Finishing BFG:Revised

[afterimagedan]

I just don't understand. If BFG:R was just going to be a very small amount of changes, why didn't someone just make a document that is just an amendment to the 2010 rules? I mean, how many changes do people want to make to the 2010 rules and lists? From my perspective, BFG:R already is the separate documents with alternate rules and lists.

[ThaneAquilon]

I'd be in favor of a more complete rule-set. A compromise could be to work in spheres. So like Talos suggested, we work on ships and such, Horizon can help if he wants, and Sig and the rest, then we release that, and if that's all Horizon wants, he can take it and use it, and whoever wants to can continue on the next phase, so on and so forth. That way we have set, manageable milestones to work towards, and we have usable chunks that can be integrated as they're made, and eventually, for those that want it, we get a finished product. Best of both worlds, everyone gets what they want, and helps with the bit they're invested in.

[horizon]

I just don't understand. If BFG:R was just going to be a very small amount of changes, why didn't someone just make a document that is just an amendment to the 2010 rules? I mean, how many changes do people want to make to the 2010 rules and lists? From my perspective, BFG:R already is the separate documents with alternate rules and lists.

Heh, I don't know!

It all started with the flawed ship thread. A lot of people added and jumped in as it was a strict focus, so everyone could tell/vote their view.

Plaxor then went ahead and ahead and ahead. And the community involvement got less. Not only because Plaxor moved a little away from the forum (he did post things on here) but people moved away also because they were less interested in revising the complete book.

I have never said I do not want a revised ruleset. I am only saying we should do the ship stat/cost revision before all other things. This should be the focus. Sigoroth brings great points why.

After that the fleet lists may be worked on and/or the rule revisions (not as a rewrite but more as a document which brings good alternatives to what is official).

So we are looking at three documents. Which can be 'promoted' seperatelly but also as a package.

A project like this has to be done in steps. Anything else and it'll dry out again.

[afterimagedan]

Overall I think you guys are totally right. Why don't we walk through it in steps:

1. List of fixed stats and point changes.
2. Revised rules set.
3. Fleet List Revisions and additional ships (like current BFG:R lists).

How do you guys think this first document should look?
Flawed ships thread.....
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=2007.0

Should we start with this? Also, do we want to title this something different? Here is the list of changes from that link:

Confirmed Changes:
Chaos:
Despoiler: Use modified stats (Horizons)
    p/s launch bays str2 (4 total)
    Prow launch bays str 4
    dorsal lances str3@60cm LFR
    p/s weapons batteries str 10@60cm
Devestation: Lance range @ 45cm
Idolator: 'New Fraal tech'
Infidel: 2 turrets
Iconoclast: 25 points
Retaliator Side wbs @45cm, 6 launch bays. No free improved engines
Warmaster must be on the highest class of ship, not the most expensive.

IN:
Retribution: Side WBs fp18@45cm Cost 355
Apocalypse: Firing lances over 30cm causes blast marker to be placed on ships rear rather than critical. Dorsal Wbs to FP 9
Avenger: FP20@30cm cost 200
Tyrant: 180 base cost, 190 upgraded version
Endeavor/Endurance/Defiant: 6+ prow, maintains 90' turns
Dictactor: 210 points cost.
Dominator: 45cm upgrade @ -10 points
Oberon:Prow and Dorsal Weapons at 60cm, costs 355
Mars: Cost 260
Firestorms: Cost 35
Falchion 2 turrets
Exorcist: 6lb cost 260 (+5 AB upgrade)
Defiant: +2 prow torps
    (Horizon's Stats):
Cruiser 6
Shields 1
Speed 20
Turns 45
Armour 6+/5+
Turrets 2

Prow Torps 30cm S2 F
Prow WBs 30cm FP2 F/L/R
Port/SB Launch bays S1
Dorsal WBs FP2 F/L/R
(/Horizon's Stats)

"There are several variants of this profile doing the rounds as well:
#1. No Dorsal WBs and drop to 100pts. (AKA Sigoroths Profile)
#2. WBs merged into one FP4 Prow hardpoint.
#3. Keeps original S2 Lances and adds S2 Torps.
#4. Swaps one of the original S2 Lances for S2 Torps, and adds one Dorsal Lance in addition (as per Ad Mech, but uses half-sized LBs instead of gives up torps - functionally identical to #3, but unclutters the prow). Which one to pick is causing the most controversy at the moment." - RCGothic


Astartes:
Strike cruiser: Now has assault carrier option, which swaps P/S weapons batteries for 1lb each @+15 points. As well as an option to swap prow lb with 3 torpedoes. 2 shields 1lb. Upgrade to replace prow LB with str. 3 Bombard F only for no points.
Battlebarge: Shields at 4, turrets at 4 Cost 440
RSV: Deleted
Gladius, cost 40
Nova cost 45


GCs: 25 points prow torp upgrade (6) no longer resists prow criticals if upgraded
Improved engines @ 5 points
20 point prow sensor array (see emperor)


Fleet list changes:

Bastions Fleet: No longer contains Endeavor Variants
Armagedon list: Loses RSV (as they no longer exist), however gains the Sword.


Confirmed Changes
Tau:
Hero: -2lances, -2FP (one each side), No longer restricted.
Merchant: 105pt cost, 6hits standard, upgrade to 8 hits for 20 points. +10 for lance variant

Corsairs:
Nightshade 50pts
Hemlock 50pts +1 f wb@30cm
Aconite 60pts
Hellebore: 80pts with profile change: 2wb, 1 pl, 1 fighter launch bay
Solaris: weapon range @45cm, no right shift.
Shadow: +2 torps, +2wb

Craftworld Eldar
Hero destroyed; Now just +25 point upgrade on characters
Flame of Asuryan-> Void Dragon CG loses vampires and aspect warriors. May upgrade vampires for +10 points. Permanent part of CWE list, restricted as 3:1 with cruisers.
Shadowhunter: old special rule. Speed bands +5cm, DE variant lance, +1wb, 45pts
Ghost Ships: Using MMS version with conversion for similarity to msm.
Wraithship: +5 point vampire upgrade.


Dark Eldar:
Mimic engines for free
Torture can buy two impalers for 20 points, not 2 for 20 each
The Torture carrying the fleet commander can upgrade its' hits by 2 for +35 points, if done so then it can purchase an additional weapon system.
Addition of Incubi Bodyguard on the Archon's ship; these add an additional +1 to the ships boarding modifier. 2d6 on teleport attacks pick which counts. +15 points
Addition of Wych Cult. Doubles boarding value +15 points.



Ork Changes
Gorbags Revenge: Prow torpedoes increased to D6+4, Cost 305
Kroolboy: +2wbs to p/s guns. 255 cost
Slamblasta: Lances changed to str d3+2, Cost 285
Hammer: No stats change, just upgrades added (as listed)
May reduce the strength of P/S Guns to 2, and add soopa engines for no cost
May replace p/s heavy guns for 1 launch bay (total 2) for +10 points

Kill-Kroozer: Prow guns increased to D6+6, P/S guns increased to D6+2. Torps made into a 10 point upgrade. Cost reduced to 150, Turrets upgraded to 2
Upgrades:
May reduce P/S guns to str 2 and add soopa engines at no cost
May replace P/S heavy guns with D6 torpedoes for free.
Of course may replace prow heavy guns for d6+2 torpedoes for 10 points


Terror ship: Prow weapons at D6+4, sides at D6+1. turrets upgraded to 2, Base cost 175
Upgrades:
May reduce P/S guns to strength 2 and add soopa engines at no cost.
May upgrade prow heavy guns to Str D6+2 torpedoes for 10 points.


Onslaught: 30 points firepower D6+1
Upgrades:
may exchange 1 firepower for soopa engines at no cost
may upgrade turrets to two for 5 points

Savage: 30 points, has soopa engines
May upgrade its turrets to two for +5 points

Ravager:
May swap 1 gun for soopa engines at no cost
May upgrade its turrets to three for 5 points

Brute Ramship:
May exchange 1 firepower for soopa engines at no cost
May upgrade its turrets to two for 5 points

all the escorts in a squadron must have the same upgrades. All soopa engines or none, all turrets or none etc.

Torpedo Bombers/Minelayers: use old cost upgrades (based on averages rather than max)

Warlord upgrades:

Maniak gunners: 10 points, may re-roll lance strength as well (in the case of the Slamblasta)
Looted Torpedoes: 10 points
Mad Meks: 10 points
Extra power fields: 20 points


Fleet lists:
2 new characters added:
Big Mek: Makes the ship replace one shield with D3, comes with a re-roll 40 points
Freeboota Kapitan: Adds +1 ld to the ship, comes with a re-roll 40points
Both characters are in the warboss category, so you may not include more than 1 character per 500 points. Each may take 'warboss upgrades' which with the big mek will make the shields go to d3+1, or d3+2 on bb/bc.

Pirates: Now includes Kroolboy, and Roks, may include all three character options but must include 1 freeboota kapitan if over 750 points as it's leader. Other two are 0-1 each.

WAAGH: May include all three characters, however it must include a warboss at 750 points or greater. Both other characters are 0-1

Mechanicus Changes

Archmagos Veneratus @ 75 points

Ark Mechanicus @390 pts
Emperor @385
Retribution @375
Oberon @375
Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant @200
Dictator @230
Endeavor/Endurance @125 Comes with 30cm dorsal lance (without sacrificing torps)
Defiant @135 Comes with lance, without sacrificing torps

Vessels no longer come with a free, randomly rolled gift of the ommnisiah, every vessel must purchase one

Emergency Energy Reserves: 15 points
Advanced Engines: 15 points
Fleet Defense Turrets: 10 points
Gyro Stabilized Targeting Matrix: 10 points
Repulsor Shielding 15 points
Augmented Weapon Relays: 30
Auto Reloaders: 25 points (makes a vessel able to do an additional order if they pass RO) XXXX (replace with Extra Magazine for 15pts like current BFG:R documents)

Firestorm, Gladius @35 points
Nova @40points


Tyranids: ?

[Talos]

Seems pretty straight forward and community approved to me, but auto-loaders? My BFG:R docs have extra magazines instead, which use the roll 3d6 and toss the highest result. Although this is a little odd, the auto-loaders are mechanically unique, which although interesting are so vastly different from existing mechanics that if authenticity is our concern could drive away the conservative lot. As far as I know, no other fleet can have one single ship take 2 special orders. Other than that these are rubber stamped in my book.

[afterimagedan]

I agree. The current BFG:R AdMech list does have it as Extra Magazine at 15 pts which I believe is a much better option to have available. I have edited my post of the list about it and marked the change with annoying capital Xs.

[Talos]

Actually have another question; was there ever a revision/fix for the unique chaos battleships? I noticed in BFG:R they have the conqueror as a non-unique one. What about the terminus est? Did they ever fix the flavorful but absolutely retarded no torpedo defense? Or the fact that the vengeful spirit, even with lance increase, is 10 points cheaper but more powerful? And the fact that they should all come pre-equipped with CSM crews?

Agreed with tau, merchant always seemed too shitty and hero too beastly.
Ship compilation should include all eldar ship as MMS standard.

Didn't see any mention of it, but what about giving the (tau) protector bombers?

As for Defiant, fluffwise it has good forward lances, small prow torpedo salvo and broadside lb, so I think original profile, with 6+prow, 90 degree turns and str 2 prow torpedoes is the only truly accurate profile.

[RCgothic]

Oh dear. Here goes the Defiant discussion again.   

The Defiant's issues:

• It's undergunned relative to the other Endeavour/Endurance ships. Its port/sb weaponry is replaced with what would usually be half the standard trade for launch bays - 12WBs get you 2LBs compared to 4LBs for the Dictator.
  
• Small LBs are proportionately less effective offensively than larger ones, making that trade even worse.
• Lances have worse synergy with the LBs than the standard torps would have had due to competition for special orders. The lances are arguably more powerful than the LBs and could benefit from Lock On, but half the ship is useless if you don't Reload Ordnance.
  
• As the ship can focus all its fire in any direction, a 6+ prow is not an advantage as it is to the other vessels.
• Its strong focus only beats the other Endeavour vessels until you remember that lances and LBs have no synergy, unlike a uniform armament.

So it's heinously undergunned and conflicted in design. The most obvious fix is to just add two torpedoes - this gives it enough of a forward focus to get benefit out of its 6+ prow, and makes it easier for Reload Ordnance to dominate the ship's priorities. But then Defiant would then fit a ridiculous amount of weaponry onto its prow. In comparison to the other vessels.

So Horizon's solution (which I agree with) is to split the prow armament into a standard Endeavour prow, and a 2WB turret in the dorsal position. The half-size port/starboard armament justifies the internal mechanisms necessary for a puny dorsal mount. This also proportionately reduces the total gunnery strength of the ship and it's one-side firepower, which again eases pressure on Reload Ordnance and more strongly defines the forward focus. So this is much better. A Defiant will do its damage on the way in whilst an Endevour/Endurance will do the damage once it gets there.

However it's STILL a bit under-strength compared to those vessels, so I'd give it either an additional turret (standard for a carrier) at the same price as the others, or a price break compared to those vessels on top of Horizon's stats.

*Weapon Battery Equivalent

[afterimagedan]

When people respond, please mention if you approve of the "Confirmed Changes" list above and the document can start being worked on. Please list changes you do not approve of and I can start editing. I am glad the discussion about specific ships is happening again but I also need to know where everyone stands on the confirmed changes list so we can implement those changes.  I'm excited to get this done!

[horizon]

I disapprove of things, RcG does, Sigoroth does. But not all of us on the same.
Above list was voted upon, and yes that meant sometimes being on the losing theme.

Now the key is: do you keep what has been done or do you want individuals overruling on what happened back then?
Through time one progresses on opinion. Yet, I am wary of changing things now that a deal of people is not so involved anymore. Can we surpass people that moved away or not? One way I say yes but on the other hand that means you will never get something out.
Imagine you doing this some months and some new people come who would sway a vote outcome. Would you restart that part again?

I say: what is set should be in a pdf. Promote this thing. (Under BFG:R banner as people know the name. )

When it generates feedback things can be altered afterwards if the majority would like to.

Or does someone want to veto some changes in above list?

(Retaliator & Excorcist back to 4 lb! haha)

[afterimagedan]

I was unaware that the list was voted on. That's great! I will get to work. I was planning on editing the currently posted BFG:R documents with the edits and make sure they sync up. Good? Also, what about Tyranids?

[AndrewChristlieb]

I have a laundry list of things i dont like about the IN and Chaos ships alone, but keeping whats already been worked on and testing them out or going over errors should be the priority, along with discussion on fleets that have not been gone over quite so much. IN and Chaos seem to have gotten the most attention.

[Talos]

Well, if you guys want to keep the weird dorsal turrets and stuff on the endeavor, far be it upon me to fight the entire community (unless it's a fist fight, in which case bring it) but I will say this: look up the ship a little bit. Instead of making it a carbon copy of it's expected role, look at the fluff. This thing has two prow weapons, one of which is a average size lance or battery, the other of which is a minuscule torpedo. Although it is not represented accurately by its stats, the falchion has 2 dorsals and 1 torpedo component on a little escort, even though it is almost the exact same size as a sword that cannot carry said torpedoes. And the torpedoes on the falchion and the endeavor are the exact same size in fluff; two torpedo tubes each! That's half the size of a cobra, which launches four (all fluff numbers, obviously not BFG). A light cruiser with a third of a cruiser sized volley of torpedoes does not count as very cluttered

All i'm saying is that it would be so nice to have a ship that follows the fluff; lances OR battery, torpedoes, launch bays. Adjust the cost if you want, but try to keep it in line with fluff at least a little bit.

Rant a side, community has voted really well, I think. As for tyranids, good question! The current ones are pretty good in very specific builds, and terrible in others. Great against certain fleets and unplayable against others.
Overall, I think plaxor did great things with the tyranids, especially lowering the costs and the bio-plasma change. I do have a few pointers, though:
1) Kraken has 2 hits in BFG:R, which obviously is blasphemy in standard BFG.
2) Evolution chart is a good idea, but you are pretty much forced to grab either holofields or +1 armor to make them viable, as they pretty much have 4+ armor across the board. What about if we tweaked the armor/speed and whatnot to more "average levels" and then grouped them into hive fleet? Each hive fleet being having its own package of abilities, sort of like marine chapters but more significant.
3) The new tyranid ships have feeder tendrils/claws to a man; great for flavor and balancing but eliminates the highly specialized ships you could build before. Not sure if good or bad thing...
4) He has cruisers listed as grand cruisers for some reason. Strange...

So if other players prefer 2010 nids, let them keep it. But we will probably have to work of off plaxor's nids when we get to phase 2, because 2010 nids don't fit in with other fleets without work.

[afterimagedan]

I really do like the new Tyranids list but there are some changes that Plaxor and I talked about making to it, mainly in the names.
1. I am not against a 2 hit Kraken but I do think they should go back to the old style where it has the 4+ save. Also, that will have to be made clear in this document because any vessel on brace for impact cannot test to resist instinctive behavior and that's weak.
2. Agreed. I feel like you are really missing out if you don't take the +1 armor option. I think we should rework the evolution chart, maybe each cruiser and battleship have their own upgrade options, sort of like the old list. I am a little hesitant about the evolutions being global for the entire fleet.
3. Yeah, I'm on the fence about this though part of me feels like it is more fitting for Tyranid vessels to have the.
4. That's mainly the Juvenile Hive Ship and I think he did that because of the whole Native and Aberrant rules that Plaxor wanted to implement. Anyways, we aren't going that direction so I can just change it back to Cruiser.

I propose we split the difference between this list and the original list.

[afterimagedan]

On, I am currently editing the Chaos document. Have there been votes about the Cerberus, Heretic, Unbeliever, Schismatic, and Havoc ships? Anything else that needs changing in the Traitor document?