The Specialist Arms Forum

Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Xca|iber on September 19, 2015, 08:44:31 AM

Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Xca|iber on September 19, 2015, 08:44:31 AM
A word to everybody that's helped out and contributed thus far:

In "official" news regarding the project, I'm sad to say that the current hiatus may extend indefinitely. I'm not going to give up on the project just yet, but it's been very difficult for me to make time to work on it. BFG is, quite unfortunately, a defunct game - one that I haven't been able to play regularly since most of my friends moved away (and moved on with their lives). As a result, it's become hard to stay motivated. (At least, it is hard to choose to stay home and work on BFG:XR, which I cannot play, when I can drive out to my FLGS and play X-Wing or hop on Discord and play TTRPGs).

So for now I've decided to put the whole thing in standby for the time being. I know this isn't really great to hear, and I definitely should have made an announcement sooner. If there are issues with the existing books that can be fixed easily (aka typos, formatting problems, errors, etc) I'll still be around to take a look. But I probably won't work on any major balancing changes for the foreseeable future. (I'm keeping all my notes however, so don't worry about ideas getting lost).

Lastly I just want to say thanks to everyone that helped out and contributed, and to the mods of these boards for letting me set-up this little project here. BFG:XR is one of the first "homebrew" projects I've worked on publicly, and the support I've gotten thus far has been far greater than I would have ever expected. Hopefully one day in the future, I'll be able to come back and give it my full attention once again. Until then, good luck and happy hunting to all you Captains and Admirals out there. May your have smooth sailing through the Warp on all your travels.

Regards,

Xca|iber


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For Posterity:
Hey everyone, it's me again! ;D I've made some progress on my little pet project and I figured now would be a good time to setup an "official" thread of sorts (insofar as anything I do could be considered "official"). In case you didn't see my previous thread, here's what it's about:

(click to show/hide)

And that's enough outta me - you're here for rules! Continue on below to see what's available.

The BFG:XR Rules
(Change logs are included in each document!)

MAIN RULEBOOK - (Last Update: Apr 13, 2017)
(click to show/hide)

SCENARIOS / CAMPAIGN RULES
(click to show/hide)

SPACE MARINES - (Last Update: Apr 3, 2017)
(click to show/hide)

ELDAR (MMS) - (Last Update: Mar 17, 2017)
(click to show/hide)

DARK ELDAR - (Last Update: January 1, 2019)
(click to show/hide)

NECRONS - (Last Update: Mar 2, 2017)
(click to show/hide)

INQUISITION / GREY KNIGHTS - (Last Update: Apr 3, 2017)
(click to show/hide)

TYRANIDS - (Last Update: Dec 31, 2018)
(click to show/hide)

IMPERIAL NAVY - (Last Update: Mar 5, 2017)
(click to show/hide)

ADEPTUS MECHANICUS - (Last Update: Mar 2, 2017)
(click to show/hide)

CHAOS - (Last Update: Mar 28, 2017)
(click to show/hide)

ORKS - (Last Update: Dec 31, 2018)
(click to show/hide)

TAU EMPIRE - (Last Update: May 28, 2017)
(click to show/hide)

ROGUE TRADERS - (Last Update: May 5, 2017)
(click to show/hide)

PLANETARY DEFENSES / TRANSPORTS - (Last Update: Dec 30, 2018)
(click to show/hide)

+++++++++++++++++

Please let me know if you find any typos, formatting errors, or other problems (such as incorrect rules or changes I forgot to list). You can pm me your concerns, post them in this thread, or email them to me at the address below in the spoiler text:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: horizon on September 19, 2015, 09:22:28 AM
Hmmm, since you mixed official and non-official rules I need to look where I can place this in the official and non official rules thread (the sticky one).

Good job though!
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on September 19, 2015, 09:35:44 AM
Thanks! Based on the amount of changes I've had to make (plus using BFG:R as a baseline for my fleet lists), I'd wager this qualifies as mostly "non-official," perhaps with a note that the main rulebook is compatible with classic BFG+FAQ 2010 games.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Seahawk on September 21, 2015, 06:47:21 PM
Maybe it can finally be recognized as what I've been calling it all this time anyway: BFG:FE  (Fan Edition), as it's not at all official, but quite cool.
Title: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Thinking Stone on September 22, 2015, 09:14:22 AM
At last, I'm back! Well, at least hopefully this Tapatalk stuff will help me post slightly more often than my current < 1/year rate.... Admittedly, not having any BFG players anymore means a lot less time spent thinking about it :/

Impressive start, Xca|iber! It's good to see someone back working on this sort of project! I wonder if it might be a more achievable goal to have some kind of annual updating scheme, giving people a year to test things and reducing the pressure to get things absolutely 'correct' in one go (assuming that is possible in the first place, of course...).
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on September 22, 2015, 07:20:37 PM
Impressive start, Xca|iber! It's good to see someone back working on this sort of project! I wonder if it might be a more achievable goal to have some kind of annual updating scheme, giving people a year to test things and reducing the pressure to get things absolutely 'correct' in one go (assuming that is possible in the first place, of course...).

Thanks! To answer your concern, I'm not too worried about the feasibility of the project since the vast majority of what I'm doing is simple editing and formatting. Plaxor, afterimagedan, and the rest of the community here did most of the heavy lifting in terms of balance and mechanics - it's made my efforts considerably easier to say the least! I haven't really needed to make too many adjustments on that front. Aside from that, fixing other kinds of errors (typos, stuff I missed, formatting mistakes, etc) is a quick and painless process since I've recreated the documents in InDesign - so I've got full control over the text and layout.

In other news, I'm about 30% done with the Tyranids list, so I should have that posted relatively soon (it's a fairly short document with only a little formatting required).
Title: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Thinking Stone on September 23, 2015, 02:05:24 AM
Indeed, Plaxor and afterimagedan did a great job starting the discussions and compiling the results! I think this kind of editing really makes a document look professional: it might not have much effect on gameplay or rules-robustness, but it definitely increases the impression the audience gets upon reading the rules! Having it all manipulatable in InDesign is really handy, too!

Incidentally, a friend and I once estimated the maximum size of a Tyranid beastie for a university class. Assuming Beastie used convection currents to transfer nutrients around the body, we worked out the maximum size to be approximately ten times the size of a blue whale (of course neglecting other silly things like energy source requirements, food requirements etc. :p).
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Jimmy Zimms on September 23, 2015, 01:08:18 PM
Cool beans!

My only concerns would be
1. Naming convention makes it appear to be "official rules", whatever that even means, versus a really awesomely polished fan alternate.
2. Denoting somewhere what's fan additions (aka your local house-rules) to the core text
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on September 24, 2015, 12:47:27 AM
Cool beans!

My only concerns would be
1. Naming convention makes it appear to be "official rules", whatever that even means, versus a really awesomely polished fan alternate.
2. Denoting somewhere what's fan additions (aka your local house-rules) to the core text

Thanks! I'll try to do my best to answer your concerns:

1. The naming convention evolved out of my (admittedly uncreative) organization structure. While these can be changed later (probably when everything is done, if it's still a problem), for now I'll probably keep it just for the sake of how my development directories are setup. Aside from that, I think most people understand that BFG is a discontinued game and that any new rulesets for it are at least partially fan-made. I've also included a disclaimer to this effect on the first page of the main rulebook.

2. With regards to the "core" text (by which I'm assuming you mean the rulebook?), there is only one partial change which is outside the rules given by the original document and FAQ 2010, which is the change to how the armada ordnance is distributed to different fleets (as noted in the change log).

In terms of other changes that have been made, I guess I should explain my process: I've established for myself a set of three "primary directives" that guide where and how I make changes to the existing rules, if any. In no particular order, they are:


In some cases, I have simply added house-rules which are listed as optional and are entirely self-contained. Whether they are used has minimal effect on the game (for example, the DE Dracon/Archon power struggle rule). In other cases, I have made changes as necessary to maintain consistency of the rules both internally and with these directives (such as the Tyranids getting a separate minefield entry which produces phage mines). Those kinds of changes cannot easily be ignored without concatenating problems on account of other changes.

I realize this might put off some people due to the greater "un-officialness" that this ruleset has compared to the BFG 2007/2010 FAQs or BFG:R and BFG:FR, but I hope that anyone interested will give it a chance. I've done my best to put all of the major changes in the change log, and I'm willing to adjust things as necessary if there are serious balance concerns. However, I would be remiss if I didn't say that I stand by the changes I've made, and believe they are consistent the views of BFG:R and the FAQ 2010, insofar as I understand them.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on September 24, 2015, 01:52:46 PM
To me a change log and simple disclaimer are all that is required.  Excellent work. I plan on using this near exclusively once completed, just for ease of use. I generally find any rule set still feels like bfg, so best to go with the easiest and most balanced.
Title: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Thinking Stone on September 27, 2015, 01:49:02 AM
Yea, Xca|iber, I echo the suggestion of a concrete way to recognise the original, official rules, apart from your additions—often, when poor Thinking Stones of the future are trawling through archaic rules they have a desire to see the original conception of the rules for themselves, so they can see how the additions fit in for themselves—it gives them a better understanding of how everything works together, and how they might modify things for themselves... :).

Personally, I would appreciate some kind of indication in-text with some kind of explanatory note about the changes (perhaps in footnotes or section notes to keep such things from cluttering the main text), though a well-referenced change-log would achieve the same thing.

I think this also can help increase the acceptance of the ruleset: it gives people the chance to understand what's different and why. Like with anything in life, if one gives reasoning people a chance to actually reason, they'll go with the option they think is most reasonable. There's actually some research on that too :P (I forget the exact references a, but Lifehacker has a few articles with good references about this stuff).

I, for one, really appreciate the efforts to concatenate the diverse official sources of rules! I think it's a very worthwhile goal. Thank you for your efforts!

Some food for thought,
Thinking Stone
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Bessemer on September 27, 2015, 09:47:08 PM
As the original had a designers notes at the end, that would be the best place to put a change log, as a nod to the BBB :)
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on September 27, 2015, 10:27:54 PM
As the original had a designers notes at the end, that would be the best place to put a change log, as a nod to the BBB :)

Concur. To me the official rules are easy enough to find here or via friendly gamers on the FB community. No need to clutter such a lovely rule set with notes all over the place.

However, did you notice Xca|iber that all your pages are right pages? So if you print them double sided all the page numbers are in the bottom right corner...

Though overall you are making me want to overhaul my ASC 2.0
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on September 27, 2015, 11:46:46 PM
Ah! Lots of stuff to reply to... That'll teach me to leave for a few days!  ;D

Regarding concerns about noting changes: Gothmog pretty much already covered why I don't have "in-text" notations; mainly it's just too difficult to manage the space while trying to cram everything in the change log into the margins of the text. As for putting the changes in the documents themselves (at the end) - that is something I've been considering for the last few days and I think it should be relatively painless to add a mini-change log page to the end of each one.

However, did you notice Xca|iber that all your pages are right pages? So if you print them double sided all the page numbers are in the bottom right corner...

Ah, I see someone noticed... ;D I'll admit to a bit of time-saving here. AFAIK, InDesign doesn't let you automate the process of mirroring page numbers, which means that I'll have to make duplicates of all my master pages for Left and Right aligned pages. It's something I wanted to do (from a polishing perspective), but when I started out I decided against it due to the additional tedium involved, and the fact that in digital format it isn't as noticeable. I'll see about changing it up since several people have expressed interest in printing.
Title: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Thinking Stone on September 28, 2015, 03:54:23 AM

Concur. To me the official rules are easy enough to find here or via friendly gamers on the FB community. No need to clutter such a lovely rule set with notes all over the place.

Ah, but mighty Gothmog: one assumes that one has access to such a FB community or that this place or such things will still exist in (say) ten years time! That question might be irrelevant then :P but that's what I was referring to: this document could turn up anywhere and it might be helpful for readers of the future to have those notes included together with the document, when things might not be so clear and sensible as they are now :). I know, personally, that there are documents I've dug up in my searches where I wish designers' notes had been included because the original rules are no longer to be found!

Anyways, it is, of course, all up to Xca|iber: all I offer are mere suggestions to be taken or left as desired :)
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on October 14, 2015, 01:12:32 AM
Hey everyone! Finally got back into the swing of things with my new PC and workflow setup! Time for an update:

Tyranids are here! The BFG 2015 Tyranids list can be found in the link in the first post or here (link) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/yxaydheslb6449g/BFG%202015%20-%20Tyranids.pdf?dl=0). Let me know what you think!

Also, the change log has been parsed out and moved into each separate document at the end. Now it should be much easier to see what has changed (and it will be easier for me when I do updates).


Next up, I'm looking to finish either Orks or Tau, depending on which I feel motivated to do first. (As you can see, I am desperately trying to avoid Imperial Navy and Chaos... but fear not, their day will come  ;)).
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Bessemer on October 14, 2015, 09:34:57 PM
Just had a quick run through on the 'nids and Iv'e got to say you've done a bang up job on this! Seriously, the presentation on these docs beats any of the previous BFGR stuff hands down. Well done!
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on October 22, 2015, 12:17:17 AM
Hey all, quick update:

Corrected an error in the Dark Eldar fleet list, which had Phantom lances only causing 2 hits on a roll of 6, rather than 5+ as it should be. Also corrected a language issue with Incubi upgrades.

Corrected an error in the main rulebook which omitted the restriction against having more than four 2-hit escorts in a single squadron. Also added a clause to the hit-and-run rules which clarifies that ship-wide or faction-wide bonuses to hit-and-run attacks also applies to ordnance such ships launch.


That's it, just wanted to let everyone know. The new versions are up (you may need to re-download documents for the changes to take effect, if you are also using Dropbox).
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: MaWo79 on October 22, 2015, 09:49:13 PM
Hey Xca|iber, glad to hear that you are still working on the project. You’re doing a great job. I was already wondering why the Chaos and Imp fleet lists are still missing. Is there a reason you are avoiding these two core fleet lists? Is it because they are a lot of work or are you less interested in these two factions? And is there a way I can motivate you to prioritize the Ork fleet list over the Tau fleet list?
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on October 22, 2015, 11:48:57 PM
Hey Xca|iber, glad to hear that you are still working on the project. You’re doing a great job. I was already wondering why the Chaos and Imp fleet lists are still missing. Is there a reason you are avoiding these two core fleet lists? Is it because they are a lot of work or are you less interested in these two factions? And is there a way I can motivate you to prioritize the Ork fleet list over the Tau fleet list?

The core Imperial Navy and Chaos lists are missing solely because they are substantially longer documents than any of the other factions, and I've been trying to avoid jumping into them until I've got most of the other ones finished.

As for Orks v Tau, it is likely that I will work on Orks next. The main concern here is that while Tau is more complex (with all their allies and the FW vs GW ships), the Orks were never finalized for BFG:R, so I will need to do more research on exactly what was planned for them. Still, I expect Orks will be next up.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on December 05, 2015, 06:20:51 AM
Hey everybody! I was hoping to get this update in before Thanksgiving, but things get busy during the holidays  ;D

Da Orks iz here!

As I said, I was hoping to have this up last week-ish but things got away from me. In any case, the Orks book is now up. If you're curious as to why it doesn't really look (at all) like the currently available BFG:R Orks document, this is because I based the BFG 2015 version on a draft version of the BFG:R document that was voted and finalized, but never posted due to a few outstanding errors. Finding that version made my job a heck of a lot easier - in true Orky fashion, I just slapped on a new coat of proverbial paint and it was good to go.


As for the status of the project itself, I am still working on it, with just a few more codexes to go. I realize that a lot of what I'm doing will probably be invalidated by this time next year, what with the new announcement of the BFG reboot, but I'm committed to press on. My current goal is to finish my set before the new BFG stuff hits, since I expect it will be a while before we see anything on GW's end (they only just started hiring the team, after all). I'm hoping that I'll be able to keep my work available in the long term, but that will depend on what happens in the next year.

I haven't decided what race is up next, so if anyone has any burning desire for any fleets in particular, speak up  ;)
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Gun_wun on December 07, 2015, 02:51:21 AM
Thanks Boss! Left column shift.................  Reminds me ta send ya some extra teef fer dat wun!
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on December 08, 2015, 06:28:37 AM
Thanks Boss! Left column shift.................  Reminds me ta send ya some extra teef fer dat wun!

Glad you like it! I'll use those teef to buy some more red paint  ;)

++++++++++++++++++

In project news, I've got another small announcement (which I forgot to post before):

The "BFG 2015" Project is looking for a new better name! Several folks have brought up the very valid point that my project's working title isn't very descriptive, and is going to be dated in less than a month. As such, I'm hoping to find a better, more permanent name for this little endeavor. Ideally, I'm hoping for something short and sweet, but encapsulating the content as best as possible.

Originally, I had wanted to call it something like BFG: Revised - Extended, to honor the fact that most of the actual content was produced by the BFG:R team; however, I didn't want to overstep the bounds of propriety since I'm not actually a contributor to BFG:R, and the rulebook section is mostly classic BFG+FAQ2010.

In any case, I'm looking for suggestions! Let me know what you think would be a better name!
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Seahawk on December 09, 2015, 05:34:13 AM
Maybe "BFG 2015 - Unofficial" would be best?
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Lotus on December 22, 2015, 03:26:21 AM
Maybe "BFG 2015 - Unofficial" would be best?

If people are searching for rules, they will see "2015" and will asume that this set of rules ist the "unofficial but most up to date set of rules everybody uses". So, "2015" should not be there. New players (or - old players which found there old fleet in the attic and wanted to use it again) should not get the impression "Eldar MMS" is the "semi-official" way to play.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: LeperColony on December 22, 2015, 01:48:15 PM
Maybe "BFG 2015 - Unofficial" would be best?

If people are searching for rules, they will see "2015" and will asume that this set of rules ist the "unofficial but most up to date set of rules everybody uses". So, "2015" should not be there. New players (or - old players which found there old fleet in the attic and wanted to use it again) should not get the impression "Eldar MMS" is the "semi-official" way to play.

I agree with this, but not sure there's a great solution.  MMS and 2 hit escorts are pretty controversial among the BFG community.  But at the same time, there's only so many ways to name a document.

Maybe something like 2015 Experimental?

Of course, one possible solution would be to include ALL the rules sets.

Then it would be something like 2015 Compilation.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on December 22, 2015, 04:50:26 PM
Except everyone Knows GW is not putting out any BFG rules right now. Haven't in YEARS. So "2015" in the title inherently implies it is not official.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: LeperColony on December 22, 2015, 05:51:00 PM
And yet many people still believe 2010 is official, when it isn't.

Plus, I think part of Lotus's point was that putting a year without qualifier makes it seem like it is generally accepted, aside from whether it is official or not.  MMS and 2 hit escorts may be widely used, but I wouldn't be brave enough to say they are generally accepted (for instance, I don't accept either).

Since Xca|iber's project is based on BFG:R, which I think can be safely described as a minority adopted rules set, I don't think Lotus is entirely off the mark.  But, as I indicated, I'm not sure how many other ways the file can be named.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Lotus on December 22, 2015, 09:17:27 PM
And yet many people still believe 2010 is official, when it isn't.

Plus, I think part of Lotus's point was that putting a year without qualifier makes it seem like it is generally accepted, aside from whether it is official or not.  MMS and 2 hit escorts may be widely used, but I wouldn't be brave enough to say they are generally accepted (for instance, I don't accept either).


100% this.


Since it is based on BFG:R -
maybe something like.... BFG:R expanded?

Including BFG:R in the name would at least make sure that this is a specialized ruleset.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: MaWo79 on December 22, 2015, 10:35:57 PM
How about "Xcalibers BFG Compilation" or something like that? Basically it is a collection of official an nonofficial BFG rules and the latest changes that he and others adopted.

BTW: I totally love this project. It is the first time that someone puts everything together into one rulebook. I think it was about time.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: horizon on December 23, 2015, 07:17:31 PM
And yet many people still believe 2010 is official, when it isn't.

Plus, I think part of Lotus's point was that putting a year without qualifier makes it seem like it is generally accepted, aside from whether it is official or not.  MMS and 2 hit escorts may be widely used, but I wouldn't be brave enough to say they are generally accepted (for instance, I don't accept either).

Since Xca|iber's project is based on BFG:R, which I think can be safely described as a minority adopted rules set, I don't think Lotus is entirely off the mark.  But, as I indicated, I'm not sure how many other ways the file can be named.

People who do not accept MMS will be banned within two days.


 ;D

Just kidding. I agree on the naming part. But on the other end it is a bit fuzz on nothing much.

Lets call it BFG:R digital remastered edition.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on December 24, 2015, 04:21:55 PM
Thanks for all the replies everyone!

Definitely some good points brought up all around. I agree that leaving the year in the project title is confusing for a number of reasons, so I'll be leaving it out.

Based on everyone's suggestions, it looks like I should go with something that references BFG:R, the project's expanded or experimental nature, and/or its function as a compilation. I definitely like the idea of BFG:R - Digital Remastered Edition (thanks horizon!  ;D) although BFG:R Expanded also has a nice succinct ring to it.

For those of you who like word-play, BFG:R - Expanded | Remastered (although a long title), could be abbreviated as BFG:R - X|R Edition, which looks like my username... But that's a bit of a mouthful I think.  ;)

In any case, I should have a new title by the New Year, and I'll be back from vacation to get working on the next faction codex (maybe Tau, but I'll likely bite the bullet and start on Imperial Navy).

Thanks and Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays Everyone!  :D
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Gorlak on December 25, 2015, 06:03:49 PM
First of all, I want to reiterate what a great job you've done with this Xca|iber. Having a compendium like this has gotten passed the barriers that were preventing 4 others in my gaming group playing BFG. It had been an ambition of mine to do what you're doing, as started here in 2013... (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5172.0), but real life just got on the way and I never finished it. I was using Indesign and it was quite a bit of work! Incidentally, if you want any help with this, such as general formatting and page numbers etc, just say the word.

Anyway, reason for posting was a naming suggestion. What about Battlefleet Gothic: Community Edition? That's what Necromunda has been using for several years and I feel they've set a great precedent for continued development and presentation of a specialist game system. That's what I'd always wanted to get towards.

H
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Lotus on December 26, 2015, 02:17:55 AM
"Community" would suggest that "THE comunity", or "almost everyone out there" is using this rules, which is not the case. "BFG:R - X|R" sounds fine.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Gorlak on December 26, 2015, 07:52:47 AM
That did cross my mind as I was typing the post above, I did wonder if it would be taken that way.

Alternatively then, we could use a similar method to the 'fan-edit' film community. They take a film or films (such as Star Wars) and create there own edits of them which are named after the individual who made it, e.g the 'Star Wars- Harmy Despecialized Edition', or 'Star Wars - Q2 Fanedit'. They give full credit to the edits that they use as a source in the release notes, which could also happen in this case to acknowledge BFG:R.

So, something like 'Battlefleet Gothic: Xca|iber Edition', shortened to BFG:XE. This then represents your interpretation / edition of the game, one I happen to like, agree with and support, but it doesn't make any particular claim to be THE rule set universally adopted by community or otherwise.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on December 27, 2015, 10:35:38 PM
BFG: 2015 Community Update?
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Bessemer on December 27, 2015, 11:31:56 PM
I think BFG: Community Edition would be the way to go, possibly adding year/version number. Easy for the rest us to say as we're not the ones writing it up:s
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: LeperColony on December 29, 2015, 12:17:50 PM
What's wrong with BFG Xcaliber edition or even just BFG Xcaliber?  That makes it clear it's unofficial and specific, whereas Community Edition really does sound universal.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Lotus on December 29, 2015, 04:00:20 PM
Hm. I can just repeat: "community" in the name would suggest that almost everyone is using it, and that is just not the case.

Something with the username in it is just fine, no false interpretations possible.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Gun_wun on December 30, 2015, 04:15:50 AM
Juz stick it in da gut............ Iz say "BFG X"  Fast an simple like.  It gives credit to da Maker Mek an at da same time it tells ya wot it is.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on December 30, 2015, 08:13:26 AM
Name aside, when do you estimate the project will be done?
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Chios on December 30, 2015, 10:01:51 PM
Personally I would favor the BFG X name, for its simplicity as well as the fact that it sorta contains the credits as well.
Just some small issue to consider: imagine someone hears about it and googles it.
"BFG X" will yield results for a series of handgranades fabricated in the UK.
"BFG:X" will yield results for a tank for the game War Commander.

So to establish this set of PDFs as the new community standard (which i think this effort may well deserve) it might need to have a more easily distinguishable name.
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on December 31, 2015, 04:29:53 AM
So what google comes up with is something to consider. I do still like BFG Xcaliber, but that may not rign true with people looking to try new rules as in "Oh, this is just same random interpretation" when it really isn't..

As for the arguments against the "Community" edition, Necromunda Community Edition doesn't represent the whole community. BFG:FR doesn't represent all of France. I think people will understand that it is a community developed version, but not necessarily everyone.

HOWEVER why not look to the fluff for a name
Battlefleet Gothic: Black Stone Edition
Battlefleet Gothic: Flag Captain's Compendium
Battlefleet Gothic: Ravensburg Edition
Battlefleet Gothic: Port Maw Compendium

You know, something like that?
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: MaWo79 on December 31, 2015, 02:37:52 PM
Yeah, I like the idea. BTW: It's funny but somehow these names sound even more "official" than everything else :D
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Lotus on January 05, 2016, 04:19:12 AM
BFG:FR doesn't represent all of France. I think people will understand that it is a community developed version, but not necessarily everyone.



But i still got the impression that BFG:FR is accepted by almost everyone in france. Which is not true, but it shows that "BFG:FR" can mislead people.

Repeating a mistake, because someone else has made the same mistake...

Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Seahawk on January 05, 2016, 08:12:40 PM
BFG:FE is still perfect as far as I'm concerned.

"FE" standing for "Fan Edition".
Title: Re: The BFG 2015 Rules Thread
Post by: Xca|iber on January 20, 2016, 11:32:49 PM
Aaaannd we're back, with a new update!

Great news everyone, I've settled on a name, and can now get back to doing some real work on the project. I'm proud to (re)introduce you to the Battlefleet Gothic: Expanded Revised Edition! (Or BFG:XR aka BFG XcalibeR edition). All of the documents have been updated with the new name and a little blurb at the beginning which explains more about this project and its differences compared to official BFG rules and the original BFG:R rule books. Note that this broke all of the DB links, so I'm going through them today to fix everything.


I really appreciate all of the suggestions and discussion in this thread, it helped me a lot. While there were a number of ideas that I really liked, such as Gothmog's fluff-based names, I settled on a combination of Horizon's suggestion of a "remastered" edition and the suggestions from several people that I make it the "Xcaliber" edition. The end result is a bit of word-play (like I said, I'm a sucker for puns) and I think BFG:XR should be sufficiently clear as to what the project is about. Whether one wants to call it the "Expanded Revised Edition" or just the "Xcaliber Edition" is up to you - both are "official" as far as I'm concerned.

Once again, thanks for the support! Imperial Navy will be the next codex up, once I get around to finishing it!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread
Post by: Seahawk on January 21, 2016, 04:01:43 AM
Ooo, BFG.EXE for Expanded Xcaliber Edition. Makes it sound like an awesome computer program. :P
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread
Post by: heavygear on January 21, 2016, 04:02:31 PM
Great Work
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread
Post by: Thinking Stone on January 21, 2016, 07:32:45 PM

Ooo, BFG.EXE for Expanded Xcaliber Edition. Makes it sound like an awesome computer program. :P

Haha Seahawk, there will be a BFG.EXE coming out before any 'remastering' of the rules by Games Workshop! :p

I like the name, Xca|ibur, BFG:XR is quite unique and distinctive and I think it fits the purpose of the document as a complete (hopefully :p) revision.

Now to find time to look at the actual rules!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 03, 2016, 08:42:46 AM
Well, well, well... What's this? Why did this thread pop back up? I'm glad you asked...

...Because the Imperial Navy (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7x98n6hedrlcz0o/BFGXR%20-%20Imperial%20Navy.pdf?dl=0) is finally, finally, FINALLY done!

Clocking in at just over 30 pages, this is the longest of the BFG:XR codices yet! (And the overall longest document I've made besides the complete rulebook). This comprehensive Imperial Navy faction book covers all of the major battlefleets that have been showcased throughout BFG's history, including the Battlefleet Bakka from the 2010 FAQ!


I have to apologize for spending so much time to get this made; it ended up being much more challenging than I had anticipated, on account of having so many ships. Repeatedly making ship pages was really draining on my energy and enthusiasm, so I took the advice of several posters here and tried to pace myself out, which helped immensely. And so, after an admittedly over-long break, BFG:XR is back off the ground!

As always, let me know if you have any questions or find any issues with the document. You can post in this thread, PM me here, or send me an email at
(click to show/hide)

EDIT: Coming up, we've got AdMech, Chaos, Tau, and Rogue Traders left to finish off the fleets. Once those are done I'll finish up the Scenario and Campaign books, as well as (if I get around to it) a Lore book compiling all the stuff that didn't make it into the expanded-revised rulebooks.

EDIT EDIT: Just forgot to mention that there have also been several minor updates for the other various books as I happened to find small errors, typos, incorrect (or unclear) cross-book references, and so forth while I was putting the Imperial Navy one together. A few books had some ships rearranged (in page order) for ease of reading.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Fr05ty on April 03, 2016, 09:09:27 PM
Well, I've been reading through all the released documents and I have to say, I LOVE THEM!

A few issues to address:
1. The Eldar book is missing the refits and crew skills table.
2. The same is true for the Dark Eldar.
3. And for Orks.
4. And Necrons.
5. The Ork Brute Ramship has the wrong image, it should have the one from the rulebook.
6. Ork Basha Light Kroozer should have 6 hits, not 8 as it's a light kroozer. Ork Terror Ships and Kill Kroozers should have 8 hits, 10 hits is the realm of the Hammer Battlekroozer. If you're trying to make it so that they have more hits than their imperial equivalents, then the Hammer should have 12 hits and the Battleships 14. Although IMHO it should be as it were in the rulebook, as this causes really cheap ships so that you can spam them as an ork ramshackle fleet.
7. Why did you get rid of so many random-strength weapons for the Orks? It's their flavor!
8. Ork Heavy Gunz should have shorter ranges than normal Gunz, otherwise they're OP as even with the column shift, they'll deal double the damage of the Gunz. With shorter range, they encourage the Ork ships to close in even more to use their heavy gunz and getting in range for boarding (which is as fluff suggests they fight).
9. The Imperial Navy is missing the Jovian class Battlecruiser from BFG2010

I'm guessing that 1, 2, 3 and 4 are addressed in the campaign rules. Will you also add the Tau refit rules that came out in Warp Rift 2 for or the standard ones will apply for them?

On a different note:
Will you add ships from the Additional Ship Compendium or the Nemesis book? Also, how about the ships that show up in BFG:FR's Addons? You can find them in the sticky post with Official and Unofficial rules in there.
And how do you achieve such a clean look for these documents, I would like to know so I'd be able to edit them so I can add some of my homebrews in the future. I have a single ship you might want to add to the Chaos supplement (Dethroner class Battleship) which came from the makers of the Nemesis book.

Great work, mate!!! Can't wait for the rest of them!

PS: I'm guessing you're not using each race's spread from their original appearances in the rulebook due to consistency, but it'd be a nice touch of individuality for each of them :)

PS2: I'll keep modifying this post with whatever other things I find in the documents.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 03, 2016, 11:02:56 PM
Well, I've been reading through all the released documents and I have to say, I LOVE THEM!
Thanks! I'm glad to hear it!

A few issues to address:
1. The Eldar book is missing the refits and crew skills table.
2. The same is true for the Dark Eldar.
3. And for Orks.
4. And Necrons.

I'm guessing think that 1, 2, 3 and 4 are addressed in the campaign rules. Will you also add the Tau refit rules that came out in Warp Rift 2 for or the standard ones will apply for them?
That is correct; all the refit and skills tables will be in the campaign rules. I was not aware of the Tau refits in Warp Rift 2, but now that I am, that sounds like something I'd be happy to include.

5. The Ork Brute Ramship has the wrong image, it should have the one from the rulebook.
I'll take a look at it. AFAIK I was using the image from the existing BFG:R document, but I'll swap it out if I can.
EDIT: You're right. I totally missed it. Thanks for catching the issue - it'll be fixed immediately.

On a different note:
Will you add ships from the Additional Ship Compendium or the Nemesis book? Also, how about the ships that show up in BFG:FR's Addons? You can find them in the sticky post with Official and Unofficial rules in there.
Since the ASC is still an active, ongoing project (props to Gothmog for his work!), I'm probably not going to directly include them in BFG:XR. I might try to get the Vanguard Strike Cruiser and Imperial High Conveyor into the SM and IN books, because they're from an "official" source (Forgeworld), but since the ASC already has them, it's not a high priority for me.

I am not as familiar with Nemesis or BFG:FR. For the moment, I think I'll have to say no to any of those ships, on account of them being designed with a different system in mind. In short, I'm trying to keep the majority of the BFG:XR content consistent with what was decided upon in BFG:R, for balance reasons. That being said, I have made alterations myself, so as the project develops I may reconsider broadening my sources to include FR and Nemesis (as well as any other fan-projects). I just need to be sure not to upset the integrity of the ruleset through cross-project content.

And how do you achieve such a clean look for these documents, I would like to know so I'd be able to edit them so I can add some of my homebrews in the future. I have a single ship you might want to add to the Chaos supplement (Dethroner class Battleship) which came from the makers of the Nemesis book.
All of the PDFs are made from scratch using Adobe InDesign, by carefully studying the sizing, layout, and format of the digital BFG documents currently available. Custom (or manipulated) artwork is made using Adobe Photoshop. Many of the art assets (such as background images, textures, etc) were made by extracting images out of the hi-res digital BFG rulebook released by GW. I'm currently using a mix of Caslon Antique, TNR, and Arial for my fonts.

PS: I'm guessing you're not using each race's spread from their original appearances in the rulebook due to consistency, but it'd be a nice touch of individuality for each of them :)
If you mean the cover spreads for each of the factions (such as those found in Armada), then yes. It was also a matter of readability, in that some of the text on the Armada/FAQ2010 spreads was almost unreadable. This is an issue of some of the images not having a "designated" area for text, so the font tends to get lost in the jumble. Down the road this may be something on my radar (or I may add additional cover pages with the specific faction stuff), but right now I'm just trying to stay in gear to finish  ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Fr05ty on April 03, 2016, 11:31:38 PM
Might want to re-read my post, I added a few points beforehand that you missed :P

I've added them here for completion:
6. Ork Basha Light Kroozer should have 6 hits, not 8 as it's a light kroozer. Ork Terror Ships and Kill Kroozers should have 8 hits, 10 hits is the realm of the Hammer Battlekroozer. If you're trying to make it so that they have more hits than their imperial equivalents, then the Hammer should have 12 hits and the Battleships 14. Although IMHO it should be as it were in the rulebook, as this causes really cheap ships so that you can spam them as an ork ramshackle fleet.
7. Why did you get rid of so many random-strength weapons for the Orks? It's their flavor!
8. Ork Heavy Gunz should have shorter ranges than normal Gunz, otherwise they're OP as even with the column shift, they'll deal double the damage of the Gunz. With shorter range, they encourage the Ork ships to close in even more to use their heavy gunz and getting in range for boarding (which is as fluff suggests they fight).
9. The Imperial Navy is missing the Jovian class Battlecruiser from BFG2010

Comments on these?

Also, can I help somehow?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 03, 2016, 11:44:25 PM
6. Ork Basha Light Kroozer should have 6 hits, not 8 as it's a light kroozer. Ork Terror Ships and Kill Kroozers should have 8 hits, 10 hits is the realm of the Hammer Battlekroozer. If you're trying to make it so that they have more hits than their imperial equivalents, then the Hammer should have 12 hits and the Battleships 14. Although IMHO it should be as it were in the rulebook, as this causes really cheap ships so that you can spam them as an ork ramshackle fleet.
7. Why did you get rid of so many random-strength weapons for the Orks? It's their flavor!
8. Ork Heavy Gunz should have shorter ranges than normal Gunz, otherwise they're OP as even with the column shift, they'll deal double the damage of the Gunz. With shorter range, they encourage the Ork ships to close in even more to use their heavy gunz and getting in range for boarding (which is as fluff suggests they fight).
9. The Imperial Navy is missing the Jovian class Battlecruiser from BFG2010
Ah, I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up. The reason for the multitude of changes to the Orks was the result of this (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5276.150) thread in which the community discussed numerous issues with Orks as they appear in the classic rules. (There's a pdf in there with most of their initial work). Unfortunately, afterimagedan never actually published a finished product, but most of the changes were already voted on and decided. You can read about the reasons in that thread.

In short though, the HP changes were, as you said, to make them a bit beefier than their Imperial counterparts, but I think they felt upping the Battlekroozer and Battleships was too OTT. Random weapons were toned down (at the cost of flavor, I'll agree) to simply make gameplay with Orks a bit less headache inducing. There were also power level issues with some of the weapons being too weak. A similar argument was made for the Heavy Gunz, which were deliberately buffed in BFG:R. I can't comment as to whether that makes them too powerful, but the consensus by minds much smarter than me was that 30cm range with relatively low strength and an extra column shift outside of 15cm was enough drawbacks to offset their additional damage.

As for the Jovian, that was the result of a similar thread (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5545.msg46897#msg46897) in which the BFG:R team discusses many issues which plagued Battlefleet Bakka, mostly on the flavor and playability end as compared to the other Imperial Navy lists. They removed the Jovian on account of it a) being an odd 1-off ship whose use was absurdly restricted and b) for going against the majority of the Imperial Navy's faction flavor. It was replaced by the Cardinal class instead. The current BFG:R document for Bakka (not the list in the BFG:R Navy doc, but the separate one) doesn't have the Jovian either.

It would probably make for a good ASC ship though (*hint hint* Gothmog ;))

PS2: I'll keep modifying this post with whatever other things I find in the documents.

For ease of replying, it's actually better if you make new posts. I'm more likely to see them that way in case I don't scroll back up the page.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Fr05ty on April 03, 2016, 11:57:11 PM
6. Ork Basha Light Kroozer should have 6 hits, not 8 as it's a light kroozer. Ork Terror Ships and Kill Kroozers should have 8 hits, 10 hits is the realm of the Hammer Battlekroozer. If you're trying to make it so that they have more hits than their imperial equivalents, then the Hammer should have 12 hits and the Battleships 14. Although IMHO it should be as it were in the rulebook, as this causes really cheap ships so that you can spam them as an ork ramshackle fleet.
7. Why did you get rid of so many random-strength weapons for the Orks? It's their flavor!
8. Ork Heavy Gunz should have shorter ranges than normal Gunz, otherwise they're OP as even with the column shift, they'll deal double the damage of the Gunz. With shorter range, they encourage the Ork ships to close in even more to use their heavy gunz and getting in range for boarding (which is as fluff suggests they fight).
9. The Imperial Navy is missing the Jovian class Battlecruiser from BFG2010
Ah, I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up. The reason for the multitude of changes to the Orks was the result of this (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5276.150) thread in which the community discussed numerous issues with Orks as they appear in the classic rules. (There's a pdf in there with most of their initial work). Unfortunately, afterimagedan never actually published a finished product, but most of the changes were already voted on and decided. You can read about the reasons in that thread.

In short though, the HP changes were, as you said, to make them a bit beefier than their Imperial counterparts, but I think they felt upping the Battlekroozer and Battleships was too OTT. Random weapons were toned down (at the cost of flavor, I'll agree) to simply make gameplay with Orks a bit less headache inducing. There were also power level issues with some of the weapons being too weak. A similar argument was made for the Heavy Gunz, which were deliberately buffed in BFG:R. I can't comment as to whether that makes them too powerful, but the consensus by minds much smarter than me was that 30cm range with relatively low strength and an extra column shift outside of 15cm was enough drawbacks to offset their additional damage.

As for the Jovian, that was the result of a similar thread (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5545.msg46897#msg46897) in which the BFG:R team discusses many issues which plagued Battlefleet Bakka, mostly on the flavor and playability end as compared to the other Imperial Navy lists. They removed the Jovian on account of it a) being an odd 1-off ship whose use was absurdly restricted and b) for going against the majority of the Imperial Navy's faction flavor. It was replaced by the Cardinal class instead. The current BFG:R document for Bakka (not the list in the BFG:R Navy doc, but the separate one) doesn't have the Jovian either.

It would probably make for a good ASC ship though (*hint hint* Gothmog ;))

PS2: I'll keep modifying this post with whatever other things I find in the documents.

For ease of replying, it's actually better if you make new posts. I'm more likely to see them that way in case I don't scroll back up the page.

Oh, well, seems the community has spoken! Thanks for the links to the threads, was not aware of them! I'd still advocate for adding an extra 2 hits for the Battleships and Battlekroozers and upping their points cost by 15 or 20, but that's just me :)

I thought you weren't online while I was updating, so to avoid spamming I just kept on modifying, won't do that again ;)

On a different note, how hard is it for you to edit these files if we wanted to enact those changes?
What's the next fleet coming out for review?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 04, 2016, 12:03:48 AM
I thought you weren't online while I was updating, so to avoid spamming I just kept on modifying, won't do that again ;)

On a different note, how hard is it for you to edit these files if we wanted to enact those changes?
What's the next fleet coming out for review?

No worries. The forum actually emails me when people reply to this thread, which makes it easier for me to see what's going on.

In terms of ease, since the documents are fully re-written (as opposed to manipulated PDF pages), I can make changes pretty easily. Adding a ship page here and there, or altering stats is not that big of a deal. The absolute hardest thing is space-management though. Many of the fleet lists are packed (in order to make them readable) so adding bunches of ships would mean ending up with fleet lists that were more than 1 page long (or stuck in tiny font).

Next fleet should be Admech, which I haven't started yet, but I expect it will go quickly since most of the ships are the same as their IN counterparts (other than different pictures). Chaos, Tau, and Rogue Traders will follow, and I expect those will take some time. I'm already aware of some errors/inconsistencies in BFG:R Chaos, so I'll have to do more research (like with Orks and Bakka), and the structure of both the Tau Empire and Rogue Trader fleets are very out of the norm, which will take some time to sort through.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Fr05ty on April 04, 2016, 12:18:33 AM
If you point me to where you think there are inconsistencies (And especially threads on the discussion of such matters) I'll be happy to assist you in figuring out what should be happening with the fleets. Got pretty much all the docs that have been produced with fleet updates and such.

When you're done with the official releases, it can be revisited for the Nemesis ships, Additional Ships compendium and other stuff :)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Fr05ty on April 04, 2016, 01:24:10 AM
Sorry for double posting, but do you have the image for the Eldar Wyrm class Battleship without blurring out and the top secret on top? I'd really like to see what it's meant to look like
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 04, 2016, 01:33:42 AM
Well, yes, I do... But I don't think it's what you're looking for. You see, the Wyrm class never had any official artwork from the team that did the Eldar MMS list (as far as I'm aware, anyway), instead only having the generic "Top Secret" image where the ship should be.

Since I'm generally of the opinion that most ships (other than perhaps a few unimportant escorts/transports) should have at least some artwork, I ended up making my own, essentially kitbashing the art from the Void Dragon into a "new" ship. That being said... There's not much substance to it. It's fairly obvious without the blurring that it's just 2 Void Dragons "belly to belly" with some warping to shape it like the Void Stalker.

So... You've caught my artistic trickery  ;D

If you still want the image I can send you a png or psd of it via PM, just let me know.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Fr05ty on April 04, 2016, 01:38:48 AM
Hehehehe, I knew that nobody had made an image of it, but since I saw the art in your books I thought I might ask.  ;) And yes please! I'd love to see the image.

I'm personally working on 2 ships, the first one is balancing the Dethroner Battleship that I mentioned before to adapt to the changes from BFG:R Chaos and the second one is the Eldar ship from an Eldar Corsair Prince that came out of the Rogue Trader RPG. I'll post them in the experimental rules forum once I'm done with them so please comment! I'd like your photoshop expertise if you can spare it for the image of the Eldar ship once I finish the rules.

Is there anything I can help you with? I'd love to contribute to getting these PDFs out the door!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 04, 2016, 01:58:46 AM
I'll get that sent to you later today.  ;)

As for photoshop work, I can try something when I get time, although my Photoshop skills aren't that amazing. Most of what I'm capable of is mashing existing artwork together. Something along the lines of the Eldar Supernova is doable though (for that one, I took the artist's line drawing and used cut-outs of the existing ships to provide some textures for the artwork).

As for anything else to help with, most of the leg work has already been done for me by the BFG:R team. Since I'm just editing and reformatting, there's not a whole lot I could ask others to do. Most of my research has to be done firsthand as well, since I need to have a ground-level understanding of what went down in the discussions so I can properly emulate the "intent" of the Revised edition.

That being said, the proofing you've done has been really helpful and I'd appreciate you (and everyone else) continuing to do so. I'm certainly not perfect and the development time means that I sometimes come back to documents only to forget that I wasn't finished with certain pages. So having other eyes look over things is very helpful!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on April 05, 2016, 01:24:46 AM
Hey, maybe I'm blind but do the orks get boarding torpedoes? I can't seem to find it in their list.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 05, 2016, 01:37:03 AM
Hey, maybe I'm blind but do the orks get boarding torpedoes? I can't seem to find it in their list.

They do now! (See the fleet list at the end). Thanks for catching that.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on April 05, 2016, 01:52:41 AM
Wow that's fast service, thanks.

Any idea on when you might be able to come out with revised missions?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 05, 2016, 01:58:16 AM
The big book of scenarios that I'm planning will be after I've finished the rest of the faction codices. At the moment I'm working on AdMech (although I've been sidetracked with a small revision to the core rulebook that came up), and after that it'll be Chaos, Tau, and Rogue Traders, so it might be a bit of a wait before I get back to the scenarios.

The good news is that I did start on it and I have it all planned out; I just felt it was more important to finish all the other factions since the scenarios book will be long.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on April 05, 2016, 02:00:38 AM
cool, I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 06, 2016, 03:09:49 AM
A couple of minor corrections and revisions have gone out this week. Normally I don't post all the little stuff I fix (like description text or minor typo errors), but a few things that went up are noticeable:

That's all for now folks; as always, thanks for all your support!

EDIT: Over the past couple of days I've found a substantial number of small errors in the Imperial Navy list. I am doing what I can to correct them, but if anyone finds any more, please let me know. I apologize to anyone who downloaded it early - I was up late several nights putting it together and it affected my work. I'll be proofing the next codex much more thoroughly.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: AJCHVY on April 09, 2016, 07:53:14 PM
Hi there, love the XR rules so far. I had a few question regarding the Ork XR rules. The Ork Clanz has some upgrades and gubbinz that are not in the Ork XR rules, was wondering why some of the upgrades were not put in the new rules. Specifically the tellyporta, shokk attack gun, and assault karrier rules.

Also, it says in the Ork XR that you must replace lances and nova cannons with the ork version. When taking an imperial cruiser with a nova cannon, what would the strength of the killcannon be, and also when replacing lances, is it a straight replacement or do you get a d3 value?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 09, 2016, 10:02:56 PM
Hi there, love the XR rules so far. I had a few question regarding the Ork XR rules. The Ork Clanz has some upgrades and gubbinz that are not in the Ork XR rules, was wondering why some of the upgrades were not put in the new rules. Specifically the tellyporta, shokk attack gun, and assault karrier rules.

Also, it says in the Ork XR that you must replace lances and nova cannons with the ork version. When taking an imperial cruiser with a nova cannon, what would the strength of the killcannon be, and also when replacing lances, is it a straight replacement or do you get a d3 value?

Regarding the gubbinz: When the Orks went through their complete overhaul (I'm really going to need to leave a note about that in the log), they were basically rebuilt from the ground up by Khar and the rest of the BFG:R team. There's not a lot of discussion that I can find on the forums about why some of the stuff was not carried over in the new version.

For the Assault Karrier, I can speculate that since Orks now have boarding torpedoes for free all the time, there's not a particularly strong reason to have a conditional "+1 bay strength but no fighta-bommerz" upgrade. That being said, I'm not entirely opposed to it - I'd just have to find space in the document.

For the Shokk Attack Lance, I strongly suspect that this was removed due to being absurdly complicated to use, as well as the introduction of the zzapp gun (which I believe is the "same" weapon fluff-wise) as a dedicated Ork lance weapon making it less relevant to have as a commander upgrade. I doubt I'm going to reintroduce this one.

The tellyporta seems fine to me, and I suspect might have just been overlooked when all the reshuffling happened. I'll try to find room to add this back in.

Regarding your other question: Yes the zzapp guns should be equal strength/range/arcs as the Imperial ship (in other words, identical profile, but uses the zzapp guns rules). The killcannon thing is my bad - it was brought up in the old discussion for BFG:R, but never fully written out, so I ended up copying it without checking. I am currently fixing both these issues (Nova Cannon should be replaced with R30cm, S6, Front killcannons, just for reference).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 09, 2016, 11:13:34 PM
Quick update regarding the Orks (from the discussion above). The Tellyporta gubbin from the 2010 list has been added to BFG:XR (now called the Soopa Tellyporta), as has the "assault karrier" option for capital ships (which now simply allows a ship to forego any fighta-bommerz/torpedo bommers in exchange for +1 bay strength). Moreover, the Looted Vessels rules have been clarified - zzapp gunz use the same profile as the lances they replace, and nova cannons are replaced by S6, 30cm killkannons.

There has also been a correction to Terror ships, which were missing the option to take torpedo bombers.

The consequence of the additional upgrades, however, has forced me to "remove" the Campaign special rules that were part of the Ork fleet list (there was simply not enough space to keep it all on one page). These rules will be transferred to the full Campaign Rules document along with a lot of the other fleets' special campaign setup stuff. It is possible that these rules (requiring Orks to choose whether to participate as "pirates" or a full faction) may eventually be generalized to apply to more than just the Orks.


As always, thanks to everyone for proofing my work! It's a huge help and goes a long way towards making the BFG:XR rules as clean and tight as possible.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: AJCHVY on April 10, 2016, 10:38:24 AM
Cool thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on April 10, 2016, 10:30:53 PM
Do Tyranids follow the normal rules for being crippled now? They're pretty strong and stopping them from pumping out millions of assault boats was a good balance I thought.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 10, 2016, 10:45:25 PM
Do Tyranids follow the normal rules for being crippled now? They're pretty strong and stopping them from pumping out millions of assault boats was a good balance I thought.

As far as I am aware, this was a deliberate change when BFG:R was made. That said, I can't find anything specifically stating why the original BFG:R team removed the restriction on launching ordnance while crippled. I'll keep investigating this one, but until then I would consider them to follow the normal rules for crippling just like other fleets.

As an aside, I've also realized that the rules for 'Nid Claws and Ork Klaws aren't clear that the ships get dragged along together while grappling, so there will be a fix for that coming out soon.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on April 10, 2016, 11:02:00 PM
While your here....

The tyranid Hive ship that can shoot 14 lances out the front for 250 points was a bit much in a game last night. are the port and starboard lances meant to shoot out the front? because they were errated to be left and right in the 2010 compendium.

Either way thanks for all the work you've put in and responding so quickly.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 10, 2016, 11:08:03 PM
Well, it's listed that way in the BFG:R document, but I'll admit that it seems a bit much, and could easily be a typo in the source list (the bane of my existence). I'll do some more digging on that. For the moment, I would probably treat it as Left/Right (for the Port/Starboard weapons respectively).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Bessemer on April 10, 2016, 11:19:43 PM
Yes, Tyranids follow normal rules for being Crippled. In addition, Massive Claws and Feeder Tendrils may not be used if Crippled, but are otherwise unaffected by SO's.

As for moving while grappled, it depends on relative sizes of the ships involved. If both ships are the same size (Escort to Escort, Cruiser to Cruiser, etc) neither vessel can move. If the grappled ship is larger (Cruiser grappling a Battleship, etc), the grappled ship may only move 1/2 speed and can't turn.
In any case, both ships can shoot, but at half strength, Nova Cannon and similar weapons cannot fire.

I'm assuming that the Ork versions works in a similar fashion, but I wasn't involved in the Orks development so can't tell you with any certainty, sorry.

As for the Bio-Plasma arcs, F/L/R was the intention. My experience from playtesting found the range to counteract the ignore shield ability. However, more feedback is always welcome. Maybe making the port/starboard  BP L/R may be a good thing for the capital ships. Iwould leave this for the escorts however.

Hope this helps! And keep it up, sterling work!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 11, 2016, 12:05:54 AM
Yes, Tyranids follow normal rules for being Crippled. In addition, Massive Claws and Feeder Tendrils may not be used if Crippled, but are otherwise unaffected by SO's.

As for moving while grappled, it depends on relative sizes of the ships involved. If both ships are the same size (Escort to Escort, Cruiser to Cruiser, etc) neither vessel can move. If the grappled ship is larger (Cruiser grappling a Battleship, etc), the grappled ship may only move 1/2 speed and can't turn.
In any case, both ships can shoot, but at half strength, Nova Cannon and similar weapons cannot fire.

I'm assuming that the Ork versions works in a similar fashion, but I wasn't involved in the Orks development so can't tell you with any certainty, sorry.

As for the Bio-Plasma arcs, F/L/R was the intention. My experience from playtesting found the range to counteract the ignore shield ability. However, more feedback is always welcome. Maybe making the port/starboard  BP L/R may be a good thing for the capital ships. Iwould leave this for the escorts however.

Hope this helps! And keep it up, sterling work!

Thanks for the input. It's always good to hear from 1st-hand accounts (much more reliable than sifting through old archived threads). I think the big hive ships probably should have L/R bioplasma on the port and starboard sides, since they can get a full 8 LFR from the other two choices. And on the broadside they'd still be at 11, which is still very potent. On the other hand, you guys playtested it, so you know better ;)

Good to hear about the crippling thing - you saved me from having to reformat a lot ;D

As for the claws, what I meant was the issue of the two ships actually moving together once the claw had locked on. The way it's worded right now makes it sound like the larger ship (moving at half speed) can just fly off away from the smaller vessel. From my reading of the 2010 FAQ, I thought that the intent was for the smaller ship to get dragged along by the movement of the larger one.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on April 11, 2016, 12:08:36 AM
Shooting all of it out front might be ok if the bio plasma wasn't range 30cm now. Even with it hitting on 6s over 15cm it's pretty easy for a Tyranid ship to lock on, and with all the Lances firing into any arc they'll be able to punish any ship pretty hard.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Bessemer on April 11, 2016, 12:33:44 AM
Quote
From my reading of the 2010 FAQ, I thought that the intent was for the smaller ship to get dragged along by the movement of the larger one.

This is exactly the case! I've just re-read the BFGR doc and is isn't as clear as it should be :s Good catch on that

For the Bio plasma range, anyone playing 'Nids for any length of time will tell you how ineffective BP is, and my own experience backs that up. hitting on 6's at 30 was the solution from Plaxor's original Doc, and a change me,  Afterimagdan and Andrewchristleib agreed with, as well as those who voted to finalize the Doc.
Lets face it though, 12 lances will **** up anything with shields, never mind without! ;D

As for playtesting, If I'm honest with myself, more was needed (hell, this goes for ALL the BFGR Doc, not just 'Nids!). But given the size of the community that plays BFGR is a small segment of the BFG community, which in of itself isn't large, tweeks here and there are most definitely needed.

The BFG:XR project could be the catalyst needed for this to happen. I know the steam ran out on finalizing BFGR; We'd just had our game officially ****canned after all! But with the "Re-launch" of the SG lines, better times may be ahead. And with the smart money being on the boxed game route, any future models should be able to be used with BFG:XR
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 11, 2016, 06:27:31 AM
Thanks for the kind words, Bessemer!

Here's what I've got laid out for some small tweaks to the Tyranids:

If that's sounding good, I'll go ahead and publish (and make the requisite changes to the Ork Klaws as well).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on April 11, 2016, 06:37:01 AM
Those Bio plasma rules are pretty much what I was about to type up and suggest so it looks good to me.

Thanks for the work you've done.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Bessemer on April 11, 2016, 11:23:40 PM
Here's what I've got laid out for some small tweaks to the Tyranids:
  • Charybdis Port/Starboard Bio-Plasma is now Left/Right only, respectively. Scylla Port and Starboard Bio-Plasma is now Left/Front and Right/Front only, respectively. All the other ships remain the same. Hopefully this should be all that's necessary to cut down on overly-heavy BP salvos without gimping the weapon/build.

Fully Agree

  • Massive Claws have been reworked. They now specify that the smaller ship is dragged along with the bigger one, and the larger ship halves its speed and cannot turn. In addition, the End Phase rules have been replaced - now, a successfully captured ship suffers 1 damage at the start of each player's movement phase while it remains grappled. In each Tyranid movement phase, the Tyranid ship must re-attack the target to maintain its hold (resolved the same as the initial claw attack). If it fails to inflict 2+ hits, the target escapes and both ships return to normal. Finally, the rules now specify that a Tyranid ship that loses the use of its claws (by being crippled) lets go of its target automatically, if any.

Much clearer than we wrote, and like the addition of the Tyranid ship loosing it's grip. Fairer and reduces chance of a  'Nid squadron being forced out of coherency. An unlikley scenario, but possible.

 Nice one!

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/03/2016 - Imperial Navy)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 11, 2016, 11:38:52 PM
Thanks! I'm glad you like it. Since we're all in agreement, I'll get the Tyranids update out within the hour.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Bonus Update! The Adeptus Mechanicus (https://www.dropbox.com/s/dn7qsy157ecinxn/BFGXR%20-%20Adeptus%20Mechanicus.pdf?dl=0) document is finished! As always, please comment to let me know if you find any issues, typos, inconsistencies, etc.

Chaos is on the way, but it's much longer so it will be a while before I finish. We're coming into the home stretch (at least as far as I've planned ;) ).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/11/2016 - AdMech)
Post by: Chios on April 12, 2016, 06:48:09 PM
While browsing your Necrons list I noticed that the Jackal Raider's portal got boosted to 2. Is that intentional? I know you upped the portal attacks to compensate removed regular teleport attacks. However, the Jackal being an escort wouldn't have one without the portal...

If that is a non-teleport-related rebalancing feel free to ignore the question of course ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/11/2016 - AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 12, 2016, 07:02:20 PM
While browsing your Necrons list I noticed that the Jackal Raider's portal got boosted to 2. Is that intentional? I know you upped the portal attacks to compensate removed regular teleport attacks. However, the Jackal being an escort wouldn't have one without the portal...

If that is a non-teleport-related rebalancing feel free to ignore the question of course ;)

No, you're right. I was so focused on making sure i didn't accidentally drop stats (from removing the teleport attacks) that I forgot escorts don't get any. I'll have that fixed today.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/11/2016 - AdMech)
Post by: ErikModi on April 21, 2016, 06:22:17 PM
Wow, this looks really good!  Looking forward to Chaos coming out.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/11/2016 - AdMech)
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on May 17, 2016, 09:14:44 AM
So much progress since I last check on it! Sorry I haven't been posting or proof reading much, though  it all looks super awesome. Just trying to plug away on the ASC 2.0 myself. Your progress is much more applaudable than mine.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/11/2016 - AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on June 01, 2016, 02:50:48 AM
Wow, this looks really good!  Looking forward to Chaos coming out.
So much progress since I last check on it! Sorry I haven't been posting or proof reading much, though  it all looks super awesome. Just trying to plug away on the ASC 2.0 myself. Your progress is much more applaudable than mine.

Thank you both for the kind words! Although Gothmog, you're far too hard on yourself! I really only get stuff done in little bursts, which is why there's some downtime in between releases. I'm always very impressed with the continuous march of progress on the ASC  ;)

Speaking of progress, I recently moved for a new job so there's been that hiccup as well. (Ironically though, I might actually have more time to focus on the project now that I'm settled in, since out here I'm stuck on a weaker internet connection and my old laptop - meaning way less temptation for the shiny new video games coming out this year haha ;D).

+++++++++++++

Brief bit of "Official" Project News: The Klaws in the Ork fleet have been updated to match the functionality of the Massive Claws in the Tyranids fleet book. I had forgotten that Orks have the same equipment so I missed them when I adjusted the Tyranid one.

Progress is coming along slowly for the Chaos book. It should be ready for release SoonTM.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/11/2016 - AdMech)
Post by: harec on June 06, 2016, 06:59:26 PM
Xcaliber, Your work here is amazing, really nice, I was translating BFG:R to spanish, and now I have to restart, I will add your changes and include you in the autors section ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 04/11/2016 - AdMech)
Post by: ErikModi on June 25, 2016, 02:36:17 AM
Progress is coming along slowly for the Chaos book. It should be ready for release SoonTM.

Cool!  They're my faction of choice, so very much looking forward to your revisions!  If I can help, let me know.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 03, 2016, 09:57:38 PM
Just in time for the chaos ::) of the 4th of July holidays (at least for those of you in the States), I present the first draft of BFG:XR Chaos! (https://www.dropbox.com/s/p30ecr5kmb9sa3e/BFGXR%20-%20Chaos.pdf?dl=0) Clocking in at over 40 pages, this is one of the longer codices in the project, covering everything from the dreaded Planet Killer to the fearsome flagships of the Traitor Legions.

As always, please give it a read and let me know your comments and questions (and any typos or errors you can find).

The major changes to look out for are some updated profiles and new rules for the Legion flagships, to help set them apart from their normal counterparts and to keep them in line with the appropriate sacred numbers (as much as possible, anyway!). Also, a couple of names have been changed, as some parts of the old nomenclature were a bit of a mouthful. Lastly, Gothmog convinced me to keep the CLs in the list  ;), but to appease those of you with more... traditional fluff sensibilities ;D, their numbers have been limited to 0-6 per fleet.


That's all the updates for now! Tau is up next I think, to give me a break from the normal Imperial-style profiles. Rogue Traders will be the last (but not least!) to be finished.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: ErikModi on July 05, 2016, 04:05:45 PM
Thanks, been waiting for this!

Looks great!  The ships seem well-balanced at first blush (didn't note that much had changed), and the fleet lists are much better organized and laid out.

Two minor disappointments:  the Hellbringer Light Cruiser from Battlefleet Gothic:  Armada is nowhere to be found, and I think I'd heard that wasn't a ship made just for that game, but I could be wrong.  I was also hoping to see variations of old-school Chaos "Battle Barges" and "Strike Cruisers," what they would have been before and during the Horus Heresy.  But, all the research I've done indicates ships like that didn't really exist at that time, so it's understandable they aren't statted.  I like the ability to purchase "actual" Space Marine Battle Barges and Strike Cruisers from the right fleet list, that'll tie in nicely with my campaign rules.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 05, 2016, 04:52:29 PM
Thanks, been waiting for this!

Looks great!  The ships seem well-balanced at first blush (didn't note that much had changed), and the fleet lists are much better organized and laid out.

Two minor disappointments:  the Hellbringer Light Cruiser from Battlefleet Gothic:  Armada is nowhere to be found, and I think I'd heard that wasn't a ship made just for that game, but I could be wrong.  I was also hoping to see variations of old-school Chaos "Battle Barges" and "Strike Cruisers," what they would have been before and during the Horus Heresy.  But, all the research I've done indicates ships like that didn't really exist at that time, so it's understandable they aren't statted.  I like the ability to purchase "actual" Space Marine Battle Barges and Strike Cruisers from the right fleet list, that'll tie in nicely with my campaign rules.

First off, thanks!

As to your questions, I did have rules for the Hellbringer at an early stage of development, but I realized that if I included it I'd be opening a can of worms as I'd be expected to add all the ships from BFG-A, which would quickly get complicated since the game is still being developed. I'll probably be submitting my Hellbringer stats to the ASC 2.0 at some point in the future though, so you'll be able to find it there.

Speaking of, Gothmog's ASC 2.0 has the Heresy-era BBs and SCs that you're looking for, I think. As for why they're not in BFG:XR - I am trying as much as possible to keep with the BFG:R philosophy of minimizing the number of ships/variants in each book. This is important to maintain the flavor of each faction (so that we don't have a bunch of cloned ships with different accessories) as well as to maintain the balance of ships within each book (as you increase variety, the potential for "strictly better / strictly worse" ships also increases). This is why the ASC is so great - if balance isn't a concern for a scenario or playgroup, you can pull whichever ships you need and have a good time, while still being able to use the rulebooks as a "standalone" if you want a more "pick-up & play" style of game.

In any case, I'm glad you like it! Let me know if you find any errors or have any other questions.  ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: ErikModi on July 05, 2016, 06:16:15 PM
Makes sense.

Looking at the broader range of torpedo-armed Chaos ships in (especially the Schismatic) XR, I'm actually considering un-refitting my Despoiler and Repulsive to give them their torps back, and use Boarding Torpedoes exclusively.

Speaking of the Schismatic, was it based on http://www.shapeways.com/product/PGTTVKE5Y/bfg-heresy-marine-cruiser?optionId=40874697?

And, whoa!  Just took another look at the Schismatic, is that really 6 Strength lances port and starboard!?!

Oh, and on the "uglier" Grand Cruisers, I like the rule about the armored prow.  Always seemed weird to me that they had what looked like an armored Imperial prow, but no actual additional armor.

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: horizon on July 05, 2016, 07:42:16 PM
Hey,
First of All strike cruisers are post heresy so there are no pre heresy strike cruisers.

BFG: Armada has not contacted me during development so all of their designs are bollocks anyway. Lol j/k

Grand cruisers look cool and the schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: ErikModi on July 05, 2016, 09:00:42 PM
Hey,
First of All strike cruisers are post heresy so there are no pre heresy strike cruisers.

Yeah, I know.  Just kinda wish there were.

BFG: Armada has not contacted me during development so all of their designs are bollocks anyway. Lol j/k

Too true!  :)

Grand cruisers look cool and the schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!

I think they look. . . interesting, but a lot of people seem not to care for them.  I wasn't too fond of them statswise, but it looks like they might be good additions under these rules.

Another query:  The Planet Killer was destroyed in the Gothic War, so is it still available in the 13th Black Crusade?  Was the ship rebuilt for it (know very little about 40k fluff, only really followed BFG).  If so, cool beans.  If not, shouldn't Abbadon have another flagship in the 13th Crusade fleet list?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 05, 2016, 09:21:54 PM
... schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!
Copy paste error detected! I'll fix it this evening after work.  :-[ (Don't want to add more fuel to fire of the Chaos CL controversy hahaha)

@ErikModi, Yes, the PK returned in the 13th Black Crusade.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: ErikModi on July 05, 2016, 09:38:53 PM
... schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!
Copy paste error detected! I'll fix it this evening after work.  :-[ (Don't want to add more fuel to fire of the Chaos CL controversy hahaha)

@ErikModi, Yes, the PK returned in the 13th Black Crusade.

Oooh.  Nice.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 06, 2016, 01:28:43 AM
Lance strength on the Schismatic has been corrected.

Thanks for catching that one horizon! ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: ErikModi on July 07, 2016, 02:42:26 PM
Page one, near the bottom:  "and for the next ten thousand years they continued the Long War against the Humanity and the Emperor of Mankind."  Should be "Humanity," not "the Humanity."
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 07, 2016, 04:49:34 PM
Page one, near the bottom:  "and for the next ten thousand years they continued the Long War against the Humanity and the Emperor of Mankind."  Should be "Humanity," not "the Humanity."

Fixed.  ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: ErikModi on July 07, 2016, 09:22:40 PM
Update the links?  They're broke.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 07, 2016, 09:24:52 PM
All of them or just Chaos? I will take a look this evening.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: ErikModi on July 07, 2016, 10:22:16 PM
Just Chaos, but both (in the original post and just a bit above.)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 07, 2016, 11:31:18 PM
Ok, it should be working now. Let me know if you find any other broken links.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: ErikModi on July 11, 2016, 02:29:37 AM
So, don't take this as a criticism, but rather a question.

The Desolator was my favorite of the two Chaos battleships in the bluebook.  I like the speed (which I feel is Chaos' main advantage over IN, and I think I've gotten pretty good at using it) and the lances.  The torpedoes were always kinda "meh" to me, but with boarding torpedoes, they really come into their own.  My problem is the anemic dorsal weapons.  They just don't seem to be worth firing 90% of the time, as you'll probably only be rolling one or two dice.  Now, looking at the other Chaos battleships in XR, I see two basically Desolator variants with 9 firepower dorsal batteries with the same 60cm range.  So I'm curious what the design and balance considerations are that keeps the Desolator with its 6 FP weapons.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 12, 2016, 06:44:14 PM
So, don't take this as a criticism, but rather a question.

The Desolator was my favorite of the two Chaos battleships in the bluebook.  I like the speed (which I feel is Chaos' main advantage over IN, and I think I've gotten pretty good at using it) and the lances.  The torpedoes were always kinda "meh" to me, but with boarding torpedoes, they really come into their own.  My problem is the anemic dorsal weapons.  They just don't seem to be worth firing 90% of the time, as you'll probably only be rolling one or two dice.  Now, looking at the other Chaos battleships in XR, I see two basically Desolator variants with 9 firepower dorsal batteries with the same 60cm range.  So I'm curious what the design and balance considerations are that keeps the Desolator with its 6 FP weapons.

You would need to ask horizon or one of the other 'old guard'  ;) about this, since that particular addition was not originally from BFG:XR, but rather Plaxor's first run of BFG:Revised. I wasn't around in the community back then and the forum archives don't seem to go back that far. Hopefully somebody from the old days can pop in and give an answer though; I would be interested in hearing as well!  ;D

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Small update time: Tau Empire is coming along nicely. Unfortunately I'm busy at work for the next few days, and I'll be off backpacking over the weekend, but I expect I should be able to finish it sometime this month. After that, it'll be Rogue Traders, followed by Scenario rules.

Campaign rules will be the last part, and will likely be a community effort, drawn from the rulesets that have been developed over the years (such as Warp Rift and rules developed on the forums here).


That's all for now!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: horizon on July 12, 2016, 07:21:13 PM
So, don't take this as a criticism, but rather a question.

The Desolator was my favorite of the two Chaos battleships in the bluebook.  I like the speed (which I feel is Chaos' main advantage over IN, and I think I've gotten pretty good at using it) and the lances.  The torpedoes were always kinda "meh" to me, but with boarding torpedoes, they really come into their own.  My problem is the anemic dorsal weapons.  They just don't seem to be worth firing 90% of the time, as you'll probably only be rolling one or two dice.  Now, looking at the other Chaos battleships in XR, I see two basically Desolator variants with 9 firepower dorsal batteries with the same 60cm range.  So I'm curious what the design and balance considerations are that keeps the Desolator with its 6 FP weapons.

Heya to you and Xca|iber as well,

The Desolator has always been and still is my preferred Chaos battleship. Both visual and ingame.

Now I am going to read the BFGXR pdf...

wait...

Okay Relictor... same points but loses range on broadsides.
Conquerer more expensive lower range.
That's it, right for variants?

So, yeah those two have a bit more dorsal batteries but are significant different in their roles. The Desolator remains the fast moving excellent support vessel. Those batteries can still wither down a shield or catch bomber squadrons.
And on the torpedoes: I never fired boarding torpedoes. Just get those 9 at point blank range for a good surprise. :)
The Desolator has always been a good, well balanced vessel in the game so there has never been a reason to change it.

Lets keep it that way.


___

I will try to be more active on the Tau. I'll admit I haven't been investing a lot of time in Xca|iber's fabulous work, mainly because it a re-hash job of everything done before. A good re-hash at that!



Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Blacksails on July 18, 2016, 05:02:09 PM
This is all quite awesome!  I was fond of most of all the changes the BFG:R team made, but having a nicely formatted lay out like this really helps with finding lists and specific rules.

I plan on getting small club to use these rules as I introduce the game to them.

Thanks for all the work.  Looking forward to the campaign and scenario rules.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 24, 2016, 05:17:33 AM
Hey all,

In light of some discussions w/ horizon and others (as well as my own misgivings early in the project), I have decided to make a slight change to the core rules regarding resilient attack craft - in particular, resilient fighters.

On page 9 of the FAQ 2010, there is a strange example of resilient vs. resilient ordnance involving Darkstar fighters and Manta bombers. In this example, it is implied that the fighters are only able to make one attack each against the bombers (assuming saves are passed) before the Tau player is allowed to move his or her ordnance. It then goes on to describe the Mantas as having the option to move away from the Darkstars without being intercepted. This example adds a lot of counter-intuitive logic to the resolution of resilient fighters vs. non-fighters (resilient or otherwise). At best, it adds a set of unique rules and exceptions for the specific situation described, which is not something I like to have if I can help it.

So, as of today, the BFG:XR main rulebook now states across the board that if a resilient fighter is still in contact with enemy ordnance after using its save, it will automatically attack again (and be removed), since it is obligated to always engage and intercept enemy ordnance that it encounters. The examples in the rulebook have been updated accordingly. It should be much clearer now.

That's it - just a small thing. But I figured it deserved a formal announcement since I am doing my best to keep core rule revisions (beyond Armada + FAQ 2010) to an absolute minimum.


Thanks for reading! Working more on Tau tomorrow - look forward to an update SoonTM  ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Yodhrin on July 31, 2016, 11:17:13 PM
Hey,
First of All strike cruisers are post heresy so there are no pre heresy strike cruisers.

BFG: Armada has not contacted me during development so all of their designs are bollocks anyway. Lol j/k

Grand cruisers look cool and the schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!

That's no longer the case as-of HH3:Extermination - PG15 lays out the broad makeup of the Imperialis Armada and it includes Strike Cruisers(describing them as Light Cruisers heavily-modified by the Astartes for boarding and planetary assault, in the same way that pre-Heresy Battle Barges are modified Battleships).

In retrospect it seems FW were anticipating the possible reintroduction of SGs even then(or at least acknowledging that some of us crusty old folk still play them) and structured the IA so as to allow as broad a selection of Chaos, IN, and SM ships as possible.

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 01, 2016, 06:13:23 AM
Update Time!

Coming in as the penultimate faction codex, I present to you: BFG:XR Tau Empire (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y0kukgskhn0mwab/BFGXR%20-%20Tau%20Empire.pdf?dl=0)!

This one was a little bit tricky, given the history of Tau in the BFG rules-verse. I feel pretty good about getting through it without too many rules changes (which are listed at the back of the book, as usual). The fleet list got a bit of a face-lift though - I felt it made more sense to show the Kor'or'vesh and Kor'vattra separately. But worry not, they still function together as a single fleet!  ;)

In other update news, I made a couple of fixes to the main Rulebook and several of the other faction books (just correcting some typos and things that I happened to see). I've also made a small change to the Inquisition book in light of Yohdrin's thread on AdMech upgrades - Radical Xenos Inquisitor ship upgrades (on page 6) are now +15 points if you want to choose one rather than rolling. I felt it was far too cheap otherwise. Now there's a bit more incentive to roll the dice if you aren't designing a particular flagship for your Inquisitor.

Speaking of AdMech upgrades, I am beginning the process of evaluating whether the distribution of Mechanicus Gifts should change. Currently, the system offers a little more control than it did under the FAQ 2010 rules, at the cost of having a few extra steps and being a bit unintuitive. Likewise, it is also still random before each game. I will keep you all posted as I work through possible solutions.


And that's it for now! We're in the home stretch everybody. Rogue Traders will be the final faction book in the set, and will be followed up by a combined Scenarios document (with some updated / clarified rules for victory points and scenario generation) and the Campaign document, which I've already discussed in previous posts.

As always, tell me if you find errors/problems!

And again, thanks for everyone's support! ;D
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: horizon on August 01, 2016, 08:17:18 AM
Hey,
First of All strike cruisers are post heresy so there are no pre heresy strike cruisers.

BFG: Armada has not contacted me during development so all of their designs are bollocks anyway. Lol j/k

Grand cruisers look cool and the schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!

That's no longer the case as-of HH3:Extermination - PG15 lays out the broad makeup of the Imperialis Armada and it includes Strike Cruisers(describing them as Light Cruisers heavily-modified by the Astartes for boarding and planetary assault, in the same way that pre-Heresy Battle Barges are modified Battleships).

In retrospect it seems FW were anticipating the possible reintroduction of SGs even then(or at least acknowledging that some of us crusty old folk still play them) and structured the IA so as to allow as broad a selection of Chaos, IN, and SM ships as possible.
As I mentioned in the other thread the HH series buggered up the already skewed history of ships in Battlefleet Gothic.
Fluffwise it makes more sense to me that Strike Cruisers are from after the heresy. Ya know, marines may no longer be the strongest fleet in space. Trias politica yadiyadi etcetera.

Plus I never read a single HH or FW book. Only thing I read from FW is the Taros Campaign because of the Tau fleet introduction and that was because of that was a FW fleet.


@Xca|iber: not a single mention from Project Distant Darkness?  :'(
 ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Yodhrin on August 01, 2016, 11:27:29 AM
Hey,
First of All strike cruisers are post heresy so there are no pre heresy strike cruisers.

BFG: Armada has not contacted me during development so all of their designs are bollocks anyway. Lol j/k

Grand cruisers look cool and the schismatic certainly should not have 6 lances per side!

That's no longer the case as-of HH3:Extermination - PG15 lays out the broad makeup of the Imperialis Armada and it includes Strike Cruisers(describing them as Light Cruisers heavily-modified by the Astartes for boarding and planetary assault, in the same way that pre-Heresy Battle Barges are modified Battleships).

In retrospect it seems FW were anticipating the possible reintroduction of SGs even then(or at least acknowledging that some of us crusty old folk still play them) and structured the IA so as to allow as broad a selection of Chaos, IN, and SM ships as possible.
As I mentioned in the other thread the HH series buggered up the already skewed history of ships in Battlefleet Gothic.
Fluffwise it makes more sense to me that Strike Cruisers are from after the heresy. Ya know, marines may no longer be the strongest fleet in space. Trias politica yadiyadi etcetera.

Plus I never read a single HH or FW book. Only thing I read from FW is the Taros Campaign because of the Tau fleet introduction and that was because of that was a FW fleet.

Hmm, fair enough, for my money it's some of the best material they've ever put out and most of the changes they're making seem more about accounting for and rationalising pre-existing fluff conflicts. Indeed, the FW studio these days are putting out better stuff than GW, who just murdered a 30+ year old IP for the sake of AoS and look set to ruin the 40K fluff as well(the story hooks in Fenris, for eg, seem to indicate they're going to turn the Space Wolves into renegade super-werewolves led by a returned mutated super-Russ  :o).

I disliked the idea of moving most of the ships "back" at first as well but it seems they're going mostly trying to give us ways to use the rules in Heresy-era games rather than those specific ships - most of the named classes are new, and all the more "specialist" ships like SM are explicitly laid out as being radical refits with no standard appearance, so really "Strike Cruisers" and Battle Barges" as-was in terms of BFG don't exist until after the Heresy.

Xcaliber; this is great stuff chief, and you taking a look at the AdMech Gifts system is much appreciated.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/03/2016 - Chaos)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 01, 2016, 04:46:38 PM
@Xca|iber: not a single mention from Project Distant Darkness?  :'(
 ;)

Haha my apologies!  :-[ It seems in my rush to get version 1.0 out the door it totally slipped my mind... I'll give it another pass with the PDD content next chance I get.  ;D
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 07, 2016, 07:55:03 AM
Hey all! Hope everybody had a happy Friday  8)

A few things to get through for project status today:

@horizon: Now having looked through a lot more of the PDD Tau content, I'm feeling like any excerpts will fit better in the upcoming Campaigns book. I'd like to give PDD a page (or more) there describing the campaign and referring people to the wonderful PDD documents themselves. In addition, I am hoping to maybe lift a couple of the special upgrades in PDD as potential refits in the Tau campaign rules (such as Integrated Tracking Systems, Adv. Missiles, etc.). Will that save me from the banhammer? ;)

@Yodhrin/everybody: So I've taken a look through the AdMech rules and I'm in agreement that the current system for acquiring Mechanicus Gifts isn't really as robust as it could be. Here's the way I see it:

It's important for AdMech ships to have access to these Gifts, as they are part of the faction's core identity. However, there needs to be some kind of limiting factor to prevent "stacking" of specific upgrades, lest extremes of fleet power/survivability/speed/utility cause problems on the table (of concern are Adv Engines, Adv Shields, and AWR specifically - the others are less universally powerful). Currently, randomization functions as the primary limiting factor, making it highly unlikely that you'll have more than a couple of each upgrade. The ability (added in BFG:R) to allocate these upgrades softens the impact of getting "wrong" results, but you're still stuck with what you've actually generated. Finally, there is also the limit of 1 upgrade per ship, preventing stacking on a specific vessel.

If we remove randomization, it's important to keep some limitations in place whilst still allowing for most current list-building choices. Arbitrary numerical limits always feel a bit "bad" in these situations unless a suitable fluff justification can be given (which I can't really find in this case). Points costs are also dangerous - if the price is too cheap, it fails to limit "stacking," but if the price is too expensive, taking a single upgrade is overly penalized. Finding the middle ground there can be quite difficult, and setting up a scaling point system gets complicated very fast. That got me thinking about more... creative alternatives.

So here's what I propose:

The result is a choice-based system which still limits the use of the "big 3" Gifts by making them more situational in applicability. Keep in mind though that this is a rough plan, nothing set in stone yet. Some possible options I'm considering are: points costs (if necessary), allowing 1 from each list (1 passive/1 active), and maybe nerfing FDT to only +1 turret since it's easier to get a lot of ships with it.

So that's the idea for now. Anybody who's interested, please let me know what you think! Am I just crazy?  :o

Thanks!

EDIT: Clarified the thrusters upgrade.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Bozeman on August 07, 2016, 01:02:47 PM
A Battleship would need to be able to move 30cm to take advantage of Come to a New Heading (15cm minimum move, turn, 15cm second minimum move, 2nd turn).  Why not make the upgrade reduce the minimum movement before turning to 10cm?  It could still only turn once but that 5cm makes a big difference when trying to get that perfect shot lined up.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 07, 2016, 07:24:22 PM
A Battleship would need to be able to move 30cm to take advantage of Come to a New Heading (15cm minimum move, turn, 15cm second minimum move, 2nd turn).  Why not make the upgrade reduce the minimum movement before turning to 10cm?  It could still only turn once but that 5cm makes a big difference when trying to get that perfect shot lined up.

It already does this. The BFG:R/XR "Adv. Engines" Gift provides +5cm speed, -5cm min turn distance, and +D6cm on AAF (I forgot about that last one). The turn distance reduction is why I added the clause about allowing battleships to use CtNH with the upgrade (since they would actually be able to do so).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: horizon on August 08, 2016, 07:17:02 AM
Heya,

on PDD: thou shall be watched closely. ;)

On gifts:
back to the core: I think you explained them in the past but you did change the functions of the gifts compared to the official versions.

GTM: got the added re-roll '1's effect.

FTD: got changed, like: not 2 turrets are used for fleet defense (allied vessels get +2) but the ships gets +2 turrets and allied vessels may re-roll misses. I really would advice to toss out the +2 turrets the vessel gets. Cruisers with 5 turrets are bazzinngg.

Repulsor shields turned into advanced shields -> Eldar. A little less unique but stronger.

Advanced engines got a -5cm to turn added. Bozeman's point is invalid. Battleships may not use Come to New Heading as a special order. Thus that effect would not add to battleships. ;)
I do not see the clause you are mentioning. And I would keep it out nonetheless. The less special rules the better.

EER stayed the same, same as AWR. But you want AWR to go Lock-On only.

Keep in mind that all the AdMech vessels are currently paying for the upgrades within their point costs. So a point cost system would automatically mean that all values should be lowered.

I did like the pool system you currently created. Because with the idea now I still will pick AWR on my battleship, I will pick FDT on a vessel, etc and leave out other choices. Then again with the Magos his free choice I still will pick AWR with him as an option. Just because.
Like advanced engines is only fun on the slower battleships because otherwise you would have a cruiser that is faster then the other cruisers. Or one goes meta and gives all vessels advanced engines. Turning it into a fast turning Imperial Navy/Chaos hybrid. lol.
GTM would still be a less favoured option. Same as EER.

A 'fix' would be to make those better but that is the powercreep pitfall one would should avoid at all times. Making the others less usefull (as AWR only on lock on) would be better in that way but then it has to be seen if the effects do warrant themselves in action.
And it is not only cruiser clash that should be considered. Other scenarios have different need of tactics. As most often is forgotten when people ask for tactics. ;)

So, in effect, aside of metagamers, the things that will be picked are AWR, FTD and AS. That is what I would do. Even with point costst added I would start doing that. And giving specific values to those upgrades is iffy because AWR on a Retribution is not like AWR on an Endurance.

Ah well. Just some ramblings. :)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 08, 2016, 09:12:02 AM
@horizon: You give me too much credit heh... all of the current Gift rules in BFG:R AdMech are from afterimagedan's version. The clause I was talking about was in my earlier post as just a suggestion, but I agree that it may not be necessary.

I am in agreement that adding points to gifts is bad. Just too complex to deal with different prices for battleships, cruisers, etc, and probably would need different prices for each gift too. Not a good solution.

Based on what you've said, I think my current plan would therefore be:

-Gifts are still free.
-Still 1 per ship as normal.
-Gift is chosen for each capital ship at the start of the game (instead of rolling randomly and allocating)
-EER, GTM, and Adv. Engines stay the same as afterimagedan's version (fully passive effects).
-AWR only while on Lock On, Adv Shields only while on BFI.
-FDT loses the +2 Turrets effect.

So this way, AWR and Adv Shields are not usable all the time and there is no benefit to taking too many FDTs. Of course, we are still left with EER and GTM being the least desirable and the most "thick" on rules text.

One brainstorm idea I had (in addition to the above) was this:

-EER changed to: Any time the ship reduces a characteristic by 50%, it reduces it by 25% instead (for all special orders, crippling, etc) and all speed penalties worse than -5cm are treated as -5cm only.
-GTM replaced with: Inverted Graviton Field: Enemy ships must pass a Ld test on 3D6 in order to declare boarding or conduct teleport attacks against the ship. In addition, enemies attempting to ram the ship add +D6 to their "check course" Ld test result.

Ideally, these would be a little more desirable compared to before. With EER combining the old GTM ability, it makes it more generally usable (rather than only while crippled or only while on orders). The graviton field ability adds something different that can protect against the AdMech special weakness, at the cost of not getting AWR or FDT or whatever.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on August 08, 2016, 04:18:22 PM
While I think that if we had infinite time and near perfect ability to balance things that a points system would ultimately be best, I think its way too much work and overly complicated for the small balance benefits it would bring.

That said, I can't really complain about the current system.  Having the Archmagos pick one for the command ship helps, and the pool plus selecting on Ld rolls of 6 helps a lot with creating a coherent fleet.  Maybe there could be an addition like the sub-commanders most fleets have, but instead of adding +1Ld, it could allow the player to select the upgrade they want and/or a free re-roll for that ship only.  Cost it somewhere in the realm of 20-30pts and restrict it to 0-3 like most other similar options.

Alternatively, after rolling for gifts but before deploying/squadroning capital ships, maybe the owning player can form a squadron and have the same gift apply to all ships in the squadron selected from one of them that has been randomly rolled or selected (if they rolled a 6 on one of them).  I know that I'd be thinking of running a squadron of Lunars, and I'd prefer for them to have the same upgrade, so that's where I'm coming from.

Food for thought anyways.  Loving this by the way, as is my group.  Can't wait for the campaign/scenario rules so our group can embark down that path.  Is there a rough time estimate for that?  Hate to be a bother, sorry.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: horizon on August 08, 2016, 06:55:07 PM
Hey,

Still unsure on that picking what you like. Advanced shielding only on BFI suddenly becomes a lot less interesting as an option.

I agree with blacksails that the current pool systems works best. The magos may pick, a roll of 6 for Ld may pack.

With the sub-magos idea: just cost him +10 pts then and make it pick what you like. Mainly because they can be a total waste if your dice rolls are good anyway.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on August 08, 2016, 07:39:16 PM
Well the sub-Magos could cost a little more and also provide a free re-roll for the ship, so it isn't completely wasted if you flip a 6 at the beginning of the game.

Still a little bit of points for a guarantee and a re-roll is something I'd pay for some ships.

To further refine that idea, would the sub-magos over-rule the stipulation of rolling a 6 for Ld lets you pick a refit to add to the pool, or would you simply pick a refit for the sub-magos ship after assigning all other ships' refits.

To illustrate, currently you generate a pool, some of them random, some of them you picked if you rolled a 6, then assign them where you want.  With the sub-magos, if you're picking the refit before Ld, you'd be denying a refit from the pool.  But if you pick the refit after all Ld rolls, you would essentially be discarding a few of the have-not refits from the pool.

I don't know if I'm explaining this well.  I'll come up with a practical example for the two methods in a bit.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 08, 2016, 09:12:59 PM
I hear what you're both saying, and I would agree that the current system works (after all, it was passed by vote back during the original BFG:R development), but it just feels... I dunno, clunky.

Looking at it, we've got:
-Archmagos picks one for his ship.
-Ships that roll '6' for Ld get to pick one that gets thrown in the pool.
-Other ships generate one randomly for the pool.
-Then you have to allocate stuff from the pool to each ship.

It's a lot of steps, and isn't very intuitive unless you know the history behind the process. I'd really like to get away from the random generation, but as horizon points out, this requires weighing each Gift and imposing limits or changing functionality, otherwise everybody just takes AWR/FDT. The addition of Secondary Commanders which allow for a choice (either like the Archmagos or a "max Ld" ship) is interesting, but it makes the process even slower (and/or more complex, depending on implementation). It's feasible of course, but I don't want to jump the gun before evaluating all the options first.

I'm sure there's a better solution around here somewhere... I'll keep taking a look at things and see if I can come up with something more. In the meantime, rest assured that nothing will change w/ the actual PDF until a final decision is made (if a change is desired at all). Anyway, please keep posting ideas/comments - the feedback is very helpful.

Thanks!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on August 08, 2016, 09:45:49 PM
So what do we have as options?

-Current system - Works, a little clunky/unintuitive.

-Points - Ultimately the ideal solution, but so much work and complicated having to individualize point costs for every ship that it would be too much for too little reward.

-Passive/Active - Gives player full control, but still tilts favour to just taking AWR with the occasional FDT.  Problem still exists that bonuses to firepower and durability will generally be better than being more maneuverable or not being crippled as easily.

-SubMagos/Machine Spirit - Purchasable upgrade that mimics the Magos in terms of picking the refit, and possibly having a re-roll for the ship.  Otherwise still rolling as the current system.

Part of the problem is that refits like the Improved Engines are really only desirable on a squadron of faster cruisers anyways, or you take it fleet wide, which comes at the expense of the direct and meaningful benefit of AWR.  I wouldn't recommend nerfing AWR, because if anything, I feel that that upgrade is the standard of usefulness (closely followed by Advanced Shields in their current incarnation and having one or two FDT is very useful).  The thing about those three upgrades in particular is that they provide consistent, flexible, and universally useful benefits almost regardless of the fleet you'll face.  If anything, FDT is mostly useless against Necrons and any other ordnance light fleet, but its nice to have on a support carrier like a Dictator.

I could see Advanced Engines on the Light Cruisers to make them into pseudo Dauntlesses, but I never find myself wanting GSM or EER because the first is partially situational for orders I try and avoid using anyways, and the second because I'd rather have the upfront defensive bonus of the shields and avoid being crippled altogether.

I'm with you on removing random generation, but I can't think of a different way than the above methods, short of just balancing the refits so perfectly they don't need a points cost and players can choose freely.  Really, I think GSM and EER need a little more love or replaced by whole new ideas.  AWR being on LO only is a nerf, but not unreasonable.  AS being BFI only makes it too unattractive and I'd never voluntarily take it compared to AWR.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 08, 2016, 10:18:02 PM
We're definitely on the same page Blacksails  ;)

Right now here's what I'm looking at in terms of changes, if a choice-based system is implemented (based on your and horizon's feedback):

-AWR only on Lock On (slight nerf, but seems like a trade for being able to guarantee getting it)
-FDT loses the +2 Turrets bonus (so there's no benefit to going overboard on FDT ships)
-AS, AE same as the book (these being the kinda middle-ground, one being a solid defensive choice and the other being an interesting "meta" build enabler)
-EER and GTM need to be reworked (they're the "bad" results on the random table and are just not desirable if you get to choose).

I'm also in favor of a Secondary Commander (I like your suggestion of "Machine Spirit") if a semi-random system is adopted.

In terms of showing love to EER and GTM, I think horizon said it well that we want to avoid the power-creep train, but at the same time I agree that they're so conditional, one seldom "wants" them on a ship. Naturally the goal would be to bring them up just a tad, without going totally bonkers.

For EER, I had suggested a couple of posts back to just roll GTM into EER as a single upgrade (without the re-roll 1's or pseudo-extra-hit), and also make the ship resistant to speed penalties (so max of -5cm regardless of blasts or damage/crippling). This way it still has utility while the ship is undamaged.

I'm not sure what you'd replace GTM with in that case though. The "graviton field" thing I suggested before was just something I came up with on the spot.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on August 09, 2016, 02:18:19 PM
Rolling EER and GTM into one is certainly reasonable, as I think it just brings it up to being almost desirable.  Its still a little too conditional for my tastes, and if I was across the table from an opponent with a ship using that refit, I'd just avoid making it my primary target knowing it doesn't mind being crippled as much.  But it still doesn't offer an up front bonus, like all the other good choices.

Just had a thought.

So, FDT is situational, but makes for a great refit on a support ship in larger fleets.  Its unique in that way and I think works for that purpose.  Fluffy, functional, useful.  Most of the other refits are trying to be useful to any and all Mechanicus vessels, which I think is hurting us here.  What if we had a refit that focused more on a specific type of vessel, like say...carriers!  We have the Dictator, Empy, Oberon, and Defiant who all have launch bays but no real refit that helps them with any sort of launch bay buff.  Sure, you could give FDT to the Dictator, or a defensive buff, but that's not much of a choice in larger fleets with multiple carriers.

Enter the carrier refit.  Both the Empy and Oberon come with +1Ld which is awesome coupled with the likelihood your Magos will make his home there, giving you the sweet sweet Ld10 you need for RO.  What if we had a refit that either did that for all carrier types (or any ship, if you really want more Ld) and/or improved the strike craft on board.  Spitballing ideas here; Experimental Communications Array (ECA) = +1Ld (stacks with existing sensor arrays or would offer a free re-roll instead) and the ship strike craft all benefit from the Resiliant strike craft rules.

Now that's an upgrade I'd take.  Its probably too much, but I guess the ball is rolling now.

*Edit* Or we could take a page from the XR Necron book with the Shroud and its +1Ld fleet wide for enemies on orders.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: horizon on August 09, 2016, 06:01:31 PM
Another +1Ld on an already +1Ld vessel is kinda pointless with enemy vessels also giving +1 Ld most of these days. ;)

Okay, with blastmarker it might be handy but really worth the upgrade?

Not that I present another idea right now. Because I have to think about it.  8) ;D
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on August 09, 2016, 06:05:16 PM
When you put it that way...I suppose.

I dunno, replace with re-rolls or something.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 09, 2016, 07:22:40 PM
Here's a thought: If we're removing the "random" aspect from the Gifts, there's no real reason for there to be six different options. From what I'm hearing, there's really not a whole lot of strategic incentive to take stuff other than AWR, AS, and FDT, no matter how much more powerful we make EER, GTM, and AE (unless you're going for a full-fleet meta-build).

So why not just do something like this:
-Each capital ship chooses between AWR (Lock On only version), FDT (no +Turret bonus), or AS (same as now).
-If the fleet is led by an Archmagos, he chooses one of the following fleet-wide capital-ship bonuses:
---EER: Any penalty that halves any of a capital ship's characteristics only causes a 25% reduction instead (still stacking normally).
---Adv Engines: All capital ships get +5cm speed and -5cm minimum turn distance. (No AAF bonus).

As an alternative, the fleet-wide bonus could be a purchased option for +X(?) points, in which case I'd add the following:
-EER: All speed penalties on capital ships more than -5cm are treated as -5cm.
-Adv Engines: Add back the +D6cm on AAF bonus.

How's that sound?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on August 09, 2016, 07:28:22 PM
By the Emperor I think you've done it.

I mean, with a handful of tweaks to make sure its not overpowered, yeah, that's about the best idea I've read so far.
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Thinking Stone on August 11, 2016, 11:46:41 AM
Hello everyone!

As per usual, Xca|iber, the work on BFG:XR is interesting and exciting!

Likes:
- Replacing the roll system with a well-balanced choice system like has been discussed here—I think it's a lot more elegant than the BFG:R method (whilst that one's effective) and I prefer it over points costs because of the difficulties in balancing their costs/desirability and because of the built-in cost mechanism already present.

- I did really like the active/passive split but it can be sacrificed for the greater good!

- Changing Advanced Weapon Relays to Lock On only. Synergises well with their intended role and also stops my brother from expodifying me every turn with double lance hits... ;)

- Fleet Defence Turrets (I was going to suggest maybe a +1 turret bonus and the re-roll special rule but then I remembered Mechanicus ships already get more turrets)

- Archmagos options. It seems a little sad for the escorts to miss out (though they beat their Epic40K infantry cousins with void shields :P) but I suppose that's how it's always been with the Mechanicus. I prefer the choice mechanism to the points mechanism, I think it's cleaner that way for difficult-to-price bonuses.

Suggestions:
- Perhaps another choice of Archmagos fleet-wide rule could be Advanced Attack Craft, making attack craft Resilient? I think this would be nifty to replace one of the less desirable upgrades in the same manner as FDTs under the old individual choice system but then you have to account for which ship launches which craft. This fleet-wide version could make for an interesting carrier fleet option for people who want it.

- Emergency Energy Reserves did conjure an idea of having something to do with Special Orders (maybe one ship per battleship per turn could pass automatically?) partly inspired by the Tindalos BFG Armada. Maybe that could sweeten the deal?

- It would be nice to avoid the direct overlap of Move-Move-Shoot Eldar holofields and Advanced Shields but if there's no better way to do it, it's not world-ending

- One other option to get rid of the problem of weak/powerful upgrades is to allow a ship to choose between them every turn. This could also allow situational ones like Advanced Shields to be linked to Bracing for Impact without gimping the ship. Of course, one would also have to make sure double-hit lances every turn aren't too powerful.... But, if nothing else, it would represent all the nifty Imperial relays, Dark Age technology, etc. that the Mechanicus keep hidden away....


Anyway, some food for thought,
Thinking stone

Editation: O, and one other thing, Xca|iber: is the Archmagos upgrade in addition to the upgrade that each ship can choose? I presume that would be made clear in the final document. Some nifty ships they would be indeed!

Edit x 2: And just saw an uncapitalised 'sword' on page 13, Gladius background entry.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 11, 2016, 08:52:51 PM
Suggestions:
- Perhaps another choice of Archmagos fleet-wide rule could be Advanced Attack Craft, making attack craft Resilient? I think this would be nifty to replace one of the less desirable upgrades in the same manner as FDTs under the old individual choice system but then you have to account for which ship launches which craft. This fleet-wide version could make for an interesting carrier fleet option for people who want it.

- Emergency Energy Reserves did conjure an idea of having something to do with Special Orders (maybe one ship per battleship per turn could pass automatically?) partly inspired by the Tindalos BFG Armada. Maybe that could sweeten the deal?

- It would be nice to avoid the direct overlap of Move-Move-Shoot Eldar holofields and Advanced Shields but if there's no better way to do it, it's not world-ending

- One other option to get rid of the problem of weak/powerful upgrades is to allow a ship to choose between them every turn. This could also allow situational ones like Advanced Shields to be linked to Bracing for Impact without gimping the ship. Of course, one would also have to make sure double-hit lances every turn aren't too powerful.... But, if nothing else, it would represent all the nifty Imperial relays, Dark Age technology, etc. that the Mechanicus keep hidden away....


Anyway, some food for thought,
Thinking stone

Editation: O, and one other thing, Xca|iber: is the Archmagos upgrade in addition to the upgrade that each ship can choose? I presume that would be made clear in the final document. Some nifty ships they would be indeed!

Edit x 2: And just saw an uncapitalised 'sword' on page 13, Gladius background entry.

Thanks for the comments!

Regarding your questions/suggestions:

-Yes, the archmagos fleet-wide bonus would be in addition to the upgrades for each capital ship. This is replacing the bonus (paid in the archmagos' cost) of being able to pick his ship's upgrade (which would no longer have any effect if the random generating system is removed).

-Fleet-wide attack craft upgrades could still be on the table (Blacksails also mentioned that as an idea on the previous page), but I want to be careful about climbing up the power creep ladder with fleet-wide resilient ACs... perhaps it would be only a 5+ or 6+ resilient save to balance it out.

-I'm not sure about boosting EER any further, on account of bloating the rules too much. Since it's a bonus that you'd get for free on every capital, I also want to keep it toned down. Perhaps if it's not desirable enough compared to fleet-wide Adv Engines, I could tone down the engines even further. So you'd have:
---EER: Armaments only reduced by 25% instead of 50% (for all types of penalty)
---Adv Engines: Minimum turn distance reduced by 5cm.
---Improved ACs (if included): 6+ Resilient save on all attack craft in the fleet.

-Advanced shields is actually different from the Eldar Holofields. Holofields cause the same column shift, but grant a save vs lances rather than limiting the hits. Same effective reduction (33% less hits, from either losing results of '4' or from a 5+ save), but different method. Also, holofields don't work vs ships within 15cm in the current rules.

-Choosing between upgrades is kinda what I was going for in my original idea, but the problem I encountered (and as horizon and Blacksails pointed out), was that the amount of power reduction necessary to balance out the ability to effectively have 3 or 4 upgrades simultaneously made none of the upgrades feel worthwhile.

-Regarding the typo, thanks for pointing it out; I'll fix it on my next editing pass.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: horizon on August 11, 2016, 09:23:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 11, 2016, 09:38:06 PM
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?  ;D

Looking forward to your other comments!
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Thinking Stone on August 12, 2016, 02:56:34 PM
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... ;) :P

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! :P) 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
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: horizon on August 13, 2016, 06:46:15 AM
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?  ;D

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

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 13, 2016, 07:48:17 AM
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?  ;D

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! :P) 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.  :D
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Thinking Stone on August 14, 2016, 05:53:02 AM
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?  ;D

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! :P) 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.  :D

horizon has spoken! :P 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
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: horizon on August 14, 2016, 09:25:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 14, 2016, 09:01:20 PM
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  ;D

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)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on August 17, 2016, 01:15:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 17, 2016, 02:36:21 AM
*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!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: horizon on August 17, 2016, 07:22:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 17, 2016, 07:45:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: horizon on August 17, 2016, 08:22:32 PM
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!  ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 18, 2016, 12:26:56 AM
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  ;)

Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Thinking Stone on August 19, 2016, 03:41:58 PM
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 ;) :P) 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 :P
Thinking Stone
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 19, 2016, 05:32:41 PM
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).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 25, 2016, 07:13:18 PM
Been mulling over a slight refinement to the previous idea:

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).

Archmagos Explorator (Ld9, Kn5).......same cost
(0-3) Magos Explorator (Ld8, Kn4)......25pts
Vault of Technology (+1Kn upgrade for any capital ship).......10pts

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 one 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)

I think this solution covers the issues pretty well. It improves choice, reduces prep-time (# of steps), while still maintaining some random variation.

Edit: In other project news, I've updated the Main Rulebook and Dark Eldar documents to reflect the relevant rulings from the 2016 Mini-FAQ posted in the Rules subforum. The scenario rulings will make their way into the BFG:XR scenarios document when it gets written. That's all for now!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on August 26, 2016, 08:56:39 PM
Looks good.  I personally prefer the idea previous, but both work for eliminating most of the random and making all the choices workable.

Quick clarification though, by battlecruiser you mean ordinary cruiser, seeing as the Ad Mech doesn't have formal battlecruisers, correct?

Looking forward to the scenario/campaign rules.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: horizon on August 26, 2016, 09:16:58 PM
Edit: In other project news, I've updated the Main Rulebook and Dark Eldar documents to reflect the relevant rulings from the 2016 Mini-FAQ posted in the Rules subforum. The scenario rulings will make their way into the BFG:XR scenarios document when it gets written. That's all for now!
8)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 26, 2016, 09:44:31 PM
Looks good.  I personally prefer the idea previous, but both work for eliminating most of the random and making all the choices workable.

Quick clarification though, by battlecruiser you mean ordinary cruiser, seeing as the Ad Mech doesn't have formal battlecruisers, correct?

Looking forward to the scenario/campaign rules.

Ah, yes... somehow I had convinced myself that the AdMech had the Mars battlecruiser because, well, the name. In that case I guess I'd make it: Battleships +1Kn, everything else gets no bonus. I don't really want to give a blanket bonus to standard cruisers; after all, they are supposed to be "standard." So under that system, you'd be able to have up to one ship guaranteed AWR or less (Archmagos on a battleship or w/ a vault), and up to three ships guaranteed AS or less (Magi w/ vaults), and any number of capitals guaranteed Efficient Launch Bays or better (regular cruiser/CL w/ vault).

Edit: In other project news, I've updated the Main Rulebook and Dark Eldar documents to reflect the relevant rulings from the 2016 Mini-FAQ posted in the Rules subforum. The scenario rulings will make their way into the BFG:XR scenarios document when it gets written. That's all for now!
8)

I was pretty pleased to see that the FAQ mostly lined up with what I already had, or otherwise took a less restrictive approach. The scenario rulings are especially exciting. Glad to be rid of the temptation to instantly disengage all my defenders around a planet every time it's attacked  ;D
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on August 29, 2016, 10:23:07 PM
So, unrelated to AdMech, I've been going over the IN fleet again in prep for building some cruisers I recently won on ebay (those bidding wars get vicious!) and I just don't understand the Cardinal class.  I've personally longed for a Gothic based BC, and while the Cardinal attempts this, I don't feel like it really fits with the general theme of 6+ prow and torps.

Plus, the cost seems off to me.  Its the same cost as the Dominion and a nova cannon equipped Armageddon, both of which have the exact same lance armaments, but have a few extra bonuses.  Namely, the 6+ prow armour, the torpedoes or nova cannons, and sporting either the same strength broadside batteries (at 15cm less range and not firing forward) or launch bays.  The Cardinal's primary advantage is the 60cm batteries that can fire forward with the dorsal lances and an extra 5cm of range.

When compared to the Acheron, it seems odd to pay an extra 70pts for some minor range swaps on the lance and weapon battery armaments.

I guess I'm just confused at its price when in the Bakka list you have the Dominion which sports the exact same lance configuration, but with the ever versatile launch bays and torpedoes (plus, one RO order for both weapon systems, yay!) for the exact same cost.  Outside of fluff reasons, I don't see a reason to ever take a Cardinal.  If it was priced more like an Overlord, I could see its usefulness as a cheap lance boat.

Plus, I'd love for a standard IN battlecruiser with all lances.  S2 45cm broadside lances with S2 60cm dorsal lances, 6+ prow armour and torpedoes.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on August 30, 2016, 01:07:34 AM
So, unrelated to AdMech, I've been going over the IN fleet again in prep for building some cruisers I recently won on ebay (those bidding wars get vicious!) and I just don't understand the Cardinal class.  I've personally longed for a Gothic based BC, and while the Cardinal attempts this, I don't feel like it really fits with the general theme of 6+ prow and torps.

Plus, the cost seems off to me.  Its the same cost as the Dominion and a nova cannon equipped Armageddon, both of which have the exact same lance armaments, but have a few extra bonuses.  Namely, the 6+ prow armour, the torpedoes or nova cannons, and sporting either the same strength broadside batteries (at 15cm less range and not firing forward) or launch bays.  The Cardinal's primary advantage is the 60cm batteries that can fire forward with the dorsal lances and an extra 5cm of range.

When compared to the Acheron, it seems odd to pay an extra 70pts for some minor range swaps on the lance and weapon battery armaments.

I guess I'm just confused at its price when in the Bakka list you have the Dominion which sports the exact same lance configuration, but with the ever versatile launch bays and torpedoes (plus, one RO order for both weapon systems, yay!) for the exact same cost.  Outside of fluff reasons, I don't see a reason to ever take a Cardinal.  If it was priced more like an Overlord, I could see its usefulness as a cheap lance boat.

Plus, I'd love for a standard IN battlecruiser with all lances.  S2 45cm broadside lances with S2 60cm dorsal lances, 6+ prow armour and torpedoes.

There was a price inconsistency in the original BFG:R Bakka fleet document, and I copied the higher cost by mistake. It should be 200 points. Thanks for catching this  ;) I'll have it fixed shortly.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on August 30, 2016, 09:22:58 PM
Well that makes a lot more sense.

Still, I'll have to homebrew an all lance standard IN BC though.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on September 06, 2016, 11:29:35 PM
I also noticed that the shield portion of the XR ruleset doesn't expand on when shields come back online.  The base rulebook explains that they have to escape the BMs in a subsequent movement phase, while the XR rules don't.

Clarification would also help new players as to specifically when the shields come back online (beginning of movement phase, end of movement phase, beginning of shooting phase) so its clear how it interacts with the BM rules for moving away from them in base contact.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on September 07, 2016, 06:22:41 AM
I also noticed that the shield portion of the XR ruleset doesn't expand on when shields come back online.  The base rulebook explains that they have to escape the BMs in a subsequent movement phase, while the XR rules don't.

Clarification would also help new players as to specifically when the shields come back online (beginning of movement phase, end of movement phase, beginning of shooting phase) so its clear how it interacts with the BM rules for moving away from them in base contact.

I've updated the main rulebook to be a bit clearer on this (page 21). Also updated was a misleading section for BFI+other special orders (page 21), the paragraph on shield-less ships moving through blast markers (page 22), and the short descriptions for special orders (page 9).

++++++++++++++++

In other news, is everyone okay to move forward with the changes to AdMech (as described in the last few posts)? I'm hoping to get that finalized while I'm putting together the RT fleet list (it's coming along nicely).

That's all for now!
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Thinking Stone on September 10, 2016, 12:45:51 AM
Finally had a chance to read the revised system fully! I like it, it's a cool way to re-use existing mechanics (and is easily extensible or modified by future rules) and it gives the player ways to mitigate the randomness if they choose. Though like @Blacksails, I did like the other, less random option (not just because I helped with it :P) but this one regains that 'experimental' feel for an Adeptus Mechanicus floating throughout the Galaxy pillaging technology as they go.

Maybe the AM could swap one of their battleship choices for a Mars? ;) :P Though I suppose you do get the Mini-Mars (Dictator with Nova).... All silliness aside, one question I've had for a little while is the placement of upgrade options in the list. In the original rules, most of the upgrades were almost like 'character ships', relatively unique instances of certain modifications performed throughout the Gothic war, and so it made a bit of sense to keep things like the Lunar Nova cannon in the Lunar description rather than in the fleet list. The downside is that you have to flip through the fleet list to find all the actual list point options.

Now, some upgrades are seen as general upgrades (and, with the AM, all cruisers have access to Nova cannon). Is it worth moving these upgrades to the Fleet List? Is there a reason they're kept within the profiles section (like formatting, etc.)? Just out of curiosity! It seems like it would be helpful to include them in the Fleet Lists so you only have to look in one place when making a fleet (maybe even as footnotes?).

On another unrelated note, we should send someone over to WargamerAU to talk about BFG:XR! There has been a little discussion recently about a new player starting but my acquaintance ZenithFleet (who frequents many fora, like this one on occasion) couldn't say much about the R/XR options because he's not familiar with them.


Thinking Stone

PS: @Blacksail's comments about home-brewing (what's essentially) a model option missing in the rules reminded me about a discussion that was once had about having meaningful differences between different weapons battery types on models etc.. For example, Dominators look the same as Tyrants with Nova cannon: but they're different! Might be a discussion for another time and place but my mathematics/physics-inclined mind would like to classify weapon options more rigorously and orthogonally (maths speak for mutual exclusive existence :P). Which might already exist with some lance representations but weapons batteries are more askew!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on September 10, 2016, 02:00:42 AM
Finally had a chance to read the revised system fully! I like it, it's a cool way to re-use existing mechanics (and is easily extensible or modified by future rules) and it gives the player ways to mitigate the randomness if they choose. Though like @Blacksails, I did like the other, less random option (not just because I helped with it :P) but this one regains that 'experimental' feel for an Adeptus Mechanicus floating throughout the Galaxy pillaging technology as they go.

Thanks! I also liked the totally non-random setup, but it's such a radical departure from how the AdMech played previously; I can see horizon's point about it being too much. This way is more of a compromise. ;)

Maybe the AM could swap one of their battleship choices for a Mars? ;) :P Though I suppose you do get the Mini-Mars (Dictator with Nova).... All silliness aside, one question I've had for a little while is the placement of upgrade options in the list. In the original rules, most of the upgrades were almost like 'character ships', relatively unique instances of certain modifications performed throughout the Gothic war, and so it made a bit of sense to keep things like the Lunar Nova cannon in the Lunar description rather than in the fleet list. The downside is that you have to flip through the fleet list to find all the actual list point options.

Now, some upgrades are seen as general upgrades (and, with the AM, all cruisers have access to Nova cannon). Is it worth moving these upgrades to the Fleet List? Is there a reason they're kept within the profiles section (like formatting, etc.)? Just out of curiosity! It seems like it would be helpful to include them in the Fleet Lists so you only have to look in one place when making a fleet (maybe even as footnotes?).

For the most part, I've tried to balance keeping the original formatting intact, whilst also collecting more general upgrades together at the final list level. That said, in this case I think you're right actually - the nova cannons and some of the other upgrades could be put directly in the fleet list (I have the space for it, thankfully). Usually this isn't possible because of discrepancies between individual classes (such as slight cost changes or effect differences like in the Dark Eldar book). For AM though, I guess I got distracted and didn't notice... I'll work on it next time I'm in the AM document.

On another unrelated note, we should send someone over to WargamerAU to talk about BFG:XR! There has been a little discussion recently about a new player starting but my acquaintance ZenithFleet (who frequents many fora, like this one on occasion) couldn't say much about the R/XR options because he's not familiar with them.

I'm not personally familiar with WargamerAU, but I'd be happy to answer any questions they have - just point me in the right direction  :)

Thinking Stone

PS: @Blacksail's comments about home-brewing (what's essentially) a model option missing in the rules reminded me about a discussion that was once had about having meaningful differences between different weapons battery types on models etc.. For example, Dominators look the same as Tyrants with Nova cannon: but they're different! Might be a discussion for another time and place but my mathematics/physics-inclined mind would like to classify weapon options more rigorously and orthogonally (maths speak for mutual exclusive existence :P). Which might already exist with some lance representations but weapons batteries are more askew!

This is interesting, but a bit outside the scope of the BFG:XR project at the moment. If you're looking for a place to start though, the BFG: Armada videogame actually does this to a certain degree, differentiating macro- and plasma- batteries, as well as giving them slightly different damage amounts (partially representing "Firepower/Strength" from the tabletop stats, but also to allow for slightly more granularity between ship broadsides). What this idea might be most interesting for would be some kind of BFG "Kill-Team" equivalent where you only control like 1-3 capital ships, but the focus on each one is much greater and the individual interactions are less abstracted. (So you really get into the minute details between each ship and its customizations).

^^ Responses above in red.

As always, thanks for the comments!  ;D
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Thinking Stone on September 14, 2016, 01:00:17 AM
Byzantine politics are very reflective of the source material, after all ;) Haha though points on all sides were valid, of course :)

On the upgrades: ah, of course! I'd forgotten how many discrepancies some of the other lists have! At least the AM is a relatively easy one on this case—I suppose the options could be listed under each ship in the list (and the effects stay in the profiles section) but maybe that's an experiment for another project.

I'm familiar with WargamerAU because Australian online fora are a bit rare :P They have some interesting stuff about BFG and Epic floating around, as well as some generally interesting discussion about rules and background.

Indeed, I agree it's beyond BFG:XR's scope (and would harm efforts to use it as a new standard). I'm glad to lend a physics-trained mind to the mix of liberal artists and games designers at some future point!

I think the BFG:Armada game is very interesting from a game design point of view because of the sacrifices and changes they've had to make for a working game system. I'm not sure if I'm so keen on every second ship ship getting dorsal turrets standard or some of the other positioning choices :P but I really like how they've created the bomb mechanic to bring some more parity between Nova Cannon Imperials and the others. Another subtle change they've made is improving the power of things like powerful prow (e.g. Murder, lance escorts, Dauntless) and broadside lance weapons—the Dauntless is pretty scary in BFG for a lance shot but an Acheron can rival other Chaos gun battery cruisers for sheer damage output (where its table-top version cannot).

On a different point, Videogame Armada shows how deterministic special orders (rather than the random rolling test) can work (though my thoughts are less in that direction and more in making Special Orders a consumable resource). Command and Control can be experimented on quite well with such a sturdy engine as table top BFG.

There were ideas floating around about a Skirmish BFG (@horizon had some work on it, if I recall correctly!) and I think Videogame Armada (VGA) is, as you say, an excellent starting point. And might make for some interesting comparisons with WH40K Roleplay space ships in Rogue Trader....


Thinking Stone

PS: I've always wanted to make the Rouge Trader, ever since misspelling it the first time....
PPS: You're very welcome for the comments! I'm glad I can spout my ideas at receptive people! One day I might even become less verbose... (though I like to try to help others understand why I have certain ideas).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: horizon on September 18, 2016, 09:55:59 AM
Huh? A Chaos Acheron can perfectly hold its position in any Chaos fleet with its medium ranged lance volleys. It is a perfect support vessel to the weapon batteries one. I really like it.
If BFG: Armada changed already such a thing then the tactical aspect of BFG is kinda lost. Pity.

My skirmish things (on the forum, free to use) are indeed a BFG mix with Rogue Trader RPG ideas.
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Thinking Stone on September 20, 2016, 09:26:54 AM
@horizon The real time strategy medium does allow (and perhaps cause) fundamental changes to how the weapons systems interact: BFG's rules very conveniently give complementary roles to weapons battery fire and lance fire but that's kind of an artefact of the rules system (though by no means an unwelcome one!). It's not that lances and weapons batteries are not different from each other, it's more that it's a different game engine.

Lances still have the advantages of higher accuracy and armour reduction, and weapons batteries still have the advantages of more shots but the Chaos fleet in particular can be, essentially, a lance fleet with little drawback. Part of the reason is the cheap and effective long-range lance light cruiser and the Devastation as a lance carrier.

The way damage is calculated also contributes. In BFG, a firepower 16 Carnage broadside to a station could cause 14 damage (at most) compared with the Acheron's maximum of 8. In the more usual situation of firing on an abeam capital ship, the difference is more modest, of course, Carnage at 2 (on average) and Acheron at 2 2/3 (on average). In Armada, the Acheron seems to be able to match the Carnage for peak damage output. This could even be due to Chaos weapons batteries firing more numerous small shots compared with lances firing fewer powerful shots (with the same damage per second). Damage in Armada is also deterministic rather than probabilistic (though shot accuracy is probabilistic; actually the opposite to BFG:TT!) and I presume they have therefore also scaled the damage output of different weapons systems because of that (so that lances are actually high-peak output rather than just more likely to cause damage but with far fewer shots). The Murder's tabletop BFG lances are a bit mediocre but they're a powerful peak output weapon in Armada.

As an anecdote (I don't have the game open to check the other stats directly, alas :P ), an Acheron blasted half the hull points of one of my Imperial cruisers by itself! And then Warped out before I could board it... rotten Nurgle, but that's a story for another time :P

A long post, I know, but I've tried to convey some of the mechanical and 'feel' differences that are a bit hard to enunciate.

As an aside, I actually think that the slow manoeuvring of ships is the key tactical element of BFG. That's what makes a game between 4 models interesting, at least in my experience (modern WH40K is quite dull with just 4 units, for example!). Armada replicates that very well, and I think it captures the spirit of the different weapons systems if perhaps not the mechanics. I enjoy it because it harks back to the original—I'd be interested to hear what you think of it, @horizon, if you one day have the chance!

I wasn't sure if your skirmish bits were still around! I shall have to visit them again! Whereabouts are they again?

PS: I also like the Acheron. B)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on December 11, 2016, 02:39:48 PM
Friendly bump.  I'm happy to lend a hand now that I'm home for a while.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on December 15, 2016, 05:20:10 PM
I can't find the option to equip boarding torpedoes anywhere in the fleet lists. Am I just blind or is this an oversight? 
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on December 15, 2016, 07:05:36 PM
-->Teeny tiny status update here<--
I'm still around, and still planning to continue the project; just taking a bit of a break during the holiday season to work on some other stuff (both RL and nerd things ;D). We'll be back to regular updates in the new year. Stay warm out there! (or cool, for our fellow captains in the Southern Hemisphere)


Friendly bump.  I'm happy to lend a hand now that I'm home for a while.

Thanks!

I can't find the option to equip boarding torpedoes anywhere in the fleet lists. Am I just blind or is this an oversight? 

Which list in particular? Not all the fleets have access to boarding torpedoes, but I'm pretty sure I got all the ones that are supposed to have them. On a quick look through, there's:

Chaos (p. 37-44; in the fleet lists under "Ordnance and Upgrades")
Dark Eldar (under the "torpedo" Kabal variant for each ship)
Eldar (p. 6 & 12; Void Stalker/Wyrm Battleship "Special Torpedo" options)
Inquisition (p. 15-16; in the fleet lists under "Ordnance and Upgrades")
Orks (p. 21; in the fleet list under "Ordnance and Upgrades")
Space Marines (p. 14-15; in the fleet list under "Ordnance and Upgrades")
Tyranids (p. 4; rules for hull borers are equal to boarding torpedoes)

^^ That should be everything, unless I've missed an option from BFG:R that I forgot to transcribe. Hope that helps!  ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Blacksails on December 15, 2016, 07:55:05 PM
Cheers man, have a happy holiday!

I'm getting some more games in these days, mostly IN vs Necrons and finding them a good challenge.  I haven't beaten them yet, but out of 3 matches, 2 have been within 100pts at the end, though that's using standard VP calcs, not the old Necron rules.  Mostly the losses have been due to my stupidity or incredibly bad rolling at super important moments (like flubbing all my leadership checks/re-rolls in the crucial turn where everything needed to be locked on).

My opponent loves the rules too, seeing as the XR Necrons are much more versatile in list building than the old list and generally provides more thought in application on the tabletop.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on December 16, 2016, 02:35:03 AM

Which list in particular? Not all the fleets have access to boarding torpedoes, but I'm pretty sure I got all the ones that are supposed to have them. On a quick look through, there's:


^^ That should be everything, unless I've missed an option from BFG:R that I forgot to transcribe. Hope that helps!  ;)

Ah thanks they used to have it listed at the start of the fleet lists so that's where I looked.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: AJCHVY on January 01, 2017, 08:32:06 PM
So I have a few questions/comments about the Ork:XR rules

Regarding ork lances, I understand from a fluff point that ork lances are looted/haphazard weapons, but why make them a bad choice? Placing a blast marker behind the ship when you fire any lances is something I'd rather not do. Losing a shield just because I fired a weapon seems to me, less than balanced, and no other fleet has any weapons that are detrimental to fire.

Orks are already a fairly short ranged fleet with little access to reliable lances, and even then they are they are pricey. A kill kroozer with its front and P/S heavy gunz replaced with lances costs 190pts before any other upgrades, where the closest thing IN gets, a Lunar crsuier, is 180pts. Yes the Lunar has 2 lances on each side, and none to the front, but Lunars also have 1 more shield, better rear armor, and more reliable turrets and Ld.

And before you say anything, I know orks can get double or even more lance shots if you roll well, but on average you will get 3 shots per arc, and until my other question about fire arcs is resolved (in the main BFG page), I'd rather not take ork lances as losing my 1 shield is not worth it.

Another question about one of the Warboss upgrades-
The Ork Soopa Tellyporta (the ship may conduct its teleport hit and run at 30cm). This upgrade too me seems a little overpriced. It is currently 30 points for an upgrade that has a very specific purpose, and may only be used as long as the enemy ship has no shields, and the ork ship is not crippled. I would suggest reducing it down to 15 or so, as it costs 10 points for space marines to get a second teleport attack in addition to their normal one which also gets to roll 2 dice and pick the result, and all are at their +1 to H&R attacks.

I know space marines may also buy Terminators, which at 50pts seems like too much.

TL;DR Ork lances are bad and the soopa tellyporta is overcosted
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Cybersmith on January 13, 2017, 01:28:30 PM
Are the following a typo/copy-paste mistakes or intentional?

Chaos Grand Cruiser Retaliator buys torpedo bombers at 40 pts for str 6 launch bays.

Chaos Styx class Heavy Cruiser buys torpedo bombers at 80 pts for str 6 launch bays.

Chaos Hecate class Heavy Cruiser buys torpedo bombers at 80 pts for str 4 launch bays.


P.S. any news of the Rogue Trader list?  ;D
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Tves on January 13, 2017, 02:10:04 PM
I have a question, is there any particular reason for the turret value changes in the Bakkafleet.

In revised there were 2 variants of the bakkafleet.
#1 in the seperate Bakkafleet document you have the ships with the extra turret value already included in the stats.
#2 in the Imperial Navy Bakkafleet list you had the option of purchasing +1 turret value at 5 points.

In the BFG XR You have in the bakkafleet list all the cruiser types with +1 turret value already included and payed for (via footnote) and all of a sudden the option of purchasing addititional turret values. Ending up with a 180 point Lunar with a Turret value of 4.

Also on a side note, is there any reason the Dominator class cruiser dropped from the bakkafleet between editions?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 07/31/2016 - Tau Empire)
Post by: Xca|iber on January 13, 2017, 06:24:45 PM
So I have a few questions/comments about the Ork:XR rules

Regarding ork lances, I understand from a fluff point that ork lances are looted/haphazard weapons, but why make them a bad choice? Placing a blast marker behind the ship when you fire any lances is something I'd rather not do. Losing a shield just because I fired a weapon seems to me, less than balanced, and no other fleet has any weapons that are detrimental to fire.

Orks are already a fairly short ranged fleet with little access to reliable lances, and even then they are they are pricey. A kill kroozer with its front and P/S heavy gunz replaced with lances costs 190pts before any other upgrades, where the closest thing IN gets, a Lunar crsuier, is 180pts. Yes the Lunar has 2 lances on each side, and none to the front, but Lunars also have 1 more shield, better rear armor, and more reliable turrets and Ld.

And before you say anything, I know orks can get double or even more lance shots if you roll well, but on average you will get 3 shots per arc, and until my other question about fire arcs is resolved (in the main BFG page), I'd rather not take ork lances as losing my 1 shield is not worth it.

Another question about one of the Warboss upgrades-
The Ork Soopa Tellyporta (the ship may conduct its teleport hit and run at 30cm). This upgrade too me seems a little overpriced. It is currently 30 points for an upgrade that has a very specific purpose, and may only be used as long as the enemy ship has no shields, and the ork ship is not crippled. I would suggest reducing it down to 15 or so, as it costs 10 points for space marines to get a second teleport attack in addition to their normal one which also gets to roll 2 dice and pick the result, and all are at their +1 to H&R attacks.

I know space marines may also buy Terminators, which at 50pts seems like too much.

TL;DR Ork lances are bad and the soopa tellyporta is overcosted

I'm in the process of considering these changes. The BFG:R Orks list was never truly finished (the last version was voted on but never actually published - there's a link to it in this thread I think) so I'm willing to give it another pass once I'm back on schedule with the project. (The same holds true for the AdMech stuff discussed on previous pages... I haven't forgotten about it  ;) )

Are the following a typo/copy-paste mistakes or intentional?

Chaos Grand Cruiser Retaliator buys torpedo bombers at 40 pts for str 6 launch bays.

Chaos Styx class Heavy Cruiser buys torpedo bombers at 80 pts for str 6 launch bays.

Chaos Hecate class Heavy Cruiser buys torpedo bombers at 80 pts for str 4 launch bays.


P.S. any news of the Rogue Trader list?  ;D

Those are typos, yes. They have been fixed. Thanks for pointing them out.

Regarding Rogue Traders... the document is in progress, but I've been taking some time off to work on other things. Rest assured it will get done at some point.

I have a question, is there any particular reason for the turret value changes in the Bakkafleet.

In revised there were 2 variants of the bakkafleet.
#1 in the seperate Bakkafleet document you have the ships with the extra turret value already included in the stats.
#2 in the Imperial Navy Bakkafleet list you had the option of purchasing +1 turret value at 5 points.

In the BFG XR You have in the bakkafleet list all the cruiser types with +1 turret value already included and payed for (via footnote) and all of a sudden the option of purchasing addititional turret values. Ending up with a 180 point Lunar with a Turret value of 4.

Also on a side note, is there any reason the Dominator class cruiser dropped from the bakkafleet between editions?


Both Revised versions of the Bakka list (IN and separate) allow for the +1 turret for +5 point option. (For the IN list, it is under "THE SHIPS OF BATTLEFLEET BAKKA" and for the separate Bakka list, it is under "RESERVES"). So I simply kept this option around, as it was consistent throughout both lists.

For the "built-in" extra turret on the Cruisers/CLs, you will notice that in the Bakka listing in BFG:XR, the cost of these vessels is increased by +5 points already. (This was the only way to do this without having separate ship entries for each class). So in your example, a Lunar with 4 turrets (+1 naturally and +1 for +5 points) would cost 190 points. This is consistent with the setup for the BFG:R Bakka list. (Since the IN and Bakka lists in BFG:R conflict on this point).

The Dominator was dropped for similar reasons, as it does not appear in the separate BFG:R Bakka fleet list.

Hope that clears things up!

++++++++++++++++++++++++

EDIT: A change to the Rulebook has been made based on the question in this thread: http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=8629.0

On page 16, under FIRE ARCS, the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph has been changed to the following:
"If the line of fire is between two arcs, the attacking player gets to choose which arc to use for that phase. This applies to both shooting and target orientation."

This is done to clarify that the shooting player still only chooses one of the two arcs (now described in the singular) to count for shooting. It also clarifies that this decision lasts for the entire phase.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on January 27, 2017, 08:10:17 AM
Hey everybody, update time!

Based on community feedback, I am releasing an update for the Ork and Adeptus Mechanicus fleets. While making broad balance passes on the rules is perhaps a little bit outside the original scope of the project, I've already made more than a few changes and additions to some of the other fleets during the transcription process. So, it seems only fair that I listen to feedback from the community that made this project possible in the first place!

Here's a rundown on what's been updated:


Quote
Orks (credit goes to AJCHVY and Green_Squad_Leader for their takes on the rules):
  • Zzapp Gunz are now lances that hit on a 5+, and only generate a blast marker on the firing ship if it rolls a 1 on a D6 after firing (rolling once per ship, not once per zzapp).
  • Soopa Tellyporta is now +10 points. (I am not sure what I was thinking when I made it 30 points...)

Adeptus Mechanicus (credit goes to Yodhrin, Blacksails, horizon, and Thinking Stone for their input):
  • EER is stronger and now useful even to non-crippled ships
  • FDT no longer grants +2 Turrets
  • GSTM has been replaced by Efficient Launch Bays, which doubles the ship's contribution to AC capacity and gives +10cm max speed to the ship's attack craft on the turn they launch
  • AWR only functions during Lock On special orders
  • Acquiring gifts is now done through the Knowledge Value system. When rolling Ld, the score on the D6 is your Knowledge (Kn) value. You then choose an upgrade for that ship whose Kn requirement is equal or less than the ship's Kn value. Battleships add +1 to their Kn (or that of a commander aboard).
  • The Archmagos has a fixed Kn of 5, and the new (0-3) Magos has Ld8/Kn4
  • Capital ships may take a Vault of Technology for +10 points, which increases their Kn (or that of a commander) by +1

That's it! Hope everyone enjoys the update; as always comments and constructive criticism are welcome!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whew! Was hoping to have this done earlier in the week, but got sick (worse than anything I can remember in the last decade or so) and ended up spending a day in the ER over the weekend with the stomach flu :(

Not to worry though, I'm almost fully recovered!  ;)

I'll be getting back to work on the Rogue Trader list soon!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: AJCHVY on January 27, 2017, 08:31:00 AM
Loving the ork changes. Making the blast appear only on a 1 is within my limits of fluff vs balance. And i'll feel better when I take the soopa tellyporta now.

I still feel some of the lance options for orks are a little too pricey when you account for you replacing the heavy gunz for them but we can deal with that later.

looking forward to the missions
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Tves on January 27, 2017, 11:11:36 AM
On the subject of Orks.

On Page 10, the Hammer Class there is the following in the gray text box "Equip Deff Kannon with looted torpedoes"  But in the profile and text box the weapon is refered to as Kustom Kannon.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on January 27, 2017, 06:28:15 PM
On the subject of Orks.

On Page 10, the Hammer Class there is the following in the gray text box "Equip Deff Kannon with looted torpedoes"  But in the profile and text box the weapon is refered to as Kustom Kannon.

Fixed! Thanks!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on February 19, 2017, 01:11:43 PM
A few modifications I would really like, but haven't playtested.

Chaos - Desolator Battleship
Add this rule from the Imperial Victory Class
Special Refits: A Victory class battleship may reduce the range of its port and starboard lances to 45cm in order
to increase their strength to 6 (from 4), for no change in cost.
Reason: The model is equipped with 6 lance turrets, and I really like that the number of lance turrets to match the number of shots. At least for Imperial/SpaceMarines/Chaos which have a broadly similar level of technology.
And as the refit is allowed on the Victory, it would probably not be game breaking on the Desolator.


Ork Battleships Hitpoints
I am very happy with what you have done for the Orks. Removing the randomness in the Blood Axe rules makes me actually want to play them again.
My ork ships are custom build, and the battle ship is almost twice the size of the cruisers. It has at least 25% more mass than the big chaos battleships. (The models are based on Legos). I should really post pictures of them soon. Anyway.
10 Hitpoints for the cruisers seems fair and works well. But only 12 hitpoints for the battleship does simply not match it's size. I would like an optional refit that gave the ship 14 hitpoints instead.
The rule does not need to be official, as all my games are against specific friendly opponents, but I would like to pay the extra points to not get an unfair advantage. So if you could advise about the price of such a refit? Perhaps 20 pts?

The Hammer Class cruisers
Since the term Grand Cruiser is not a proper ship size, I am unclear if they are intented to be Ork Grand Cruisers (more hitpoints and shields) or upgunned cruisers (battle/heavy cruisers).
If they represent ork grand cruisers, I would like a refit that allowed me to add +2 Hits. If they represent Battlecruisers, all is fine.

Assault Karriers
And then a little possible error
In the Green Tide list, this entry is found
Quote
In addition, any Ork capital ship with launch bays may be designated as an assault karrier, increasing the strength of all its launch bays by +1 at the cost of losing the ability to launch any attack craft besides assault boats.
This is somewhat unfair for the larger ships, which have just one dorsal launchbay (D3+1), compared to the 2 launchbays of the Terrorship.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 19, 2017, 05:55:15 PM
A few modifications I would really like, but haven't playtested.

Chaos - Desolator Battleship
Add this rule from the Imperial Victory Class
Special Refits: A Victory class battleship may reduce the range of its port and starboard lances to 45cm in order
to increase their strength to 6 (from 4), for no change in cost.
Reason: The model is equipped with 6 lance turrets, and I really like that the number of lance turrets to match the number of shots. At least for Imperial/SpaceMarines/Chaos which have a broadly similar level of technology.
And as the refit is allowed on the Victory, it would probably not be game breaking on the Desolator.

So here's the thing with these kinds of changes: I can sympathize, but I want to be cautious about making such alterations arbitrarily. To be sure, this specific modeling issue was one of the driving reasons why the Victory got its lance upgrade option in the first place (and the Desolator even came up in the discussion). So a point in favor of giving this upgrade to the Desolator. On the other hand, if this change is made, I feel like I will need to adjust the Acheron (and its Bakka equivalent, the Cardinal) to match, since they suffer from the exact same problem. If this happens, it'll probably just be this once for IN and Chaos, to honor the original model/rules interactions of classic BFG, and not something I plan on enacting throughout every codex (as that could easily become a balancing nightmare).

In related news, I discovered that I made an error with this specific upgrade for the Victory class. It should cost +10 points in addition to the range reduction penalty. I've fixed this in the BFG:XR Imperial Navy codex. If this refit comes to the Desolator, Acheron, and Cardinal, it will reflect this as well.

Ork Battleships Hitpoints
I am very happy with what you have done for the Orks. Removing the randomness in the Blood Axe rules makes me actually want to play them again.
My ork ships are custom build, and the battle ship is almost twice the size of the cruisers. It has at least 25% more mass than the big chaos battleships. (The models are based on Legos). I should really post pictures of them soon. Anyway.
10 Hitpoints for the cruisers seems fair and works well. But only 12 hitpoints for the battleship does simply not match it's size. I would like an optional refit that gave the ship 14 hitpoints instead.
The rule does not need to be official, as all my games are against specific friendly opponents, but I would like to pay the extra points to not get an unfair advantage. So if you could advise about the price of such a refit? Perhaps 20 pts?

This seems like a perfectly serviceable house-rule or even campaign-rule for you to use. 20pts sounds fair to me (and might even be a little overcosted if you go by the Smotherman formula as a rough estimate). As you can understand though, I don't think this is necessarily something to add to the official rules.

The Hammer Class cruisers
Since the term Grand Cruiser is not a proper ship size, I am unclear if they are intented to be Ork Grand Cruisers (more hitpoints and shields) or upgunned cruisers (battle/heavy cruisers).
If they represent ork grand cruisers, I would like a refit that allowed me to add +2 Hits. If they represent Battlecruisers, all is fine.

They are indeed Battlecruiser equivalents, hence the title "Battlekroozer."  ;)

Assault Karriers
And then a little possible error
In the Green Tide list, this entry is found
Quote
In addition, any Ork capital ship with launch bays may be designated as an assault karrier, increasing the strength of all its launch bays by +1 at the cost of losing the ability to launch any attack craft besides assault boats.
This is somewhat unfair for the larger ships, which have just one dorsal launchbay (D3+1), compared to the 2 launchbays of the Terrorship.

Thanks for pointing this out. I had tried to re-word the rule (found originally in the 2010 Compendium Clanz list) to be simpler and easier to understand, but forgot about the Terrors technically having 2 sets of launch bays (not to mention that the wording I gave breaks some unwritten guidelines I have for how launch bays are considered in rules text). In any case, I've fixed it. The rule now states the following:

"In addition, any Ork capital ship with launch bays may be made an assault karrier for no extra cost. Such ships may place one extra marker (in total) when launching assault boats, but cannot launch any other kind of attack craft."
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Lord Borak on February 19, 2017, 06:55:46 PM
First off, this stuff is fantastic. So thank you (and the BFG:R crew) very much for doing this. We've tried these rules out and they seem to be really well balanced whilst still keeping the same feel of the original BFG.

Anyway, the point of my reply. How are the rules going for the Rogue Traders?

Also, will you be including any of the ASC ships in the BFG:XR fleet lists? With potential for new ships types/classes?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: horizon on February 19, 2017, 07:55:37 PM
Just leave the Desolator as it is. It has always been a good balanced ship. No need to change.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Lord Borak on February 20, 2017, 10:57:58 AM
One thing that's been bugging me. In the Bakka sector fleet. Bakka can take reserves on a 4:1 ratio but it then states that it is a high priority for the Admech. From what I'm reading though the Bakka fleet still follows the 4:1 ratio even when taking AdMech ships. The only bonus seems to be the fleet defence turrets.

Is this right?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 20, 2017, 06:06:44 PM
One thing that's been bugging me. In the Bakka sector fleet. Bakka can take reserves on a 4:1 ratio but it then states that it is a high priority for the Admech. From what I'm reading though the Bakka fleet still follows the 4:1 ratio even when taking AdMech ships. The only bonus seems to be the fleet defence turrets.

Is this right?

Yes, it is correct, but I can see how the wording might make that confusing. I will fix it shortly.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 20, 2017, 06:08:50 PM
I've gotten a few games in now with the most recent update of the Ork Fleet rules and here's what I've found.

Zzap Gunz change: Having them hit on a 5+ IS a great change, but it has had the unintended consequence of making the costs for fielding Zzap Gunz WAY too high for their reduced effectiveness.  My recommendation is that the number of shots be increased across the board in order to make them a viable option, as currently they REALLY aren't worth the cost.  My recommendation now is for their strengths to be:

Kill Kroozer Prow: D3+3
Kill Kroozer Sides: D3+2
Basha Prow: D3+2

With the increased number of shots that would give you still have roughly the same level of damage output potential, but its less reliable than standard Lances for sure.  This makes Zzap Gunz a decent option but shouldn't make them overpowered at all, all I've done is to increase the number of shots by 1 for each ship option.

I'd also recommend that the "Power Fluctuations" rule be rolled into the random str value for Zzap Gunz, so instead of requiring an additional roll after you determine your number of shots just have it drop your shields if you roll a 1 when determining your number of shots.  This saves time and reduces dice rolls, and it adds the fluffy aspect to the roll by linking the shield loss to the weapon malfunctioning.

As far as the Zzap Gun upgrade option for the Slaughter Class Gunship its entirely useless.  Paying 5 points to have a single shot that can drop your shields is REALLY rediculous.  My recommendation is that we drop the option and create a new escort which is armed with a Zzap Gun.  Here's my recommendation:

Berserker Class Gunship   Points 30
Escort/1 Speed 25cm Turns 45 Armor  6+/4+ Shields 1 Turret 2
Prow Zzap Gunz  Range 15cm Str D3 Front Arc
Prow Gunz Range 30cm Str 2 Front/Left/Right

Special Rules: Unshielded Reactors
To provide the massive power needs of their Zzap Gunz Berserkers have oversized and overtaxed reactors which fill space around them with massive amounts of radiation.  Aside from decreasing the lifespan of its crew this also makes them far easier to target.  Berserkers count as Cruisers when being fired at using the Gunnery Table.

This ship should be pretty balanced overall, with a potentially very potent lance type attack but at a very short range with a built in disadvantage.  Overall it encourages a hyper aggressive style of play which fits in perfectly with Orks.

Heavy Gunz change: So I love the change to make Heavy Gunz suffer the rightward shift on the gunnery table, making them an almost exclusively short ranged weapon instead of the "mid ranged" option which the previous version of the rules made.  The old rules where they didn't receive a shift for short range actually encouraged a LESS aggressive playstyle with them which wasn't really the intent.

The only issue is that this change RADICALLY reduces the effectiveness of Heavy Gunz.  Overall the best recommendation that I can make is that with this change the points cost of all ships armed with Heavy Gunz should be reduced.  I'd recommend a 10 point reduction for cruisers and a 5 point reduction for Slaughter Class Gunships.  Slaughters in particular SUCK with this change, at least at their current points cost.

Larger Points cost issues:  The current build of the Ork Fleet rules suffer from a problem of cascading costs.  Ships have access to a wide array of upgrades, all of which are very reasonably priced, but the basic ships RAPIDLY start to exceed the cost of their Imperial counterparts.  This is ESPECIALLY true if you are using the Clanz rules.  I played a 1000 point game vs a Space Marine fleet in which I was spending through the nose for the very modest benefits conferred for being Goff clan.  In that match he had a Battlebarge, 2 Strike Cruisers, and 8 escorts.  I had a Battlecruiser, 2 Cruisers, and 10 escorts one of which was free.  That was rediculous, my ships in NO WAY are on par with his yet I had nearly the same number he did AND he had a Battleship!

There are a few things which can be done to address this.  First off the "Mob Rule" needs to be changed to eliminate the free ship for low leadership squadrons.  The reason is that this rule ACTUALLY HURTS YOU.  In another match I had 3 extra escorts in a 500 point match putting my actual points cost at 600 points.  The 3 extra escorts were "free" for me but my opponent still scored VPs for killing them.  As a result I effectively couldn't win the match as he could kill more of my fleet.  I know that seems counter intuitive, but look at it this way.  The purpose of the free ship is to provide the Ork player a discount, but its effect is that it actually INCREASES the size of his escort squadrons usually by 20-25%.  Sure you don't pay for those extra points, but when calculating victory points the "discount" isn't reflected making it harder for you to win.

A much simpler approach would be to simply decrease the points cost of escorts pretty much across the board by 5 points.  This actually allows you to realistically take upgrades on your escorts without breaking the bank.  Right now if I have a a squadron of 4 Slaughter Class Cruisers and I take an engine upgrade My ships cost 40 points each.  If I receive a free ship that means that the squadron is now worth 200 points if destroyed.  So the advantage goes to my OPPONENT, not to me.

So again I'd recommend that we drop the points cost of all escorts by 5 points so that they're cost actually reflects their in game usefulness and allows for them to realistically afford to purchase upgrades.  It achieves the intention of the current "Mob Rule" but works better from a technical point of view.  The average value of a "free" escort usually is between 5-8 free points if you divide the cost of the ship by the number of ships in the squadron, so a 5 point point reduction actually means that you are receiving LESS of a "discount".

Another issue is the Clanz rules.

Clanz Upgrades cost WAY too much and are clunky as hell:  The concept is very cool, but the problem is that again the points cost RAPIDLY runs away to an absurd degree.  In the match vs the Space Marine player I was paying 120 points to have my fleet by made up of Goff Clan Orks.  That obviously is pretty rediculous as the actual benefit to me was effectively non-existent, all it did was cause me to effectively have fewer points than my opponent while providing him more VPs for killing my ships.

My proposed change for Ork Clanz is to make it something that you purchase for your Characters instead of your ships.  Here's how I would make it work.

When you purchase your Boss you pay the points cost for his clan.  This makes ALL ships of the fleet have that clan.  If you have multiple Boss's then you can have multiple clan affiliations, but specify that there MUST be more ships of the same Clan as your "Admiral" than there are of the clans of any other Bosses.

Additionally I would actually reduce the points cost of the Clan affiliations to 0 and rework each one's abilities a little bit.  Overall the upgrades REALLY aren't worth much in most cases, again the issue is that Orks are supposed to be a pretty numerous faction and right now the current rules REALLY don't reflect that if you use clan fleets.  For the clanz I'd recommend the following changes:

Goffs: Keep the +1 to ramming but change the +1 to boarding actions to "Roll 2d6 and choose the highest when boarding".  This makes it so that Mega Armored boarding parties aren't redundant/are unique and thus useful.  , Goffs are the most Ubiquitous of Orks so you really shouldn't have to pay extra for this ability, overall its unreliable but fluffy.

Evil Suns: Keep the +5 bonus to speed but add "The leadership test to use the Burn Retros special order is rolled on 3d6."  That downside helps to balance out the bonus and is fluffy.

Bad Moons: As is but make it a one time use ability for the game.  This makes it worse than the "More Dakka" upgrade and puts it in line with the other clan affiliations power level wise, allowing for the cost to be 0.

Deathskulls: This one REALLY never made any sense to me, and its VERY powerful.  I'd recommend changing it to represent the "lucky" element of using Blue paint, a way to make this work is: "When rolling on the Critical Hit or Catastrophic Damage tables Deathskull ships may add or subtract 1 from the result."  Again this is a decent "free" ability.

Blood Axes: An unintended consequence of the current version of the rules is that it means that an Blood Axe Ship with the Targeting Matrix refit gains TWO left column shifts on the gunnery table, 3 if at short range.  That is pretty rediculous, a way to rebalance it would be to make the ability give ships the OPTION to purchase the Targeting Matrix upgrade using the usual process.  That allows the actual clan affiliation to be free as the upgrade would be paid for by the individual ship/squadron.  The looted vessel ability from this clan affiliation really doesn't need to cost anything extra as you are paying for the price of the ships.

Snakebites: Rather than a leadership upgrade for going on brace for impact orders another benefit would be to allow Snakebites to reroll Brace For Impact rolls of 1.  Why does this upgrade only effect Roks and Escorts?  I'd make it a universal fleet upgrade.

The other benefit of making this sort of "Fleetwide Special Rule" idea for Clanz is that its a lot easier for players to remember while playing.

So those are my current recommendations for how to help bring the Ork fleet rules in line with the other factions power wise.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: AJCHVY on February 20, 2017, 08:57:00 PM
I like some of your ideas for changes to Orks, but hear me out with some of my thoughts.

I like the idea of paying for a clan upgrade on a Boss and giving it to the whole fleet or a selection of ships, this feels better as it does get quite expensive for each ship to pay for a clan. I would say make the clan upgrade have a cost at give it a strong ability rather than a diluted one. I'm fine with paying lets say 20 points or so to give a bunch of ships +1 to boarding and ramming for Goffs for example as long as a cost is still set. You could even set it so that only a number of ships will get a clan bonus per warlord, sorta like how you can take one per 500 points.

As for lances, I like your changes as it feels not only more fluffy, but more importantly more competitive. I would never take the lances when they cause 1 shield damage no matter what as it was not only very expensive, but you did so at a detriment to yourself. Orks are already lower on shields and losing one due to your own shots was bad.

I like the idea of the lance escort but the "unshielded reactors" in an unnecessary rule, all it will do is get them killed much more quickly than normal.

As for heavy gunz I find them to be good as is. I can't tell you how many times I've crippled or killed a ship in one salvo just with a squadron of kill kroozers using heavy gunz. We can try a point change but I don't think it is needed.Also getting within 15cm and facing sunward edge will still get you one left column shift.

And without radically overhauling the ork fleet it would be difficult to change the point costs of upgrades. I have the same issue where I end up with near 300 point kroozers as I want to take a boss and several upgrades, but it usually isnt worth it.

Mob rule does need to be re-worked as I often don't take enough escorts to even benefit from the rule. Escorts in general are not worth their points as it is easier and usually better to just take another cruiser rather than 6 or so escorts.

Also, is the Grunt supposed to have 2 hp and be on a large base as per the rules from the 2010 compendium? How do 2hp escorts work, do they get crippled like a capital ship, do they auto die to hit and runs? My group has had this discussion regarding grunts as well as the Dark Eldar 2 hp escort.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 20, 2017, 09:11:13 PM
Ships cant be crippled unless they have more than 3 hit points. I get what youre saying about Heavy Gunz, but they have been changed it work differently than how you just made it sound. They are now considerably weaker.

I'd argue that its hard to make an powerful clan upgrade which isn't unbalanced, having the upgrades effectively built into the cost of the commander for modestly powerful upgrades is better in my view. Which clan ability from the ones I listed do you have an issue with?

The Unstable reactors is a thought for a potential balance point as its an escort which can have 3 Zzap Gun shots, which is quite strong. That said the short range is enough of a downside I think, so it can be dropped.

As for the points costs I REALLY feel that the sort of change I recommended would help make Ork ships viable, especially for escorts. As is their escorts costs are equivalent-greater than those of their imperial cou terparts despite their being objectively worse. The 45 degree turn is the thing which cripples them and makes their cost too high more than anything else.

Their rules are fine, they were just overpriced. Interestingly the original rules had most of the escorts as being cheaper.  Overall we've made a number of significant changes recently to how some of their weapons work, nerfing them accross the board with the changes so a points cost adjustment is necessary.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: AJCHVY on February 20, 2017, 09:31:48 PM
The big thing with the clan upgrades is I feel the Bad Moons ability should stay as is. A once per game ability is not that great, I'd rather pay some points to be able to do it each turn. And I play mostly Goffs so I'm partial to the additional ramming bonus and boarding bonus. I do like the changes to Blood axes and Deathskulls, but I also feel they should get a looted torpedo for free. I don't think I've ever used burn retros so the Evil Suns change seems fine.

As for the escort, you could roll a 3 and get 3 lance shots that still hit on a 5+. That will average you only 1 hit "if" you roll the 3 shots and also rolling a 1 will also kill your shield. I feel it will be fine as on average you will get 2 shots per ship per squadron, which will balance the ability to get 3 or the downside of losing your shield.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 20, 2017, 10:36:57 PM
The big thing with the clan upgrades is I feel the Bad Moons ability should stay as is. A once per game ability is not that great, I'd rather pay some points to be able to do it each turn. And I play mostly Goffs so I'm partial to the additional ramming bonus and boarding bonus. I do like the changes to Blood axes and Deathskulls, but I also feel they should get a looted torpedo for free. I don't think I've ever used burn retros so the Evil Suns change seems fine.

As for the escort, you could roll a 3 and get 3 lance shots that still hit on a 5+. That will average you only 1 hit "if" you roll the 3 shots and also rolling a 1 will also kill your shield. I feel it will be fine as on average you will get 2 shots per ship per squadron, which will balance the ability to get 3 or the downside of losing your shield.

I agree that the Berserker Gunship would be fine without the Unstable Reactor rule.  An idea for the Bad Moons would be to make it so that they roll 2D6 when determining how many shots they fire and choose the highest.  Another, and probably the best overall idea, would be to make it work similarly to the Blood Axes change. 

How does this sound:

The Bad Moons are the wealthiest of all the Ork Clanz, for their ‘teef’ (Ork kulture’s chief currency) grow faster
than those of any other Orks. They often flaunt their vast riches by buying up all the best Ork weapons and armor
for their ships and soldiers. Any Bad Moons ship may purchase the More Dakka! Kustom Upgrade for +5 points per ship, so long as it has at least one random firepower/str weapon.


So this change makes it literally cost less for you to have the same sort of boosted firepower (ie: snazzier gunz) than it does for the other Clanz, but that is the extent of the benefit.

Overall this would help make the points cost WAY more reasonable for Bad Moons, as you'd save 10 points for cruisers and at least break even/save points for escort squadrons of 6 or less.

As for limiting the number of ships which can be clan affiliated based on how many commanders you have is hard to do practically, I considered it but tossed out the idea.  The only simple way I could come up with was:

You must nominate one Fleet Commander as the overall Warlord of your fleet.  The majority of each class of ship in your fleet must be affiliated with the same Clan as your Warlord. (IE: If you had 1 Battleship, 3 Cruisers, and 12 escorts then 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers, and 7 escorts must share the same clan affiliation.)

That's the idea I came up with at least.  Trying to make it work based off of % of your total fleet points gets REALLY complicated.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 20, 2017, 10:52:54 PM
I found that apparently there was a series of Ork (and Eldar) specific Refit and Crew Skill tables back in BFG Annual 2002, so I dusted the originals off and modernized them.  The majority of the changes I made were just to prevent having refits with the same effect as Kustom Upgrades/Ship Upgrades available in the fleet list.  Here's what it looks like.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 20, 2017, 10:53:39 PM
Here's the Crew Skill Table.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 21, 2017, 03:50:13 AM
Wow! A lot of stuff to process here. I'll do my best to reply to everything as much as possible.

Zzapp Gunz
I really like the idea of baking the power fluctuations into the random strength roll. Firstly, because it eliminates extra rolling, but also because it solves the problem of the Savage without needing to bring in a whole new escort class. To be specific, we can say:

If a score of '1' is rolled (on the actual D6, not the D3 result) when determining the strength of a ship's zzapp gunz, place a blast marker in contact with that ship's rear arc. This may only occur once per turn, and does not apply to zzapp gunz with fixed strength values.

Then, providing a small boost to zzapp strengths from D3+1 to D3+2 across the board (I'm not yet comfortable with D3+3 zzapps on kill kroozers), and eliminating the exchange cost for the Savage should mostly fix the issues with the new zzapps. Combined with other changes (below), I think this is a good starting point to look at zzapps again, before any more drastic changes are considered.

Escorts
So before we go re-designing the entire Mob Rule, I think it would be prudent to simply consider fixing this by making the bonus escorts not count for victory points at all. Note that you would not need to keep track of which individual ships were 'free', since escort squadrons give up victory points based on overall squadron cost.

With a 5pt reduction in escort cost across the board, it will also be easier to fill out squadrons to utilize the Mob Rule or give escorts upgrades, as desired by the player. Additionally, I am amenable to nudging down the threshold for the Ld bonus by 1, so you'd gain the Ld for having at least five ships remaining rather than the current six. That way, a "half-size" squadron will still benefit until it loses its first casualty.

Clanz
I agree that these seem to get ludicrously expensive on top of any other upgrades. Here's the way I can see this changing:

Any Ork commander may purchase support from an Ork Clan at the cost shown in the fleet list. A commander's clan affiliation (or lack thereof) applies to every ship under his authority, determined as follows:
A ship can only ever have one clan affiliation, and a squadron may never have multiple commanders with different clan affiliations. Note that a ship's clan does not change during the course of a game, regardless of any commander's status. Finally, a commander's re-rolls may not be used for ships or squadrons with a different clan affiliation (commanders and vessels without a clan are exempt from this restriction).

I expect that the cost of purchasing clan support would also go down, although potentially with a small "tax" on the first Clan affiliation purchased (since a single one would apply to everything - a tremendous cost reduction). On the whole then, you'd still be paying much less for 1 or 2 Clan bonuses, but if you want to mix more Clanz together, you'll start having to pay for Nobz, which will jack the price up.

For the specifics of each clan:

For the Space Hulk, it would also get a change to "An Ork space hulk never benefits from clan bonuses, but for the purposes of other rules and abilities, it is considered to have a clan affiliation (or none) as determined by your fleet's commanders."

That's about it for now on the points already brought up. Let me know what you think!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In other news  ;) thank you Green_Squad_Leader for posting those Refits/Crew Skills tables. I'll probably end up using some or all of them in the Campaign Rules.

Also, regarding Lord_Borak's question on the previous page:

Anyway, the point of my reply. How are the rules going for the Rogue Traders?

Also, will you be including any of the ASC ships in the BFG:XR fleet lists? With potential for new ships types/classes?

Rules are... coming along. It's slow going and the end of this long marathon is starting to wear on me. It'll get done though.

The ASC is a separate active project with a different kind of scope compared to BFG:XR, so there are currently no plans on bringing ASC content directly into BFG:XR. They are mostly compatible AFAIK, however, and I am happy to endorse it  ;)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As always, thanks to everyone for their interest and contributions!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 21, 2017, 04:58:56 AM
Xcaliber thanks for the feedback, I really like your wording for how clan affiliations could work across a fleet. Overall that method is great as it makes it so that additional clan ships are effectively mercenaries for hire for your larger list.  Very simple and very fluffy.

As for the Zzap gun strengths I REALLY suggest that Savages with the "Berserker" variant weapons have at least str 2 zzap guns. As it is a savage with a zzap gun is worth maybe 15 points but we are paying 40!  Firepower 2 Zzap Guns are pretty mich equivalent with firepower 1 lances, so that puts them in line power wise with nova class escorts and the like. Lacking the fluctuations rule for Savages is easier to keep track of, less rolling and in squadrons it doesn't work as well to figure out which ship individually needs to have a a blast marker if you rolled a one.

The only downside there is that every other lance escort also has a low firepower gun, which the Berserker Savage wouldn't have unless we gave it a firepower 1/2 Gunz battery.

For the Mob Rule specifying that they arent worth victory points would help, it just starts getting really wordy. The 5 point reduction accross the board is the most important thing for escorts really, it solves a lot. Using both the reduction and the Mob Rule would be great.

As for Clanz I strongly disagree with keeping the current clan rules as is for a few reasons. First off the rules are REALLY wordy for some of the rules. Also the benefit for some clanz is extremely inconsistent depending on what ships you want to take.  We also have redundancy between a bunch of upgrades/refits/skills with the current version of goffs, evil sunz, bad moons, and blood axes.

These things have been rewritten a TON since the original concept, so we habe a fair bit of freedom with them. As is we are looking to add a big paragraph explaining how they are purchased and apply to the fleet, so revising the rules in ways that cut down on word count would be wise.

Another thought for Goffs would be for the target of their boarding action to not add its turret value while defending. That helps more than the +1 currently (being anything from a +2 to a +4 on average) and rewards agression (no defensive bonus at all).  In essence this would amount to a "charge bonus" for Goffs, which is pretty fluffy.

The Blood Axes ability as is is insane.  The entire fleet gets free left collumn shifts!?!  Even the Imperial Navy doesnt get that, so I'm confused as to why we have it.  I think that we can come up with something a bit more balanced. Blood Axes are supposed to be Sneaky Gits after all and use stealth and ambush tactics. Perhaps a good alternative would be to make it so that enemies firing at Blood Axe ships that aren't on special orders (ie: silent running) suffer a rightward shift on the gunnery table.

I get the arguement on the snakebite ability, but its essentially worthless as is and probably will never be taken by anyone.

As for Evil Suns if you're only paying once and its cheap then this ability is pretty broken. If ALL your ships are 5cm faster for a 20 odd point upgrade on your commander with no downside that seems rather rediculous.  Potential ways to make it slighly less awesome would be to make it so that ships no in contact with blast markers go 5cm faster or the burn retros penalty idea. It just seems like that wpuld be tought to balance without any restrictions/downsides.

Lastly what are ASC, AFIAK, and MANZ?

Also Here's the art I made for a Zzap Gun Escort if we did add one.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 21, 2017, 05:35:04 AM
Xcaliber thanks for the feedback, I really like your wording for how clan affiliations could work across a fleet. Overall that method is great as it makes it so that additional clan ships are effectively mercenaries for hire for your larger list.  Very simple and very fluffy.

As for the Zzap gun strengths I REALLY suggest that Savages with the "Berserker" variant weapons have at least str 2 zzap guns. As it is a savage with a zzap gun is worth maybe 15 points but we are paying 40!  Firepower 2 Zzap Guns are pretty mich equivalent with firepower 1 lances, so that puts them in line power wise with nova class escorts and the like. Lacking the fluctuations rule for Savages is easier to keep track of, less rolling and in squadrons it doesn't work as well to figure out which ship individually needs to have a a blast marker if you rolled a one.

The only downside there is that every other lance escort also has a low firepower gun, which the Berserker Savage wouldn't have unless we gave it a firepower 1/2 Gunz battery.

I suppose it's workable to give Savages the +1 zzapp strength that's being applied to everything else. In that case it's at least consistent across all the ships in the book. With the boosted zzapp power, I think it's okay for them to not have a Gunz battery; not every faction has to have carbon copies of the IN/Chaos escorts in any case.

Also, that bolded part above is something I hadn't even thought of when I first changed the zzapps from when they auto-placed blasts on every shot. Definitely better this way.

For the Mob Rule specifying that they arent worth victory points would help, it just starts getting really wordy. The 5 point reduction accross the board is the most important thing for escorts really, it solves a lot. Using both the reduction and the Mob Rule would be great.

I can make the wording work - it shouldn't be too much trouble. I think these two changes together should solve a lot of problems.

As for Clanz I strongly disagree with keeping the current clan rules as is for a few reasons. First off the rules are REALLY wordy for some of the rules. Also the benefit for some clanz is extremely inconsistent depending on what ships you want to take.  We also have redundancy between a bunch of upgrades/refits/skills with the current version of goffs, evil sunz, bad moons, and blood axes.

These things have been rewritten a TON since the original concept, so we habe a fair bit of freedom with them. As is we are looking to add a big paragraph explaining how they are purchased and apply to the fleet, so revising the rules in ways that cut down on word count would be wise.

Another thought for Goffs would be for the target of their boarding action to not add its turret value while defending. That helps more than the +1 currently (being anything from a +2 to a +4 on average) and rewards agression (no defensive bonus at all).  In essence this would amount to a "charge bonus" for Goffs, which is pretty fluffy.

The Blood Axes ability as is is insane.  The entire fleet gets free left collumn shifts!?!  Even the Imperial Navy doesnt get that, so I'm confused as to why we have it.  I think that we can come up with something a bit more balanced. Blood Axes are supposed to be Sneaky Gits after all and use stealth and ambush tactics. Perhaps a good alternative would be to make it so that enemies firing at Blood Axe ships that aren't on special orders (ie: silent running) suffer a rightward shift on the gunnery table.

I get the arguement on the snakebite ability, but its essentially worthless as is and probably will never be taken by anyone.

As for Evil Suns if you're only paying once and its cheap then this ability is pretty broken. If ALL your ships are 5cm faster for a 20 odd point upgrade on your commander with no downside that seems rather rediculous.  Potential ways to make it slighly less awesome would be to make it so that ships no in contact with blast markers go 5cm faster or the burn retros penalty idea. It just seems like that wpuld be tought to balance without any restrictions/downsides.

Yeah, you're right about the balance being a bit off for "entire fleet bonus" even when you're paying for it. One thing to fix this is the "tax" like I mentioned before, in addition to rebalancing the bonuses. So we'd have something like:

Your fleet may draw support from the Ork Clanz for +XX points, enabling your commanders to purchase a clan affiliation at the cost shown...

Thus, your first clan upgrade would have a bigger price tag, to reflect its effects on your whole fleet. As for the individual bonuses:

Goffs: I like this version better than the last suggestion. Unique, interesting, and fluffy.

Blood Axes: You're right about this one - dunno what I was thinking. "Orkdar" (Orks with Eldar abilities) is not what we want here. That said, giving enemies right-shifts is also very... Orkdar. I'll give this one more thought and report back.

Evil Suns: One possibility is the following: "...add +5cm to their speed and minimum turn distance when not in contact with any blast markers." Combined with a "first-clan" tax (as above), this seems like it might be a bit more balanced.

Snakebites: To be honest, I almost removed them the first time I transcribed Orks from BFG:R. Maybe to reflect their ability as mostly ground fighters, change the bonus to "Snakebite vessels score +1 Assault points when scoring during Planetary Assault scenarios," and give the ability to just put it on any ships/squadrons (except transports) for free regardless of commanders/clans/clan-tax?

Lastly what are ASC, AFIAK, and MANZ?

Also Here's the art I made for a Zzap Gun Escort if we did add one.

ASC is the Additional Ships Compendium, made by Gothmog here on the forums. It's a compilation of alternative and fan-made ships from throughout the BFG setting.

AFAIK means "As Far As I Know"

MANZ is the abbreviation for Mega-Armoured NobZ.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 21, 2017, 05:56:19 AM
Gotcha, thanks for the definitions. Two more ideas I had:

1. Make the Mob Rule a check that you take when you want to go on special orders. When you declare that you are going to use a special order roll 2D3, if you roll equal to or under the number of ships you have add 1 to yoir leadership.  Just a thought, not very practicle.

2. Another idea for Blood Axes which would be extremely fluffy.

Renowned for their sneaky and underhanded (some might say un-Orky)tactics the Blood Axes clan are well versed in.the use of stealth and ambush tactics.  During Deployment instead of deploying your vessels you may deploy a number of contact markers equal to the number of ships/squadrons in your fleet.  These markers may not use special orders or attack/be attacked, but otherwise move exactly as the ships they represent would. Markers are revealed when an enemy ship/attack craft squadron comes within 30cm or at the start of one of the Ork Player's turns if he chooses. Replace revealed contact markets eith the appropriate ships facing the same heading the marker was.

This gives Blood Axes a rather unique ability to stage ambushes and get innyour opponent's head. A bit Wordy but we csn bring that down
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: AJCHVY on February 21, 2017, 07:05:46 AM
Liking all the discussion on orks so far.

I think we are in a good spot with Zzap Gunz.

I had an idea for Blood Axes if we don't go with the "invisible" ships rule. We could give them the ability to roll on the normal Ld chart when rolling instead of lowering by 1 as well as getting a +1 ld bonus for orders. This could represent their having better commanders and "Taktiks"

The change to Goffs will really only make a difference when boarding ships with more than 2 turrets as ork ships tend to have 2 or more hp than their imperial/chaos counterpart. Also the +1 ld bonus to ramming is nice.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 21, 2017, 08:39:10 AM
Gotcha, thanks for the definitions. Two more ideas I had:

1. Make the Mob Rule a check that you take when you want to go on special orders. When you declare that you are going to use a special order roll 2D3, if you roll equal to or under the number of ships you have add 1 to yoir leadership.  Just a thought, not very practicle.

2. Another idea for Blood Axes which would be extremely fluffy.

Renowned for their sneaky and underhanded (some might say un-Orky)tactics the Blood Axes clan are well versed in.the use of stealth and ambush tactics.  During Deployment instead of deploying your vessels you may deploy a number of contact markers equal to the number of ships/squadrons in your fleet.  These markers may not use special orders or attack/be attacked, but otherwise move exactly as the ships they represent would. Markers are revealed when an enemy ship/attack craft squadron comes within 30cm or at the start of one of the Ork Player's turns if he chooses. Replace revealed contact markets eith the appropriate ships facing the same heading the marker was.

This gives Blood Axes a rather unique ability to stage ambushes and get innyour opponent's head. A bit Wordy but we csn bring that down

These might be a bit too complex for what we're trying to do. This gave me an idea I had about the Mob Rule, however. Instead of a +1 Ld bonus, how about:

While an Ork escort squadron has at least five remaining vessels, it may attempt a command check even if one has already been failed this turn.

This would represent the improved coordination and fearlessness of Orks in large numbers, by allowing them to continue functioning even in chaos.

Liking all the discussion on orks so far.

I think we are in a good spot with Zzap Gunz.

I had an idea for Blood Axes if we don't go with the "invisible" ships rule. We could give them the ability to roll on the normal Ld chart when rolling instead of lowering by 1 as well as getting a +1 ld bonus for orders. This could represent their having better commanders and "Taktiks"

The change to Goffs will really only make a difference when boarding ships with more than 2 turrets as ork ships tend to have 2 or more hp than their imperial/chaos counterpart. Also the +1 ld bonus to ramming is nice.

Ah, you're right about Goffs. I was confused earlier. Since the turrets only affect the boarding value of the ships involved, and not the action result, it's most likely only to provide a +1 or maybe +2 bonus at the most. Perhaps an interesting option would be this (in addition to the +1Ld for ram attempts):

When a Goff vessel wins a boarding action, treat the difference in scores as one higher for the purpose of determining critical hits.

This still promotes aggressive play, but doesn't break the bank (of balance) when applied to an entire fleet.


...


Now, as for Blood Axes... Stealth ships seems a bit too convoluted and more Ld bonuses seems like overkill in the Ld department (already have Da Boss' Orderz and Mob Rule). That said, I like the concept of focusing more on the Blood Axes "un-Orky tactiks" rather than just giving them Navy upgrades. I'll need to sleep on it though - nothing else is coming to me at the moment.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 21, 2017, 11:54:05 AM
Ork escorts are at a disadvantage boarding imperial ones. I just played a comvoy mission and I was losing boardimg actions to freighters....

You're right on it, but its STILL a betyer bonus vs 90% of the ships in the game that habe 2 or more turrets.

And I think you have the best Blood Axe ability sir.  I think making it a +1 for orders is the simplest mechanic.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 21, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
I like that idea Xcaliber for the mob rule, honestly I'd say that we cpuld go as low as 4 escorts with that rule.  Very fluffy, and it also helps make ravagers a lot less useless.

As for the turrets not effecting the outcome, boarding value DOES effect the outcome. Right now if I had a slaughter board a sword class frigate the slaughter has a boarding value of 2 and the Sword has a boarding value of 3 (2 turrets) base. Same for Ork cruisers boarding Imperial cruisers (11 vs 10).  That means that the Sword class frigate has a +1 bonus over the slaughter. If Goff clan affiliation just gives another +1 that means that the slaughter and sword will both have a boarding value of 3, so it really just levels the playing field.

If the goff clan affiliation removes the turret defense bonus then the numbers are 2 vs 1 for the escorts and 11 vs 8 for the cruisers.  These already are the numbers if the fight lasts more than one turn.  So instead of giving a persistent bonus all we are doing is making all boarding actions work the same for Goffs. Honestly I was really surprised to learn just how much boarding actions advantage the defender.

Oh and for campaign use I've also got the Eldar Refits and Skills tables from BFG Annual 2002, I'll retype those as well for you.

One more thing which I've done some thinking on is the Traktor Cannon and Shokk Attack Mega-Gun ideas.  My current version is for both to be a Kapital ship only Kustom Upgrade.  The Traktor Kannon is a prow weapon with a 45cm range that hits exactly the same way as a ramming attack would. If it hits the target is moved 2D6cm towards the firing ship, if the target has fewer starting hit points then it is dragged 3D6 instead.

The Shokk Attack Mega-Gun is a prow weapon with a minimum range of 30cm and a max of 90. It is a hit and run attack which has no bonuses (No mega armor for snotlings) and which can penetrate shields. The attack suffers a -1 penalty for every shield the defender has active. If it fails place a blast marker on the enemy ship to represent the cloud of frozen snotlings.

The original concept for the Shokk Attack Gun ing BFG was that it would primarily cause a leadership pemalty on a target ship. The blast marker does that, and vs most ships in the game the hit and run attack only hits on a 4+.  Essentially both of these upgrades provide Orks some long range "herding" tools to discourage enemies from staying very far away.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 21, 2017, 06:24:32 PM
I like that idea Xcaliber for the mob rule, honestly I'd say that we cpuld go as low as 4 escorts with that rule.  Very fluffy, and it also helps make ravagers a lot less useless.

For the moment let's start with 5, since it's already an upgrade. The numbers can be fiddled with later if it's still a big enough problem.

As for the turrets not effecting the outcome, boarding value DOES effect the outcome. Right now if I had a slaughter board a sword class frigate the slaughter has a boarding value of 2 and the Sword has a boarding value of 3 (2 turrets) base. Same for Ork cruisers boarding Imperial cruisers (11 vs 10).  That means that the Sword class frigate has a +1 bonus over the slaughter. If Goff clan affiliation just gives another +1 that means that the slaughter and sword will both have a boarding value of 3, so it really just levels the playing field.

If the goff clan affiliation removes the turret defense bonus then the numbers are 2 vs 1 for the escorts and 11 vs 8 for the cruisers.  These already are the numbers if the fight lasts more than one turn.  So instead of giving a persistent bonus all we are doing is making all boarding actions work the same for Goffs. Honestly I was really surprised to learn just how much boarding actions advantage the defender.

So I've gone back and looked at the numbers and the ignoring turrets is superior, but only for Escorts (it's the same for cruisers). However, there seems to be a small misunderstanding on your end. The Ork race bonus and Goff bonuses are "result" bonuses (on the D6 itself), not boosts to boarding value. So in your example we'd have:

Goff Escort (BV1) vs Sword (BV1+2 Turrets = BV3). Assuming no other bonuses, the Goff would roll D6 + 1 (Orks) + 1 (Goffs) for a total of D6+2. The sword would roll D6 + 3 (BV Advantage). In this case, ignoring turrets would be superior, as you'd instead have the Goff Escort rolling D6+1 vs the Sword's D6 alone.

For cruisers though, you'd have: Goff Cruiser (BV10) vs IN Cruiser (BV8+2 Turrets = BV10). So with the old bonuses, the Goff Cruiser would roll D6+2 against the IN Cruiser's D6. Under the new bonuses, it's actually the same, since you'd have: Goff Cruiser (BV10) vs IN Cruiser (BV8), so the Goffs are still rolling D6+2 (1 for Orks, 1 for BV Advantage), and the IN is still rolling D6.

Oh and for campaign use I've also got the Eldar Refits and Skills tables from BFG Annual 2002, I'll retype those as well for you.

One more thing which I've done some thinking on is the Traktor Cannon and Shokk Attack Mega-Gun ideas.  My current version is for both to be a Kapital ship only Kustom Upgrade.  The Traktor Kannon is a prow weapon with a 45cm range that hits exactly the same way as a ramming attack would. If it hits the target is moved 2D6cm towards the firing ship, if the target has fewer starting hit points then it is dragged 3D6 instead.

The Shokk Attack Mega-Gun is a prow weapon with a minimum range of 30cm and a max of 90. It is a hit and run attack which has no bonuses (No mega armor for snotlings) and which can penetrate shields. The attack suffers a -1 penalty for every shield the defender has active. If it fails place a blast marker on the enemy ship to represent the cloud of frozen snotlings.

The original concept for the Shokk Attack Gun ing BFG was that it would primarily cause a leadership pemalty on a target ship. The blast marker does that, and vs most ships in the game the hit and run attack only hits on a 4+.  Essentially both of these upgrades provide Orks some long range "herding" tools to discourage enemies from staying very far away.

Thanks for the Refits tables. Saves me the trouble of tracking them down  ;)

I'd hold off on the new guns for now. The Traktor Kannon is already a little redundant with Klaws (in terms of function) and proved very difficult to balance in BFG:A (which is where it originated, I think). I do like the simplified Shokk-Attack Gun, but I'd like to minimize the number of "multi-paragraph" weapons in the book. (This is part of why only the Klaws made it over from the 2010 to BFG:R editions). So if these end up getting moved in, it'll probably come at the cost of losing the Klaws.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: horizon on February 21, 2017, 08:33:05 PM
Agreed on that one bit: keep it clean. Don't make variants because you can. :)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: AJCHVY on February 21, 2017, 08:38:12 PM
I like that idea Xcaliber for the mob rule, honestly I'd say that we cpuld go as low as 4 escorts with that rule.  Very fluffy, and it also helps make ravagers a lot less useless.

For the moment let's start with 5, since it's already an upgrade. The numbers can be fiddled with later if it's still a big enough problem.

As for the turrets not effecting the outcome, boarding value DOES effect the outcome. Right now if I had a slaughter board a sword class frigate the slaughter has a boarding value of 2 and the Sword has a boarding value of 3 (2 turrets) base. Same for Ork cruisers boarding Imperial cruisers (11 vs 10).  That means that the Sword class frigate has a +1 bonus over the slaughter. If Goff clan affiliation just gives another +1 that means that the slaughter and sword will both have a boarding value of 3, so it really just levels the playing field.

If the goff clan affiliation removes the turret defense bonus then the numbers are 2 vs 1 for the escorts and 11 vs 8 for the cruisers.  These already are the numbers if the fight lasts more than one turn.  So instead of giving a persistent bonus all we are doing is making all boarding actions work the same for Goffs. Honestly I was really surprised to learn just how much boarding actions advantage the defender.

So I've gone back and looked at the numbers and the ignoring turrets is superior, but only for Escorts (it's the same for cruisers). However, there seems to be a small misunderstanding on your end. The Ork race bonus and Goff bonuses are "result" bonuses (on the D6 itself), not boosts to boarding value. So in your example we'd have:

Goff Escort (BV1) vs Sword (BV1+2 Turrets = BV3). Assuming no other bonuses, the Goff would roll D6 + 1 (Orks) + 1 (Goffs) for a total of D6+2. The sword would roll D6 + 3 (BV Advantage). In this case, ignoring turrets would be superior, as you'd instead have the Goff Escort rolling D6+1 vs the Sword's D6 alone.

For cruisers though, you'd have: Goff Cruiser (BV10) vs IN Cruiser (BV8+2 Turrets = BV10). So with the old bonuses, the Goff Cruiser would roll D6+2 against the IN Cruiser's D6. Under the new bonuses, it's actually the same, since you'd have: Goff Cruiser (BV10) vs IN Cruiser (BV8), so the Goffs are still rolling D6+2 (1 for Orks, 1 for BV Advantage), and the IN is still rolling D6.

I understand what you are trying to say and basically getting a +1 vs ignoring turrets will only matter for escorts boarding other escorts that also have more turrets. Even before this proposed change I would never have boarded a ship with a non Grunt escort, its just not cost effective. I would rather lock on and shoot or even ram.

I think we are arguing the same thing here, I just don't want it to be the 2d6 pick highest.

Also I want to use the Shokk Attack Gun but if I remember correctly is was 30 points or so which is waaay to much for a thing that doesn't really ever do any damage and is not accurate or reliable.

I like the idea of the traktor cannon to act as a long range option vs klaws but it might be too wordy.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 21, 2017, 08:55:35 PM
Id honestly vote to do away with Klaws entirely. They are an EXACT copy of a unique tyranid weapon AND they are pretty much redundant with Kustom Traktor Fields and Power Rams.  Why do we need two upgrades which stop the movement of tbe ship in order to facilitate boarding?

Let nids keep their unique option and give orks their own unique things. That said you could simplify it to be a single sideswip attack without the grappling effect. Again it just seems that we are ripping off a unique tyranid thing.

As for the shock attack gun and traktor cannon I'd cost each at 10 points as a Kustom Upgrade.  If we dropped the 1,000 word explanation for Klaws to a "Once per turn when your base moves over an enemy ship's base during the movement phase you may make a single klaw attack. On a 4+ it suffers one point of damage ignoring shields." Then its yoo easy to fit the other two options in.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Whiro on February 21, 2017, 09:27:55 PM
Noooo don´t remove Klaws for the Orks.

I love this rule and play it on Nids and Orks Four Grunts with Klaws and a Battle Ship, may make it a Little more expensive for Capitalships, but please leave the Grunt as they are. I spend too much Time last year to collect Bitz for Some lovely Grunts Modell Scratchbuilds.

And hey the Rule is soooo Orcish.

I´futhermore Love the Idea for Tractor Field far shots. I was thinking about something like the Grav rules of Planets. Like when being Around 5cm or maybe better only in Basecontact other Ships get a free Turn.

Actually I play my Grunts In Skwadrones with Brutes.

Thanks for the good Work you do!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Chios on February 21, 2017, 09:46:15 PM
AJCHVY's idea that the blood axes simply get the regular Leadership values really apeals to me. I was always fascinated that whenever a factions special rules would have taken three pages in 40k, BFG made do with a single "these guys get +1 to this" and it usually would suffice, together with the ships profiles, to make them really stand apart.

On a side note, it seems that the proposed buffs to Orks seem to stack all too well at this point. Take a Blood Axe torpedo escort and apply every bonus that is being discussed up to now: 5 Points cheaper, regular leadership table, +1 on special orders, able to do special orders even whenever another ship has already botched their attempt... I fear the Orks are losing their unreliability here.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 21, 2017, 09:54:19 PM
While I agree that Klaws may have some issues, I think that's a discussion for another time. For the moment I'd like to focus on just fixing the actual functionality issues with Ork fleets before we start debating any full replacements of existing upgrades.

+++++++++++++

So as of now I've got the following changes to Orks lined up:

Zzapps:
> Strength increased by +1 for all ships.
> Savages may replace their heavy gunz with zzapp gunz for no extra cost.
> Change power fluctuation rules to: If a score of '1' is rolled (on the actual D6, not the D3 result) when determining the strength of a ship's zzapp gunz, place a blast marker in contact with that ship's rear arc. This may only occur once per turn, and does not apply to zzapp gunz with fixed strength values.

Escorts:
> Cost of escorts reduced by 5pts.

Mob Rule:
> Free escorts do not count for victory points.
> Change squadron size bonus to: While an Ork escort squadron has at least five remaining vessels, it may attempt a command check even if one has already been failed this turn.

Clanz:
> Clan upgrades are purchased on a per-commander basis. To buy any clan affiliations for your fleet, you must first pay +30pts for clan support, which unlocks the options for individual commanders. (Thus, the first clan upgrade you buy has an additional cost, to offset its wider applicability).
> A commander's clan affiliation (or lack thereof) applies to every ship under his authority, determined as follows:
> A ship can only ever have one clan affiliation, and a squadron may never have multiple commanders with different clan affiliations. Note that a ship's clan does not change during the course of a game, regardless of any commander's status. Finally, a commander's re-rolls may not be used for ships or squadrons with a different clan affiliation (commanders and vessels without a clan are exempt from this restriction).
> The bonuses are as follows (and cost +20pts each, except Snakebites):
Goffs: +1Ld to ramming attempts. When initiating boarding, the enemy ship does not add its turret strength to its boarding value.
Evil Suns: +5cm to speed and minimum turn distance when not touching blast markers.
Bad Moons: Unchanged (May re-roll one random firepower/str weapon; combines with More Dakka).
Deathskulls: May add +1 or -1 to Critical Damage rolls received. A Deathskulls commander may buy looted torps for his ship for +10pts instead of +20pts.
Blood Axes: +1Ld (Ork vessels only, not looted ships) until it fails its first Ld test.
Snakebites: +1 Assault point when scoring during Planetary Assault. This clan affiliation may be given to any ship or squadron without a commander, for no extra cost. This overrides any other clan affiliation the ship would have.

+++++++++++++

Look good to everyone?

(As an aside, it's likely that there will be some more clarification-changes to the wording of boarding actions, as it still seems too easy to misunderstand, especially regarding bonuses and the like). But this is a separate thing that will have no mechanical changes to the rules - just how it's worded.

+++++++++++++

On a side note, it seems that the proposed buffs to Orks seem to stack all too well at this point. Take a Blood Axe torpedo escort and apply every bonus that is being discussed up to now: 5 Points cheaper, regular leadership table, +1 on special orders, able to do special orders even whenever another ship has already botched their attempt... I fear the Orks are losing their unreliability here.

Regarding this, the "forced special orders" bonus would replace the +1 Ld bonus from Mob Rule, so they wouldn't get the +1. In considering the cost of this scenario though and comparing to the Imperial Navy variant, I think it's relatively okay.

The minimum necessary to get Mob Rule'd Blood Axe Ravagers is 225pts + 175pts for each subsequent squadron under the new costing (35 x 5 to get the squadron up to size, plus 30 for the clan tax, plus 20 to give a commander the Blood Axe affiliation). A cobra squdaron gets much the same abilities for only 150pts per squadron. The difference being that the Cobras are faster and more maneuverable (and may combine salvos), while the Ravagers are tougher, better at orders, and can shoot more torpedoes.

So if you want that level of reliability, you're still paying for it. It's just less cost overall compared to trying to build a full clan fleet of a given kind.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: AJCHVY on February 21, 2017, 09:57:09 PM
As much as I enjoy the silliness and ramshackle aspect of orks, sometimes less is more. When you lose a game simply because of bad random dice rolls that has nothing to do with your tactics or strategy it gets annoying. I'm fine with keeping them random and fun but only to a limited amount.

Edit: I was in the middle of this post as the big update was put up. I like all of the changes so far.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 21, 2017, 10:07:03 PM
Yep it looks good. I just had an idea on how we could make the Blood Axes ability a bit weaker if it proves too reliable.

The idea is to add the phrase "...until it fails its first leadership test.  Once this occurs yhe ship/squadron reverts to its base leadership."

Minor tweak but it helps keep them Orky. Blood Axes may be disciplined for orks, but they're still Orks!

Otherwise all this looks good for an update. If you need help typing anything let me know.

Oh I just noticed, weren't we going to Zzap Gun upgrade for Savages free?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 21, 2017, 10:20:34 PM
Thanks for the responses. I've updated the previous post.  :D
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 22, 2017, 11:58:53 AM
Noticed an odd points cost issue when going through my fleet list for the local campaign to revamp it to work with the new changes.

Thr Brute Ram can take a Hull Krusha for 10 points, the ship costing 20 points now (25 before).  Hull Krushas add 1 to the amount of damage done by ramming. The issue is that if i took a squadron of 4 rams and thus get an extra 4 points of damage I am spening enough points to buy another 2 Brute Rams, which not only spread damage out and help me with orders, but they also can do more damage than the Hull Krusha Upgrades.

4x5 is 20 total damage output potential. 4x6 is 24 total damage output potential.

If we carry this forwards to a squadron of 8 the numbers are 8x5=40 vs 12x4=48.

I know the Hull Krusha adds a damage guarantee, but should it really cost 50% of the price of the base ship?  I'd argue it isn't wirth taking only 2/3 the number of ships.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on February 22, 2017, 06:30:06 PM
Hi

I think we are going about the orks the wrong way.

I knew the orks had some problems, but I could not put my finger on what was wrong until the Green Squat Leader showed it to me. The immense amount of upgrades means that ork ships are very expensive and not properly balanced.

So, I propose a different strategy

There should NOT just be two ork cruisers with options coming out of the kazoo. Rather, lets make as many different cruisers as we need, each with a few options

Autoinclude options are not a good design choice. They weight down the text and rules with options that are not options. Examples, to me, include
* Extra Shields om Marine Strike Cruisers (Always taken)
* Targeting upgrade on Mars Class
* Shield and range upgrade on Repulsive Class
* And, of course, Kustom Force Field on Ork Cruisers.
These should have been baked into the ship classes and not be options.

So, the real price of the kill kroozer is 180 (165+15)

So, to that end

The kill kroozer is split into these ships

Da Boarder
Kill Kroozer 165
Kustom Force Field 15
Soopa Boosta 25 (To get there)
Kustom Tractor field 10 (So we can do ram-boarding)
This one costs 200 points
Then add one or more of (Klan Goff, MANz, Warboss)

Da Shoota
Kill Kroozer 165
Kustom Force Field 15
Prow Zapp guns 5
Port/Starboard Zapp Guns 20
205 points in total

Da Rokketboat
Kill Kroozer 165
Kustom Force Field 15
Prow torpedo launcher 10
Port/Starboard Torpedo Launcher 0
Looted Torpedoes 20
210 points

Old Skool
Kill Kroozer 165
Kustom Force Field 15
180


The Terror Ship is likewise split into a few new classes

Da Rokketboat 2
Terror Ship 185
Kustom Force Field 15
Prow Torpedo Launcha 10
Torpedo Bombas 40
Looted Torpedoes 20
270 points.

Da Long Range Killa
Terror Ship 185
Prow Torpedo Launcha 10
195

Da Attack Karrier
Terror Ship 185
Kustom Force Field 15
Kustom Traktor Field 10
Assault Karrier (+1 Launch bay, only launch assault boats)
210



About the Klanz, our rules are getting wordy and cumbersome. Here are my suggestions

Goff: +1 LD when Ramming
Evil Sunz: +1D6 when AAF
Bad Moons: +1 Turret (representing more ammo to use)
Deathskulls: +1 LD to Reload Ordnance (They can build torpedoes out of anything)
Blood Axes: +1 LD to Lock On (They actually listen to orders)
Snake Bites: +1 to Boarding RESULT

I think these bonuses are about equal in value and would work well as fleet wide rules.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 22, 2017, 07:16:09 PM
I actually like the kustomizability of Ork ships, I feel that its a strength of the faction and one of its cooler unique characteristics.  I do think that we could do with more options for Battlecruisers and A Kustomizable Battleship, but I feel that this method you're proposing adds a lot of needless pages and text.  The clan upgrades also seem a lot better with the changes already proposed, I'm getting ready to playtest them.  If they prove clunky then we can try something else.

If you look at it this way the orks have 1 battleship, it just has 4 slight variatn builds with different names.  We could totally create a bunch of variant builds of Ork Kroozers, and I'm open to doing so, but I feel it doesn't really add much to the game.  I agree on the shields thing though, Kroozers and up essentially come with it glued on.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on February 22, 2017, 07:42:26 PM
Ahh, Green Leader, apparently I did not express my idea very well.

I did not want to reduce the kustomizability of the Orks.

What I wanted to show was that the "Cheap" upgrades are not really cheap, and many of them should be free, rather than costing 5-15 points.

Rather than trying to balance the upgrades (which is not easy) we should try to make a few balanced ships. And then from them work back to find the costing of the upgrades.

Example
Da Shoota
Kill Kroozer 165
Kustom Force Field 15
Prow Zapp guns 5
Port/Starboard Zapp Guns 20
205 points in total

Now, this ship is NEVER worth 205 points.

These are the weapons it ended up with
Prow Gunz 45cm D6+6 Front
Prow Zapp Gunz 30cm D3+1 Left

Port Gunz 30cm 6 Left
Port Zapp Gunz 30cm D3+1 Left

Starboard Gunz 30cm 6 Right
Starboard Zapp Gunz 30cm D3+1 Right

The side batteries are equivalent to the Lunar class
The front batteries are probably about equivalent as well.
On average it has the same amount of shields
It has +1 turret but 4+ rear armour for bombers.
It has worse LD than a Lunar

And it costs 25 points more than the Lunar.

So, we now know that this configuration is overcosted.
Looking at Murder Class we see that it can change it's batteries to lances for no change in cost. If we applied the same option here, we would save exactly 25 points.
The zapp kroozer would be costed like the lunar it resembles. And we now know that the zapp gun sidegrade should be priced at 0 points. 
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on February 22, 2017, 07:49:02 PM
And another example

Da Long Range Killa
Terror Ship 185
Prow Torpedo Launcha 10
Kustom Force Field 15
210

Prow Gunz 45cm D6+4 Front
Prow Torpedoes 30cm D6+2
Port Gunz 30cm 6 Left
Starboard Gunz 30cm 6 Right
4 Launch Bays

Comparing this ship to the Dictator Class (210 pts), we see a strong likeness.
Same side batteries
Prow torpedoes are about equal
Launch bays are equal
Shields are equal
The prow guns are not found on the Dictator
LD is worse on the Terror Ship, and very important for a ship this dependent on Reload Ordnance

All in all, the price seems fair. So the options used here are probably correctly costed
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on February 22, 2017, 08:06:26 PM
And yet another example

Da Boarder
Kill Kroozer 165
Kustom Force Field 15
Soopa Boosta 25 (To get there)
Kustom Tractor field 10 (So we can do ram-boarding)
This one costs 215 points
Then add one or more of (Klan Goff, MANz, Warboss)

I can think of no equivalent ship in any fleet. Chaos can get close with their Boarding Result bonus and fast ships. But still, Ram-Boarding is an ork-only technique.

Now, this ship is close range. It replaced none of it's heavy gunz so range will be an issue. It is fast with the soopa boosta.

Still, to actually ram/board with this ship, it needs to end a turn about 30 cm from the enemy (25cm speed + 4D6 AAF). One bad shield roll then and it has to brace for impact. And this means no AAF next turn.

And if it actually manages to board, Green Squad Leader have shown that it is not that impressive
10HP vs. 8 HP + 2 Turrets
To make this ship scary, it needs a Warboss, Goffs or MANz.

So, 215 points seems like a LOT for this ship.
35 points comes from the soopa boosta and tracktor beam. But without these upgrades, the boarding idea of this ship is not.
If the soopa boosta upgrade replaced the side heavy gunz, we could perhaps price it at 10 pts.
And if the traktor beam replaced the prow heavy gunz, we could price this at 0 pts.
This would put the price of this ship at a more reasonable 190
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on February 22, 2017, 08:13:30 PM
About Mob Rule

Is the point of the rule to make orks somewhat more reliable or to encourage very big squadrons?
I think that we need to rethink what we want with this rule.

I very much like the decentralized theme in the proposal by Xcaliber
Quote
While an Ork escort squadron has at least five remaining vessels, it may attempt a command check even if one has already been failed this turn.
I would go further and just make this a general rule for the entire fleet
Quote
Ork ships and squadrons may attempt a command check even if one has already been failed this turn.

This should offset their bad LD, so that once failure does not cascade onto other squadrons.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: AJCHVY on February 22, 2017, 08:21:38 PM
The issue with that is orks are supposed to be more unreliable with their leadership rolls. Giving them a  re-roll is a huge bonus that to me doesn't feel appropriate for them.

They the get auto pass on all ahead full to represent their willingness to drive forward regardless of casualties and attempt to ram/board. Trying to get them to lock on or reload ordnance puts you at a risk of failing when you could instead just drive forward and board them.

Yes it sucks when you fail the key reload ordnance, or even the more important brace, but that is what you get when you play orks.

Also orks have access to the most and cheapest fleet re-rolls.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on February 22, 2017, 08:28:52 PM
Clanz:
> Clan upgrades are purchased on a per-commander basis. To buy any clan affiliations for your fleet, you must first pay +30pts for clan support, which unlocks the options for individual commanders. (Thus, the first clan upgrade you buy has an additional cost, to offset its wider applicability).
> A commander's clan affiliation (or lack thereof) applies to every ship under his authority, determined as follows:
  • A commander always has authority over his own ship and those of his squadron.
  • The Boss with the biggest ship (Space Hulk > Battleship > Cruiser > Rok > Escort) has authority over all other ships in the fleet, except those under the authority of a different commander.
> A ship can only ever have one clan affiliation, and a squadron may never have multiple commanders with different clan affiliations. Note that a ship's clan does not change during the course of a game, regardless of any commander's status. Finally, a commander's re-rolls may not be used for ships or squadrons with a different clan affiliation (commanders and vessels without a clan are exempt from this restriction).

> The bonuses are as follows (and cost +20pts each, except Snakebites):
Goffs: +1Ld to ramming attempts. When initiating boarding, the enemy ship does not add its turret strength to its boarding value.
Evil Suns: +5cm to speed and minimum turn distance when not touching blast markers.
Bad Moons: Unchanged (May re-roll one random firepower/str weapon; combines with More Dakka).
Deathskulls: May add +1 or -1 to Critical Damage rolls received. A Deathskulls commander may buy looted torps for his ship for +10pts instead of +20pts.
Blood Axes: +1Ld (Ork vessels only, not looted ships) until it fails its first Ld test.
Snakebites: +1 Assault point when scoring during Planetary Assault. This clan affiliation may be given to any ship or squadron without a commander, for no extra cost. This overrides any other clan affiliation the ship would have.

I REALLY like the fleet wide clan bonuses. So, the clan of the commander is the clan of the fleet. Only ships/squadrons with characters can have a different clan.


About my Klan bonuses

Goff: +1 Boarding VALUE. +1 LD when Ramming.
Goff hordes are usually numerous, so they add to the Boarding VALUE.
The symbol of the klan is the bull, so ramming bonus seems appropriate.

Evil Sunz: +1D6 when AAF. So they can do normal AAF.
Much less powerful than soopa boostas for all. And it still allows them great bursts of speed.

Bad Moons: +1 Turret (representing more ammo to use)
Bad Moon Ships have more kustom guns than any other ork ship.

Deathskulls: +1 LD to Reload Ordnance
They can build torpedoes out of anything. They loot part of their own ship to build more bombs and attack crafts and torpedoes.

Blood Axes: +1 LD to Lock On
This is a rarely seem order in ork fleets. But it is appropriate for the blood axes, which like to fight proper.

Snake Bites: +1 to Boarding RESULT
Read about these boyz http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Wyrm-Killa_Tribe
The old ways are the be(a)st.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on February 22, 2017, 08:31:30 PM
The issue with that is orks are supposed to be more unreliable with their leadership rolls. Giving them a  re-roll is a huge bonus that to me doesn't feel appropriate for them.

They the get auto pass on all ahead full to represent their willingness to drive forward regardless of casualties and attempt to ram/board. Trying to get them to lock on or reload ordnance puts you at a risk of failing when you could instead just drive forward and board them.

Yes it sucks when you fail the key reload ordnance, or even the more important brace, but that is what you get when you play orks.

Also orks have access to the most and cheapest fleet re-rolls.

I didn't want them to get a reroll. Perhaps I did not understand the proposed rule correctly.

AFAIK, if you fail a special order check, no other ships can go on special orders this turn.
I wanted Mob Rule to override this, so that if one squadron failed to reload ordnance, another squadron could still try.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: AJCHVY on February 22, 2017, 08:32:47 PM
The issue with that is orks are supposed to be more unreliable with their leadership rolls. Giving them a  re-roll is a huge bonus that to me doesn't feel appropriate for them.

They the get auto pass on all ahead full to represent their willingness to drive forward regardless of casualties and attempt to ram/board. Trying to get them to lock on or reload ordnance puts you at a risk of failing when you could instead just drive forward and board them.

Yes it sucks when you fail the key reload ordnance, or even the more important brace, but that is what you get when you play orks.

Also orks have access to the most and cheapest fleet re-rolls.

I didn't want them to get a reroll. Perhaps I did not understand the proposed rule correctly.

AFAIK, if you fail a special order check, no other ships can go on special orders this turn.
I wanted Mob Rule to override this, so that if one squadron failed to reload ordnance, another squadron could still try.

Yeah that is way different, I would be fine with allowing orks to try one order per squad/model. Re-rolls could be used as normal but each squad could get one order always.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on February 22, 2017, 08:47:03 PM
Yeah that is way different, I would be fine with allowing orks to try one order per squad/model. Re-rolls could be used as normal but each squad could get one order always.

Yes, exactly. It would go something like this
I try a Reload Ordnance on a Terror Ship
I pass
I try a Lock On on a squadron of Onslaught Attackships
I fail.
Now, with the existing system, I could try no further Special orders (Brace excepted, AAF excepted as there is no LD check) for any ships in my fleet.

I propose that Mob Rule should overrule this, so that the failure of a special order in one ship/squadron does not prevent another ship/squadron from attempting to go on a special order.
But the squadron that failed the special order still failed, and gets no special order this turn. Only, they do not get in the way of other squadrons trying to go on special orders.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: AJCHVY on February 22, 2017, 08:54:04 PM
Yeah that is way different, I would be fine with allowing orks to try one order per squad/model. Re-rolls could be used as normal but each squad could get one order always.

Yes, exactly. It would go something like this
I try a Reload Ordnance on a Terror Ship
I pass
I try a Lock On on a squadron of Onslaught Attackships
I fail.
Now, with the existing system, I could try no further Special orders (Brace excepted, AAF excepted as there is no LD check) for any ships in my fleet.

I propose that Mob Rule should overrule this, so that the failure of a special order in one ship/squadron does not prevent another ship/squadron from attempting to go on a special order.
But the squadron that failed the special order still failed, and gets no special order this turn. Only, they do not get in the way of other squadrons trying to go on special orders.

Actually you would have to do AAF first, as it is an order you just auto pass it. If you fail an order before resolving any AAF you can't do them later in the order phase.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 22, 2017, 09:32:40 PM
blekinge has it right about what my proposal for Mob Rule would do - namely that your escort squadrons could still attempt special orders even if you've already failed a command check (assuming they have sufficient squadron size). It's not giving them a re-roll, just protecting them from other ship/squadron's bad leadership.

I'm not going to make it a fleet-wide rule though - that is much too powerful. The point of Mob Rule is not to give reliability across the board for all ships. The rule represents the natural ability of Orks to function better in large numbers, and reward gameplay (on both sides of the table) that matches this concept.

So you get a bonus for having large escort squadrons (in that they are each protected from leadership failure among the rest of the fleet as long as they are above 'critical mass,' much like how the Mob Rule in some editions of 40k gave Orks Fearless above a certain model count). This has a secondary effect of allowing a player to 'ignore' their large escort squadrons when giving out orders, since a failure on a cap ship won't prevent them from taking a special order. This improves reliability in a general sense, as it protects the player from situations where they need an escort squadron to use orders (like reload), but can't afford the risk of missing orders on their cap ships if they attempt on the escorts first.

I REALLY like the fleet wide clan bonuses. So, the clan of the commander is the clan of the fleet. Only ships/squadrons with characters can have a different clan.

Thanks. I think it's definitely desirable to have the Clanz be able to take a front and center role in the Ork fleet if the player desires it. This way makes it much less cost-prohibitive.

About my Klan bonuses

Goff: +1 Boarding VALUE. +1 LD when Ramming.
Goff hordes are usually numerous, so they add to the Boarding VALUE.
The symbol of the klan is the bull, so ramming bonus seems appropriate.

The problem here is that +1 boarding value is hardly ever useful. Making it ignore enemy turret values provides a more consistent damage bonus to boarding actions. This can be thought of as their great numbers overwhelms the ability of enemy turrets to effectively defend against the boarding attempt. Similarly, this also encourages more aggressive gameplay, since it only works when boarding is initiated. If you try to sit back and wait, you don't get any bonus.

Evil Sunz: +1D6 when AAF. So they can do normal AAF.
Much less powerful than soopa boostas for all. And it still allows them great bursts of speed.

This is a decent alternative I'd be willing to consider.

Bad Moons: +1 Turret (representing more ammo to use)
Bad Moon Ships have more kustom guns than any other ork ship.

While this is simpler, I think allowing re-rolls on random firepower/str weapons is still good, and so far it's had the least complaints against it in terms of functionality - so changing it just to be a tiny bit simpler doesn't seem 100% necessary.

Deathskulls: +1 LD to Reload Ordnance
They can build torpedoes out of anything. They loot part of their own ship to build more bombs and attack crafts and torpedoes.

I'm a little hesitant to hand out +1 Ld bonuses to every clan. Ork leadership is still supposed to be worse overall compared to other races (except for Blood Axes, where it represents their "un-Orky" behavior). Also here, the suggestion to allow modification of Crit Damage rolls synergizes very well with both Big Meks and Mad Meks, which matches with the idea of Deathskulls having lots of Meks aboard.

Blood Axes: +1 LD to Lock On
This is a rarely seem order in ork fleets. But it is appropriate for the blood axes, which like to fight proper.

+1 Ld for each ship/squadron until they fail a Ld test provides a more widely applicable bonus (and can still help with Lock On), and also does a good job representing the concept of Blood Axes using more kunnin' tactiks until the moment when the tactik's are done and they revert to their Orky ways.

Snake Bites: +1 to Boarding RESULT
Read about these boyz http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Wyrm-Killa_Tribe
The old ways are the be(a)st.

The problem here is that Snakebites still aren't "space" Orks, and so there's not really any reason why they'd be that much better than others in actual space battles. Making it a +1 Assault point bonus (that can be applied wherever you need, for free) solves 2 problems: First, it gives Orks a useful scenario-specific tool (and one that is currently missing for an "assaulty" faction compared to SM or Tyranids). Second, it reflects the non-space nature of the Snakebites by rewarding their use as truly ground-oriented Orks.


Responses above in bold.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Regarding the costs of upgrades, I'll take a look at the math that's been posted and see about changing around some of the costs.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 23, 2017, 10:52:29 PM
blekinge I completely agree with you that Ork Ships are overcosted for what they are worth when you factor in kustom force fields and other upgrades.  Much like a shitty cell phone contract the sticker price looks reasonable but there are hidden charges.

there is of course always a risk of making their ships TOO cost effective, but honestly we are quite far from that right now.  The root of the issue is the 2 extra hit points Orks have on their cruisers, but the single shield and low rear armor effectively eliminates the advantage this otherwise would give.

Terror Ships especually are overpriced. The loss of firepower REALLY hurts them and in most cases I've found that Fighta Bombas are not that great. In about 7 games that I've taken one it has died very quickly without accomplishing anything.

Basha's are downright horrible for their price. They seem to be designed to be equivalents to Dauntlesses but they really underperform.

As for Kustom Force Fields being auto includes I have to agree. I haven't been using them specifically to test whether I can make cruisers work without them. So far the answer is a resounding no.

My recommendations for cruisers are that we eliminate the current upgrade for Kustom Force Fields by giving all Ork Capital Ships a D3 shield value (Working exactly as KFFs do now.)  The 15 point cost savings that grants helps to fix the "dishonest" sticker price they have now.

As for Zzap Guns I think that making them free IS too good, the current build is simply better than Heavy Gunz in most cases. That said I think that they are worth 5-10 points for capital ships, making then free for Slaughters is fine.

 Prow Torpedoes are a trickier call, but with low leadership and random shots I think that they.could be made free or +5 points.

Regarding cruiser variants I think that changing the stuff i already mentioned would largely fix the other issues.  I would like to see the option to swap out Heavy Gunz for Gunz, for a points cost ideally as it would be more reliable.  I also think that Terror Ships should have a random Launch Bay capacity (D2+1 for each bay).  The Battleships and Battlecruiser have this sort of thing, I think its just an idea they came up with later in the life of the game.  In this case the Randomness would help give the ships a bit more potency, aa Fighta Bombers are really hard to swarm enough of to be able to effectively try to engage enemy ships in any meaningful way as is.

As for ramming I think its good as is, but an alternative idea to giving Ork capital vessels Horned Prows for free would be to give them a brace for impact saving throw when ramming. Just tossing that out as a racial buff.

Your idea for Evil Suns is interesting and we can certainly try it, otherwise I don't like your clan ideas much.

As for thr Mob Rule one thing we could try would be to use a variation of the Old 40k rule.  The idea could work like this:

"You may use the number of vessels in an Ork Escort Squadron in place of its leadership value (Max eight) when testing for special orders. Escort Squadrons may attempt Special Orders even if one has already been failed this turn."

Done that way the the player is encouraged to field large squadrons of Escorts which can effectively be ignored for orders.  Instead of setting an arbitrary number of ships for the ability to switch on and off the ability diminishes in value as you lose vessels.  When you think about it an Ork Escort Squadron isn't going to have 5+ vessels for very long once they engage, so the current version just won't get used that often. This change would make it always active but EXTREMELY unreliable, at least once you start to lose ships.

It also would set up choices for the Ork player as he loses ships.  Once you are at 5 or fewer ships in a squadron your "mob leadership" will usually be less than your normal leadership, so when do you choose to test?

The leadership 8 cap is intended to prevent the obviously broken 12 Onslaught squadron of doom with leadership 12 that will permanently be on Lock On Orders.

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: horizon on February 24, 2017, 09:25:49 AM
hmmmzzzllslss, just adding my bit here:

Never played as Orks but did against them (with Tau, AdMech, Eldar, Chaos iirc).

Lets go back to the main rulebook/armada: the problem was that the most effective fleet was the Terror Kroozer fleet. Escort wise the torpedo variant was highly effective (bring lots and even the D6 will max at one point). And cheap re-rolls...

So to be competitive one sided fleets happened. The Ork Hulk is ofcourse a different story.

With Compendium 2010 they added the Clanz things and Ld bonusses for big escort squadrons. And that did change a lot for the Ork fleet. They became a lot more versatile.

So, personally, I think the Ork fleet, since compendium 2010, is versatile and pretty well balanced. They are Orkish weird and perhaps some vessels need a slight tweak and some rules a clearer wording but that's it.
They're a capable fleet.

So... I am a bit puzzled about all this Ork talking at the moment. Don't get me wrong: discussion is good and perhaps I'm off. ;)

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 24, 2017, 12:53:11 PM
Horizon the current points costs aren't the same as the original ones in most cases, and most Ork weapons have been weakened to improve balance. The issues with the Ork Fleet are real, the reason iys being discussed so much is that Orks are the most recent faction to get worked on. Most of the other factions are in far better states at the moment.

Note too that most of the proposed changes to Orks in the last few weeks aren't buffs, they are balance tweaks which in many cases actually have weakened the previous version of abilities. Zzap guns were changed from a 4+ lances to a 5+ lances for example.  Whenever changes like that are made there will be 2nd order effects which need to be addressed, hence the current discussions.

The points cost issues are essentially that over time Ork ships have been slowly weakened such that their effective points cost (with obligatory upgrades) is quite high.  In a recent match a space marine player had 3 escorts less than I did AND a battlebarge with an upgraded commander and terminators on his capitals. I had a barebones ork fleet. That makes no sense, the ork ships simply aren't as good.

The previous iterations of many rules introduced in Armada and other publications really arent very user friendly, clanz are the best example of this, and so a rewrite really was needed.

The goal of the changes is to boost the value and more effectively cost the smaller Ork ships without making them too effective. Overall I feel we are moving quickly in the right direction.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on February 24, 2017, 06:14:36 PM
This is my suggestion for a more readable version of the ork cruiser

Orky Kroozer 180

TYPE/HITS   SPEED   TURNS   SHIELDS   ARMOR      TURRETS
Cruiser/10   20cm   45°   1D3    6+/5+/4+   3

ARMAMENT   RANGE/SPEED   FIREPOWER/STR   FIRE ARC
Prow Gunz    45cm       D6+5       Front
Prow Ram   Ramming      +1 Hit      Front      
Port Gunz    30cm      6       Left
Stbd Gunz    30cm      6      Right

MUST take ONE of these additional Prow option
 *  +0 Points: Prow Heavy Gunz (30cm, Strength 6, Front)
 *  +5 Points: Prow zzapp gunz (Range 30cm, Strength D3+1, Front)
 * +10 Points: Prow torpedo launcha (Speed 30cm, Strength D6+2, Front)
 * +10 Points: Kustom Traktor Field

MUST take ONE of these (pair of) Flank options
 *  +0 Points: Port/Stbd Heavy Gunz (30cm, Strength 4, Right/Left respectively)
 *  +0 Points: Port/Stbd Torpedo Launcha (Speed 30cm, Strength D6 (in total), Front)
 * +20 Points: Port/Stbd Launch Bays (FBz+ABz, 2+2 Squadrons, Right/Left respectively)
 * +20 Points: Port/Stbd Zapp gunz (Range 30cm, Strength D3+1, Right/Left respectively)
 * +25 Points: Super Boosta
 
Changelog
1. The Hull Crusha is now a listed weapon (so you do not forget it)
2. Kustom Force Field is built in, not optional
3. Merged the Kill Kroozer and Terror Ship (Identical, except the terror ship prow batteries are Strength 4, but strength 6 for the kill kroozer) with Strength 5 prow batteries
4. The soopa boosta takes up a side 'slot'
5. The Kustom Trackor Field takes up a prow 'slot'
6. I ignored the Klaws options, as I consider it to fidly to use

I have thought about adding normal gunz as options also, but I wanted to show something as close as possible to the accepted rules first.

I hope that this could act as a basic ship, where we could more easily discuss the pricing of the options
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 25, 2017, 02:48:29 PM
Thete are a LOT of changes hidden in there. While i agree with much of these principles I suggested a similar method months ago, it was turned down.

We boosted the number of shots for Zzap guns for a reason.

The points cost of many of these upgrades dimt make much sense.  Prow Zzap gunz are better hands down, but flank ones cost 4 times as much?

Traktor fields SHOULD NOT be a weapon.

Overall I'm disappointed, you're version of the ship is as or more expensive than the current one.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 28, 2017, 01:51:15 PM
So I just noticed that the Basha Lite Kroozer had been updated at some point to have 8 hit points instead of 6. No idea when that happened, but its a great change. I wothdraw my earlier statement that the Basha isnt worth its points.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on March 01, 2017, 06:13:19 AM
Still going on about Orks.  I'm going to playtest the following change to Mob Rule in our local campaign to see if it works or not:

Mob Rule: When attempting to go on special orders, an Ork escort squadron may substitute the number of ships in the squadron for its leadership value (Max 8 ).  If it does it may attempt to use special orders even if a special order check has already been failed this turn.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Tves on March 01, 2017, 01:25:32 PM
I have a "logistics" suggestion. In the first post, under the spoiler tags. Is there a chance of adding the last updated date. To ease verifying that we have the most up to date files?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on March 02, 2017, 07:39:35 AM
I have a "logistics" suggestion. In the first post, under the spoiler tags. Is there a chance of adding the last updated date. To ease verifying that we have the most up to date files?

I need to work on finding a solution to this issue. Previously, I did have a "Last Updated" list on the first page, but I had trouble remembering to update it. Of course, I realize I've not been properly updating the dates shown in the document change-logs either, so clearly a better method needs to be found.

For the sake of answering your immediate question, here are the last updated dates for each document as of this posting:

AdMech - Jan 26, 2017
Chaos - Jan 13, 2017
Dark Eldar - Dec 17, 2016
Eldar - Dec 17, 2016
Fleet Support - Apr 4, 2016
Imperial Navy - Feb 20, 2017
Inquisition - Jul 31, 2016
Necrons - Apr 12, 2016
Orks - Feb 19, 2017 [Note that a new update is pending, per the previous discussion in this thread]
Main Rulebook - Jan 13, 2017
Tau Empire - Sep 17, 2016
Tyranids - Jul 31, 2016


EDIT: I've fixed all the documents with an automatically updating "Last Modified" date, so the date and time shown in the Change Log of each document will always be correct. I'm going to try and do a better job of updating the first post to match.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on March 03, 2017, 03:52:18 AM
I rebuilt my fleet roster for the campaign I'm in to use the changes to the newest impending update to the Ork fleet list.

I had built my fleet to give every ship and squadron a clan affiliation using the old rules.  With the new changes my 2000 point fleet list was only worth 1690 points. That is how significant the changes are!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on March 03, 2017, 06:00:51 PM
I posted some screen shots of these a few weeks ago, but here are the Ork and Eldar Refit Tables.  These were adapted from a pair of articles which appeared in BFG Annual 2002.  I had to reword some of the refits which were confusing, trying my best to keep the core concepts, and I reworked or replaced those which are redundant in the current rules or which effected rule interactions which don't exist anymore.  If you spot any typos or such let me know.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/euo7cg32lliw1xj/AADRvr4OOZJ6t58f22BqlTbOa?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/euo7cg32lliw1xj/AADRvr4OOZJ6t58f22BqlTbOa?dl=0)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Lord Borak on March 05, 2017, 09:54:32 AM
One thing I've been meaning to ask.

The Bakka fleet list, the old BFG:R allowed you to take Avenger Grand Cruisers. This has now been removed but the fleet list still makes reference to taking Grand Cruisers.

Quote
"You may take one battlecruiser of grand cruiser for every three cruisers or light cruisers in your fleet"

Were these intentionally left out?

Secondly, I think you missed one of my last questions, The Bakka fleet is described as having close ties with the Mechanicum but do they still come under the 4:1 ratio when taking reserves? It seems that way.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on March 05, 2017, 03:12:57 PM
One thing I've been meaning to ask.

The Bakka fleet list, the old BFG:R allowed you to take Avenger Grand Cruisers. This has now been removed but the fleet list still makes reference to taking Grand Cruisers.

Quote
"You may take one battlecruiser of grand cruiser for every three cruisers or light cruisers in your fleet"

Were these intentionally left out?

Secondly, I think you missed one of my last questions, The Bakka fleet is described as having close ties with the Mechanicum but do they still come under the 4:1 ratio when taking reserves? It seems that way.

The Bakka fleet list referring to Grand Cruisers was in error (after the removal of the Avenger option). The change was made to better reflect the BFG:R Bakka fleet list (since there were two separate Bakka lists created for BFG:R - one separate and one in the Navy list - which were unified in BFG:XR).

The reserves rules are correct for the Bakka fleet. I changed the wording to make this more clear. It now states that Bakka fleets are a low priority for reinforcement.

In any case, the fleet list has been updated.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Lord Borak on March 05, 2017, 07:01:29 PM
Awesome. Cheers mate.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Tves on March 10, 2017, 10:20:38 PM
Trying to wrap my head around the new, unreleased, Ork clan rules.

Say I have a fleet that I want to be a mix of goffs, badmoon and Bloodaxes.

I would pay 50 points to have Goff Warboss for my battleship (30 for the first clan and 20 for the upgrade).
Would I then pay 20 for a Freebooter to have Badmoon affiliation, or would I pay the 30 point premium again?

If I have a goff Warboss (on the biggest ship) any other ship not paying for a clan affiliation would gain the goff bonus?

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on March 11, 2017, 12:18:59 AM
Trying to wrap my head around the new, unreleased, Ork clan rules.

Say I have a fleet that I want to be a mix of goffs, badmoon and Bloodaxes.

I would pay 50 points to have Goff Warboss for my battleship (30 for the first clan and 20 for the upgrade).
Would I then pay 20 for a Freebooter to have Badmoon affiliation, or would I pay the 30 point premium again?

If I have a goff Warboss (on the biggest ship) any other ship not paying for a clan affiliation would gain the goff bonus?

You are correct. +30pts to have any clanz in your fleet (paid once for the whole fleet) and +20 points for a clan upgrade on each commander desired. The other ships not affected by another clan affiliation would share the affiliation of your Goff warboss (in your example).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Tves on March 11, 2017, 01:29:22 AM
The 30 points for clan access would then get added to the first "biggest" boss's cost. For example in this case a
Biggest Warlord with Goff clan would be 130 points? (40 for the warboss, 40 for biggest, 20 for Goff and 30 for the pay once clan access price).

PS: Thanks dude, I don't think you get nearly enough credit for what you do.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on March 11, 2017, 02:47:29 AM
The 30 points for clan access would then get added to the first "biggest" boss's cost. For example in this case a
Biggest Warlord with Goff clan would be 130 points? (40 for the warboss, 40 for biggest, 20 for Goff and 30 for the pay once clan access price).

That's correct. I'll make sure to clarify the wording so that the cost will be "visible" for victory points.

PS: Thanks dude, I don't think you get nearly enough credit for what you do.

Thank you! (Though most of the credit really isn't mine. The majority of the work was already completed before I ever got started, thanks to the diligence and enthusiasm of this community  ;) )
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on March 12, 2017, 05:36:28 AM
Likewise on the credit.

I've been working on simplified text for some Ork Upgrades again, here's the current version I've got. Note that Ship Choppas is intended as a replacement for Klaws as the current Klaws upgrade is an exact copy of a unique tyranid weapon and its redundant with Traktor Fields.

Shokk Attack Mega Gun:
A Shokk Attack Mega Gun is fired during the shooting phase at a target in your front arc within 90 cm. It automatically hits causing a hit and run attack with -1 to your roll for every shield the target has active. If the attack succeeds the target suffers a Fire! critical hit as panicked snotlings cause all kinds of mayhem. If it fails place a blast marker on the target’s base as a cloud of frozen snotlings strikes their shields. On the roll of a one place a blast marker at the rear of your own base as something fails catastrophically.

Traktor Kannon:
A Traktor Kannon is fired in the shooting phase automatically hitting an enemy ship within 60 cm inside your front arc. Make a leadership check adding +1 to your leadership if your starting hull value is greater than that of the target and -1 if their hull value is greater.  If either die result was a one place a blast marker at the rear of your own base as something fails catastrophically. If you pass immediately move the target 3d6cm towards your ship and reduce its movement rate by 5cm next round.  If the target’s base overlaps your base you may initiate a boarding action.

Ship Choppas:
The first time your ship’s base overlaps an enemy ship each turn roll a D6. On a 4+ that ship takes one point of damage ignoring shields.


The SAMG is a revision of an older upgrade which previously had very clunky and wordy rules while the Traktor Kannon is an upgrade from the recent video game. Both are intended as means to try to force the enemy to close within your weapons range, which otherwise Orks dont really have anything for.  My current thought is for them to be boss upgrades, but they could be ship upgrade as well.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on March 12, 2017, 08:51:41 AM
Likewise on the credit.

I've been working on simplified text for some Ork Upgrades again, here's the current version I've got. Note that Ship Choppas is intended as a replacement for Klaws as the current Klaws upgrade is an exact copy of a unique tyranid weapon and its redundant with Traktor Fields.

Shokk Attack Mega Gun:
A Shokk Attack Mega Gun is fired during the shooting phase at a target in your front arc within 90 cm. It automatically hits causing a hit and run attack with -1 to your roll for every shield the target has active. If the attack succeeds the target suffers a Fire! critical hit as panicked snotlings cause all kinds of mayhem. If it fails place a blast marker on the target’s base as a cloud of frozen snotlings strikes their shields. On the roll of a one place a blast marker at the rear of your own base as something fails catastrophically.

Traktor Kannon:
A Traktor Kannon is fired in the shooting phase automatically hitting an enemy ship within 60 cm inside your front arc. Make a leadership check adding +1 to your leadership if your starting hull value is greater than that of the target and -1 if their hull value is greater.  If either die result was a one place a blast marker at the rear of your own base as something fails catastrophically. If you pass immediately move the target 3d6cm towards your ship and reduce its movement rate by 5cm next round.  If the target’s base overlaps your base you may initiate a boarding action.

Ship Choppas:
The first time your ship’s base overlaps an enemy ship each turn roll a D6. On a 4+ that ship takes one point of damage ignoring shields.


The SAMG is a revision of an older upgrade which previously had very clunky and wordy rules while the Traktor Kannon is an upgrade from the recent video game. Both are intended as means to try to force the enemy to close within your weapons range, which otherwise Orks dont really have anything for.  My current thought is for them to be boss upgrades, but they could be ship upgrade as well.

Thoughts?

For the sake of faction diversity, I'll consider the general concept of swapping out the Klaws. I'm not a big fan of how they are obviously copied from the Tyranid fleet. However, I don't want to end up in "new feature" limbo, so I'm going to limit this to a single "swap" of equipment. Right now I'm leaning towards the SAMG, since it's an existing BFG weapon from the old Clanz list, and because I like your simplification. However, I think we can make it even simpler:

Shokk Attack Mega-Gun:
A shokk attack mega-gun follows the normal rules for shooting, and has a range of 90cm. When fired, the weapon automatically inflicts a single hit-and-run attack on the target, with a -1 penalty to the roll for each of the target's remaining shields. If the attack fails, place a single blast marker in contact with the target's base, representing an expanding cloud of frozen snotlings left drifting through the void.

As for the Traktor Kannon and Ship Choppas, I'm currently opposed. The Traktor Kannon is always going to be clunky, because it's breaking some fundamental game mechanics (which can lead to many problems a la MSM Eldar), and I'm not comfortable with abilities that allow players to move other people's models around (for practical reasons mostly). The Ship Choppas simply seem unnecessary.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Regarding other update news, I've pretty much finalized the list of upcoming Ork changes. I'll post them up here soon. Please note that the above considerations for the Klaws will not be making it into this update. I'd like to see how everything else floats first.

Cheers,

-X
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on March 12, 2017, 01:31:40 PM
Cool, I agree that the SAMG is the easiest to integrate. The reason for it giving a Fire! critical hit was just that otherwise in most situations you're limited to the first three results. That has a really limited impact on many ships, but then again the loss if a firing arc could be crippling.

The main concern I'd have is that vs a ship with 3 or more shields you can only drop one of the side arcs, so the result becomes rather predictable. Also vs space marines you have and extra -1, so it really is just going to ne a shidld hit. Still not bad, just things to consider.

If it causes a Fire! result then at least it has some ability to do damage.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Tves on March 12, 2017, 08:11:54 PM
But on the other hand the SAMG would end an escort each turn on a roll of 3+ (normal hit and run with -1 due to shields). Not a doomsday weapon granted, but scoring effectively 30ish VP per turn with near zero effort at 90cm is decent.

If we want this to do damage to multi shielded capital ships then I suggest changing it as follows.

Quote
Shokk Attack Mega-Gun:
A shokk attack mega-gun follows the normal rules for shooting, and has a range of 90cm. When fired, the weapon automatically a fire critical on the target on a roll of 2+, with a -1 penalty to the roll for each of the target's remaining shields. If the attack fails, place a single blast marker in contact with the target's base, representing an expanding cloud of frozen snotlings left drifting through the void.

Although I really don't see the point in this weapon except as an escort remover. A single hit and run is hardly going to do anything on a capital especially if its negated by shields. At a normal cruiser its at best going to cause weapon failure unless the shields have been stripped. (or do MANZ bonuses stack with this attack?)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on March 13, 2017, 03:42:32 AM
Tves I like that idea, the only issue is making it work against escorts as well. With your version escorts die on a 3+ most of the time, whereas with the Hit and Run version they usually die on a 4+.

Vs capital ships its primarily a way to slow them down and lower their leadership, which slightly helps against the "keep away" factions.

The other benefit of using hit and run attacks as the mechanism for this weapon is that you cant perform hit and run attacks while crippled so we don't have to add an explanation for how being crippled effects this weapon.

Points cost wise I think that 30 points seems fair, making it a boss upgrade is a good idea in my view as well, that way they are limited in their availability.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: horizon on March 13, 2017, 07:39:49 AM
When did that Smak Mega Thing actually come into existence?

Eg, why would Orks want to thrown Snotlings in the front at 90cm and not in broadsides at 30cm?  ;D  ::)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on March 13, 2017, 09:16:08 AM
2010 in the Ork Clanz rules.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on March 13, 2017, 10:30:13 AM
For reference here is the version from the official 2010 Ork Klanz release:

Shokk-Attack Lance:
- Free (Not for escorts.)


 A ship‟s prow heavy gunz batteries can be replaced with this weapon, which cannot be used if the ship is crippled or braced. It is only effective against ships with shields down in the same manner as teleporters. When used, the ship rolls to hit on a 4+, range: 30cm. Holofields and being braced both save normally against this. If a hit is rolled, D3+1 snotling hordes are teleported onto the enemy
ship!

If a miss is rolled, place a blast marker in base contact with the vessel (even if shields are already down) for the hordes of vacuum-frozen snotlings bashing against the exterior of the hull. Each hit does not cause damage. Instead, the next leadership check or special order made by the ship must be with an extra D6 (such as 3D6, or even more when already using 3D6, such as when All Ahead Full through an asteroid field)! Additional “hits” from this weapon only add to the number of hordes that must be eradicated before the ship can return to conducting leadership checks normally. Every special order done in this manner (even if failed) “repairs” one of thesehordes as the crew works furiously to shove thousands of snotlings out the nearest airlock! These can also each be repaired in the end phase normally when rolling to repair critical damage.

Escorts have fewer complex systems than capital ships and are smaller overall. While multiple snotling hordes can possibly get into some vital system that in the end overwhelms the vessel, it is just as likely they will miss vital spaces entirely. When fired at escorts, the defending squadron rolls a D6. On a 4+, the closest escort gets an additional blast marker placed in contact with it as the hordes have no effect. On a roll of 3 or less, the nearest escort in range with no shields is destroyed (being braced works normally).


As you can see I took the concept from the original and simplified it.


Although I really don't see the point in this weapon except as an escort remover. A single hit and run is hardly going to do anything on a capital especially if its negated by shields. At a normal cruiser its at best going to cause weapon failure unless the shields have been stripped. (or do MANZ bonuses stack with this attack?)

No MANZ shouldn't stack with this, mega armored snotlings are a silly concept.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Tves on March 16, 2017, 11:21:40 PM
Quote
No MANZ shouldn't stack with this, mega armored snotlings are a silly concept.

Well one could argue that firing soft bodied snotlings as inter stellar munitions was already an galactically silly and stupid concept to begin with... But fair enough
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: blekinge on March 28, 2017, 03:26:30 PM
A few quick questions about the fleet lists and possible copy pasta errors. I am not suggesting that these things are not balanced or advocating that they should be fixed, just checking if they are intended or errors.

The Archeron class heavy cruiser
Range 45cm dorsal lances. I thing this is the only heavy/battle cruiser with dorsal lances without range 60. Is this intended?

Murder vs. Inferno
The murder refit makes it almost identical to an Inferno.
So the murder is 170, and with 2 F R60 lances
The inferno is 180 and with 6 L/F/R R60 batteries.
Is this an accurate price difference?

Fanatic class Light cruiser, Speed 25. The other light cruisers are speed 30. Is this intended?

Idolator class raider. The model clearly shows the lance as 'turnable'. Going by the model, the lance should be L/F/R, not R. Is this intended?

Why is Abbadon priced at 195 and the planet killer at 505? What playtest or calculation determined that they could not cost 200 and 500 respectively? Is there some 1500 point fleet that require Abbadon to be 5 points less to fit?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on March 28, 2017, 06:00:53 PM
A few quick questions about the fleet lists and possible copy pasta errors. I am not suggesting that these things are not balanced or advocating that they should be fixed, just checking if they are intended or errors.

The Archeron class heavy cruiser
Range 45cm dorsal lances. I thing this is the only heavy/battle cruiser with dorsal lances without range 60. Is this intended?

Murder vs. Inferno
The murder refit makes it almost identical to an Inferno.
So the murder is 170, and with 2 F R60 lances
The inferno is 180 and with 6 L/F/R R60 batteries.
Is this an accurate price difference?

Fanatic class Light cruiser, Speed 25. The other light cruisers are speed 30. Is this intended?

Idolator class raider. The model clearly shows the lance as 'turnable'. Going by the model, the lance should be L/F/R, not R. Is this intended?

Why is Abbadon priced at 195 and the planet killer at 505? What playtest or calculation determined that they could not cost 200 and 500 respectively? Is there some 1500 point fleet that require Abbadon to be 5 points less to fit?

As far as I can tell, all of the values are correct according to the original BFG:R documents. I will do some digging to see if there were specific arguments for the stats and costs in question.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Lord Borak on March 28, 2017, 11:10:48 PM
The Murder/Inferno is more about how it can combine it's firepower. On a broadside the Inferno has a combined WB of 10 plus 2 lances. Compared to the murders WB or 10 and 2 Lances to the front. There's not that much difference between the two really buy the Inferno's ability to be more tactically flexible and spit lances in two directions is worth the 10pt price hike I think.

As for the Acheron. If you read the background of the Overlord it does say that, when the prow weapon batteries were dropped from the Acheron the Lances were upgraded to be comparable to it's other long ranged weapons. I think the 45cm dorsal lances is there on purpose as it's a fault with the ship design.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: horizon on March 29, 2017, 07:58:48 PM
The Acheron has always been fine. :)

And the Inferno - Murder thing just happens to be a side effect when adding more ships to the pile. :)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on April 01, 2017, 04:42:31 AM
So having done some playtesting with the new ork changes and I have some revised feedback based off of it.

1. I can say that giving the Slaughter class Gunship's Zzapp Guns Str 2 is REALLY powerful.  As in TOO powerful.  The previous version with only a Firepower 1 Zzapp gun was too weak, but now its damage output is REALLY high compared with that of the Lance escorts of other races.  I again recommend that we change it to have Str 1 Zzapp Gunz and Firepower 2 Gunz, that brings it into line with the equivalent vessels of other races.  Especially with the points cost decrease to escorts each opponent I've played has been floored by the damage they can put out now.

As far as Zzapp Gunz on capital ships I again have been finding that they are a bit too potent now, so I'd recommend that we go back to the previous lower firepower value (Though the Slamblasta should still be higher.).

2. The free ship from Mob Rule is redundant and should be eliminated.  By decreasing the points cost for escorts in general it essentially is a double dip benefit, and the issue it was intended to address is addressed by the other aspect of the change.  The previous version of the rule (Gain one free ship in an escort squadron with leadership 5 or 6) was designed to recognize that low leadership escorts aren't very good.  The new version of the rule (Escorts can always test to go on special orders even after failing an order using the number of ships in the squadron instead of their leadership value.) already addresses this downside, just take more ships in the squadron and you're crappy leadership doesn't matter.

So yeah, we should eliminate the old free ship rule.  It had a clunky interaction with Victory Points anyways.  (Ie: Was it the first ship destroyed that was free or the last?  If you have only one ship left and the squadron disengages does it count as entirely destroyed or does your opponent only receive 25% victory points for it.)  The new rule and overall points decrease addresses the same issues more effectively.


Otherwise the new changes are working quite well overall.  I did have a thought on a rules redesign concept that could help streamline Orks a bit regarding Heavy Gunz.

So each time I use a ship with Heavy Gunz I have to consult the gunnery table multiple times using different metrics for what are after all very similar attacks.  Then my opponent has to just accept that some of my shots will deal 2 points of damage while other seemingly identical ones only do 1.

Ork Capital ships also tend to have very low overall firepower rates out their sides, resulting in most cases with very few shots being rolled by an individual ship relative to their Imperial/Chaos equivalents.

So my recommendation is that we redesign Heavy Gunz such that they are fired together with Gunz and are simply much more effective at short range (15 cm) than long range.

First off lets look at how Heavy Gunz work currently:

Currently Heavy Gunz work as weapons batteries which always suffer a rightward shift on the gunnery table and do 2 points of damage per hit inflicted.

Lets take a Kill Kroozer as an example.  Currently its flank weaponry is:
Weapon..........................Range.......Firepower........Fire Arc
Port Gunz........................30cm............6..............Left
Port Heavy Gunz................30cm............4..............Left

The number of attack dice vs an enemy cruiser/escort are:
Weapon.......................Defenses.......Closing.......Moving Away.......Abeam
Gunz at 30cm....................5..............4/3...............3/2................2/1
Heavy Gunz at 30cm............3..............2/1...............1/1................1/1
Gunz at 15cm....................5..............5/4...............4/3................3/2
Heavy Gunz at 15cm............4..............3/2...............2/1................1/1

So against most targets you aren't rolling many dice, and you REALLY aren't rolling many Heavy Gunz dice.  At 30cm in nearly all cases Heavy Gunz give you just a single extra dice over your regular Gunz.  Sure those extra dice are devastating if they hit, but its ANOTHER roll step and slows things down a bit.

Here's my recommended change.  Instead of the rightward shift and them doing 2 points of damage why don't have them work EXACTLY the same as regular weapons batteries but give them two firepower rates, one for short range and one for long range.

Lets use that same a Kill Kroozer as an example of the change:


So with this change the Kill Kroozer has Firepower 10 Weapons Batteries beyond 15cm and Firepower 12 Weapons Batteries within 15cm.  Here's the breakdown in terms of how many attack dice you get with this change.

The number of attack dice vs an enemy cruiser/escort are:
Here is the comparison in terms of max damage output for the two methods against Cruisers/Escorts:

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 01, 2017, 07:03:41 AM
As always, thanks for reporting on your playtest results. This helps greatly in preventing new balance issues from getting introduced when changes are made to the documents.

1. Regarding zzapps; I've updated my draft document to reflect the original strength values for zzapp gunz. Also, thanks for bringing this up. I was getting a little edgy about the power potential on the zzapps in light of many of the other cost changes - and it's always good to minimize changes where possible.

2. The free ship doesn't seem so bad IMHO. It's a little redundant to be sure, but it provides a reasonable boost in "leadership protection" for squadrons with natively low leadership, as it adds 1 more ship that has to be destroyed before the squadron size is no longer useful for attempting Ld tests. (Since once a squadron gets down below 5 or 6 members, using Mob Rule is inadvisable unless you're out of regular command checks). This way, a high-Ld squadron may still reliably pass command checks even with few members remaining, while a low-Ld squadron gets the consolation of staying reliable a tiny bit longer.

As far as victory points go, it's actually quite simple (although I realize there aren't specific VP rules in BFG:XR yet, as I haven't finished the Scenario book... :-[). Here's how it works:

Basically, VPs only care about total cost when considering escort squadrons. A squadron that is completely destroyed awards 100% of its total value as VPs. A squadron that is crippled (i.e. half the members, rounding up, are dead) awards 25% of its total value as VPs. A non-crippled squadron that disengages awards 10% of its total value as VPs.

Thus, it doesn't matter where the "free" ship is in the squadron, since we only need to track the squadron's total VP value, which is unchanged. That is, if I have a squadron of 4 that costs 100 points, and it gets a free escort, it's now (for VP purposes) a squadron of 5 that costs 100 points. So if you kill the whole squadron (all 5 vessels), you get 100VPs. If you kill 3 (2.5, rounding up), you get 25VPs. If at least 3 live and disengage, you get 10. What the extra ship has done in this case is make it 1 ship "harder" to clear the VP thresholds for crippling and killing.

3. I very much like this proposal, and I very much appreciate the solid math and useful graphs supporting it. Now normally I wouldn't necessarily want to make a change to a weapon system that is functionally balanced at the moment, however the benefits (reducing table look-up, reducing "non-standard" column shifts, thematically representing Orks quite well, and doing all this without an overly dramatic change in overall damage output), seem quite substantial in this case.

Unless someone has a very compelling reason not to structure heavy gunz this way, I'm going to go ahead and add this into my current draft.

Regarding the savage though, did you mean to suggest them as firepower 2(4) or 2(6)? You seem to use two different numbers for the short-range FP in your post.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As far as status, I'm working on a broader set of updates that will get released along with the changes to Orks, and hopefully another thing that I know some people have been waiting for. ;)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on April 01, 2017, 05:09:28 PM
For the Savage I am recommending changing it to have Firepower 2(6) Heavy Gunz, firepower 4(6) makes them into a reliable midrange gunship escort and that harms their theme.  With Firepower 2(6) they are essentially cobras outside of 15cm.

Overall the values of the various ships should be:
Battleships/Battlekroozers: Heavy Gunz: 6(10)
Kroozers: Prow Heavy Gunz 6(10), Flank Heavy Gunz 4(6)
Lite Kroozers: Heavy Gunz 4(6)
Smashas: Heavy Gunz 2(6)
Space Hulk: Heavy Gunz 8(12)
Ork Rok: Heavy Gunz 2(6)

I really would caution retaining the free ship bonus. If i have a squadron of 6 Smasha at leadership 5/6 that means that i am getting 60 free points vs the original list (30 from the price change, 30 from the free escort.).  I just played a match yesterday doing a Convoy mission with 3 escort squadrons. The match was a 400 point game for the defender and i had 3 LD 5 squadrons, so counting the free ships and the points decrease (all 3 squadrons were 5 ship squadrons) I had 160 free points!  I CRUSHED my opponent as a result.

Without the points decrease I would have had 85 free points, with the decrease but without the free ships I would have 75 free points.  Both effects are roughly equivalent much of the time, but put together it is simply WAY too good for a small game. Put bluntly the two effects taken together means that MOST of the time Ork escorts are effectively discounted by 10 points per model!  Its just too easy to abuse that.  Scaled it up to a 1000 point game and I could easily have almost 300 points of "free" stuff.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Cybersmith on April 01, 2017, 05:38:37 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As far as status, I'm working on a broader set of updates that will get released along with the changes to Orks, and hopefully another thing that I know some people have been waiting for. ;)

<3
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (Update 01/26/2017 - Orks & AdMech)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 01, 2017, 10:51:10 PM
For the Savage I am recommending changing it to have Firepower 2(6) Heavy Gunz, firepower 4(6) makes them into a reliable midrange gunship escort and that harms their theme.  With Firepower 2(6) they are essentially cobras outside of 15cm.

Overall the values of the various ships should be:
Battleships/Battlekroozers: Heavy Gunz: 6(10)
Kroozers: Prow Heavy Gunz 6(10), Flank Heavy Gunz 4(6)
Lite Kroozers: Heavy Gunz 4(6)
Smashas: Heavy Gunz 2(6)
Space Hulk: Heavy Gunz 8(12)
Ork Rok: Heavy Gunz 2(6)

Thanks for clarifying that. Also, thanks for reminding me that Hulks and Roks have Heavy Gunz... ;D

I really would caution retaining the free ship bonus. If i have a squadron of 6 Smasha at leadership 5/6 that means that i am getting 60 free points vs the original list (30 from the price change, 30 from the free escort.).  I just played a match yesterday doing a Convoy mission with 3 escort squadrons. The match was a 400 point game for the defender and i had 3 LD 5 squadrons, so counting the free ships and the points decrease (all 3 squadrons were 5 ship squadrons) I had 160 free points!  I CRUSHED my opponent as a result.

Without the points decrease I would have had 85 free points, with the decrease but without the free ships I would have 75 free points.  Both effects are roughly equivalent much of the time, but put together it is simply WAY too good for a small game. Put bluntly the two effects taken together means that MOST of the time Ork escorts are effectively discounted by 10 points per model!  Its just too easy to abuse that.  Scaled it up to a 1000 point game and I could easily have almost 300 points of "free" stuff.

I suppose you may be right. In any case, removing the bonus escort bit will give me room to add a few extra clarifications and formatting things, which should make the rules easier to read.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 13, 2017, 01:36:10 AM
Great news everybody, we made it! (Well, this far at least). Today marks the release of BFG:XR Rogue Trader (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qlptqrrp7feoj3c/BFGXR%20-%20Rogue%20Traders.pdf?dl=0),
 and the completion of all the BFG:XR faction books! I know it took forever to get this last book out, but I'm hoping the end product makes it worthwhile  ;)

>> The major changes you'll see between this version and the BFG:R version are:

Quote
> The main body of ships and upgrades are derived from horizon and AndrewChristLieb's Rogue Trader fleet list, which they made for afterimagedan but was never published.
> A lot of ship classes have been renamed to make them easier to reference, and easier to distinguish from their counterparts in other fleets.
> Many ships have been updated to keep them current with their duplicates in other fleets.
> RT-specific transport ships have been updated to be more clear as to their use (esp. regarding the Fleet Support ruleset).
> Xenos vessels (both allies and the specific escorts) have been reworked to be almost entirely separate from the rest of the RT ships and squadrons, to prevent weird and unnecessary problems of faction-mixing and non-uniform refitting on escorts.
> The Fra'al BC and Stryxis Caravans are still in the book. The Fra'al even have their Ether Cannon back (but in a toned down way).
> All 3 fleet lists from BFG:R are present. So you can take RTs as allies in other fleets (similar to how the Inquisition does it), or you can take a standalone RT or Pirate fleet.

Along with this release are several major game updates:

>> First up, the Orks have been substantially updated with regard to the discussion in this thread. Here's what's new:
Quote
> Heavy Gunz are now normal WBs with two firepower values, written as X(Y). X is used for targets 15cm or further, while Y is used for targets within 15cm. They also combine normally with regular Gunz when fired together. This reduces a lot of excess rolling (when firing all your weapons) and flattens out the damage potential on Ork ships just a bit.
> Zzapp Gunz inflict a blast marker on the firer if their random strength rolls a 1 on the D6. This doesn't apply to 1-shot and fixed-strength zzapps.
> Mob rule allows an escort squadron to roll command checks using their squad size as Ld (max 8). It also allows a squadron to test even if another command check has been failed, but they must use their squad size to do so (even if it's worse than their normal Ld)
> (NOTE: THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN THREAD) Clan upgrades have been substantially re-worked. Each commander may purchase a clan upgrade for +20pts. This applies to his own squad, plus 1 extra squad if he is a Big Boss, or 2 extra squads if he is a Mega Boss. The bonuses are updated as previously discussed in this thread.
> Crusiers (but not the Basha) have been reduced 10pts in cost.
> Escorts have been reduced 5ps in cost.
> The cost of replacing Heavy Gunz with Zzapps has been slightly reduced in a few places.
> Various other fixes (mistakes, typos, and such).

>> Next, I've updated the wording on Boarding Actions in the main rulebook and all of the affected faction books. This is basically a non-change in terms of gameplay, but a lot of people were still getting tripped up on how boarding bonuses were working. It should be more clear now how Boarding Value --> Base Damage Bonus, and how special crew types (SM, CSM, etc) impact damage through the Crew Damage Bonus.

>> Several other fleets have been updated with various fixes to formatting, typos, as well as a few interactions with the new Rogue Trader fleet list.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whew! I'm so very glad to be done with the faction books. Not that I didn't enjoy making them, but I'm ready to move on to something a little different looking (aka the Scenarios book). Once again I'm sorry it took so long for all you Rogue Trader fans out there - I should have done a better job of managing my work energy. Now that the book is out though, please feel free to go through it and let me know what you think!

As always, thank you to the entire community for all your support; it's made this whole experience so much easier than if I had to go it alone  ;D (I probably wouldn't have gotten this far otherwise).

Cheers,

-Xca|iber
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Lord Borak on April 13, 2017, 08:59:00 AM
I must say, the Rogue Trader list is AWESOME.

It's exactly what I've been looking for for my own fleet of Transport Vessels come Warships. My one (and only one) complaint is that you have to keep scrolling from the fleet list section all the way back to the start of the file to check the Customised ships refits. Or at least I do....... That's a petty little complaint though. Overall the feeling is great. I love the little merchantmen vessels.


You do realise you can make an Avenger with 45cm Weapon Batteries and a Targeting Matrix. That's quite horrific for 230pts (or 215 if you have the fleet commander on there with his free upgrade). Grand Cruiseers with +1 Hull point is pretty funky too. Almost like light Battleships.

Are the Bond-Captains supposed to be 75pts????? That's expensive for just +1LD.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 13, 2017, 09:07:06 AM
I must say, the Rogue Trader list is AWESOME.

It's exactly what I've been looking for for my own fleet of Transport Vessels come Warships. My one (and only one) complaint is that you have to keep scrolling from the fleet list section all the way back to the start of the file to check the Customised ships refits. Or at least I do....... That's a petty little complaint though. Overall the feeling is great. I love the little merchantmen vessels.


You do realise you can make an Avenger with 45cm Weapon Batteries and a Targeting Matrix. That's quite horrific for 230pts (or 215 if you have the fleet commander on there with his free upgrade). Grand Cruiseers with +1 Hull point is pretty funky too. Almost like light Battleships.

Are the Bond-Captains supposed to be 75pts????? That's expensive for just +1LD.

Thanks  ;)

And yes, AFAIK the modded Grand Cruisers are supposed to be pretty cool, since RTs don't get battleships of any kind, and have very little ordnance.

Bond-Captains are not supposed to be 75 points, only 15. I've fixed it just now.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Lord Borak on April 13, 2017, 11:18:44 AM
Cool. I'm not sure if it was intentional but the Grand Cruisers are listed as just Cruisers in their 'Type'. I'm guessing they're not meant to be able to squadron with normal cruisers?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 13, 2017, 03:24:40 PM
Grand, Heavy, and Battle cruisers are always "Type: Cruiser" in their profiles. But you are correct, Men O' War form squadrons like Grand Cruisers (and therefore only with other Men O' War / Grand Cruisers). I've updated the document to be a bit more specific about this.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on April 13, 2017, 05:31:44 PM
Very cool to hit this milestone and the new Ork Fleet list looks great. They should be far more straight forward to play now (ie: point ships at enemy, shout WAAAAAGH!!!).

I like the compromises on the clanz rules applying to squadrons, thats simpler than having a 30 point 'clan support' tax. The revised clanz rules look great for thpse purposes as well.

This does mean that Orks COULD have a Leadership 10 ship now with a blood axe kapitan.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Lord Borak on April 14, 2017, 12:05:38 AM
Grand, Heavy, and Battle cruisers are always "Type: Cruiser" in their profiles. But you are correct, Men O' War form squadrons like Grand Cruisers (and therefore only with other Men O' War / Grand Cruisers). I've updated the document to be a bit more specific about this.

Except when it's in Armada :P Thanks for the Clarification though. I've spent the whole day at work working out my fleet list :D God help me but you need a lot of escorts with that fleet :S
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Lord Borak on April 14, 2017, 10:42:08 PM
Just wondering. Was there any reason you aren't allowed to take Torpedoes on the Dauntless light cruisers? Seeing as Lances are hard to maintain it seems natural that they'd convert them to Torpedoes. Or were you trying to limit the amount of ordinance available?

I know it's a long shot but......... Is there any chance you could make an option for the brigantine to have additional launch bays? Str3 per side for example? (A bit like the Jovian).

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 15, 2017, 12:41:52 AM
Just wondering. Was there any reason you aren't allowed to take Torpedoes on the Dauntless light cruisers? Seeing as Lances are hard to maintain it seems natural that they'd convert them to Torpedoes. Or were you trying to limit the amount of ordinance available?

I know it's a long shot but......... Is there any chance you could make an option for the brigantine to have additional launch bays? Str3 per side for example? (A bit like the Jovian).

Indeed, limited ordnance is one of the fleet's primary balancing factors. It's something that horizon and AndrewChristLieb kept very consistent between their version of BFG:R Rogue Traders and afterimagedan's initial concept draft. Lances are similarly limited (although not quite as much, due to Xenos stuff and no longer having an extra point tax for them).

One can think of it as RTs are more along the lines of classical warships rather than a modern navy. They are then boosted by the "power of free enterprise," aka the ability to buy custom upgrades for their ships and escorts, and the ability to bring along allies (again for a fee, of course).

...So unless I've missed something in horizon's version of the rules (always a possibility :P), I'm afraid the ordnance options for Rogue Traders will likely stay as they are.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Lord Borak on April 15, 2017, 07:46:33 AM
That's fine. I'm still scratching my head trying to make a 1500pt list....... Every time I write a list with everything I want it ends up at nearly 2k!  ::)

I can always ally in a Dauntless with Torpedoes anyway so no big deal.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: horizon on April 17, 2017, 08:35:41 AM
That is indeed the intention. Rogue Traders have a more limited access to attack craft and/or lances. And torpedoes are not unlimited. The Imperial Navy may have lots of them but for Rogue Traders these are much harder to acquire. So they'll be less seen in a Trader's fleet.

So, yeah, Xca|iber did copy them as intended. :)

He fatally dropped "Like a Leaf in the Wind" which was one of the very first things to find a permanent place in any Rogue Trader lists I worked on. (Wasn't my idea to come with it but it sounded perfect). Firefly!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 17, 2017, 08:41:19 AM
He fatally dropped "Like a Leaf in the Wind" which was one of the very first things to find a permanent place in any Rogue Trader lists I worked on. (Wasn't my idea to come with it but it sounded perfect). Firefly!

I wasn't sure people would understand the reference, and technically "Leaf on the Wind" isn't actually a technological 'system', so I tweaked it just a bit  ;)

And in a general sense, the reference is still there... ;D
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Tves on April 19, 2017, 03:36:12 PM
Quote
Torpedo Launchas & Launch Bays
As with their weapons batteries, Ork ordnance varies wildly in strength from moment to moment. Because of this, Ork ships may never combine torpedoes into larger salvos. However, when calculating attack craft launch limits, always use the highest possible value for the fleet.

Does this mean a skwadron of Ravagers fire individual torpedo salvos? Example a Skwadron of 5 Ravagers would thus fire 5 seperate d6 str waves or can they combine into a str 5d6 wave?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 19, 2017, 10:20:26 PM
Quote
Torpedo Launchas & Launch Bays
As with their weapons batteries, Ork ordnance varies wildly in strength from moment to moment. Because of this, Ork ships may never combine torpedoes into larger salvos. However, when calculating attack craft launch limits, always use the highest possible value for the fleet.

Does this mean a skwadron of Ravagers fire individual torpedo salvos? Example a Skwadron of 5 Ravagers would thus fire 5 seperate d6 str waves or can they combine into a str 5d6 wave?

It would be 5 individual D6-strength salvos (rolling separately for each).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: AJCHVY on April 24, 2017, 06:03:29 AM
One thing I noticed about the ork battleships is that I think they are supposed to be speed 15 with the 2 with Soopa Boostas at speed 20.

It was a typo I feel in the previous edition that all of them were speed 20.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 24, 2017, 09:04:17 AM
One thing I noticed about the ork battleships is that I think they are supposed to be speed 15 with the 2 with Soopa Boostas at speed 20.

It was a typo I feel in the previous edition that all of them were speed 20.

AFAIK, all the Ork battleships have had a base Speed of 20cm since their introduction in Armada (where Soopa Enginez only improved AAF orders). As a result, when the speed increase bonus was added to what then became Soopa Boostas, the speed of Dethdeala and Kroolboy became 25cm (which can be seen in the old published version of BFG:R Orks). While it's possible that all 4 speeds have been typos all this time, without a concrete indication of the original/revised intent, I'm not sure there's enough of a reason to change it.

If there's a serious problem with the 5cm speed difference, I'd be willing to take a look at it, but with the fleet-wide buffs to the Orks in the last update, the battleships seem like they're in a relatively decent place balance-wise.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: AJCHVY on April 24, 2017, 08:06:35 PM
I think the initial 20spd was also a typo. If you look at all other non-eldar battleships almost all of them are spd 15. Orks in their own fluff are stated as having worse engines and as a faction are generally slower and turn less effectively.

I'm fine with the 25spd battleships as I play orks  ;D

All I'm saying is it might need looking at.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: horizon on April 24, 2017, 08:51:13 PM
Chaos Desolator 25cm speed
Chaos Despoiler 20cm
IN Retribution 20cm
IN Emperor 15cm

All other have 15cm? ;) That is basic blue book stuff.

Given other Orks speed I would rate battleships at 15cm, with a fast one doing 20cm. But all at 20 seems also fine. I think.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 24, 2017, 08:53:57 PM
Chaos Desolator 25cm speed
Chaos Despoiler 20cm
IN Retribution 20cm
IN Emperor 15cm

All other have 15cm? ;) That is basic blue book stuff.

Given other Orks speed I would rate battleships at 15cm, with a fast one doing 20cm. But all at 20 seems also fine. I think.

I also think it's probably fine at 20, unless you and the High Admirals decide to FAQ it, of course...  ;D
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Lord Borak on April 26, 2017, 10:57:33 PM
Another question regarding the Rogue Traders.

Reserves. Do all Grand Cruisers (Specifically reserved) count as Man o' Wars? What about Battlecruisers?

So, at 1500pts. Could I take a Man O' War Grand cruiser (Avenger), 2 Merchantmen  (so 3 cruisers now) and a Reserved Exorcist?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on April 26, 2017, 11:26:57 PM
Another question regarding the Rogue Traders.

Reserves. Do all Grand Cruisers (Specifically reserved) count as Man o' Wars? What about Battlecruisers?

So, at 1500pts. Could I take a Man O' War Grand cruiser (Avenger), 2 Merchantmen  (so 3 cruisers now) and a Reserved Exorcist?

Yes, this is correct. Man O' War should be synonymous with grand cruiser.

I've updated the RT fleet list headings to clarify this.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Lord Borak on April 26, 2017, 11:57:24 PM
Good man!  ;D
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: AJCHVY on May 22, 2017, 11:28:48 PM
One thing I noticed regarding the ork fleet. It says that with a looted vessel, you change all lances to zzap guns, attack craft, and nova cannons to killcannons.

Do you change torpedoes? This will only matter with Tau torpedoes, as they have unique rules.

I thought it would be cool if the orks got access to the special tau torpedoes, but only get 1 shot then back to normal torps.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on May 24, 2017, 04:17:07 AM
I have some concerns about the balance of the Proteous Hive ship. Our nid player takes it every game because he doesn’t have enough escorts and we’ve basically found it way too powerful in our 1500point games. I know one solution would be to have him not take it but I'd like for it to be a balanced option that is guilt free.

I’m vacillating between a points increase, or leaving the points alone and changing it to be counted as a defense. The fluff does describe the thing as often being the size of a small moon so being as hard to hit as a fast Chaos battle ship seems a little odd. So something more like the ork space hulk.

I otherwise love what you’ve done with the BFG rules and appreciate how open to discussion you are.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on June 04, 2017, 09:56:19 PM
So I took it upon myself to create a revised version of the BFG Campaign rules from the main rulebook, here is what I have so far:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/jfnq214z9lbtjbe/BFG%20-%20Revised%20Campaign%20Rules%20v1.0.docx?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/jfnq214z9lbtjbe/BFG%20-%20Revised%20Campaign%20Rules%20v1.0.docx?dl=0)

Changelog:
- Some simple but really needed edits accounting for how any faction can be used either as a Primary or Pirate faction in a campaign.
- Added that you pick one capital ship as the flagship of your fleet in each game you play, even if your commander's actual flagship is not present (matters for renown changes)
-Removed Planetary Assault and Exterminatus from the randomly generated scenarios table.  They are now things that players must decide to do.
-Battles other than Planetary Assaults now act like raids for resource purposes.  Winning battles and raids in a system before launching a Planetary Assault or Exterminatus gives the attacker extra points for those missions.
- A few changes were made to the Renown table to make it so that losing renown is an actual (but not crippling) thing.  Also added was an effect for crippling/destroying a flagship.
-Added the Refit and Crew Skill tables for Eldar and Orks, minor changes to modernize them were also made.
-Changed the Space Marine Appeals Table to actually mesh with how space marines work in BFG.
-Changed the Chaos Appeals table to be a bit more interesting and also to make it work in line with how Chaos Space Marines work in BFG.
-Reinforcement Appeals are slightly different now that the level and type of reinforcements you can request is now tied to your Renown.  No more summoning a new battleship every campaign turn.  This should help scale the conflict more gradually.



Biggest Changes:
-Repairs

One of the biggest failures of the original BFG campaign system was in just how little you could actually try to repair your ships without having to withdraw them.  Even well into a campaign it wasn't uncommon for players to barely be able to replace their lost escorts. Often people would rotate nearly identical ships on and off their fleet roster using the withdrawal system so that they wouldn't be hassled by this.  Also Withdrawing a ship had very little downside as you were guaranteed that a Battleship would be repaired just as fast as an escort.

The first change I made was to the repair point table.  This change was really simple, I just converted most of the values into D3 repair points.  So where before a Hive world would give a 20 renown player 4 repair points it now gives 4D3.  Given how few systems players tend to control over the course of the average campaign there isn't much hassle with this.

Withdrawn ships and squadrons now recover D6 hit points every campaign turn and do not become available again until they are fully repaired.

Also destroyed ships are not immediately replaced, instead they follow the same process as Withdrawn ships.

Overall this system encourages players to conserve their resources by withdrawing crippled ships rather than just letting them die over any over again.  Most players by their third campaign turn will be able to repair at least 12-15 hit points in damage between games, so the improved ease of repairing ships using repair points compensates for the decreased value of withdrawing ships.

The great thing about these changes is that they don't require any additional book keeping.  Any unspent repair points, which is unusual, are discarded.  Also in the "Advanced Rules" section I added at the end you can spend left over repair points to try to generate additional appeals.


-System Rules
The different types of systems have optional special rules, overall these are really simple additions.  The jist is that mining and agri worlds are more valuable because without them forgeworlds and hive worlds only generate half their normal repair points.  There are a bunch of other tidbits here, let me know what you think of them and if you have any ideas.

Faction Rules
I only included special rules for a few factions.  The rules for IN, Orks, and Eldar/DE are simple and fluffy without imbalancing anything.  Tyranids have a different repair point chart representing their stripping a world's biosphere over time.

Please let me know what you think of this and I'd love to hear any recommendations you guys might have for special rules for the factions I didn't cover.  Something else I was considering adding was advanced rules for special objectives and "command points" similar to the points in 30k or the new 40k.  Still ruminating on those.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on June 06, 2017, 01:45:15 AM
Hey sorry for not posting. Been away with RL stuff and gotten embroiled in X-Wing pretty hardcore. I'm still around though.  ;)

++++++++++++++++++++

I have some concerns about the balance of the Proteous Hive ship. Our nid player takes it every game because he doesn’t have enough escorts and we’ve basically found it way too powerful in our 1500point games. I know one solution would be to have him not take it but I'd like for it to be a balanced option that is guilt free.

I’m vacillating between a points increase, or leaving the points alone and changing it to be counted as a defense. The fluff does describe the thing as often being the size of a small moon so being as hard to hit as a fast Chaos battle ship seems a little odd. So something more like the ork space hulk.

I otherwise love what you’ve done with the BFG rules and appreciate how open to discussion you are.

I'll take a look at it. In the meantime, could you provide some more specifics about the situations where it's become a problem? If it's more of a general issue of point-efficiency, a cost change could easily work, although if there's an issue with something in particular (e.g. you mention its targeting with respect to gunnery) that could be a more appropriate fix.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

@Green_Squad_Leader: Thanks for the help! I'll go through the document and post my comments once I've taken a closer look. From just what's in your post though it's looking really good!  ;D
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on June 06, 2017, 05:50:02 PM
To help manage games and such for the campaign I keep intending to start I've made ship cards for the new Ork Fleets rules.  The goal is to print out and laminate these cards, making keeping track of ships in and out of game easy.  I also made cards for your commanders as well, as the old Fleet Roster sheet really didn't do a good job at giving you enough room to fit your bosses and their special rules.

Given just how customizable Kill Kroozers and Terror Ships are I made different named types of them for card purposes rather than have lots of "this OR this" in the Armament lists.

One thing that I tried to incorporate into these that previous ship cards I've seen haven't really incorporated is a simple way to incorporate the various upgrade options that ships have access too.  The way I made these you just need to check a block to mark that you have an upgrade, nice and simple.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jdot1djv5dxi8ex/Ork%20Fleet%20Cards.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/jdot1djv5dxi8ex/Ork%20Fleet%20Cards.pdf?dl=0)

I plan to make a set of these for each of the fleets, or at least each of the fleets I have.  Now that I have the templates made its pretty fast to pump them out.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on June 10, 2017, 06:27:24 AM

I'll take a look at it. In the meantime, could you provide some more specifics about the situations where it's become a problem? If it's more of a general issue of point-efficiency, a cost change could easily work, although if there's an issue with something in particular (e.g. you mention its targeting with respect to gunnery) that could be a more appropriate fix.



my group's been talking about it and we're coming to the thought that it's a general issue of the some of the Tyranid options being really too cheap for what you get. I'll try and wrangle up some more specifics for you soon. Again thanks for all the work.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: AJCHVY on June 12, 2017, 10:16:39 PM
One of the issues I've seen with the Nid stuff is it is drastically under-priced when compared to other fleets.

For example, compare their upgrades to orks. Orks have to pay 25 points for Super Boosters, which gives them the 4d6 all ahead full, and +5cm spd. Nids only pay 10 points for the +5cm speed. I doubt the cost of the 4th die on AAF costs 15 points.
Same goes for extra turrets, orks pay 20, and nids pay 10. Its the same for nearly every upgrade, nids pay way less for roughly the same bonus.

A nid charybdis battleship can after lots of various upgrades and weapons, cost around 300 pts, and have a similar amount of weapons as another fleets 400+ battleship.

Tyranids might need a full re-pointing for everything, as their entire fleet seems cheaper per ship and upgrade than almost anyone else.

I'm fine with Nids being a nasty close range fleet, but when the entire force gets to double boarding values, add auto fire crits to weapons, ignore shields with lances, use the crazy strong rules for feeder tendrils, and AAF right at you and still fire full effectiveness with cheaper ships, I as an Ork player am better off using my ork models but using Nid rules, as they are a better and cheaper version of my fleet.

Another different matter. One thing I noticed for Orks. The 2 battleships that do not come with Sooper Boosters do not have the option to buy them. And the cost of the Kustom force fields on the kroozers should probably be only 10, not 15, when compared to the battleships 20 point version.

tl;dr Nids are under-priced and a few things about ork upgrades cost and ship options.

Edit: I had never used on and did not realize that the Ork Freebooter Kaptin was the same cost as the other commanders. The +1 leadership is nice, but compared to the Warboss and the Big Mek, he does not do enough. I suggest either giving him another ability in addition to the +1ld or perhaps making him cost less. Maybe +1 ld is fine but other factions get to buy sub-commanders that basically do the same thing for less points, and orks always have less Ld so this ability is not as powerful.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: AJCHVY on June 25, 2017, 11:15:20 PM
Another thought I had regarding Orks and the points of some of their upgrades.

I know we went over the various clans and their bonuses, and for the most part we have figured out decent rules for them. Going over them again, I like the Goffs rules, but all the others seem to be missing something. Either 20 points for a clan is too much, or the clan bonuses need to be changed. Not sure how many people are checking this thread, as it seems my last question was not answered but here are my ideas.

Either make all the clan bonuses 10 points or;
Goffs: leave as is
Evil Suns: +5Spd and +1d6 AAF
Bad Moons: possibly a free left column shift instead of the free re-roll, the re-roll boss upgrade only costs 10 points so why take bad moons over that.
Deathskullz: I almost like the deathskullz bonus, but it needs to be clear whether or not escorts can take looted torpedoes and if they receive the same +1/-1 crit rule. This would allow them to only take a hit and run crit on a 5+ with no bonus.
Blood Axes: I do like the +1 Ld bonus, but I think it should be 10 points for blood axes. Only affecting 1 ship unless you take an 60-80 point boss is not enough of a bonus, especially as orks are always at -1 to their Ld anyway.
Snakebites are free so they are fine as well.

I'm really liking the changes to the ork fleet, they feel like a competitive fleet now except for when I'm facing nids  :-\
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 06, 2017, 12:04:56 AM
The current clan rules are a decent compromise and in a good place overall. That is a good point for the Deathskullz, thr answers are yes and yes though.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 06, 2017, 08:51:23 AM
Hey everybody. I'm still keeping up with the thread - have no fear. Things have been busy on the other side of the keyboard, however, and I don't have as much time to work on the project as before. But progress marches on nonetheless!

Okay, so questions:

One thing I noticed regarding the ork fleet. It says that with a looted vessel, you change all lances to zzap guns, attack craft, and nova cannons to killcannons.

Do you change torpedoes? This will only matter with Tau torpedoes, as they have unique rules.

I thought it would be cool if the orks got access to the special tau torpedoes, but only get 1 shot then back to normal torps.

I apologize for not answering this one earlier, it slipped by me.

To answer your question: Looted Tau ships keep their existing torpedoes. Fluff-wise, one can imagine the Orks very much like combining Torpedoes and Dakka together into missile salvos, and will work hard to keep that system working exactly as before.  ;)

Another thought I had regarding Orks and the points of some of their upgrades.

I know we went over the various clans and their bonuses, and for the most part we have figured out decent rules for them. Going over them again, I like the Goffs rules, but all the others seem to be missing something. Either 20 points for a clan is too much, or the clan bonuses need to be changed. Not sure how many people are checking this thread, as it seems my last question was not answered but here are my ideas.

Either make all the clan bonuses 10 points or;
Goffs: leave as is
Evil Suns: +5Spd and +1d6 AAF
Bad Moons: possibly a free left column shift instead of the free re-roll, the re-roll boss upgrade only costs 10 points so why take bad moons over that.
Deathskullz: I almost like the deathskullz bonus, but it needs to be clear whether or not escorts can take looted torpedoes and if they receive the same +1/-1 crit rule. This would allow them to only take a hit and run crit on a 5+ with no bonus.
Blood Axes: I do like the +1 Ld bonus, but I think it should be 10 points for blood axes. Only affecting 1 ship unless you take an 60-80 point boss is not enough of a bonus, especially as orks are always at -1 to their Ld anyway.
Snakebites are free so they are fine as well.

I'm really liking the changes to the ork fleet, they feel like a competitive fleet now except for when I'm facing nids  :-\

I can see where you're coming from. As it stands I'm not looking to make too many text-changes to how the bonuses work at the moment, but I've re-evaluated the points. The next release of the Ork book should have the following:

-Evil Suns, Bad Moons, and Blood Axes support upgrades are 10 points instead of 20 points.
-Deathskulls bonus is clarified (They may add +1 or -1 to any critical hit or hit-and-run result they suffer, and may have looted torpedoes for +10 points each).
-Freebooter Kaptins are 20 points (from 40)
-Nobz are 15 points (from 20, and to bring them in line with other similar secondary commanders).

+++++++++++++++++++++

I'm going to need some time to evaluate Tyranids and re-point everything.

Also, @Green_Squad_Leader, I'm going to have to put campaign stuff on the back-burner for the time being until I'm caught up on the Scenario stuff and any other faction fixes that need to go out.

Lastly, per the thread on Dark Eldar functionality, I'm considering possible changes to some of their mechanics to reduce the efficiency of "Ding-Dong-Ditch" gameplay (i.e. kill 1 ship and disengage). More to come on that front some-time later (when I can get around to it).

That's all for now. Thanks everyone for continued participation in this project!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 06, 2017, 09:40:55 PM
I have some ideas for the next tyranid release.  A problem with the current rules is the overlapping natures of the names. Having multiple ships of different classes share the same name is pretty confusing, so my recommendations are that we make the following changes:

Hiveships

·Proteus Hive Ship -> Protean Class Hive Ship (Protean is the adjective form of Proteus.  Proteus as a shape changing sea god who was able to transform into various monsters which were protean in their nature.)
·Chrybdis Hive Ship -> no change
·Scyllax Class Hive Ship ->  No change.

While this gets down purely to naming conventions i would also recommend that we swap the terms Chyrbdis amd Protean such that the Chyrbdis Class Hive Ship is the larger of the two. The reason is that the names would be more descriptive. Chyrbdis is a creature so massive it swallows the sea to kill its prey, while Protean beasts come in all shapes and sizes but share the same nature.  The 20 hit point hive ship better fits the name Chyrbdis while the extremely customizable 10 hit point one better fits the term Protean.  This also creates a play on the classic saying "between Scylla and Chyribdis" as the Protean class would be the class between the other two extremes.

Cruisers
·Kraken Predator -> Grendel Class Bioship (monster with unbreakable skin, rensing claws and a hunger for human flesh)
·Leviathan Prowler -> Gorgon Class Bioship (Its sight equals death)
·Emergent Drone -> Myrmeke Class Bioship (Myrmekes are Greek Mythological beasts that take the form of giant ants that guard hills rich with gold and kill anyone who comes too close.)

Escorts
· Kraken Predator -> Kraken Droneship
·Leviathan Vanguard Drone -> Vanguard Droneship
·Escort Drone -> Guardian Droneship

I have rules suggestions for nids as well but those names are annoying hence my posting about them first.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on July 06, 2017, 10:08:29 PM
we've boiled down our issues to basically just be the volume of feeder tendril hit and run attacks that you can make. with the multitude of escorts the nid fleets have you can basically ruin most of an enemy fleet's offensive power by breaking every weapon several times. There's no reason for the nid escorts to not spend the whole game braced as that doesn't stop Feeder tendrils from working. At least in XR the escorts are more expensive but I feel that the amount of feeder tendrils is extremely difficult to deal with. 

worry about cosmetic stuff like ship names once we sort out the important balance issues.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 07, 2017, 04:32:23 AM
There is a simple solution to the feeder tendril problem, and that is to make feeder tendrils weaker for escorts than they are for capital ships.

The easiest way to make that work is to give them a different effect from a normal hit and run attack (Nids have so many other ways to inflict those anyways).  How about this:

Feeder Tendrils: The first time this ship's base contacts the base of an enemy ship roll a D6. On a 5+ that enemy has been ensnared by the feeder tendrils, roll D6+1 and inflict the corresponding result on the critical damage table.  Escorts armed with Feeder Tendrils only successfully score a hit on a 6+.

If the target ship is an escort a successful hit from a feeder tendril suffers a hit and run attack.

That maintains the same net effect but makes feeder tendrils less of a guarantee. In fact the damage potential is greater this way and successful hits circumvent the anti hit and run special rules (space marines).

I would also recommend changing Massive Claws to work differently from their current form. Should I even bother making that recommendation or will everyone stone me to death by implying that clunky and easily abused rules are clunky and easily abused?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on July 07, 2017, 05:16:47 AM
There is a simple solution to the feeder tendril problem, and that is to make feeder tendrils weaker for escorts than they are for capital ships.

The easiest way to make that work is to give them a different effect from a normal hit and run attack (Nids have so many other ways to inflict those anyways).  How about this:

Feeder Tendrils: The first time this ship's base contacts the base of an enemy ship roll a D6. On a 5+ that enemy has been ensnared by the feeder tendrils, roll D6+1 and inflict the corresponding result on the critical damage table.  Escorts armed with Feeder Tendrils only successfully score a hit on a 6+.

If the target ship is an escort a successful hit from a feeder tendril suffers a hit and run attack.

That maintains the same net effect but makes feeder tendrils less of a guarantee. In fact the damage potential is greater this way and successful hits circumvent the anti hit and run special rules (space marines).

I would also recommend changing Massive Claws to work differently from their current form. Should I even bother making that recommendation or will everyone stone me to death by implying that clunky and easily abused rules are clunky and easily abused?

That is the complete opposite  direction I think everyone wants to go with feeder tendrils. I would say there should be less rolls involved, and making them able to do more damage is not helping.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 07, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
The problem as i understamd it currently is that they are too much of a guarantee and that they cam simply shut down an opposing fleet with critical hits without the tyranid player needing to put forth much effort at all.

This is why I was reticent to even bother suggesting any changes for Tyranids, the current rules are "sacred cows" for that faction to a far greater extent than they were for Orks.
  The rage and despair that came out when i suggested altering the mechanics of "Mechanical Klaws" was surprising and disheartening.

I am striving to make a similar proposal to what I suggested be done regarding Heavy Gunz. These weapons have an end state in mind for what each is supposed to achieve. They rules which strive to achieve these effects but the current version of the rules does not work in a way that meshes well with the rest of the game.  As such I am simply making proposals which preserve the intended endstate of each weapon system while changing the mechanism of achieving it.

Feeder Tendrils were intended in the original design as a means of weakening and damaging enemy ships without doing much real damage.  They also provided a then unique ability for Tyranid Escorts to perform hit and run attacks, which was cool.  On the whole they do not seem overpowered at all when used by tyranid capital ships, the poor maneuverability and speed of which make it hard to successfully contact enemy ships.

The problem is that the feeder tendril is too good when taken on an escort ship. There are a few obvious fixes but these don't work very well in practice.

Easy fix 1: Add a penalty to the hit and run attacks from escorts. This can work and helps solve the problem for attacking enemy escorts, but vs enemy capital ships it really doesn't solve the problem. The hit and run attacks would still cause an extremely high number of the same exact critical hit results disabling a ship's weapons for most of the game.  So this in and of itself really doesn't fix much.

Easy fix 2: Restrict availability of feeder tendrils to capital ships only.  This should be the absolute last resort option.

Easy fix 3: Increase the cost of feeder tendrils.  This is a rabbit hole of unintended consequences that quite likely wont leave anyone happy. Again i wohld strongly recommend avoiding it.

The mechanism I am suggesting is no more complicated than lance weapons or weapons batteries or any of the hundreds of complicated rules we have in this game. It is a simple "See of the attack hits, then see what its effect is." Mechanic.

Adding the potential for the attack to miss allows for its effects to retain their potency without upsetting balance. Making it an attack that misses most of the time allows for the cost of feeder tendrils to be kept down.  Now you could make the attack work based upon the armor of the target ship instead of based upon an arbitrary value, this actually would quite likely be the best solution overall.  It provides a simple effect with a simple mechanic.  So here is a revised version of my proposal:

Feeder Tendrils: The first time each turn that this ship's base overlaps an enemy ship's base it performs one Feeder Tendril attack for each feeder tendril it has equipped. Roll 1d6 per feeder tendril against the target's facing armor value. For each successful hit the enemy suffers one critical damage effect (subtract -4 from the result if this ship is an Escort).  Ships with 3 or fewer base hit points instead suffer a hit and run attack when hit by a feeder tendril (subtract -1 from the result if this ship is an Escort).

This does a few things.  First off it preserves the intended endstate of a feeder tendril (inflicting critical hits).  The second thing this rule does is it makes enemy armor values relevant, which means that at the very least feeder tendrils go from being a "works on a 2+" effect to a "works at best on a 4+" effect.  The third thing this does it it creates a meaningful disparity between the power levels of escorts and capital ships armed with feeder tendrils.

With this design an escort ship attacking an enemy capital ship with feeder tendrils has a 28% chance of not inflicting a critical hit even if it scores a successful hit, and the range of total damage results is reduced.  Against enemy escort ships it has a 50% chance of not destroying the enemy ship.

Even if struck on mass with feeder tendrils this change also sould have the effect of increasing the variety of critical damage effects inflicted, so the defender would be able to more effectively choose what to repair first.

Another effect that this would allow us to introduce would be to give feeder tendrils a str value, such that some ships feeder tendrils would have more chances to inflict hits on the enemy. In this way we could introduce more variety between various ship designs.

As for my recommendation regarding Massive Claws it is very similar an WAY simpler than the current rule iteration.


Massive Claws: The first time each turn that this ship's base overlaps an enemy ship's base it performs one Massive Claw attack for each Massive Claw it has equipped. Roll d6 equal to the combined STR values of the Massive Claws against the target's facing armor value.  For each hit inflicted the target suffers 1 hit point of damage (ignoring shields).  Roll for critical damage as normal, if any Massive Claw attacks cause critical damage than in addition to the critical damage inflicted the enemy ships is now caught in the massive claws. (at this point resume the current rule effects)

The advantage this design gives is that. All of the claw attacks can be rolled at the same time instead of in pairs. Linking the grappling effect with inflicting critical hits adds more of a fear element to claw attacks as it only takes a single hit to inflict it.  The math on whether it makes it more or less likely to occur is actually a bit weird and mostly depends on how many claw attacks are being made. Short answer is that from 2 claw attacks it is less likely to occur but with more attacks it becomes more likely.  Again this is a tidier solution vs the current system for the same reasons i already gave.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: horizon on July 07, 2017, 10:58:47 PM
Not going in depth but how many different weapons and rules do tyranids have anyway? And Orks?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 08, 2017, 12:16:21 AM
Lol quite a few. Which is good so long as each adds something different and cool.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: AJCHVY on July 08, 2017, 12:54:46 AM
I think feeder tendrils are fine as long as they are not spammable.

In my opinion if they were not an option for escorts that would balance them quite a bit.

My big issue with changing weapons is I'd rather not have complicated rules for the sake of having rules. Feeder tendrils work fine as is, the problem is being able to take like 18 of them and crippling an enemy cruiser or battleship for the rest of the game. I played a game with my orks, and turn 2 my battleship had so many crit effect I couldn't fire a single weapon and it was broken for the duration of the game. It was not fun to see a 400+ point battleship be crippled by 300 points of escorts and I could do nothing about it.

I'm not sure if massive claws need a change. They seem to work well enough without adding extra rules or rolls to hit. Also, the fact that a ship has more than 2 claws does not mean you have to roll them in pairs. All it says is if more than 1 hit, the enemy ship is now grappled. Maybe having them hit on a 5+ would be more fair, but I've never had any issues with them.

Our local nid players have agreed to try the list without feeder tendril escorts and playing against nids no longer feels like a negative play experience.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: horizon on July 09, 2017, 06:57:05 AM
?
But if I use 10 Iconoclasts and get within the prow of a battleship I can cripple/destroy it in one go.

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: AJCHVY on July 09, 2017, 09:29:40 AM
?
But if I use 10 Iconoclasts and get within the prow of a battleship I can cripple/destroy it in one go.

What kind of battleship? Tyranid? Sure maybe, but getting all 10 in front and in range is a little difficult sometimes depending on the scenario being played.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on July 09, 2017, 08:20:27 PM
?
But if I use 10 Iconoclasts and get within the prow of a battleship I can cripple/destroy it in one go.

if you're within 15 cm of a armor 5+ship and it is braced that's an expected value of 4.5 damage. If that same ship is armor 6+ that's 2.25 damage. This is without locking on for the purposes of comparison as the feeder tendrils have no re roll ability.

10 feeder tendrils are going to do less actual damage, but they're going to break every system on the ship around twice and basically take the ship out of the game as it wanders off trying to fix everything.

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Mewens on July 09, 2017, 10:03:53 PM
Apologies for the incoming novel. TL;DR: Iconoclasts, under the right circumstances, have a decent, but not great, chance of crippling a fresh battleship. Feeder tendrils don't do much damage, but simply destroy a ship's systems several times and limit repairs, thus de facto crippling them.

Even with Locked On Iconoclasts within 15 cm of a closing battleship, vs. a 5+ braced ship, you're looking at 7.5 damage. That's 1.25 crits, so you'll usually expect 1 critical effect and an average of like 0.57 damage from crits; let's call that 8 total. While 10 Iconoclasts can ruin a battleship, they often (that is, more times than not) won't even cripple it unless it's already on a few blast markers.

Let's compare that to 12 Drone escorts (240 points at 20 points each, so comparable to 10 iconoclasts at 25 points.) Armor's irrelevant, as are shields, so the only defense we need to look at is bracing. You're going to score an average of 18 hit-and-run attacks and 6 wounds; brace will reduce that to 9 and 3, respectively.  5/6 of your hit and runs will cripple a system, with 4/6 crippling a weapons system; on average, you're going to break 7.5 systems, with 6 of those being weapons. Those hit-and-runs have an expected damage value of 1/6, not counting Fire!, so you're going to pile on a little more than 4 wounds on average, in total. None of this is taking into account the 50/50 chance you have of critting off your up-front damage.

So now you've got a battleship that likely has 4/5 of its systems out, with 8 repair dice — but halved, since you've got a bunch of tyranids sitting on your base. (I haven't yet run into a situation where I didn't park my Drones on my target.) With 4 dice, you're going to see one-or-more 6s 52.8% of the time. You'll only see two-or-more 6s about 10% of the time. Your best-case realistic scenario is repairing a single weapon system and having two online next turn; the most common scenario is a 50/50 chance at having a single weapons system operational.

Keep in mind that we gave the Iconoclasts the best possible scenario: They could Lock On with a closing capital within 15 cm. The Drones will get their result from any angle, without orders. Also, you will see 12 escort Drones; they're tax ships. Nid player must take them to field Charybdis and Proteus ships. I'm not convinced you'll regularly see 10 Iconoclasts.

***

I'm fairly new to BFG, so I'm not sure how much weight anyone should give my opinion, but my games with nids have been one-sided affairs. I point at the enemy, roll All Ahead Full once, and then begin deleting ships, usually on turn 2. The games are often decided in the first round of shooting: Did they kill enough of my escorts to limit my feeder tendril spam, or not? If they did, then I'm in for a bad time: Nid guns are ungainly (6+ lances and front-only batteries). If I get to feast on ships, then I'm basically halving their fleet points in one go. It's a very all-or-nothing fleet in its current incarnation, and that leads to frustrating, repetitive games.

Personally, I think that feeder tendrils only become problematic when you can load them up on cheap bodies. I don't think they should be available, period, at 20 points a piece; they feel fine on 35-point Kraken Predators, where they're strong but not overwhelming.

My solution: Don't offer feeder tendrils as an option on Drone escorts. Nid shooting in general might need to be slightly better to compensate for no feeder tendril spam (with my sense being that Bio-plasma could get a sprucing, perhaps limiting its shield-piercing to within 15 cm but making it a 4+ lance at all ranges), but I haven't played enough games w/ no-tendril Drones to really get a feel for it.

Edits: grammar
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 11, 2017, 04:11:31 AM
Very well put. My games vs tyranids have mirrored the "one shot at this" aspect of your post. The super cheap escorts are very cool, but the mass feeder tendrils do seem too good. Again if it was an attack that actually had to hit it wouldn't be broken but it appears no changes to the current rules will be considered...
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: horizon on July 11, 2017, 08:39:18 AM
No one faced my 3 strong Iconoclast squadron of utter mayhem then.  8)


Alas, if feeder tendrils are an issue then scratch the whole thing. Are massive claws okay? Then let models with tendrils count as claws.

Or go wild:
Feeder tendrils

These grab a ship when in contact. Make a leadership test: if successful then the enemy ship is pushed remaining movement distance in the direction the tyranid escort is flying. Counts as BM in contact as well.

Against bigger vessels: leadership test on 3D6.
 


Sumtin like that. Quite cool tbh.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: AJCHVY on July 11, 2017, 08:09:51 PM
No one faced my 3 strong Iconoclast squadron of utter mayhem then.  8)


Alas, if feeder tendrils are an issue then scratch the whole thing. Are massive claws okay? Then let models with tendrils count as claws.

Or go wild:
Feeder tendrils

These grab a ship when in contact. Make a leadership test: if successful then the enemy ship is pushed remaining movement distance in the direction the tyranid escort is flying. Counts as BM in contact as well.

Against bigger vessels: leadership test on 3D6.
 


Sumtin like that. Quite cool tbh.

So, not trying to be harsh here but are you joking? I can't possibly imagine actually moving enemy ships like that. Sure the crushing claws can do it, but how often do you see a crushing claw armed battleship?

Attempting to balance something like that would be in my opinion extremely difficult. I'd rather not have the option for an escort to move a battleship, that makes no sense. Also, how many points would that even cost. If a 20 point escort could move a 350+ point battleship I think there may be something wrong there.

My big gripe with feeder tendrils still is as Mewens put it. Being able to take 18+ of them in a list for 20 pts a piece is was too strong. I think they work fine as is, just limit the amount that can be taken in a list.

Again, not trying to piss anyone off. The local nid players here have been not taking feeder tendrils on drone escorts and the fleet feels much more balanced.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: horizon on July 11, 2017, 08:15:41 PM
Not joking. When something is wrong and can only be fixed with extra rules or shudder shudder limit on numbers one should start thinking outside of the box.

In Rogue One a much smaller rebel ship pushed an Imperial Destroyer.

Yes, I see tendrils grappling on ships and pushing or even towing them.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: AJCHVY on July 11, 2017, 08:20:37 PM
I'm not asking for extra rules. A limit on a very powerful option is to me the correct answer.

Also, I was quite upset during rogue one when the small cruiser rammed and them moved a star destroyer. Even in 40k if that were to happen its likely the smaller ship would be crushed during this ram. By that logic, my ork ramships should be able to ram and move any ship in the game.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: horizon on July 11, 2017, 08:23:58 PM
Perhaps they should heh heh.

Putting limits on options is the worst kind of ruling in my opinion. Because it is a fake solution to the game universe.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: AJCHVY on July 11, 2017, 08:30:40 PM
There needs to be a balance between in game fiction and rules. Why can't you take as many land raiders in 40k as you want in a normal army? Because doing so would be unbalanced and therefore not fun. If we are going to play a game strictly on fluff, there will always be an army that is better than the others and people will flock to that.

I play BFG because the minis are cool, and 40k has a great universe, but I don't ever want fluff to overpower rules.

I had an ork battleship crippled in one turn by being attacked by 12+ drone escorts. That was probably one of the least fun games of BFG I've ever had. When 240 points of escorts cripple a 400 point battleship without actually having to roll to hit as well as being braced, something is wrong.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 16, 2017, 05:56:17 PM
I had a thought on another way to manage this. We could add an asterisk next to the feeder tendril options on escort drones with the following explaination:

May only be taken on Escort Drones taken in escess of the mandatory number required by a fleet's Hive Ships.

Wording needs cleaning up but the point should be clear. Doing this would help to prevent excessive spamming.  That could go a long way towards mitigating the "feel badsies" folks are suffering.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 20, 2017, 06:40:52 AM
Just a quick update: I have some potential changes for Orks and Tyranids in the pipeline at the moment, based on the recent feedback and discussion in this thread. I will post them up SoonTM.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: horizon on July 20, 2017, 07:56:05 AM
There needs to be a balance between in game fiction and rules. Why can't you take as many land raiders in 40k as you want in a normal army? Because doing so would be unbalanced and therefore not fun. If we are going to play a game strictly on fluff, there will always be an army that is better than the others and people will flock to that.

I play BFG because the minis are cool, and 40k has a great universe, but I don't ever want fluff to overpower rules.

I had an ork battleship crippled in one turn by being attacked by 12+ drone escorts. That was probably one of the least fun games of BFG I've ever had. When 240 points of escorts cripple a 400 point battleship without actually having to roll to hit as well as being braced, something is wrong.
Your still on in the loop that the feeder tendrils are to strong. Yes, good, enough example. Thus the feeder tendrils are overpowered. Limiting them in numbers breaks fluff and game mechanics. It is daft. An overpowered rule should be changed, not contained.
I only gave an example of a variant idea. Run along with it. Feed tendrils do not need to work as they do currently.

However I must say that this case has never been brought up since BFG exists. So was there someting in the old rules different (Armada)?

Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 20, 2017, 09:00:31 AM
At one point when afterimagedan took over BFG:R, he mentioned (Link (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=4936.msg40543#msg40543)) the Feeder Tendrils as being problematic in old Tyranid rules. However, I'm not sure which version of BFG:R he is talking about - he said Plaxor changed it to 1 H&R per Strength only, but this is not the same as the version of BFG:R Tyranids on afterimagedan's website.

Currently in BFG:XR and the BFG:R version on afterimagedan's blog, Feeder Tendrils do exactly the same as in Armada rules.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 24, 2017, 01:42:36 AM
I think perhaps the cost was the limiting factor before, it was hard to have enough escorts to reliably make it into contact with tendrils. The cost decrease helps nids a ton.

I agree that the current rule should be changed, the first thing we should do to figure out how is to decide what they do lore wise and what role they should fill for nids.

I would say that thematically it makes sense for tendrils to allow a ship to halt its movement and attack an board an enemy ship.  That is not an attack though so it should be an additional effect on top of whatever attack they do.

The simplest idea I can come up with is to make them the "weapons battery" version of claws, meaning that they get to make 1 attack against the target ship for each point of str against the target's armor. That makes them a lot weaker relative to massive claws and fits with the "batteries vs lances" dynamic that most of the rules already have.

It also would allow us to differentiate the power levels of feeder tendrils between capital ships and escorts by simply changing their str.

How does that sound?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on July 24, 2017, 02:38:35 AM
So here's what I've been considering on my end with respect to these discussions:

Feeder Tendrils:
For these I've mostly been in the same camp as Green_Squad_Leader, aiming to make them (1) do less overall damage and (2) have a chance of failure like other weapons. So what I've come up with is basically the following:

"A Tyranid ship armed with feeder tendrils may use them to attack one enemy in base contact during the shooting phase, just like any other weapon. To do so, roll a D6 per point of the weapon's strength. Each result that equals or exceeds the enemy's Armor value inflicts one hit-and-run attack on the target. If the target is a capital ship (or a defense with more than 3 starting hits), it also suffers one point of damage for each successful roll. This damage may cause critical hits as normal.

Squadron members automatically combine their feeder tendril strength when attacking the same target. If a target has multiple Armor values, combine feeder tendril strength for each group of squadron members facing a different value, then resolve those sets of attacks separately."


Along with this, the plan would be to double feeder tendril strength across the board. So a squadron of 12 escorts (as was used a few posts back) would go from ~9 H&Rs + 3 Damage against a braced Armor 5+ Battleship to ~4 H&Rs + 4 Damage (keeping in mind as well that the curve shifts down as well, since the minimum output is now 0). Overall it will do less damage than 10 Locked-On Iconoclasts at 15cm firing closing, but it requires less rigid positioning (besides base-contact) and no special orders.

Lastly, this setup prevents "fly-by" attacks, which never made sense to me. Now the Tyranids have to actually reach base-contact and stay there to make tentacle attacks, which is much more in line with the logic used elsewhere in the game.

Massive Claws:
Ok so for these I realize that they are suitably functional right now, but they're pretty clunky and for the most part it seems like they're just functioning as "point blank lances" rather than an interesting way to interact with enemy ships. (Also keep in mind that if anything changes here, Ork Klaws will probably change to match). In any case here's an outline of what I've come up with:

"When a Tyranid ship armed with massive claws rams or boards an enemy ship, it may attempt to grab the target. To do so, roll a D6 per point of massive claw strength. If at least two dice score a 4+, the target has been successfully grappled. The enemy suffers one point of damage and the Tyranid vessel immediately comes to a halt. If the target has a larger size (where Defense > Battleship > Cruiser > Escort) or slower Speed than the attacker (or both), the attack will succeed if at least two dice score a 3+ instead.

At the end of each turn, a grappled vessel must attempt a Leadership test with a -1 Ld penalty for each vessel currently grappling it. This penalty is increased to -3 Ld for each grappling ship larger than its unfortunate victim. If the test is failed, all of the vessels involved are considered locked in combat, and will follow the rules for drawn combats (as described on page 41 of the main rulebook) until the end of the next player’s turn. If the test is passed, the intrepid defender breaks free from the massive claws and may move away at its next opportunity.

Attacks from massive claws are resolved immediately upon base contact, even if the Tyranid vessel has not yet moved its minimum speed. If the attack fails to grab the target and the Tyranid ship’s movement takes it out of base contact, any boarding attempt is automatically canceled and the Tyranid may continue to act normally (but may not attempt to board again in the same turn). Furthermore, a Tyranid ship cannot attempt to use its massive claws more than once per turn, and if a Tyranid ship becomes crippled, its massive claws may no longer attack at all (immediately releasing any enemy ship it is currently grappling)."


Text-wise I don't know if this is actually shorter, but I'm hoping that it provides a clearer and more immersive function gameplay-wise. Mainly the change is that the claws do less damage (1 total on a success rather than 1 per hit each time), they only trigger on ramming/boarding attempts (again with the logic of requiring full base contact rather than "fly-by" hits), and there's no requirements for moving the ships around in complex ways. On a grab, the ships just stop, and can have the possibility of being locked down for one or more turns. (This is also why the damage is reduced - it'll be made up during sequential boarding rounds).

+++++++++++++

That's it for now regarding Tyranid game mechanics. Let me know what you all think about these potential changes.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 24, 2017, 04:05:55 AM
The only change I see that needing is to make it so that ships can stop their move with feeder tendrils as well as claws. Otherwise they will be extremely hard to use.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 24, 2017, 09:07:48 PM
When you think about it that could be one of the unique things that Tyranids can do as a faction. Lore wise it would make sense that their ships would move to board enemy ships by default, so giving them a simple way to stop moving when they make contact with an enemy ship even if they have not completed their minimum movement would be thematic.

Every other race's ships are trying NOT to ram and collide with enemy vessels by default, only doing so when it suits them to. Tyranid ships by contrast would be trying to collide with enemy ships by default with some specially evolved ships trying not to (i.e.: ships with ranged biomorphs).

So here are my recommended changes to what Xcaliber submitted:

· Make it so that Feeder Tendrils allows a tyranid ship to halt its movement as soon as it overlaps an enemy ship even if it has not moved its minimum distance.
· Remove that same effect from Massive Claws but retain their ability to lock ships together.
· Give every ship that can take massive claws feeder tendrils by default so that they all can use both abilities.
· Make so that a tyranid capital ship that stops its movement to use feeder tendrils can still fire its other weapons in addition to launching a boarding action, but they may only attack the ship they have overlapped with feeder tendrils and massive claws.

This allows us to avoid repitition in the rules and would provide Tyranids a useful but by no means overpowered ability across most ships in their faction.

My last point regarding allowing a ship to fire its other weapons at other enemy ships may have been covered before but we should include some rule to that effect so that folks cannot shut down hive ships and cruisers by "feeding" them escorts.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Bessemer on July 24, 2017, 11:37:04 PM
Just a thought on the Feeder Tendrils...Rather than completely re-write them, how about this?

As is, but you make 1 H&R attack for the squadron, rather than per model. Each model in base contact after the first adds 1 to the roll, Max +3.

Allows FT's to be a viable option without being too mental.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 25, 2017, 12:27:21 AM
Just a thought on the Feeder Tendrils...Rather than completely re-write them, how about this?

As is, but you make 1 H&R attack for the squadron, rather than per model. Each model in base contact after the first adds 1 to the roll, Max +3.

Allows FT's to be a viable option without being too mental.

I can't see this working. Its just far too weak/powerful of an effect.  One critical hit vs a capital ship isn't really that useful of an effect, but one critical hit with a +6/+9 is insanely potent as it would guarantee the extremely rare and super powerful critical effects would happen and its a guaranteed to work ability.

We could try to figure out exactly what "max" number of hit and run attacks we feel would be too much but that wouldnt really solve the problem of it being too good as a guaranteed effect. Xcaliber's onto some good stuff here.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on October 07, 2017, 05:19:45 PM
Anything new post summer?
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on October 07, 2017, 09:34:20 PM
Nothing at the moment. I've been swamped with RL stuff recently, and my free time has been focused on other games. I've still got my big list of fixes/comments on the current codexes, so I haven't completely forgotten about the project  ;). Also still have the scenario book to finish up.

May still be on hiatus for a while until I can work out a better schedule to continue writing.

That said, I appreciate everyone who's still keeping up with the project! Thanks!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on November 08, 2017, 09:37:48 PM
https://www.dropbox.com/s/17bf5k4mq1xtjmb/BFG%20-%20Revised%20Campaign%20Rules%20v1.12.docx?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/17bf5k4mq1xtjmb/BFG%20-%20Revised%20Campaign%20Rules%20v1.12.docx?dl=0)

Changelog:


I based the Tau tables on the ones in Warp Rift 3, with a few modernizations.  Next up is Dark Eldar, and then probably Necrons and Tyranids.  Its surprising how long it takes to rework these.

Anyways let me know what you guys think.[/list]
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on November 09, 2017, 09:28:00 PM
Here's another update, I think I'll hold off a bit before tackling the remaining factions.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jfnq214z9lbtjbe/BFG%20-%20Revised%20Campaign%20Rules%20v1.14.docx?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/jfnq214z9lbtjbe/BFG%20-%20Revised%20Campaign%20Rules%20v1.14.docx?dl=0)

Changelog:

The Dark Eldar rules are based off of the Refits and Crew Skills tables presented in Warp Rift issue 15, though with some modernizations and major edits.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on November 10, 2017, 10:40:55 PM
Here is another new concept that I've been working on. While it has a few issues one great innovation that 8th Edition Warhammer 40,000 has introduced is its approach to force organization. Its Detachment/Strategem system rewards players for taking relatively balanced armies by making their access to powerful strategems contingent upon doing so. While a player can field a comparatively unbalanced army doing so reduces the number of Command Points they have to spend on Strategems. This "Carrot or Smaller Carrot," approach is directly translatable to BFG and works better across all of its factions than the original "fore organization," method (or lack there of) did.

Here's my proposal for how this could work, feedback is VERY welcome on this one. I tried to keep Strategems useful without making them brokenly good.  You may notice that some of these are inspired by things from the BFG:Armada video game.

(click to show/hide)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nh665fogss0hn95/Command%20Points%2C%20Detachments%2C%20and%20Strategems%20v1.0.docx?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/nh665fogss0hn95/Command%20Points%2C%20Detachments%2C%20and%20Strategems%20v1.0.docx?dl=0)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on November 13, 2017, 01:28:04 AM
Reload Ordnance special order it reloads a number of Hull Borers equal to its starting hit points."

With this change Escort Drones would at least have the downside of only providing staggered rates of fire needing two turns to fully rearm after each mega salvo. On off turns they wphld still be able to throw out a salvo of 12 torpedoes, so it wouldn't cripple them.  Every other Tyranid ship has at least as many hit points as it does torpedoes, so escort drones would be the only ship effected by this.

2. For the first time I realized that Tyranid turrets no longer are special in any way.  I can see the value in having fixed numbers of turrets for balance purposes, but as it was always a special fluffy thing about how their shields worked as their turrets I'm wondering whether or not we could restore some versiom of their old rule. Also needing to pick whether to shoot at torpedoes or attack craft just felt disappointing as I remember how cool these used to be.

How would this work for a reworking of their old rule.

"Tyranid vessels do not actually have Turrets, instead the Spore Clouds surrounding the ship will swarm and attack any incoming ordnance.  Tyranid Turrets do not need to choose what kind of enemy ordnance to intercept, but if a Tyranid Vessel's shields are down its turrets only hit on a 6+."

So instead of their old rule, which did really only benefit Hive Ships, where the penalty effected 1 turret per blast marker this version turns it into an on/off switch.

3. Several Kraken builds are rather underpowered for their cost, especially the Hull Borer option. At 40 points you are spending twice as much for the exact same firepower as you get from a single escort drone. Given that the other options, except for the Feeder Tendrils, gives you 50%-100% more firepower than you get for an eacort drone for half the cost this seems underpowered.

My recommendation is that we make the Feeder Tendril come stock for Kraken and have it purchase a second weapon. If we added the change I recommended for the Hull Borers then it would still be better even with the same Str, so we wouldn't really need to change anything else.

4. Kraken Cruisers lacking any options is weird, I would recommend that we change it so that they have at least some sort of choices. I would recommend giving them Keel Massive Claws to start with and then Prow and Sode weapon options.  Here's my recommendation for its entry:
Carnivore Class Bio-Cruiser......60 pts
Port/Starboard Weapons: (Choose up to 2)
Prow Weapons: (Choose 1)
[/i]

That way its a flexible ship with the same "build it yourself" concept as the rest of the tyranid list.

5. I would also recommend reworking Escort Drones to fit their role as Meat Shields a bit better. As it stands right now with their speed of 15 cm and 45° turn they really can't get anywhere they need to go.  Heres the concept I'd want to move towards.

Type/Hits...Speed....Turns....Shields....Armor...Turrets....
15 pts
.......1............15 cm....90°...........1.............4+..........1.....

Weapons: (Choose One)
[/i]

With that change they would essentially be a swarm of slow moving Cobras.  I've just found that as is they can't really do a very good job of protecting a Hive Ship as when your opponent outflanks it they can't actually turn to engage them. The 90° turn would fix that and turn them into an angry swarm of bees.  Also the reduced cost would help you fit larger ships in a list with swarms of kittle ones, which is very fluffy.

6.  Change the names of units to make it easier to tell them apart.
Kraken Carnivore -------> Carnivore Class Cruiser
Kraken Predator --------> Kraken Bio-Ship
Leviathan Prowler -----> Prowler Class Light Cruiser
Leviathan Vanguard --> Vanguard Bio-Ship
Emergent Drone --------> Guardian Class Light Cruiser
Escort Drone -------------> Drone Bio-Ship

7. The weapons for the Charybdis Hive Ship seem a bit odd in a few ways. Now I understand that they are in essence exactly the same as the original Hive Ship rules from the BFG Armada book, but does anyone have any idea why the Bip-Plasma Discharge is Left/Front/Right?  Its the only weapon that is, and that seems a rather inexplicable. Every other ship with similar weapon options either have all fixed weapon options or all 270° arc weapon options. I just can't see any reason why the Bio-Plasma Discharge for this ship, and the Scylla Class Hive Ship as well I guess, breaks that mold.  Again I get it that the original rules had this as a design feature, I just can't figure out why.

I would recommend we make at least the Prow Bio-Plasma Discharge a Front only weapon, and/or make the Dorsal Pyro-Acid Battery F/L/R as well.  As it stands there really is absolutely no reason to ever take Pyro-Acid batteries on the sides as Firepower 6 is pathetic for a battleship. If the Dorsal Pyro-Acid Batteries could also fire F/L/R then at least you could have a Firepower 14 flank shot to one side.

As is there are two "Correct" ways to build Hiveships, pure carrier or pure Bio-Plasma, and I'd suggest that pure Bio-Plasma is the way to go as being able to pump out 11 Lance shots to one side, ignoring shields is insane for 250 points.

I'd suggest changing the options to something like:


Port/Starboard Weapons: (Choose up to 3)
[li]Launch Glands..........................+20 pts
Port Antibodies (Str 1 15 cm Left)
Starboard Antibodies (Str 1 15 cm Right)
[/li][/list]
Prow Weapons: (Choose 1)
Keel Weapons: (Choose 1)
[/i]


It's a minor change but it would make them make more sense. We could do a similar change fpe the Scylla as well.

Anyways those are the recommendations I've got right now.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on November 19, 2017, 11:39:36 PM
Continuing my string of posts I've been making of late I've updated the campaign rules yet again, this time incorporating the Detachment and Stratagem rules I mentioned earlier.  Feedback is of course welcome on these as adding new concepts to a game always involves some growing pains.  Making this look pretty took so fucking long...

+++Updated+++

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jfnq214z9lbtjbe/BFG%20-%20Revised%20Campaign%20Rules%20v1.21.docx?dl=0
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on November 20, 2017, 02:23:44 PM
Updated stratagems.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Fr05ty on March 15, 2018, 09:35:32 PM
Xcal, there's an error in the Ork Hammer class Battlekroozer options. It says you may equip its Deff Kannon with looted torpedoes when it should be Kustom Kannon.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on March 17, 2018, 12:32:04 AM
Xcal, there's an error in the Ork Hammer class Battlekroozer options. It says you may equip its Deff Kannon with looted torpedoes when it should be Kustom Kannon.

I think you have an older version. The one in the current link looks correct to me. Which page did you mean?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

P.S. A word to everybody that's helped out and contributed thus far:

In "official" news regarding the project, I'm sad to say that the current hiatus may extend indefinitely. I'm not going to give up on the project just yet, but it's been very difficult for me to make time to work on it. BFG is, quite unfortunately, a defunct game - one that I haven't been able to play regularly since most of my friends moved away (and moved on with their lives). As a result, it's become hard to stay motivated. (At least, it is hard to choose to stay home and work on BFG:XR, which I cannot play, when I can drive out to my FLGS and play X-Wing or hop on Discord and play TTRPGs).

So for now I've decided to put the whole thing in standby for the time being. I know this isn't really great to hear, and I definitely should have made an announcement sooner. If there are issues with the existing books that can be fixed easily (aka typos, formatting problems, errors, etc) I'll still be around to take a look. But I probably won't work on any major balancing changes for the foreseeable future. (I'm keeping all my notes however, so don't worry about ideas getting lost).

Lastly I just want to say thanks to everyone that helped out and contributed, and to the mods of these boards for letting me set-up this little project here. BFG:XR is one of the first "homebrew" projects I've worked on publicly, and the support I've gotten thus far has been far greater than I would have ever expected. Hopefully one day in the future, I'll be able to come back and give it my full attention once again. Until then, good luck and happy hunting to all you Captains and Admirals out there. May your have smooth sailing through the Warp on all your travels.

Regards,

Xca|iber
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on April 05, 2018, 11:23:27 AM
Hey xcal thanks for giving us the update, it is unfortunate but everyone needs a break everyone once in a while.  Not every project lasts forever and what has already been done for BFG is great already.  Something I'm going to look into is getting in contact with Forge World and offering to help them with playtesting and designing the promised revamping of BFG.  If any of the work you have done on this project can help inform their work developing a renewed "living" game of BFG then it will all be worth it.

With my being mobilized and sent to Kuwait for a year this is the first time I've even looked at the forum here in months.  I  actually had been putting some more thought to ways to fix Mimic engines, doing some playtesting against myself to see whether or not the revised concept is easily breakable.

If you are up for passing the torch a bit on this I can take on the job for actually compiling and putting out the finished products rules wise, I would just need the tools (templates/formats) to do it.
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Thinking Stone on April 06, 2018, 11:16:11 PM
It's been pretty exciting to see your steady and innovative hand at work, Xca|iber, and I think BFG has benefited from it as much as the community has from your engagement (that is, quite a bit :P). Alas, times do change and things get busy; I've noticed that it's not only BFG that's on the wane, but even this way of communicating on specialised internet fora that seems to be heading out the door. It's good to hear that you're getting some space games in, though! I know with my own busyness that's always a challenge... along with the challenges of not having people to enjoy the game with.

I would be interested to see your adventures in X-Wingland, though: I have played a tiny bit but been curious about how it goes when you play lots of it! I do also wonder if the fleet-scale version compares with BFG :9

Welcome back from deployment, Green_Squad_Leader! Besides always reminding me of Star Wars B-wings, it's good to see someone with the resources and passion to keep tinkering with BFG meaningfully!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: atension on July 13, 2018, 07:03:34 PM
Hoping there is still work happening on XR. Keen to play a campaign this year.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on August 22, 2018, 09:17:54 AM
Welcome back from deployment, Green_Squad_Leader! Besides always reminding me of Star Wars B-wings, it's good to see someone with the resources and passion to keep tinkering with BFG meaningfully!

Actually I don't get home until December, but thank you for the mention and thoughts.

I've actually been ruminating on a "BFG Modernized" rules set which would introduce a fair number of new mechanics and clean up some other things.  As I'm sure everyone would agree BFG is a game of extreme contrasts regarding it's complexity to simplicity ratio.  Aspects of the game which should be simple (ie: targeting enemy ships) are super complex while aspects which should be complex (ie: Taking damage, variation between weapon types, movement) are overly simple.  As a result we get a game which while fun has you wrestling with the mechanics most of the time.

I'd propose a set of changes to update the game to a fully modern one that would allow for a greater degree of variation between each ship in a fleet list, a smoother playing experience, and that would scale more cleanly than BFG does with it's "my mound of dice will erase any target no matter how durable" dynamic.

Once I have the concept written out to be intelligible I'll post it.  The positive thing is that most units in the game would be very easy to update and integrate into the new system I'm proposing.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on August 22, 2018, 09:20:39 AM
It appears that the link to the updated campaign rules is broken, so here's a new one:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wt57x3qk2eyw9yv/bfg%20-%20revised%20campaign%20rules%20ver%201.4.0.pdf?dl=0 (ftp://www.dropbox.com/s/wt57x3qk2eyw9yv/bfg%20-%20revised%20campaign%20rules%20ver%201.4.0.pdf?dl=0)
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Thinking Stone on August 23, 2018, 12:49:59 AM
Oops, my mistake on the deployment! All the best, nonetheless.

I’d be intrigued to see your proposals. For the most part, I don’t mind the mechanics already there (the firepower chart is a novel way of dealing with the firepower scaling issue, for example), but for me there are plenty of those small niggling things that just don’t seem fully optimised (e.g. FP chart maxing out at 20: why not use a fractional multiplier; frontal shields being tougher than rear shields; attack craft; squadroning; boarding actions; difference between escorts and capital ships; some special orders and how they interact with squadrons or what they represent).

The targeting complexity, though, I don’t see as much of a problem: I think that’s a reflection of BFG being primarily a game of manoeuvre, and the need to manoeuvre well is what keeps it interesting for me (you can play a great game on a bare board!). Critical damage could be a bit less random, but looking at other rulesets (Epic and others), I’ve found few good models of critical damage at all, let alone space ship critical damage. So I’m interested to see what you’ve come up with!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Fr05ty on November 01, 2018, 06:02:20 PM
Any reason why the Dark Eldar have no weapons of range 45cm? Think it'd be fitting on the Mortalis Grand Cruiser

Additionally, any opinion on adding the Tau (Missile Cruiser) and Eldar (Nebula and Ikaros class) ships from the Nemesis Book? How'd they look?

Might be worth revisiting this once Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2 comes out with extra ships for the races that missed a proper roster
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on November 06, 2018, 03:01:47 AM
I have a question about the Activated Blackstone Fortresses combining their shots. As per the rules you need to have a novacannon template touching each of their stems to combine their power for the super shot.

(https://i.imgur.com/W0HGwcv.jpg)

This is incredibly ugly. and they can't fit without overlapping bases.

Having them have the edge of their base touch is much nicer looking and really does not make them more powerful, if anything it makes it easier to fly a capital ship into the middle to disrupt the shot.

(https://i.imgur.com/XSlomHs.jpg)

I know Xca|iber has stepped away but does anyone see an issue to changing it to having the template centered between base edges? I'm probably one of 6 weirdos with more than one Blackstones too.

(also before anyone asks, the Blackstone on the left is on an omni stand from http://www.corseceng.com/omni-stand/ (http://www.corseceng.com/omni-stand/) )
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Zelnik on December 05, 2018, 06:44:39 PM
Sup my dudes!!

You guys have done an amazing job (though I wonder if there are too many ship options now..)

Any way I can help?
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Thinking Stone on December 23, 2018, 03:38:25 PM
In the absence of the other, perhaps more enlightened, folks interested in BFG:XR, I’ll try to provide some sensible responses! I would have tried replying earlier except that the year got away from me too quickly!

@Fro5ty: For the Dark Eldar, I presume the lack of 45 cm weapons is historical and was originally part of their playstyle intentionally. Other Eldar also lacked 45 cm weapons in the earlier lists, for example. As I understand it, Xca|iber’s intent was to not substantially change lists (unless necessary), but to continue the efforts of things like BFG:R.

It might be an interesting question to ask in a new thread, to see if any of the real long-term veterans of BFG remember anything. Maybe you could try out 45 cm weapons on the grand cruiser and see how it goes?

For the Book of Nemesis ships (or any new ships, e.g. from the BFG Armada game): I think you could organise to play with them in your local scene without much trouble (I think they’re fairly well-balanced, from memory), but I think one phenomenon with BFG lists over the years has been bloating from both fan-made and official (or computer-game official) ship additions. New ships can be interesting and can freshen a list (and some have achieved more widespread adoption, like the Eldar Supernova), but the danger is diluting the feel and playstyle of factions. I think Xca|iber tried to be careful of that here. What will happen post-Xca|iber is another question, and could do with more discussion with the those who really know the ins and outs of BFG, I reckon!

One factor is that the video game(s) have different objectives and faction designs to the tabletop game, too. So, tabletop Chaos historically didn’t have (or really need) light cruisers, but the Armada game needed them for how fleet progression worked there.

To me, I think the fleets of BFG:XR are pretty-well fleshed out for what they represent, so I personally don’t think a whole lot is needed in new material (except maybe some bigger Dark Eldar ships).

@DrDaniel5: With Xca|iber perhaps indefinitely gone, I’d suggest you go ahead and try the larger spacing (which I presume you have anyways)—I can see some merit in the original close spacing, but I think your solution is much more sensible practically. The bigger gap to be flown through in particular seems to match the background in any case.

If it turns out to be a lot better, then you could leave a note back here for all those interested, and it might one day get into BFG:XR or into some successor project.

Also, nice omni-stand (and pair of Blackstones, for that matter)! I’ve read good things about them.

@Zelnik:
Hail, fellow dude! They have indeed done a marvellous job! I actually don’t mind the ship options that much, because I think they generally fit the themes of lists well, and, to me at least, it’s neater to have a few chassis with different loadouts.

As for helping: I think any interest would be keenly appreciated! Though Xca|iber is on a long hiatus and Green_Squad_Leader is presumably only just back from deployment, so the more active peeps are a bit quiet at the moment. I think generally playing with BFG:XR and talking about it are useful any time, but there are plenty of discussions about some of the trickier things Xca|iber decided on that might be particularly interesting to test.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Draccan on December 30, 2018, 12:48:02 PM

Hi

I am about to return to BFG after a decade long hiatus and stumbled over this.
Can someone explain to me in broad strokes the differences between classic BFG and BFG:XR?

Also are there pros and cons to play the main rules, armada and 2010 vs. this revised edition.

Before jumping in, I would love to hear what people think.

With the original guy out, has it been completed to a workable state or are there (many) missing components and problems?

Has anyone considered picking up the mantle and continue this?

Sincerely
D.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Draccan on December 30, 2018, 01:24:34 PM
Anyone who has a functioning link to the campaign and scenarios rules. Original post is removed and the other link in the thread is not working either.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Bessemer on December 30, 2018, 11:58:20 PM
@Draccan

The only real downside of using 2010 or BFG:XR is the reading up in order to use them. Both help clarify rules and fix ships/lists, with BFG:XR going way more in depth. To what extent I'm not too sure, as whilst I had a hand in the previous version of Revised (mostly on the 'Nids) I had no involvement with XR. That being said, it seems comprehensive enough.

As Thinking Stone says above, the XR project is virtually complete, minus some proof-reading and the Scenarios doc, which was posted but has since gone down. Hopefully the holder will post again in the near future.

I would happily use XR in it's current state, as the vessels and rule included are well balanced in relation to the original or even 2010. The only imbalanced thing I can recall of the top of my head would be the Proteus Hiveship...We put no limits onto what game size it could be used in in and it will dominate in any game below 2000, a flaw carried into XR from the original Revised

Hope that paints a quick impression and helps in your choice!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Draccan on December 31, 2018, 12:12:02 AM

@bessemer

Thanks for that. I was expecting at least a few rules changes and not just clarifications and compiling. I will have to decide if I will use my old rulebooks incl. Armada and print 2010 update with it or go with BFG:XR and send the whole thing to a printshop (expensive locally).

I will hold out and see if a BFG:XR player can share the missing file. If not I will probably skip this edition.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Bessemer on December 31, 2018, 12:17:30 AM
I suppose I should have mentioned the Eldar rules are much different to the Original, Made by members of these forums. Far more fair and playable!
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Thinking Stone on December 31, 2018, 12:42:42 AM
As @Bessemer says, I too think BFG:XR is well-balanced compared with previous iterations, and very complete, except perhaps for the final balancing on the Tyranids (I think Xca|iber got the Orks sorted before the end). I think restricting the Proteus is probably the easiest fix there (though there’s some discussion above).

For the timeline of BFG ‘editions’, this reply from @Horizon and the thread he linked to are useful if you haven’t seen them yet:

http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=8631.0

Lots of revision efforts have happened over the years, both when GW still actively maintained the game, and when that task fell to the various BFG communities. BFG:R was one of those attempts that aimed to really engage the community in improving and polishing the BFG Armada + FAQ2010 rules (along with some additions over the years from particularly excellent community rules).

BFG:XR uses BFG:R as a base, and aimed to complete it (and you can read about Xca|iber’s strategies in this thread, of course). It clarifies lots of small things and changes some of the odd things that didn’t really make sense, and compiles everything (except the unfinished campaign rules) into an edition all with one date (instead of bits and pieces of things with different levels of revision). BFG:XR consequently makes many fleet lists more complete. In my humble opinion, BFG:XR is the best complete revision of BFG to date.

So, if you’d like to use the last, most ‘official’ GW production, BFG + Armada + FAQ2010 is the one to use, and the most widely accepted (having said that, there’s always a little controversy).

However, as is typical of Games Workshop, those may not be the most well-constructed version of the rules; BFG:XR is probably the best at that, that I know of. There are not significant enough core rule changes between the two for most people to really notice, though, except that the community-created Eldar Move-Move-Shoot rules are included in BFG:XR rather than the original Move-Shoot-Move rules (the opinion of many on these forums, at least, is that the ‘MMS’ rules work better). Hopefully someone has the campaign rules, but you could easily use the original BFG campaign rules with BFG:XR.

Of course, there’s nothing stopping you from trying out one combination of rules, and then deciding as a group to use something from another revision—an example might be that the original BFG Retribution and Emperor class battleship weapons stats/points values are a bit dodgy; or maybe you like the BFG:XR Orks but prefer the original MSM Eldar. And it’s totally fine to want to stick with the most ‘official’ rules out there, but the BFG community these days has no official support and is generally just local groups, so there’s perhaps less reason to other than personal preference.

Hopefully our thoughts have been helpful! :D

Edit: As to someone picking up the mantle, the only person who’s really posted on here about doing something like that is Green_Squad_Leader—though he was mentioning creating a new revision (see above).

I think BFG:XR (except for the aforementioned tweaks to Tyranids, and the missing campaign rules) is complete as it is. There will almost certainly be small things picked up on and suggested fixes from the community, but they’d just be small notes, I think. People are also always creating new fan ship designs and scenarios, which are easy to incorporate into games. Someone might try getting in touch with Xca|iber for the source document files, but not having those is an obstacle to further work on BFG:XR.

For the future of revisions overall, I personally reckon the most fruitful things to do would be getting BFG:XR more widely used, and working on more substantial revisions to the core BFG rules, like GSL is suggesting—the rules engine is pretty excellent, but it’d be interesting to see some modern rules innovations incorporated.

There is also the spectre of Games Workshop releasing a new Horus Heresy ‘BFG’ game, like they’re re-released Adeptus Titanicus—hopefully it’ll happen, hopefully it’ll be well-designed! But until we see it, it throws a lot of uncertainty out there for people wanting to revise BFG. The new version of the computerised BFG Armada could be interesting, too, though I think the BFG community has seen little to incorporate back into the tabletop game (except I reckon the long-range bombs would be a useful thing to implement).
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Thinking Stone on December 31, 2018, 12:52:32 AM
Also, one good thing about Xca|iber’s BFG:XR is that he tried to keep it in the same format, so it would work well printed (and it’s not too different in size from the original rules). It also incorporates all the changes directly into the text, whereas with FAQ2010 you’d have to flip pages, and it’s not quite as simple to know what’s changed.

If you have the original books, then the cheapest printing option is just FAQ2010. If you didn’t have the originals, then it’d be a wash between the options.

If you don’t mind having electronic documents, then BFG:XR is the most convenient (though you might want to join them all into one PDF).

You could always print off single pages for important changes to refer to during games, if you didn’t mind that, too.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: horizon on December 31, 2018, 05:35:43 PM
Good replies TS.  8)
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Thinking Stone on January 01, 2019, 01:38:49 AM
Good replies TS.  8)
I’m glad I haven’t embarrassed myself too much with my verbosity ;) :P

Incidentally, @horizon, I don’t suppose you have a copy of the XR campaign rules, do you?

Also, Happy New Year from the future, everyone! (at least we can say the BFG year started off with some active discussion!)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Draccan on January 01, 2019, 06:18:49 PM
Thanks for the replies guys. Very informative and helpful!

I do hope someone will come along with the missing pdf and share it here or in a PM!

Happy New Year!
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Thinking Stone on January 06, 2019, 01:55:00 PM
I somehow overlooked Green_Squad_Leader’s thread with their completed campaign rules!

http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=8935.msg75661#msg75661

I don’t know how developed this is from Xca|iber’s work (until someone rescues and shares it, at least!), but this is probably the work GSL mentions earlier in this thread.

If you don’t like GSL’s extensions, this can always just be a good source for refits and appeals to use with the original campaign rules, too (which I think do a good job of creating that long-term fleet progression).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Draccan on January 06, 2019, 02:06:09 PM
Thanks Thinking Stone. But I guess that still leave the missions..?
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Thinking Stone on January 06, 2019, 02:18:56 PM
Thanks Thinking Stone. But I guess that still leave the missions..?
That it does, unfortunately (as I’ve realised from a second look at the document). I suspect that the rulebook/Armada missions you have would work with no trouble (I don’t recall too many changes to them out of the BFG:R project, for example), and they were probably such a low priority for revision because they were designed well to begin with.

The rulebook/Armada campaign also includes the subplots charts, which GSL seems to have left out in favour of their revised system.

Nonetheless, I shall post something on the Facebook BFG page that a lot of the folks around here seem to be on, and see if there are any replies! Another possible avenue is Gothmog on here (the Additional Ships Compendium caretaker), who was working in parallel with Xca|iber’s efforts.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Draccan on January 09, 2019, 10:09:44 PM

Found someone kind enough to print the rules for me and bind them and send them to me from UK to Denmark.

I would love if someone could share the missing file with me in the next day or so!

 :)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Fr05ty on January 09, 2019, 10:25:01 PM
In the absence of the other, perhaps more enlightened, folks interested in BFG:XR, I’ll try to provide some sensible responses! I would have tried replying earlier except that the year got away from me too quickly!

@Fro5ty: For the Dark Eldar, I presume the lack of 45 cm weapons is historical and was originally part of their playstyle intentionally. Other Eldar also lacked 45 cm weapons in the earlier lists, for example. As I understand it, Xca|iber’s intent was to not substantially change lists (unless necessary), but to continue the efforts of things like BFG:R.

It might be an interesting question to ask in a new thread, to see if any of the real long-term veterans of BFG remember anything. Maybe you could try out 45 cm weapons on the grand cruiser and see how it goes?

The original Mortalis in Warp Rift 16 had the option for 45cm WB and 45cm Lances, hence my question. Additionally, the Dark Eldar in BFG:A2 are getting a battleship as well. Think I'll collate all the new ships that are being added from the game and see how they should fit into BFG:XR.

Also, someday we should fix Smotherman's formula... But that's not that important
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Thinking Stone on January 09, 2019, 11:01:44 PM
@Draccan, I have infiltrated the BFG:XR Facebook group! From what I’ve read there, Green_Squad_Leader’s campaign rules are probably the most recent set. BFG:XR’s main focus was on revising ship profiles rather than changing core rules, so I suspect there were few changes to the scenario and campaign rules.

I’ll ask to see (with hopefully a reply soon—but I can’t promise within a few days, since I don’t know how responsive the group is!) if there was ever anything else.

So, worst case scenario, assuming there’s nothing else, you’d have these options: (1) add GSL’s rules to your document and use those; (2) add the original campaign and scenarios section (I forget if FAQ2010 has any changes, but I think Armada does), which should fit the theme and layout); (3) keep your original books around for campaigns, and leave the scenarios/campaign rules out.

But hopefully we get a positive reply! I’ll also check the original rules, Armada, and FAQ2010 to remember what’s in there.
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Thinking Stone on January 09, 2019, 11:45:43 PM
@fro5ty: Ah, I’d forgotten the Warp Rift rules! I’m guessing the original cruiser rules might have influenced BFG:R (I recall seeing a Dark Eldar MMS ruleset about, but I thought Dark Eldar never moved like Eldar in the first place… I’ll have to check).

Have you checked any of the BFG:Revised discussion about Dark Eldar? I forget how much there was, but there might be some thoughts about the stats there (which might explain why there aren’t any 45 cm batteries).

There are some Dark Eldar players who sometimes visit, and the Facebook group is probably a good place to ask about it, too. I reckon there would be others willing to playtest that kind of change to the BFG:XR list to see if it’s a necessary/useful addition, who are much more experienced with DE than me. My suspicion is that it’s really a matter of how restrained one’s tastes are in limiting the fleet lists to create specific playstyles.

I think the same idea goes for new ships introduced in the video games BFG:A and BFG:A2—in a way, it’s obvious that Dark Eldar will get a battleship, because every faction has a battleship for game mechanics. The background is secondary to game mechanics here, as can be seen with Chaos light cruisers and the very different implementation of escorts in BFG:A. Should Dark Eldar have a battleship? There’s probably some background justification, though I suspect Dark Eldar probably don’t need large fleet assets in the way that other fleets do. Does the Dark Eldar fleet list need a battleship? That question needs someone more experienced with playing and fighting Dark Eldar than me to answer—but I think the real question is ‘can the Dark Eldar list have a battleship without significantly changing the playstyle of the list?’. With restrictions like the Corsair Voidstalker, I think that kind of addition is possible.

But basically, all that waffle is to say: there are different schools of thought on what should be in fleet lists. Some people like to create heaps of interesting variants; other people prefer to create specific playstyles for fleets by restricting what they can take. BFG:XR sits pretty firmly in the second category (and since Xca|iber’s not likely to come back to it soon, it’ll likely stay in the second category).

However, Gothmog’s Additional Ships Compendium project is designed to be exactly the sort of place for variants and new ships that didn’t fit into BFG:XR! That would be the place to go with new ships from BFG:A2. The project is more active, too, so there are more people casting a critical eye over stats, and more people are likely to use new ships from it.

(ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
 https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?share_fid=50385&share_tid=7099&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eforum%2Especialist-arms%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D7099&share_type=t)

None of this is to say that you can’t create or use new ships, or modify them to your tastes—it’s just that it’s unlikely they’d be incorporated into the BFG:XR lists, whereas the ASC explicitly exists for this purpose.

================

As to the Smotherman Formula: I expect some things will never be captured well by points formulae because the nature of battles is for individual things to be subjected to unbalanced interactions, as is mentioned in the Formula. But at least one person on Facebook has mentioned a revised points formula that they use for personal projects, so maybe it’s worth trying to get a hold of that one!

I think it’s also good to keep in mind that a points formula never works in a vacuum: there’re implicit assumptions about everything else in the game maintaining a certain power level. The reason it’s so easy to make a points formula for BFG that actually works is because BFG is a relatively simple game with relatively simple variations between ship types (which is part of the beauty! And part of why some people are frustratingly keen on keeping fleet lists restricted!).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Zelnik on January 16, 2019, 12:18:51 PM
I wanted to let all of you know that you did a really great job with the rules. BFG has suffered a LOT over the years, essentially being abandoned by GW, and the promise of new minis falling rather flat (they still haven't fully revitalized Blood Bowl, though Necromunda seems to be doing pretty damn well).

You all keep this hobby going. Keep it up.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 06, 2019, 12:44:49 AM
Anyone who has a functioning link to the campaign and scenarios rules. Original post is removed and the other link in the thread is not working either.

Here you go man, here is the most up to date campaign rules set.  Conversations are ongoing at this very moment to revamp the scenario rules as well.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wt57x3qk2eyw9yv/bfg%20-%20revised%20campaign%20rules%20ver%201.4.1.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wt57x3qk2eyw9yv/bfg%20-%20revised%20campaign%20rules%20ver%201.4.1.pdf?dl=0)

To everyone else, I have returned....
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on February 06, 2019, 01:23:19 AM
I'm glad to see that there is still interest in this game and this project after a year away from it.

Here's where things stood about 18 months ago before work largely stalled out with Xcalibre moving on and my being deployed:

1. The last official project which had been completed was the substantial reworking of the Orks.  They work very well now, are a blast to play, and are far fluffier than ever before.  This was the last thing Xcalibre produced as far as I am aware.
2. After that we were debating whether to move on to Tyranids (my recommendation) or Dark Eldar (what we went with).  Discussions had begun regarding a revamp of the Dark Eldar to make them more fun to use and play without their original "the game is over in 5 minutes" concept.  We had refined a number of weapon rules and had worked out the concepts for what we were going to do with them largely, really the big issues was figuring out how to better portray their ambush/stealth concept.  Then the project stalled and nothing was actually finalized.
3. Tyranids had some discussion, but things essentially stalled over what to do with some of their unique weapons.  I'd gladly revive those conversations, as this was a case of their rules being often slightly too simple to actually work well, or having unnecessary complexity in other ways.  As I said we had started talking about it but stalled out.  Overall their current rules are functional, they just have some relatively minor issues that could really benefit from a refinement pass.
4. The absolute last thing to be produced was my revised Campaign rules.  These include the new detachment system, adapted from 8th edition 40k, which rewards balanced list builds while not disallowing unbalanced ones for those factions that can make them (cough, space marines, cough).  It also converts the campaign system from the original book, which was NEVER A FINISHED PRODUCT MIND YOU, into a functional system.  Flavor is added, complexity is decreased where appropriate, and quite vitally all factions now actually work using the same campaign system.

So where does that leave us now?  I'm not the only one still here, I saw Horizon is still around which is good, and I actually only joined the project in 2016, but if we have the goal of releasing a unified new edition book all we really need is updated scenario rules.  I talked with Xcalibre back at the beginning of 2017 and he mentioned that he had been working on them, but he didn't feel the product was at the point yet where he wanted to share it.  I never saw a demo, but as he was working on that aspect of the rules I tackled the campaign and detachment rules (which took a good 6 months to finish).

After that we would need to just make a combined product and then we would have a unified edition update.  Afterwards the factions which still need revisions are:
1. Dark Eldar - They desperately need to be reworked, and I'm curious to see what was down with them in the new RTS.
2. Tyranids - They are functional, but have a lot of issues that were discussed a while ago in this thread.  Essentially they need the same treatment we gave Orks.

That's it I think.  Rogue Traders could use a pass, but they work as is.  Inquisition could also use a pass as they are stuck in 2004, and the concepts of how the ordos work have been very much refined and expanded over the last few years.

So here is my recommendation of how to move forwards with the core rulebook to have a new edition that we can present to the community (1 book, 1 pdf for all your needs, with everything working).  The vast majority of it is already finished, what we need to add are:

1. Detachments
2. Scenarios
3. Campaign Rules
4. Maybe subplots

The Detachment and Campaign Rules are ready to go and just need to be incorporated into the existing PDF (I of course would appreciate proof reads and I'm open to balancing).  I believe that the best way to approach this would be to make the Detachment rules their own section and place them just before the Scenario rules, and to keep the campaign rules at the end of the book.  The reason I think this makes sense is both because the detachment system fixes a lot of the balancing issues we otherwise were stuck with while NOT requiring players use our updated fleet lists.  It also provides us a cool mechanic for designing the scenarios.

With the detachments before the scenarios we then would be able to incorporate scenario specific stratagems and detachments, which would help to simplify the alternative force organizations appropriate for each scenario.  So, for example, in the convoy scenario we could incorporate a new detachment called a "convoy detachment" made up of 3 freighter-analogue ships.  Rather than have the player calculate points for freighters simply state that they must include 1 convoy detachment for every 2 detachments in the list, and I would recommend making this detachment cost 1 command point (-1 CP).  This would encourage the defending player to take larger detachments (ie: Fleet Support, Recon, and Combat Patrol) as escorts to reduce the number of freighters they have to guard.  For scenario specific stratagems for example we could make one for the escalating engagement scenario that would allow players to bring their units into the fight faster, potentially with the downside of needing a turn to shift power away from their engines (essentially arriving on All Ahead Full!).

Once we have the scenarios reworked we add them after the detachments/stratagems rules.  Then at the back of the book we add the revised campaign rules and we'd have a completed product.

As far as subplots go I feel that they always were rather clunky and that most of their value would be represented within the stratagem system.  That said we could largely leave them as is for flavor as an optional rule like they are now, or theoretically integrate them with the stratagem rules to provide a number of additional stratagems that players could elect to take before the battle that have some impact on their fleet or for the coming battle.  I'm leery of doing that as it sounds like it would get very complicated very quickly, but it is something we could investigate.

Now with all that said, we do need to gain access to the templates needed to make the book into a finished product.  Does anyone have access to that stuff aside from Xcalibre?  If not is anyone in touch with him?

We're very nearly ready to produce a unified new edition book, we just need to start assigning tasks and get back to work on it.  Hopefully we can get this all done in the first half of 2019 and give a nice give to the community.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (MAJOR Update 04/12/2017)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 09, 2019, 09:55:24 PM
Just a heads up everyone, I'll be posting a small update on a couple of things later tonight.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Xca|iber on February 10, 2019, 09:56:51 AM
Hey everyone! For those still around, I appreciate your continued interest, and since there's been a couple of pages of discussion since I last talked to anybody, I figured I owe it to you all to chime in a bit. (I do still keep an eye on this thread from time to time - the eyes of the Administratum are always watching, after all ;D).

For starters I'd like to admit that I'm not particularly pleased with myself for stalling the project where I did. There were a number of outstanding issues on my To-Do List and I basically let it slide. I'd like to firstly apologize for that, and offer a little bit of restitution:



Here's the quick overview of the changes:

Dark Eldar: All the changes here were prompted by reports that the most effective DE strategy was "Kill 1 ship and leave". While hit-and-run tactics are supposed to be the Dark Eldar's forte, this was obviously a lame NPE in practice and not really fluffy when taken to that extreme. The biggest change then is the addition of the "Insatiable Greed" rule which prevents DE ships from voluntarily disengaging until the fleet has scored at least 25% of its own value worth of victory points. This (in combination with other changes) should extend the time the DE must remain on the table by 1 or 2 turns, giving the opponent a fair shot at retaliating. The other changes that combined with this are the reduction in Slave-Taking scoring rate by half (+5 per instance instead of +10) and the return of the Mimic Engine to its simpler roots. (It is now a scout-move at the beginning of the game and provides conditional immunity to shooting on the first turn).

Fleet Support: I saw the picture posted about the Blackstone Fortresses and I agree that it looks silly, so I tweaked the rule about the Super-Mega-Death-Shot combination to be measured by base, not stem, as was suggested.

Orks: The Orks, after much adjustment prior to my placing the project on indefinite hiatus, had mostly been fixed as I understood it. However, there were a few pricing issues still remaining and I just never got around to updating them. So, a couple of the Clanz had their upgrade cost reduced, and Freebooter Kaptins and Nobz had their costs reduced to bring them in line with other fleets' equivalent commanders. Also, the Klaws have been updated (again), to keep them the same as the Tyranid versions.

Tyranids: So, a bunch of changes here drawn from the discussions in this thread and many of the suggestions put forward by everyone here. First up is the Proteus, which is now targeted as a defense and has been limited to 2k fleets or bigger. Next up, the shield rules for Tyranids have been combined with the "base-as-a-blast-marker" rule, returning everything thematically to the original "Spore Shields" concept. Moving on, there were a number of changes to the Tyranid weapons. Primarily, feeder tendrils have changed dramatically. Feeder tendrils now enable a Tyranid ship to halt its movement while in base contact with an enemy (unless on AAF, and it cannot turn without moving its normal requirement). Feeders are also now used in the shooting phase as a normal base-contact range weapon, rolling D6-per-Strength vs the target's Lowest Armor value, with each hit resulting in a normal H&R result. The Strength of feeder tendrils went up to compensate. Massive Claws also got another big change (because my last attempt was still headache-inducing). To describe it simply, grabbing with claws now prompts both ships to get "stuck" together in place, rather than any complicated dragging/forced-moves.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, in order to be fully transparent, I had hoped to finish a Scenarios book (the unanticipated nemesis of this project) before posting anything. Obviously, that didn't materialize and I felt it was better to post now, since there's been discussion about the future of the project.

With regards to where things go from here, GSL's synopsis in the preceding post pretty much covers the state of everything very well. If I'm being perfectly honest, it's become clear to me that I'm probably never going to finish a Big Book of Scenarios all on my own. Which is why I owe a great deal of thanks to GSL and the many other wonderful members of this community for picking up the slack that I could not.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So to answer this section of GSL's previous post:
(click to show/hide)

This seems like a great plan GSL. Regarding production, I can send you the initial template I had for the Scenario book as a base (along with my proposed organizational notes and all the associated resources), but I did everything in Adobe inDesign and Photoshop, which could pose a problem. If that's an issue, once you have everything written and plotted out, I'll happily produce it all for you (I mean, I'd be a bad BFG:XR editor if I didn't). The biggest slow-down of trying to get the Scenarios done all by myself was just burn-out from having to come up with tons of writing that wasn't already in BFG/BFG:A/BFG:R or the 2010 Compendium. If it's just a matter of fitting text and images onto a page, I should be able to handle it.

Reply here or shoot me a PM and we can coordinate. We'll also probably need to do a round of proofing on the current BFG:XR material to ensure that existing references to Campaigns, Scenarios, fleet-building, and sub-plots will work properly after any changes.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Bessemer on February 10, 2019, 01:56:48 PM
Good shouts on the 'Nids. Was actually about to break out BFG after a long spell, and was going to give the Gribblies another go, good timing!  ;D

+
Agree particularly with naming the ships, much cleaner!

Kraken Protoform sqd size: yeah, six of these was just broken!

Spore Cloud: Great hark back to the originals, and one we missed entirely during the Other Revised run.

Proteus: 2000pt limit- YES!, counts as defence also a good limiter.

Claws and Tendrils: Much cleaner systems with crippled limits re-introduced. Run-forward-and-nom was too easy.

-
Behemoth protoform torpedoes: Boooooooooooooooo! ;) JK, it did get stupid! This being said, has anyone complained about the strength of PA or BP on these? Just thought I'd ask, no seemed to mind last time either.

Instinctive Behavior: It's present incarnation need to die in a fire! YMMV, but in my experience it's just a headache and a time eater. I did propose a simplified revision last round, but was voted down. IIRC correctly...

At least that's how I thought it went, needed much more testing! This last one isn't a criticism of your work here, just some food for thought!

Leat's hope GW get some impetus to make a new BFG on the heels of the new Armada 2.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: DrDaniel5 on February 10, 2019, 09:55:45 PM
In regards to the scenarios I'd did a bit of work on some of them but didn't get very far. I was going for a very strict, no randomness in set up policy. The scenarios is where my play group thinks BFG was the weakest. Many of them are way too random, Surprise attack being our least favorite as your fleet is just siting there getting pummeled and you have to hope you roll well before they cripple you.

Here's the three scenarios I'd redone:

(https://i.imgur.com/ur64dhn.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/mo8Hcp4.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/lLJhm3a.png)
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Zelnik on February 13, 2019, 12:14:30 PM
Looks great, but I noticed a lot of "Changed back" notes in the log.


Can I just suggest that we be exceptionally careful in the future moving away from the base rules of the game in regards to rules? Giving orks Klawz is fine, but giving them rules any different then an existing rule for a similar weapon is -extremely- troublesome. Every time we roll-back a rule, it kinda looks like no one was paying attention and made the change in a fit of WAAAAAGH I WANNA KRUMP DA GITZ.

This isn't like 40k, where all the races are the same and they all re-roll 1's. There are fleets that are better then the others, some will win more then others, and if you defeat a Necron Fleet with an ork fleet, you should be able to gloat to your foe all day, every day.

This is actually a hallmark of the classic Specialist Games day, and shared with Blood Bowl...Some races just aren't as good at blood bowl but by Nuffle they will try.

Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Thinking Stone on February 13, 2019, 10:51:49 PM
Looks great, but I noticed a lot of "Changed back" notes in the log.


Can I just suggest that we be exceptionally careful in the future moving away from the base rules of the game in regards to rules? Giving orks Klawz is fine, but giving them rules any different then an existing rule for a similar weapon is -extremely- troublesome. Every time we roll-back a rule, it kinda looks like no one was paying attention and made the change in a fit of WAAAAAGH I WANNA KRUMP DA GITZ.

This isn't like 40k, where all the races are the same and they all re-roll 1's. There are fleets that are better then the others, some will win more then others, and if you defeat a Necron Fleet with an ork fleet, you should be able to gloat to your foe all day, every day.

This is actually a hallmark of the classic Specialist Games day, and shared with Blood Bowl...Some races just aren't as good at blood bowl but by Nuffle they will try.
@Zelnik
I generally agree about the benefits of being careful with changes because of the elegance of BFG. But is there any need to artificially keep fleets at different power levels? If it’s possible to create balanced, characterful fleets, isn’t it a good thing that a player will be able to choose a fleet of their choice and have a tactically stimulating game with a fair chance of winning?

It is always easy to cheese up something if somebody wants a challenge, after all! And you can get asymmetrical fleets via campaigns if you like those analogous aspects of Necromunda &c..

As for moving away from the pre-existing rules, you’ve mentioned some concerns generally, but are there any specific things that stand out as poor additions or egregious changes? This seems like the ideal place to look at those things specifically and address them. Having someone who put thought into these changes the first time around is pretty useful to see if the same mistakes are being repeated!

Most changes I’ve seen have been to make things simpler and more sensible/intuitive, which always seem worthy goals to me. For example, the Ork Klaws are the same as Tyranid Massive Claws except that Tyranids roll 1D6 per Claw strength and Orks only ever roll 2D6, which seems fitting to me.

One clarifying change I could get behind is changing the Ork Klaws to have the same Strength specification (i.e., make Ork Klaws a weapon system just like Tyranid ones).
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Fr05ty on February 14, 2019, 02:40:29 AM
I'd be more than happy to assist with the rules for Dark Eldar and (if wanted), bringing over their stuff from BFG:A2.

Also, I'm very happy that this is still going on!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 14, 2019, 03:19:43 AM
Glad to see it still going too. Hopefully we finish our respective projects before GW makes a new game!
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Thinking Stone on February 14, 2019, 03:26:15 AM
@Fro5ty I was hoping you’d pop back in! So much for my pessimistic predictions :P

@Gothmog LoB ‘Fortunately’, it seems we who play BFG in the 41st Millennium will have a while to wait before any new GW BFG reaches us—as far as I’ve seen, the plan is for a Heresy BFG. It will be interesting to see which rules direction they go in.

@(More generally) I’m interested to see what new directions people take the BFG core rules after this ‘first edition’ of BFG:XR is done.
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Thinking Stone on February 14, 2019, 06:57:10 AM
I had another read of the Tyranids, too, and had some thoughts about it and Bessemer's offerings.
 
Naming/List Organisation
- I was a little confused by the previous naming of ships (particularly using 'Kraken' in background text for both Drones and Carnivores) but I'm not sure if the new version works better for me. 
- Part of the problem is that a few different things are being conveyed at the same time: synapse versus non-synapse ships, attack versus defence ships, and ship species lineages. I think the old layout made those clearer. Anyways, I suggest there could be improvements here, whichever way it goes!
- I think it’s very useful having an overarching name for all those ships between Hive Ships and escorts.
- Do the lineage relationships need to be in the names at all? If they're that important, perhaps they should be part of list design (e.g. take so many escorts, get availability of light bioships of the same lineage)? They could also be mentioned in the background material somewhere instead.
-  Whilst useful, the Adult/Larval/protoform/bioship distinctions feel too wordy to me (plus there's the implication that Leviathan Prowlers turn into Hive Ships, so are they really adults?).
- I actually would prefer calling ‘adults’ ‘prowlers’, I think. It would also be nice if 'drone' was in there somewhere again (and familiar for old-schoolers).
 - I wonder if the names of 'Behemoth' and 'Guardian' should be swapped, since 'Behemoth' suggests something big (and escort drones are not).
 - There are a few cases of old names leftover from the renaming (e.g. Guardian options box).
 - At the very least, I think that the background text for Carnivores should only contain the word 'kraken' at the beginning and should refer to Carnivores elsewhere! This was the most confusing thing in the document for me.
 
Pheromone Rage Attack Rating
- I understand the low points cost of PR considering its value, but is a bit of a meaningless choice when it's so cheap (unless it significantly changes list building in a way I don't see)?
 - To make it more meaningful, perhaps it could be absorbed into the fleet rating for different Tyranid fleet lists? Or perhaps it could be turned into an upgrade for the 'command' hive ship (perhaps combining it with the Charybdis 'alpha synapse node' upgrade. Could be used for the Gestating Hive Fleet if only the 'command' Scylla was supposed to have Ld 8?).
 
Hive Ships and Scyllas
- It might be useful to have a '1 command hive ship' choice (1 Proteus or 1 Charybdis) in the Hive Fleet list.
- In the Hive Fleet, having Scyllas in their own section is a bit confusing when they take up an 'attack ship slot' (perhaps this is a leftover-typo?). Is there any reason that they can't be in the 'primary hive ships' section ? (Obviously, this would be renamed if changed).
- The Synapse leadership of Scyllas is different in the Gestating List to the Hive Fleet list. Is there a more elegant way of doing this than just having two different leadership values?
 
Instinctive Behaviour
- I agree with Bessemer that the flowchart looks complicated. I think condensing it into a table would actually make it significantly faster for a brain to process.
 - I quite like the idea of Instinctive Behaviour because of the trade-off between free Special Orders and not being able to control your ships as well as normal. Perhaps there's a way to simplify it but still keep some of the 'makes sense' (like 'don't fly into Warp Rift!') bits?

As always, merely humble suggestions!
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: horizon on February 22, 2019, 07:48:44 PM
@Fro5ty I was hoping you’d pop back in! So much for my pessimistic predictions :P

@Gothmog LoB ‘Fortunately’, it seems we who play BFG in the 41st Millennium will have a while to wait before any new GW BFG reaches us—as far as I’ve seen, the plan is for a Heresy BFG. It will be interesting to see which rules direction they go in.

@(More generally) I’m interested to see what new directions people take the BFG core rules after this ‘first edition’ of BFG:XR is done.

Core wise I would change the static igoyougo of BFG. A bit more fluent and interactive between two players would be good.
Somehow simplify AC and all of it (or just not include it as Andy Chambers at one pointed really thought to do so).
Gunnery and related is just awesome as is.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Stubber on June 19, 2019, 10:09:19 PM
@Xca|iber
I've just discovered your work after not even looking at BFG for about 15 years. It's like uncovering some lost ancient knowledge.
I've just been trying to get some friends into BFG and if they take to it I'll be running your rules like they are gospel. This is amazing work. I salute you sir.
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Thinking Stone on June 23, 2019, 03:05:54 AM
@Fro5ty I was hoping you’d pop back in! So much for my pessimistic predictions :P

@Gothmog LoB ‘Fortunately’, it seems we who play BFG in the 41st Millennium will have a while to wait before any new GW BFG reaches us—as far as I’ve seen, the plan is for a Heresy BFG. It will be interesting to see which rules direction they go in.

@(More generally) I’m interested to see what new directions people take the BFG core rules after this ‘first edition’ of BFG:XR is done.

Core wise I would change the static igoyougo of BFG. A bit more fluent and interactive between two players would be good.
Somehow simplify AC and all of it (or just not include it as Andy Chambers at one pointed really thought to do so).
Gunnery and related is just awesome as is.

I’ve been reading up a bit on Dropfleet Commander since the release of its first major expansion a little while ago, and I found it interesting to see Andy Chambers and company tweaked all of these (and it’s been stated a few times by Mr Chambers that DFC is what a ‘BFG 2.0’ might have looked like).

Personally, I’m agreed on the gunnery point! Though DFC changes the gunnery table for a ‘to hit’ value and introduces some useful mechanisms around that, like weapon range being dependent on the size of the energy signature of the enemy in question.

DFC has a nice alternating activation system where you alternate activating what’s essentially squadrons of squadrons. You choose your fleet using these ‘super-squadrons’ (called battlegroups in DFC), and their tonnage affects how they activate.

Attack craft are included, but instead of flying around on their own, you place them directly in contact with a target within up to twice their move range—if the target is within move range, the effects are resolved immediately, if the target is within twice move range, the effects are resolved when the target next activates. Instead of turrets having values limited by the reduction in bomber attacks, DFC turrets roll a save against bomber attacks, and fighters increase the number of rolls you get.

DFC also does a good job of making planetary assaults an important part of the game (that’s probably where DFC gets most of its tactical choices from).
Title: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Thinking Stone on June 23, 2019, 03:07:36 AM
@Xca|iber
I've just discovered your work after not even looking at BFG for about 15 years. It's like uncovering some lost ancient knowledge.
I've just been trying to get some friends into BFG and if they take to it I'll be running your rules like they are gospel. This is amazing work. I salute you sir.

Welcome, @Stubber! I know that feeling especially well around GW specialist games rules….

If you’re in Facebookland and interested, several other interested people are still working on BFG:XR.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on July 23, 2019, 05:22:00 AM
Wow, its awesome to see some great progress has happened since I last looked on here. Tomorrow I take my exam to find ish my education to become a certified strength coach, and once that is done I will finally have the time I need to get back into this project. I just started working on organizing a BFG League locally and I'm stoked to see that this project is alive again.

I'll digest the new rules over the next few days, but this is exciting as hell.
Title: Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
Post by: Green_Squad_Leader on August 06, 2019, 06:05:52 AM
Ok, first sign of life post for a long time. Here's the current state of the scenario revamp. The new scenarios are designed to be used with the detachment system incorporated with the new campaign rules (You'll find those here https://www.dropbox.com/s/wt57x3qk2eyw9yv/bfg%20-%20revised%20campaign%20rules%20ver%201.4.1.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wt57x3qk2eyw9yv/bfg%20-%20revised%20campaign%20rules%20ver%201.4.1.pdf?dl=0))

So far I've just finished the concept work for the raids, your feedback is welcome. Oh, and as it's a new one the Installation Assault scenario is an attack on a space station.

If you have ideas for additional scenarios please share them. Here's the link for the WIP revamp.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ss0ubwpbkjmtr7t/Scenario%20Revamp%20WIP%20v0.1.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ss0ubwpbkjmtr7t/Scenario%20Revamp%20WIP%20v0.1.pdf?dl=0)