BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions

[RayB HA]

Hi All,

I've just reached the 20,000 character limit for the first post!!!! So I'm going to have 2 seperate topics for fleet specific questions and general rules questions.

Bare with while I sort this out.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

Zelnik, Bluedagger,
I'm not saying MMS should be taken onboard (though if Ray Bell is playing with MMS.... what does that say for the future? In 2045 that is for a new rulebook? haha).

The Craftworld fleet isn't underrated. It is quite good actually.

The Flame is a battleship equivalent and point for point an even match to the Void Stalker, just do the math. That 5+ vs 4+ armour means a lot.

Dragonship, so you rather never take the 3 Pulsars because you like the 16 batteries so much? I rather see equal choices. 12 Ewb = 3 Epl.

When I heard of the idea to drop the batteries to 12 I was wary at first as well, but now I am acceptive.

And with this FAQ the Flame is sort of officially theirs if you take the Hero. But I am wondering what a non-character version would look like. Ray?

They do not have 3 choices (they DO if batteries stay at 16!). When looking at the variants you have this (excl Flame) :
4 battlecruisers
4 hunter cruisers (wraith)
2 escorts
That is 10 choices.

There are fleets with less choices.

Shadowhunter,
indeed a fix is needed. Perhaps not a Pulsar but the same lance as the Dark Eldar use or a bit like that?

[RayB HA]

Hi All,

I've just seperated the BFG FAQ 2010 into two topics. This one is for Fleet Specific Questions and the other is for General Rules questions. Don't be affraid to post all of your questions in this topic if you wish, as the reason for the 'split' is purely because of the forums character limit.

Cheers,

RayB HA 

[RayB HA]

Roy,

Shadow Hunters were being looked at to have 3 turrets instead of thier ordy killing rule. But thier weapons would be changed to 3 normal WB's or a single normal lance.

I'll put it in with a 'needs HA Ruling'.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

Hi Ray,

the Craftworld Eldar does not need anti ordnance escorts. Compared to the Corsairs they have enough Attack Craft available.

The hitting on a 4+ was neat.

3 turrets? I mean... under official rules no Eldar has turrets so your are creating something awkward there. (Unless you go completely different rules for the Craftworld Eldar in their basic core rulings...

[RayB HA]

Awkward? In an Eldar Rules set, you must be mistaken! 

The Shadow Hunters turrets represent it shooting ordnance at close range with its normal weapons (It can still shoot at long range at the same time). Keep in mind the 4+ to kill ordy was there because the shadow hunters are supposed to be super nible not because they have awesome targetting arrays.

On 'need', if you have Shadow hunters hunting ordy waves you can be more offensive with your AC and maybe even trade them in for torps! Also if you want you could use them by putting them on CAP (massing turrets).

Cheers,

RayB HA   

[BlueDagger]

Please for the love of whatever deity, stop modifying CWE while we are on the ground bleeding. Yes, we have 3 ships. There is three ships with changeable configurations which is nice, but still 3 ships. Changing a ship that isn't doing anything spectacular for it's point cost on a fleet that isn't winning tourneys isn't just isn't necessary. If you feel like making changes, then delve into ordinance balance more.

The FoA is not equal to a a Void stalker in the slightest. A Void Stalker has 4 45cm pulsars and 2 more hit points. Yes, 4+ vs 5+ is impressive, but not enough to fathom a 15cm and 2 Pulsar increase as not better.

3 turrets for the escorts is a terrible idea. If I'm taking escorts (big if) it is to shot down ordinance, not ram into it and risk getting hit or waiting for someone to foolishly go after the escorts and not my turret-less cruisers.

[Zelnik]

Zelnik, Bluedagger,
I'm not saying MMS should be taken onboard (though if Ray Bell is playing with MMS.... what does that say for the future? In 2045 that is for a new rulebook? haha).

The Craftworld fleet isn't underrated. It is quite good actually.

The Flame is a battleship equivalent and point for point an even match to the Void Stalker, just do the math. That 5+ vs 4+ armour means a lot.

Dragonship, so you rather never take the 3 Pulsars because you like the 16 batteries so much? I rather see equal choices. 12 Ewb = 3 Epl.

When I heard of the idea to drop the batteries to 12 I was wary at first as well, but now I am acceptive.

And with this FAQ the Flame is sort of officially theirs if you take the Hero. But I am wondering what a non-character version would look like. Ray?

They do not have 3 choices (they DO if batteries stay at 16!). When looking at the variants you have this (excl Flame) :
4 battlecruisers
4 hunter cruisers (wraith)
2 escorts
That is 10 choices.

There are fleets with less choices.

Shadowhunter,
indeed a fix is needed. Perhaps not a Pulsar but the same lance as the Dark Eldar use or a bit like that?

NO. The flame is a grand cruiser, the 8 hits and it's 30cm weapons make this pretty clear.

And how someone takes the dragonship is not for you to decide, and st 3 pulsar lances are plenty powerful, but REDUCING the strength of a vessel that is supposed to be the lynchpin of the fleet, which contains all of the weapon power involved is not how to do it. Why not increase the pulsar lances to 4?

The dragonship is not a fancy version of the Shadow cruiser. It's meant to be a battlecruiser level vessel.

I am telling you that this change is TOTALLY unnecessary, and YOU were the one who brought up MMS rules, not us.

Do. Not. Change. The. Ship.

You should be more worried about rules ambiguity then adding or reducing firepower from a ship. I can't fathom why your even trying to change it when there are more pressing matters to worry about, like the engine issue with the Apoc. 

[horizon]

Hi BlueDagger,

NOT 3 ships. Sorry but look: There are 10 configurations, 8 capital ships.

If you want you can write the Imperial Navy also as configurations:
Imperial Hull:
choose:
port/starboard : 2 Lance / 6 WB
or
port/starboard : 4 lance
or
port/starboard : 12 wb


prow:
nova or torps

So, one box and I have written the Gothic, Dominator & Lunar. They could have spread out the Craftworld vessels and give them all a seperate entry but they didn't.


Imperial Navy & Chaos aren't also winning many tournaments, Adepticon has as last 4 winners Orks, Tau, Tau, Dark Eldar. Not even Corsair Eldar.

Flame vs Void Stalker :
keep in mind that 1 Pulsar equals 4 batteries,

Flame: 16 wb + 2 PL = 16 + 8 = 24.
Void : 8 wb + 4 PL = 8 + 16 = 24.

Armour 5+ vs 4+ and 8 hits vs 10 hits is an equal thing.

The Void Stalker has a large base, the Flame a small one. (Large = easier for Nova, boarding and Ordnance)
The Void Stalker has better range & arcs on the weaponry.
The Lances on the Flame cannot be crippled or downed by brace (ah well, I know what Ray wants to do : pulsar = keel).
The Flame has aspect warriors

The Void Stalker will have a slight attacking edge but defensively seen the Flame is better.

questions:
Ray,
will the Pulsar position on the Flame be switched?
will the Flame have the option to take Vampire Raiders (Assault Boats)?


warning...
By all, the old SG days relive with frantic discussions!  

3 Pulsar is powerfull but much less then 16 batteries. Thus why take Pulsars?
Pulsars at 4, yes that has been my inititial thought as well but people scream in horror of these prospects.

16 batteries is more then battlecruiser level. That is, with the always Closing, Battleship level.

Yes, I brought up MMS to show 12 wb can work. You are making a little more if it. But, alas, maybe I wasn't clear enough?

And I do agree with BlueDagger & Zelnik that the Shadowhunter turret idea is not good.

And I do want to push this:
When a supreme admiral is taken in the Craftworld Fleet this allows for the inclusion for the Flame of Asuryan (give it a class name: Void Dragon for example as it has been promoted with) in the fleet. Heck, drop the auto aspect warriors on the Flame to do so.
That is 100pts to take the Flame, a 50pts lowering to take the Flame.
That is not unbalancing to the game at all in any possible way.

I think Zelnik & Bluedagger will see an agreement on that....?

[Zelnik]

I preferr to call it a "hero ship"

Okay, why don't i put it to you this way.


Wraithships are equipped at LIGHT CRUISER levels, their advantage is a better armor and 6 hits (you can remake an aurora perfectly).  These are your BASIC craft.

Dragonships are equipped at Battlecruiser level (16 is punchy, but its ALL they get.) All your doing is shifting the strengths around with no real need, the fleet is balanced and more then capable of doing the job it was meant to do.

In fact, I have never seen anyone complain about this before.

Also, I am far more afraid of st8 eldar torps on a cruiser then i am with 4 pulsar lances.

I would be OK with the +1 pulsar lance then i would be with -4 battery.

[RayB HA]

Hi all,

Fighta Bommas: I didn't realise what I did there! Their turret suppression is per wave not marker. But a single FB will still get +3 fighter suppression, that was the point I was trying to get across. Sorry for the confusion, I guess I was getting a little burnt out by the healthy influx of questions.  

CWE: Look, I realise it's horrible when 'your' fleet gets targeted for 'down grades', but please stay calm and constructive.

The Dragonships are still awesome! An extra chunk of firepower and leap of survivability in comparison to the Ecplise or Shadow. And for what? 10pts! Now granted there's more to it than that, they're in different fleet lists after all. But still...

The Shadow Hunter is a waste of space in the original rule set, literally only being taken when you have spare points. The trade of a single 4+ shot at ordy to 3 turrets on a ship with holofields and the capability of massing turrets is great. Especially as they can temporarily mass in the first movement phase defending against ordy before the 2nd move. Also keep in mind that you won’t be up against too many waves of ordy so those 3 turrets will be wasting those single AC markers one at a time and as they’re turrets you can kill loads of AC with one escort in one turn.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

Shadowhunter:
Thus 3 turrets hit on a 4+, remaining AC attacks against a 4+ armour, with hits to be saved on a 2+ (holofield)?

I dunno, I think the original rule (hit ordnance on a 4+) was a better representation of nimble then this: bristling gun turrets.

Nah, if you stay with msm I would not add turrets to any Eldar ship at all. I really hope you and the rest of the HA will reconsider this change.

Just make that lance better and a battery. With original rules. Same ordnance hunter, but more worth it even in normal fights (heck they are the last line of naval defence for a Craftworld). And not odd...turrets...

[Zelnik]

I need to beg to differ about the shadowhunters.
I actually played a 1500 game against tyranids, and those shadowhunters were INVALUABLE to my victory. Hitting ordnance on a 4+ is vital for the defense of the fleet against bombers and a-boats... they simply can't field enough fighters to really protect them against the ordnance heavy fleets of Tau and Tyranid.

I love the little guys, the fleet is not built around it's escorts, but it's cruisers instead.

[RayB HA]

Hi Roy,

Ah yes, the Flames Keel Pulsars. Thanks for reminding me! 
As a reward I’ll put forward the idea of reducing the Hero to 100pts.

Also Vampire Raiders should be part of the ships basic stats!!!

Shadow Hunters:
Original version: 3 EWB’s/lance getting a single 4+ to hit ordy instead of a 6.
You can shoot ordy at 30cm.
‘Better’ version: 3 WB’s/lance getting a single 6+ to hit ordy. 3 turrets.
Combined with holofields this will give you 3 turret shots and then 2+ saves vs damage. Keep in mind bombers attack runs will be reduced by 3! Only torps are slightly iffy.
You will be able to mass your turrets with other ships, given Eldar movement this could be extremely effective.
You can use your full turret strength even when braced!
 

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Zelnik]

Sorry buddy, but turrets are an eldar no-no... not only that, where would they fit 3 turrets on such a small ship?