BFG:R Vote 44: Adeptus Mechanicus Gifts 2

[afterimagedan]

Gift pool rules: "Each capital ship in your fleet grants you 1d6 to roll on the gifts table. A capital ship that rolls a 6 for leadership selects a single gift from the gifts table instead of rolling for a gift. These gifts form a pool from which the player must assign one gift to every eligible capital ship in your fleet."

Old BFG:R with gift buying system

[afterimagedan]

Alright, I am fine with the pool method without secondary commanders if we can work on balancing the gifts a little more.  Basically we would have this:

"Each capital ship in your fleet grants you 1d6 to roll on the gifts table. A capital ship that rolls a 6 for leadership selects a single gift from the gifts table instead of rolling for a gift. These gifts form a pool from which the player must assign one gift to every eligible capital ship in your fleet."

...but with balanced gifts. Andrew posted some gifts that I thought were MUCH more appealing than we have right now. If we can work with that, I CONCEDE.   

[Vaaish]

I'm not fundamentally opposed to tweaking the gifts themselves, but I think that should be tabled until the rest of the changes to admech have a chance to settle. At least I think there were some point tweaks to the base costs that popped up that should be tested with the gift system before we do anything else.

[afterimagedan]

Alright, could we at least work on a proposed new gift set, maybe andrew's gifts, that we can go and playtest with this new pool system? I will start playtesting this sunday if we can settle on something to work with.

[Vaaish]

I don't have a problem with discussing tweaks to the gifts while this round of changes is tested but play testing with changes to the gifts themselves and changes to the fleet overall isn't a good idea because it makes it difficult to see if a change had the desired effect or if the change is balanced.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Im confused, i posted something in the other vote thread i think applies here.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ok just trying to pull this discussion out of the fleet discussion so we can work on getting a play ready list ready for testing without getting bogged down by possible changes to the gifts.

Emergency Energy Reserves: When crippled,
the ship does not reduce  turrets, shielding or
weapons strength. The vessel still counts as
crippled in every other respect.
Advanced Engines: The ship gains +5cm speed,
as well as +1D6 when on All Ahead Full special
orders. The ship adds +1 to its leadership when
attempting All Ahead Full, Come To New Heading
or Burn Retros special orders.
Advanced Shielding: Ignore all negative effects
of having a blast marker or gas clouds in contact
with the ship's base as it applies to leadership,
movement and repairing critical damage. For each
hit against the shields, roll a D6, the hit is ignored
and no blast marker is placed. This effect goes
away if the ship suffers “Shields Collapsed” critical
damage
Fleet Defense Turrets: Two fleet defense turrets
are added to the ship capable of protecting itself
or any one other vessel within 15cm each
ordnance phase, adding +2 to the turret strength
of the ship it is defending (this does not alter
bomber attack rolls when used to defend another
vessel). These otherwise work exactly as normal
turrets do in all other respects.
Gyro-stabilized Targeting Matrix: Ship
weapons are reduced to 75% instead of 50%
when on All Ahead Full, Come To New
Heading or Burn Retros special orders. Nova
Cannons still may not fire. The ship adds +1 to
its leadership when attempting Lock On special
orders.
Augmented Weapon Relays: Weapon batteries
shift left on the gunnery table before all other
modifiers are applied. Lance hits count as double
on rolls of a 6.

Ok ideas for tweaking gifts. I'm assuming the in the following you are looking at the standard admech gifts from FAQ2010 and applying the changes.

1. EER

2. Advanced engines: allow a ship equipped with AE to initiate turns one class better than it is. So a battleship would move 10cm before turning, cruisers could begin turning at any point in a move.

3. Advanced shield: hits against shields must be resolved using the highest armor value on the ship.

4. FDT: add +2 turrets to the ship rather than replace ones already on the ship. If your ship has 4 turrets you go to 6. No turrets over 6 so if you have 5 you still only get six turrets.

5. Gstm: allow the ship to reroll any to hit dice that roll one (does not apply if the ship is locked on)

6. AWR: no change.

Ok after sifting through what we have on the other thread these were the proposals I found so far.

EER: Im not sure what Vaaish intended when he said this.

My earlier version had this a 100% power instead of 75% when crippled.

Something else might be to allow a boost to weapons power while on BFI, this option may make more sense under GSTM tho.

Advanced Engines: My version adds to the FAQ2010 version a +1 to leadership tests for AAF, CtNH, and BR.

Vaaish put in to have AE lower the turn requirement by a ship size.

I would think Vaaish's version would work well as "Reduce the ships minimum distance required to turn by 5cm" This would go well as an addition to the FAQ2010 rules.

Advanced Shields: To the FAQ2010 version I added the option to roll a D6 for each hit against the shields and on a result of 6 ignore the hit, no blast marker is placed. This is identical to the "Overload Shield Capacitors" refit from the BBB.

Vaaish's idea is to resolve all shield hits at the highest armor for the ship. I would say maybe just level it as all shield hits must be a 6, the highest armor on just about all of the ships anyway. Would this just count for weapons batteries or lances too?

FDT: yup we both think they should ADD two fleet defense turrets, I like the maximum of 6 it makes it less of an option for the battleships and really the carriers too, this should be a good option for the gunships.

GSTM: My version added a +1 to lockon leadership tests to the FAQ2010 version

Vaaish opted to add a re-roll for 1's

Another good option might be to go the route of the EET and bump the power from 75% to 100%, also it might be ok to allow a boost to weapons power while on BFI

AWR: no change so far

[afterimagedan]

Good call on this thread.

I think this is the best of what I have heard so far:

1. Emergency Energy Reserves: "When on All Ahead Full, Burn
Retros or Come to New Heading special orders,
its weapom batteries and lances
are unaffected. (exact same thing as Tenacity from the Tyranid evolutions).

2. Advanced Engines: The ship gains +5cm speed,
as well as +1D6 when on All Ahead Full special
orders. Reduce the ships minimum distance required to turn by 5cm (Vaaish + 2010 version as Andrew Suggested)

3. Advanced Shielding: Ignore all negative effects
of having a blast marker or gas clouds in contact
with the ship's base as it applies to leadership,
movement and repairing critical damage. For each
hit against the shields, roll a D6, the hit is ignored
and no blast marker is placed. This effect goes
away if the ship suffers “Shields Collapsed” critical
damage. (Andrew version)

4. Fleet Defense Turrets: add +2 turrets to the ship rather than replace ones already on the ship. If your ship has 4 turrets you go to 6. No turrets over 6 so if you have 5 you still only get six turrets.

5. Gyro Stabilized Targeting Matrix: allow the ship to reroll any to hit dice that roll one (does not apply if the ship is locked on) +  The ship adds +1 to
its leadership when attempting Lock On special
orders. (Vaaish + Andrew. this is awesome because it basically makes the ships a targeting type ships. when not on LO, reroll 1s. it also has +1ld TO lock on. cool dynamic)

6. AWR - no change.

[Vaaish]

I had intended to come back after I'd thought about EER more but I haven't thought of anything that ties to the idea of energy reserves that would be interesting and not already mentioned. I'm not sure that I like the idea of entirely negating the downsides for SO with EER though. Too much of a boost I think.

I would think Vaaish's version would work well as "Reduce the ships minimum distance required to turn by 5cm" This would go well as an addition to the FAQ2010 rules.

Going this route might have implications outside of just letting a ship turn a bit sooner, I opted to go with the classes because they are fairly airtight in rules definition. There's less room for argumentation, but -5cm also works in most of the cases I can think of at the moment. It just needs a bit more thought to make sure we aren't opening any holes.

Vaaish's idea is to resolve all shield hits at the highest armor for the ship. I would say maybe just level it as all shield hits must be a 6, the highest armor on just about all of the ships anyway. Would this just count for weapons batteries or lances too?

It would only affect weapons that roll against the armor value. I didn't want to give it a fixed 6+ because I felt it could be too much of a crutch. Giving it to a CL with 5+ armor all around it doesn't do a whole lot. Giving it to a battleship or cruiser with a 6+ prow and it becomes much more valuable... which incidentally puts it into competition with AWR as a defensive foil to the boosted offense. Going fixed 6+ reverses this and makes it more desirable on low armor ships.

Vaaish opted to add a re-roll for 1's

Again this is a foil to AWR without a considerable boost in power. AWR benefits long range shooting while GSTM helps shorter ranged ships boost into combat without taking as big of a hit (weapons are at 75% when going on AAF etc) The reroll of ones only shows up around 16% of the time but is always active so it gives you consistent utility and adds a fun dynamic when it comes into effect.

For each
hit against the shields, roll a D6, the hit is ignored
and no blast marker is placed. This effect goes
away if the ship suffers “Shields Collapsed” critical
damage. (Andrew version)

I don't think I like this particular mechanic for two reasons. I think it brings more dice rolling than necessary into the turn sequence even though the refit is in the BBB. I'm also not fond of using an already existing rule as part of a different rule especially copied verbatim because it opens things up for confusion down the road.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I agree with you on the shields it does force a lot of extra rolling, and one at a time to boot. It's also a bit over the top when combined with the rest of the rule.

[afterimagedan]

I had intended to come back after I'd thought about EER more but I haven't thought of anything that ties to the idea of energy reserves that would be interesting and not already mentioned. I'm not sure that I like the idea of entirely negating the downsides for SO with EER though. Too much of a boost I think.

I would think Vaaish's version would work well as "Reduce the ships minimum distance required to turn by 5cm" This would go well as an addition to the FAQ2010 rules.

Going this route might have implications outside of just letting a ship turn a bit sooner, I opted to go with the classes because they are fairly airtight in rules definition. There's less room for argumentation, but -5cm also works in most of the cases I can think of at the moment. It just needs a bit more thought to make sure we aren't opening any holes.

Vaaish's idea is to resolve all shield hits at the highest armor for the ship. I would say maybe just level it as all shield hits must be a 6, the highest armor on just about all of the ships anyway. Would this just count for weapons batteries or lances too?

It would only affect weapons that roll against the armor value. I didn't want to give it a fixed 6+ because I felt it could be too much of a crutch. Giving it to a CL with 5+ armor all around it doesn't do a whole lot. Giving it to a battleship or cruiser with a 6+ prow and it becomes much more valuable... which incidentally puts it into competition with AWR as a defensive foil to the boosted offense. Going fixed 6+ reverses this and makes it more desirable on low armor ships.

Vaaish opted to add a re-roll for 1's

Again this is a foil to AWR without a considerable boost in power. AWR benefits long range shooting while GSTM helps shorter ranged ships boost into combat without taking as big of a hit (weapons are at 75% when going on AAF etc) The reroll of ones only shows up around 16% of the time but is always active so it gives you consistent utility and adds a fun dynamic when it comes into effect.

For each
hit against the shields, roll a D6, the hit is ignored
and no blast marker is placed. This effect goes
away if the ship suffers “Shields Collapsed” critical
damage. (Andrew version)

I don't think I like this particular mechanic for two reasons. I think it brings more dice rolling than necessary into the turn sequence even though the refit is in the BBB. I'm also not fond of using an already existing rule as part of a different rule especially copied verbatim because it opens things up for confusion down the road.

Ok so you speak favorably of -5cm to turns for Advanced Engines (needs playtesting of course), reroll of 1's for GSTM. I don't understand why you think something that is already established would be confusing. I think the exact opposite will happen, you will recognize it and know how it works.  If you have used Tenacity before, you will understand how EER works (if that's the change we go with).  If there is already a refit with roll a 6 to remove a blast marker, why not use it?  If you think there are too many rolls involved but the power level is good, we just need to find something with the same power level and go with that instead. It seems a bit crippling to just say that because you have to take more time to roll some more dice throughout the game that it is a bad option.

[Vaaish]

I don't understand why you think something that is already established would be confusing. I think the exact opposite will happen, you will recognize it and know how it works

It's confusing because you now have two different rules that do identical things. It also creates duplication in the rule set which is bad. The fix is to throw out the existing Advanced Shields and just use the refit version or not use the refit version in advanced shields. I'm also not fond of the 40k method of creating special rules that are then referenced by other special rules because it creates more effort for a player to track down what the rule actually does.

If there is already a refit with roll a 6 to remove a blast marker, why not use it?

It's an excellent point and there is no issue if you are using that particular refit as a gift for mechanicus in its entirety. The only question whether that is the best solution. The issue comes when you take the rule, give it a different name and call it done or, worse yet, just say the refit is included with the gift.

If you think there are too many rolls involved but the power level is good, we just need to find something with the same power level and go with that instead. It seems a bit crippling to just say that because you have to take more time to roll some more dice throughout the game that it is a bad option.

That's why I suggested rolling on the ships highest armor value no matter facing. It gives you a refit that works well with ships having 6+ prows but not so well with 5+ armor. A two shield cruiser or a 4 shield BB is going to be a tough nut to crack with shooting if you have to roll 6's to knock down shields while it's abeam.

It seems a bit crippling to just say that because you have to take more time to roll some more dice throughout the game that it is a bad option.

It's a time issue. Games typically take two hours maybe a bit less to play, you don't want to waste time with paperwork or more dice rolls than necessary. If a solution exists that provides similar utility (harder to take down shields) without adding dice rolls it keeps the game flowing. Sometimes rolling more dice is a good option, sometimes not.   

[afterimagedan]

I don't understand why you think something that is already established would be confusing. I think the exact opposite will happen, you will recognize it and know how it works

It's confusing because you now have two different rules that do identical things. It also creates duplication in the rule set which is bad. The fix is to throw out the existing Advanced Shields and just use the refit version or not use the refit version in advanced shields. I'm also not fond of the 40k method of creating special rules that are then referenced by other special rules because it creates more effort for a player to track down what the rule actually does.

Gift name + rules right on your Admech document. It's not confusing at all, you just apply the rules of the gift to your ship. If you happen to make the connection that this gift is the same as that evolution, why does it matter? 

If there is already a refit with roll a 6 to remove a blast marker, why not use it?

It's an excellent point and there is no issue if you are using that particular refit as a gift for mechanicus in its entirety. The only question whether that is the best solution. The issue comes when you take the rule, give it a different name and call it done or, worse yet, just say the refit is included with the gift.

Why is that an issue? My guess is most won't have a problem with that. In fact, we can even give it the same name of the refit if you would like. I see no reason that this is an issue. We already have precedent for gifts of the omnissiah that are just renamed refits: EER IS Motion-Tracking Targeters.

If you think there are too many rolls involved but the power level is good, we just need to find something with the same power level and go with that instead. It seems a bit crippling to just say that because you have to take more time to roll some more dice throughout the game that it is a bad option.

That's why I suggested rolling on the ships highest armor value no matter facing. It gives you a refit that works well with ships having 6+ prows but not so well with 5+ armor. A two shield cruiser or a 4 shield BB is going to be a tough nut to crack with shooting if you have to roll 6's to knock down shields while it's abeam.

It seems a bit crippling to just say that because you have to take more time to roll some more dice throughout the game that it is a bad option.

It's a time issue. Games typically take two hours maybe a bit less to play, you don't want to waste time with paperwork or more dice rolls than necessary. If a solution exists that provides similar utility (harder to take down shields) without adding dice rolls it keeps the game flowing. Sometimes rolling more dice is a good option, sometimes not.

Alright, I'll buy it. Consider me sold.

Budge with me once again? Would you be willing to adopt EER as the Tyranid Tenacity and EER as Motion-Tracking Targeters and we can go with your Advanced Shielding option and parts of your ideas for GSTM and Advanced Engines?

[Vaaish]

Why is that an issue? My guess is most won't have a problem with that. In fact, we can even give it the same name of the refit if you would like. I see no reason that this is an issue. We already have precedent for gifts of the omnissiah that are just renamed refits: EER IS Motion-Tracking Targeters.

Just because the designers did it doesn't make it automatically a good idea. I think that we'd all agree with this since part of what's being done with BFGR is to change things that aren't quite working. Of course BFG is also a simple enough game that it may be impossible to create a new, useful effect without overlapping an existing rule.

Would you be willing to adopt EER as the Tyranid Tenacity and EER as Motion-Tracking Targeters

I'd be willing to consider it, but I think it's a rather inelegant solution since we'd need to reference two separate documents. I really think we can do better.

Just a thought, but what about making EER affect BFI? That would definitely fall into the category of what you need. Maybe let the player add +1 shield to the ship when on BFI or some such?

[afterimagedan]

Why is that an issue? My guess is most won't have a problem with that. In fact, we can even give it the same name of the refit if you would like. I see no reason that this is an issue. We already have precedent for gifts of the omnissiah that are just renamed refits: EER IS Motion-Tracking Targeters.

Just because the designers did it doesn't make it automatically a good idea. I think that we'd all agree with this since part of what's being done with BFGR is to change things that aren't quite working. Of course BFG is also a simple enough game that it may be impossible to create a new, useful effect without overlapping an existing rule.

I do agree with you. I just think it is better to use rules already in place because they have been around a long time and people know how they work. Why reinvent it if it isn't broken? Again, there is no reason to worry about confusion, so there should be no problem with just making the gift the same as a refit just because you presume it will be confusing, though I presume otherwise.

Would you be willing to adopt EER as the Tyranid Tenacity and EER as Motion-Tracking Targeters

I'd be willing to consider it, but I think it's a rather inelegant solution since we'd need to reference two separate documents. I really think we can do better.

Just a thought, but what about making EER affect BFI? That would definitely fall into the category of what you need. Maybe let the player add +1 shield to the ship when on BFI or some such?

We don't need to reference two different documents when the rules will be written right on the Admech list. What other document will we need?  I think your idea may work but I would like to encourage NOT going on BFI instead of going on BFI.