they can do normal AAF.
Much less powerful than soopa boostas for all. And it still allows them great bursts of speed.
This is a decent alternative I'd be willing to consider.
Bad Moons: +1 Turret (representing more ammo to use)
Bad Moon Ships have more kustom guns than any other ork ship.
While this is simpler, I think allowing re-rolls on random firepower/str weapons is still good, and so far it's had the least complaints against it in terms of functionality - so changing it just to be a tiny bit simpler doesn't seem 100% necessary.
Deathskulls: +1 LD to Reload Ordnance
They can build torpedoes out of anything. They loot part of their own ship to build more bombs and attack crafts and torpedoes.
I'm a little hesitant to hand out +1 Ld bonuses to every clan. Ork leadership is still supposed to be worse overall compared to other races (except for Blood Axes, where it represents their "un-Orky" behavior). Also here, the suggestion to allow modification of Crit Damage rolls synergizes very well with both Big Meks and Mad Meks, which matches with the idea of Deathskulls having lots of Meks aboard.
Blood Axes: +1 LD to Lock On
This is a rarely seem order in ork fleets. But it is appropriate for the blood axes, which like to fight proper.
+1 Ld for each ship/squadron until they fail a Ld test provides a more widely applicable bonus (and can still help with Lock On), and also does a good job representing the concept of Blood Axes using more kunnin' tactiks until the moment when the tactik's are done and they revert to their Orky ways.
Snake Bites: +1 to Boarding RESULT
Read about these boyz http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Wyrm-Killa_Tribe
The old ways are the be(a)st.
The problem here is that Snakebites still aren't "space" Orks, and so there's not really any reason why they'd be that much better than others in actual space battles. Making it a +1 Assault point bonus (that can be applied wherever you need, for free) solves 2 problems: First, it gives Orks a useful scenario-specific tool (and one that is currently missing for an "assaulty" faction compared to SM or Tyranids). Second, it reflects the non-space nature of the Snakebites by rewarding their use as truly ground-oriented Orks.
Orky Kroozer 180
TYPE/HITS SPEED TURNS SHIELDS ARMOR TURRETS
Cruiser/10 20cm 45° 1D3 6+/5+/4+ 3
ARMAMENT RANGE/SPEED FIREPOWER/STR FIRE ARC
Prow Gunz 45cm D6+5 Front
Prow Ram Ramming +1 Hit Front
Port Gunz 30cm 6 Left
Stbd Gunz 30cm 6 Right
I have a "logistics" suggestion. In the first post, under the spoiler tags. Is there a chance of adding the last updated date. To ease verifying that we have the most up to date files?
"You may take one battlecruiser of grand cruiser for every three cruisers or light cruisers in your fleet"
One thing I've been meaning to ask.
The Bakka fleet list, the old BFG:R allowed you to take Avenger Grand Cruisers. This has now been removed but the fleet list still makes reference to taking Grand Cruisers.Quote"You may take one battlecruiser of grand cruiser for every three cruisers or light cruisers in your fleet"
Were these intentionally left out?
Secondly, I think you missed one of my last questions, The Bakka fleet is described as having close ties with the Mechanicum but do they still come under the 4:1 ratio when taking reserves? It seems that way.
Trying to wrap my head around the new, unreleased, Ork clan rules.
Say I have a fleet that I want to be a mix of goffs, badmoon and Bloodaxes.
I would pay 50 points to have Goff Warboss for my battleship (30 for the first clan and 20 for the upgrade).
Would I then pay 20 for a Freebooter to have Badmoon affiliation, or would I pay the 30 point premium again?
If I have a goff Warboss (on the biggest ship) any other ship not paying for a clan affiliation would gain the goff bonus?
The 30 points for clan access would then get added to the first "biggest" boss's cost. For example in this case a
Biggest Warlord with Goff clan would be 130 points? (40 for the warboss, 40 for biggest, 20 for Goff and 30 for the pay once clan access price).
PS: Thanks dude, I don't think you get nearly enough credit for what you do.
Likewise on the credit.
I've been working on simplified text for some Ork Upgrades again, here's the current version I've got. Note that Ship Choppas is intended as a replacement for Klaws as the current Klaws upgrade is an exact copy of a unique tyranid weapon and its redundant with Traktor Fields.
Shokk Attack Mega Gun:
A Shokk Attack Mega Gun is fired during the shooting phase at a target in your front arc within 90 cm. It automatically hits causing a hit and run attack with -1 to your roll for every shield the target has active. If the attack succeeds the target suffers a Fire! critical hit as panicked snotlings cause all kinds of mayhem. If it fails place a blast marker on the target’s base as a cloud of frozen snotlings strikes their shields. On the roll of a one place a blast marker at the rear of your own base as something fails catastrophically.
Traktor Kannon:
A Traktor Kannon is fired in the shooting phase automatically hitting an enemy ship within 60 cm inside your front arc. Make a leadership check adding +1 to your leadership if your starting hull value is greater than that of the target and -1 if their hull value is greater. If either die result was a one place a blast marker at the rear of your own base as something fails catastrophically. If you pass immediately move the target 3d6cm towards your ship and reduce its movement rate by 5cm next round. If the target’s base overlaps your base you may initiate a boarding action.
Ship Choppas:
The first time your ship’s base overlaps an enemy ship each turn roll a D6. On a 4+ that ship takes one point of damage ignoring shields.
The SAMG is a revision of an older upgrade which previously had very clunky and wordy rules while the Traktor Kannon is an upgrade from the recent video game. Both are intended as means to try to force the enemy to close within your weapons range, which otherwise Orks dont really have anything for. My current thought is for them to be boss upgrades, but they could be ship upgrade as well.
Thoughts?
Shokk Attack Mega-Gun:
A shokk attack mega-gun follows the normal rules for shooting, and has a range of 90cm. When fired, the weapon automatically a fire critical on the target on a roll of 2+, with a -1 penalty to the roll for each of the target's remaining shields. If the attack fails, place a single blast marker in contact with the target's base, representing an expanding cloud of frozen snotlings left drifting through the void.
Although I really don't see the point in this weapon except as an escort remover. A single hit and run is hardly going to do anything on a capital especially if its negated by shields. At a normal cruiser its at best going to cause weapon failure unless the shields have been stripped. (or do MANZ bonuses stack with this attack?)
No MANZ shouldn't stack with this, mega armored snotlings are a silly concept.
A few quick questions about the fleet lists and possible copy pasta errors. I am not suggesting that these things are not balanced or advocating that they should be fixed, just checking if they are intended or errors.
The Archeron class heavy cruiser
Range 45cm dorsal lances. I thing this is the only heavy/battle cruiser with dorsal lances without range 60. Is this intended?
Murder vs. Inferno
The murder refit makes it almost identical to an Inferno.
So the murder is 170, and with 2 F R60 lances
The inferno is 180 and with 6 L/F/R R60 batteries.
Is this an accurate price difference?
Fanatic class Light cruiser, Speed 25. The other light cruisers are speed 30. Is this intended?
Idolator class raider. The model clearly shows the lance as 'turnable'. Going by the model, the lance should be L/F/R, not R. Is this intended?
Why is Abbadon priced at 195 and the planet killer at 505? What playtest or calculation determined that they could not cost 200 and 500 respectively? Is there some 1500 point fleet that require Abbadon to be 5 points less to fit?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As far as status, I'm working on a broader set of updates that will get released along with the changes to Orks, and hopefully another thing that I know some people have been waiting for. ;)
For the Savage I am recommending changing it to have Firepower 2(6) Heavy Gunz, firepower 4(6) makes them into a reliable midrange gunship escort and that harms their theme. With Firepower 2(6) they are essentially cobras outside of 15cm.
Overall the values of the various ships should be:
Battleships/Battlekroozers: Heavy Gunz: 6(10)
Kroozers: Prow Heavy Gunz 6(10), Flank Heavy Gunz 4(6)
Lite Kroozers: Heavy Gunz 4(6)
Smashas: Heavy Gunz 2(6)
Space Hulk: Heavy Gunz 8(12)
Ork Rok: Heavy Gunz 2(6)
I really would caution retaining the free ship bonus. If i have a squadron of 6 Smasha at leadership 5/6 that means that i am getting 60 free points vs the original list (30 from the price change, 30 from the free escort.). I just played a match yesterday doing a Convoy mission with 3 escort squadrons. The match was a 400 point game for the defender and i had 3 LD 5 squadrons, so counting the free ships and the points decrease (all 3 squadrons were 5 ship squadrons) I had 160 free points! I CRUSHED my opponent as a result.
Without the points decrease I would have had 85 free points, with the decrease but without the free ships I would have 75 free points. Both effects are roughly equivalent much of the time, but put together it is simply WAY too good for a small game. Put bluntly the two effects taken together means that MOST of the time Ork escorts are effectively discounted by 10 points per model! Its just too easy to abuse that. Scaled it up to a 1000 point game and I could easily have almost 300 points of "free" stuff.
> The main body of ships and upgrades are derived from horizon and AndrewChristLieb's Rogue Trader fleet list, which they made for afterimagedan but was never published.
> A lot of ship classes have been renamed to make them easier to reference, and easier to distinguish from their counterparts in other fleets.
> Many ships have been updated to keep them current with their duplicates in other fleets.
> RT-specific transport ships have been updated to be more clear as to their use (esp. regarding the Fleet Support ruleset).
> Xenos vessels (both allies and the specific escorts) have been reworked to be almost entirely separate from the rest of the RT ships and squadrons, to prevent weird and unnecessary problems of faction-mixing and non-uniform refitting on escorts.
> The Fra'al BC and Stryxis Caravans are still in the book. The Fra'al even have their Ether Cannon back (but in a toned down way).
> All 3 fleet lists from BFG:R are present. So you can take RTs as allies in other fleets (similar to how the Inquisition does it), or you can take a standalone RT or Pirate fleet.
> Heavy Gunz are now normal WBs with two firepower values, written as X(Y). X is used for targets 15cm or further, while Y is used for targets within 15cm. They also combine normally with regular Gunz when fired together. This reduces a lot of excess rolling (when firing all your weapons) and flattens out the damage potential on Ork ships just a bit.
> Zzapp Gunz inflict a blast marker on the firer if their random strength rolls a 1 on the D6. This doesn't apply to 1-shot and fixed-strength zzapps.
> Mob rule allows an escort squadron to roll command checks using their squad size as Ld (max 8). It also allows a squadron to test even if another command check has been failed, but they must use their squad size to do so (even if it's worse than their normal Ld)
> (NOTE: THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN THREAD) Clan upgrades have been substantially re-worked. Each commander may purchase a clan upgrade for +20pts. This applies to his own squad, plus 1 extra squad if he is a Big Boss, or 2 extra squads if he is a Mega Boss. The bonuses are updated as previously discussed in this thread.
> Crusiers (but not the Basha) have been reduced 10pts in cost.
> Escorts have been reduced 5ps in cost.
> The cost of replacing Heavy Gunz with Zzapps has been slightly reduced in a few places.
> Various other fixes (mistakes, typos, and such).
I must say, the Rogue Trader list is AWESOME.
It's exactly what I've been looking for for my own fleet of Transport Vessels come Warships. My one (and only one) complaint is that you have to keep scrolling from the fleet list section all the way back to the start of the file to check the Customised ships refits. Or at least I do....... That's a petty little complaint though. Overall the feeling is great. I love the little merchantmen vessels.
You do realise you can make an Avenger with 45cm Weapon Batteries and a Targeting Matrix. That's quite horrific for 230pts (or 215 if you have the fleet commander on there with his free upgrade). Grand Cruiseers with +1 Hull point is pretty funky too. Almost like light Battleships.
Are the Bond-Captains supposed to be 75pts????? That's expensive for just +1LD.
Grand, Heavy, and Battle cruisers are always "Type: Cruiser" in their profiles. But you are correct, Men O' War form squadrons like Grand Cruisers (and therefore only with other Men O' War / Grand Cruisers). I've updated the document to be a bit more specific about this.
Just wondering. Was there any reason you aren't allowed to take Torpedoes on the Dauntless light cruisers? Seeing as Lances are hard to maintain it seems natural that they'd convert them to Torpedoes. Or were you trying to limit the amount of ordinance available?
I know it's a long shot but......... Is there any chance you could make an option for the brigantine to have additional launch bays? Str3 per side for example? (A bit like the Jovian).
He fatally dropped "Like a Leaf in the Wind" which was one of the very first things to find a permanent place in any Rogue Trader lists I worked on. (Wasn't my idea to come with it but it sounded perfect). Firefly!
Torpedo Launchas & Launch Bays
As with their weapons batteries, Ork ordnance varies wildly in strength from moment to moment. Because of this, Ork ships may never combine torpedoes into larger salvos. However, when calculating attack craft launch limits, always use the highest possible value for the fleet.
QuoteTorpedo Launchas & Launch Bays
As with their weapons batteries, Ork ordnance varies wildly in strength from moment to moment. Because of this, Ork ships may never combine torpedoes into larger salvos. However, when calculating attack craft launch limits, always use the highest possible value for the fleet.
Does this mean a skwadron of Ravagers fire individual torpedo salvos? Example a Skwadron of 5 Ravagers would thus fire 5 seperate d6 str waves or can they combine into a str 5d6 wave?
One thing I noticed about the ork battleships is that I think they are supposed to be speed 15 with the 2 with Soopa Boostas at speed 20.
It was a typo I feel in the previous edition that all of them were speed 20.
Chaos Desolator 25cm speed
Chaos Despoiler 20cm
IN Retribution 20cm
IN Emperor 15cm
All other have 15cm? ;) That is basic blue book stuff.
Given other Orks speed I would rate battleships at 15cm, with a fast one doing 20cm. But all at 20 seems also fine. I think.
Another question regarding the Rogue Traders.
Reserves. Do all Grand Cruisers (Specifically reserved) count as Man o' Wars? What about Battlecruisers?
So, at 1500pts. Could I take a Man O' War Grand cruiser (Avenger), 2 Merchantmen (so 3 cruisers now) and a Reserved Exorcist?
I have some concerns about the balance of the Proteous Hive ship. Our nid player takes it every game because he doesn’t have enough escorts and we’ve basically found it way too powerful in our 1500point games. I know one solution would be to have him not take it but I'd like for it to be a balanced option that is guilt free.
I’m vacillating between a points increase, or leaving the points alone and changing it to be counted as a defense. The fluff does describe the thing as often being the size of a small moon so being as hard to hit as a fast Chaos battle ship seems a little odd. So something more like the ork space hulk.
I otherwise love what you’ve done with the BFG rules and appreciate how open to discussion you are.
I'll take a look at it. In the meantime, could you provide some more specifics about the situations where it's become a problem? If it's more of a general issue of point-efficiency, a cost change could easily work, although if there's an issue with something in particular (e.g. you mention its targeting with respect to gunnery) that could be a more appropriate fix.
One thing I noticed regarding the ork fleet. It says that with a looted vessel, you change all lances to zzap guns, attack craft, and nova cannons to killcannons.
Do you change torpedoes? This will only matter with Tau torpedoes, as they have unique rules.
I thought it would be cool if the orks got access to the special tau torpedoes, but only get 1 shot then back to normal torps.
Another thought I had regarding Orks and the points of some of their upgrades.
I know we went over the various clans and their bonuses, and for the most part we have figured out decent rules for them. Going over them again, I like the Goffs rules, but all the others seem to be missing something. Either 20 points for a clan is too much, or the clan bonuses need to be changed. Not sure how many people are checking this thread, as it seems my last question was not answered but here are my ideas.
Either make all the clan bonuses 10 points or;
Goffs: leave as is
Evil Suns: +5Spd and +1d6 AAF
Bad Moons: possibly a free left column shift instead of the free re-roll, the re-roll boss upgrade only costs 10 points so why take bad moons over that.
Deathskullz: I almost like the deathskullz bonus, but it needs to be clear whether or not escorts can take looted torpedoes and if they receive the same +1/-1 crit rule. This would allow them to only take a hit and run crit on a 5+ with no bonus.
Blood Axes: I do like the +1 Ld bonus, but I think it should be 10 points for blood axes. Only affecting 1 ship unless you take an 60-80 point boss is not enough of a bonus, especially as orks are always at -1 to their Ld anyway.
Snakebites are free so they are fine as well.
I'm really liking the changes to the ork fleet, they feel like a competitive fleet now except for when I'm facing nids :-\
There is a simple solution to the feeder tendril problem, and that is to make feeder tendrils weaker for escorts than they are for capital ships.
The easiest way to make that work is to give them a different effect from a normal hit and run attack (Nids have so many other ways to inflict those anyways). How about this:
Feeder Tendrils: The first time this ship's base contacts the base of an enemy ship roll a D6. On a 5+ that enemy has been ensnared by the feeder tendrils, roll D6+1 and inflict the corresponding result on the critical damage table. Escorts armed with Feeder Tendrils only successfully score a hit on a 6+.
If the target ship is an escort a successful hit from a feeder tendril suffers a hit and run attack.
That maintains the same net effect but makes feeder tendrils less of a guarantee. In fact the damage potential is greater this way and successful hits circumvent the anti hit and run special rules (space marines).
I would also recommend changing Massive Claws to work differently from their current form. Should I even bother making that recommendation or will everyone stone me to death by implying that clunky and easily abused rules are clunky and easily abused?
?
But if I use 10 Iconoclasts and get within the prow of a battleship I can cripple/destroy it in one go.
?
But if I use 10 Iconoclasts and get within the prow of a battleship I can cripple/destroy it in one go.
No one faced my 3 strong Iconoclast squadron of utter mayhem then. 8)
Alas, if feeder tendrils are an issue then scratch the whole thing. Are massive claws okay? Then let models with tendrils count as claws.
Or go wild:
Feeder tendrils
These grab a ship when in contact. Make a leadership test: if successful then the enemy ship is pushed remaining movement distance in the direction the tyranid escort is flying. Counts as BM in contact as well.
Against bigger vessels: leadership test on 3D6.
Sumtin like that. Quite cool tbh.
There needs to be a balance between in game fiction and rules. Why can't you take as many land raiders in 40k as you want in a normal army? Because doing so would be unbalanced and therefore not fun. If we are going to play a game strictly on fluff, there will always be an army that is better than the others and people will flock to that.Your still on in the loop that the feeder tendrils are to strong. Yes, good, enough example. Thus the feeder tendrils are overpowered. Limiting them in numbers breaks fluff and game mechanics. It is daft. An overpowered rule should be changed, not contained.
I play BFG because the minis are cool, and 40k has a great universe, but I don't ever want fluff to overpower rules.
I had an ork battleship crippled in one turn by being attacked by 12+ drone escorts. That was probably one of the least fun games of BFG I've ever had. When 240 points of escorts cripple a 400 point battleship without actually having to roll to hit as well as being braced, something is wrong.
Just a thought on the Feeder Tendrils...Rather than completely re-write them, how about this?
As is, but you make 1 H&R attack for the squadron, rather than per model. Each model in base contact after the first adds 1 to the roll, Max +3.
Allows FT's to be a viable option without being too mental.
Xcal, there's an error in the Ork Hammer class Battlekroozer options. It says you may equip its Deff Kannon with looted torpedoes when it should be Kustom Kannon.
Welcome back from deployment, Green_Squad_Leader! Besides always reminding me of Star Wars B-wings, it's good to see someone with the resources and passion to keep tinkering with BFG meaningfully!
Good replies TS. 8)I’m glad I haven’t embarrassed myself too much with my verbosity ;) :P
Thanks Thinking Stone. But I guess that still leave the missions..?That it does, unfortunately (as I’ve realised from a second look at the document). I suspect that the rulebook/Armada missions you have would work with no trouble (I don’t recall too many changes to them out of the BFG:R project, for example), and they were probably such a low priority for revision because they were designed well to begin with.
In the absence of the other, perhaps more enlightened, folks interested in BFG:XR, I’ll try to provide some sensible responses! I would have tried replying earlier except that the year got away from me too quickly!
@Fro5ty: For the Dark Eldar, I presume the lack of 45 cm weapons is historical and was originally part of their playstyle intentionally. Other Eldar also lacked 45 cm weapons in the earlier lists, for example. As I understand it, Xca|iber’s intent was to not substantially change lists (unless necessary), but to continue the efforts of things like BFG:R.
It might be an interesting question to ask in a new thread, to see if any of the real long-term veterans of BFG remember anything. Maybe you could try out 45 cm weapons on the grand cruiser and see how it goes?
Anyone who has a functioning link to the campaign and scenarios rules. Original post is removed and the other link in the thread is not working either.
So here is my recommendation of how to move forwards with the core rulebook to have a new edition that we can present to the community (1 book, 1 pdf for all your needs, with everything working). The vast majority of it is already finished, what we need to add are:[/spoiler]
1. Detachments
2. Scenarios
3. Campaign Rules
4. Maybe subplots
The Detachment and Campaign Rules are ready to go and just need to be incorporated into the existing PDF (I of course would appreciate proof reads and I'm open to balancing). I believe that the best way to approach this would be to make the Detachment rules their own section and place them just before the Scenario rules, and to keep the campaign rules at the end of the book. The reason I think this makes sense is both because the detachment system fixes a lot of the balancing issues we otherwise were stuck with while NOT requiring players use our updated fleet lists. It also provides us a cool mechanic for designing the scenarios.
With the detachments before the scenarios we then would be able to incorporate scenario specific stratagems and detachments, which would help to simplify the alternative force organizations appropriate for each scenario. So, for example, in the convoy scenario we could incorporate a new detachment called a "convoy detachment" made up of 3 freighter-analogue ships. Rather than have the player calculate points for freighters simply state that they must include 1 convoy detachment for every 2 detachments in the list, and I would recommend making this detachment cost 1 command point (-1 CP). This would encourage the defending player to take larger detachments (ie: Fleet Support, Recon, and Combat Patrol) as escorts to reduce the number of freighters they have to guard. For scenario specific stratagems for example we could make one for the escalating engagement scenario that would allow players to bring their units into the fight faster, potentially with the downside of needing a turn to shift power away from their engines (essentially arriving on All Ahead Full!).
Once we have the scenarios reworked we add them after the detachments/stratagems rules. Then at the back of the book we add the revised campaign rules and we'd have a completed product.
As far as subplots go I feel that they always were rather clunky and that most of their value would be represented within the stratagem system. That said we could largely leave them as is for flavor as an optional rule like they are now, or theoretically integrate them with the stratagem rules to provide a number of additional stratagems that players could elect to take before the battle that have some impact on their fleet or for the coming battle. I'm leery of doing that as it sounds like it would get very complicated very quickly, but it is something we could investigate.
Now with all that said, we do need to gain access to the templates needed to make the book into a finished product. Does anyone have access to that stuff aside from Xcalibre? If not is anyone in touch with him?
We're very nearly ready to produce a unified new edition book, we just need to start assigning tasks and get back to work on it. Hopefully we can get this all done in the first half of 2019 and give a nice give to the community.
Looks great, but I noticed a lot of "Changed back" notes in the log.@Zelnik
Can I just suggest that we be exceptionally careful in the future moving away from the base rules of the game in regards to rules? Giving orks Klawz is fine, but giving them rules any different then an existing rule for a similar weapon is -extremely- troublesome. Every time we roll-back a rule, it kinda looks like no one was paying attention and made the change in a fit of WAAAAAGH I WANNA KRUMP DA GITZ.
This isn't like 40k, where all the races are the same and they all re-roll 1's. There are fleets that are better then the others, some will win more then others, and if you defeat a Necron Fleet with an ork fleet, you should be able to gloat to your foe all day, every day.
This is actually a hallmark of the classic Specialist Games day, and shared with Blood Bowl...Some races just aren't as good at blood bowl but by Nuffle they will try.
@Fro5ty I was hoping you’d pop back in! So much for my pessimistic predictions :P
@Gothmog LoB ‘Fortunately’, it seems we who play BFG in the 41st Millennium will have a while to wait before any new GW BFG reaches us—as far as I’ve seen, the plan is for a Heresy BFG. It will be interesting to see which rules direction they go in.
@(More generally) I’m interested to see what new directions people take the BFG core rules after this ‘first edition’ of BFG:XR is done.
@Fro5ty I was hoping you’d pop back in! So much for my pessimistic predictions :P
@Gothmog LoB ‘Fortunately’, it seems we who play BFG in the 41st Millennium will have a while to wait before any new GW BFG reaches us—as far as I’ve seen, the plan is for a Heresy BFG. It will be interesting to see which rules direction they go in.
@(More generally) I’m interested to see what new directions people take the BFG core rules after this ‘first edition’ of BFG:XR is done.
Core wise I would change the static igoyougo of BFG. A bit more fluent and interactive between two players would be good.
Somehow simplify AC and all of it (or just not include it as Andy Chambers at one pointed really thought to do so).
Gunnery and related is just awesome as is.
@Xca|iber
I've just discovered your work after not even looking at BFG for about 15 years. It's like uncovering some lost ancient knowledge.
I've just been trying to get some friends into BFG and if they take to it I'll be running your rules like they are gospel. This is amazing work. I salute you sir.
This compilation is a black monolith of hard work! Reworking such vast reams of data is pretty formidable and it looks darn good!
Leaving out the lore is however unacceptable- what else do you have to do now you're in Lockdown huh? Huh? :P
I think I need to print this grand tome off now...
So, the murderous Eldar msm is back then. ;)
But I have no idea how you did come to the changes. Eldar MMS took various steps to get to a balanced ruleset. I'm not sure if the new XR variant is based on theory (which for a starter is fine) but also has seen a lot of playtesting.
Have a bad feeling about Marine venerable barges (Basicallt the must of a 6+ armour eludes me in terms of background. Then again. I haven't kept up with what GW did in the last years).
On Rogue Traders:
I cannot find how much fortune a captain starts with.
And the Galleon build rules seem a little unclear. Can I build this:
Chassis +60
Galleon +20
extra Shield +15
No dorsal weapon picked
two sets of large batteries +60
Prow torpedoes +25
Thus for a total of 180 points I get a ship with :
20 weapon batteries to each side?
That's off.
But also: you cannot have a 100% Rogue Trader fleet anymore? That's a pity.
EDIT: The other thing that’d be nice is a PDF of people’s ships nicely painted and zoomed in so that we could add a colour splash halfway through the book, model pics are one of my favourite parts of a rulebookFeel free to roam the GothiComps ;) Or open a topic requesting pictures for the various fleets & ships.
(Sidenote: you should make a presence on the Reddit BFG sub as well. I placed the update there. They are quite active. And next to this forum the only online BFG place I visit (blech that facebook ;) ).
On the VBB's : I found them rather sparse in lists to be honest. Most people using the regular Barge. And I think it is a bit weird to have an Imperial Emperor with 5+ armour and a VBB with 6+ armour. They have been build in the same age.
Feel free to roam the GothiComps ;) Or open a topic requesting pictures for the various fleets & ships.
(Sidenote: you should make a presence on the Reddit BFG sub as well. I placed the update there. They are quite active. And next to this forum the only online BFG place I visit (blech that facebook ;) ).
Here you can find the annual 2002 which has warp storm included.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-aXA8fc5AQ8Uzg0d2xKZjZ2UVk&resourcekey=0-R23Uy6Yaj79k1cBVBC23Vw
In the text you refer to they just created the Armageddon list to be combo fleet they write about.
<stirs pot... >
So I've taken a deep dive into all the BFG-XR rulesets and such, and well, it's a lot. A fantastic amount of work went into this, which I can tell from experience by just going through it all.
I tend to be more of a purist when it comes to 'da rulez, mainly because I helped create some of them the first time around, and I was in on the discussions with the original content creators behind why some of the rules are the way they are. That being said, good games either evolve or die, and it's great to see this much interest still exists for BFG.
Roy, the other HA's and I have been trading emails back and forth for a little while now. It would be great to see BFG-XR turn into a finished fan-driven ruleset. It would be even better to see it turn into something semi-official, which is the best we can hope for since BFG's been officially dead since 2013. To that end I'll toss a few monkey wrenches into the mix every now and again for argument's sake. When I do, feel free to throw a wrench or two back at me!
- Nate
<stirs pot... >
So I've taken a deep dive into all the BFG-XR rulesets and such, and well, it's a lot. A fantastic amount of work went into this, which I can tell from experience by just going through it all.
I tend to be more of a purist when it comes to 'da rulez, mainly because I helped create some of them the first time around, and I was in on the discussions with the original content creators behind why some of the rules are the way they are. That being said, good games either evolve or die, and it's great to see this much interest still exists for BFG.
Roy, the other HA's and I have been trading emails back and forth for a little while now. It would be great to see BFG-XR turn into a finished fan-driven ruleset. It would be even better to see it turn into something semi-official, which is the best we can hope for since BFG's been officially dead since 2013. To that end I'll toss a few monkey wrenches into the mix every now and again for argument's sake. When I do, feel free to throw a wrench or two back at me!
- Nate
<pulls wax out of my ears>
And Zelnik, I never meant to offend. Nobody is more excited than me to see BFG more alive and vibrant than it's ever been. I actually have some of Italianmoose's and Soulforge's models, and they're brilliant.
Monkey wrench received. Ouch! :)
Thanks for working so hard to keep the game awesome. I'm ready to assist however I can.
- Nate