My thoughts on BFGR

[afterimagedan]

And who gets to determine the results of the litmus test? You? Me? Plaxor? Sig? Voting does.

Even if you refrain from voting yourself, setting up the votes, deciding on the particular questions that get asked (or which don't), the options, and the way the questions are phrased, is an enormous power in itself. More influence than any single vote, certainly. Vaaish already wrote well about the trouble with this.

I don't know if you have been around the whole time where I have been trying to avoid being the final say that some people have encouraged me to be. I am doing the best I can and I am trying to be as fair as I can be. If you or someone around here wants to put in the time to facilitate the voting instead of me, I would be happy to hand it over. The only reason I took it up is because Plaxor quit.

One example I can think of is a recent vote on the Jovian (to flog a dead horse), where the options were basically 'Include the Jovian as a reserve everywhere' or 'No, it needs more work'. But in this case 'No' could be (and obviously was) interpreted to mean 'It needs more work before it can be included'. There was no conservative choice which clearly said: 'No. Just don't touch anything. Leave it the way it has always been!'

Please step up and tell me if I make this mistake again. It was not my intention to frame any voting in any particular way. I have to just do the best I can.

Basically you can see the worry some have: There is an inherent bias towards change, if any ship or list can fall prey to a vote in which there is no clear choice not to make any change, pages and pages of discussion about which change is the best gets people in the mindset that they must choose one change or another. And every little change beyond what's obviously necessary alienates some player somewhere a bit more.
(I understand your objection above: How can we decide what is obviously necessary? Of course we need to find a balance between the will of the voters and the faithfulness to the original. A great facilitator of the voting itself is important there.)

No, because that would give the facilitator too much power over outcomes. If people want to bring up a vote, they should mention it, and if there is some agreement from people, it should get voted on. Again, who decided who makes the call when something is faithful to the original or not? You? Me? Vaaish?

Sorry to sound so critical. I'm saying this stuff because I want the process to work, and BFG:R to succeed. I just don't yet know what success is supposed to look like: Is the purpose of BFG:R to appeal to as many players as possible, or is it something else?

It is to make the lists into the lists that the voting community sees as the best, most interesting, and appropriate lists.  Please give me a break here, I am not perfect but I am trying to do my best. If I screw something up, please just let me know right then instead of later.

Everyone has their own idea about how to make the game 'better' but what they really mean is 'better for them' if they're honest with themselves.

I think some people take a longer view of what's 'better for them' than others do.

In my own view, BGF:R being 'better for me' means that with the end result, I can find the maximum number of players who can still get on board with the superior BFG:R ruleset, even if I can't field exactly the list that I want. It's a compromise.

We all have to make compromises in this.

What's your idea of 'better for BaronIveagh', if it isn't the same as my view of 'better for Casus belli'?

[afterimagedan]

I'm sorry, it's not that hard, Vaaish. You get the documents from GW if you want official. If not and you want something more, get 2010 or BFG:R.

It's harder than you think. We know we can get the docs of GW, but a lot of people still ask where to find the rules. This get compounded when there is also the HA's "official" FAQ and now BFGR. What's what and why do all three list different costs and stats for some the same ships? That kind of thing causes confusion which is off putting to new players. It's naive to assume that it's not that hard and people will just "know" what to use.

Are you advocating we just cut BFG:R? If BFG:R exists, this issue will exist to some degree. Yes, I agree that some people can get confused, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make changes because of it.

And I suppose you get the magic want of knowing objectively which changes are needed and which are not? You say objective like there are total right and wrong changes that need to be made and you somehow know what they are. It's entirely subjective because what you think it tinkering, someone else may thing is fixing. When you look at the list of the original BFG:R changes, did you think those were objectively right? Objectively "fixes?"

I'm glad we are jumping to conclusions... You are correct though, there are totally right and totally wrong changes. Totally wrong changes contribute to power and feature creep which are bad for balance. Totally right changes fix quantifiable issues with ships or lists. These are things that solid reasons for why a change is needed can be given. For instance, Bakka is supposed to be a low AC fleet yet the 2010FAQ version still has reliable access to carriers. You can prove that is the case by posting lists showing it to be so. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I sure as heck want to have a solid reason for making a change to a ruleset that has had over 10 years for players to pick it apart.

Well, I'm just wondering because you claim that there objective changes that need to be made. Yes, I think there are objectively wrong changes that make ships off balance. Granted. You just make my example in a later sentence about Bakka in that you think the 2010 list is not accurately portraying Bakka and it objectively needs changing. This is a subjective option, Vaaish.

How else would you like to determine which changes should and shouldn't be made? Again, do you have that magic wand? I completely disagree with what you just said. When you say that just because the people want a change doesn't make it so implies that some who are the "best fit" should determine the changes. Everyone else can go to hell. No, the people who are still dedicated to this small dying game of toy space ships get to make the changes they want. You are saying the collective voice of the fans of this game, determined through voting, is just "a good way to make sure BFGR sways wherever the wind blows" as if there is some objective way to keep it "stable" by everyone's standards in a community voted change. Vaaish, your contribution to the BFG community has been near unrivaled, but your opinion as to what changes are "fixes" and what are "tinkering" are not going to stop people from voting on what they think needs to be changed. If you have a better way, I suggest you mention it.

Usually you would have a rules committee made up of seasoned players that reviews proposed changes. Even then their task is to guide the development not mandate it. They do have the power to shut down ideas that fall outside the scope of the project. Once a list or change has been determined with internal playtesting (done by the list custodian on the epic side), it needs to be vetted in at least 6 games against other approved lists by multiple game groups before it gets consideration for "official." This is how Epic works and I believe how Blood Bowl runs.

Fine but why haven't any of these "seasoned players" stepped up to do any of this? There has been this list of BFG:R changes from quite a while back, but no one has stepped up and taken the lead. I don't want this job, but I do want a completed BFG:R.  If some of the seasoned veterans around here want to step up and take over, be my guest, seriously. Just send me a PM. No one was doing it and Plaxor just bailed, so I picked it up because no one else would, and I am not claiming to know the answers to a lot of these issues so I am doing it by community voting because no experts or seasoned veterans have offered to do it.

I am absolutely saying that there needs to some leadership here. Just because your dedicated doesn't mean you have the experience or knowledge to make a good call and being dedicated doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. That's going to breed anarchy. If this game is dying then we need to preserve and safeguard the rules. That means careful, well thought out, incremental changes targeted to specific problems we are trying to solve. Just throwing everything up in the air because someone mentions it does the hard work Andy, Jervis and, more recently, the members of the HA a disservice.

The rules are nice and secure on the GW site. Where are the seasoned players making this happen, Vaaish? It has been made clear that the HA could not make some of the changes and counted on the BFG:R group to make some changes because they wanted the 2010 stuff to pass by GW. I don't think we are doing them a disservice. You yourself said earlier that you want Bakka to be less carrier friendly than the 2010 version, and that would not be doing a disservice to the HA based on your argument?

Many would disagree. You are the best determiner of that?

I don't claim to be the best, but the discussions on the victory certainly point to the changes done to the Apoc as a large contributor to the perception that the victory needs changes. I'm sure that's not the only example either.

I don't understand where you are going with this. The Apoc changes came from the earlier BFG:R and so we ran with it assuming that that was accepted at that period of time.

Again, this current attempt at BFG:R is the community trying to figure out what those lingering issues are and making the changes. You don't like the Apoc new rules? Many before you did. They saw it as a "fixing" issue and you see it as a "tinkering" issue. That's why we should keep the process to voting.

I would prefer you stop setting up my answers for me so you can shoot at them. You've done this with nearly every response in your last post.

I feel like my point from before stands on its own. I am trying to make the point that people will not always agree on what is tinkering and what is fixing, I don't know how that's setting up your answers. I apologize if it seems like I am doing that but it's not my intention. If I am setting up arguments, I am not putting those words in your mouth, only trying to explain my reasoning. Still, you didn't comment on my argument you quoted about the fixing and tinkering.

The change to the BM on the Apoc was an issue that needed to be fixed (it was quantifiable that the rule was bad) I don't agree with the fix because it practically nullifies the entire downside to shooting at long range with the Apoc. The change to the Dorsal battery could be either but no one seems to have any solid reasons why the dorsal batteries are getting upgraded. Adding options to the CG's is pure tinkering; no one thought that the CG's were too slow or that they needed +1 LD it doesn't fix any flaw.

Are you against adding any ships to any race? Dark Eldar or Tyranids for example? Necrons? Would that be tinkering that shouldn't happen? Many people think that there needed to be more options for those fleets to be as awesome/fun to play as the others. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to add options, assuming they are properly priced and generally agreed upon through voting. Again, I think you and I have different pictures of what BFG:R is supposed to be.

This wouldn't be a concern to you if you didn't have any stake in BFG:R or what becomes of it. That's why I am wondering if the project should be called something else. In my mind, preserving the fleets/rules in not as much a priority as having fixed ships and having all fleets enjoyable to play by the majority of the people who vote. If people want to add vessels to the Necron fleet, why not let them do that in BFG:R, where we are changing some thing up anyways in this unofficial document?  If this project was titles BFG:Ammended, would you be ok with people "tinkering" and adding ships and changing stuff up and even changing rules? My point is, why do you care at all that people are making a version of the rules/fleets that are different from the original and 2010 stuff? Why not just let people do what they want? Is it because it is on this forum? Of do you just not like when people make new documents? I am still not understanding why you are so bothered by this. People always have the option to play 2010 and GW rules. BFG:R is not meant to replace the GW fleets or 2010 fleets in the community of BFG players, but it is an option for players who don't want to use GW or 2010 fleets.

And I am serious, if you want to get together a group of seasoned players to work on a version of tweaked 2010 rules, I would be unbelievably happy about it just as I was when I found out that BFG:R existed and that people will still refining the lists.

[afterimagedan]

I dont see anything wrong with what your saying Vaaish. I agree that people should explain why they want to see a change and I think everyone has so far. Now if someone gives you a reason why something should be changed doesnt that put the ball in your court to explain why you think it shouldnt?

Unfortunately I haven't seen this myself. There's a lot of explanation as to why people think their change is the best option but very little that I've seen dedicated to saying why the change needs to happen at all. The mindset seems to be that broaching the subject is tantamount to proof that some change needs to happen. There is a very strong bias towards always making SOME change.

I agree with this. I think it is appropriate to put one of the voting options for each vote "This does not need changing."  "No, needs more work" does bias toward change. Please hold me to this if I forget.

[Vaaish]

Are you advocating we just cut BFG:R? If BFG:R exists, this issue will exist to some degree. Yes, I agree that some people can get confused, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make changes because of it.

No, I'm say keep in mind what you are doing so that it doesn't cause new players avoidable confusion. If we can make things more accessible and avoid confusion then why would we intentionally do something else?

You just make my example in a later sentence about Bakka in that you think the 2010 list is not accurately portraying Bakka and it objectively needs changing. This is a subjective option, Vaaish.

I beg to differ. If we know Bakka is supposed to be a low ac fleet (fluff, HA, previous versions) and we know that the average IN fleet has 8LB, then we can say objectively bakka isn't working as intended if we aren't seeing bakka fleets with average numbers of LB in an IN fleet.

I don't think we are doing them a disservice. You yourself said earlier that you want Bakka to be less carrier friendly than the 2010 version, and that would not be doing a disservice to the HA based on your argument?

You didn't read what I posted or didn't completely understand it. Changes in and of themselves aren't the cause of disservice, it's the haphazard and anything goes attitude that does the disservice. There is no control to what gets changed and no baseline to integrate it because everything is in flux. That does disservice and damage to the rules we have. Structured, well reasoned and tested changes serve to enhance the game we are trying to preserve.

I don't understand where you are going with this. The Apoc changes came from the earlier BFG:R and so we ran with it assuming that that was accepted at that period of time.

I was simply explaining how I came to the conclusion, that it was the previous change that is causing issue not me just deciding arbitrarily.

Are you against adding any ships to any race? Dark Eldar or Tyranids for example? Necrons? Would that be tinkering that shouldn't happen? Many people think that there needed to be more options for those fleets to be as awesome/fun to play as the others. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to add options, assuming they are properly priced and generally agreed upon through voting. Again, I think you and I have different pictures of what BFG:R is supposed to be.

I'm not against adding new ships and all options, but that should be separated from the core game and fixes to official ships. Even then proponents need to prove their case WHY the option in the case of official ships should be added. The desire for more options isn't an adequate reason to consider a change especially with the official profiles or with additions to fleets that contradicts the known intentions of the original authors.

[Casus belli]

Thanks for your reply afterimagedan. I think I get your position now, and your goals for BFG:R.

I think it is appropriate to put one of the voting options for each vote "This does not need changing."  "No, needs more work" does bias toward change.

This would totally satisfy any complaints I had about the process [Edit: Well, at least the part of the process which you yourself have a hand in.]. Sorry not to mention this kind of thing earlier.

[BaronIveagh]

In my own view, BGF:R being 'better for me' means that with the end result, I can find the maximum number of players who can still get on board with the superior BFG:R ruleset, even if I can't field exactly the list that I want. It's a compromise.

What's your idea of 'better for BaronIveagh', if it isn't the same as my view of 'better for Casus belli'?

Well, getting more players ISN'T about a superior rule set (and in all honesty it's 'superior' status is questionable to me at this point.  I can't say I've seen any sign of it other than the bug fixes).  It's about visibility and community.  That's why I said in another thread that we were all wasting our time and energy with BFG:R if we were not actively pursuing raising the visibility of the game in the public eye.


As far as your second point, I don't know you or how you think BFG 'should' be, so I'll use Sig since he made his position very clear earlier.

Sig thinks what's good for him (and thus, good for BFG) is the removal of the entire bakka fleet list.

I disagree and think that we should go back to how Bakka was before this forum got it's claws on it with FAQ2010 and start over from there rather than the FAQ 2010 version.

Both are equally good and bad for the game, in all honesty.

A whole lot of what gets pitched here has no absolute 'good or bad' for the game.  It's almost entirely based on perception.

[afterimagedan]

Are you advocating we just cut BFG:R? If BFG:R exists, this issue will exist to some degree. Yes, I agree that some people can get confused, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make changes because of it.

No, I'm say keep in mind what you are doing so that it doesn't cause new players avoidable confusion. If we can make things more accessible and avoid confusion then why would we intentionally do something else?
I just disagree that there is any confusion and have offered some ways to help prevent against that.

You just make my example in a later sentence about Bakka in that you think the 2010 list is not accurately portraying Bakka and it objectively needs changing. This is a subjective option, Vaaish.

I beg to differ. If we know Bakka is supposed to be a low ac fleet (fluff, HA, previous versions) and we know that the average IN fleet has 8LB, then we can say objectively bakka isn't working as intended if we aren't seeing bakka fleets with average numbers of LB in an IN fleet.

Then why haven't you provided solutions for it in the Bakka thread? The average of 8 is what people tend to take, it still does not make your claim objective.

I don't think we are doing them a disservice. You yourself said earlier that you want Bakka to be less carrier friendly than the 2010 version, and that would not be doing a disservice to the HA based on your argument?

You didn't read what I posted or didn't completely understand it. Changes in and of themselves aren't the cause of disservice, it's the haphazard and anything goes attitude that does the disservice. There is no control to what gets changed and no baseline to integrate it because everything is in flux. That does disservice and damage to the rules we have. Structured, well reasoned and tested changes serve to enhance the game we are trying to preserve.

If you think this process is haphazard and "anything goes" then you don't have to be a part of it. Would you tell someone who is creating  a mod for Skyrim that they are doing a disservice to the creators, even if they are making it haphazardly and making mistakes? We just disagree about the approach.

I don't understand where you are going with this. The Apoc changes came from the earlier BFG:R and so we ran with it assuming that that was accepted at that period of time.

I was simply explaining how I came to the conclusion, that it was the previous change that is causing issue not me just deciding arbitrarily.

Ok then bring this up as an issue and we can discuss it. Problem is you haven't done that and instead complain that you don't  like the way things are going.  You have contributed to the changes in BFG:R a lot and we are grateful for that. You are pointing something out that you think is an issue, so use the system we are working with (discussioin leading to voting) and propose some changes. No one is stopping you.

Are you against adding any ships to any race? Dark Eldar or Tyranids for example? Necrons? Would that be tinkering that shouldn't happen? Many people think that there needed to be more options for those fleets to be as awesome/fun to play as the others. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to add options, assuming they are properly priced and generally agreed upon through voting. Again, I think you and I have different pictures of what BFG:R is supposed to be.

I'm not against adding new ships and all options, but that should be separated from the core game and fixes to official ships. Even then proponents need to prove their case WHY the option in the case of official ships should be added. The desire for more options isn't an adequate reason to consider a change especially with the official profiles or with additions to fleets that contradicts the known intentions of the original authors.

BFG:R IS seperate from the core rules and fleets Vaaish!! I don't understand this in the slightest. You need to separate in your mind that BFG:R is NOT 2010 or GW rules, it is a fan made version of new ships and fleet lists. It does not need to be  separated from the official ships that we have in the documents because the entirety of the BFG:R document in itself is unofficial and not mandatory to use in the slightest. It's like Book of Nemesis: totally unofficial and option. Why didn't you bring this up when Plaxor was doing what he was doing? He was going WAY beyond what we are doing here. And actually, the desire for more options is totally adequate if the majority agree that is will be a meaningful change to the game and something that will make things more fun overall, which includes balance, proper point costs, and upgrades that will be used.

I hear your concerns, Vaaish. I do think we need to be playtesting this stuff as much as possible, and to be conservative of changes. But the game does have its set of official rules that people can bank on and learn with. That isn't going anywhere. I am going  to make sure there is a voting option to say "this is not a necessary change to the game" in BFG:R voting so that people can vote that way. I thank you guys for bringing that up.  I also take your concerns about how adding changes that are not needed to the game.  I would argue that there are some things that should be added merely because they make the game more enjoyable and add meaningful options for people to use.  I believe the upgrades to the Grand Cruisers are in that category, as well as the new Tyranid, Dark Eldar, Necron and Eldar vessels (this includes MMS, which is a fan made MASSIVE change to the way Eldar works).  I'm sorry if we don't agree on this but neither of us seem to be willing to be pursuaded. BFG:R, at this point, because no one else is working on it or willing to pick it up, has been something that I have not been comfortable being  the "tyrant" of, as Plaxor liked to claim of himself (jokingly I'm sure). The only way I know how to do it that will keep it close to some level of community involvement is through the voting system I have been doing. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but I see no other way.  THe "seasoned players" haven't taken this up, nor have the HA. So, I am doing the best I can to make documents with the changes the voting community wants. It's a living document that can be changed and molded as more playtesting happens. The votes to "finalize" are basically to say "we are done working on this, let's move to the next fleet." We can come back and still make changes. We have done that already.

I will let you have the last word, Vaaish, but I don't see the point of this conflict anymore because I don't think we will come to an agreement on this. I am totally willing and open to your input, as I am sure most are.  I love your contributions and feel like our debates about the Victory, Admech, and Bakka have been fantastic and have bore some good fruits. I will confess that this conversation has been very discouraging to me and has made me question all of what we are doing. But I don't want to stop this process. We are getting things done. It's not going to be perfect. No BFG rules document is going to be perfect. But we are doing the best we can with the people we have to make this entirely unofficial document, not intending to overshadow the original or 2010 documents community wide. We should all take your encouragement to keep it to the basics and really evaluate what is needed to make BFG:R the best balanced game with the most enjoyable but controlled options. 

[horizon]

Ergo: democracy doesn't work, people want a power hungry moder.... eh dictator to tell them what is right.

kidding aside:
BFG:R at the core is fiddling with stats & point costs of ships. Nothing else.
Democracy means that some outcomes I agree with and others I don't.

[Vaaish]

I just disagree that there is any confusion and have offered some ways to help prevent against that.

That's not a very good way to look at it. Try putting yourself in a new players shoes and forcing yourself to think like they would. It's far more confusing than you believe.

Then why haven't you provided solutions for it in the Bakka thread? The average of 8 is what people tend to take, it still does not make your claim objective.

Erm... I believe that was the point of adding in the rule that ships with LB could only be taken via reserve rules in bakka. The rest of what you are saying makes little sense. An average is based on data data isn't subjective. If a fleet that is supposed to have aversion to AC ends up regularly taking the average of 8LB then there is something wrong. That's not subjective.

If you think this process is haphazard and "anything goes" then you don't have to be a part of it. Would you tell someone who is creating  a mod for Skyrim that they are doing a disservice to the creators, even if they are making it haphazardly and making mistakes? We just disagree about the approach.

No, I don't have to be part of it. I do think the core idea is good and would like it to succeed. If I cared enough I might mention that they were making mistakes. If your approach is be haphazard and make mistakes then, yes, we do disagree with the approach.

Ok then bring this up as an issue and we can discuss it. Problem is you haven't done that and instead complain that you don't  like the way things are going.  You have contributed to the changes in BFG:R a lot and we are grateful for that. You are pointing something out that you think is an issue, so use the system we are working with (discussioin leading to voting) and propose some changes. No one is stopping you.

I believe I've mentioned it a couple of times in the discussions and votes relating to the Victory. I didn't know we needed a separate thread to even talk about it.

BFG:R IS seperate from the core rules and fleets Vaaish!! I don't understand this in the slightest. You need to separate in your mind that BFG:R is NOT 2010 or GW rules, it is a fan made version of new ships and fleet lists. It does not need to be  separated from the official ships that we have in the documents because the entirety of the BFG:R document in itself is unofficial and not mandatory to use in the slightest. It's like Book of Nemesis: totally unofficial and option. Why didn't you bring this up when Plaxor was doing what he was doing? He was going WAY beyond what we are doing here. And actually, the desire for more options is totally adequate if the majority agree that is will be a meaningful change to the game and something that will make things more fun overall, which includes balance, proper point costs, and upgrades that will be used.

Perhaps I didn't bring it up because I wasn't available to be part of those discussions at the time?  I believe I've mentioned that several times.

Look, you aren't hurting anything by splitting this into two sections. One for core fixes to official ships and rules and one for completely fan made material. It makes it easier for new players to understand what's changed and it makes it easier for veteran players who might not want all the extra stuff to access what they need rather than scrolling through a larger document. It makes it more accessible and more accessible means that more people are likely to use it. Why wouldn't not want that?

My intent is not to discourage you in the least. I debated even posting the topic for a long while; I want this project to succeed, I really do. Take what I've said as observations about what isn't working in the process and do what you can to fix it. In the simplest terms, throw an extra step into the process. Instead of jumping right to discussions of what changes to make, start with discussions and votes on if changes are needed (needed is different than wanted) at all. Once that's been determined, then move into discussions on how to fix something. Think through use cases when options come up. Ask yourself under what circumstances would I use this option or will making this change invalidate peoples lists and collections.

As to a rules committee, we should speak to the HA and have them appoint fleet moderators for the available races to guide discussion and changes.

[afterimagedan]

As much as I want to reply, I gave you the last word on it. Would you like to contact the HA about this? If they want to work on BFG:R, they can certainly do so. Have the come vote and lead discussion. However, I don't think leaving a voting system is the way to go so that might be a problem. Have them email me at dangleason1@gmail.com if they want to discuss.

[BaronIveagh]

Ergo: democracy doesn't work, people want a power hungry moder.... eh dictator to tell them what is right.

Eh.... democracy works as well as communism and for the same reasons.  As long as everyone wants the same things and no one is trying to work the system or hose their neighbors in search of a bigger piece of the pie.  Or deliberately sabotaging the situation because they don't like the guy that got elected.

If you want a government that can rapidly respond to changing situations and writes simple, easy to understand rules, yeah, dictatorship is the way to go.  Unless you're in Germany or Russia, because even then the legal system gets as convoluted as the grammar even under the simplest governments.


I've never seen a masterpiece painted by committee.

[Vaaish]

Would you like to contact the HA about this? If they want to work on BFG:R, they can certainly do so. Have the come vote and lead discussion. However, I don't think leaving a voting system is the way to go so that might be a problem. Have them email me at dangleason1@gmail.com if they want to discuss.

I can try to contact them. I'd be looking for them to assign Fleet custodians that help to guide the process rather than out right work on BFGR.

[afterimagedan]

As long as stuff gets done, which I doubt, honestly. They seemed remarkably absent in the Plaxor BFG:R days.

[Sigoroth]

The change to the BM on the Apoc was an issue that needed to be fixed (it was quantifiable that the rule was bad) I don't agree with the fix because it practically nullifies the entire downside to shooting at long range with the Apoc. The change to the Dorsal battery could be either but no one seems to have any solid reasons why the dorsal batteries are getting upgraded. Adding options to the CG's is pure tinkering; no one thought that the CG's were too slow or that they needed +1 LD it doesn't fix any flaw.

Care to explain this? The critical hit penalty from the 2010 FAQ isn't a penalty at all. It only takes effect when firing over 45cm (so, like once or maybe twice in a game) and even then it doesn't do anything because it'll very most likely be repaired before it has any consequence whatsoever. You don't even take an extra hit damage. So no penalty whatsoever from the crit. The real penalty comes from only having 30cm range if you fail your LO. This makes it far too unreliable as a long range weapons platform. Given its speed of 15cm it is also too slow to be used as a linebreaker.

The current fix provides reliability as well as a decent consequence. You can reliably fire out to 60cm, thereby validating its role as a long range weapons platform. If you fire over 30cm (not 45cm!) then you'll lose a shield and some speed next turn. If your opponent chooses to fire upon you and causes at least one point of hull damage then this means that this downside has, in effect, caused 1 hit of damage due to the loss of the shield. If he doesn't then it hasn't. Either way you won't be able to steer next turn without use of BR or a gravity well.

The dorsal WB increase is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, all the original BBs with dorsal WBs had a pitiful strength. Nowhere near the parity with the lance option. This is terrible as a constraint. So, in effect, some ship or other needed to have at least 9WB dorsal to establish the proper precedent. In the case of the Victory one can account it as a suboptimal BB. The Emperor and Oberon are only carriers and so don't need the extra guns. The Desolator is a fast BB and has CB level firepower anyway. The Apocalypse however is a pure gunship and is meant to be able to compete with the Retribution in terms of firepower. So changing this to 9 establishes a proper precedent and brings it in-line with upgraded Retribution.

As for the CGs, well one of the things that bugged the hell outta me was that they had no dorsal or prow weapons. All IN/Chaos CBs and BBs have both (ignoring Bakka crap) and the only other CG, the Repulsive, has both also. So why would five ships be so conspicuous by the absence? It never made sense to me. I understand flavour and whatnot, but the notion that these ships never had any prow or dorsal emplacements when all other ships their size do is hard to swallow.

However, they don't really need any more guns, for balance that is. And to just whack on torpedoes, say, and bump up their costs would be unnecessary and break their flavour. So I thought "why not give them a choice of a few different prow/dorsal upgrades?" My idea was that they could take one upgrade with the further caveat that no two Vengeance type CGs could take the same one. These would have been experiments by the IN at making the Vengeance series CGs more viable. Ie, bring them out of mothballs. Unsuccessful experiments.

So that way you could run them as their base profiles or, if the bare spots irked you, you could take some sort of nominal upgrade at inflated cost. However, back in the original BFG:R people rejected the majority of upgrades I proposed and added in the extra speed upgrade. Therefore the point of the exercise got shifted from "filling in the inexplicable gaps" to "yay, upgrades!"

[AndrewChristlieb]

The speed upgrade does make sense for the Avenger but its overshadowed by the torpedoes. Personally i hate the CG's model and layout but they are pretty cheap for what you get.