Streamlining BFG

[Phthisis]

My gaming group and I have 2 main issues with the BFG ruleset.  First and foremost is the emphasis on luck over strategy.  We have witnessed several games where an obvious win was reversed into an obvious loss not by player strategy but by luck of the dice alone.  Its disheartening to us that the system can rob victory with a single bad LD or crit roll.  Second is unnecessary complication of the ruleset.  Too much shifting on the gunnery charts, calculations galore and a lot of recordkeeping is involved that could be avoided if desired.
As fans of the 'gameplay over realism' principle and 'strategy over luck'  we have devised the following changes to the core rules of BFG to those ends.

Special Orders

LD tests are not made for SO.  Players buy a number of orders to use each turn along with their fleet commanders and leiutenants.  They may use up to this number of orders per turn.  Orders always go off.  Losing a commander or leiutenant due to ship destruction or a 'bridge smashed' crit loses the orders associated with that leader permanently.

LD is still used for everything it was used for but SO and is a fixed value bassd on race and vessel size.  Ld is not randomly generated.

BFI is still used in enemy turn but an order must be available to use it.  The order frees up the following turn but the ship or squadron may not go on BFI in their following turn.

BFI ships on BFI get a -4 modifier on the crit table.
Ordnance

Turrets may fire at all ordnance that attacks it.  No need to decide between torpedos and AC.

Bombers do D3 attacks.  Fightabombers do D2.  Turrets are subtracted once after attacks are totalled.  D3+D3-T  not (D6-T)+(D6-T).

No turret suppression.

Elite Cadre allows rerolls to H&R attacks, no longer +1.

Boarding

Ships roll dice equal to their boarding value + modifiers.  Ships match dice starting highest moving to lowest.  Dice which beat it's pair's score subtract 1 hit point from enemy ship.  Ties do nothing.  Left over dice are discarded.  Ships are locked until one dies.  Victorious ship can scuttle enemy ship or let it drift.

General
Warp Rift is eliminated from the Catastrophic table.  Plasma Overload covers the Warp Rift as well and work like WBs with no column shift and kill ordnance automatically.

These are the basics.  There are specific fleet revisions on the way.

Looking for constructive criticism.

[Eldanesh]

LD tests are not made for SO.  Players buy a number of orders to use each turn along with their fleet commanders and leiutenants.  They may use up to this number of orders per turn.  Orders always go off.  Losing a commander or leiutenant due to ship destruction or a 'bridge smashed' crit loses the orders associated with that leader permanently.

Would be far easier to simply remove SO completly then. A SO that works every time you want it is just a buffed up profile and nothing more.

The real idea behind Special orders, an the reason why they are in the game, is the "chain of command"-flair: you always have to give priorites to some ships (based on their LD value and/or the importance of the SO).
If this feature is out, there is no real need for SOs. Instead you can simply write "a ship can always reroll its to hit rolls unless xyz happend"

Turrets may fire at all ordnance that attacks it.  No need to decide between torpedos and AC.

While I understand that someone finds the current rules illogical, I like the concept of "combined arms". Especially ships like the Dictator simply need this rule to justify their costs. At all the current rule is a slight advantage for intelligent players and bad for the no brainers, so I like it as it is.  (That's a general point about all this rules: they simplify things - something that is never good for a tactical/wargame..)

No turret suppression.

So mixed waves of fighters and Bombers have no value -> bad...

Bombers do D3 attacks.  Fightabombers do D2.  Turrets are subtracted once after attacks are totalled.  D3+D3-T  not (D6-T)+(D6-T).

Makes Battleships to vulnerable to Bombers. Combined with that fact that every Carrier reloads ordonance without any LD checks it simply means that carriers become way to dominant.
To be honest I would play only carriers with these rule changes.


Generally spoken: a good rule is one which forces a player to think, analyse a situation and make a decision (may it right or wrong) based on this analysis.
If there is only one "right" decision, regardless of the situation the rule should be changed.
Example: under the current rules it is unwise to empty your torpedo tubes every turn from turn one, simply because it is possible that I could not reload next turn or have to waste a precious reroll. Instead you "save" your torpedos until you have a good opportunity (e.g. target under 30cm) or you gain a tactical advantage by doing so (e.g. split up a tight formation) that is worth this risk.
Under your proposed changes I'd do nothing but spam torpedos every round - simply because I have no disadvantage by doing so and I can always hope for a "lucky hit".  Not a positive impact on the tactical or stratecical aspect of the game if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong: I also dislike it if games a decided by pure (bad) luck, but the mechanics of the game allow you to compensate for that: yes you are fu**ed if you roll  a lots of LD6 and 7 at the beginning - but exactly for this situation the squadron rules are made for.
Yes, I hate it if I fail a SO in a critical situation of the game - but for this case the expensive rerolls are made, the squadron rules are made and players which use SOs economical (following the simple logic that you fail only a few LD tests if you are forced to take only a  few of them) are rewarded over players who use them in abundance. 

[Phthisis]

Thanks for the comments Eldanesh.

I completely disagree with you about simplification of rules being bad for tactical/wargames.  All the best strategy games have simple rulesets that don't require micromanagement or decision making for decision making's sake.  Strategy is best when it's mind vs mind and overcomplex rulesets and random chance interfere with that dynamic.  Chess, Space Hulk, Game of Thrones, Settlers of Catan are good examples of strategy games where the ruleset doesn't get in the way of the battle of minds, and all are widely acclaimed with multiple awards for design. 
Complex rulesets rewards rule memorization only and facilitates cheating and errors in play.  We eliminated turret target selection specifically because weve seen it abused and it has such a small effect on the game, especially now with CAP.
Not everyone enjoys complexity.  None of my gaming buddies enjoy looking up obscure rules or bad dice ruining our plans.  Sigiroth is working with Plaxor on revisions to the rules in their BFGR project that make the game many times more complex, so that option is available for those who want it.  This is a revision for those who want to focus on gameplay and not game.

One thing to note about the SOs is that they are a limited resource to be expended AND can now be attacked and destroyed by your enemy.  Before you could potentially put every ship and squadron on SO every turn with good dice.  With these rules, we have found our sweet spot at buying 3 SOs for our fleets at 1500, but we squadron heavily.  That means only 3 SO can be used, fewer if I want the option to BFI.  This plays out EXTREMELY differently than just giving everyone infinite automatic SO.  In fact, it forces me to use fewer SOs per turn now than I used to average with my CSM fleet previously.  Its just now I won't fail the one SO I absolutely need.
Alternatively, if I lose one of my commanders, now I have even fewer SO to use.  It limits the use of orders, forcing players to use them with forethought, but removes the element of chance.

I was initially concerned with ordinance being overpowered as well, but after playtesting we have seen ordnance fleets get pounded vs all gunnery and mixed fleets very reliably.  The reasons is that orders are a limited resource.  For an all-carrier fleet, you must form large squadrons otherwise you wont have enough orders to reload them all.  Large squadrons mean that if you BFI, youre losing lots of ordy.  But enemy gunships can target and LO the ships with the leaders out of the squadron.  So they brace and lose the ability to fight, or they lose their ability to go on SO and so lose their ability to fight.  All carriers are a very weak build in this system.  Much better to go balanced or all guns.  Thats after 10 weeks of playtesting.

Why do bombers need a benefit for fighter escort beyond protection?

Would you be willing to playtest?  I need people I can rely on to actually try it instead of fabricating results to fit their opinions.  Our working model has leaders at the following costs:
3 SO commander - 100pts
2 SO commander -  75pts
1 SO commander - 50pts

[afterimagedan]

Hey,

Well, from our off the forum talks, you know my thoughts on many of these... from the ones you have posted, here are the ones I really like...


Bombers do D3 attacks.  Fightabombers do D2.  Turrets are subtracted once after attacks are totalled.  D3+D3-T  not (D6-T)+(D6-T).


Boarding
Ships roll dice equal to their boarding value + modifiers.  Ships match dice starting highest moving to lowest.  Dice which beat it's pair's score subtract 1 hit point from enemy ship.  Ties do nothing.  Left over dice are discarded.  Ships are locked until one dies.  Victorious ship can scuttle enemy ship or let it drift.

[Eldanesh]

can now be attacked and destroyed by your enemy.

How? You only mentioned a "bridge smashed" critical, which is only the result of pure luck.
And it doesn't solve the core problem: If i have 3/4/5 SOs the round I use them - no sense in not using them.  It also weakens escorts: you surly don't "waste" leaders/SOs on chepa 90 Points squadrons of cobras.
How do you solve this?

But enemy gunships can target and LO the ships with the leaders out of the squadron.

You didn't mention this one: under current rules you can'T target a specific ship in a squadron and fire only on the closest ship

Complex rulesets rewards rule memorization

Complex-to-use rule != rule memorization
Example are mixed fighter waves: under current rules there is always a different "ideal mix" of the wave, depending on the number of turrets of the ship: sometimes 3 Bombers and 1 fighter are the best ideal, sometimes a 50/50 mis is better etc...
Under your change you only need Bombers.
-> More simple rules, meaning people that can calculate or have a good experience lose their advantage...

Why do bombers need a benefit for fighter escort beyond protection?

They don't even do that: there is no difference if a pure Bomber or a mixed wave is attacked

Settlers of Catan

This could be the main point: I don't consider this game a good strategy game: you win if you control the 6 and 8 ressources
I'm with you when we talk about  Chess, Go or Draughts (or Dame), but these games give you room to make mistakes (especially Go...)

Would you be willing to playtest?

Nope, sorry. Not because of a lack of interest (even if I think that this system needs a complete overhaul in almost all areas: races like Eldar or SM pay for their "premium" LD which is under your ideas close to useless, while other (orcs) have a discount because of their lack of LD and so on...), more because a lack of time....real life and such things...^^

[Phthisis]

I honestly don't believe that Eldar or Marines pay a premium for their Leadership boost.  Theyre paying more because their ships have special rules or are just plain better.  Same goes for Orks.  Theyre getting a point reduction because their weapon systems are random and unreliable.

Nevertheless, in our system Ld still plays a role.  Its used for manouvering through celestial phenomenon, going on alert, disengaging and for ignoring target priority.  Eldar and marines will be naturally better while Orks will be worse, just as it is now.  Only that the Ld will not be generated randomly and will not be used for Special Orders.

Note that our working points cost for the leaders with respective orders can be modified from our working point values to fit differnt races.  These figures work the best for Chaos & IN.  Also, I'm planning on limiting squadron sizes for Orks.  2 for cap ships and 4 for escorts. This will cut down on the quantity of ships on SO each turn.

Its not in your best interest to burn all your orders every turn.  First, orders have special conditions that mean they can't be used or have drawbacks.  Second, orders are only useful when you need them.  You wouldn't Burn Retros or CTNH just because you felt you had orders to burn.  Thats stupid play that would lose you games.  Third, you can't BFI unless you have orders left over to use.

All orders are used throughout the fleet as you wish.  A captain on a BB can order an escort squad to go on SO.  That same captain can use that order on another squadron the next turn.  Youre never 'wasting' an order on an escort squadron.  With Cobras you'll probably be putting them on RO. 
I disagree that this system makes escorts worthless.  In the current rules, you have a significant chance of failure when testing to go on SO.  Escorts can't mitigate a bad Ld roll by squadroning like cruisers do.  Lets,say you rolled a 6 or 7 for Ld on the Cobras.  Good luck reloading your torpedos reliably!  Sure, you can use rerolls, but those have a good chance of failure too.  Or you can spend 25pts on another order in my system in order to reload them in every turn.  Escorts are more valuable if you choose to use them as anything but points fill.

Before we wrote these new rules we were playtesting BFGR, which also allows targeting cap ships out of squadrons.  I forgot it wasn't in the standard rules. 
I had said you lose orders through 'bridge smashed' criticals or the destruction of the ship the officer is embarked on. 
Targeting officer ships is an element of balance and targeting/protecting them makes for great strategy. 

Fighters mixed in bomber squadrons is a fetish and is unnecessary.  Its based on people's flawed idea of WWII air combat tactics.  I use seperate squadrons of fighters to sweep enemy fighters before my bombers or assault boats come through constantly and it works.  Fighters destroy enemy ordnance and clear CAP.  Theyre pretty powerful already. If I could see it add some value to the game as a whole I've got several systems in my pocket for it.  But I think the reasoning behind including turret suppression are flawed. With everyone terrified that ordnance surpassing gunnery and my stated goal of removing complicated and unnecessary rules, it seems best to me to leave bonuses for close escorts out. 

I disagree on your opinion of Catan.  The bandit and player strategy can easily turn having the 6s & 8s into a disadvantage.  Ive never seen a player in that situation win. 
I also disagree about artificially building an advantage into a game for players who can memorize (or argue) complex rules or do rapid math in their brain.  Things like this can be exploited and used to cheat and detracr from the strategy, which should be the focus.  If we can make games of BFG faster to play, with fewer times where we are forced to look up obscure rules and fewer cases where random chance can ruin good strategy or save terrible strategy and fewer oppotunities to cheat or abuse opponents, while keeping the spirit and experience and basic gameplay... Then some people will have more fun.  If people want BFG more complicated, BFGR should be coming out soon or they have the FAQed version.

[Vaaish]

Although it seems you primarily want a stamp of approval on your changes, I'll go ahead and post my thoughts since you are looking to fundamentally change how the game behaves.

My gaming group and I have 2 main issues with the BFG ruleset.  First and foremost is the emphasis on luck over strategy.

This is life. The HMS Hood was destroyed with "lucky" hit regardless of strategy. In return the Bismark herself was crippled with a lucky hit to the rudder enabling her destruction. I'm sure that in both cases the crews of these ships were more than a little disheartened by the result. Why seek to eliminate SO checks because of their effect on the game when you apparently have no issue keeping crits the same despite your view that both make the game rely too much on luck?

LD tests are not made for SO.  Players buy a number of orders to use each turn along with their fleet commanders and leiutenants.  They may use up to this number of orders per turn.  Orders always go off.  Losing a commander or leiutenant due to ship destruction or a 'bridge smashed' crit loses the orders associated with that leader permanently.

LD is still used for everything it was used for but SO and is a fixed value bassd on race and vessel size.  Ld is not randomly generated.

BFI is still used in enemy turn but an order must be available to use it.  The order frees up the following turn but the ship or squadron may not go on BFI in their following turn.

BFI ships on BFI get a -4 modifier on the crit table.

Why shouldn't LD be used for SO? It represents the admiral attempting to send orders during a battle and the possibility that communications can be interrupted or misunderstood. You say you want to make the game less complicated, but you are generating a complicated table for all the races and vessels. How is that less complicated that rolling a d6 and looking on a table or rolling 2d6 and comparing to a number?

Why should BFI be limited? It's an exception to the normal SO's anyway. It's awkward because it needs to be a SO to prevent other SO from being used (can only be on one at a time) yet it's not linked to the LD check in the same manner as other SO. All you are doing is making it far less likely this will be used as other SO would take priority leaving few orders available for bracing. You're also taking away any downside from using the SO by clearing it up on the ships next turn. So what if it can't brace again, typically the enemy will have passed leaving you in a prime location to LO.

Of course now that you've changed BFI so that it only comes into play 1/6 of the time you are hit why would you even bother with using it? -4 on the crit table is frankly one of the least useful and most convoluted things you could do. What happens when you roll a 4 or lower? Does it count as no crit?

Turrets may fire at all ordnance that attacks it.  No need to decide between torpedos and AC.

This reduces the tactical options available and ends any benefit Tau or IN or any race with both torpedoes and AC could gain by careful preparation. All you are doing is making the game less interesting tactically.

Bombers do D3 attacks.  Fightabombers do D2.  Turrets are subtracted once after attacks are totalled.  D3+D3-T  not (D6-T)+(D6-T).

No turret suppression.

No turret suppression is fine, it's not actually found in any of the rulebooks right now even though it is technically official. It really doesn't add or take away from the game except to allow bombers a little better odds of damaging high turret non crippled targets.

On bombers, there is a very good reason why people don't like seeing them more powerful. Back when the game came out there wasn't the ordnance limitations so carriers became king as they sat back launching wave after wave of bombers until a critical mass was reached and the massive number of bombers hit and crippled the enemy fleet. Basically it because a war of who could RO with the most carriers and not get doubles. Things have changed since then but the point remains that the focus of BFG was supposed to be on WWI style gunnery battles regardless of how it's actually played out. These rules actually create a far more random scenario when attacking capital ships. Against high turret ships you could get far more attacks than currently or none at all while you have a better probability of getting more attacks against low turret ships across the board.

What you are proposing isn't any simpler than what is currently there and has the potential to be far more up to the luck of the dice which you begin this by saying you dislike. Without any support for why you want to change this it really doesn't make any sense. I would leave Ordnance as it is currently.

Elite Cadre allows rerolls to H&R attacks, no longer +1.

I prefer the +1, but what you are proposing again make the game far more random. Unless you roll a 1, which might happen 16% of the time, the reroll is useless so why bother? Why not just have them roll 2d6 and pick which one they like best. That would show the elite function of hitting with more precision.

Ships roll dice equal to their boarding value + modifiers.  Ships match dice starting highest moving to lowest.  Dice which beat it's pair's score subtract 1 hit point from enemy ship.  Ties do nothing.  Left over dice are discarded.  Ships are locked until one dies.  Victorious ship can scuttle enemy ship or let it drift.

How does this simplify things? This is far more complicated than the simple roll off +modifiers. It's a lot of dice rolling which takes a lot of time for a very minor element of the game.

Warp Rift is eliminated from the Catastrophic table.  Plasma Overload covers the Warp Rift as well and work like WBs with no column shift and kill ordnance automatically.

Why this change? I could maybe see just having up to plasma overload, but why make it hit like WB? It's a massive release of raw energy, why wouldn't that hit like a lance? What strength would you assign it? If you say half the starting hits like it is now you might as well just remove the explosion all together and leave it as a burning hulk for all the effect it will have.  I really don't see what "simplification" is gained here either this is a very rare event it's not like every ship that rolls on the table pops off like a roman candle.

Basically, you claim you want to reduce the random factor and the complexity, but so far I see nothing but increased complexity and randomness in your suggestions. Beyond that several serve to reduce the tactical depth of the game which is something you want to increase. Complexity in a game system isn't bad if it serves a purpose and adds depth to the game. Complexity is bad if it's just there for the sake of being complex.

[Phthisis]

Although it seems you primarily want a stamp of approval on your changes, I'll go ahead and post my thoughts since you are looking to fundamentally change how the game behaves.

That's not fair Vaash.  If I wanted a simple rubber stamp, this would be the absolute last place I would put it. I'm putting it here for fireproofing.
I'm asking for constructive criticism.  I want people here to show me if there are any cracks in the system and suggest ways of making it work better.  Why won't you give me the benefit of the doubt and take me at face value?  I've never been disingenuous before.

Why shouldn't LD be used for SO?

Because Ld tests rely on chance for success or failure.  BFG is a strategy game based on manouvering and capitalizing on successful manouvering.  SO's are the primary mechanism by which ships manouver or capitalize on their position.  Failing a random die roll disallows successful manouvering or capitalization.  The only function that it serves is to prevent a player's strategy from working.  Having to rely on chance for your SO to go off hurts players using good strategy and saves players who have inferior strategy. Passing a SO test can't snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but failing a critical SO can easily steal the win from a player who has clearly defeated their opponent.  

You say you want to make the game less complicated, but you are generating a complicated table for all the races and vessels. How is that less complicated that rolling a d6 and looking on a table or rolling 2d6 and comparing to a number?

You won't have to look at a table.  You'll be able to tell what the ship's Ld is just by looking at it because the table is easily memorized.  It saves several minutes of watching each other roll dice and comparing it to a table before the game, and it keeps players from getting confused about which ships in their fleet have which Ld value because they're always the same.  Its an Imperial cruiser?  Ld 7.  It's an Ork Kroozer?  Ld 6...

Why should BFI be limited?

Here's how BFI works.  In order to use BFI you have to have saved orders from your pool to use in the enemy turn.  You don't roll on Ld for BFI, you just place the order marker like you do with all other SO.  If you don't have any orders left over you don't get to go on BFI.  
BFI gives you a 4+ save against hits as usual.  Hits can crit as normal, but they subtract 4 from their score on 2d6.  If they roll 4 or less the crit doesn't go off. This gives the ship a small save against criticals when braced and also makes sure that they don't take any severe irreparable damage.
The following player turn, the ship or squadron that went on BFI can't be put on SO, just like the normal rules.  However, the order that was used to put them on SO can be used to put another ship or squadron on another order, it's not tied up with the BFI any longer.

Regarding turrets, CAP has largely done away with combined ordnance attacks.  AC has to sweep CAP before torpedos can it.  The number of bombers coming through are limited anyway.  I don't believe the fleets you mention are crippled by turrets getting to fire at anything coming in they want.  The tactical decision for the defender for which to fire turrets at is a no-brainer, and there is plenty of room for abuse and cheating by the attacker.  It adds nothing to the game and has a negligible effect on the outcome.

Regarding bombers:

What you are proposing isn't any simpler than what is currently there and has the potential to be far more up to the luck of the dice which you begin this by saying you dislike.

I think it is much simpler than the turret suppression rules, but this system has the similar effect of making BBs vulnerable to bomber waves comparable in size to what was needed in turret suppression.  Its really fast to calculate (add the dice total together, subtract turrets, done) and is at least no worse than the original ordnance rules. We can easily do this drunk.  Also, this system has the added benefit of being a bit more predictable.  There is less of a chance of getting zero attacks and there are aren't instances of getting a ridiculously high number of attacks.  In the original rules, with 4 bombers vs T-2, you could get 0-16 attacks averaging 6. Now you can get 2-10, averaging 6. Against a T4 ship, originally you'd get 0-8, averaging 0.  With this system you get 0-8, average 4. I think this is more what people want out of bombers, the possibility of attacking bombers without overwhelming escorts or cruisers (which turret suppression does to some extent).

Regarding Elite Cadre H&R attacks:

Why not just have them roll 2d6 and pick which one they like best.

Good idea.  I like it.  Shows precision much better than a reroll.

Regarding Boarding:

How does this simplify things? This is far more complicated than the simple roll off +modifiers. It's a lot of dice rolling which takes a lot of time for a very minor element of the game.

I've been told by playtesters it runs faster and is more intuitive than the rolloff with modifiers and have found the same to be true for myself.  Its a lot of dice to roll, but no more than we're used to rolling for gunnery or for basic attacks in 40k. This also avoids some weird scenarios where smaller ships beat bigger ships because of modifiers.  Also, it makes boarding more decisive and a bit more predictable as to who the winner is.  Another thing I like about this system is that the winner of the boarding action can take damage, which isn't possible in the original system.  

I could maybe see just having up to plasma overload, but why make it hit like WB?

Because some of the batteries in the game shoot plasma.  And I figure armor should protect them from an exploding ship.  And because it's slightly less likely to cause damage on most ships.  

I really don't see what "simplification" is gained here either this is a very rare event it's not like every ship that rolls on the table pops off like a roman candle.

 You need to watch some of our games.  It's like those action movies where cars blow up left and right.  
The Warp Rift was ridiculously powerful and we've seen it tear chunks out of fleets just because of bad luck.  Victors turn into big losers instantly.  We eliminated it because it was another way a person could lose the game due to just plain bad luck.  That's another reason we nerfed Plasma Overload.

This is life. The HMS Hood was destroyed with "lucky" hit regardless of strategy. In return the Bismark herself was crippled with a lucky hit to the rudder enabling her destruction.

I'm not messing with shooting and am leaving criticals largely alone.  You can still have a bulkhead collapse or lose shields.  Its exactly the same as in the normal rules.  I'm limiting chance in the game, not eliminating it.  

The purpose of this is to strip away what detracts from strategy and unnecessary elements.  I suppose it depends on what you think gives a game depth.  For me, it's not micromanagement or myriad minor tactical decisions to make constantly through the game.  The game depth comes in the fact that there are so many ways to win and so many overall strategies to use.  I'd rather focus on fleet manouvering and gunnery than worrying about odds, rerolls and who to shoot turrets at, wouldn't you?

Vaash, would you be willing to playtest?

[Vaaish]

That's not fair Vaash.  If I wanted a simple rubber stamp, this would be the absolute last place I would put it. I'm putting it here for fireproofing.

Just basing it from your responses to the things already posted in the thread.

Because Ld tests rely on chance for success or failure.  BFG is a strategy game based on manouvering and capitalizing on successful manouvering.  

The problem here is that the possibility of failing that roll reflects life. History is rife with commanders who lost battles or were severely hampered because of green troops or failed communications. The LD rolls for SO reflect the captains ability to comprehend and implement your orders as you want. Outside of failing a brace order, I can't think of any SO that can't be compensated for if the roll is failed. I believe the famous line is no plan survives contact. You need to be able to think on your feet and compensate for failed rolls. Plans have to change as your opponent maneuvers and checks are made.

You won't have to look at a table.  You'll be able to tell what the ship's Ld is just by looking at it because the table is easily memorized.  It saves several minutes of watching each other roll dice and comparing it to a table before the game, and it keeps players from getting confused about which ships in their fleet have which Ld value because they're always the same.  Its an Imperial cruiser?  Ld 7.  It's an Ork Kroozer?  Ld 6...

No dice. You WILL be looking at a table that is far longer to memorize under your idea than the LD table so please don't pretend otherwise. The LD table is probably the easiest thing in the world to use; it's only got four entries. If you name your ships, there shouldn't be any issues figuring out which ship has what LD. In a typical 1500 point game it should only take a minute to get the LD values for your ships.

I'm not messing with shooting and am leaving criticals largely alone.  You can still have a bulkhead collapse or lose shields.  Its exactly the same as in the normal rules.  I'm limiting chance in the game, not eliminating it.  

Don't be obtuse, I was referencing how the luck you seem to hate in BFG can be easily seen at work in the Hood and Bismark not how shooting works in BFG. Anyway, there's really not much use and responding to your other points. The fact that you just said your don't want to make a lot of tactical decisions throughout the game shows you'd rather just have a flatter game. Those small decision are what give the game depth. Take them away and you're just dumping dice. You might as well just strip out all SO, get rid of the entire catastropic table and the critical hits.

No, I won't be playtesting these rules. They are half baked and reduce the tactical depth of the game for little return. I don't want to be dumping and comparing loads of dice for boarding when I can just roll a single d6, I don't want to see changes to turrets that destroy legitimate tactics or bombers with the potential to paste an undamaged battleship. I prefer a little spice in my game. If I could predict exactly how the game would play why bother playing it at all?

[horizon]

Quick:
Don't like the ideas at first glance.

I see other things that could be better in BFG.

[Phthisis]

I'm not being obtuse.  You gave two examples of how lucky shots happen in real life.  I pointed out that I haven't removed lucky shots from BFG nor decreased their likelihood.  Neither were examples of a captain's orders failing to be correctly interpreted or crews failing to carry orders out.  I doubt you'll find such examples.  Generally, what are considered SO in BFG are things modern ship crews are trained to do and constantly drilled on.  It makes little sense that a cruiser crew should have a 40% chance of failure to execute a heading or speed correction.
That may not be what you meant, but that was the argument you presented.  
After playtesting this, I don't miss the Ld tests.  My strategy still must be changed and I still must adapt.  But now I can change strategy instead of botching critical SO tests and getting screwed just because of one bad roll.  Before it was strategy dependent heavily on luck.  Now its pure strategy and I win or lose based on the merits of my plan.  And I'm still thinking on my feet.  Actually now I'm forced to think a little further ahead.

As far as the Ld table goes, I still think its a lot simpler than the current method.  At least its no worse.  See if you can remember this:
Battleships & Grand Cruisers - Ld6
Cruisers - Ld7
Light Cruisers - Ld8
Escorts - Ld9
Orks -1 from Ld
Eldar, SMs & Tyranids, +1 to Ld.

I think this is easier and faster than randomly generating Ld and having to look it up on your roster constantly.

Im not stripping out criticals, catastrophic damage or SOs.  Thats a slippery slope argument.  Youre arguing against a different system, not the one presented.
I'm not against making tactical decisions.  I love tactical games like Spach Hulk.  Tactical decisions is why I play games like this.  What I don't like is random chance preventing me from making a tactical decision and 'tactical decisions' that make no difference to the game and waste my time.
For example, imagine having to take a leadership test to move chess pieces further than one square.  It would definately add an element to the game, but would it make the game better, deeper or more fun?  I think it would just be frustrating and would not enjoy it.  Just because its there doesn't mean kt adds anything valuable to the game.  In fact, it could be a detriment.

Vaash, you seem to think that not forcing turrets to select between torpedos and AC is a big problem.  We eliminated it primarily because it made cheating pay and didn't see how it added much to the game now that the ordnance rules are what they are.  Can you show me how this change hurts Tau and IN in any significant way?

How are bombers able to paste an undamaged BB in this system any better than they can under the turret suppression rules?  My calculations show that they are about the same if not fewer.  Can you run the numbers yourself?

You really should test these rules out.  I know you don't like the principles I'm making my modifications on, or maybe you don't like me personally for some reason, but if I'm really wrong on this its the best way to prove it or come up with ideas to make it so you do like it.

[Vaaish]

You still aren't getting the point. It was a LUCKY hit that caused the damage. Luck not skill. You say you are against lucky dice rolls when it comes to SO yet have no problems with lucky weapon hits (criticals). Luck will always play some part in warfare. Look through the accounts during WWII or even modern times and see how many time you can find reports of communications gear failing at critical points in a battle. I'm sure you will find plenty.

Ok, you posted a table. It's completely nonsensical. Why are bigger ships lower LD?  Why do nids get +1? Typically greener commanders are given smaller commands not larger ones.

  We eliminated it primarily because it made cheating pay and didn't see how it added much to the game now that the ordnance rules are what they are.  Can you show me how this change hurts Tau and IN in any significant way?

How on EARTH do you figure on this making cheating pay? This hurts tau because they rely on combining their variable speed torpedoes and their bombers to strike a target simultaneously at long range. You take away that choice and suddenly things get worse for them since both targets can now be intercepted negating the benefit from skillful positioning. IN to a lesser extent with the Dictator.

How are bombers able to paste an undamaged BB in this system any better than they can under the turret suppression rules?  My calculations show that they are about the same if not fewer.  Can you run the numbers yourself?

Uncrippled, not undamaged. Uncrippled BB have 4+ turrets. Lets take the Emperor as an example. 5 turrets and, for simplicity, no bombers are shot down. Enemy bombers have to roll a 6 to even attack it. Best case scenario, maybe 1 hit. Under your system 4 bombers just have to roll better than a 5 on 4d6 to attack. Which one is more likely to cause damage? Your system is boosting bombers when they don't need the change.

You really should test these rules out.  I know you don't like the principles I'm making my modifications on, or maybe you don't like me personally for some reason, but if I'm really wrong on this its the best way to prove it or come up with ideas to make it so you do like it.

By the same token, you should really familiarize yourself far better with how the game works before you go off and gut things on a poorly conceived notion that you are simplifying the game or making it more tactical. I've played this game for years and I can tell from reading through your proposal it's not making the game better. Why should I spend time playtesting something that's obviously flawed?

In all those years I've never had ship blow up with any regularity on the catastrophic table and when they have it's not that common for large amounts of damage to happen. Sometimes it has happened, but you roll with it and keep going. Keep your fleet a little more spread out and you won't run the risk of the catastrophic damage table gutting your fleet. Brace if you think it's going do a lot of damage or you are too close to the exploding ship. Take a few extra rerolls to combat failed checks. As IN most of my ships end up with LD 8, add the +1 for enemies on SO and passing checks really isn't a problem. If I have a ship with lower LD I can always squadron it if I think it'll be an issue. In the course of a 1500 point game I rarely need more than two rerolls to combat failed checks. From what you've posted it sounds like your are fairly new to BFG and you are having a knee jerk reaction to either misreading the rules or anomalies on the table.

[horizon]

Ok, longer,

My gaming group and I have 2 main issues with the BFG ruleset.  First and foremost is the emphasis on luck over strategy.  We have witnessed several games where an obvious win was reversed into an obvious loss not by player strategy but by luck of the dice alone.  Its disheartening to us that the system can rob victory with a single bad LD or crit roll.  Second is unnecessary complication of the ruleset.  Too much shifting on the gunnery charts, calculations galore and a lot of recordkeeping is involved that could be avoided if desired.
As fans of the 'gameplay over realism' principle and 'strategy over luck'  we have devised the following changes to the core rules of BFG to those ends.

Ah well. Personal opinion. BFG is really low on bookkeeping. Gunnery Chart is awesome. Single roll deciding game? Hardly happening with me.

Special Orders

LD tests are not made for SO.  Players buy a number of orders to use each turn along with their fleet commanders and leiutenants.  They may use up to this number of orders per turn.  Orders always go off.  Losing a commander or leiutenant due to ship destruction or a 'bridge smashed' crit loses the orders associated with that leader permanently.

Nah, Ld is key to a good SO.

Actually one should roll the SO dice if the Ld test is failed... heh heh

LD is still used for everything it was used for but SO and is a fixed value bassd on race and vessel size.  Ld is not randomly generated.

Random generated Ld is kinda cool. For one off games I like it. In campaigns it is more fixed-ish.

BFI is still used in enemy turn but an order must be available to use it.  The order frees up the following turn but the ship or squadron may not go on BFI in their following turn.

What? That is adding bookkeeping tbh.

BFI ships on BFI get a -4 modifier on the crit table.

Dunno, too much. critical hits are scarce anyway.

Ordnance

Turrets may fire at all ordnance that attacks it.  No need to decide between torpedos and AC.

I like the decision between torps/ac.

Bombers do D3 attacks.  Fightabombers do D2.  Turrets are subtracted once after attacks are totalled.  D3+D3-T  not (D6-T)+(D6-T).

Your example would be (D3+D3)-T.

4 bombers vs cruiser 2 turrets max end:
(d3+d3+d3+d3)-2 = (3+3+3+3)-2 = 10 attacks.
minimal= 2 attacks. Thus always 2 attacks at least,,,,  meh

old had minimal of zero and max of 12 attacks (which needs 4 sixes, your idea needs 4 fives / sixes)

You make AC more powerful. Ask RcGothic what I think about that.

No turret suppression.

what do fighters do in your game?

Elite Cadre allows rerolls to H&R attacks, no longer +1.

more re-rolls = more luck.
You wanted less luck, so why this?

Boarding

Ships roll dice equal to their boarding value + modifiers.  Ships match dice starting highest moving to lowest.  Dice which beat it's pair's score subtract 1 hit point from enemy ship.  Ties do nothing.  Left over dice are discarded.  Ships are locked until one dies.  Victorious ship can scuttle enemy ship or let it drift.

whoa, lotsa dice. Not keen on your mechanic. (Not that the official mechanic is good).

General
Warp Rift is eliminated from the Catastrophic table.  Plasma Overload covers the Warp Rift as well and work like WBs with no column shift and kill ordnance automatically.

two sixes.... by all keep it.

These are the basics.  There are specific fleet revisions on the way.

still curious.

Looking for constructive criticism.

Don't feel attacked if someone dislikes your ideas.

cheers!!

[Phthisis]

@Vaash

You still aren't getting the point. It was a LUCKY hit that caused the damage. Luck not skill. You say you are against lucky dice rolls when it comes to SO yet have no problems with lucky weapon hits (criticals). Luck will always play some part in warfare.

Yes, lucky hits can win a game.  Just like what is represented by rolling dice and critical hits.  Lucky hits are still represented in the game and you can get a wide range of results from abysmal failure to statistically average to astounding success.  Over the long run, these dice rolls even out.  You don't fault me for allowing for luck in gunnery, do you?
On the other hand, all that Ld checks for SO do is screw your strategy.  They make it so a brilliant strategic player can still lose due to bad luck.  It's like having to roll dice to move pieces in chess.  It's the main strategic element of the game and it's overridden by pure chance.  Our change makes the strategic part of this strategy game based solely on strategy.  I can argue 'realism' in a fictional universe with you forever, and GW changes it's universe to fit its games all the time.  What specific problem do you have with the order pool system we have created?  Let's talk gameplay and balance.

Ok, you posted a table. It's completely nonsensical. Why are bigger ships lower LD?  Why do nids get +1? Typically greener commanders are given smaller commands not larger ones.

In our system, Ld tests are utilized for navigating celestial phenomenon, picking targets out of squadrons, disengaging, and going on alert.  Different sized vessels have different sized crews.  It's harder to get 80,000 people to work together than 20,000.  It's harder to squeeze a BB between asteroids than it is an escort.  The Ld values are based on the difficulty in coordinating the effort to successfully navigate between rocks, get everyone to battle stations, ignore threats and shut off all systems so you can float away based on the size and crew compliment of the ship.  The commander's actual ability at command are represented by the number of orders they bring to the fleet.
Orks get -1 because they are much worse at coordinating and aren't natural spacefarers.  Eldar get +1 due to their skill and technology.  Marines get +1 due to discipline.  Tyranids get +1 because they are space creatures and are naturally adapted to their environment (and have the hivemind). 

But that table isn't far harder to memorize than the table you use to roll Ld, is it?  In fact, it's nearly identical just without the need to roll dice.  So who's pretending? And it's much easier to look at the board and know that an Imperial cruiser is Ld 7 because of what it is than to have to go to your roster and check to see if the Lord Daaros is Ld 7 or Ld 8.

With regard to turrets, if you wish to cheat, this is the easiest place to do it in the game.  Its the 'tracking torpedo' situation where a player throws bombers at a ship, turrets fire, and magically all the torpedos launched happen to be targeting that ship as well.  This can be done through rules lawyering or slight of hand.  It's cheating, to be sure, but it's a weak spot I've seen exploited by known cheaters repeatedly.
Tau ordnance wins through VOLUME, ordnance speed and the ability to redirect torpedo salvoes.  The extra attack or two lost per turn isn't going to amount to crushing the Tau's hopes of victory.  They are still a very viable fleet.  Even more so that they can RO reliably.  This is especially true since fighter screens and CAP really cuts down on how much this can happen, especially at long range. 

From what you've posted it sounds like your are fairly new to BFG and you are having a knee jerk reaction to either misreading the rules or anomalies on the table.

This is fairly insulting. Obvious troll is obvious. I purchased the BFG starter set the week it was released and have been playing it whenever I've had a gaming group that was willing ever since.  I still have a copy of the original rule book.  You don't know anything about me.  Perhaps I have more games under my belt than you and so I have seen the things that I'm concerned about quite a bit more.  If you care about what I'm doing, stop flaming. If you don't, go away.  So far the only argument that you've got left standing is that you like having your strategy dominated by luck because you believe it's more realistic. As I've said, you have other options.  Play BFG:R instead when it comes out. 

But I'm keeping the Elite Cadre H&R idea.


@Horizon
I don't feel attacked when people don't like my ideas.  Seriously, after the abuse I received in the BFG:R forum for not swallowing the kool-aid, I know what I'm in for here. And if I prove that someone who disagrees with me that I'm right, it's because I'm too stupid to understand their brilliant argument, right? Besides, I'm not the one losing my cool.


Regarding AC:
I don't want AC to be more powerful.  That's why these rules nerf them a little bit.

Your math is off.  In the original rules, 4 bombers have 16 attacks max (not 12), while in my rules they have 10 max. 

But these are extreme examples, aren't they?  Vaash has an Emperor with 5 turrets and not one shoots down a bomber?  Lets talk averages.

Average attacks 4 bombers vs T1
Original Rules: 8.75
Our Rules: 6 attacks
Turret Suppression: 8.75 (0 fighters)
My rules average fewer attacks.

Average attacks 4 bombers vs T2
Original rules: 5 attacks
Our rules: 4 attacks
Turret Suppression: 6 attacks
My rules average fewer attacks.

Average attacks 4 bombers vs T3
Original rules: 2.5
Our rules: 2
Turret Suppression: 4

Average attacks 4 bombers vs T4
Original Rules: 1
Our rules: 0
Turret Suppression: 3

So, just by average number of attacks, do you still think that these new rules are a big boost to bomber strength?
The beauty of these rules:
Fewer average attacks.  Ordnance gets a slight overall nerf so that gunnery is not overshadowed.
Greater possibility of damaging high turret targets. BBs are still vulnerable to bombers, but they will only take a few attacks.  No more threat to BBs than Turret Suppression.
Ships with fewer Turrets have a better chance of survival. 

Everybody get's what they wanted out of bombers.  Ordnance isn't overpowered but BBs can still be damaged by bomber waves.

what do fighters do in your game?

Kill enemy ordnance.

more re-rolls = more luck. You wanted less luck, so why this?

Re-rolls can alleviate bad luck.  But I like Vaash's idea better.  Roll 2D6, pick what you want.  This gives players some control over what systems they shut down and therefore a layer of strategy to H&R attacks that are normally completely random.

regarding boarding

whoa, lotsa dice. Not keen on your mechanic. (Not that the official mechanic is good).

The official mechanic is ridiculously abstract and allows for ships that realistically should be at a disadvantage to be at an advantage.  I also really don't like victors always coming away with no damage.  This system fixes both problems, the number of dice needed can be quickly calculated, and usually you're only comparing 5-10 pairs.  The rest of the dice are ignored.  It works faster than I had originally thought it would.
But, it can be a lot of dice.  I boarded an undamaged Emperor once with 3 damaged Chaos cruisers, and that was a lot of dice.  However, the majority of boarding actions we've had are between damaged ships and so that limits the number of dice involved.  Usually there are under 20 dice being rolled total.  You can roll more than that firing a Carnage squadron off.  We also play 40k, so we aren't shy at rolling large numbers of dice.  These boarding actions require nothing anywhere near the number of dice rolled in even an average sized assault in 40k.

There's no point going into the specific fleet rules until some sort of consensus is formed on the main system changes.  If you don't agree that our order system is a good idea, then you'll throw out what we did with Tyranids and Eldar at first glance.

Seriously, to all 3 of you.  What do you think that using SO as a resource as proposed will remove from the game?  How does removing random chance in this particular section make it a bad game?  You have all expressed that you don't like it, but there haven't been any concrete reasons as to how it makes for a bad game.

[horizon]

With regard to turrets, if you wish to cheat, this is the easiest place to do it in the game.  Its the 'tracking torpedo' situation where a player throws bombers at a ship, turrets fire, and magically all the torpedos launched happen to be targeting that ship as well.  This can be done through rules lawyering or slight of hand.  It's cheating, to be sure, but it's a weak spot I've seen exploited by known cheaters repeatedly.
Tau ordnance wins through VOLUME, ordnance speed and the ability to redirect torpedo salvoes.  The extra attack or two lost per turn isn't going to amount to crushing the Tau's hopes of victory.  They are still a very viable fleet.  Even more so that they can RO reliably.  This is especially true since fighter screens and CAP really cuts down on how much this can happen, especially at long range. 

Calling a game mechanic bad because people cheat? That's not correct.

In the shooting phase the torps are placed in the direction they are shot at. Heck, if you have issues with your opponent talk to him about what exact route that torps will have.
So far our games never had such cheat things. Woo on people who cheat I say.

Tau are called back on other items already.

In the original boarding rules the attacker can be hurt. So... huh?
You need lots of different coloured dice as well. To avoid your cheating opponents swapping dice. Right?


AH, math, holiday still in my brainz I guess. Anywhoo, wee on me.



What did I not like about SO?? I just said the dice should be rolled in case of a failed Ld test. iirc some Ork fan rules at Port Maw had this. funny.


later more.


ps in a thread with a few people getting consesus on the core game mechanics... is like almost impossible.