BFG:R Vote 11: Finalizing Necrons

[afterimagedan]

What do you guys think about the point values I posted?

[thinking out loud]
I think this change to the non-punishing VP system for Necrons will be a good thing. Dropping that chart and counter-balancing it with the proper point increases will simplify the end of game math, make Necron fleets smaller when you play against them so they won't feel as "OP," and will make some of the ships that Necron players were afraid of using usable again (combined with the global 4+ save). Notice, the Jackal (more weapons) and Dirge (faster) are priced at 65 points each. That's a hefty price, but look that you get. Lightning arks are basically Eldar WBS, portals are great, they have an incredible speed, they have inertialess drives, and now have the regular VP chart, which makes them an option. In my games, the ships you took were 1 Cairn and as many Scythes as you could fit. Why? Because you want to avoid your ships giving the enemy VPs so you took the most durable.

With this change, the ships are more expensive, but also, the ships that needed to be more durable (the smaller ones) are now an option to take. I personally like this change because, when playing Necrons, I will take the ships that I want to take but were too afraid to take. I can use Shrouds (which I love the models). I predict more Shroud use with this change because their Ld boost ability is frikkin awesome. A Cairn with a Sepulcher and a Shroud will represent the fleet admirals for the whole fleet. Admittedly, a bunch of the points of the Shroud go toward the Ld bonus, but it is global for your whole fleet and definitely worth having at least 1.
[/think out loud]

[Talos]

I like it personally.

The points you are posting are for the BFG:R versions, plus the modifications selected by the polls (for the cartouche and so on and so forth)?

[afterimagedan]

I like it personally.

The points you are posting are for the BFG:R versions, plus the modifications selected by the polls (for the cartouche and so on and so forth)?

Yes, exactly. The costs I listed earlier are my proposed costs for the ships are the currently are in the WIP document.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Their escorts were the only ships i always felt were well priced before and they never gave up any extra vo just capitols. The smaller escort should be cheaper than the large one especially with two hits now (unless its profile has changed quite a bit (im not home to pull up the new list).

[afterimagedan]

We voted no on the jackal 2 hit change.

Anyways, you are right. I forgot that there is only the extra VP penalty for escort squadrons and not all the other ones for capital ships. They should be back to their regular points of 45 and 50 than. I will edit my posted list.

[Sigoroth]

I feel the notion of conservative changes is being lost on some people.

[Talos]

@Sigoroth Other than with tyrannids, I agree with you fully; but in this particular case, what are you referring too? Other than dropping the outdatted VP rules, standardizing the reactive hull save and adjusting points accordingly, of course. I presume you mean the new hulls? If so, I would certainly like to hear your thoughts in addition to your critique, Sig.

[Sigoroth]

I think dropping the VP rules is a big change. Rebalancing ship costs in light of the removal drastically alters peoples fleet compositions. The remit of this document is to make usable ships that are considered weak by slight alterations to their costs, or, if necessary, profiles. Certainly discussion of this sort of thing is appropriate for a radical rules changes appendix, but for the main document I don't think there should be anything that is not extremely easily digestible by the casual reader. Reactions to the document should be along the lines of "oh yes, that's better, I can finally use that ship now".

While I'm strongly in favour of standardising the reactive hull save to 4+, with appropriate small points adjustments, I feel that that change is right at the very edge of what's acceptable. Maybe even over the edge. The metric for determining whether it's acceptable would be relative balance (i.e., does it make the Necrons stronger/weaker than they were; is this change in the direction of interfleet balance) and fleet composition (i.e., can the Necrons take roughly the same number of ships of roughly the same displacement at a given point size).

As for the new hulls, I myself am very strongly in favour of the Reaper and approve of the Khopesh. I'm indifferent to the Cartouche. It could be dropped as far as I'm concerned. However, even the Reaper should be relegated to an appendix. I would say the "Very Balanced, Highly Recommended But Still A Radical Change" appendix, but still not in the main body of the document. An optional set of rules removing the Necron VP chart could also be included in an appendix.

As to how these appendices should be labelled and what rules should go into what appendix, well I'd recommend a colour code system and discussion of categorisation for each proposed rule.

[afterimagedan]

Sig, I see where you are coming from. Personally, on the continuum of how much to change the game/fleets, I am further in the change category, but not to where Plaxor is. We have the original list of things that were voted on in the first wave of BFG:R and those changes were implemented in the documents already. Personally, almost all of the changes we have talked about within the last month or so and the original BFG:R voting, I like. If I understand you correctly, you would rather have the 2010 rules with the small point changes implemented into those documents. This can be done but it seems different than what BFG:R is in my brain. I worry that there are two (or three) groups of people here who want BFG:R to be different things. There are these groups:

1. very small, subtle changes
2. moderate changes (me)
3. major overhaul (Plaxor)

Plaxor wanted BFG:R to be this gigantic change, probably a 6-7 out of 10 on my mind's change continuum, and implemented too many changes on his own. Personally, I think BFG:R should be more like 3-4. If you want the changes to be more like on the 1-2 scale, we can do that but why not vote on these things now and make the documents we are working on include the voted changes and the stuff that some would consider "appendix" changes?

I am not against working on another set of documents that would just be implementing the earlier BFG:R changes that were voted on in the Plaxor BFG:R era. We could make "Battlefleet Gothic: Revised," which could be the Plaxor era voted changes implemented into 2010 stuff. We could also have a second set with the voted changes integrated into the documents like we are doing now. We can call it whatever we want. If you guys want, I can get those minor edit files going right away, no problem.

[Talos]

I always thought the project should be a moderate change, because little changes are easy to implement without such a community driven project. I think the small change philosophy is a little misguided, because this game that we all love is great and really wonderful, with only a few (ranging in severity) flaw. But this project, to me at least, has never been a stopgap measure to plug a few leeks; like Dan I genuinely want to improve the game, to make the experience of playing it and collecting even more amazing. And that requires a few more changes, both minor and radical.

[Sigoroth]

This highlights my point. Some people are willing to change more than others. Some groups are quite strict in adherence to "official" rules. Some will accept HA changes but no more. Others will accept community driven content but only if it's conservative and makes sense. Then there are people that are more liberal with changes and will accept just about anything.

We can't accommodate the strictest of people of course, but we can accommodate those that are open to conservative changes. Those that are open to anything will accept anything, and so we don't need to try hard for them.

For example, because someone who's conservative doesn't want to accept Chaos light cruisers they will also reject a 210 pt Dictator because they're in the same document. That doesn't mean that more extravagant suggestions can't be made and voted upon, for other documents/appendices. I just think that the most conservative set of balance tweaks should be sorted and finalised first, before getting bogged down in more out there stuff.

[afterimagedan]

This highlights my point. Some people are willing to change more than others. Some groups are quite strict in adherence to "official" rules. Some will accept HA changes but no more. Others will accept community driven content but only if it's conservative and makes sense. Then there are people that are more liberal with changes and will accept just about anything.

The groups that are strict and adhere only to "official" rules won't be interested in this at any level so we aren't making these documents for them. You are missing a group in there. There is a group who wants moderate change that isn't extreme. 2 hit escorts is not an extreme rule and is quite easy to implement. Rewriting the entire boarding rules, now that's extreme. Moderate changes are closer to the original BFG:R releases but even less. The original BFG:R releases had lots of changes to the fleets and even some big rules changes (fighters and bombers, for example). I don't think BFG:R will go that route and I would like to have as little changes as possible to make the game still be balanced and yet make all of the fleets more playable and enjoyable.

We can't accommodate the strictest of people of course, but we can accommodate those that are open to conservative changes. Those that are open to anything will accept anything, and so we don't need to try hard for them.

Agreed. The strictest won't accept what we are doing anyways. However, I don't see people who are open to anything. From what I have seen so far, people on here have been making the best effort to legitimize their opinions and votes.

For example, because someone who's conservative doesn't want to accept Chaos light cruisers they will also reject a 210 pt Dictator because they're in the same document. That doesn't mean that more extravagant suggestions can't be made and voted upon, for other documents/appendices. I just think that the most conservative set of balance tweaks should be sorted and finalised first, before getting bogged down in more out there stuff.

That has already happened. The original voting for BFG:R makes those small changes and I am willing to make a set of documents that are just those changes. Hell, call it BFG 2012 or whatever. If we need to call BFG:R something else, we can call it something else. Most of the people on here seem to want to see changes to the fleets, especially the ones which are smaller.

I think what we are doing here is great.  Everyone on the forums probably has a mental list of things they would like to see changed but the beauty of voting (despite how long it takes  ) is that we can spend the time discussing, find reasonable changes, and vote to make it happen.

[afterimagedan]

I would like to bring up the Necron point changes again and talk them through. Here is my proposed list, considering we bring them back to the regular victory point chart...

Cairn: 525pts
Reaper: 385pts
Scythe: 315pts
Khopesh: 220pts
Shroud: 200pts
Cartouche: 155pts
Jackal: 50pts
Dirge: 45pts

[AndrewChristlieb]

The numbers sound reasonable do we have anyone that plays necrons alot to playtest the costs?

[afterimagedan]

I do but I haven't gotten in a game for a while.  Maybe I will talk a friend into it. I have to make a phone call...