The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Years 2022 Update!)

[Xca|iber]

I'll add more tomorrow but for now:

Resilient AC in a fleet that has high turrets plus an upgrade that boosts turrets? No way. I would advice 100% against such an idea.

Overall, this is my feeling as well (straight-up resilient AC in a turret-heavy Imperial fleet starts to kinda put Eldar to shame, doesn't it?), which is why I suggested maybe a 6+ save instead.

Or is that still too much? 

Looking forward to your other comments!

[Thinking Stone]

Good point, horizon! If only the Mechanicus fleet also had access to unusual torpedoes, or numerous, long-ranged nova cannon to assist their long-range attack craft strikes...

I think the Resilience bonus would have to be fleet-wide for reasons of practicality but that does make the Mechanicus increasingly pointy-eared... so I see the merit in leaving it out.

Xca|iber, you're welcome about the typo! And I see horizon and Blacksail's points (though it might make for an interesting character ship!). Forgive my mistakes about the Eldar holofields! It's been a while since I thought about them with the rules in front of me, the last discussions I had here were when it hadn't been decided which way to handle holofields versus lances (I actually would prefer a re-roll of successful lance hits for holofields myself, for the simplicity, cancelled by Lock On).

If Advanced Engines was toned down, it could be changed to 'Omnithrusters' (nice pun on Omnissiah, it seems! ) and another option added with +5 cm speed. A plain speed increase seems appropriate given the technological origins of higher Chaos ship speeds.

----

As an aside that's unrelated to Mechanicus but could be related to BFG:XR, I wondered if anyone has thought about adjusting the boarding action rules? I forget what was discussed in those olden days with BFG:R (except one anomaly about Chaos escorts brutalising an Emperor on Special Orders...) but a change between Epic40K and Epic:Armageddon in how assaults are resolved seemed like it could be useful in BFG for the same reason. The roll-off in BFG and Epic40K is 1D6 per player, which gives it high variance. In Epic:A, this was changed to roll 2D6 per player and choose the highest D6 to compare. I thought it was a nice and sensible change because it keeps the random but lowers the variance but I've not seen it discussed for BFG (please correct me if I've missed it!).


Anyway, some food for thought,
Thinking stone

[horizon]

I'll add more tomorrow but for now:

Resilient AC in a fleet that has high turrets plus an upgrade that boosts turrets? No way. I would advice 100% against such an idea.

Overall, this is my feeling as well (straight-up resilient AC in a turret-heavy Imperial fleet starts to kinda put Eldar to shame, doesn't it?), which is why I suggested maybe a 6+ save instead.

Or is that still too much? 

Yes, still to much. No resilient AC for AdMech. 

[Xca|iber]

I'll add more tomorrow but for now:

Resilient AC in a fleet that has high turrets plus an upgrade that boosts turrets? No way. I would advice 100% against such an idea.

Overall, this is my feeling as well (straight-up resilient AC in a turret-heavy Imperial fleet starts to kinda put Eldar to shame, doesn't it?), which is why I suggested maybe a 6+ save instead.

Or is that still too much? 

Yes, still to much. No resilient AC for AdMech. 

Understood! o7 

If Advanced Engines was toned down, it could be changed to 'Omnithrusters' (nice pun on Omnissiah, it seems! ) and another option added with +5 cm speed. A plain speed increase seems appropriate given the technological origins of higher Chaos ship speeds.

Hmm, I like this idea. Gives us the nice symmetry (in case rolling is desired in some edge cases, like campaign reinforcements or whatever). So we'd have:

Each capital ship chooses one of the following:
-AWR (Lock On only version)
-FDT (No bonus turret version)
-AS

If an Archmagos is taken, you also choose one of the following fleet-wide bonuses (applying to capitals only):
-EER (50% armament penalties reduced to 25% only)
-Anti-graviton Boosters (+5cm speed)
-Omnithrusters (-5cm minimum turn distance)

As an aside that's unrelated to Mechanicus but could be related to BFG:XR, I wondered if anyone has thought about adjusting the boarding action rules? I forget what was discussed in those olden days with BFG:R (except one anomaly about Chaos escorts brutalising an Emperor on Special Orders...) but a change between Epic40K and Epic:Armageddon in how assaults are resolved seemed like it could be useful in BFG for the same reason. The roll-off in BFG and Epic40K is 1D6 per player, which gives it high variance. In Epic:A, this was changed to roll 2D6 per player and choose the highest D6 to compare. I thought it was a nice and sensible change because it keeps the random but lowers the variance but I've not seen it discussed for BFG (please correct me if I've missed it!).

A change to boarding was on my radar when I was going through the BFG:XR main rulebook, but I set aside any plans for changes since it would require a lot of cross-checking with different factions, since so many rely on boarding as a core strength or balancing drawback. As a result, any modification to the boarding rules will have far-reaching consequences. 2D6 pick-the-highest is on the less radical end of the spectrum, to be fair, but would still need to consider things like Tyranids (who already get to do this), as well as thing like re-rolls and other unusual modifiers. For the moment, I think I'd like to hold off. But it's definitely something to consider for the future. 

[Thinking Stone]

I'll add more tomorrow but for now:

Resilient AC in a fleet that has high turrets plus an upgrade that boosts turrets? No way. I would advice 100% against such an idea.

Overall, this is my feeling as well (straight-up resilient AC in a turret-heavy Imperial fleet starts to kinda put Eldar to shame, doesn't it?), which is why I suggested maybe a 6+ save instead.

Or is that still too much? 

Yes, still to much. No resilient AC for AdMech. 

Understood! o7 

If Advanced Engines was toned down, it could be changed to 'Omnithrusters' (nice pun on Omnissiah, it seems! ) and another option added with +5 cm speed. A plain speed increase seems appropriate given the technological origins of higher Chaos ship speeds.

Hmm, I like this idea. Gives us the nice symmetry (in case rolling is desired in some edge cases, like campaign reinforcements or whatever). So we'd have:

Each capital ship chooses one of the following:
-AWR (Lock On only version)
-FDT (No bonus turret version)
-AS

If an Archmagos is taken, you also choose one of the following fleet-wide bonuses (applying to capitals only):
-EER (50% armament penalties reduced to 25% only)
-Anti-graviton Boosters (+5cm speed)
-Omnithrusters (-5cm minimum turn distance)

As an aside that's unrelated to Mechanicus but could be related to BFG:XR, I wondered if anyone has thought about adjusting the boarding action rules? I forget what was discussed in those olden days with BFG:R (except one anomaly about Chaos escorts brutalising an Emperor on Special Orders...) but a change between Epic40K and Epic:Armageddon in how assaults are resolved seemed like it could be useful in BFG for the same reason. The roll-off in BFG and Epic40K is 1D6 per player, which gives it high variance. In Epic:A, this was changed to roll 2D6 per player and choose the highest D6 to compare. I thought it was a nice and sensible change because it keeps the random but lowers the variance but I've not seen it discussed for BFG (please correct me if I've missed it!).

A change to boarding was on my radar when I was going through the BFG:XR main rulebook, but I set aside any plans for changes since it would require a lot of cross-checking with different factions, since so many rely on boarding as a core strength or balancing drawback. As a result, any modification to the boarding rules will have far-reaching consequences. 2D6 pick-the-highest is on the less radical end of the spectrum, to be fair, but would still need to consider things like Tyranids (who already get to do this), as well as thing like re-rolls and other unusual modifiers. For the moment, I think I'd like to hold off. But it's definitely something to consider for the future. 

horizon has spoken! I agree, too, 6 seems a good number for the symmetry.

Out of curiosity, do those who play more often than I do tend to board a lot? (Tyranids have obvious reasons to, of course). I agree about the complexity issue with the proliferation of fleets in the modern game, though!

I must admit, boarding (along with attack craft and capital ship squadrons) was always one of the things I thought wasn't quite 100% there yet in terms of rules design. Epic:A and the Warhammer Historical Trafalgar game might offer some inspiration when the future arrives though!



Thinking stone

[horizon]

Hit&Run tactics with attack craft is something I often did/do. But I never initiated a boarding action. I have been on the receiving end versus Orks though.

It largely depends on the fleets you use. I haven't used my Space Marine fleet yet. And my Chaos fleet isn't made for boarding actions though someone can create ships in the Chaos fleet to do so. Tyranids & Orks should obviously board.

[Xca|iber]

I board as space marines, usually to finish weakened ships off or when my escorts don't have much firepower left. But then again, I mostly just do it for the fluff 

So is everyone okay with the current plan? horizon?

Each capital ship chooses one of the following:
-AWR (Lock On only version)
-FDT (No bonus turret version)
-AS

If an Archmagos is taken, you also choose one of the following fleet-wide bonuses (applying to capitals only):
-EER (50% armament penalties reduced to 25% only)
-Anti-graviton Boosters (+5cm speed)
-Omnithrusters (-5cm minimum turn distance)

[Blacksails]

I like the looks of it!

By the way, is there a good spot to ask any sort of tactics for BFG:XR?  Here, I suppose?  If so, I really need help deciding what kind of battlecruiser to build.  I've got the standard gamut of 2x Lunars, a Dominator/Gothic duo, and 2x Dictators planned, but I'll be getting anywhere between 2-4 cruiser hulls I can build into whatever I want.  I've kind of ruled out the Mars for being too unfocused and having enough carrier type ships and nova cannons between my Empy and 2x Dictators.  Dominion is a little too restricted being in the Bakka fleet, so that's kind of out too.

So Overlord or Armageddon then (I might still build one Mars because it'd make for a fun command ship in small games).  Overlord seems a little more versatile with the longer ranges and targeting matrix, but the Arma has those sweet 45cm lances paired with 2 more 60cm lances.  Both are the same price (with the near essential TM for the Overlord) and I can magnetize the Arma to take a NC if I ever want.  I'm so torn.

Which means that they're pretty damn well balanced I might add, so that's good.

*Edit* I just realized the Dominion doesn't appear in any of the fleet lists.  I'm assuming its meant to be one of the BC options for Bakka, as that's where it used to be if memory serves.

[Xca|iber]

*Edit* I just realized the Dominion doesn't appear in any of the fleet lists.  I'm assuming its meant to be one of the BC options for Bakka, as that's where it used to be if memory serves.

Ah yes, I see what happened here. There was an oversight on my part when I was mixing the BFG:R IN document and the BFG:R Bakka document into one book. Both had a Bakka fleet list, and the two were very similar but slightly different in ship lists.

It should be fixed now. I replaced the Avenger option with the Dominon. So the Bakka fleet gets the full spread of "special" battlecruisers (Cardinal, Dominion, and Mercury).

Thanks for the catch!

[horizon]

Heya,

not very keen on the fleet wide bonus through the archmagos. Keep the current system with the pool as you had with slightly changed gifts (the FDT for example).
But hey, that's my opinion.


lol. The Dominion is correct in Bakka ofcourse but I cannot remember why the Jovian is out of the BFG:XR document. It was an original Bakka ship in FAQ/Compendium 2010.

[Xca|iber]

Heya,

not very keen on the fleet wide bonus through the archmagos. Keep the current system with the pool as you had with slightly changed gifts (the FDT for example).
But hey, that's my opinion.

Any particular reasons why? To be clear, I still agree that the current system works, but I don't really like the way it functions; it's too clunky. Basically, it comes down to:

-It adds a lot of steps before games (pick for archmagos, check Ld/pick for Ld6 ships, roll on table for others, assign upgrades).
-The random aspect causes a lot of variability in fleet power, but doesn't have a strong fluff backing for doing so.
-Currently, EER and GTM are basically "bad" picks that effectively penalize you compared to other options. And as you said, Adv Engines are only useful in a meta-build if you get a bunch of them.

The proposed system fixes these issues:

-Less steps because you just pick once for each ship, and then pick one extra for your Archmagos. This can even be done during list-building because it is no longer random.
-Fleet power is more consistent (due to choice), and to offset the increased potential for stacking, the "top" upgrades get toned down (FDT and AWR).
-Bad picks (aka "illusions of choice") are eliminated, as you now only choose between the top 3, while the weaker options are given over to the Archmagos to offset part of his cost.

Now, if the fleet-wide aspect is the cause for balance concerns here (which was the first thing that came to mind when I was thinking up this plan, based on everyone's comments), perhaps it would be better if the EER (new version) and Engine upgrades (either separately or together) were only applied to the Archmagos' ship?

So something like:
-Each capital ship chooses between AWR (new), FDT (new), or AS.
-Archmagos' ship also gets either EER (new), +5cm spd, or -5cm turn distance.

[horizon]

I like the random aspect. It makes you think more. It makes you adapt to the situation.

Plus one should have faith in the Omnisiah! 

[Xca|iber]

Hmm, in this particular case I will have to disagree. IMHO, pre-game randomization can be useful when it represents actual in-universe concepts (like torpedo supplies or crew experience, in the case of Armada ordnance and random Ld), but it doesn't seem that helpful if it only exists as a replacement for balanced list-building choices.

The randomization of AdMech gifts appears to be the latter. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me why AdMech ships would have such variation in upgrades from battle to battle. Perhaps in a campaign this works okay (when the local Forge World says "hey this is all we can offer"), but in a regular game representing a specific fleet, I feel like the player should have some control over the kind of upgrades he/she fields. IOW, an AdMech fleet should not go from super strong to totally "meh" just because they randomly turned off their special guns and shields that morning. (Besides, the idea of a Magos "tinkering" with his ships is already represented in the Quest for Knowledge sub-plots).

Moreover, the allocation method introduced in BFG:R is a little odd in that a ship which rolls a 6 for Ld can end up providing a good upgrade to a totally different ship, while getting a crap one itself. I get that it was necessary due to the complaints about the original "roll for each ship and that's it" method, but it doesn't seem like a solution that fixes the core problem (namely, that some upgrades are just bad) - it just alleviates the worst fringe cases.

I'll keep brainstorming things for the time being. I'd like to come up with a method that we can all agree on, but also one that is cleaner and more intuitive that the existing system. As always thanks for the comments 

[Thinking Stone]

I feel the urge to make a digression into game design philosophy!

I must say, I don't really like oodles of random things for fleet lists much, either. In some cases they're interesting but many just turn out to be justifications for bad pointing or end up going by the wayside as players choose the more reliable options. On average, things go well but it's a cheapened victory if every Ork ship is leadership 5 and they roll all 1's for their gunnery with no player-controlled way to mitigate it....

And, after all, isn't the question about what players get choice in? It seems like those games where there are limited but meaningful resources (like the expendable Might concept in the GW Lord of the Rings skirmish game, or LotR:SBG for the Wise ) are frequently considered better games than those that use randomness to represent limited resources or as a balancing mechanic (say, maybe the current 7th Edition of WH40K?). And Leadership 7/set firepower doesn't remove the random chance from the checks and rolls required, nor does it make a player a genius and stop them from going front-on against broadsides! Adding extra randomness on top, however, is a bit like double-dipping with fewer benefits.

I think random leadership in BFG might actually work so well because leadership is really a periphery concept in terms of victory conditions (good leadership gives a bonus—as is appropriate—but leadership 10 doesn't give you any more guns!). I have often toyed with the idea of abolishing 're-rolls' per se and letting a 're-roll' pass a Command check automatically. Warhammer Historical's Trafalgar also does well with non-random leadership. Random leadership on the other hand both suits the nature of historical naval morale (BFG's inspiration) and campaigns.


Anyway, some food for thought and maybe some ideas for that heretical school of non-randomness
Thinking Stone

[Xca|iber]

Well, maybe there is a compromise to be had here. Going back a little ways to some earlier suggestions, I've come up with yet another attempt to try and resolve everyone's concerns.

Leadership & Knowledge Values:
When generating random leadership for an Admech capital ship, the result on the D6 is used as the vessel's "Knowledge value" (Kn), representing the level of technological knowledge and secrets aboard the ship.

So the Ld table for the Admech would look like this:

D6/Kn.........Ld
1.................7
2-3.............8
4-6.............9

A ship led by an Archmagos has Kn6 by default. A ship led by a secondary commander (new, to be added) adds +1 to its Ld (max 9) and +1 to its Kn (max 6). A battleship, due to its size and age, adds +2 to its Kn, while a battlecruiser adds +1 to its Kn (max 6 for both).

Mechanicus Gifts:
At the start of the game, after rolling for Ld, a capital ship may choose any Gift from the following list for which its Kn equals or exceeds the upgrade's requirement:

Req Kn............Gift
1......................EER (50% armament penalties reduced to 25%, speed penalties cannot exceed -5cm)
2......................Efficient Launch Bays (Launch bays count double for launch capacity, ACs from the ship get +10cm speed on the turn they are launched)
3......................Adv Engines (current book version)
4......................FDT (re-roll only version)
5......................AS (current book version)
6......................AWR (Lock On only version)

Thoughts? Is this a fair compromise? We still have some randomness, but there's less steps and rolling overall, and improved player choice regarding fleet construction, as well as a bit less variation in the power of the different options (top AWR & FDT brought down, EER brought up, Efficient bays = new option).