Streamlining BFG

[horizon]

@Horizon
More bickering and splitting hairs.

.

I merely accused you of playing Eldar. Eldar have an easier time manouvering and disengaging.  Was I right?

As easy as Necrons. Yes, Eldar can fly some further away if they have the sun at the right side. Other races can also easy disengage using Ld test and celectial phenomena to improve the roll.
I can disengage with every fleet, there was no need to isolate Eldar .

I said everyone agrees Andy Chambers screwed up. I didn't give a specific screw up because we dont all agree how he did, but everyone can point to a major error.  My theory is all these errors lead back to the same cause.

What cause?
Different statement this time.

If I remember correctly, the issue Sigiroth was correcting with the Eldar was that a careful player couldn't be meaningully engaged by another fleet.  I think that issue was a symptom of the bad orders system.  Namely that Eldar didn't suffer from it the way all other fleets do.  If you fix the orders system, MMS may not be necessary.  I'm saying MMS patches the system, but to fix it you have to address SO.

Official Eldar MSM rules do not work because it allows Eldar to move in the ordnance phase. Has nothing to do with leadership.

Go play another system?  No thanks.  You didn't like the Eldar rules. Youve changed the game FAR more than I am trying to now.  Why didn't you just go play something else?

No. We changed one fleet. You change the gaming system. The core rules.

[Phthisis]

Bump

@Sigiroth

Part of the rationale behind streamlining BFG has been to make large and small scale games more playable (think BFG Apocalypse). The existing leadership system puts a damper on playing bigger games.  It also punishes escort squadrons unfairly.  This is a big reason that almost every gaming group plays at 1500pts.  Its the sweet spot where the Ld rules arent burdensome.  We want to open that up a bit.

Another thing about larger games is there are more ships, and usually in the same space.  Its easier for ships to get crowded when fighting.  More crowding means less disengaging, more dying ships and hulks, more exploding ships, and more WDIs.  The chances of WDIs, or explosions in general increases very quickly as the game size increases.  Chain reactions can (and have) happened and although its cool the first couple of times it gets real old real fast.

I think we are approaching a functioning chain-of-command and leadership model for BFG.   You agree that movement SOs are the perogative of the admiral.  I agree that LO and BFI can be the perogative of the captain.  They appear to be different
The idea regarding the movement SO is that the check represents whether the crew properly prepares the ship for the manouver or not.  I think the helmsman is turning anyway.

I propose a hybrid ruleset.

Movement SO are now Fleet Orders and a number of them are purchased along with the admiralty for the fleet.  They are drawn from a pool just like my earlier proposal and the function works automatically.   Each ship performing a FO must take a ld test all at once (like your proposed rules in BFG:R)  If they fail, the ship still performs the manouver but they suffer a critical hit as the forces involved wreak havoc.  A normal crit may be too much.  Perhaps roll d6+1 on the crit table?

LO & BFI are now Captain Orders.  The Ld test is taken per ship.  If the test passes they get the effect.  If it doesn't they dont.  Other ships can attempt to test even if another ship fails. No penalty for failure. 

@Horizon

As easy as Necrons. Yes, Eldar can fly some further away if they have the sun at the right side. Other races can also easy disengage using Ld test and celectial phenomena to improve the roll.
I can disengage with every fleet, there was no need to isolate Eldar .

Necrons are another fleet people complain about.  I know several people who quit BFG alltogether because of the Necron fleet list.  But that's a somewhat different issue. Necrons don't have anywhere near the manouverability and leadership that Eldar do. Do I really have to point out to you that Eldar both fly faster and are more manouverable than Necron ships? Just go read the fleet lists.

The point is that Eldar can cut and run for cover at any moment in any direction and can hide in celestial phenomena.  Other fleets can't find it so easily, nor can they navigate it so safely nor do they often have the high leadership to make disengaging a foregone conclusion.

As I've said, we dispatch AC markers to stalk crippled ships to prevent them from disengaging.  Each marker gives a -1 to the roll.  If they haven't been able to cut and run for a gas cloud or something, that's a pretty steep negative modifier.  Most of our tests to disengage are made in the 4-6 range.  Odds aren't good.

Official Eldar MSM rules do not work because it allows Eldar to move in the ordnance phase. Has nothing to do with leadership.

Comparitvely, Eldar have infinite free manouvering SO without any tests.  Actually, their rules are even better than this.  From one perspective that's a movement problem.  From another, it's a problem with the SO system.  It just depends on whether you feel like rolling dice for LD makes sense and want to completely rewrite a couple of fleet lists, or if you want to tweak the SO mechanic. I think with the pool SO system and a simple rule change for the Eldar fleet we've been able to correct the issue with the Eldar without rewriting the list.

MMS addressed this issue by stranding Eldar ships inside the gunnery range of their targets.  But that was such a detriment to the Eldar ships that they needed the addition of shields to be playable at all.  In our system, Eldar need to burn an order to get their 2nd move in the Ordnance phase. This means the Eldar player has to plan their attacks.  If they dive in and out they can't LO.  They can't do it with their whole fleet every turn.  And since their opponents have orders to burn as well, it means that they will be fighting a much more manouverable enemy.  We bring the Eldar down but bring everyone else up to meet them as well.

No. We changed one fleet. You change the gaming system. The core rules.

Technically you changed three fleets: Corsair, Craftworld and Dark Eldar.
But you've gone farther.  You were involved with the BFG:R project which changed points values, added ships to fleet lists and altered ship profiles across the board.  Then at the very end BFG:R began to change core rule mechanics despite Plaxor stating that it was out of the projects purview.
Just a couple of weeks ago you posted a radical change to how AC works that goes far beyond our suggestions on the matter.  And you've been discussing changing the way the hit point system works with Thinking Stone.  Actually, you've been involved in quite a few attempts to radically change core rules.
This actually makes sense since you are the editor of an e-zine that publishes, among other things, changes to the core rules.  Our boarding rules are inspired by an article we read in your magazine regarding changing boarding, but we toned it down quite a bit.  I'm surprised you don't recognize the similarities.

Our rule changes scratch the surface of the game, for the most part.  Actually, in many ways our rule set is closer to v1.0 than anything the HA or BFG:R has come up with since we can freely omit MMS if we like and plan on omitting many of the ships added to the fleet lists.  Our changes can be implimented with a one page reference sheet as an addendum to the standard rulebook as printed on GWs website, and is compatible with any FAQ version you like to play with.
If anything, the core rule that we change the most is adding the order pool in place of rerolls.  But that's where the secret to the sauce is.

[horizon]

Necrons are another fleet people complain about.  I know several people who quit BFG alltogether because of the Necron fleet list.  But that's a somewhat different issue.

I see nothing wrong with Necrons tbh.

An Eldar cruiser into the sun flies 20cm. Is that slower or faster then a Chaos Cruiser?
An Eldar cruiser into the sun/abeam flies 35cm (or so). No AAF, can Necrons match that?

The point is that Eldar can cut and run for cover at any moment in any direction and can hide in celestial phenomena.  Other fleets can't find it so easily, nor can they navigate it so safely nor do they often have the high leadership to make disengaging a foregone conclusion.

Eldar MMS capital ships have a turn rate of 2 times 45 degree per turn. That is not any direction.

In our system, Eldar need to burn an order to get their 2nd move in the Ordnance phase. This means the Eldar player has to plan their attacks.  If they dive in and out they can't LO.  They can't do it with their whole fleet every turn.  And since their opponents have orders to burn as well, it means that they will be fighting a much more manouverable enemy.  We bring the Eldar down but bring everyone else up to meet them as well.

This is what I call a wrong approach. So you add special orders (the 2nd move).  Nah, don't like it.

I'd even would take time to approach the FFG system for Eldar and see what it does for BFG.

Just a couple of weeks ago you posted a radical change to how AC works that goes far beyond our suggestions on the matter.  And you've been discussing changing the way the hit point system works with Thinking Stone.  Actually, you've been involved in quite a few attempts to radically change core rules.

Hit point system? Could be, I talk a lot..

The AC thing. Well since everyone has some sort of complaint about AC I am allowed to think along? Right?

This actually makes sense since you are the editor of an e-zine that publishes, among other things, changes to the core rules.  Our boarding rules are inspired by an article we read in your magazine regarding changing boarding, but we toned it down quite a bit.  I'm surprised you don't recognize the similarities.

Vaaish is the editor, I was. I am on the team though. But an editor has nothing to do on what he thinks is good for the game. Really, I have added articles I didn't agree with, but that is no problem. It was not my task to judge as an editor.

And indeed I can't remember every article from the head. lol

Our rule changes scratch the surface of the game, for the most part. 

The Special Order system & Leadership Rolls is quite integral to the game.

[Sigoroth]

@Sigiroth

It's Sigoroth, not Sigiroth.

Part of the rationale behind streamlining BFG has been to make large and small scale games more playable (think BFG Apocalypse). The existing leadership system puts a damper on playing bigger games.  It also punishes escort squadrons unfairly.  This is a big reason that almost every gaming group plays at 1500pts.  Its the sweet spot where the Ld rules arent burdensome.  We want to open that up a bit.

Eh, this change is not the only way of dealing with larger games. The randomness and Chain of Command can be kept through the addition of officers which can issue orders outside the chain of command. Presumably this is an act of delegation. A fleet admiral trusting to his commodores and rear-admirals to lead their squadrons. In effect this would work in a similar mechanic to purchasing more orders. The upshot is that this problem can be fixed without resorting to auto-passed orders.

Another thing about larger games is there are more ships, and usually in the same space.  Its easier for ships to get crowded when fighting.  More crowding means less disengaging, more dying ships and hulks, more exploding ships, and more WDIs.  The chances of WDIs, or explosions in general increases very quickly as the game size increases.  Chain reactions can (and have) happened and although its cool the first couple of times it gets real old real fast.

I don't think it "gets real old real fast". I'm quite happy with the amount and in fact argue for a modifier to the catastrophic damage table proportional to the amount of damage in excess of the minimum necessary to force a roll on the table.

I think we are approaching a functioning chain-of-command and leadership model for BFG.   You agree that movement SOs are the perogative of the admiral.  I agree that LO and BFI can be the perogative of the captain.  They appear to be different
The idea regarding the movement SO is that the check represents whether the crew properly prepares the ship for the manouver or not.  I think the helmsman is turning anyway.

I do not. The CTNH order does not allow you to turn at double your turn rate. It allows you to execute an extra turn. This turn is subject to all the restrictions of the 1st turn, including minimum move distance. So a cruiser would have to move 10cm, turn, then move another 10cm before being allowed to turn again. If the order is not properly executed then you simply don't turn the required amount.

I propose a hybrid ruleset.

Movement SO are now Fleet Orders and a number of them are purchased along with the admiralty for the fleet.  They are drawn from a pool just like my earlier proposal and the function works automatically.   Each ship performing a FO must take a ld test all at once (like your proposed rules in BFG:R)  If they fail, the ship still performs the manouver but they suffer a critical hit as the forces involved wreak havoc.  A normal crit may be too much.  Perhaps roll d6+1 on the crit table?

LO & BFI are now Captain Orders.  The Ld test is taken per ship.  If the test passes they get the effect.  If it doesn't they dont.  Other ships can attempt to test even if another ship fails. No penalty for failure.

I take it you mean RO and BFI, not LO and BFI.

Anyway, I have thought about this idea before. The only thing I like about your pool of orders idea is that it better shows an admirals worth than the current system. Ld bonuses and re-rolls don't really give a good representation of admiral ability. But that's all I like. I don't like auto-passed orders and I don't like limited orders.

Using Ld tests to turn the decision making process into a mixed strategy system isn't necessary.  There isn't a Nash Equilibrium to disrupt here.  Its a non cooperative zero-sum game. And it has stochastic resluts.  Combining mixed strategy and stochastic outcomes is just plain bad design, especially for a strategy game.  It creates a system where a player's decision making is overridden by chance.  Its so bad a combination that its not even found in gambling games.

Well, given that mixed strategy involves a probability distribution over possible actions then it seems that by definition there's stochastic results. As for no gambling games with decisions being overridden by chance, you must not play Texas Hold'em. If you have pocket aces and manage to get all-in against a single opponent then you've made the best possible set of decisions. In this case you've defeated your opponent but your good tactics, decisions and choices can be overruled by chance. Similarly splitting a pair of 8s in blackjack may give you the best chance of winning but then end up worse than if you had not.

Also, the Ld test is not to disrupt a Nash equilibrium (which would apply just as easily to a non-cooperative zero-sum game anyway). Instead it's to represent that not everything goes according to the whims of the admiral. This is a representation of reality, not a mechanic from game theory designed to augment player vs player interaction. The special orders in BFG represent things that are not guaranteed. You can control down to the centimetre how far you will move your ship within the normal minimums and maximums of a given ship. It is sometimes possible to go beyond these, but it's not a given. If you want to have a guaranteed response from your ships, simply don't put them on special orders. Now you will know exactly what they're capable of.

Consider the case of wanting to put your entire fleet onto AAF. With limited orders this will likely result in a guaranteed split fleet, as you have not enough orders for all ships but those that do have orders will go on them. On the other hand, with a Ld based test it's possible to get your entire fleet on orders. It's also possible to have a catastrophic breakdown as some captains await others to move and seeing that they're not (ie, first failed) thinking perhaps the order had been countermanded or being unable to AAF due to formational reasons, etc (so breakdown of Chain of Command).

So while you could get around the RO & BFI peculiarities via a mixed system (LO & movement orders from order pool, BFI & RO rolled against Ld as and when necessary) I still prefer the leadership based system, for its potential for success, representation of potential failure, and for the forced adaptation to unexpected situations. Your system I like only for its clearer representation of admiral ability.

As for the MMS situation, the problem there is a breaking of the abstraction of the game. BFG is a turn based game and the ability to move after firing allowed for the possibility of avoiding return fire. This made no sense since presumably the enemy would not wait their turn to fire. Even with some sort of limitation that reduced the incidence of this there would still be the potential, which should not be. In practice the Eldar were too strong and too weak. Too strong because they couldn't be targeted and too weak whenever they were. They should've had shields from the outset.

[Dan_Lee]

Just read this whole thread in a day. I'll admit to only skimming some of the more "heated" posts. Here's what I think of your ideas Phthisis:

Special Orders

Buying a number of SO per turn is novel and interesting. I agree with you that in bigger games it becomes more likely that you'll fail a SO check in the normal rules, and I can see your rules overcoming that. I like the concept of buying your command structure. I'd say it's no less or more valid than the normal rules. It's just a matter of preference.

I'm not too keen on the fixed Ld though. Where a bigger ship should suffer (such as navigating Asteroid fields) there is already a mechanic to represent that. Bigger ships tend to be more important and so would have better command staff. If you're worried about random leadership in one-off games (which can be a real game-breaker in small games), why don't you allow players to buy leadership rather than rolling? (e.g. roll Ld for free, Ld 7 for X points, Ld 8 for Y points, if you want Ld 9 you must risk the roll).

I'd say BFI should still use the old system though, in that a ship must pass a Ld check to brace and it wouldn't use up a SO from your pool.

I see no reason for BFI to affect the critical table. I know how irritating it can be when a lucky shot does a hull breach, but it's as likely to happen to your opponent as you, and shouldn't happen that often to warrant a rule. If you really don't like the worst criticals why not say all critical can be repaired, except bulkhead collapse which does 1 point of damage, and hull breach which does d3 (did I get those the right way around)?

Turrets and AC

Sometimes (rarely) deciding whether to shoot torpedoes or bombers isn't a no-brainer. If your change isn't going to make a big difference, why make the change? If the problem is your opponent cheating then no amount of rules changes will help you - you need to play against other people.

I can see your bomber rules are simpler and I can appreciate that. Teaching bomber and turret suppression rules to a beginner can be one of the most confusing parts of the rules. But I still like being able to use my fighter to suppress turrets. Your idea of just using fighters in their own waves flying ahead doesn't sound like it will work (though it may do, I've not tried it). How do you stop your opponent bypassing your fighters by just flying round them?

Boarding

I too wish boarding was more viable. Your method is easy to remember and doesn't require looking up a table. But boarding happens so infrequently that taking the time to find the table once in every few games is hardly a big deal. A simpler approach would be to modify the boarding table so that the extreme dice roll (attacker rolls 1 and defender rolls 6 so that defender wins)  doesn't produce such an extreme result.

Warp Drive Implosion

It should be rare that these hurt you because the average range is only ~10cm and even a battleship should do on average 6 hits (but most things will do less). The worst case is bad, but usually it wont be that bad, especially if you brace. If the problem is people deliberately triggering explosions by shooting hulks you should be able to avoid that easily by maneuvering away. If people are using it as a tactic against you, then use it as a tactic against them. Again, this comes up relatively rarely so its not worth the rules change.

[Trickstick]

Shouldn't this thread be in the experimental rules section?

[Phthisis]

@Sigoroth

Well, if it all comes down to liking our rules or not, we've done a pretty good job.  I submitted these rules here for fire-proofing, well knowing a certain group would find any fault they could and would never approve.  So far, there are zero issues on the table regarding mechanics or game balance after weeks of attack. 

I haven't played Texas-Hold'em.  I don't like to gamble.  Probably because I can work out the math and theory.

Mixed Strategy in game theory is randomization in the decision making process, like dice telling you whether you can go on SO or not.  It doesn't apply to drawing cards in poker.  Stochastic results reffers specifically to randomization in the effect of decision making, like deciding to shoot and rolling dice to see how many cause damage. The draw is referred to as the 'state'.  Adding mixed strategy to Texas Hold-Em woul be something along the lines of randomizing the betting process.  For example, if instead of deciding to bet, call or fold, each player had to roll 2d6 and compared the score to a chart to see how they would act.  2-5 fold, 6&7 bet $5, 8&9 bet $10, 10-12 call.  Alternately it could be another party that can't see your cards making your decision for you.  Sound like fun?

Combining mixed strategy with stochastic results means youre randomizing the decision and the result of thr decision.  Chaos reigns.  I cant think of any other strategy game that randomizes decision making, or even a board game beyond those made for kids under 10.  Mixed strategy is only intended as a theoretical place holder, not an actual game component.

Zero-sum and non-cooperative does not mean there isn't a Nash Equillibrium.  The fact that BFG isn't a finite game means there isn't a NE.  But being zero-sum competative does make the addition of a 3rd party decision maker (chance) completely absurd from a theory perspective.

@Dan

Thanks for reading & commenting! 

My fixed Ld values are not a representation of the ability of the command staff.  Its an abstraction kf the difficulty in coordinating large numbers of crew and the difficulties inherent in that particular tonnage of vessel.  Even a crack command crew will find it difficult to manouver a battleship into ramming position or through an asteroid field, not because they aren't highly skilled, but because battleships turn slowly and cant squeeze through the same gap a cruiser or escort can.  Likewise, getting 20k crew to turn off the lights is inherently easier than getting 100k people to do the same, regardless of captain skill. 
Nevertheless, the current system doesn't bear out bigger ships getting better Ld due to better commanders.  A cruiser, BB and escort all have the same chance of getting Ld6.   I'm just assuming all captains are competent. Although I consider Ld changes fair game in campaign.  The static Ld is devised for one-off games.
There is a mechanic for modifying difficulty based on ship size, like for ramming, but it's half-assed and allows for guaranteed success  (Roll 1d6 vs Ld6) or makes a mockery of even decent Ld values ( 81/216 =  37.5% success).  Although some may like that modification system, its too wild for my taste.

I can see BFI existing outside the SO structure, but it removes a layer of strategy from the purchased order system.  Still, I'm willing to make this change.

Bulkhead collapse is D6 hull breach is D3.  Theyre pretty severe but rare enough to happen only once per game, so it won't likely balance out.  For me, this could get cut as well, but I didn't write these rules alone.  The argument here was the same as behind eliminating WDI and as bracing involved closing bulkheads and blast doors to limit damage, a hull breach or bulkhead collapse wouldn't be a serious event.  Its easy enough to change the rationale for the damage though.  Hull breach becomes a Magazine Explosion and Bulkhead Collapse becomes Plasma Reactor breached....

My feeling on the turret target selection was if the roll doesn't matter, why roll it? It mattered in v1.0 when you could get swamped by massive waves, but now nobody can put out that kind of ordnance simultaneously. My personal preference is to leave it out.  Even if it isn't a no-brainer in certain rare situations, the choice will have no significant effect on the game.  That and everyone seemed to be clamoring for a nerf to ordnance.  This is a small issue I'd cave on if it was a deal breaker. 

Boarding doesn't happen often in game now because the rules make it a terrible tactic, even for fleets meant to excell at it.  I want Orks & Nids attempting to board like you'd expect.  Boarding happens a lot more when one side is actually trying to.  Weve been getting 2 or 3 boarding actions per game using ships of all sizes.
Changing the modifiers was the first option on the table to fix boarding.  Thing is, the modifiers werent the problem.  The problem is the one die mechanic.  Nothing is more random than a single die cast.  In order to control that one die to make a reasonable result, you have to make modifiers so severe that you guarantee success or failure a lot of the time.  Adding multiple dice gives you a nice probability distribution that can be tweaked with modifiers.

Removing WDI isnt worth it around 1500pts.  Around 3000pts it makes a bit more sense.  At 5000 it makes even more. 

Anyway, that's our rationale behind the rules.  I am open to suggestions.  You'll not find me as intractable as some.

Anyways, thats my thinking on the issue

[horizon]

Well, if it all comes down to liking our rules or not, we've done a pretty good job.  I submitted these rules here for fire-proofing, well knowing a certain group would find any fault they could and would never approve.  So far, there are zero issues on the table regarding mechanics or game balance after weeks of attack. 

Eh what. weeks of attack.... nice way to put it. lol

Mixed Strategy in game theory is randomization in the decision making process, like dice telling you whether you can go on SO or not. 

Like running out of a pool tells you on to order or not.

edit: autopassing special orders is not realistic either.

Nevertheless, the current system doesn't bear out bigger ships getting better Ld due to better commanders.  A cruiser, BB and escort all have the same chance of getting Ld6.   I'm just assuming all captains are competent. Although I consider Ld changes fair game in campaign.  The static Ld is devised for one-off games.

That is where different views apply.

There is a mechanic for modifying difficulty based on ship size, like for ramming, but it's half-assed and allows for guaranteed success  (Roll 1d6 vs Ld6) or makes a mockery of even decent Ld values ( 81/216 =  37.5% success).  Although some may like that modification system, its too wild for my taste.

Ld should never be determined upon ship size.

Removing WDI isnt worth it around 1500pts.  Around 3000pts it makes a bit more sense.  At 5000 it makes even more. 

Weird logic. I'd say. Or do people cram 5000pts vs 5000pts on a 120x120 table?

Anyway, that's our rationale behind the rules.  I am open to suggestions.  You'll not find me as intractable as some.

lol at the last remark. Please....

[Sigoroth]

@Sigoroth

Well, if it all comes down to liking our rules or not, we've done a pretty good job.  I submitted these rules here for fire-proofing, well knowing a certain group would find any fault they could and would never approve.  So far, there are zero issues on the table regarding mechanics or game balance after weeks of attack. 

Yeah, it can work as a system, it has some merit. I just don't think it's preferable.

I haven't played Texas-Hold'em.  I don't like to gamble.  Probably because I can work out the math and theory.

Mixed Strategy in game theory is randomization in the decision making process, like dice telling you whether you can go on SO or not.  It doesn't apply to drawing cards in poker.  Stochastic results reffers specifically to randomization in the effect of decision making, like deciding to shoot and rolling dice to see how many cause damage. The draw is referred to as the 'state'.  Adding mixed strategy to Texas Hold-Em woul be something along the lines of randomizing the betting process.  For example, if instead of deciding to bet, call or fold, each player had to roll 2d6 and compared the score to a chart to see how they would act.  2-5 fold, 6&7 bet $5, 8&9 bet $10, 10-12 call.  Alternately it could be another party that can't see your cards making your decision for you.  Sound like fun?

The process of applying a leadership test to the special order in effect turns the pure strategy into a mixed strategy and provides a pretty good reasoning for doing so. That is, you wanted to do something but failed. Most mixed strategies have no good reasoning. However, it is not truly a mixed strategy. It only has the effect of one. Really it is a pure strategy. Just like deciding to blow up a specific target ship is a pure strategy. And just like in that example, you could fail. A true example of a mixed strategy scenario for special orders might simply be to roll the special order dice to see what the ship does. In this case it's a randomisation. In the game it's really a decision with dichotomous results. So it is much more like going all-in with pocket aces and being beaten on the flop than it is having the decision of how to bet being randomised or decided by others.

It is also not the only aspect of strategy. There are the choices of positioning and targeting, as well as sequence of fire, from both within a ship and within the fleet. So a failure in the special order decision making process does impact on your other choices, but it is not catastrophic and adaptation to the vagaries of fate is the lot of any admiral.

Zero-sum and non-cooperative does not mean there isn't a Nash Equillibrium.  The fact that BFG isn't a finite game means there isn't a NE.  But being zero-sum competative does make the addition of a 3rd party decision maker (chance) completely absurd from a theory perspective.

Presumably game theory focuses on the player vs player interaction whereas what we have here is more of a simulation.

[Dan_Lee]

Most people associate Ld with command staff skill rather than hull size, and you'll have a hard time working against that ingrained idea. I don't agree with you that the ability of a commander to control his ship will depend on the size of the ship. It makes sense to a certain extent (I do follow your logic) but I also think that bigger ships would just have more command staff to compensate. Ultimately how well the captain has drilled his crew and how much discipline he has instilled will be far more important than the ship size.

The current system for accounting for hull size in ramming etc. can lead to some certainties, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I also thought that was one of the main motivations for these rules anyway (more certainty).

Having to reserve SO for BFI does add another element of strategy. You've play tested it so I'll take your word on it. I just think being unable to brace because your pool is empty is much worse than not being able to go on any other SO. You decide when your ships need to use all other SO's, but it's your enemies shooting which determines when you need to brace.

I can see how bracing would reduce the severity of criticals, but that's already accounted for in the brace save anyway. You can imagine that the hit you just braced against did actually go critical and cause a hull breach, but because you were braced the affect on the ship is negligible.

The turrets issue is just a matter of personal rules "aesthetics" really. You think if a rule is insignificant it shouldn't be there, I think if a rule is insignificant there's no need to change it. It doesn't really matter either way because it's insignificant!

1d6 roll is very random, but remember both players are making a roll, so it's more like a 2d6 roll. The most extreme results only have a 1/36 chance. If you really want to make it less random you could re-write the table so that each player rolls 2d6, then the most extreme results would be 1/(36^2).

As for removing WDI, bigger point games should be on bigger tables, making the WDI effect game-size independent. Also, last time I played a 4000 point game it took over 12 hours. How often do you play 3000 or 5000 point games?

[Phthisis]

@Sigoroth

Yeah, it can work as a system, it has some merit.

Thanks!

Presumably game theory focuses on the player vs player interaction whereas what we have here is more of a simulation.

Well, game theory is intended to focus on decision making, but youre basically right.  I can respect your desire to make BFG a simulation.  I hope you can respect my desire to make BFG a better game.  We can't reconcile the two only because your realistic quirks are my design glitches.


@Dan

Most people associate Ld with command staff skill rather than hull size, and you'll have a hard time working against that ingrained idea.

I know, although the rulebook says the Ld values are a representation of crew skill, not command ability.  A lot of people also argue that better command staff gets assigned to bigger ships.  This is not borne out in the rules system either as all ships have the same random chance of rolling bad on the leadership table. 

Ultimately how well the captain has drilled his crew and how much discipline he has instilled will be far more important than the ship size.

I see your point.  Purchasing Ld values, as you suggested, would be the way to go then.  And use modifiers as appropriate (BB navigating asteroids) as +/- to the roll.

I also thought that was one of the main motivations for these rules anyway (more certainty).

Certainty isn't a goal.  More control for the player, ease of play and a system that works equally at all points levels.  Increasing predictability is a factor in a couple of rule changes, but never to the point of certainty.

Having to reserve SO for BFI does add another element of strategy. You've play tested it so I'll take your word on it. I just think being unable to brace because your pool is empty is much worse than not being able to go on any other SO. You decide when your ships need to use all other SO's, but it's your enemies shooting which determines when you need to brace.

We also disallow the ship/squadron from going on SO the following turn.
That way you can't just buy an automatic save.
I can see the point about captains ordering the brace, not admirals.  But having to save SO die to do it is a great mechanic! I wish there were another way to create the same effect.

As for removing WDI, bigger point games should be on bigger tables, making the WDI effect game-size independent. Also, last time I played a 4000 point game it took over 12 hours. How often do you play 3000 or 5000 point games?

What size table for each size game?  If I play a smaller game, should I use a smaller table?  Where will I find tables to fit the size game we want to play? 

Ships have the same effective range regardless of game size.  A bigger table just means more turns of movement before you can finally engage.  Even on a larger table, strategy winds up pushing all those ships close together anyway.  Also, some mission's deployment rules don't allow spreading your fleet out.  The ships have to converge and so larger games lead to greater ship density.  Greater density means more ships within explosion range.  No way around it.

[Dan_Lee]

"Certainty" was a bad word to choose on my part. I know you meant "less random". My mistake.

The traditional 6' by 4' table seems to work for games up to 2000 a side. Ones games are getting bigger than that it helps if the table scales up too. I find you want more space to manoeuvre. Finding bigger tables can be an issue though, so usually you just have to make do. I can see what you mean about larger games leading to larger ship densities as ships eventually converge. I think my original comment about WDI being game size independent was over-simplified (i.e. wrong). I still don't think WDI needs changing though. It's still relatively rare, and only the worst WDI's will do lots of damage.

[Vaaish]

Explain how changing SO disrupts game balance, but do it in my thread.  I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.  It better be good.

I was responding to your claim that it IMPROVES balance between fleets here:

You may find them more fun and you'll definately find the game more balanced. 

Your rules affect all fleets equally which does nothing to change balance between fleets. For example, if you have two glasses of milk, one full and the other at half. They aren't balanced because both have different amounts of milk in them. If you take the same amount of milk from each, you haven't addressed the balance at all. To do that you need to take milk from the glass that has more milk in it. When you change the core rules as you have in your proposal, it affects all the fleets (outside of eldar) the same and leaves the relative balance between fleets unchanged.

Im offering an alternative for players who want a game based more on strategy than luck.  Who are you to tell people they have to.play BFG how you want them to play?

I will agree with the statement that you are offering an alternative. I do not agree that your changes change the game to be more strategic. It requires a more flexible and resilient strategic solution to account for the luck variable and remain successful. Your rules simply attempt to allow rigid strategy to be more successful. To answer your question, GW is the one telling people how they have to play BFG through the rules they created. In order to provide relevant advice, the assumption is made that people follow those rules. Further, most players find the rule well constructed. I don't think it's too much to ask that advice be given in relation to what the official rules dictate rather than suggesting that the game itself be changed to give, in your case a rather dubious, advantage.

[Phthisis]

@Vaaish

Thanks for posting! 

So this is what you meant.  BFG as written is not a balanced game.  The basis for my argument that our SO system makes the game more balanced rests on the fact that Leadership effects every fleet differently.  Ld9 means something different for IN than it does for Chaos, than it does for Eldar.  I think that Tricksticks problem vs Chaos is a good example of what I mean.  The IN fleet has some great advantages over Chaos, and those can be leveraged by the IN player to achieve victory.  The issue is that all of these advantages require the use of SO.  Torpedos and AC need to RO constantly through the battle.  Ramming can be very effective but that requires both an AAF test and a Ld test to hit the target ship.  Chaos, on the other hand, isn't as dependent on SO as the IN fleet is.  They can rely on long range gunnery, which doesn't require special tests.  A good example of this is the Dictator vs the Devestation.  The Dictator is a more expensive ship and can cause a lot of damage, but if it fails to RO it's only 6WBs.  The Devestation on the other hand can still contribute effective fire even if it can't RO, but it's less expensive.  The points values obviously don't take into account the effect of not being able to RO because of an unlucky Ld roll.
Our SO system allows a player to RO as needed, so these ships live up to their potential as reflected in the point value.  As the IN fleet relies quite a bit on ordnance and maneuvering to be effective, the ability to use SOs as needed is a much greater value to the IN fleet than it is to the Chaos fleet.  It may not be perfectly balanced, but I hope you can see how it brings the two fleets closer in balance.
This SO system can also fix the issues with Eldar.  We require Eldar ships to burn a SO in order to use their 2nd move (using the original MSM rules).  In the original rules they could dart all over the board, staying out of gunnery range and RO their ordnance very reliably.  Now they have to choose between their movement and reloading.  They also can't dart in and out with their whole fleet, so they need to plan their attacks better than before. 

[horizon]

BFG as written is not a balanced game. 

I disagree. You state it as fact where it should be in your opinion.

This SO system can also fix the issues with Eldar.  We require Eldar ships to burn a SO in order to use their 2nd move (using the original MSM rules).  In the original rules they could dart all over the board, staying out of gunnery range and RO their ordnance very reliably.  Now they have to choose between their movement and reloading.  They also can't dart in and out with their whole fleet, so they need to plan their attacks better than before. 

I disagree. I do not like that aproach for Eldar.