BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions

[horizon]

..and, the fact is that massed turrets currently is still at the end or beginning of movement phase and not between.

Hero 100pts, standard assault boats, but keel Pulsars. Well, I can live with that.

[RayB HA]

Zelnik, Roy,

The Shadow Hunters don’t literally have turrets. It’s just a game mechanic representing their ability to dogfight with AC!

Cheers,

RayB

[BlueDagger]

I'm all for the 100 pt admiral for the flame as that would allow the use of taking the Flame without the waste of 50pts as some people do not care to take corsairs and prefer pure CWE. Thank you for that.

May I ask why the change to the FoAs Pulsar? Once again an unnecessary change, one step forward two steps back.

Still not a fan of the turrets idea, they will be just as useless as they currently are as the only thing currently good about them is anti-ordinance. You need something to bolster them offensively. We run and gun, not suicide turret run into torpedoes.

[Zelnik]

Honestly, There  really is no reason to change the FoA.  Just because it has weapons you can't disable doesn't make it OP.  It's still an ELDAR vessel with crits on 4+. Usually when it gets crippled it gets disengaged.

I don't mind a cheaper version of the eldar Hero though.

[horizon]

Hi Bluedagger,
here is the reason for the Pulsar swap. Now the Flame has 1 port / 1 starboard. This is the only Eldar ship with port/starboard weaponry.
The Eldar critical hit table has no port/starboard damaged.
Thus these Pulsars will always be working even if crippled and braced! Always 1+1=2 Pulsars available.

Now, with 2 Pulsars in the Keel it is subject to criticals and goes down from 2 to 1 to 1 (The Void Stalker goes from 4 to 2 to 1) with braced/crippled.

Rewriting the crit table for one ship is kinda harsh.

warning
tell that it isn't overpowered to that Imperial Navy opponent when my crippled/braced Flame, unable to move out, still fired 2 Pulsars and scored 5 hits....

Na, true, ain't that much overpowered but it is nicer and more into the rules.

I mean if we argue turrets on a Shadowhunter we can argue this as well.

[Zelnik]

Also, the turret value is really not necessary. The rule about hitting ordnance on a 4+ IS the representation that they are so good at dogfighting smaller craft.

The ability to eradicate an entire wave of craft on a 4+ is frightening to a tyranid or tau player.

[Zelnik]

I am not done with the Dragonship.

Look, IF this is a process where you listen to the players, it's pretty clear that no one wants this change.

IF this FAQ is really just what a group of people, whom few of us have ever talked to and no one knows how they got their position, want in the next version PLEASE say so.

Why the heck are you even WORKING on the eldar, when there are more pressing rules issues at hand??

[BlueDagger]

If the fact that the port/starboard is the issue then make them prow as well. It would be a subtle change a that point that no one should really get up in arms about.

Consolidations of my thoughts at this point...

FoA - 100pts admiral to take or 150 hero if you want corsairs
Dragonship - Leave the WB alone, consider a 4s pulsar if worried about "not taken", 8 torpedos is a bit excessive and they are used for AC first and foremost.
Wraithships - Don't try to find something wrong with this one
Shadowhunters - Scrap the turret idea, consider pulsar lance rule for the lance to bring it in line with corsair.

[Zelnik]

If the fact that the port/starboard is the issue then make them prow as well. It would be a subtle change a that point that no one should really get up in arms about.

Consolidations of my thoughts at this point...

FoA - 100pts admiral to take or 150 hero if you want corsairs
Dragonship - Leave the WB alone, consider a 4s pulsar if worried about "not taken", 8 torpedos is a bit excessive and they are used for AC first and foremost.
Wraithships - Don't try to find something wrong with this one
Shadowhunters - Scrap the turret idea, consider pulsar lance rule for the lance to bring it in line with corsair.

1. I agree.
2. Again, i agree.  6 eldar torps are bad enough
3. No kidding
4. Again, can't agree with it.  They are there for a reason, Craftworld eldar are NOT an escort fleet like the corsair.  Just leave them alone, your trying to fix problems that don't exist here.

[RayB HA]

CWE are consuming this thread please discuss CWE in this Topic:

http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1354.0

Cheers,

RayB HA

[russ_c]

Well, I'm a small fry swimming with some big fish, but for your consideration Ray...

Tyranid Evolutions:  I'm not a big fan of rules that require permission.  I'd prefer a rule that can simply stand in all situtaions (i.e. tournaments, friendly games, campaigns etc.).  I also feel that it's a part of Tyranid's flavor to have customizable ships using evolutions.  Having a rule that requires permission will probably lead to tournaments that simply don't allow evolutions.  With this in mind, might I propose leaving the rules of 4 carapaces and 2 spores for campaigns intact, but simply stating that for any non-campaign matches a player may take half this quantity (i.e. Upto 2 carapace and 1 Spore).

This removes the need of permission and sets a clear standard while at the same time avoiding extreme Hive ships, but still giving Tyranid players the ability to pick up a very respectable 12hp/5spore Hive ship in tournaments and friendly games.  Lastly, it doesn't mess with campaigns as it's definitely cool that an extended campaign can result in a monstrosity!

Thanks for the consideration on the Spore cost as well!

Cheers,

Russ

[RayB HA]

Russ c,

A major flaw of the old 40k nids was that there was too much customisation making it difficult for opponents to know what they were fighting. Having to be constantly reminded of upgrades and occasional special rules doesn't make for a good tourney or 'stranger' game.

Even though this weakens the fleet I feel this is a sound judgement.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Vaaish]

I agree with Ray on the nid thing and given that I believe the nid fleet that didn't take the upgrades ended up more in the middle of the pack so I don't think it overly weakens the fleet.

[lordgoober]

Well,  on the tyranid front,  at Adepticon we had a 12 man 1500 point BFG tournament (about average for the event) with this fleet breakdown.

2 Tyranid, 2 Chaos, 2 Space Marines, 1 Tau, 1 Necron, 1 CWE, 1 Corsair Eldar,  1 Ork, 1 Dark Eldar.

One of the Tyranid fleets had 2 of the 14/6 monstrosities.  That fleet won best general and if it had been a little better painted (one of the judges was a lot harsher than the other and gave the fleet a 0 for the paint score based on the criteria involved) would have won overall by one point.  The final game table was against the Tau fleet and the Tau player could do practically nothing to the hive ships (I'm 99% sure he was using counts as rules for his FW ships and had 3 explorers).

The other Tyranid player was unupgraded and ended up in 8th place and in 9th place on the battle scores.

There were actually quite a few complaints about the hive ships from the first player.  So much so that I'm considering a limitation on the number of upgrades to 3 per ship instead of 3 types per ship for 2011.

[Vaaish]

I think I posted this over on port maw, but my sentiments are that evolutions are campaign upgrades that create interesting hero ships that are unique to the campaign over time. One of games just breaks them beyond belief as I think the adepticon results showed especially given no other race has access to them outside of the campaign.