BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[RCgothic]

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.

Is there then no distinction between the Styx (which people rarely play) and the Dev (which people do) simply because they have the same model? This policy also makes it impossible to fix undercosted ships, whilst at the same time we're being criticised for wanting to fix the overcosted ones.

Anyway, we do appreciate what you guys are doing, and if we get a bit fiery sometimes it's only because we're passionate about the game and could use a little more clarity about what's actually going on. (eg new ships being separate from FAQ, yet profile changes still could sink the whole thing.)

[BaronIveagh]

Well, we know why the profile changes might sink it.  GW licensed all the BFG ships to FFG as is, including the ship profiles.  I'm willing to bet they have a clause that says that neither party can make radical changes to the licensed material.  And on top that, I figure that GW's cut of the RPG sales is more then they're making off BFG.

[flybywire-E2C]

Assume hypothetically its Christmas and we can revisit profile costs. This is a hypothetical exercise, and there is NO GUARANTEE ANY of this will be incorporated. However, I would like a ready store of this info in case the opportunity presents itself to make these changes. Before anyone asks, NO we are NOT re-doing the Eldar rules right now.

If we do get to visit any of this, it’s to fix what is ACTUALLY BROKEN, not "...you know what else would be cool?" The term “actually broken” applies to profiles and point costs, not ship profiles that don’t match their pictures well. For example, I HATE how the Despoiler doesn’t look anything like its profile and created the Chaos battlebarge as an easily cobbled alternative, but the profile in and of itself is not broken.

Let’s start with the obvious: For its current profile, the Devastation and Styx DEFINITELY are broken. For just +5 points, TWO Devastations can be bought over one Styx. Separately, for 190 points, the Devastation carries far more firepower than the Acheron, which is actually a well- balanced heavy cruiser (despite how many people feel about it).

Because the Acheron is both well-balanced for points and fits in the Chaos theme of fast with medium armor, long-range weapons with no special rules, it is NOT broken despite being a bit quirky. Not broken means it gets left as-is. This ALSO means the Devastation can’t be raised in price, so its price is set at 190 points. The fix for this ship is obvious and has already been suggested by Sigoroth and others: drop the broadside lances to 45cm and leave everything else unchanged. Good.

Now what do we do about the Styx? Even if we change the Devastation, we have to make the Styx worth taking without making it so cheap that it suffers form the same problem the Devastation has currently- murderously too cheap. Once again the fix is obvious and was recommended by the fan list here: drop the price to 260, no other changes. It’s now (-20) points over two Devastations AND has longer ranged (if less total) firepower. For a carrier-heavy fleet two Devs is still a better deal, but no longer so much so that a Styx isn’t worth even considering.

Are there any other fleets out there with completely broken ships? The Tau Merchant was brought up as an example, and we will have to look at that one. Anything else? I’m looking for broken profiles like the Syyx/Acheron/Devastation triangle. Other examples don’t have to be so extreme, but if we do this at all, we have to justify something is actually broken, not simply cool if made a bit better.

-   Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

Well, we know why the profile changes might sink it.  GW licensed all the BFG ships to FFG as is, including the ship profiles.  I'm willing to bet they have a clause that says that neither party can make radical changes to the licensed material.  And on top that, I figure that GW's cut of the RPG sales is more then they're making off BFG.

You know what would be absolutely awesome? Maybe al the models are still for sale but the game is in quiet stasis because FFG is getting ready to take over BFG. I mean, look at what happened to Inquisitor- it was trucking along just nicely with a fresh new sourcebook release, then suddenly the lights went out. A year later, FFG comes out with Dark Heresy. How cool would that be?

Hey, it could happen...   

- Nate

[fracas]

1. make the styx cheaper rather than weaken the devastation

2. yes, fix the merchant

3. who is FFG?


thank you for all the work done so far.  i am still hoping for a re-release of BFG as 2.0.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I don't even understand the concern about FFG licensing BFG from GW. Heck if you fix everything that would make people take them, in other words BUY them, it would only be good for FFG's sales.

And making BFG Mk. 2.0 with most everything fixed and coinciding it with FFG's releasing them can only result in good things.

[horizon]

Hi Fracas,
FFG = Fantasy Flight Games.
They made the Rogue Trader RPG, which has space combat, based upon BFG. Only more detail. It is really cool. FFG is a cool company from what I experienced with them.

So,...

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. [/quote[
No, that came from players who abused the rules. In v1.0 blastmarkers in the rear arc, touched the base, does applied a -5cm movement and shield penalty. It was just no spelt out in the rules but certainly how I and opponents read the rule. So, see. For having better gunnery: yay! Effective ordnance? Only 1d6 roll is avoided if ordnance had enough speed. Hardly affecting.

massing turret rule restrictions, which is ALSO not going away or being re-tooled.

Massing turrets is fine, and BM should not affect a ship in b-2-b contact if the BM isn't touching it. (See here is how the ordnance plus from above is balanced back again).


On some other points,
Nate: do not forget a lot of SG players are collectors as well and just buy models for the looks (I did: Despoiler. ). So, using sales numbers on how a model is in-game won't work or is a good idea to start with,

Devestation: lances 45cm done. Done.
Styx: 260points. Done.
Despoiler (must be broken, I never want to use it ). Change profile. Done.

[Masque]

Let’s start with the obvious: For its current profile, the Devastation and Styx DEFINITELY are broken. For just +5 points, TWO Devastations can be bought over one Styx.

Your math is bad throughout this post.

190 x 2 = 380

380 = 275 + 105

[horizon]

More like:
3x Dev = 570
2x Styx = 550

20 points.  Above is the best level of comparision.

[lastspartacus]

I personally really enjoy both variants of the Despoiler.

I think the current BM rules NEED a sentence explaining that bases dont count as BM's for the purpose of other ships touching them.

My vote goes to Dev price increase rather than it losing range.  Strongly would prefer that.

Edit: Devastation 205, Styx 260.

[flybywire-E2C]

Let’s start with the obvious: For its current profile, the Devastation and Styx DEFINITELY are broken. For just +5 points, TWO Devastations can be bought over one Styx.

Your math is bad throughout this post.

190 x 2 = 380

380 = 275 + 105

I've been at this too long when my basic math goes to crap!    Thanks for the catch. I'm going to bed...


- Nate

[horizon]

I personally really enjoy both variants of the Despoiler.

I think the current BM rules NEED a sentence explaining that bases dont count as BM's for the purpose of other ships touching them.

My vote goes to Dev price increase rather than it losing range.  Strongly would prefer that.

Edit: Devastation 205, Styx 260.

Uh, no on Dev. Checked the flawed list thread in the discussion area. Most support was for the changes I listed (not that it where my ideas but I do like them).

[lastspartacus]

Why are you against a price increase over lowering the range of the ship?

[horizon]

Since, 190points is a good prize. And we also have been given the guideline: no regular should cost more then a heavy cruiser.

Plus lowering the range means that the general firepower of the Devestation is brough in line with the premium firepower range of most of the chaos cruisers (45cm).
That's good.

[horizon]

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.

Yes, the AdMech CL is a horrible cast. Really bad prow mould.

The cruiser is okay to be honest, just needs more filling then the average thing. The Battleship is good. Considering I constructed some battleships it wasn't worse. Got no major bend or so. So good.