ASC 2.0 Chaos Development

[Fr05ty]

Another ship that might be interesting for the book:
https://portinvicta.weebly.com/guest-articles/terra-invicta-space-marine-battle-barge?fbclid=IwAR0dSmOwNGPhVDyLeVBi1fy1N9craSFrntSD7dOfhyf1RcpYtnWa7bFHsxQ

[Zelnik]

Hey folks, long time no see.


So if you guy's don't remember me, I was one of the 2010 faq folks. I have been peeking at what you guys are making here and I have a few questions.

When adding new ships, what are you looking to provide that isn't already provided by another ship (Do we need another carrier when Chaos has some of the best already? Do we need another grand cruiser when Chaos happens to have the best grand cruiser in the game?)

Another thing to consider is are you adding ships to patch up areas they were deliberately left open to provide balance opportunities, and to make other fleets more unique (I was never a fan of chaos light cruisers, and preferred that to remain an Imperial phenomena).

Are there things we could be doing with established rules to make the game more interesting instead of adding new content? (Perhaps a fleet option for traitorous Imperial only ships with a few chaos-y rules, or a chaos fleet that has a select few imperial cruisers in place of select chaos cruisers)

One thing we should seriously consider is that BFG will likely return, and how we can contact GW to try and have a hand in it's rules... the last thing we want is BFG Age of Sigmar.


I am going to go over the ships in the start of this thread with a fine toothed comb and see what I think, and provide some comments here in a bit.

[Zelnik]

Comments in bold.


Blasphemer Class Fast Battleship- 300
Hits: 8
Speed: 30 cm
Turns: 45*
Sheilds: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets:  4
Weapons
Port Weap Battery- R: 45cm  S: 10 Arc: L
Port Weap Battery- R: 60cm  S: 6 Arc: L
Stbd Weap Battery-  R: 45cm S: 10 Arc: R
Stbd Weap Battery- R: 60cm  S: 6 Arc: L
Dorsal Lance Battery- R: 60cm S: 4 Arc: L/F/R
Special Rules: 5D6 AAF. When the ships suffers a critical hit, roll an additional d6. On a 5+, an additional Fire critical damage result is applied to the original critical hit. Roll +1D6 for Plasma Drive Overload Catastrophic Damage results. Even though the Blasphemer has less than 3 shields and 10 hits, it MUST be mounted on a large (60mm) flying base, as it still has the presence of a Battleship, just none of the staying power.

My biggest issue with this ship is that chaos doesn't need fast battleships. All of their battleships are 'fast' with a cruiser speed Desolator, and a gun-battleship speed Despoiler. The general purpose of chaos battleships is long range firepower, access to torpedos on a faster then average hull, for relatively cheap points for their firepower (the Desolator being one of the cheapest battleships in the game).  This just appears to me to be an attempt to put battleship weapons on a slaughter. The need for a fast battleship makes far more sense in the imperial navy, since their battleships are bigger gunnery platforms and typically slower.

Goliath Class Grand Cruiser- 250 (IMPERIAL NAVY/CHAOS)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 3
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port LB- Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 3 Arc:-
Stbd LB- Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 3 Arc:-
Port Lances- R: 60cm S:2 Arc: L
Stbd Lances- R: 60cm S: 2 Arc: R
Special Rules:  May take ABs for +5 pts.

This ship is, on the chaos side, completely rendered superfluous by the styx. There simply is no need for it on a balance scale. On the imperial side, it is rendered superfluous by the Exorcist. There is too much crossover and bleed, and ultimately, we should not have an option for everything in this game.

Annihilator Class Grand Cruiser- 295 (IMPERIAL NAVY/CHAOS)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 3
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port LB- Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 5 Arc:-
Stbd LB- Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 5 Arc:-
Special Rules:
This is even worse then the one above. This vessel instead renders the alternatives obsolete, and gives chaos and imperial factions too great of a strike craft presence when their balance focus lays elsewhere. why take any other carrier then this? It's the same points as a styx, cheaper then an emperor, and cheaper then two Dominators and Devistations.

Vindictive Class Grand Cruiser- 330 (SPACE MARINE OR CHAOS FLEETS)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20 cm
Turns: 45*
Shields:  3
Armour: 6+
Turrets:  3
Weapons
Port LBs- Thunderhawks- Speed: 20cm S: 2 squadrons Arc: -
Stbd LBs- Thunderhawks- Speed: 20cm S: 2 squadrons Arc: -
Dorsal Bombardment Cannons- R: 30cm S: 6 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Launch Bays- Thunderhawks- Speed 20cm S: 2 squadrons Arc: -
Under Prow Plasma Destructor- R: 15cm S:10 Arc: F
Special Rules:  Chaos Space Marine Crew.
Plasma Destructor: Always hit on a 5+. Always inflicts critical hits on a 5+.

Adding in cruisers bigger then a light cruiser to space marine fleets is dicey, it's simply not part of their balance layout and the Blackship was the compromise. The Plasma Destructor is way over the top, and doesn't say anything about if it applies to the gunnery table. I know you want more bombardment cannons in a space marine list, but keeping their ships restricted to light cruisers and battle barges is established both in the lore and in the balance of the game. 

Charybdis Class Grand Cruiser- 295 (Use Grim Dark Bits Heresy Era BB. Based off the Nicor in IA vol 10)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20 cm
Turns: 45*
Shields:  3
Armour: 6+
Turrets:  3
Weapons
Port Weap Batteries- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: L
Stbd Weap Batteries- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: R
Prow Bombardment Cannons- R: 30cm S: 6 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Launch Bays- Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 4 Arc:-
Under Prow Plasma Destructor- R: 15cm S:10 Arc: F
Special Rules:  You may take a CSM crew for +35 points.
Plasma Destructor: Always hit on a 5+. Always inflicts critical hits on a 5+.

Chaos, unless they are Chaos space marines -specifically- should never have bombardment cannons, even then I would suggest against giving Chaos another special gimmick.


Kharnath Class Grand Cruiser- 320
Hits: 10
Speed: 25 cm
Turns: 45*
Shields:  3
Armour: 5+
Turrets:  3
Weapons
Prow Boarding Torpedoes- Speed: 35cm S: 6 Arc: F
Port Launch Bays- Dreadclaws: 35cm S: 5 Arc:  -
Stbd Launch Bays- Dreadclaws: 35cm S: 5 Arc:  -
Prow Talons- R: 15 S: 2 Arc: F
Special Rules:  5d6 AAF
Blood for the Blood God:  MoK and CSM crew. May only be taken in Bezerker fleets or fleets where at least ½ of the ships (including Kharnath GC) have the MoK. May not be included in fleets where any ship has the MoT.
Talons of Khorne: Prow mounted Talons are fired like WB with a Left Col Shift. They ignore shields. If you successfully hit a vessel, instead of inflicting damage all boarding actions conducted by AC from the Kharnath receive a +1 bonus.
Boosted Craft- AC from the Kharnath are boosted from the Kharnath, adding +5 to speed, already included above.
I actually really like this ship. It's very fluffy and very Khorny. A ship designed for boarders, by boarders, with the genuine taste of "Screw guns I wanna hit it with my axe" mentality. I don't think the assault craft need the boost to speed though.


Hellfire Class Heavy Cruiser (CH)-210
Hits: 8
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 6 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 6 Arc: R
Port Lance Battery- R: 45cm S: 2 Arc: L
Stbd Lance Battery - R: 45cm S: 2 Arc: R
Prow WB- R: 30cm S: 6 Arc: L/F/R
Dorsal Lance Battery- R: 60 S: 1 Arc: L/F/R
Special Rules: When AAF, the ship may not fire its lance batteries.

This is a heavy cruiser design based on either the slaughter or the alternative murder. It's really not necessary because we have the hades, and the slaughter is doing just fine without a heavy cruiser variant. Not all designs need a heavy or battle cruiser variant.

Enticer Class Light Cruiser- 130
Hits: 6
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 4 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 4 Arc: R
Prow WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: L/F/R
Notes: 5d6 AAF. May only be used in Pleasure Fleets of Slaneesh or fleets where over ½ of the vessels have the MoS. May not be taken in fleets where a vessel has the MoN.

I like fluffy ships, but I don't really see why this needs to exist when for just 35 more points I can take a Slaughter, which is faster, tougher and WAY more shooty. One slaughter can easily take on two of these and pound them into the dirt, when light cruisers are really meant to be more then the sum of their parts. This is beyond my normal disdain for chaos light cruisers because there just isn't a need for them when you have the Slaughter.

[kerros]

Hello all,

       I've been going through the various ASC posts and more recent files (I have the original) and have not come across my favorite creation. Was wondering if any of you have ever seen/come up with yourself something like this:

Traitorous Cruiser- 180 (CHAOS)

Hits: 8
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port Lances- R: 45cm S: 3 Arc: L
Stbd Lances- R: 45cm S: 3 Arc: R
Prow Weap Battery- R: 30cm S: 6 Arc: L/F/R

What do you think?

[Bessemer]

Hello all,

       I've been going through the various ASC posts and more recent files (I have the original) and have not come across my favorite creation. Was wondering if any of you have ever seen/come up with yourself something like this:

Traitorous Cruiser- 180 (CHAOS)

Hits: 8
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port Lances- R: 45cm S: 3 Arc: L
Stbd Lances- R: 45cm S: 3 Arc: R
Prow Weap Battery- R: 30cm S: 6 Arc: L/F/R

What do you think?

Basically a Cruiser version of the Acheron? Seems OK, The Hades is the Murder with topside turrets after all, the reverse also works;)

shouldn't the prow Wb's be 60cm, though? At 30cm you're probably looking at about 170 if I have to pull a number from my posterior (been away from BFG for a looong time!).

[Bessemer]

@zelnik

Nice to see the High Admiralty still exist! And thank you for your work on 2010, even if GW didn't feel the same.

as you have probably guessed, the ASC is essentially a compilation of whatever people want to chuck out. Most of the more reasonable designs ended up in the Expanded revised Fan edition here on the boards (forgive if you are aware of this, been away for some time...).

 Edit: Not meaning to sound negative about the ASC's content, but a lot of fan creations do step on the toes of official ships or go out of theme for the faction in question. I'm just as guilty, all of mine being consigned to oblivion long ago

[kerros]

Yes, you are correct. It is a cheaper Acheron in cruiser form. That's kinda what I was going for. Also think of it as a "Chaos-y" version of the Imperial Gothic. Also, you are half correct about the price. I must have miscalculated somewhere (almost a decade ago when I first came up with this design lol) along the way cuz running the numbers again it's actually 160 pts. Super cheap! I actually wanted the prow weapons batteries to be short range as I didn't want this to be a cheap cruiser that could sit back and fire at range. The 30cm WB forces you to choose between sitting back or getting in the fight and using your full complement of weapons.

[horizon]

@zelnik

Nice to see the High Admiralty still exist! And thank you for your work on 2010, even if GW didn't feel the same.

Nah, the HA is into hibernation only to be awoken when the eye of terror spills out GW heresies.
Only a few rare mails from Ray, Nate and Bob have been done.
I posted the few FAQ2010 clarifications in the rules sub forum.

[Zelnik]

@zelnik

Nice to see the High Admiralty still exist! And thank you for your work on 2010, even if GW didn't feel the same.

as you have probably guessed, the ASC is essentially a compilation of whatever people want to chuck out. Most of the more reasonable designs ended up in the Expanded revised Fan edition here on the boards (forgive if you are aware of this, been away for some time...).

 Edit: Not meaning to sound negative about the ASC's content, but a lot of fan creations do step on the toes of official ships or go out of theme for the faction in question. I'm just as guilty, all of mine being consigned to oblivion long ago

I managed to congeal out of my primordial ooze a while ago after discovering Shapeways and a few really talented 3d printers that have begun making fantastic remakes of the ships of the game.


I do apologize for being a wet blanket, but I like ships that actually wear their own shoes instead of stealing the shoes of someone else. It's why I loved the Governor Grand Cruiser, which very much was it's own ship.


I will try to make a Chaos Cruiser, something that I think people have forgotten and probably a better place for chaos light cruisers.


Blacktooth Class Demon Ship.

Points: 150

Movement: 35cm
Turn: 45*
Hits:6
Shields:2
Turrets:1
Armor:6+

Weapons:
Prow: Demonic Maw
Port Reality Rift
Starboard Reality Rift

Special Rules

Demonic Maw: When this ship rams, increase the dice rolled for damage against enemy vessels by 4.  When boarding, The target ship suffers a critical hit before any boarding action is resolved.

Mark of Chaos: This vessel must take any one mark of chaos for free.

Demonic Infestation: For 25 points the ship may be filled with howling hoardes of demons, giving it a +1 to it's boarding actions and a +1 to all hit-and-run attack rolls.

Reality Rifts: When an enemy vessel fires upon this ship in the port or starboard facing with any weapon that functions like a lance or battery (this includes bombardment cannons, lightning arcs, particle whips, ect), resolve an immediate attack against the firing vessel with the same weapon at half the original firepower strength to a minimum of 1.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

I AM BACK!!!

I was actually working on this again AFTER ANOTHER HIATUS (Sorry). Great to see some feed back. I will catch up and try to get a ship out a week.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

Ooh, which BFG Facebook group?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2387912808/

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

Hey Gothmog, just noticed a funky thing: The Scylior, the modified Sword class Frigate from the Space Marines has 40cm range for its weapons batteries. Is this intended or a typo? Shouldn't it be 45cm or 30cm?

Also, the Conquest class Star Galleon was only supposed to have broadside weaponry, no dorsal or prow weapons. I'm guessing you changed it for design purposes, but wouldn't it make more sense to create another Star Galleon class with the current Conquest's loadout and keep the Conquest as a full WB broadside transport grand cruiser?

Love so many of the new designs you've done. The Lone Serpent as you've done it feels a lot better than the old one, also the use of the Nihontu's prow makes it so pretty! Please keep it up

The 40 is intentional. Just makes it unique and match its fluff.

I honestly am unsure why the conquest changed. I'll look. Glad you like the designs!

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

Another ship that might be interesting for the book:
https://portinvicta.weebly.com/guest-articles/terra-invicta-space-marine-battle-barge?fbclid=IwAR0dSmOwNGPhVDyLeVBi1fy1N9craSFrntSD7dOfhyf1RcpYtnWa7bFHsxQ

My Charybdis class is well suited to match this 3d print

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

Hey folks, long time no see.


So if you guy's don't remember me, I was one of the 2010 faq folks. I have been peeking at what you guys are making here and I have a few questions.

When adding new ships, what are you looking to provide that isn't already provided by another ship (Do we need another carrier when Chaos has some of the best already? Do we need another grand cruiser when Chaos happens to have the best grand cruiser in the game?)

Another thing to consider is are you adding ships to patch up areas they were deliberately left open to provide balance opportunities, and to make other fleets more unique (I was never a fan of chaos light cruisers, and preferred that to remain an Imperial phenomena).

Are there things we could be doing with established rules to make the game more interesting instead of adding new content? (Perhaps a fleet option for traitorous Imperial only ships with a few chaos-y rules, or a chaos fleet that has a select few imperial cruisers in place of select chaos cruisers)

One thing we should seriously consider is that BFG will likely return, and how we can contact GW to try and have a hand in it's rules... the last thing we want is BFG Age of Sigmar.


I am going to go over the ships in the start of this thread with a fine toothed comb and see what I think, and provide some comments here in a bit.

And in this I am also replying to all your comments.

Nothing in the ASC 2.0 is done in regards to what is needed or unneeded, what is superfluous or not, what is uncalled for or too much for the game. How they balance or unbalance a fleet is disregarded. Just that they are pointed appropriately.

Why? Well, because this is purely a collection of FUN. It is for the enthusiast not worried about how competitive their fleet is. It if for the basement campaigners looking to shake things up. It is suppossed to try and broaden the scope of BFG to match the scope of the 40k universe. And to boot, they are all unofficial, even by BFG:R/BFG:XR standards. It is THOSE publications that need to remain focused and balanced and true to the game. The ASC 2.0 is meant to be everything else, and then some.

So while I really really really do appreciate the feedback, the Chaos Ship w/ Bombardment Cannons is going to stay for instance. Why? Because in the 40k universe, I guarantee they have stolen ships with them. And I think the players of this game are savvy enough to figure out how to adapt these profiles to their needs and realize what is and isn't meant for purely fluffy play.

Lastly, most of the ships in here are based off
-Something in a BL book
-Something in Warp Rift magazine
-Something in the Book of Nemesis
-Eventually Project Distant Darkness
etc. etc.

Basically, if it is in the fluff or previously published for use with the original game, I am trying to recreate it for use in BFG:XR

[Thinking Stone]

As an interested observer (which is really all I generally am ), I’d also like to reinforce the appreciation of experienced eyes looking at ship designs and list creations.

My experience has often been like this:

1. Fan creates new, cool thing. Fan asks community for thoughts about it.
2. Veteran explains (often with merit) that the new, cool thing doesn’t really fit thematically/is poorly designed/too powerful, and says they’d prefer it not to be in the game.
3. Fan gets upset (often with merit) that the Veteran is taking such a hardline stance on something the Fan only ever intended as a fun idea and just wanted someone experienced to contribute wisdom to. Fan defends creation.
4. Veteran gets upset that the Fan is (apparently) ignoring all their experience and advice, and is furthermore attacking them over the creation and freely-offered advice. Veteran ‘shakes the dust from their shoes’ and stops commenting on new, cool things from anyone.
5. Sometimes the Fan also stops posting new, cool things. The Fan misses out on that useful advice they were after. Generally, the enthusiasm for the game has dropped for both the Fan and the Veteran.

This isn’t just something I’ve seen here but in many places, and especially where a core of dedicated gamers has been keeping a long-out of print game alive. What I’d much rather see (from my personal experience, but maybe others will recognise it, too) is something a bit more like this:

1. Fan creates new, cool thing. Fan asks community for thoughts about it.
2. Veteran suggests (often with merit) that the new, cool thing doesn’t really fit thematically/is poorly designed/too powerful, and says they’d personally prefer it not to be in the game.
3. Fan says, “That’s cool, thanks for your input! But say I was going to play with it anyways: how would you change it to make it the best version of a cool, new thing it can be, based on its own merits?”*
After 3, the Veteran has options:
4. (a) Veteran could say, “Sorry, I don’t think I can really help you with that. All the best with it, though!” Fan and Veteran don’t work together on this cool new thing, but continue participating on the forum.
4. (b) Veteran could say, “Sure! As I said before, I don’t personally like it. But I think if you made a change to this bit of the thing, it would really help improve the concept you have for it.”
After 4. (b), the Fan has options, too:
5. (a) Fan could say, “Thanks for your suggestions! I don’t think it’s really what I was going for, but I appreciate someone providing some meaningful feedback.” The Fan and the Veteran don’t work together on this cool new thing, but continue participating.
5 (b) Fan could say, “Thanks for your suggestions! I think you’re right, this really does improve my cool, new thing!” After this, the discussion might continue, and some useful things happen!
6. Both the Fan and the Veteran continue participating in the forum, and might even do something cool and new together. Other people get to see useful thoughts and interesting discussions.

(* Obviously replace these silly examples with something more fitting as required).

It’s a bit of a silly flowchart (and maybe too wordy), but I use it to illustrate some key things I think often get missed in these discussions. The fans coming up with cool new things aren’t generally asking the experienced veterans for permission to use something. They usually want useful, meaningful advice for how to improve their concept within the remit they’ve decided on, suggestions from experienced people who have a wider range of experiences and knowledge than they do.

It can even go the other way, too: people creating the new, cool stuff can misinterpret someone offering suggestions as someone trying to stifle and control their new stuff. That’s super-ultra-frustrating for the person just trying to offer their suggestions freely, extra ideas for the melting pot of ideas.

But it’s little wonder that people making new stuff have that misunderstanding when people shutting down their ideas is so commonplace. Maybe a little more understanding and care on both sides would make it better for everyone? (And you don’t have to be as wordy as me to do it! ).