April 19, 2025, 09:49:06 PM

Author Topic: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread  (Read 69938 times)

Offline Silent Requiem

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #60 on: December 07, 2011, 03:52:31 PM »
I just wanted to say what a wonderful job you are doing here. I've not played (or bought) BFG in years; all the fleets I were interested in were overly random/restrictive/two dimensional. And let's not even talk about the Eldar.  :P

This seems to go a long way to fixing many of those problems, and I'd be very much happier to play these rules over the official ones.

Now I just need to put a play group back together...

Offline TheDaR

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #61 on: December 09, 2011, 12:26:09 AM »
Monday, I got to play a game with the latest BFG:R core and the DE fleet from the Eldar 1.4 MMS document, against the SM fleet from the Imperial Fleets 1.6 Alpha document.

There was a bit of confusion over some of the special rules which got renamed, which took a bit of sorting out to find (Elite Cadre to Embarked Regiment and Terminators to Elite Boarding Party), but once that was cleared up it went fine.  I really liked the addition of the Succubi to the DE fleet; it fits in quite nicely and gives some excellent flexibility for allowing a DE fleet that is not super heavy on escorts.

The one question that came up is with the interaction between Impalers and Escorts.  They hit and run like attack boats, so do the escorts get the benefit of only being affected on a 4+, instead of the Impaler's normal 2+?  Or does the fact that the Impaler causes a crit (and thus a roll) no matter what on a 2+ mean that the escort dies due to the critical hit on Escort rule?

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 #62 on: December 09, 2011, 03:46:11 AM »
Interesting note on the Impalers, unfortunately the MMS 1.4 document is a bit dated, but not terribly. I'm currently working on the Corsair 'Beta' version, which has proven to be much more tedious than I expected (Beta versions of fleets include defences, construction guides and a bit of other filler).

The Impaler should work as a roll of 2+ destroys an escort, though technically the rules do not say this, it is how it 'should' be. This is how it will appear when I make the DE 'Beta' in a week or so, as well as a few more minor changes to the impalers in general.

Another note for the DE is that the 'upgraded' torture will simply be divided into its own class; the Mortialis (or subjugation). This is mainly for clarification purposes, as in the 'Beta' format many 'variants' of standard classes have another profile. For example the Standard and Variant Murder classes will be listed with seperate profiles, but both as Murder Class Cruiser (Mars Pattern or Hydraphur Pattern or whatnot.)

Offline TheDaR

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #63 on: December 13, 2011, 06:48:44 PM »
Got in another game last night, again running 1.4 MMS Dark Eldar against 1.6 Space Marines at 750.  Both of us chose fleets with 4 light cruisers and 3 escorts, thus making a fairly balanced game that ended up coming down to who failed more reload ordnance rolls at critical times (SM cruisers without thunderhawk on CAP get pounded fairly hard by combined waves of Impalers and torpedoes, while in return, DE ships do not like to see waves of more than 2 or 3 attack craft, as more than 1 bomber that get past turrets will usually cripple a Light Cruiser).

The only real question we had was if we did CAP correctly.   With a wave of one thunderhawk on CAP, a cruiser was struck with 2 waves of 4 strong torpedoes and a single impaler.  Due to the Thunderhawk being resilient, it dispersed one wave of torpedoes, made its resilient save, and then dispersed the other wave of torpedoes.  However, because it can only use the resilient save once per turn, the second wave of torpedoes removed the Thunderhawks, letting the impaler get through unmolested.  Was that correct?

One other minor rules clarification that came up is that when dealing with Attack Craft resolution on Squadrons, it might be nice to spell out that you only attack the ship(s) you move into base contact with and additional hits do not spill over.  It's there in the rules, but only in the "negative" sense in that the rules for squadrons do not override the normal rules for attack craft.  Since shooting is overridden, it can be easy to get confused and think that, for instance, bomber or torpedo attacks could carry over using the same rules for 'nearest ship first'.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4201
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #64 on: December 13, 2011, 07:50:50 PM »
Hi,
your cap procedure was correct.


Offline Taggerung

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 185
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #65 on: December 14, 2011, 05:13:38 PM »
I have a question about the Voss Light Cruisers...specifically the Defiant. How can that ship have 6+ prow, 2 torpedoes and 2 lances all on a tiny prow??

Nothing about that ship makes sense. Why is it only at 120 pts, it should be at least 130. Or better yet, just drop the torps.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4201
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #66 on: December 14, 2011, 07:25:01 PM »
I dunno, because the ship would otherwise be crappy?

The others have 2wb/2t on the prow.

iirc I made a really cool design. RcGothic liked it. Others didn't as much.

Offline Taggerung

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 185
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2011, 08:55:11 PM »
Seems under cost is all.

Look at the enforcer...loses 5cm speed, improved thrusters, 1 lance, but gains 2 torps, LFR on the lances, and a 6+ prow? Seems to me that those upgrades are worth well over 10 pts.

Thoughts?

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 #68 on: December 14, 2011, 09:33:16 PM »
This actually has come up more than once. This solution was the 'least despised' fix for the extremely underpowered ship.

The problem with the defiant is that it's Port/Starboard hardpoints only have half the 'weaponry' that they should. This would not seem like such a problem however the ship is competing far more directly with the dictator than the enforcer is. Directly in that it is just a cheaper and weaker version, so the lances make it stand out from the Dictator slightly, and indirectly in that reloading a CL with no torpedoes and only 2AC is fairly low priority.

Ultimately it was decided that the Defiant should keep its two lances and simply have torpedoes with it. The reasoning here is that the additional space retained through the smaller launch bays on each side allow for the prow systems to take more space within. Although in reality it should be 1 prow lance and 1 dorsal lance, this causes problems with IN/Chaos ship consistency (of which only BCs/HCs can have dorsal weapons) and for Admech fleets, who have a dorsal lance on their ships. Another consideration was to add P/S weapons, however this proved problematic without any actual P/S mounts, and any conversion would interfere with current player minis.

Comparing the Enforcer to the Defiant is actually quite an interesting concept. The ships aren't on equal ground for a number of reasons, first they aren't available in the same fleet, and most importantly the Enforcer has the advantage of filling a hole in the IN fleet by being faster. However here is a direct comparison:

Enforcer has:
+5 cm speed
Improved Thrusters
10 points cheaper
More focus able direct fire (with lance variant) or higher priority to reload, and more powerful torpedo salvo that is less likely to simply bounce off turrets/armour (with torp variant).
Unrestricted within its parent fleet.

Defiant has:
LFR lances, but it would still want its prow towards enemy!
6+ armour


So for 10 points it essentially gains prow armor. Internal balance is a funny thing, but these two ships should not be compared directly, mainly because they are not in the same fleet and do not function the same. The Defiant is more comparable to the End/End and the Dictator, whereas the Enforcer is more comparable to the Dauntless and the Tempest Escorts.

The Enforcer and the Tempests are the only vessels smaller than a GC that have AC and due to this are quite valuable to the Warden's fleet despite their relative cost.



Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #69 on: December 15, 2011, 01:54:49 AM »
Well when you get down to brass tacks the defiant should always have had 4 launch and the price should have been bumped up to the 150ish area. The only problem with the defiant is that its got one of the worst ac-pts ratio in a fleet known for terrible ac-pts ratios. The mars is the only ship that's worse but it more than makes up for that with its other weapons.
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4201
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #70 on: December 15, 2011, 04:00:21 AM »
...and 4AC Defiants would mean Defiant Spam. heh.

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 #71 on: December 15, 2011, 05:43:10 AM »
This was considered, and even argued for quite a bit. The problem with 4AC Defiants meant that the minimum point cost per launch bay significantly decreases for IN, a VERY large factor. Although there were suitable ways to deal with it, mainly through restricting the vessel further, or returning it to a 1:1 with Endevours, however ultimately the 5 main rules developers voted and the current incarnation showed through.

There are a number of changes that drastically affect internal fleet mechanics and one major one is the availability of AC per point. The minimum cost reflects the overall fleet's role and mechanics, here are some examples:

Corsair Eldar: 65
IN: 52.5
Chaos: 47.5
Orks: 46.25
Tau: 28.75

As you can see the cost reflects how the fleet is set up. The lower average depicts how dependent upon AC the fleet is. Other major changes include the basic statline of the 'ships of the line' for each fleet. Meaning that if one were to introduce a cruiser without an armoured prow and speed 25 to the IN without restrictions, this would cause problems. More directly the average overall firepower per point and hits/shields per point, or anything with vastly unique special abilities.

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 #72 on: December 15, 2011, 06:05:25 AM »
After working through the Corsair document I have changed my thinking a little, and forming the Campaign, Display and Modelling sections have proved far too time consuming for my goals at this point. So I plan to do a hybrid format at this point.

Now it will be:

Book I: Book of the Enginseer, The Void Abacus. The Rules and Scenarios -- 60 pages estimated.
Book II: Book of the Admiral, The Tactica Imperialis. Ship Rules and Fleet Lists -- 300 pages estimated. (May be divided into 3 books; Imperial + Chaos, Eldar + Orks + Tyranids + Necrons, Tau + Rogue Traders + Demiurg/Kroot)
Book III: Book of the Navigator, The Navis Prima. Campaigns and Background -- 250 pages estimated (May be divided into campaigns and background seperately)
Book IV: Book of the Astropath, The Emperor's Tarot. Alternate Rules, Construction and Modeling Guides, fleet displays -- 150 pages estimated.

All documents from now on will be produced with defences and a clearer format for 'alternative' pattern ships. My goal is to have a 'beta' version of the core rules and fleet lists by February.

Just posted the 1.5 Alpha version of the Corsair fleet. I also posted a sample of what I did work on before changing my mind about the format. You will notice a number of differences, and rules changes.

Here are the major changes:
Holofields/Gunnery/Lance/Other weapons are now contained within the core rules, and 'Holofields' are just a quality for all Eldar vessels, no longer listed in their shields characteristic.
Transport is now a quality, it will state that the vessel has a transport capacity equal to its remaining hits, which should taper in the advantage of cruiser sized transports.
Transports now have a point cost, in missions that require them players will simply be allotted a number of points that they may spend on transports.
Escorts will now be defined into three classes; Frigate, Destroyer and Raider. Destroyers will gain benefits to Reload Ordnance and Lock On orders, but will have the Skeleton Crew quality due to their small crew, Frigates will gain benefits to Brace for Impact and will gain Stalwart due to their size, Raiders will gain benefits to All Ahead Full orders and navigating Celestial Phenomena.
All vessels now have their type classified as their actual class, whether it be Grand Cruiser, Light Cruiser or whatnot.
Defences will be included with all following fleets. Defences will be divided into at least 5 categories; Station, Orbital, Ground, Rig, Field. Stations consist of any orbital defences with multiple hits that suffer critical hits, Orbitals consist of single hit stations, Ground are as normal, Rigs consist of multi-hit orbitals which simply suffer additional damage from criticals or have unique rules, Fields consist of any mine fields or similar defence types.
Defences will not be able to disengage, will roll leadership and orders as normal.
Mine Fields will not 'poop' mines, they simply will be a dangerous obstruction that if a ship enters it will be hit by a certain number of mines dependant upon its size and speed.
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).
I've added a certain number of 'Philosophies' to the Corsair fleet, which allows a certain number of unique fleet builds that flesh out the background for them.
I've also added background in general for the fleet, much like official rules format.
The Fleet List and ship stats now display the 'variant' forms of each vessel, to avoid confusion. Each has been assigned a pattern, and its points have been reflected in the list. Upgrades are now listed in each ship's profile, and defences have their own list for when the fleet has points to spend on them.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 08:06:05 AM by Plaxor »

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #73 on: December 15, 2011, 01:05:52 PM »
That all sounds good Plaxor except for the mine fields. They should keep "pooping" its too easy to just go around them and they just sound like asteroid fields now. If you want to change mine fields have it so each mine field adds an asteroid field to the celestial phenomena setup at the beginning of the game and the controlling player secretly writes down which fields are mines after they have all been setup.

Horizon, its difficult to spam something with the restrictions like those on the defiants but even a 10 pt drop in price on the 2 launch version would make them more viable in typical games.
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline TheDaR

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: BFG:R Book I The Core Rules: Updates, Feedback & Comments Thread
« Reply #74 on: December 15, 2011, 11:09:42 PM »
Overall I like the majority of changes in direction.  Centralizing more rules like Holofields and whatnot is generally a very good thing.    Other things I liked are the moving the options from the ship description to the list itself, though it might be worth it to keep a box out describing that famous ships with alternate configurations (just to highlight that there are options on the list you need to look at if the default configuration doesn't ring your bell).

I'm a little less positive on the decision to actually break up the main classes into further subclasses, mostly because it makes the verbiage other places more difficult (such as "for every 3 cruisers and/or Light cruisers" in the new Corsair list), though overall I do like the flexibility this gives, and I do sort of like the idea that different escort types have different bonuses.  One design issue I see is that larger frigates now approach some of the light cruisers in capability and points, which makes the divisions in things like the gunnery charts and hull points feel a little artificial.  Frigates especially feel like they really ought to be 2 hits, rather than 1.  The Hellbore would be a light cruiser with 4 hits in almost any other fleet and cost only 15 or 20 more in several of those.

The change I've got a huge problem with are those related to making Eldar rules more standard. 

The change to MSM to MMS was a pretty big nerf to Eldar maneuverability, as it also eliminated their unlimited turning capability.  Adding the minimum movement distance on top just actively turned Eldar's speed into a liability rather than an asset.   The faster craft now have minimum move distances of as much as 25cm (Destroyers moving minimum distance each move going from sun abeam to away or vice versa) without special orders.  Keeping escorts in the battle, or sometimes even on the table, could be difficult if you fail a CTNH or BR order at the wrong time, or had to brace the turn before, doubly so for the Escorts that also have ordnance and thus also have to choose between maneuvering and reloading orders.

An Eldar escort, without special orders, can only manuever in a 10x15cm (12.5x15 for the Destroyers) rectangle at best, while most Imperial Light Cruisers and escorts and even Ork Brute or Grunt can actually make a 12.5cm square.  In fact, Space Marine and Tau Cruisers can also outmaneuver Eldar Escorts, with the Tau Protector and Emissary classes turning a neat 10cm square.

So, they've lost many of their special movement advantages, and the ones that are left have drawbacks almost as big as the advantage.  They can't turn to any direction each move, and in fact can only turn their 45 or 90 at the beginning of their two moves, unlike every other fleet which can turn at any point (respecting minimum move to turn).   Their net turn rate is still higher, but the addition of minimum moves means they lose a lot of flexibility in their trajectories as a result.  They're faster, especially in the right arcs, but now they're forced to move, and with the limiting of their turn rates, the fastest escorts are actually less maneuverable than many other races escorts.   Any other race's escorts can move ahead, say, 2.5 cm, turn left past an asteroid field, and skim right past with the remainder of their movement.  An Eldar escort will have to use it's entire first movement (minimum of 7.5cm, more probably as much as 15cm) to get past the same field, and then turn and use it's second movement to go foward, putting it well beyond the field.  More potential, but often less maneuverable in reality, because they're stuck with their higher speed.

Aesthetically, to me, it turns Eldar even more into "just another" fleet, and further invalidates a lot of the various fluff about the Corsair ships being able to do things like 'level a fusillade of fire which can match the broadsides batteries of a battleship - and then slip away before the enemy can fire back' (from the Aconite description).    Since they're not really much more maneuverable, don't treat celestial phenomena differently, and Holofields have been downgraded to add shields like every other fleet, maybe we should just up their hull strengths to match every other fleet too?

I'd like to understand what the problematic use case for no-minimum movement with Eldar was, and if there might not be another way to handle this that does not make Eldar's natural speed actively counterproductive to their style of play.   
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 11:14:09 PM by TheDaR »