What makes each race special?

[Daemon_Primarch_Lorgar]

Hello there Islacrusez !

Very interesting to read your thread here! I am also new to BFG (played some 4 games perhaps) and I've been thinking about a couple of the issues that you've brought up here as well. First of I'd like to say that we don't really follow the rules 100% in our gaming group, we have added a few things that we like and since we are all pretty new to the game we try out different things almost every game. However, I'd like to add my own interpretation to some of the things you had issues with and how I justify (for myself) their mechanic in the game.
First of: Shields taking place before armor penetration. This one bugged me at first as well. But after going through the fluff for titans in 40k I realized that the tech priests often redirects the power of the titans shields so that they are stronger from the direction they are expected to take the worst fire. Although meddling to much with the arcane technology could be considered a tech heresy. So I simply decided for myself that: current Imperial ship engineering and fleet tactics dictates that the ships require an armored prow and even more durable shields at the front to be able to perform the duties laid upon it by the God Emperor of Mankind! While the older Chaos vessels for example wasn't constructed like this. I don't think it require to much imagination to believe that for example that the Ork mekz constructing a kroozer would direct most of the shields power forward while leaving the aft of the ship relatively vulnerable. Of course this could have also been translated with different number of shields facing in each direction but that would be a cumbersome change since most ships have 2 or 3 shields and not a dozen to be distributed to all the different facings. But you could easily explain the difference between number of shields and the "power" of the shields by the shield generators ability to vent excessive energy from that direction or whatever other reason you can come up with that works for you .

Secondly: Two ships heading in the same direction abeam having a hard time hitting each other. This one bugged me as well, that's why I figured out another fluff explanation to make this mechanic "feel right" to me ! I figured that: if a Sword was running parallell to a Retribution in the same direction, the commander of the Sword would have enough wits to know to stay away from the Retributions fire arc the best he could or be blown away immediately. So would basically not be running completely parallell but also in one of the directions not represented in a 2d game (like down into the table). Of course this couldn't be seen by just looking at the models position on a 2d board, but it's just a justification that works for me to explain the game mechanic. If you add this third dimension it actually feels (to me at least haha!) plausible that two ships running abeam would have a pretty hard time hitting each other as they would have to not only consider the new dimension but also the vessels' different speeds (even if they game wise travelled at the same speed I believe the Sword would try to feint and alter the input to its engines as much as possible to try and complicate the targeting for the Retribution. Even though these feints would surely see the Sword's focus and the accuracy of its own firepower reduced as well as represented by its own column shifts.).

As two your other two major concerns I'm going to be brief because 1) I don't have enough experience and 2) I really need to sleep ... So!

Reloading ordinance: This one I've actually never had a problem with! I run IN as well with loads of torpedoes. Do you squadron your cruisers if some of them get a bad ld roll? Have you tried secondary commanders? I'm afraid I can't help you with that one because I've never had any issues with that. Bad dice rolls perhaps?

Escorts effectiveness: I can understand where you're coming from here. I have also had a hard time making my escorts pay for their rations (and I'm using 13 of them!..), but I've heard I'm using them the wrong way.. I can't tell you how to use them though (except for that you shouldn't use them like me haha!), but my most frequent opponent has actually got a good hang of them and is using his escorts to deadly effect. Believe it or not but they are actually the top priority target when I face him. The amount of mobile firepower some of them hold is just absurd!

Hope some of this helped !

[unseelied]

I don't even have a close circle atm; I have one opponent. And if some people here are right, we're not even in the same class of player. Do you guys have any online system to play against others on the forum? It would aid my journey significantly!

I had heard some people were doing some kind of program called vassal but I really am not very techie.  Maybe someone else knows something about it? 

Head to head, I think the cruiser wins out. It's cheaper too. You can manoeuvre to get into a blind spot, but I can outrun you. If you get in front of me, I still have weapons to bring to bear and if you sit there long enough I'll plough into the middle of your squadron and there will be nothing left when I am done. More importantly, with the faster ship I have a better chance of choosing my engagement, and if I fire first, your strength 20 weapons battery will drastically diminish at a rate of 4 per 2 shots landed.

Yeah escorts can be good but not every escort and not for every fleet.  Chaos honestly doesn't need escorts as the slaughter can pretty much take over their role.  I am going to have to agree with you on this one.  The only escort I might be tempted to take in a chaos fleet is the torpedo one as six of them can unleash a massive torp wave and torps are not easy to come by in a chao fleet.  If you remember I am from the big gun school and I am sure many here will disagree with this but there you have it.  Can you use escorts and will they be viable? Yes. Do you need to take them in a chaos fleet? No.   Will chaos escorts be the most optimised choice? Probabally not but you don't need the most optimized fleet selections to play. 

I'll do my best, but who and where can I play against? I'm in the arse-end of nowhere and GW has abandoned BFG. What do?

Well thats the basic problem with BFG.  Its a great game that not enough people play.  First thing I'd try is to post here what country and city you are near.  Maybe someone is near by.  If you live near Philadelphia, PA in the USA I'd be happy to play you.  Failing that go to your nearest game store and ask them about players.  Failing that there are other online forums, Dakka Dakka, Warseer etc that may have some one on there that lives close enough to you to get some games in.  Failing all that you will just have to make sure you keep your only opponent interested. 

The problem is I can already exert my will through the rules against the opponent I have. His fleet is so squishy. It shouldn't take a master tactician to defend against a bull rush.

When I first started to play it was important to win.  After awhile I realized that just winning wasn't really what I was looking for.  What I was looking for was a close game that I then win.  I think thats what you are looking for as well as you are already winning.  Rather than change the rules to strengthen your opponents fleet( that everyone here already thinks is strong enough) why don't you just weaken yours?  First Chaos is one of if not the most powerful fleets.  If you count the 2010 FAQ fleet lists there are six chaos lists and you are most likely using the blue book one which is the most optimized.  The other five are more fluffy and well you pay for fluff so you spend more per ship.  You are using slaughter class cruisers in a tiny area which maximises their potential.  Why?  Use something else if slaughters are making it too easy.  Your opponent has a more difficult fleet to master and he may just be slower at picking up this kind of game.  In a perfect world we'd all be equal but it doesn't seem like your opponent is ready for equal.  Thats not to say he won't someday be.  Scale back the volume a little and challenge yourself until he can catch up.  You think escorts are weak?  This is the perfect time to experiment with them.  If that fails try playing down two hundred points.  If that fails proxy your ships as ork kill Kroozers.  If he still can't beat you well then I am out of ideas. Eventually you will find a place where he wins or almost wins.  Slowly work your way up from there.  I think both of you will have a lot more fun that way and you will get to try out all different kinds of ships and combinations.   Not to mention he is your only opponent and he will not just stick around endlessly getting his ass kicked.  Even doing the kicking will get old real fast for you. This one sided slaughter is not fun and people don't continue to play games that aren't fun.  .

[Islacrusez]

Hi,
On necron ordnance: I think they should get them.

My personal feeling is a sort of special rule bomber type ordnance. Except like friendly fighters can go CAP on a ship, the Necrons would have Scarabs that land on your hull and start carving you a new one. For every turn that the swarm is on you, it rolls for damage. The afflicted ship cannot bring its main ordnance to bear against this target, but may mass turrets. I also suspect that Necrons would get the resilient modifier on these, because Necrons.

You cost imperial navy 25% down. You think after more then ten years such a drastic lowering wouldn't have been done already. If the navy was that weak we would have seen complaints every other day all those years. Right?

I wouldn't take it that seriously. It wasn't a proper design change, but more of a handicap change. Plus, as others have mentioned, the game is different at these point levels. Skewed perhaps?

But yes in time there will be people who find things unbalanced. I remember people who said the IN was to strong if they applied the shotgun tactic based on a fleet with dictators.
That happens. Discussing such things is fine and cool. Can't your friend come online so we can help him through somewhat? Tactical discussions and tips I'd always fun.

I can point him here. ^^

On reloading: on worst he has a leadership 8 admiral on his flagship. With enemy ships on special orders you will have +1 to it. On average he should succeed some leadership tests. And if your fleet depends on ordnance and torpedoes using a re roll is perfectly fine! Or for which occasion do you spare them?

Not flying off the table mostly. Then again, we're still kinda getting to grips with leadership. The +1 to leadership was probably forgotten the three times in total that special orders were in use (three games and about three special orders; go team). The problem is partly game mechanic, partly the idea of it, and partly the fact that rogue trader didn't have this problem.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

Back to the gunnery table briefly. I know you havw an issue with ships abeam in the same direction. My counterpoint to that is you must also remember that this is a simulation of 3D combat on a 2D game board. Just because the ships are pointed the same way does not mean they are heading the same direction. Think of it like the nebula scene in the Wrath of Khan.

[horizon]

On points levels: BFG plays fine from 250pts and upwards. Above 3000pts it could become unwieldy.
1000-1750 I consider perfect.

Forgetting the +1/-1's to leadership tests is pretty important.

Rogue Trader has a lot more leadership variables then BFG will ever have. Rogue Trader itself is based on Battlefleet Gothic but has more focus on story then game balance.

[AndrewChristlieb]

If anyone is interested in Vassal let me know and Ill shoot you the info.

On the whole I don't think having torpedoes reload automatically would be a huge deal if they can only fire once every other turn as you said. As it is now they fire every turn you can reload, I'm probably going to have terrible luck for a month now but I usually don't have a problem with reloading...

Sub 250 is cool too. I still like to throw up a straight cruiser clash with a ton of space terrain every once in a while. 10k+ is doable but it really starts to skew the game balance when you get too high in points as one turn can see entire fleets wiped out. I find its best to do large games in sub factions, so 10k a side is really 5 2k fleets a side.

Firestorm Armada Im actually just recently getting into this but its pretty fun.

[Islacrusez]

Back to the gunnery table briefly. I know you havw an issue with ships abeam in the same direction. My counterpoint to that is you must also remember that this is a simulation of 3D combat on a 2D game board. Just because the ships are pointed the same way does not mean they are heading the same direction. Think of it like the nebula scene in the Wrath of Khan.

To which I reply that none of these ships (except maybe the eldar) have weapons that point in a direction even remotely related to "down". Thus the battlefield can only be at least so flat, otherwise the idea breaks down. Sure it can represent three dimensions, but if you consider the vertical firing arcs, you have to turn the ship; if you turn the ship, you expose your underbelly to someone else and lose that firing arc instead.

No, I'll stick with the idea that the battlefield is somewhat flat, and thus anyone moving the same distance in the same direction is moving the same distance in the same direction.

More to the point, if you're moving your maximum distance in a direction, how would you explain that you're also moving the same amount, or indeed any amount, UP which increases your speed significantly?

You can't say "this is a 2d representation of a 3d battlefield, but only for the purposes of" and pick the ones you like and skip the ones that you can't make work. It's not how it's done.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

As I said it is a simulation. My point being that realistic details like what you said go out the window.  The closest I have seen a 2d game get to being 3d is Aeronautica imperialis but even that ignored roll (which is much more significant in space as well). Since adding demensionality to the gane would instantly complicate everything,  it is largely ignored for rules purposes. This how ever does not mean it does not exist.

 For saying the guns only point in one direction remember each arc is 90*. The ship isn't turning to get that angle, the guns move. I would assume they can also vertically traverse if they can (and do) horizontally traverse.

You are also applying the idea of same course and speed to a turn based game. In reality everything would be happening simultaneously,  so to say that you fired on them when the are perpendicular isn't really what happened. And ships dont turn on a dime at exact 45* angles.  Thst mechanic is an approximation of the set and drift they would have turning in an arc. So while they may be perpendicular at the end of thier turn/start of yours, once again "in reality" they could have been on a constantly changing vector.

Lastly it is all fictional anyways, bordering more so on the realm of fantasy. Would we really fly giant cathedrals through space? Why would bridges be mounted externally rather than in the heart of the ship? Its not like you can see the other ship thousands of km away. And greater than light travel is done by sailing through the 9th circle of hell? Since it is this way and most of physics is just tossed out like an unwanted dumpster baby already, I am willing to ignore that there are innacuracies. I would play computer simulators if I wanted wanted accuracy.  The point of this game is tactical/stategic prowess. If the rules are realistic or not doesn't matter to prove who is the better "admiral" so long as your forces are roughly even and you both understand the rules you are operating with

[ehlijen]

When firing WBs you must account for your own course changes and speed and the enemy's and calculate significant lead times. You know your own course, but you cannot predict the enemy's. The enemy will not match your course to make it easy on you.

If they're coming right at you, any course change on their part will result in little change in where you have to aim with lead because they are essentially moving along the line your projectile will travel.
If they're moving perpendicular to you, any course change on their part will result in major changes in where you have to aim.

The line of their travel and your shell flight intersect at only a single point when firing abeam, but overlap along a long segment when firing head on.

[Islacrusez]

As I said it is a simulation. My point being that realistic details like what you said go out the window.  The closest I have seen a 2d game get to being 3d is Aeronautica imperialis but even that ignored roll (which is much more significant in space as well). Since adding demensionality to the gane would instantly complicate everything,  it is largely ignored for rules purposes. This how ever does not mean it does not exist.

Which literally comes down to "this exists because we said so", as I already pointed out. As I also pointed out, I don't like that approach.

For saying the guns only point in one direction remember each arc is 90*. The ship isn't turning to get that angle, the guns move. I would assume they can also vertically traverse if they can (and do) horizontally traverse

And are you proposing that dorsal weapons, or most chaos weapons shoot holes in their own ship? I don't care how much traverse you have, if you're mounted on top of something you can't shoot any further down than the thing you're mounted to.

And as far as how much vertical traverse you can get... You tend to get a lot less than horizontal, especially in a turret-mounted weapon (ALL chaos guns, all lances, all dorsal weapons) You might get a little more play in a gun-port mounted weapon like imperial batteries, but then you've got to somehow lift the bulk of those guns with manpower alone. If they're mounted to balance the weapon, you lower the traverse because you're hitting the gun port; if they're mounted for maximum traverse, you'll have a hard time moving it that far and will probably hit the floor or the ceiling before you hit the target.

Lastly it is all fictional anyways, bordering more so on the realm of fantasy. Would we really fly giant cathedrals through space? Why would bridges be mounted externally rather than in the heart of the ship? Its not like you can see the other ship thousands of km away. And greater than light travel is done by sailing through the 9th circle of hell? Since it is this way and most of physics is just tossed out like an unwanted dumpster baby already, I am willing to ignore that there are innacuracies. I would play computer simulators if I wanted wanted accuracy.  The point of this game is tactical/stategic prowess.

And here I thought the point of this, and any other game, is fun?

If the rules are realistic or not doesn't matter to prove who is the better "admiral" so long as your forces are roughly even and you both understand the rules you are operating with.

I think we've already proven this one with a thus far unbroken win-streak against my opponent. You've played with the rules long enough and you've grown accustomed and attached to them. I have not, and I reserve the right to change them as I see fit. I'm not going for hyper-realism, I'm just taking a different approach, because I don't like the way the game has done it.

When firing WBs you must account for your own course changes and speed and the enemy's and calculate significant lead times. You know your own course, but you cannot predict the enemy's. The enemy will not match your course to make it easy on you.

If they're coming right at you, any course change on their part will result in little change in where you have to aim with lead because they are essentially moving along the line your projectile will travel.
If they're moving perpendicular to you, any course change on their part will result in major changes in where you have to aim.

The line of their travel and your shell flight intersect at only a single point when firing abeam, but overlap along a long segment when firing head on.

But following this logic, why do Closing and Moving Away suffer different penalties?

[Islacrusez]

I would just like to add that I am happy to engage in discussion and accept feedback, but I don't want to be going in circles. "Don't do this because I think it's a bad idea because I disagree with you" is not particularly helpful. More or less everything else in the thread has been, even if it has had a counterpoint in response (because causing a counterpoint to be generated is useful in itself).

[Khar]

But following this logic, why do Closing and Moving Away suffer different penalties?

This is, in fact, very sound logic. We just have take sensor operations into account - in 40k engine emissions are canonically known to disrupt sensor operations [one of the main reasons few ships have rear weapons] and on the other hand, ship coming at you is likely actively scanning you and masking its engines distruptive effect with entirety of its hull, thus being easier to target.

Also, when it's moving away your projectiles need more time to hit it - they need to, basically, chase it down. Longer time of flight leaves more room for deviation. When it comes at you, they hit faster, thus being more accurate. Remember that it doesn't really happen in turns. You fire at it while it's moving.

That's all completely ignoring 3d aspect, because, as you say, it's basically 'bacause we say so.'

[Seahawk]

Lag time. Being 1000's of km apart, it's not like two cars driving next to each other. Solid munitions need to be targeted to a spot in space where they would intercept it, and since ships can fly in three dimensions, the target can simply move up or down the lateral plane and avoid them. This is what the gunnery table takes into account, and I think it works perfectly, since it's taking many things into account all at once. Laser light doesn't have that problem, and so lances aren't affected by orientation, another perfect set up, in my opinion.

"What about close range, it should be easier to hit!" I hear you cry.

Well of course it is. Left column shift.



As to the OP, nobody mentioned Space Marines.

If IN are a shotgun, then Marines are the blunderbuss that's wielded like a scalpel. Plow forward into close range and unleash BOMBARDMENT and boarding actions.

[horizon]

Hi Islacruz,
Small note on the abstract 2d/3d aspect of bfg:
If BFG was hundred percent two dimensional you would agree that a ship would block line of sight and fire? That you cannot hit a cruiser if its stem is directly behind the stem of an escort in front of it.
But this ain't so. So, if you like it or not (both is fine) BFG uses a semi 3d mechanic in circumstances. They explained it in the rulebook as well.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

I would just like to add that I am happy to engage in discussion and accept feedback, but I don't want to be going in circles. "Don't do this because I think it's a bad idea because I disagree with you" is not particularly helpful. More or less everything else in the thread has been, even if it has had a counterpoint in response (because causing a counterpoint to be generated is useful in itself).

Sorry if I came off that way. I am just trying to explain, to me a at least, why the game plays the way it does. Simply put a 2d simulation of a 3d game, the biggest failing of which is the motion of roll. I always thought it would be cool to roll a ship over say if its port batteries were damaged and I had targets to port. Why not roll and use my starboard. As cool as this is though I find the gane to be really well balanced and some of the best mechanics in terms of balancing simplicity of rules with tactical depth of game play. So in a way I am defending it yes. But this is to try and let you discover and fully learn the game before altering core mechanics. As you said you are relatively inexperienced.  Might I suggest swapping fleets and/or trying IN on IN or chaos on chaos. This may give better perspective as to the strengths and weaknesses.  As well start introducing ordnance, ramming and boarding action/hit and runs to your games.

lastly the point of the game is to have fun,  but you knew what I meant  .