BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[horizon]

Blastmarkers.

But, yes, the table has some oddities.

I know Ray Bell (Raysokuk) made an altered table. On the yahoo group files?

[Vaaish]

ok, so here is a picture all taken from the same distance with regular d6 and 12mm d6 (anything smaller is too fiddly to use on the same token)

note the insane amount of stacking and no benefit gained from launching the larger salvos? Which of these would be easier to move on the board? the one with 3 d6 piled up or the one with a single d6? How about to determine the salvo strength?

[RCgothic]

Complete agreement with Vaaish.

[fracas]

agree that each standard torpedo base should be for 1-6 strength salvo

[lastspartacus]

I can understand if you are splitting direction (thats still allowed right?)
but for the same line, I know I certainly havn't been stacking my torps oddly on top of each other, I just sit em behind or near the torp marker.  usually have a seperate color for torps as well, for easier book keeping.

[flybywire-E2C]

I'd also put in for the 1.0 BMs.

As to the Endeavor and its ilk, 6+ prow and 90` turns can't be overpowered simply because the same effect of closing and then turning 90` to unload broadsides is already possible while retaining the benefits of a 6+ prow by squadroning with any of the IN line cruisers. This prevents most enemy fire from even touching the endeavours until they swing around to fire doing the very thing that was mentioned as being too much.

I'd still like to see the NC blast auto hit the eldar. It's not like IN has much going for them against eldar anyhow with a typical balanced list.

Okay everyone, much of the problems and debate I have seen concerning blast markers have centered around #1. actual holes in the FAQ rules that need mending and #2. which is "we hates 'em and don't care for anything except we want v1.0 back.

Let’s be succinct on the whole blast marker debate. Version 1.0 isn't coming back. It makes gunnery and ordnance too effective, it allows ships fired upon in their rear arc to ignore any movement penalty, and it allows Eldar to pretty much ignore blast markers completely. Before we go down the “Eldar are broken also” road, this debate ISN’T about the Eldar.

Most of the legitimate complaints I have seen about blast markers have been fixed in the current FAQ. However, based on the most recent string of comments, the fixes have either been overlooked or are phrased so poorly that they are misunderstood. I am re-smithing the wordology by breaking this up into smaller chunks to make it all as clear as possible.

In a nutshell, being in contact with a BM means the whole base is affected. This does NOT mean the whole base is a BM, meaning ships in contact with ships contacting BM’s don’t ALSO count as being in contact with BM’s unless they physically touch a BM.

When shooting at multiple ships in b2b contact, the BM can only be placed between the two bases of the ship actually being fired upon and the ship closest to the line of fire. This means no more than two ships can ever be affected by a single round of shooting from a ship or squadron. Subsequent BM’s then fan out normally around the first BM and cannot be stacked. The only time more than two ships can be affected by BM’s from a single round of shooting is as follows:
1.   A battleship with multiple shields takes three or four blast markers that when fanned out normally contact more than one vessel in actual base contact (as opposed to “close to but not actually touching”).
2.   Ships have bases stacked or overlapping atop one another, in which case the BM affects all the ships whose bases actually overlap (as opposed to just b2b contact) with the target vessel.

This means the benefits of overlapping bases, such as getting better firing solutions, hiding crippled cruisers behind others in the same squadron, hiding escorts behind capital ships, plain good (or bad!) luck after moving AAF, etc. are counterbalanced by the risks of BM’s taking down the shields of multiple ships.

The above ruling fixes 90% (meaning NOT all) of the grievances concerning BM’s in base contact without getting rid of the massing turret rule restrictions, which is ALSO not going away or being re-tooled.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

Let me add to my previous post the following, because here’s the best part: it’s a GAME!! If there’s anything you really hate about the FAQ, DON’T USE IT!! However, we are under a series of constraints that for various reasons I can’t elaborate on. Keep in mind that the HA’s are rabid fans as well. Not only so, but we have the dubious honor of trying to get these products out in a timely manner, making sure they are right, having to squeak by a set of constraints placed upon us by those that ultimately decide whether or not after all our effort, all this stuff ends up in the bin anyway because for whatever reason they don’t like what we did. On top of that, we are constantly getting genuinely good feedback stitched in with crazy demands to change core fluff, ignore other core fluff or simply do what feels good.

If it were that simple, don’t you all think we would do it? A majority “we hates it” tells me maybe this is something the fans want or don’t want, but there are subtler issues at play here. Additions and FAQ edits are far easier to sell than core changes, and unfortunately this effort will likely be judged in sum as opposed to individually. Imagine all of this as one last massive Fanatic article that gets to be made official if we can get it past the editor. The best way to do that is to leave the rulebook and Armada as unaltered as possible except for where we can actually justify it is legitimately broken. In GW eyes, this is how the “broken” filter works:

1.   Are people buying and using the model? If yes, then it’s not broken. If no, then it is. Case in point- everyone here wants the Devastation re-priced, but as it is a popular model, this doesn’t qualify as “broken” to GW. This by the way is why fixing the escort profiles was an easy sell. The ones people are buying in droves (Swords, Firestorms, Cobras, Hemlocks, Brutes, etc.) qualify as “not broken.” The ones NOBODY are buying (Hellebores, Savages, etc.) qualify as “broken.”
2.   Can you fix it WITHOUT changing the blue or brown book profiles? You would think it’s just a PDF, how hard can it be to fix it? I get it. For whatever reason, price changes are an easier sell than profile changes, ESPECIALLY for ships that have been in the book for a decade. Argue all you want- I’m not the person you need to convince you’re right, and it’s not necessarily an HA thing.

I promise you we’re listening, and we are still discussing a number of issues concerning your feedback on the latest FAQ version before we make it Final. I promise you we want the end product to be worth to YOU all the effort we are putting into it. In the end, everyone here is going to find something they don’t like or agree with. That’s what comes from a game as complex as Battlefleet Gothic. Just know that if in the end the HA’s don’t bend on something, it is NOT because we’re trying to ram something down the fans’ throats from our bully pulpit. Keep in mind that we’re fans too, and we aren’t even getting paid for all this effort.

Please help me by not asking me to elaborate more on any of this or make me explain why we won’t fix this or bring back that. Let’s focus on what’s actually really broken (meaning unplayable or unfair as opposed to “I hates it”) and try together to fix what is in our mandate to fix so that in the end, even if the rule set isn’t 100% as good as we want it, it is at least better, more varied and more FUN than the way it is currently.

-   Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

Before I get beat up about torps being in the "broken" as opposed to "I hates it" category, yes, we are still discussing it.

Nice pictures, by the way! 

- Nate

[Sigoroth]

Let me add to my previous post the following, because here’s the best part: it’s a GAME!! If there’s anything you really hate about the FAQ, DON’T USE IT!! However, we are under a series of constraints that for various reasons I can’t elaborate on. Keep in mind that the HA’s are rabid fans as well. Not only so, but we have the dubious honor of trying to get these products out in a timely manner, making sure they are right, having to squeak by a set of constraints placed upon us by those that ultimately decide whether or not after all our effort, all this stuff ends up in the bin anyway because for whatever reason they don’t like what we did. On top of that, we are constantly getting genuinely good feedback stitched in with crazy demands to change core fluff, ignore other core fluff or simply do what feels good.

If it were that simple, don’t you all think we would do it? A majority “we hates it” tells me maybe this is something the fans want or don’t want, but there are subtler issues at play here. Additions and FAQ edits are far easier to sell than core changes, and unfortunately this effort will likely be judged in sum as opposed to individually. Imagine all of this as one last massive Fanatic article that gets to be made official if we can get it past the editor. The best way to do that is to leave the rulebook and Armada as unaltered as possible except for where we can actually justify it is legitimately broken. In GW eyes, this is how the “broken” filter works:

1.   Are people buying and using the model? If yes, then it’s not broken. If no, then it is. Case in point- everyone here wants the Devastation re-priced, but as it is a popular model, this doesn’t qualify as “broken” to GW. This by the way is why fixing the escort profiles was an easy sell. The ones people are buying in droves (Swords, Firestorms, Cobras, Hemlocks, Brutes, etc.) qualify as “not broken.” The ones NOBODY are buying (Hellebores, Savages, etc.) qualify as “broken.”
2.   Can you fix it WITHOUT changing the blue or brown book profiles? You would think it’s just a PDF, how hard can it be to fix it? I get it. For whatever reason, price changes are an easier sell than profile changes, ESPECIALLY for ships that have been in the book for a decade. Argue all you want- I’m not the person you need to convince you’re right, and it’s not necessarily an HA thing.

I promise you we’re listening, and we are still discussing a number of issues concerning your feedback on the latest FAQ version before we make it Final. I promise you we want the end product to be worth to YOU all the effort we are putting into it. In the end, everyone here is going to find something they don’t like or agree with. That’s what comes from a game as complex as Battlefleet Gothic. Just know that if in the end the HA’s don’t bend on something, it is NOT because we’re trying to ram something down the fans’ throats from our bully pulpit. Keep in mind that we’re fans too, and we aren’t even getting paid for all this effort.

Please help me by not asking me to elaborate more on any of this or make me explain why we won’t fix this or bring back that. Let’s focus on what’s actually really broken (meaning unplayable or unfair as opposed to “I hates it”) and try together to fix what is in our mandate to fix so that in the end, even if the rule set isn’t 100% as good as we want it, it is at least better, more varied and more FUN than the way it is currently.

-   Nate

NO. This is a fucking load of shit. Absolute fucking crap. "I hates it" is a customer demand of the company that they should fucking well do something about. They listen to their consumers and their game will continue to sell forever. They just look at their immediate bottom line and we will get jack of it and stop buying. Why play a game that we hate and they won't listen to? Just fix the fuckin rules, hand it in, and say this is what you do if you're smart.

I feel no fuckin compunction whatsoever to just change a few models to increase their sales. Their sales should be a by-product of a good game, not the point of our efforts. The need to be filled is ours, not theirs.

[Plaxor]

Sigoroth is mad.

However it does warrant my idea to have several people sign off on a file attached to the faq to help it go through.

[BaronIveagh]

By that logic, then, none of the Voss ships will ever be fixed, other then Oberon, as GW no longer sells any.   

[Vaaish]

Nate, the one thing we want back fro the original 1.0 rules is that you have to physically fire through the BM or at the very least, fire through the quadrant that the BM is in for WB to take the column shifts.

Unless we are severely misunderstanding the intent here, the current set penalizes WB even if they are on the exact opposite side of the ship that the BM is on because the BM counts as being in contact all around the base.

[flybywire-E2C]

Let me add to my previous post the following, because here’s the best part: it’s a GAME!! If there’s anything you really hate about the FAQ, DON’T USE IT!! However, we are under a series of constraints that for various reasons I can’t elaborate on. Keep in mind that the HA’s are rabid fans as well. Not only so, but we have the dubious honor of trying to get these products out in a timely manner, making sure they are right, having to squeak by a set of constraints placed upon us by those that ultimately decide whether or not after all our effort, all this stuff ends up in the bin anyway because for whatever reason they don’t like what we did. On top of that, we are constantly getting genuinely good feedback stitched in with crazy demands to change core fluff, ignore other core fluff or simply do what feels good.

If it were that simple, don’t you all think we would do it? A majority “we hates it” tells me maybe this is something the fans want or don’t want, but there are subtler issues at play here. Additions and FAQ edits are far easier to sell than core changes, and unfortunately this effort will likely be judged in sum as opposed to individually. Imagine all of this as one last massive Fanatic article that gets to be made official if we can get it past the editor. The best way to do that is to leave the rulebook and Armada as unaltered as possible except for where we can actually justify it is legitimately broken. In GW eyes, this is how the “broken” filter works:

1.   Are people buying and using the model? If yes, then it’s not broken. If no, then it is. Case in point- everyone here wants the Devastation re-priced, but as it is a popular model, this doesn’t qualify as “broken” to GW. This by the way is why fixing the escort profiles was an easy sell. The ones people are buying in droves (Swords, Firestorms, Cobras, Hemlocks, Brutes, etc.) qualify as “not broken.” The ones NOBODY are buying (Hellebores, Savages, etc.) qualify as “broken.”
2.   Can you fix it WITHOUT changing the blue or brown book profiles? You would think it’s just a PDF, how hard can it be to fix it? I get it. For whatever reason, price changes are an easier sell than profile changes, ESPECIALLY for ships that have been in the book for a decade. Argue all you want- I’m not the person you need to convince you’re right, and it’s not necessarily an HA thing.

I promise you we’re listening, and we are still discussing a number of issues concerning your feedback on the latest FAQ version before we make it Final. I promise you we want the end product to be worth to YOU all the effort we are putting into it. In the end, everyone here is going to find something they don’t like or agree with. That’s what comes from a game as complex as Battlefleet Gothic. Just know that if in the end the HA’s don’t bend on something, it is NOT because we’re trying to ram something down the fans’ throats from our bully pulpit. Keep in mind that we’re fans too, and we aren’t even getting paid for all this effort.

Please help me by not asking me to elaborate more on any of this or make me explain why we won’t fix this or bring back that. Let’s focus on what’s actually really broken (meaning unplayable or unfair as opposed to “I hates it”) and try together to fix what is in our mandate to fix so that in the end, even if the rule set isn’t 100% as good as we want it, it is at least better, more varied and more FUN than the way it is currently.

-   Nate

NO. This is a fucking load of shit. Absolute fucking crap. "I hates it" is a customer demand of the company that they should fucking well do something about. They listen to their consumers and their game will continue to sell forever. They just look at their immediate bottom line and we will get jack of it and stop buying. Why play a game that we hate and they won't listen to? Just fix the fuckin rules, hand it in, and say this is what you do if you're smart.

I feel no fuckin compunction whatsoever to just change a few models to increase their sales. Their sales should be a by-product of a good game, not the point of our efforts. The need to be filled is ours, not theirs.

See,  now that's useful. I have an idea. I'll make everyone here happy, then GW will stuff it in the round file and nobody wins. Everyone loses, but we gave it to the MAN so at least we can all feel good about losing.


Really? Sig, we're trying to make something positive here. Like I said, 50% improvement that we KNOW will pass is better than 100% improvement that is destined to failure, because in the end that only leads to zero improvement.

If you aren't even trying to compromise on absolutely anything you disagree with in this process, why are you even trying to make a difference?

Oh, and the profanity is certainly a great help as well. Thanks. I'm definitely the enemy here.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

By that logic, then, none of the Voss ships will ever be fixed, other then Oberon, as GW no longer sells any.   

Actually the AdMech CL's use the same Endeavor rules, and the models can be used in a standard IN fleet without using AdMech rules so technically they are still available.

- Nate

[Zelnik]

Well, it's good to see that GW's 'new' policy is still in force. Screw the game, aim for profit.

Here are a few questions for you..

The Endeavor model is no longer sold. The Admech model suffers from extremely poor design, and a warped prow on both the LC and the Cruiser model. In all honesty, the horrible design of the prows of these vessels destroyed any hope of me ever buying them, the cost aside.

The Armada book is NO LONGER SOLD! Why would they worry about something they don't print anymore!?