July 29, 2024, 07:23:01 PM

Author Topic: Finishing BFG:Revised  (Read 41428 times)

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #75 on: October 20, 2012, 03:16:59 AM »
Alright, I included the rules for transports and attack craft in the Chaos document, replaced out the old keywords, and the points should be fixed in all the fleet lists. Now, we just need one last look-through, and then we can move to IN.

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #76 on: October 20, 2012, 03:53:19 AM »
Ok so the Planet Killer is still listed as torpedoes running out on doubles.

Despoiler is now listed at 400pts on its entry and the 12, 13th fleet lists while the Chaos Named (Khorne, Nurgle, etc) fleet lists have Despoiler at 390pts and the Terminus Est is still listed as a famous Despoiler the attack craft also do not list their speeds

Repulsive: Rewording of the extra shield may be in order. A Repulsive may also take a third shield for +15 points and must be mounted on a large base. It would sound better as: A Repulsive may also take a third shield for +15 points but must be mounted on a large base if this option is taken. (IMO)

Transport entry still refers to the IN list. (I would still rather see it remove entirely).

Styx and Iconclast are still listed as ****pts on the Gothic sector fleet list

and im refreshing again... lol :D



I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #77 on: October 20, 2012, 04:17:06 AM »
the Terminus Est is still listed as a famous Despoiler

I don't know what you mean by this. What am I supposed to change?

Ok, I did a bunch of edits on the IN list as well. Here it is for review:

++BFGR Imperial Navy++

I am assuming we should keep the Bakka list for a later supplement.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2012, 04:27:01 AM by afterimagedan »

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #78 on: October 20, 2012, 04:35:07 AM »
Vengance and Avenger list Grand Cruiser as their type

Exorcist doesnt list the speed on the attack craft

Overlord states: The Mars Class Battlecruiser may be given a Targetting Matrix, granting it a left shift on the gunnery table for +15 pts its also listed at 230 instead of 220.

Armageddon lists the port and starboard lances at 30cm instead of 45cm

Tyrant is listed as 6 45cm weaps and 4 30cm weaps, was this a revision? its still poo as Sig would say

Endeavour special rule refers to a Defiant class ship that apparently no longer exists

Gothic sector list shows the Retribution at 365 Emperor at 345 Mars 270pts Overlord at 235 Dictator at 220 Tyrant at 185

Solar list shows the Armageddon at 245 and list a Defiant class ship that does not appear to exist... Also does not list the Hunter, Gladius, and Nova. The list also refrences that Defiants and Endurances may not exceed Endeavours instead of the FAQ ruling that there may be no more than 2 total of them per 500pts (or portion thereof)

Bastion list shows Armageddon at 245pts Overlord at 235 Dictator at 220 Tyrant at 185 Firestorm at 40

There seems to be a lack of ham. Chaos and IN grand cruisers are missing the prow upgrades.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2012, 04:50:04 AM by AndrewChristlieb »
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #79 on: October 20, 2012, 04:37:51 AM »
Ok go to the Despoiler Stats and look under the fluff sidebar where it says "Famous Ships" deleat the Terminus Est (unless it is infact a Despoiler, but then why does it have its own listing?)

Ok im going to give you a break now ;), btw thanks for putting in the time to finish this its much appreciated :).
« Last Edit: October 20, 2012, 04:53:21 AM by AndrewChristlieb »
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Talos

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 542
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #80 on: October 20, 2012, 05:30:23 AM »
That's mostly what I found too...didn't notice tyrant, good eye. They say despoilers are based off of the terminus est only weaker, but as far as I can tell the terminus est is not a whole lot better, but it does cost a bunch more.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #81 on: October 20, 2012, 05:33:37 AM »
Apocalypse: shouldn't it say further then 30cm instead of farther?


Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #82 on: October 20, 2012, 06:32:53 AM »
Apocalypse: shouldn't it say further then 30cm instead of farther?

These words are functionally identical. I prefer further. Farther doesn't sound right to my ear. I believe that the original word was further. Children start off quite able to cope with irregular verbs such as ran and sang when little, but pass through a stage as they develop of trying to form regular verbs instead (runned and singed) before finally being able to assimilate. Likely farther came about due to some such over-correction, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a yank that first coined the phrase, as they seem to be stuck in that sort of stage of development.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2012, 06:39:02 AM by Sigoroth »

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #83 on: October 20, 2012, 12:15:46 PM »
Actually like most English garbage words its British in origin. Further can be used in place of farther although the "far" in farther tends to see people misconstrue there to be a distinction when speaking of distance but its really when not speaking of distance that you see the distinction. Farther would be incorrect for use as say "The dog walked further down the street. Farther it turned and went in the house." you see when talking about distance farther and further interchange but when referring to an amount of time farther doesnt "fit". Remember the long verson furthermore as a reminder.
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #84 on: October 20, 2012, 02:05:33 PM »


Moving on...  ::)

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #85 on: October 20, 2012, 04:46:55 PM »
Actually like most English garbage words its British in origin. Further can be used in place of farther although the "far" in farther tends to see people misconstrue there to be a distinction when speaking of distance but its really when not speaking of distance that you see the distinction. Farther would be incorrect for use as say "The dog walked further down the street. Farther it turned and went in the house." you see when talking about distance farther and further interchange but when referring to an amount of time farther doesnt "fit". Remember the long verson furthermore as a reminder.

You can use farther for time "we must delay our plans farther than we thought", etc. But yes, there are a couple of instances where you should only use further. All of them! Just kidding, but yeah,

In this instance however, you could use farther, since we're talking about the range of the guns. I'd prefer further.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2012, 06:03:53 PM by horizon »

Offline Talos

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 542
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #86 on: October 21, 2012, 02:21:48 AM »
Umm...to be quite honest, I have never looked it up, but I know in canada so little f**ks would be given either way. If you were to have that debate in anything other than a friendly/casual setting or some spelling bee/grammar competition, people would either think you were being anal and obtuse or socialy retarded. This is of course a social setting, but it still seems a little...odd? For what its worth, I also prefer further, but wouldn't even bat an eyelash reading it as farther. Just saying. :P

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #87 on: October 21, 2012, 01:05:06 PM »
Lame edit Horizon, lame.

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #88 on: October 22, 2012, 01:13:39 AM »
Alright, I finished AndrewChristlieb's and Talon's edits on the Chaos and IN documents. Check them out if you can and see if there are any more changes needed.

I am going to keep moving down the list and work on Space Marines next, then AdMech.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 01:30:17 AM by afterimagedan »

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: Finishing BFG:Revised
« Reply #89 on: October 22, 2012, 03:22:44 AM »