House Rule Brainstorm

[Talos]

Hey guys just taking some advice from some other players (you know who you are) and starting a common house rules thread, for people to share their own personal opinions on modified fleet lists, point costing, specific rule interpretation (such as blast markers, ordnance, etc...). No matter how damn weird, it you use it, you can post it.

For instance, I am considering using BFG:R ship profiles and costs, along with escort and squadron rules, but not the rest. I might try Andrew's interesting take on blast marker positioning (which he should feel free to post here, if desired) and limiting AC turning to one a movement.

If some one has an alternate house ruling on battery and lance accuracy at extreme and short ranges, I would love to hear/implement it.

[Jimmy Zimms]

I'd suggest taking the Eldar MMS and holofield rules (found duplicated in BFG:R as well).

Andy Chambers and others had some old house rule ideas that in the old old taccom site way back when. A few of them I liked such as special orders for break formation/join formation (pretty elementary sounding concepts really).  In fact if I remember correctly it Andy that originally suggested the ordinance cap that eventually became the rule, no?

Our group allows escorts and ships of the line to squadron as THAT'S WHAT ESCORTS FETHING DO!!!

We've made any spinal mounted weapons such as the Nova Cannon FFw as it fits the model well. In case of Novas we've reduced the scatter a bit and fixed the holofield rules to not protect as much for an area effect style weapon (my Eldar opponents stated, "If I'm sitting down range from your novas I deserve to get blasted"). For FFw lances (eg. Dauntless we've dropped the points slightly). So far seems to balance well and prevents eldar carrier fleets of doom

Added rules for Eldar in low orbit consisting basically of sunward edge being the top of the L.O.T.

Tried once to make a true physics ruleset with inertia for ordinance and ships. Never got it to really work right though.

Also have played with an EA style activation play (plays exactly as it sounds) as an experiment. Resulted in a much more deadly game IMO.

Another interesting experiment was to lift the rules from the old ship combat game, Alpha-Omega, where each ship's actions per turn were recorded and then played out in simultaneous form. Really changed your play style to a much tactical form.

[horizon]

Dropped points on the lance Dauntless? shocker. I'd call you a git to be honest. 110pts is perfectly fine.

What is FFw?

/////

Most important changes:
We use Eldar MMS v1.9b
Blastmarkers per original v1.0 rulebook.

[Jimmy Zimms]

Fixed Forward. Basically anything dead straight ahead as opposed to the full FW firing arc. We use the width of a standard ruler as the "play" in the firing channel for we're not uber picky on lining them PERFECTLY up, hence the slight point decrease on Dauntless to balance the limited fire arc introduced. Expect git status to be duly reevaluated.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Wow! Fixed foward is just... wrong! Lol lance Daunts are already sub par compared to torp Daunts in most situations anyway.

[Jimmy Zimms]

Wow! Fixed foward is just... wrong! Lol lance Daunts are already sub par compared to torp Daunts in most situations anyway.

hence point drop to compensate. Any other way the models just start rubbing the playgroup wrong ("THE DAMN THING'S FACING FORWARD-THE ARC IS STRAIGHT!!! GRRRR [nerd rage]" ). What happens when the playgroup consists only of scientists and engineers so we can't stop screwing with stuff


 And yes, torp > lances

[Talos]

Limited experience but lance dauntless seems superior in bigger games, due to superior performance without special orders (reload). As for Nova Cannon, I feel the lock on advantage from BFG:R to be more realistic, and additionally I agree that holofield should offer pretty much no protection against it. Although I can't seem to find my copy of battlefleet koronus (Rogue Trader ship supplement) at the moment, the quote is something along the lines of "being several dozen kilometers from your exact location matters very little in a blast that stretches for tens of thousands of kilometers"

Also, have any of you played Aeronautica Imperialis? Although rule #39 does not allow me to divulge specifics, the game forces players to write down their maneuvers at the beginning of the turn, and then take turns revealing the action and playing it through. Due to the really cumbersome style of combat that space represents (30min turns) this forces players to use forethought and deduction to guess the ultimate positioning of their opponents. Perhaps a similar system could be used? 

[horizon]

The lance Dauntless is more reliable. The Torpedo variant has higher (double) damage potential.

Jimmy.

Fixed Straigth Forward?
What about LF / RF / LFR weapons
It is serious neuter to races like Orks & Eldar. A lot of vessels are neutered by this.
What about torpedoes?

I think fixed forward doesn't make sense. The front arc represents, in a way, 3D and fluent nature of space combat.

[Talos]

I will let jimmy speak for himself, but I agree with the 3d comment of horizons. Although I can see the argument being made for Nova's and torps in this case, although this would probably require a lot less scatter and a wider torpedo marker to balance out. Perhaps torpedoes could have the same options as in the fluff (wide or narrow salvoes), representing the tactical option of having a better chance to hit or more damage. Although this does return to variable size markers, which I know most people love/hate. Sorry to interrupt

[Jimmy Zimms]

Also, have any of you played Aeronautica Imperialis? Although rule #39 does not allow me to divulge specifics, the game forces players to write down their maneuvers at the beginning of the turn, and then take turns revealing the action and playing it through. Due to the really cumbersome style of combat that space represents (30min turns) this forces players to use forethought and deduction to guess the ultimate positioning of their opponents. Perhaps a similar system could be used?

That's how the afore mentioned Alpha Omega space combat game worked too. It really makes the game slow down in larger battles but adds and interesting tactical depth.

The lance Dauntless is more reliable. The Torpedo variant has higher (double) damage potential.

Jimmy.

Fixed Straigth Forward?
What about LF / RF / LFR weapons
It is serious neuter to races like Orks & Eldar. A lot of vessels are neutered by this.
What about torpedoes?

I think fixed forward doesn't make sense. The front arc represents, in a way, 3D and fluent nature of space combat.

Not all fwd mounted weapons are considered in our house rules as automatically FFw, only large spinal mounted weapons (Firestorms, Novas, Dauntless, Hemlock). Most FW weapons were considered to have limited traverse capabilities (like an old tank hunter from WW2 for instance) in the forward direction allowing the full FW arc. Again, house rule that seems to work for our group (which is predominatly Eldar players btw! and in no way is fully spelled out in this thread. Don't want to derail this discussion by bogging down the thread in minutia. Perhaps a new FFw discussion thread is in order if we all care to debate and throw erasers at each other?

[Talos]

I read about a guy on warseer who used an armor soak system instead of armor ratings. Basic functionality was health was multiplied for everything by three (i.e IN cruisers would have 24, for example) and attacks deal 1d6 damage instead of a fixed value. Shields negate the strongest hit/shield, but armor soaks up differently; 4+is four points, 5+is six and 6+is eight points. Seems kind of interesting and works well fluff wise and whatnot, but seems to add a plethora of dice rolls. What do you guys think?

[horizon]

The bookkeeping increases Talos. One fun thing about BFG is its low bookkeeping while still being tactical.

For a small scale orientated game it could work.

Hence I have written many rulings on a Rogue Trader RPG (from FFG) flavour to BFG//// never published.

Or did I??


Thread direction: bringing forward houserules sparks discussion. So no issue with discussing used house rules into depth.

[Talos]

Speaking of bookkeeping, what about bombers? Not to sound petulant, but IMO their mechanics are very strange compared to other ordinance which have simple interactions (other than resilient vs. resilient, but that's another can of worms). The random amount of attacks seems like a needless step, but I would be unsure of how to remove this without also removing the potential ability of AC to deliver lots of attacks. It also seems odd that a ship with five turrets laughs off a 6 strength bomber wave whilst remaining vulnerable to a 6 strength torpedo salvo (which is, as far as I know, a "weaker" component). I have heard the BFG:R are a little different, but I have yet to read them

[horizon]

Hey,

for resilient rules just use the one Sigoroth wrote. Easy, compact, good.

Add fighters to the bomber waves.

[Talos]

Where are Sig's rules? And as for the fighters, you are of course correct. I merely meant to illustrate this mechanic is not used anywhere else in the game and seems a little out of place, since BFG is as you mention a fairly low dice count game.