Is FAQ2010 what we actually need?

[BaronIveagh]

Here's something I've been pondering lately, and if it starts to sound like a rant, well, maybe it is.

Now, admittedly, I'm a fairly out of the loop guy.  I wasn't aware of anything beyond the books and mags for quite some time.  Say, a decade or so.  (I was probably one of the last people to sign up for the mailing list, in 2009, and was only made really aware of this board a few days ago.) and I'm fairly crazy (and so are the local gaming groups.  we use a 20x40 foot gaming surface for BFG).

I don't think that FAQ2010 is actually fixing the problems that players are having with the game.  I've been told that the team does not want to change any ship stats, to avoid power creep.  The problem with this is that some ships desperately need changing.  Rather then do this, they've created new ships, which try to fill the gaps the old ships should have.  Which sort of defeats the point of a FAQ. 

Now I'm all for new ships.  I love painting the minis and greenstuffing them.  But that isn't the point.  We have lots of ships already.  If the ones from BFGM were 'official', IN in particular would have lots of new options. 

What needs fixed, IMHO. 

1) Necrons BFI rules. 
2) NC/Nightshade spam
3) AC one shotting escorts.


Things that would be nice if we had, but...

1) Better fleet balance
2) Consistency between IN CLs. 
3) BFGM ships and lists that didn't make Armada brought in, such as Bakka.


Now, some of this stuff has been addressed in the FAQ.  Some of it has not.  And a whole lot of stuff we don't actually need has come about. 

While I think that Nate et al are trying hard, do you feel satisfied with how things are going?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

BFG Mk 2.0 really needs to be done already. I don't understand why the GW and the HA can't do it esp if they'll just be going the Living Rulebook way. I don't understand why there is hesitation. They have a good resource to use, the community, which can give them good feedback. They could do this in as little as 6 months to 1 year. If they really wanted to.

[Zelnik]

What does BFG need? mostly for GW to have an entirely new marketing staff and board of directors.

What killed blood bowl and BFG in popularity was a sudden shift in company policy, focusing more on the 'quick and easy' profits, instead of 'selling a good product'.  Recently this has shifted a little further back to 'selling a good product', but not enough for GW to care.

If you have ever been to a GW job recruitment session, you can see the new business model, with all specialist games down at a tiny point in the end.  BFG is trapped in a catch 22: The game does not sell enough to advertise-no point in advertising a barely profitable game. 

GW will probably close down all specialist games within a few years, and halt all miniature production, BFG included.

Ironically, if GW gave BFG the same amount of advertising that they gave LOTR, which nearly bankrupted their company, The game would probably be flourishing.

I am sorry to say this guys, but more then likely, BFG will never see the light of new mini's again. After the 2010 FAQ, they will probably close the door on the game as well.

[BaronIveagh]

Yeah, I've heard they're ending Epic, so BFG probably isn't far behind.  Which probably means I should order my FW minis now rather the later...

[horizon]

Ending Epic: ehm. No.


FAQ2010 is great.
The blue print for BFG2.0

What needs fixed, IMHO.  

1) Necrons BFI rules.  
2) NC/Nightshade spam
3) AC one shotting escorts.

1) No change needed, why so?
2) NC: not needed. Nightshade: need costing between 50-60pts (Hemlock as well).
3) Is dealt with : aboats 4+ to escorts. Bombers do not one shot them.
add:
4) Dropping of official Eldar rules.

Things that would be nice if we had, but...

1) Better fleet balance
2) Consistency between IN CLs.  
3) BFGM ships and lists that didn't make Armada brought in, such as Bakka.

1) BFG has a reasonable good balance
2) We're swaying them sometime.
3) Not really, lot of BFGM isn't good enough

I like the drafts!!!
The new Tau, Marine lists are a really good direction.


edit:

Ironically, if GW gave BFG the same amount of advertising that they gave LOTR, which nearly bankrupted their company, The game would probably be flourishing.

Sigh
LotR made GW most money ever! If GW wouldn't have had that money SG would've been ditched several years ago.

[Plaxor]

Pretty much all of the 2010 faq is useful and necessary stuff. Explaining various rules 'errors' and etc. Yes, it is the blueprint for 2.0, no it's not 2.0, but it's as close as we may ever get.

I don't really get why the HA's have decided to add new ships rather than doing any revising of the older ones. A lot of ships deserve some minor changes, if not in stats, then in points value. Some even deserve a small points increase (I'm looking at you devestation). Power creep is always an issue, but the fact is that it sells models, and isn't that in a way a bit of what we're looking for? to increase GW's sales of BFG?

The thing is trying to get it as close as possible. Honestly I could probably name half the vessels of any given fleet that deserve some slight modification, even if it is just a 5 point change.

Well.. since I'm on the subject here's my opinion of which ones need revised and the reasons why:

Chaos:
Devestation/Styx: Both are at least fairly available ships in the chaos fleet, the problem with the styx isn't exactly that it's over costed (which it is), but that the Devestation is slightly undercosted. The internal balance here needs to be addressed.
Carnage/Murder: I feel that this is a bit more for fluff reasons, but the main problem is that the carnage can get 10wb at 60cm instead of 45 like the murder, and at 45... well it has more firepower in the one arc for 10 points more. The murder is supposed to be the chaos equivalent of the lunar class, and I rarely see them taken. I think that making the prow lance lfr would be adequate.
Retaliator: the only grand cruiser that has issues, but like the styx, it is beaten out by cheap devestations
Battleships: The Planet killer outshines the other two, but it's expensive, I'd probably leave it alone as it is a character ship. The despoiler has some issues. The desolator is probably fine.
Escorts: the iconoclast should be reduced by 5pts as it is a very weak escort that needs to be close to enemy fire. The other two are fine, but some people complain about the idolators confusion of roles.

IN:
Battleships: The Apocalypse class; I don't know how it will do now that it has it's critical effect faq'd, but it does deserve a bit of revision... maybe. Then there's the Oberon-Emperor problem, where the Oberon has a confusion of roles, and the Emperor is slightly undercosted.
Tyrant/Dominator: for 5pts more you get more weapons batteries and a nova cannon! basically for 15 points the tyrant gets a few wb at a marginally longer range, but fewer of them. I would drop the Tyrants cost.
Dictator: I don't know what to do with this, it's just severely unpopular compared to the mars and emperor options for LBs
Excorcist: I never see people take these, but this is likely because it is a weird carrier, better replaced by a mars or emperor.
Endeavor Variants: These all have issues.... A lot of them....
Firestorms: Well... these have kind of a confusion of roles, and can't compete with the swords or cobras... I would drop their points..

That's at least for the two 'main' BFG fleets. *Ducks for flame*

[horizon]

Hi,

I don't really get why the HA's have decided to add new ships rather than doing any revising of the older ones. A lot of ships deserve some minor changes, if not in stats, then in points value.

On this point I agree and as stated in the powers of chaos thread/Chaos ships I rather see existing ships corrected then new ones added.

Devestation/Styx: Both are at least fairly available ships in the chaos fleet, the problem with the styx isn't exactly that it's over costed (which it is), but that the Devestation is slightly undercosted. The internal balance here needs to be addressed.

The Styx is pointed correct for its unique place, the Devestations needs upping or a drop of lances to 45cm.

Carnage/Murder: I feel that this is a bit more for fluff reasons, but the main problem is that the carnage can get 10wb at 60cm instead of 45 like the murder, and at 45... well it has more firepower in the one arc for 10 points more. The murder is supposed to be the chaos equivalent of the lunar class, and I rarely see them taken. I think that making the prow lance lfr would be adequate.

Murder is taken enough (adm A, Vaaish, etc).

Battleships: The Planet killer outshines the other two, but it's expensive, I'd probably leave it alone as it is a character ship. The despoiler has some issues. The desolator is probably fine.

Desolator is great. For Despoiler I offered stats.

Escorts: the iconoclast should be reduced by 5pts as it is a very weak escort that needs to be close to enemy fire. The other two are fine, but some people complain about the idolators confusion of roles.

Difficult. 6 Iconoclast for 150 pts = 18 wb... hmmm....

IN:

Dictator: I don't know what to do with this, it's just severely unpopular compared to the mars and emperor options for LBs

From what I see a popular ship with its own synergy strike! Unique!

Excorcist: I never see people take these, but this is likely because it is a weird carrier, better replaced by a mars or emperor.

Cool/good ship. No change needed.

Endeavor Variants: These all have issues.... A lot of them....

lol

[Mazila]

IMHO bluebook chaos needs no changes what so ever! The fleet works great since every ship has its specific role. Yes, the devastation is very good, but i have never used more than 1 or 2 in my fleets.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Nope. There are some ships which needed changing and there were changes. Some think a few more changes should be made. Devastations, Nighshade, Hemlocks points to name a few. Probably beef up the Ork Kill Kroozas WBs. I wouldn't mind those changes.

[Mazila]

I was talking about CHAOS ships only

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Chaos ships as mentioned:

1. Despoiler needs a weapons layout stat change to fit the model.
2. Devastation undercosted or needs to have the lances range toned down.
3. Return the Repulsive third shield option (which I think is about to be done).

Armada:

1. Retaliator needs an overhaul.
2. Vengeance too cheap at 230.
3. Executor too cheap at 210.
4. Daemonship rules need overhauling.

[Mazila]

Chaos ships as mentioned:

1. Despoiler needs a weapons layout stat change to fit the model.
2. Devastation undercosted or needs to have the lances range toned down.
3. Return the Repulsive third shield option (which I think is about to be done).

1. Make a convertion of your own despoiler so that it fits the profile
2. Don't see any problems with devastation
3. Agree

I would only personally like to see an official option to include heretic from Nemesis for 1 in 1000pts

[horizon]

1. Make a convertion of your own despoiler so that it fits the profile
2. Don't see any problems with devastation
3. Agree

I would only personally like to see an official option to include heretic from Nemesis for 1 in 1000pts

Hi,

1) Why? The Model is standard build by GW with a HUGE prow launch bay. So the profile should have a LARGE prow launch bay, not some dumb lances.
2) Yes, it outclasses any other carrier.

[Mazila]

1. Make a convertion of your own despoiler so that it fits the profile
2. Don't see any problems with devastation
3. Agree

I would only personally like to see an official option to include heretic from Nemesis for 1 in 1000pts

Hi,

1) Why? The Model is standard build by GW with a HUGE prow launch bay. So the profile should have a LARGE prow launch bay, not some dumb lances.
2) Yes, it outclasses any other carrier.

1) Sometimes creative ppl forget about rules when they make models. I made my one out of Desolator =)
2) C'mon this argument is not that good:

Carnage is the best gunboat - why not fix it also, and Tobship is unstopapbe for 1000pts lets fix it as well, dominator is best long range fire support... It's just normal for some ships to be better than others, but I do agree that it is one of the best all-round ships in game.

[Vaaish]

Tyrant/Dominator: for 5pts more you get more weapons batteries and a nova cannon! basically for 15 points the tyrant gets a few wb at a marginally longer range, but fewer of them. I would drop the Tyrants cost.

Tyrant is a decent ship. It works quite well when you are building a fleet around longer range or are using a list without access to the dominator. Dropping it in points would be a mistake because it would compete with the Lunar and Gothic. If anything the Dominator is undercosted for what it brings seeing that every other ship that sports a NC is around 200-225 for a line cruiser.

Dictator: I don't know what to do with this, it's just severely unpopular compared to the mars and emperor options for LBs

Dictator is the option to use when taking a retribution to get 8LB. It's also the only IN cruiser access to AC outside of the defiant. The synergy strike is good as its line presence. If you are building a fleet around the empy (which is the most versatile appearing in every fleet list) you won't have much need of this. It also frees up your CB slots a bit for more gunships rather than ordnance.

Excorcist: I never see people take these, but this is likely because it is a weird carrier, better replaced by a mars or emperor.

The exorcist is based on the vengeance model which doesn't have a whole lot of fans (a good bit of thanks to the horrible photo from GW) It's also a much more costly model than two Mars, two Dictators, or a single empy for less amount of AC. It's a good model since you get a much harder to supress platform with longer range for 10 points more than a dictator so it can work in the same role as the dictator. You really need two to make it work well though or perhaps paired with an oberon. Basically it's a great AC ship in smaller games and if you build your fleet around a ret.