November 05, 2024, 06:23:30 AM

Author Topic: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread  (Read 66682 times)

Offline TheDaR

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #75 on: December 16, 2011, 12:12:02 AM »
To address the actual Corsair document, aside from the movement changes, I overall quite like it.

Having all the defenses and transports in one place with the rest of the ships is good.  I also like the new mini-ordnance chart that calls out all the stats in one easy to find and read place.  Are fleet refit tables going to be race specific?  If so, does it make sense to put them into the fleet documents, so everything related to the fleet is in one place?

As far as content goes, I like the new Philosophy system, and find most of them fairly interesting.  The Pathfinder one needs a little cleanup on wording.  Took me two reads to get the exact details on how they returned (at first I thought you could name any other phenomena when you disengaged near one).  As a style note, I would remove the usage of 'Obviously' when discussing rolling a hit on the scatter and interaction with ordnance; just state that on a hit there is no scatter and when arriving you interact with any ordnance in base cotnact.  I'd also move the first paragraph of the Harlequin and Pathfinder philosophies to the background page, as they're pure background material, and leave only the mechanics in place.

On the ordnance chart, Plasma Torpedoes should probably read 'reroll all failed to-hit rolls'.  As it reads now, even successful hits must be rerolled, which is probably not intended.

Pulsar lances are no longer described in the document.  Is that something that's being moved to the main document?

I like the Supernova, though Pulsar Lance 5@45cm seems pretty strong.  Without LO, that's going to average 4.375 lance hits, and with a successful Lock On, that's 8.65 lance hits on average.  At least assuming rerolls on second and subsequent hits per the original FAQ.  If not, per the 1.4 MMS document, with Lock On it drops to "only" just over 6.5 lance hits.  Either way, that's a lot of lance hits at 45 cm.

I'm curious what caused you to add bombers to the Hellebore over the 1.4 MMS document and the addition of launch bays to the Hellebore in general.  I presume this relates to the desire to up the usefulness of Frigates as a class?

The upgrades to speed in the Hemlock and Nightshade are unwelcome, given the new minimum speed rules.  Destroyers should be fast in the sprint, but not being able to maneuver as well is not a good trade off for this increased speed.

Defenses all seem logical and fine.  I can't comment on these, balance-wise, because I've never played with static defenses.

The fleet list format is nice.  Only rules question is should Corsairs really have an attack rating of 4, which they can then further increase via Pathfinders?  That gives them a rating of 5, better than any other race out there.   Mathematically the difference going from 4 to 5 is probably small enough not to matter, though.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4201
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #76 on: December 16, 2011, 04:17:48 AM »
Hi Plaxor,

Quote
Eldar now follow more standardized rules, they lost their unique ability to remain stationary (as this causes problems with certain fleet compositions.) They also follow standard rules for moving through celestial phenomena and are able to ram (as the exception didn't provide much).
That's a big no from me on these rules. Fleet compositions dictating minimum movement, no way.

DAR pointed it out quite qlearly as well.

They must not have a minumum movement requirement.

Some other points:
* Harlequins do not have fleets. They would more act like a Marine upgrade imo. eg +1 boarding/hit&run.
* Eldritch fleet list; Void STalker: equip with nighthawks 60pts???
* wouldn't allow vampires on the Hellebore.
* Shouldn't they have it easier to ally with DE/CWE then other races?
* Where is the Hero upgrade to allow better corsair/craftworld allied fleets?

@ DAR, the speeds for Hemlocks/Nightshades are from the usual mms document. So, they're cool. ;)

On the other side, perhaps it is getting used to the new style but at a glance it is a tad more intensive to read for example 'accurate' at the Solaris then see the actual rule.

I also noted that weapons aren't described within the document.

I'll be giving the core rules a check as well to see how the interaction goes between fleet part/rule part.


For reference, the current Eldar MMS v1.9b rules:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/eldarmms-v1-9b.pdf

@ Dar (again),
the MMS system in the document Plaxor added to the revised BFG project are taken from above ruleset designed by Sigoroth and me. Ofcourse I am fine with it but the latest movement change is new to me. ;)

Before the only change was the way holofields protected against enemy lances.

So things as launch bays on the Hellebore is from MMS as made years ago,
The reason to do so was that the Hellebore in the official rules was a poo, as you could better take a Nightshade & Hemlock to do the job. Giving the Hellebore made it an unique choice and also allowed Corsair fleets to be escort only without relying on a needed big carrier.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 04:21:12 AM by horizon »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4201
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #77 on: December 16, 2011, 04:28:45 AM »
Skimmed it, the special quality page will be a good reference sheet. Perhaps spacing it up a little would increase readability. Having a smaller picture at the bottom?

note:
Asteroid fields: change it back to the v.1.0 rules. The HA made an edit mistake in v1.5 (Ray admitted it), but it is missing the rules for all ahead full (testing on 3d6).

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #78 on: December 16, 2011, 03:42:33 PM »
wow theDar.

Some fleet refit tables will be race specific, but not all. This will not be contained in the fleet documents and instead in the campaign rules, I was thinking about organizing it in a certain way... but I changed my mind.

I was initially on your side for MMS rules, thinking that it made Eldar lose their uniqueness, but in truth there is little needed to make a fleet unique. Holofields and their still unique movement rules make them far more unique to IN/Chaos than Tau, Orks, Demiurg, and probably comparably different as Necrons and Tyranids.

There is a reason that all races follow similar rulings, and this is so that intentional game mechanics work the same for all races. I.E. I attack I receive retribution.

As far as these refit versions stats go this was the best format for them, famous/unique ships will be contained in the campaigns section. This was only for complaints of confusion as far as statlines and wording for upgrades.

@ Horizon
Weapons will be contained in the core rules, I just need to come back around to it. What did I miss on asteroid fields? I will extend the qualities page.

I'm surprised and disappointed about harlequins. Weird.

The Hero is just a built in thing for 'Accustomed to Others', just not called that. It would be easier for allying for DE/CWE, however I couldn't think of anything special for that, maybe a special Hero upgrade if you're allied to either of those.

Offline TheDaR

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #79 on: December 16, 2011, 06:17:59 PM »
I think the Harlequin philosophy could easily be rescued.   Just change it's title to 'Disciples of the Laughing God', and slant their flavor so that rather than being a fleet "of" Harlequins, make it a fleet of Corsairs who share many of the Harlequin's ideals and often act as hosts or home bases for wandering troupes.  Eldar have a general sort of reputation for sneakiness, tricks, and high art, so it's not a stretch to imagine a Corsair philosophy emphasizing those.  As a secondary bonus give them actual Harlequins as Elite Boarding Parties.  Retains all the mechanics, most of the flavor, and fits in with the fluff a little better.

As far as the change to MMS, I agree that it was generally necessary.  As unique and fitting as the MSM movement was, it just broke the game a little too much.   I honestly don't mind that overall change.  However, the addition of minimal movement really does break the Eldar, but the other direction, in a bad way, not a good one.  They already have less hull points, fewer shields, fewer weapons, shorter range, and less ordnance per point on average than every other race.  They make up for this by being able to engage on their terms and having superior quality on what they do have (pulsar lances, accurate batteries, ordnance that is less affected by turrets, etc).  The problem is that minimum movement makes it very hard to engage on their terms.  And further, it affects the ships that most need to engage on terms the worst; namely the smallest, fastest escorts.

I would very much like to hear what sort of fleet composition you feel breaks the no movement option; that might suggest another way to deal with the issue.  Like, as an example, perhaps increasing the turn rates, or even returning the unlimited turning option.  That way you could at least have a better chance to not be forced into bad positions by your speed.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4201
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #80 on: December 16, 2011, 07:36:45 PM »
Hi Plaxor,
it is not that I dismiss Harlequins, it is just that I think it doesn't fit the background. Perhaps do an info round on warseer on it in the background section to get opinions.

And yes Plaxor, Dar is correct, Eldar must have the option to stand still. Really. No minimum movement for them.
In MMS 1.9 they do not have this as well. Works great. :)


In MMS we had:

CE & CWE ally on a 1:3 basis. Hero increased this to 1:2.


Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #81 on: December 17, 2011, 02:03:53 AM »
@ Horizon,

I know, and it is my feeling that Eldar should have some form of minimum movement, although in retrospect it should be less than all other races, likely 5cm per phase. Without it the Nightshade fleet would remain the most effective in the game, and the Eldar would still ignore a crucial game mechanic; you can't wait forever. I wanted to put out my feelers for this one, and we will see.

How do you feel about the defences? I needed to put in a ~500 point station for campaign purposes, and the miniature stations are the best that I came up with.

How about the fluff? Most is from RT books, some I wrote myself. Anything you would change?

How about ship names? I decided to give the transport classes names from Bees, Apis=Scientific name for honeybee, Bombus=Scientific name for bumblebee. This was because of the fact that their escorts are named from poisonous flowers, and bees somehow seemed appropriate.

The Mechanics of transports having a points cost and losing capacity over hits taken?

Frigates, Destroyers and Raiders?

I don't think vampires are a huge issue on the Hemlock.... why would they be?

@All (General Mechanic Notes)

On Mine Fields; These proved to be the most problematic of all defence types, with individual mines they proved to be the best option for defending a planet. Their rules were irrational, they were not dangerous to move through, at least no more than an asteroid field, and yet they were able to produce an infinite number of mines that could travel the board! As the infinite generation of mines causes problems with rules wording and launch capacity. To correct this minefields will become a large obstruction, as they always should have been, that is extremely dangerous to travel through. Likely size would be D6x10cm by D6x5cm, and the rules would state that a ship travelling through would be hit by:

D6 mines if it is a capital ship/defence
D3 mines if it is an escort
+D3 if it is on all ahead full
-1 if it moves less than half speed
-1 if it passes a leadership check to navigate the field

Obviously they would be able to use turrets as normal, and each race would have its own unique mine fields. Ordnance will no longer be something that one can purchase, it will be available through launch bays, as this causes massive wording and rules problems.

Frigates will include vessels of 2 hits, I may make the Dhow, Defender, and Corsair 2 hits. @Horizon, do you think that the Hellebore could be 2 hits?

The precise wording will be something along these lines:
Frigates are Escort ships that are much larger than Destroyers or Raiders albeit smaller than a light cruiser. Unlike other escorts these vessels occasionally have multiple hits like Capital Ships, however unlike Capital Ships these vessels are not crippled when they are at half damage capacity. Additionally they are still destroyed when suffering a critical hit, like other escorts. Damage is allotted to them the same way that it would be to a capital ship squadron; meaning the nearest vessel takes hits until it is destroyed and so on.

Due to their size Frigates have the Stalwart quality (which will need to be reworded to have a -1 to H&Rs) and when attempting Brace for Impact orders they roll 3D6 choosing the two lowest die before comparing the result to their leadership.

*Possible rule; Frigates must move 5cm before turning.

Note: Escorts lose the escort bonus for navigating celestial phenomena.

Raiders: Although comically the Corsairs have no raiders, here are what I am thinking will be the rules for them:

Although Raiders rarely undertake a uniform pattern or scheme, they are all designed to be fast, maneuverable, and are good at using local celestial phenomena. Decause of this when navigating celestial phenomena they roll 3D6 and choose the two lowest before comparing them to their LD. Additionally when determining additional distance for All Ahead Full orders they may re-roll the result, however the second roll stands.

Destroyers: This was worked out of the Hemlock;

Destroyers true to their name are built to do one thing; be as destructive as possible. These vessels have a sort of minimalistic view when it comes to crew and armour, fixing as much weapons as possible to the hull Destroyers are always far better at causing damage than they are at taking it. To this fact Destroyers have the Skeleton Crew quality, and roll 3D6 choosing the two lowest die for Reload Ordnance and Lock On orders due to their small and easy to manage crews.

Note that Skeleton Crew means a +1 to hit and run attacks the vessel is subject to.

Defence/Transport Notes

On Ground Defences: These will be represented by a 40mm square base with an arc and a point on it. This will allow for some modelling work for players. I don't know how useful these are... and I hope someone can produce some insight. I know that ground defences can fire into about 1/4 of the low-orbit table, but only 15cm of real valuable territory. Hrmm... I really don't know what to do with these.

As a rules note, ground defences will have a launch capacity seperate from the rest of the fleet, this will be presumed that the craft they launch are not fully 'spaceworthy'. Obviously their craft will only be permitted on the low orbit table.

Defences in general: Defences will gain full functionality as appropriate. Due to their 'stationary' weakness their armour will mostly be increased to 6+ (for Human types) to compensate on the gunnery charts. I will attempt to make each fleet have a ~500 point pirate base, as well as at least one orbital type and ground based defences. Defences will act much more like stationary ships than official rules. Obviously they will not be allowed to disengage.

Transports: Every fleet will have some type of transport, and probably multiple variants. There are a few racial notes:

Rogue Traders: This fleet will have a wider variety of transports, and may buy transports with their own fleet points, however all these vessels will lose the 'transport' quality unless actually purchased with the transport points. The RT player must inform his opponent which vessels are carrying the loot.
Necrons: This one was an interesting fix, and I have not come up wiht a suitable Necron conversion/model yet. The Necron version of a transport will be called an Ark Teleporter, which will not be able to make AAF orders due to its need to power its sizeable teleportation array. It will likely only be armed with portals.
Tyranids: I have not decided for certain if this fleet should be given a seperate transport class or if they should simply be able to 'upgrade' the transport quality on their ships, or at least certain ones. Thoughts?


On the Craftworld Eldar

So I plan to dig in to the CWE over the weekend, hopefully it won't take too long. I was planning on adding their own unique philosophy system.... something small along the lines of which deity the Craftworld associates with. Like the Corsair they would not have an automatic LD boon.

Asuryan=+1 LD
Isha=Augmented Damage Control, Ignore all Negatives to LD and ignore the 'communication' problems from radiation bursts.
Khaine=Rending weapons and Relentless, Roll 3D6 choosing the two highest on LD checks to Brace or Disengage.
Kurnous=+2 LD from the enemy being on SO, *need something else..... maybe some bonus to weapons on a turn they enter/travel through celestial phenomena.
Lilileath=Enemy ships starting their movement within 15cm of these vessels must pass a LD check or do nothing during the following shooting, ordnance and end phases.
Morai-Heg=You may re-roll the result of any critical hit on your ships or your enemies (but not the results of H&R attacks), you may also re-roll the results of any catastrophic damage your Craftworld vessels inflict or is inflicted upon your Craftworld vessels.
Vaul=Your vessels lose the fragile quality and only reduce their weapons strength by 1/4 when crippled.
Ynnead=(Not sure if he should be included, or about this rule), your opponent only gains 75% (possibly less) victory points for any vessels he destroys. In a campaign, he reduces the amount of renown he gains (excluding renown gained from subplots) by half.

Cegorach, Hoec and Gea= well Cegorach and Hoec are already pretty well represented in the Corsairs, Gea is only a footnote. I don't know that much about Eldar fluff, but do Craftworlds devote themselves to these gods? or to Ynnead?

Offline TheDaR

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #82 on: December 17, 2011, 06:53:53 AM »
If you're absolutely intent on minimum movement, I could almost live with 5cm.  If you combined that with returning eldar turning to unlimited, that would actually be acceptable.  At that point you are at least not being out turned and maneuvered by races like Tau and Orks.  Honestly the nightshade fleet doesn't really bother me.  The same orks and tau can put out as many or more torpedoes on ships that are only forced to move 10cm or less a turn (and thats without jinking every turn to reduce forward movement even less.  And both can actually back up those salvoes with attack craft.   

I like the defenses.  Same reservation about 5 pulsar lances, but for 500 points that's probably reasonable.

Fluff all seems fine, and the transport names are good.

The general split to escort types are fine, though obviously getting away from the base game (not that this is inherently a bad thing).  I do think the Hemlock could be 2 hits, especially at 75 points.  It's hard to swallow that for a single hit ship no matter how good the offensive load out is.

  I am fine with all of the proposed bonuses for the various types of escorts.  It's an interesting way to differentiate them some, though I do worry a little about getting too complex.  BFG is nice in that almost all the important rules can be summarized on a single double sided reference sheet.  This change doesn't seem too bad, but it does seem like the beginning of a bit of a slippery slope that leads to Starfleet Battles.

The transport and defense ideas do not ring any alarm bells for me, but again, I've mostly played without either rule set, so I can't offer anything other than a vague "seems okay".

For CWE I think the bonuses you have see okay, but really the CWE would probably be better served by aligning to the canon craftworlds rather than the gods.  Uthwe, Iyanden, Biel-tan, etc.  Those are a lot more identifiable to most players.

At a rough pass something like
Uthwe - per Morai-Heg or Lilileath or something to represent their seer-ness.
Biel Tan - per Asuryan or Khaine
Iyanden - per Vaul or Isha
Altioc - per Kurnous
Saim Hann - Khaine or something that enhances movement speed (maybe allow treating sun as in one arc different)
Altansar - Ynnead or Lilieath
Yme-loc - Vaul or Morai-Heg

That should cover about the same territory and hit all the major craftwords.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4201
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #83 on: December 17, 2011, 08:06:51 AM »
Eldar mms turning unlimited: never!

I have no clue why you are so intent on the (lowered) minimum movement.  The all Nightshade isn't as strong:
i) no hiding
ii) stays within 30cm = retaliation.
iii) cost more, cobra's would be with a lot more per example

And I really think CE & CWE should have a leadership bonus.


CWE: should be more craftworld related I think instead of god related. Ah, Dar also says this.


Yes, hellebore could be 2 if the concept is introduced. I am for it.

asteroid field is 3d6 on aaf, old rules, should be new as well. ;)


Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #84 on: December 18, 2011, 08:09:03 PM »
CE have a leadership bonus, so long as they take the 'militant' philosophy. That 'path' is the way to take CE in their standard format. Seemed easier to make seperate philosophies where the CE fleet sacrifices that for something else rather than make an expense for it. For the marines it was easy, as all I had to do was make their MoF more expensive for a minimal gain, here the gain is larger, as each vessel sacrifices ~25 points of its value.

So if a player wants to make their fleet with +1 LD as it has always been they would select militant, however if someone wanted to do another option the rules are laid out there.

I believe you are mistaken on your ratios Horizon, 1:2 would mean that 1/3 of the fleet is non-corsair, and 2/3 corsair, as it is here. 1:1 would mean equal points on either side, as Heroes normally do.

Craftworld related it is.....

Unlimited turning is ridiculous. Last argument for min-movement; how about auto-success on burn retros? See my only issue is the ability to remain stationary and reload ordnance simultaneously.

Should the Hellebore be 2? or would it be better as 1? I think that the Corsair would work better as 2, and that a smaller alternate DE escort could be made, in a similar method to the Succubus class.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #85 on: December 18, 2011, 08:30:30 PM »
For now I will wait on the CWE document (which I did a few pages on), until we get this sorted out. I would like conceptual rules for:

Altioc - Pathfinder rules? maybe hunter rules?
Biel-tan - Free Aspect Warriors?
Saim-Hann- ???
Ulthwe- Morai-Hag rules?
Iyanden- +1 LD as normal

Possibly the craftworlds:

Altansar- Mark of Slaanesh analogue?
Il-Kaith- Loss of 'fragile' no speed loss from BMs?
Ibraesil- Morai-Hag rules presented earlier?
Kaelor- ????
Lugganth- Harlequin CE rules.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4201
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #86 on: December 19, 2011, 04:04:38 AM »
CE have a leadership bonus, so long as they take the 'militant' philosophy. That 'path' is the way to take CE in their standard format. Seemed easier to make seperate philosophies where the CE fleet sacrifices that for something else rather than make an expense for it. For the marines it was easy, as all I had to do was make their MoF more expensive for a minimal gain, here the gain is larger, as each vessel sacrifices ~25 points of its value.

So if a player wants to make their fleet with +1 LD as it has always been they would select militant, however if someone wanted to do another option the rules are laid out there.
Dunno, more players input needed I think on the Ld bonus for Eldar. Personally I do not think it has to do with a path, it is race specific thing to reflect that they are master star sailors.

Quote
I believe you are mistaken on your ratios Horizon, 1:2 would mean that 1/3 of the fleet is non-corsair, and 2/3 corsair, as it is here. 1:1 would mean equal points on either side, as Heroes normally do.
I mentioned the mms v1.9b (and all versions before) ally ratios with and without a Hero. With 1:3 I mean: 1 CWE vessel per 3 CE vessels (or vica versa) with 1:2 1 CWE vessel per 2 CE vessels (or vica versa).

Quote
Last argument for min-movement; how about auto-success on burn retros? See my only issue is the ability to remain stationary and reload ordnance simultaneously.
Not convinced. ;)

Quote
Should the Hellebore be 2? or would it be better as 1? I think that the Corsair would work better as 2, and that a smaller alternate DE escort could be made, in a similar method to the Succubus class.
If the concept of 2hits escorts is introduced the hellebore should be one of them.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #87 on: December 19, 2011, 06:03:10 AM »
@ Horizon,

Regarding Min Movement
All right, I'll allow them to remain stationary and remove all references to it.

Regarding Leadership

It always seemed funny to me that Corsairs had such a leadership boon.... That pirates were more skilled than trained naval operatives. I do think that CWE should have an LD boon, and they will look more like the SMs in that their fleet commanders will be more expensive to compensate for some special ability. Corsairs could do the same, but I suppose that more imput is never a bad thing.

Regarding the Hellebore
It is good that you agree. How much should the 2 Hit Hellebore cost? If it uses the aforementioned rules?

Regarding Heroes/Allying
Points are a lot simpler than ship to ship ratios, and follow the BFG:R rules.... I do like the 'loss of Mercenary quality' concept. Perhaps the rules for Corsairs could be written something like this;

CE returned to +1 uniformed leadership, paths removed and returned to a simple upgrade system. Harlequins would simply be an upgrade for Embarked Regiment, and the Pathfinder ability would be at some cost.... likely 20 pts per Cap ship and 5 pts per escort (Every Ship or none type upgrade). Seekers of the Dark city would be a commander upgrade, that would allow CE to use the slavetaking rule. Another commander upgrade would be the 'Hero' one, although likely at +50 points, that would allow you to take allies from the aformentioned list without your opponent's permission, if you are allied to CE CWE or DE then you are allowed to spend 1/2 your points rather than 1/3 and they do not count as Mercenaries

Allowing only one of those to be taken would seem feasible. In fact I will likely change it to this. How do you feel about that?

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4201
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #88 on: December 19, 2011, 06:40:52 AM »
Hi,

i. thanks, good,  :)

ii. Do remember CE are just CWE straying away from the path. That does not make them lesser skilled in space-warfare.

iii. I haven't thought about it. Perhaps ~+10pts. I think playtesting various 2 hits escorts is needed.

iiii. Like it. Slavetaking needs some thinking though.

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #89 on: December 19, 2011, 03:33:01 PM »
Just uploaded the DE 1.5 pdf, I haven't had a chance to look it over, and I know that there is quite a bit in there to think about/clarify etc. I'll look at it again soon.

Notes/Changes:

Rules
Added Haemonculi Coven
Changed Leech Torpedoes to hitting like normal torps but causing an automatic '8' on the critical hits chart instead of damage.
Modified critical hits chart so that it has Bridge Smashed at 9 and a few other minor changes.
Simplified Mimic Engine, now your opponent cannot fire at you for first 2 turns unless you shoot or launch ordnance.
Added breadth of Eldar Ordnance
Adjusted Impaler rules so that it no longer has limited fuel, clarified how it works.
Modified Slavetaking slightly

Ships
Added Mortalis Grand Cruiser
Expanded existing class profiles to show all options
Increased Corsair to 2 hits, made it a frigate, Adjusted cost to 60 pts
Added Subjugation Raider

Defences
Added full breadth of defences and transports.

Fleet List
Incubi, Wych Cults and Haemonculi covens are available to all Capital ships, though each may only carry one.
GCs available as 3:1 with Cruisers/Light Cruisers
Cruisers reduced to limit 6, Light Cruisers seperated and also have limit 6
Escorts divided into class, now just requirement to have 3/Capital Ship.

Affect on the Rest of the Rules
All Critical Hit charts will need to be modified so that '8' does something to engines and '9' does something to leadership.

Thoughts/Concerns
I am unsure about the cost of the Corsair, as it is the first with 2 hits, but it is probably fine.
I am very unsure about the cost of the Subjugation..... it seems good and bad simultaneously..... although it will likely increase to 45 pts.
Transports are a large worry per cost, however this is somewhat new ground......
Slavetaking is probably too powerful, will likely reduce to 5 pts/D6x5 for Impalers
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 03:52:17 PM by Plaxor »