Rogue Traders draft rules for BFG

[horizon]

Bah bah bah

Have you drugged Bob Henderson, your teammate? He stated that he wished the Sedition would have never seen the light of day. Yes, I remember significant and important statements.

And I, and many others, hate the SO as well.

Unfluffy: against Tyranids you want Weapon Batteries not lances.
Bad: many lances in a space marine fleet

Seditio is bad bad bad
Seditio is bad bad bad
Seditio is bad bad bad
Seditio is bad bad bad
Seditio is bad bad bad

Strike cruiser options: Bah, no lances allowed.

Marines should not have lances.
Marines should not have lances.
Marines should not have lances.
Marines should not have lances.
Marines should not have lances.

Dominion: this list is broken from the core.

See Vaaish his post.


Space Marines need, in my opinon, the following:
* Being able to do teleport attacks while on special orders.
* Perhaps having a 2nd shield on the Strike Cruiser
* An Assault Class variant (see Space Wolves list in Warp Rift for example).

[flybywire-E2C]

I do not like or want the marine fleet rules posted in those drafts. You are reversing a core Marine mechanic of limited availability of lances by allowing strike cruisers to take S2 lances in the forward arc for the same cost as a normal Strike Cruiser. Second, you are allowing the Seditio Opprimere which again goes contrary to the core mechanic of marine fleets having limited access to lances.  Third, I see no reason to ever use a list outside of the Dominion list. You loose boarding torpedoes and HR benefits, but you gain resilient bombers, 120 point strike cruisers with 2 lances on the front arc (dauntless speed with 6+ armor, 2 turrets and bombers? yes, please), and cheap battle barges.

This means that the test fleet I've been thinking of using would suddenly have a squadron of 4 strike cruisers carrying 8 lances and, if I wanted, I could swap out the battlebarge for the Seditio Opprimere bumping that up to 12 lances. While marines might need a bit of a boost to be more competitive, this just strikes me as bad in a number of ways. I'm not even sure why this is being made either, are you planning a combined IN fleet PDF with 1:1 battlecruisers to cruisers, non scattering NC, and 45CM WB standard too?

All valid points. As you notice, the SO has been toned down a LOT from the Imperial Tombship abortion that was in the White Dwarf magazine article! the Intent of the lances was to give SM's an ability to fight better in fleet engagements against lance-heavy fleets, since there isn't any rule (and there won't be) that prevents a player from saying, "hmm, I'm fighting SM's, I'm sure glad I brought along my four Gothics and 12 Firestorms, hooray!" Incidentally, this was produced from material originally written by Matt Keefe, Andy C and Gav Thorpe.


By design, SM's should be lance-poor, and this rule set shouldn't break with that. We will make lance ships significantly more expensive than their gunship bretheren. See, this is why DRAFTS work!

- Nate

[Vaaish]

By design, SM's should be lance-poor, and this rule set shouldn't break with that. We will make lance ships significantly more expensive than their gunship bretheren. See, this is why DRAFTS work!

I think it would be better to explore alternative options on the marine list before adding easy access to lances. Even with increased pricing you can't get around the dominion list. Say you tack on 25 points for the s2 lances, the dominion fleet is able to take the lances and still have their SC for the same cost as an unmodified SM strike cruiser.

The same goes for the SO, even with the adjustments given (decreased range and numbers of lances) you are still giving the marines far more range and lance capability than they should have especially for 425 points.

In any event I do not think that giving marines greater access to lances will make them more evenly matched with a fleet that takes more gothics and firestorms. Marines armor will be ignored by lances either way and with bombardment cannons firing at the same time as WB, there is no BM penalty for marines giving them a lance like weapon. Why not instead adjust marines by giving them an extra shield on the strike cruisers or boosting the range or strength of the BC rather than add more lances. All you are doing is removing what makes the marine fleet unique and fluffy by making them much stronger offensively but not addressing their durability issue against lances.

[horizon]

What a counter-productive design philosophy... creating more lances to counter lances. That is not good in my opinion. Quite bad actually.

Unneccessary.

Look, I will always advice to not tailor a fleet. I say : design an allround fleet that can face every fleet. Best at 1500pts standard size.

If that IN player does show up with his gothics & firestorms because he knew he was going to face Space Marines: pull out your Eldar and call him a git. Play Marine models as count as Eldar if necessary.

Tailoring should be discouraged. You are encouraging it.

"Marines now have lances, nothing stops me from taking more."

The only fleet that is lance heavy per nature is the AdMech fleet. But this is an elite/expensive fleet, outnumbered and flawed at boarding/h&r. Precisely what Marines excel at (rock-scissor-paper).

Imperial will go for a mix of weaponry, Chaos as well, Eldar are a threat to Marines, yes, but official Eldar are horrid to anyone, Orks do not have lances, Tyranids are mixed with few lances, Tau have below average lances (except your NEW Tau draft... ). (codex creep anyone???)


There is main difference between the prow bombardment and prow lance option : intervening blastmarkers. I'd rather have lances on the Strike Cruisers to be honest.
Also: it is the core of Marines to be low on lances.

The design philosophy of the S.O. is still bad, even toned down. Background tells us it is designed to counter Tyranids. You need batteries to do so.
Mind you: I would / could support a S.O. that had str.12 (or higher! 14-16!) port/starboard weapon batteries at 60cm and no lances.


edit:

Only the smallest of vessels would be permitted to act exclusively as gunships, with the larger strike cruisers and battlebarges remaining predominately as aids to invasion, ensuring the Space Marines would never present a threat to the Imperial navy proper. Inevitably, the wrangling over interpretation of a ship’s “primary role” leads to some Chapters possessing rather more versatile fleets than the Imperial Navy is entirely comfortable with.

Despite the last comment, the Dominion list, with lanced Strike Cruisers are a threat to the Imperial Navy. Being gunships and all.

When a Thunderhawk Annihilator comes in contact with an enemy ship’s base, they attack it like bombers as described for bombers on p.30 of the rulebook, even if they have used their resilience to remain in play. Once they complete their attack, they are removed normally. Thunderhawk Annihilators cannot be used as assault boats.

Does this mean they do not act like Ork Fighter-Bombers (d3 attacks instead of d6)? I am rather opposed to this. I see no real need for them anyway but they exist so could tolerate them.

Honor Guard

Expensive for a one time attack that can be braced.

[Don Gusto]

I would like to congratulate you guys on the Rogue Trader Draft. I think its by far the best revision so far. I love the fleet lists, especially the 'Pirates and Wolfpacks'. Getting all the small ships together into a ragtag fleet will surly be fun (although I have to admit I can't tell right now wether it's barely competitive or overpowered ). The scenario rules look promising as well.

Rogue Trader Cruiser
What Nate said about Lances being too maintenance intensive would probably also hold true for torpedoes here. The original Rogue Trader only has weapon batteries and I would keep it that way. Give the prow batteries a bigger arc or how about this:
Port/Starboard Weapons Battery: 30cm str4 L/R
Port/Starboard Weapons Battery: 45cm str4 L/R
Prow Weapons Battery:              30cm str2 L/F/R
Dorsal Weapons Battery:            45cm str2 L/F/R
Does it really need a third turret at 185 points?

Transports
How would "Fleet" transports work with transports from scenarios. Do both count for victory conditions?
For example if a Rogue Trader Exploration Fleet (with transports) escorts a convoy in scenario 6, would all the transports count for victory determination or only the free transports from the scenario itself?
How about a planetary assault?

Scenario Five: Space Hulk!
Does the Space Hulk start with only 2d6 hits remaining or does it have the full 40 hits with 2d6 points of damage taken?
With only 2d6 hits it would probably not last very long against the random effects table.

[Zhukov]

Hey Gusto,

I absolutely love this draft as well. I am already constructing the fleets to resemble the new merchants and wolfpacks. Here is some comments on your opinions:

RT Cruiser:
I like the argument on torps, but remember game balance. Your ship design is too weak IMO. The original RT was too weak IMO. I like the one they gave in this draft. And yes, I think three turrets needs to be kept. Convoy Flagships should have decent survivability. You could even make an argument that the points should be dropped a bit. It's still a plenty undergunned at 185 points.

Transports:
Good catch! In the convoy scenario with RT Explorations Fleets as defenders, I think it would be reasonable to waive the requirement for needing transports in the RT fleet list. Planetary Assault would be the same.

Space Hulk!
I assume it starts with 40-2D6 hits. Attacker recieves VP's for destroying it so it wouldn't live with only 2D6 hits remaining. LOL

And a question myself about Xenos ships.
It says on the ship profile the xenotech system is already included in the point cost. Does the player choose which system to have or do they pay the additional five points to choose? And how does this apply to the Wolfpack list? Also, do the Xenos ships roll for the Crew Refit like the rest of the RT's when in a RT list?

-Zhukov

[Don Gusto]

RT Cruiser:
I like the argument on torps, but remember game balance. Your ship design is too weak IMO. The original RT was too weak IMO. I like the one they gave in this draft. And yes, I think three turrets needs to be kept. Convoy Flagships should have decent survivability. You could even make an argument that the points should be dropped a bit. It's still a plenty undergunned at 185 points.

The proposed RTC is just a slight modification of the regular Tyrant:
-2 torps, +1 turret and a very minor gun upgrade. Same cost.
My concern is that the 4 torps will be mostly useless unless you take multiple RTC's and play them like an Imperial fleet. I'd rather have it in a supporting role and let the escorts and allies handle the infighting and ordnance.

And a question myself about Xenos ships.
It says on the ship profile the xenotech system is already included in the point cost. Does the player choose which system to have or do they pay the additional five points to choose?

The special rules state it "has one selected xenotech system".

[Zhukov]

Yeah it will be interesting to see if one Carnage and something like ~24 xenos ships with targetting matrixs or 2 shields in a 1500 point fleet is overpowering or not

I like the Torps, even with only four, because it forces your opponet to make a choice when attacking the convoy the RT is a part of. Now they are weak, yes, at only four. But if you suppose they were designed with only engaging planetary defences resisting the RT fleets entrence to a system or trying to force escorts ship squadrons from adjusting their attack runs, I like them. The RT cruiser is not a support vessel. In the RT fleet, it is the flagship! I say it's undergunned for a flagship type vessel with only 5 WB at 45cm range. When the Xenos get their batteries at range 45cm, then you see the problem (undergunned by only three escorts! Raids would have many more than just three...). Strength 8 batteries at 45cm on each broadside makes more sense to me. But that's my opinion. Personally, I like the currently proposed vessel.

Though I made my own RT cruiser whose stats are much much different

Points: 185 (still playtesting on this bit)

Cruiser/8   Speed/20cm   Turns/ 45*   Shields/1    Armor/6+ Prow, 5+    Turrets/1

Port/Starboard Weapons Battery: 30cm            str6           L/R
Port/Starboard Lance Battery:     30cm             str1          L/F R/F
Port/Starboard Launch Bay:        Fighters-30cm str1 each   --
Prow Ether Cannon:                   30cm             str1          F

Ether Cannon: 1-2 miss. 3-4 one internal hit, one blast marker. 5-6 one internal hit, blast markers placed equal to shield rating.

-Zhukov

[horizon]

You know what will be overpowering? Taking escorts from the parent fleet and giving them upgrades like an extra shield... Swords or Tau Castellans with 2 shields...hmmm...

For Rogue Trader variants I always say: look at Warp Rift 17-18.

Rogue Trader vessels are unique things and one group of stats (like these two in the draft) never does them justice. I mean, even fluff in this pdf, dictates that Rogue Trader cruiser are various, upgraded, pimped, differemt, unique. Etc.

[Don Gusto]

You know what will be overpowering? Taking escorts from the parent fleet and giving them upgrades like an extra shield... Swords or Tau Castellans with 2 shields...hmmm...

Too bad it's not allowed.

[horizon]

I think so. They can be picked as a choice of escorts for the Rogue Traders. Capped at up to half. Then further down the fleet list is says that the RT cruisers and its escorts can go roll (or add) from the xenos-tech table.

[flybywire-E2C]

Hi everyone!  There’s a new draft of the Rogue Traders fleet list that incorporates fixes for all the questions and comments that came up. Unless there are some serious objections, this is pretty much what the locked-in fleet list will look like. Here’s a fast pass of the tweaks:

-   fixed spelling errors
-   tweaked the cruiser profile (very!) slightly
-   added some way-cool imagery and fluff from Inquisitor
-   added info from an old Rogue Trader reference clarifying what the Stryxis are
-   added another minor race from WH40k as an additional example race for the Xenos Vessel
-   clarified exactly how the Xenos Vessel gets its “free” refit and how it’s used
-   clarified that Fast Clippers CAN’T get the advanced drive refit twice
-   changed the Warp Beast #5 profile from cruiser to defense and clarified how it reappears in the Stalkers of the Void scenario table
-   clarified that auxiliary vessels can ONLY have Xenotech refits if they are actually part of a Rogue Trader squadron and not merely allies
-   fixed some unclear items about the Space Hulk scenario

Please post your comments and complaints over the weekend so we can get this stapled shut and move on to other important topics that need addressing.

By the way, someone on the BFG-List was immensely kind and created a smashed-down version of the link that posts on the List quite nicely!

http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*

Whoever it was, thank you VERY MUCH!!!

Hopefully we will have the Space Marines ironed out this weekend as well so we can get that stapled shut as well. v 3.1 represents what it looked like as of Monday. We are still tweaking the Fortress Monastery and making other small changes, but this is about 90% what it will look like.

-   Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

You know what will be overpowering? Taking escorts from the parent fleet and giving them upgrades like an extra shield... Swords or Tau Castellans with 2 shields...hmmm...

For Rogue Trader variants I always say: look at Warp Rift 17-18.

Rogue Trader vessels are unique things and one group of stats (like these two in the draft) never does them justice. I mean, even fluff in this pdf, dictates that Rogue Trader cruiser are various, upgraded, pimped, differemt, unique. Etc.

Agreed, but this thing was already becoming a five-headed hydra all by itself, and the hope is that the xenotech refits will help Rogue Trader ships be exactly what you say: various, upgraded, pimped, differemt, unique. Etc. However, one of the things I'm waiting on the HA's for a response is the following (which is NOT in the 1.6 draft):

Instead of the profile above, Rogue Trader cruisers may be an Imperial Tyrant, Chaos Carnage or Chaos Murder (even if a loyalist ship), for their normal point cost. However, it must be painted as such if Chaos vessels are to be used as loyalist ships, and no specal variants in the notes of these ships can be used. For example, the Tyrant can’t take a Nova Cannon or boosted batteries, etc.

The Murder is intended to be an abberation against the "Rogue Traders don't get lances" rule, only because fluff says there are a lot of retired Murders around, and Chaos likely didn't get them all. Incidentally, in my mind I like to think the Imps actually refer to this as the "Martyr" class and it was Chaos that bastardized the name, but that's beyond the scope of this post.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

Hey Gusto,

I absolutely love this draft as well. I am already constructing the fleets to resemble the new merchants and wolfpacks. Here is some comments on your opinions:

RT Cruiser:
I like the argument on torps, but remember game balance. Your ship design is too weak IMO. The original RT was too weak IMO. I like the one they gave in this draft. And yes, I think three turrets needs to be kept. Convoy Flagships should have decent survivability. You could even make an argument that the points should be dropped a bit. It's still a plenty undergunned at 185 points.

Tweaked this a bit but not a lot. Not much more we could do and keep this 185 points, and it needs the 3 turrets because by design this fleet is ordnance-poor. Yes, 185 points is the ceiling we set for this ship, but we are working on alternatives that are not yet done being debated, such as allowing a stock Tyrant, Carnage and Murder.

Transports:
Good catch! In the convoy scenario with RT Explorations Fleets as defenders, I think it would be reasonable to waive the requirement for needing transports in the RT fleet list. Planetary Assault would be the same.

Crap- forgot to fix this in 1.6. Yes, this was supposed to be fixed to say RT transports count in a Convoy Run scenario – they don’t need extras.

Space Hulk!
I assume it starts with 40-2D6 hits. Attacker recieves VP's for destroying it so it wouldn't live with only 2D6 hits remaining. LOL

You assume right, and this was fixed in 1.6.

And a question myself about Xenos ships.
It says on the ship profile the xenotech system is already included in the point cost. Does the player choose which system to have or do they pay the additional five points to choose? And how does this apply to the Wolfpack list? Also, do the Xenos ships roll for the Crew Refit like the rest of the RT's when in a RT list?

-Zhukov

This is all fixed as well.

- Nate

[horizon]

Hi,
thus a Sword or Castellan as auxillary vessel in the RT squadron can have double shields?

Stryxis are heavily mentioned in the Rogue Trader RPG corebook.
Per that book Rogue Traders can get lances on their ships. Lotsa ship points/profit but manageable.