Orkz - gib uz a brik

[lastspartacus]

Thanks for the info, Nate, and for reminding me that this is indeed a GW game, with all the red tape idiocy that comes with it

I would love to hear what their reasoning is too.  I don't suppose you could give us some 2.0 info in the use as house rules?
I would really love to see what you came up with, for now.

Edit:  So, if we fail to get anything more than a minor change to Orks, besides core stats, can we move ahead with an alternate list for those who dont like it?  ORK MMS!
'Maybe Move Sometimes'

[Sigoroth]

ORK MMS!
'Maybe Move Sometimes'

[flybywire-E2C]

Oh frick, GW are really a bunch of.... <removed>.

If memory serves me right BFG2.0 was in process before the latest rulebook. The latest rulebook took on the mayor wishes like Nova Cannon and Ordnance limits (yay all). Some point changes (eg Styx, Emperor-Retribution) players asked for and point + profile (!) changes no one asked for (Orks) (Blame Andy C himself I think).
Many wondered if it was the new 2.0 but if memory serves it was Bob who called it 1.5*.

That 1.5 rulebook is a bad book. Look at the Nova Cannon: rules with scatter, diagram with guess. Point swaps not in all places. Rules forgotten: Repulsive shield. Rules forgotten and only recently Ray found out (the asteroid field rules on AAF). Some other things.

The book was a bad decision in hindsight.

* If the current book is 1.5 then the FAQ2010 makes it more or less 1.75.

What I find is odd why GW is so secure on the rules not being shown/used. I mean, back then it costed them money, now they could just make em free. Have a freelance HA and fans chew and work on it. Do all the work for them and only host the pdf's without makings costs to create a bound book.

Also Nate, you did not give anything away so your NDA remains safe. You just confirmed what many already thought to believe.

Although some changes you hinted are are extremely worrying

But I approve of the HA's approach.

I don't know who is the guidance setter is for BFG from the GW team but Jervis has allowed the Epic: Armageddon team to do a lot of work and changes to the core rules.

I would find it cool if the GW responsible would show up and explain why changes are not allowed. Okay, given, as long as the blue book is being produced/sold changes are indeed off limtis.

You are correct, the current rulebook is technically BFG 1.5. In fact, the 2007 Errata at one point was called exactly that. I guess you can say the end state of what we are doing can be called BFG 1.7 or whatnot. I was just calling it BFG 2010 and holding off on the version change until we can (maybe) incorporate some of the REAL goodies later on.

The new rulebook did have a number of glaring omissions. Ray and I had a rather surreal arugment recently where he was referring to a new rulebook and I was referring to an old rulebook concerning at what point ships are in contact with celestial phenomena until we both figured out that at some point a vitally important rule concerning this had been accidentally snipped out of the new rules!

The new Ork escort profiles were driven by Andy C but for an important reason- the intent was for the big escorts to be "fixed" in that they didn't work as intended and in some cases were too expensive. Now they have a flat price and fill their intended roles much better, with the Savage getting a speed boost so it can close more quickly with its short-ranged guns (this thing is now brutal when used with Brutes) and the Ravager getting an extra turret to justify its +5 points. 45 points is simply too expensive for an Ork escort so the Onslaught was brought down to 40, and for this he brought the maximum firepower down a bit. Considering how small the change was, the Onslaught as a whole was improved. This thing is still a beast when used in large squadrons, and we're hoping to capitalize on this in one of our projects soon.

- Nate

[horizon]

Hi,

... until we can (maybe) incorporate some of the REAL goodies later on.

heh heh. You know us and what we can do with the goodies if we do not like them (aka to much or to less sugar on it).

Oh and before you hint at it: we like the gunnery table we do not want to see it replaced with that modifier system.
(iirc take battery strength of vessel, roll those dice (10 on a Murder), add +1 or -1 for range of whatever etc).

This was a thing your previous HA (Andy) was working on for BFG 2.0. And I didn't like it.

The new rulebook did have a number of glaring omissions. Ray and I had a rather surreal arugment recently where he was referring to a new rulebook and I was referring to an old rulebook concerning at what point ships are in contact with celestial phenomena until we both figured out that at some point a vitally important rule concerning this had been accidentally snipped out of the new rules!

tsssk sloppy editing.

The new Ork escort profiles were driven by Andy C but for an important reason- the intent was for the big escorts to be "fixed" in that they didn't work as intended and in some cases were too expensive. Now they have a flat price and fill their intended roles much better, with the Savage getting a speed boost so it can close more quickly with its short-ranged guns (this thing is now brutal when used with Brutes) and the Ravager getting an extra turret to justify its +5 points. 45 points is simply too expensive for an Ork escort so the Onslaught was brought down to 40, and for this he brought the maximum firepower down a bit. Considering how small the change was, the Onslaught as a whole was improved. This thing is still a beast when used in large squadrons, and we're hoping to capitalize on this in one of our projects soon.

In contrast to the old Space Marines pdf from Andy, Matt and Gavin(?) this Ork Klanz pdf has a more forgotten obscure status. If I recall the fan reception on it was not very good. I could be mistaken though. Shortly after Andy went to Red Star Games.


I recall I recall way too many things.

[trynerror]

The new Ork escort profiles were driven by Andy C but for an important reason- the intent was for the big escorts to be "fixed" in that they didn't work as intended and in some cases were too expensive. Now they have a flat price and fill their intended roles much better, with the Savage getting a speed boost so it can close more quickly with its short-ranged guns (this thing is now brutal when used with Brutes) and the Ravager getting an extra turret to justify its +5 points. 45 points is simply too expensive for an Ork escort so the Onslaught was brought down to 40, and for this he brought the maximum firepower down a bit. Considering how small the change was, the Onslaught as a whole was improved. This thing is still a beast when used in large squadrons, and we're hoping to capitalize on this in one of our projects soon.

- Nate

All 40 points is a bad thing for filling point gaps in a fleetlist. We still use the old BBB stats for Ork escorts because of this.

[Borka]

Okay, now that the Tau, Space Marines and Rogue Traders are on the street to see how they settle in the wash, we should have a draft of the FAQ out by later tonight.

Will it be on GW´s site or here somewhere?

The next project we have in the hopper is the Ork Klans list featured in Fanatic Magazine #5. This was one of the big projects some of the designers wanted to have cemented, but some of the otherwise excellent ideas in that article were not smoothly executed, and it was not made official before Specialist Games shut down.

I like that list. But I have to say the hole "need to take this and that many skwadrons" per rerolls made it quite useless imo. The cheap rerolls is something the orks really need, but with that requirement they become very expensive. DON`T use that part, but some of the other ideas in it were nice.

cheers

[flybywire-E2C]

The new Ork escort profiles were driven by Andy C but for an important reason- the intent was for the big escorts to be "fixed" in that they didn't work as intended and in some cases were too expensive. Now they have a flat price and fill their intended roles much better, with the Savage getting a speed boost so it can close more quickly with its short-ranged guns (this thing is now brutal when used with Brutes) and the Ravager getting an extra turret to justify its +5 points. 45 points is simply too expensive for an Ork escort so the Onslaught was brought down to 40, and for this he brought the maximum firepower down a bit. Considering how small the change was, the Onslaught as a whole was improved. This thing is still a beast when used in large squadrons, and we're hoping to capitalize on this in one of our projects soon.

- Nate

All 40 points is a bad thing for filling point gaps in a fleetlist. We still use the old BBB stats for Ork escorts because of this.

Aah, good point. I'll be honest, I was thinking of improving the Grunt and making it 40 points as well, leaving the Brute to be the only "flesh-out" escort in the fleet because it serves this purpose well. We'll take this on board and leave the Grunt 35 points. Any other thoughts?

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

Okay, now that the Tau, Space Marines and Rogue Traders are on the street to see how they settle in the wash, we should have a draft of the FAQ out by later tonight.

Will it be on GW´s site or here somewhere?

The next project we have in the hopper is the Ork Klans list featured in Fanatic Magazine #5. This was one of the big projects some of the designers wanted to have cemented, but some of the otherwise excellent ideas in that article were not smoothly executed, and it was not made official before Specialist Games shut down.

I like that list. But I have to say the hole "need to take this and that many skwadrons" per rerolls made it quite useless imo. The cheap rerolls is something the orks really need, but with that requirement they become very expensive. DON`T use that part, but some of the other ideas in it were nice.

cheers

That will be one of the primary things we will be fixing, as that part in particular was not very smoothly executed. The intent is for all the projects we are working on to be posted on the GW resources site once they come out of draft form, which will take a little while to be sure everyone's already seen it and we have all the kinks worked out.

- Nate

[horizon]

Oh, hi Nate,

fighter-bombers. The FAQ2010 makes them ridiculous weak.

Could we have the old fighter-bomber rules back please? Mind you, my opponent has Orks.

[Borka]

Oh, hi Nate,

fighter-bombers. The FAQ2010 makes them ridiculous weak.

Could we have the old fighter-bomber rules back please? Mind you, my opponent has Orks.

I agree, keep the FAQ 2007 rules.

But if you do go with the proposed change, please rewrite the example about FB attacking the emperor. I do think i get what you mean
but that part is quite confusing.

cheers

[flybywire-E2C]

Oh, hi Nate,

fighter-bombers. The FAQ2010 makes them ridiculous weak.

Could we have the old fighter-bomber rules back please? Mind you, my opponent has Orks.

I agree, keep the FAQ 2007 rules.

But if you do go with the proposed change, please rewrite the example about FB attacking the emperor. I do think i get what you mean
but that part is quite confusing.

cheers

We can look into making this exactly right, and now's a good time to investigate this further since we're working on Orks right now. That being said, the FAQ2007 rules made the Orks absurd in that it could be interpreted that the more turrets they faced the more powerful FB's actually became! How can it be that FB's are actually MORE effective against an Emperor battleship than they are against say a Murder?

Thank's for bring it up- we'll get it fixed. It may not be exactly like 2007, but if the 2010 rules still don't work, we need to get it fixed. I have a 4,500-point Ork fleet I love very much, and I want them to be right as well!


- Nate

[horizon]

The FAQ2010 rules, I also playtested this in a real encounter with the AdMech (me), and made fighter bombers just laughable weak.

There is nothing wrong for Orks to get a lot of attacks. But you say that interpretation could lead to... then the wording was unclear. It was, but the two paragraphs in FAQ2010 are weird and contradicting as well.

But good to see it adressed.

[flybywire-E2C]

The FAQ2010 rules, I also playtested this in a real encounter with the AdMech (me), and made fighter bombers just laughable weak.

There is nothing wrong for Orks to get a lot of attacks. But you say that interpretation could lead to... then the wording was unclear. It was, but the two paragraphs in FAQ2010 are weird and contradicting as well.

But good to see it adressed.

Well THAT was a fast reply! I actualy have a playtesting session this afternoon with my son to make sure the Tau and Space Marines are stapled shut. We can work this in as well.

Here's how we do play-testing, to use the Ork FB's as an example. It makes the game a bit monotonous and bookkeeping-intensive, but in the end it makes things right. When comparing a given set of rules with a proposed set of rules (say two Terror Ships against an Emperor BB and some escorts), every attack with FB's is rolled three times with old rules and then three times with test rules, with all scores kept separately.

We keep doing this for every turn until the game ends. It gets REALLY complicated about halfway in when the ship is crippled in some columns but still fully up in others, in which case we ignore movement restrictions for being crippled but keep turrets/launchbays/etc. since they apply to FB's. Like I said, it can get very slide-rule-ish in a big hurry, but this is in my mind the ONLY real way to test rules.

- Nate

[horizon]

Ah heck,just do it.
Last week we showed someone a bombing run (after finishing the introduction game without attack craft) between a Styx & Dragonship doing no measured movement. The Styx got a fair share of hits har har.

Your opponent(s) must be a good fellow to endure all these tests based upon feedback from some internet people.

[lastspartacus]

i like it in the rules, but how do you exactly justify the fighta bombas doing fighter and bombing duty at the same time, 'real world' ?