Finishing BFG:Revised

[Talos]

Well, I noticed a few things:
1) I thought common consensus was that the styx was now 260...did I miss something?
2) Not sure what fraal tech is, but I think the idolator was bumped down to 40, along with the firestorm to 35.
3) Could be wrong, but are those the original stats for the retaliator? Seems like it would munch on a mars class for breakfast.
If I notice more I will mention it.

[Sigoroth]

In the earlier posted BFG:R confirmed changes list earlier in the thread, does anyone know what the Idolator's "new fraal tech" is?

No right shift for range, targets within 30cm count as closing.

Interesting point on the tyrant...if it had those stats I would actually build some for my IN fleet... No seriously.

Indeed, and this is the point. The Tyrant is supposed to be the workhorse mainstay of most fleet lists. The Dominator is supposed to be quite rare (apart from a few lists), but there's currently no reason to take the Tyrant and those people that want the 12WB@30cm ship just take the Dom. This means that the Tyrant is rare and the Dominator is common in fleet lists, the opposite of what they should be.

What would we do for the price of the defiant?

I was thinking 100 pts. Perhaps 90-95 pts would be more accurate, but I'd rather give them an extra turret or something than make them that cheap. (Cheap carriers equals potential for abuse). Given that the broadside hardpoints are half strength I was thinking that they could use that "extra room" for extra crew and craft, allowing them to use a-boats as standard. Maybe also grant a bonus to boarding value. However, some did not like this idea. It is, after all, another exception to the rules and I myself had argued that exceptions are to be avoided. That's true of course, but I think this falls into the acceptable exception category, but since this is hardly a clearly demarcated area I can't provide a terribly compelling reason why I think this is so.

Anyway, short answer is; 100 pts, plus give it some minor upgrade, e.g., extra turret, higher BV and/or a-boats.

As for tyrant, what about if we make the batteries stock range 45cm at strength 12, and cost stock at 190?

A few things wrong with that. Firstly, it's actually too cheap. That ship would cost 200 pts. Secondly, it forces someone to pay for range, which is not a good fit with the IN basic style. Yes you could adopt your style to make use of it, etc, but forcing someone to pay for something that will only occasionally be useful is naff. Presumably this is why you said 190 pts, so that it becomes a bargain buy. If you do that though then that means that range is a bargain for the IN, rather than a premium. Surely we're aiming at making conservative changes to produce a balanced ship rather than radical changes for the sake of competing with the Dom?

Towards that end there are 2 balanced options that I see. First there is 12WB@30cmL+R with prow torpedoes at 180 pts. The IN fleet is screaming out for this ship more than any other new ship. The basic cruiser configurations are: all WBs; all lances, and; mixed WBs/lances. Currently IN players can only use the Dominator for the first of these options (since the Tyrant is poo). This means that those people that prefer a WB gunboat are forced to take a NC.

While NC are balanced and the Dominator gets it cheap enough to make the loss of torps manageable this brings up 2 problems. The reverse Tyrant/Dominator rarity situation already highlighted is the first. The second is the fact that there is an anti-NC bias in the BFG community. Note that this isn't due to any inherent imbalance in the NC, but rather from a combination of psychological effects and some extreme scenarios where the NC completely dominates. This means that people who take the Dominator because they want 12WB@30cm get accused of munchkinism for NC spam.

So this option would fix a lot of problems. The second option is 10WB@45cmL+R and torpedoes at 190 pts. This is an ok option and should remain for those that feel the need to pick up a bit of range. It is not anywhere near as necessary as the first option though. If we had to choose between them then the 12WB@30cm option should be the clear winner. Luckily we can have both. Simply make the Tyrant 12WB@30cmL+R for 180 pts and give it an option to 'upgrade' to 10WB@45cmL+R for +10 pts. Job's done.

This will allow people to finally get a WB torp gunboat at 180 pts. It will make the Dominator a rare ship and the Tyrant a common ship. It will make real munchkin NC spammers easier to spot. And lastly it will allow those people that took the Tyrant for its range upgrade to continue to do so.

Under no circumstances should it be left with hybrid ranges. This version is utterly useless.

[Sigoroth]

Well, I noticed a few things:
1) I thought common consensus was that the styx was now 260...did I miss something?
2) Not sure what fraal tech is, but I think the idolator was bumped down to 40, along with the firestorm to 35.
3) Could be wrong, but are those the original stats for the retaliator? Seems like it would munch on a mars class for breakfast.
If I notice more I will mention it.

1) It has been for almost 2 years now. See the FAQ2010.
2) Yes, I believe we just decided upon a points decrease rather than Fra'al tech.
3) It is the same as the original except +2 AC and +15cm range on the WBs. The Mars has longer range on the lances, prow armour instead of the extra shield/hits, a NC instead of the extra AC and is cheaper.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Eh Styx is fine at 275 and stellar at 260.

Idolator is listed as doesnot suffer column shift over 30 for 45. Seems like it should be a left shift all the time at that price or no shiftannigans and 40pts.

No named battleships? Loosk like the entire powers of chaos pdf is missing actually.

There are some typos and such, i didnt look over all the rules but the stats look reasonable with the exceptions listed.

Chaos lords in the 13th list are still poo at 25 pts.

[Talos]

Vastly preferring the 30cm FP 12 batteries, with range upgrade at 190pts. Almost worth playing a NC tyrant over a dominator, although that is a pretty small concern. Somewhat agree with placement and play assesments, however: the tyrant is suppose to be uncommon, as it failed to live up to its expectations and thus was produced in fairly limited numbers, and although the dominator is fairly uncommon it is a fleet support vessel, meaning it is still fairly common in actual battlefleets (1500pts+).

Also, how many NC is considered spamming? Is 3 in 1500pts count as spam? What about 4? Or is spam literally only extremes, like 4 dominators in 750pts.

[afterimagedan]

1. I fixed the Styx points and brought in powers of chaos. You should be able to see it now.

2. We will have to decide if we are going to use the current BFGR "Special Qualities" list and terminology. Personally, I find it very helpful.

3. I would like to get 2 people as proof readers. Would anyone be willing to volunteer their time and read through these things and check for typos and other things? If we include the Special Qualities terminology, we will need to change the parts of the documents that need it to match that terminology.

[Talos]

Sure thing Danny boy! Send me the files and get ready for some shredding! Helps that girlfriend plays BFG and is a master of editing, so someone else and it will have gotten 3 lookovers.

P.S. Can I call you Danny Boy? Please? PLEASE?
Warning: I am really tired.

[AndrewChristlieb]

It really depends, 1/500-750 seems the standard. The thing to remember tho is that NC spam really isnt even that great. Dropping pie plates makes no difference when theyre itty bitty and almost everything has at least one automatic invulnerable save (shield).

I would remove the Nova as an option for the Tyrant @ the above stats.

Ill drop any typos i find, its mostly been things like point costs in the fleet lists not matching the stats and such (styx is still 290 in both lists for example).

I dont care for the extra list myself and would much rather see a standardized layout for each fleet listing a description of their rules so you dont have to refer to two documents just to know fearless gets a +1 this or buttmunch gets a -1 to that.

[afterimagedan]

1. You can call me Danny boy if you want.  Please just make a note pad of stuff to edit in the order they appear in the document.

Proof-Readers:

1. Talos
2. GF of Talos
3. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Also, I do need to go through the fleet lists and change the points.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ill proof read.

So Chaos characters, marks, Csm. Any changes needed i know i have a fee issues with these.

[afterimagedan]

Awesome.

Proof-Readers:

1. Talos
2. GF of Talos
3. AndrewChristlieb

Andrew, I think writing up some proposed changes in this forum will be helpful. I think keeping the topic on the Chaos fleet at this point will be the best because them we can get it finished entirely. You mentioned characters. Mainly the "Chaos Lord" at 25pts?

[Talos]

Second that, as chaos characters and marks are piss poor in BBB/faq 2010, but pretty interesting in BFG:R as written. And just to be clear: we are proof reading your revised documents, pointing out inconsistencies with established rules (either official or community voted as it were) and gaping voids were things should be, if I understand you correctly.

Also, empty you inbox so we can reach you or send me an email adress. I'm jdpries@live.ca if you whish to contact me more expediently.

And if I have questions, I will probably PM horizon or Sigoroth for clarification, and those two know their way around an enginarium, so to speak, so this should be a bulletproofread. Hehe...

As for plaxor's shortcut terms like stalwart and embarked regiment, I am all for. People seem to enjoy it in regular 40k, I can't see it doing anything but tidying up the entries.

Dominator losing 4 battery a side for increased range should probably be the same cost, maybe minus 5 tops. IMHO

[afterimagedan]

Yes, that kind of proof-reading. Of course, still bring up problem rules or values you notice in this thread.

My email is dangleason1@gmail.com if anyone wants to chat that way.

[Talos]

To rehash previous statements, marks of chaos are quite good in BFG:R, and I recommend implementing those full force, but keeping the additional add-ons from powers of chaos (such as the pink horror death blast, the khornite overload swarm, and so on and so forth). BFG:R also does sub-commanders right; to be useful, they must be cheap and not very customizable, for that is point of the fleet commander. As for CSM, as AndrewChristlieb pointed out, they don't gain as much benefit as IN vessels gain. What about +20-25 points?
As far as I know:
Mark of Nurgle: +1 hits is worth 10-15 points, an not being board-able is so situational that it is worth maybe 5-10pts? (Suck it, Nid and Khorne boarding fleets!)
Mark of Khorne: Doubling boarding value makes the tactic extremely effective, an the potential abuse makes it pretty good at 20 points
Mark Of Tzeench: Straight up price of a normal reroll. Functional but pointless, as any lord can purchase one at that price. Maybe at 15-20pts it would stand out as sorcerous advantage?
Mark Of Slanesh: -2 Leadership is significant penalty, but it does have a really short range. In BFG:R, they instead give incoming batteries a right column shift. Much better.

If we put all marks at 20pts and CSM at 20pts Termies at 10pts, the only problem is khorne boarding shenanigans extremely rape-tastic. A decked out slaughter would be 205 points, and its boarding value would be huge (18 or so if I am correct) at a very bargain price.

[afterimagedan]

The Overlord in BFGR is 220 instead of 235. Was this voted on? Also, what about the changes to the Armageddon?