BFG 2010 FAQ WIP pdf file

[horizon]

Hi,

this was posted at the Yahoo Group by Nate Montez.

The BFG FAQ 2010 wip.


Read and Shiver.

cheers,
Horizon

[Vaaish]

Nice little boost to the apocalypse with the removal of the damage for firing over 30cm. Also a curious change to the Vengeance with the prow arms critical.

[RayB HA]

There are probably a few bugs I haven't noticed yet, I'll get in there with my shovel and smack 'em flat!

Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

CWE:
Shadowhunter has the 'turret'-idea everyone disliked.

Flame of Asuryan: really LF/RF on the Pulsars?
With Hero 100, Vampires added on Flame the thing become delicious....

[Commx]

Ramming and size: There are four sizes concerning the leadership check to ram. From biggest to smallest: Defence>Battleship>Cruiser>Escort. The worst this test can be is on 3D6 and the best it can be is on 1D6. For example, an Ork Rok would need to pass a leadership check on 3D6 against an escort or cruiser, 2D6 on a battleship or 1D6 against another defense.

This example on page 13 is wrong. Being a Defence, a Rok would roll 2d6 against another Defence, and 3d6 against anything 'smaller', including a battleship. This is stated correctly later during the Space Hulk entry.

Ships that do not count critical damage normally and instead take an additional 1Hp of damage (such as Ork Roks or Kroot Warspheres) have this damage cumulative upon them when in a squadron. For example, if a squadron of three Roks is fired upon by a Retribution battleship and takes a total of 13 hits, all critical damage rolls must be made for the first Rok before declaring it destroyed. If three critical damage hits are rolled in this manner, they cause an additional 3Hp of damage and are applied to the first Ork Rok destroyed in the squadron. As shields still work normally, this applies a total of 6Hp to the second Rok before its critical damage rolls are made.

I think this example is trying to tell us that inflicting critical hits on things like Roks will cause the extra damage to be added to the total amount of hits the squadron takes instead of having it 'go to waste', but to be honest I have no idea...

Defences and Blast Marker Removal: You remove D6 blast markers from each defence in each end phase after all other actions in the end phase. This only applies to stationary defenses, not planetary defenses that behave as ships (such as monitors or system ships).

I would reword 'stationary Defences' to 'Defences that start the game with a Speed of 0cm' to prevent people from interpreting it as applying to standby or otherwise slowed Monitors and other such nonsense.

All Vengeance grand cruiser variants (both Imperial and Chaos) listed in Armadas on pp.14-16 and 38-39 completely ignore prow critical damage, regardless of the cause. If any critical damage rolled against the table results in a Prow Armament Damaged critical hit, it is assumed the critical damage did not take place, and it does not move up to the next higher critical damage. If the critical damage is caused by the ship taking a hit, the hit itself still counts normally.

That one is rather unexpected. Although I do like the sound of it, I'd still like to know why this was included please.

Before the game starts, the owning player can decide if the Ramilies will rotate or not. Once the decision is made, it cannot be changed throughout the game. If it is decided that it will rotate, it does so for 45 degrees once per game turn (no more or less) at the beginning of the owning players movement phase. The Ramilies otherwise does not move in any way during the course of the game, it still counts as defenses, and this movement does not alter nor can it be altered by any command checks or special orders the Ramilies can make. If the owning player decides the Ramilies Star Fort will rotate, then it cannot have ships dock with it for the duration of the game.

Finally! You wouldn't believe how long I've been waiting for that rule (even though I do not actually have a Ramilies or even an Imperial Fleet). It just makes so much more sense to have it spin and actually be useful.

Flame of Asuryan‟s weapons: The port and starboard pulsar lances should be labelled Keel. They share a single weapon entry and so will be affected when weapons strength is halved for whatever reason. The launch bays carry Vampire Raiders at no extra cost. The port and starboard pulsar lance fire arcs are left/front and right/front respectively.

First it mentions that they share a single entry, but then it gives them two different arcs. Is this really supposed to be the case?

Ork fleets have access to the Grunt escort. By definition, this escort has the same profile as the Ork Brute with the following changes: 35 points, Armor 6+/5+, 2 turrets. Special rule: The Ork Grunt is constructed primarily to act as a huge armored assault ship. It counts as having 4HP when attempting to board or being boarded. Otherwise this vessel has no special ramming abilities different from any other Ork escorts. Grunts may be easily represented by mounting Brute models on a large (battleship) base. Only by basing these models on a large base may they use the Grunt profile and point cost.

Heh, Escorts with a Boarding value of four. That seems very Orky but probably needs to be reworded as such. Right now, people might think they also have 4HP to take the 'damage' following a boarding action.

Necron BFI

Good to see that's finally sorted out. I don't think there are any ways to misunderstand or confuse that left now.

Feeder Tentacles and Massive Claws may not attack a ship that made contact during the opponents turn. However, the Tyranid player can elect in its own turn to remain in contact so that feeder tentacles and massive claws can take effect normally.

Does this mean the Tyranid vessel's minimum movement distance is waived in such an instance?

In addition to the fleet requirements on p.92 of Armadas, the fleet must have at least six escort drones for every hiveship in the fleet. Any ship attempting to fire upon a hiveship suffers -1ld when attempting to ignore closer targets if a squadron containing only escort drones is in base contact with and in between the hiveship and the firing vessel.

Although I'm not too fond of the mandatory use of half the allowed escorts as Escort Drones, the Leadership penalty might make them actually useful for their intended purpose. I'll have to run the maths on that soon.

-

If the Eldar get a Transport using 'their' rules, why don't the Necrons and Tyranids get such a thing? Although the former might not actually have any in the first place, surely Tyranids could use some sort of Spore-carrying transport or Defences?

A fleet of purely Demiurg capital ships can be fielded, but if so used, the point costs are those on the special notes of pp.110-111 of Armadas. A pure Demiurg fleet may include Kroot Warspheres following eth requirements on p.112 of Armadas. In a pure Demiurg fleet, up to one Stronghold commerce vessel may be taken for every two Bastion commerce vessels in the fleet, though there is no limit to the number of Bastions the fleet may contain. If desired, the fleet may have one squadron of up to six escorts from any one of either the Imperial, Chaos or Tau fleet lists for every full 1,000 points of Demiurg ships in the fleet, based on Bastions costing 300 points each and Strongholds costing 400 points each. A Pure Demiurg fleet used in this manner is not restricted to the rule forcing Demiurg ships to attempt to disengage when crippled.

400 and 300 points for Strongholds and Bastions seems 'a little' high to me. Do you really consider it to be more powerful than an Emperor?


There's probably much more to complain/comment about, but I'm saving that for another day.
Good to see that this thing is moving somewhere though, I was beginning to fear that you had forgotten about it...

[fracas]

torpedo basing has been revised to just the width of 2, its actual strength designated by a dice.

but no mention of attack craft basing.
i wouldn't mind a similar clarification for attack crafts, and in essence, stacking of attack crafts.



as an aside
give all the rules update
GW should put out  BFG v2.0

[horizon]

Commx,
on the Flame Pulsars: I imagine it to be the same as the prow pulsars on the Void Stalker. Two prow pulsar entries, one lf other rf.

[Commx]

but no mention of attack craft basing.
i wouldn't mind a similar clarification for attack crafts, and in essence, stacking of attack crafts.

Yes there is, on page seven of the document.

Ordnance markers in a wave must be spread and moved so they are always in contact with each other, and they cannot be stacked. Ordnance waves must be assembled into the smallest circumference possible, such as a block of four, two rows of three, etc. For example, a single wave of eight ordnance markers cannot be stretched out into a single-file line eight markers long. On the other hand, individual markers not in a wave can be organized in any formation desired as long as no single marker moves farther from its launching vessel than its maximum possible movement. Once separated, ordnance markers cannot be re-combined into waves.

@Horizon: That is a possible explanation, but I seem to vaguely recall that people weren't very happy with that option when we were discussing things, or was that something else?

[fracas]

I see it. Thanks
Seems in consistent that one type of ordnance stacks (torps) but another (ac) cannot.
did I also miss how to base ACs?

I still favor epic bases with variable models mount representing strength of the wave
Or each additional markers in a wave placed behind the first , using epic bases

[trynerror]

Ordnance markers in a wave must be spread and moved so they are always in contact with each other, and they cannot be stacked.

I suggest adding "offensive" at the Start of the following sentence. Otherwise a fighterscreen as one wave is impossible and with fighters nobody ever had problems of abuse with single-file lines. A wave is considered offensive als long it contains anything than pure fighters.

Ordnance waves must be assembled into the smallest circumference possible, such as a block of four, two rows of three, etc. For example, a single wave of eight ordnance markers cannot be stretched out into a single-file line eight markers long. On the other hand, individual markers not in a wave can be organized in any formation desired as long as no single marker moves farther from its launching vessel than its maximum possible movement. Once separated, ordnance markers cannot be re-combined into waves.

[RayB HA]

Thanks for all the feedback!

We'll get onto fixing it for the next(final) attempt.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[RayB HA]

Commx,

Yep, the Rok ramming example is wrong!

The Keel Pulsars of the Flame are seperate entries but are both keel. This needs rewording.

The Demiurg are wrongly pointed! Those should be VPs not points!

Nid transports are all of thier ships! 


Roy,

Actually, I'm supprised that got in there with turrets! 


Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

Sneaky git, just like an Eldar should.

[flybywire-E2C]

Hi all! Okay, my account's up and running! This here is exactly the feedback we have been looking for so please keep the complaints coming. We will always explain our reasoning for what we did if a change was intentional, but mostly what I'm seeing so far is genuine mistakes we missed that need fixing. Oh well, that's why it's called a DRAFT!! Again, thanks all!! I will digest and mash on all this over the weekend and push out a "Draft, Take 2" some time around Monday or Tuesday.

We are currently manicuring rulesets for the Eldar (refits, crew skills, transport and Haven), Rogue Traders and the Forgeworld Tau (to include a pure Demiurg/Xenos fleet list). That will probably take a few weeks to get sorted. After that, we're looking to address Space Marine Dominion fleets and the Ork Klanz. It's a lot so please bear with us. Once it's all done, it will go out as cleaned up PDF files, graphics-laden and formatted just like the current rulebooks.

Keep the complaints coming! We can't fix what we don't find. Good times!

- Nate

[Commx]

Commx VS FAQ - Round 2

Any ship described as being on standby may not move, fire weapons or launch ordnance. It may however attempt to Brace and repair critical damage. Turrets and shields work normally. While on standby, ships obviously count as defences against the gunnery table, with all modifiers applied normally.

Perhaps it would be wise to mention the Leadership test it may take to become Alert here as well? In a similar vein, is said Leadership test the only way to become Alert. I would assume that getting damaged and the such would also be quite alarming.

Brace For Impact does NOT halve turret values (note that being crippled does). However, it is the only special order that halves a ship‟s ability to launch ordnance, provided the launching vessel is already reloaded. This effect is cumulative, meaning if a ship is both braced and crippled, its weapons and ordnance are halved (rounding up) again! For example, a Styx heavy cruiser that is both braced and crippled has a launch bay strength of 2 each side, or 6/2=3, then 3/2 =1.5 (rounding up)=2.

This example is erroneous as well. Either the Launch Bays are added up before dividing it by two twice; or this is done for each individual Launch Bay. Either way, the Crippled and Braced Styx will end up with a Launch Bay strength of one per side for a total of two. (Either 6/2=3, 3/2=1/5->2, or 2*(3/2=1.5->2, 2/2=1)=2) Page 4 indicates that the former should be the case so it's just a matter of changing '2 each side' to '1 each side'.

A ship that fails to Brace For Impact cannot attempt again to Brace until the ship, squadron, ordnance wave or other event causing damage to it completes its attacks. It can however again attempt to brace before the next ship, squadron or ordnance wave attacks it.

Does this also mean that a ship that chooses not to Brace versus the first salvo of an enemy ship or squadron cannot decide to Brace against a second one afterwards?

target aspect or modifier can adjust shooting beyond the far left or right columns on the gunnery table. <sic>

I presume this sentence is supposed to start with 'No'?

A ship that starts or ends its movement in contact with a blast marker for any reason counts as being in contact with a blast marker in every arc for purposes of movement, shooting or ordnance attacks. A ship in base contact with a blast marker counts as being in contact all around it. This includes whether or not other ships are in base contact with it or for purposes of ordnance attacks. Ships firing battery (firepower) weapons at such a vessel suffer a right column shift. Ordnance attacking it must first roll a D6, removing the entire wave or salvo on a roll of 6.

In base contact with what? The ship (which makes no sense), or the Blast Marker (which contradicts the very first paragraph under Blast Markers)?

Blast Markers and Multiple Bases: When a ship has multiple bases in contact and its shield goes down, the blast marker may be placed anywhere on the targeted ship‟s base, potentially taking down other ships shields.

If it is no longer 'as close as possible to the attacker', who decides where they will be placed?

Various rules about Blast Markers which may be placed during Movement.

What if a ship only comes into contact with a Blast Marker during the last 5cm of its movement? Does it stop right there, or is it placed at the end of its reduced maximum movement? The former seems more logical as the other might prevent it from reaching the Blast Marker (and thus being slowed down) in the first place.

Nova Cannon VS Holofield & Area Effect VS Holofield

Which of these rules should be applied to the Planet Killer's Armageddon Gun?

Multiple fighters on CAP in base contact with a single ship function as a single wave in all respects. When encountering blast markers, roll once per blast marker for the whole wave, not per squadron marker. This includes if the ship is subsequently destroyed, though they may afterwards separate normally if the owning player elects to do so.

The last sentence directly contradicts the last sentence of another paragraph in the same section:

Exploding ship with fighters on CAP: If a ship explodes while having fighters on CAP treat the fighters as a wave against the effects of the explosion. Any markers that survive subsequently act as separate ordnance markers that are no longer in a wave.

Reducing Torpedo Markers: When reducing a torpedo marker the centre must always be in the same point along the line of fire.

As all Torpedo salvoes are of identical size now, this rule is redundant.

Massed Turrets During the Movement Phase: No more than one ship can be moved at a time, so ships will only be able to benefit from massed turrets after or before the movement phase is complete but not during. This does not affect how and in what order ships escorted by CAP are moved.

So if, during its movement, a ship is in base contact with another when it touches ordnance, it will still not receive the Mass Turrets bonus?

Any ship or defence with either 3 or more shields OR greater than 10HP must use a large size base. However, any capital ship can elect to use a large base and is considered to have Tractor Fields for free.

To prevent confusion about this, perhaps it should be mentioned that Tractor Fields do not actually exist and that this simply refers to the increased area the ship occupies?

Boarding Value and Boarding Modifiers: The boarding value is your remaining hits (plus turrets if you‟re defending) which may offer a +1, +2, +3 or +4 boarding modifier, depending on the combination of modifiers you have.

The paragraph above this one specifically states that Turrets are not a part of the Boarding Value.

Leadership Check to Traverse Asteroid Field: You must pass a leadership test to move through asteroid fields or suffer D6 damage. In the case of capital ship squadrons, each ship that moves through the asteroid field and fails suffers D6 damage. In the case of escort squadrons that fail, D6 damage is distributed among the escorts that actually entered the asteroid field, in the order that the ships entered. In all cases, shields (but not holofields) work normally against hits.

Does this mean that every capital ship in a squadron must test individually when moving through an Asteroid Field or equivalent? And if so, using its own Leadership or the highest in the squadron?


Right, that was the first half of the document. Now I feel that I've deserved a break.