The Specialist Arms Forum

Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 03, 2015, 03:41:51 AM

Title: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 03, 2015, 03:41:51 AM
View the main ASC 2.0 thread here
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=7097.0

Below is what I last had on Chaos for 2.0, reposted for review. Feel free to discuss. Any addition Chaos Ships will also be posted here.

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

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

Annihilator Class Grand Cruiser- 295 (IMPERIAL NAVY/CHAOS)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 3
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port LB- Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 5 Arc:-
Stbd LB- Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 5 Arc:-
Special Rules:

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

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

Kharnath Class Grand Cruiser- 320
Hits: 10
Speed: 25 cm
Turns: 45*
Shields:  3
Armour: 5+
Turrets:  3
Weapons
Prow Boarding Torpedoes- Speed: 35cm S: 6 Arc: F
Port Launch Bays- Dreadclaws: 35cm S: 5 Arc:  -
Stbd Launch Bays- Dreadclaws: 35cm S: 5 Arc:  -
Prow Talons- R: 15 S: 2 Arc: F
Special Rules:  5d6 AAF
Blood for the Blood God:  MoK and CSM crew. May only be taken in Bezerker fleets or fleets where at least ˝ of the ships (including Kharnath GC) have the MoK. May not be included in fleets where any ship has the MoT.
Talons of Khorne: Prow mounted Talons are fired like WB with a Left Col Shift. They ignore shields. If you successfully hit a vessel, instead of inflicting damage all boarding actions conducted by AC from the Kharnath receive a +1 bonus.
Boosted Craft- AC from the Kharnath are boosted from the Kharnath, adding +5 to speed, already included above.

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

Enticer Class Light Cruiser- 130
Hits: 6
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 4 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 4 Arc: R
Prow WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: L/F/R
Notes: 5d6 AAF. May only be used in Pleasure Fleets of Slaneesh or fleets where over ˝ of the vessels have the MoS. May not be taken in fleets where a vessel has the MoN.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 04, 2015, 06:25:08 PM
New Grand Cruiser based off the Repulsive. I realized there were NO variants for that hull type and figured a lance boat would be acceptable and fun. A scaled down Desolator in a way.

As such, I added an option to trade down to dorsal WB for -10 points. Not sure if this should stay in though. Opinions?

Will be in italics until finalized.

Repugnant Class Grand Cruiser- 240
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port Lances- R: 45cm S:4 Arc: L
Stbd Lances- R:45cm S:4 Arc: R
Dorsal Lances- R:30cm S:3 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Boarding/Standard, Speed: 35cm S: 6 Arc: F
Special Rules:  May take an additional shield for +15 points, but must be on a large base. May upgrade dorsal lances to 45cm +10 points. You may swap the Dorsal Lances for R:45cm, S:6 Weapons batteries for -10 points.
Design Notes: The Repugnant is based on the same hull of a Repulsive GC
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 04, 2015, 08:26:30 PM
I like  the repulsive hull too. This seems pretty close to the executor. 35 points more for a little extra range, firepower, torpedos, and a design that doesn't look like nurgle vomited on the blueprints seems fair to me.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 04, 2015, 08:44:08 PM
I like  the repulsive hull too. This seems pretty close to the executor. 35 points more for a little extra range, firepower, torpedos, and a design that doesn't look like nurgle vomited on the blueprints seems fair to me.

Hmm, you are right though about it being really close to the Executor.
Maybe something like this instead. Hybridize it a bit. Closer to a Retaliator perhaps, but no ordinance (other than torps), just pure gunboat.

Repugnant Class Grand Cruiser- 245
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port Lances- R: 45cm S:2 Arc: L
Stbd Lances- R:45cm S:2 Arc: R
Port WB- R: 45cm S:8 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R:45cm S:8 Arc: R
Dorsal Lances- R:45cm S:3 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Boarding/Standard, Speed: 35cm S: 6 Arc: F
Special Rules:  May take an additional shield for +15 points, but must be on a large base.
Design Notes: The Repugnant is based on the same hull of a Repulsive GC
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 04, 2015, 09:05:47 PM
That puts it at 15 pts more than a vengeance class for 3 more lances and torpedos but weaker weapons batteries.   What about this: P/S launch bays st 2, P/S Lance st 2 dorsal Lance S3 and prow torpedos. Then it becomes essentially a pocket battleship version of the desecrator class.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 04, 2015, 09:13:05 PM
Look at the Goliath above.

Maybe just make it cheaper?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 04, 2015, 09:19:56 PM
Ah. I missed that. Yeah, That looks like about the only way to go.  Really though if you consider it an earlier version of the executor it will explain the better weapons load out fluff wise  and for 35 pts your getting a very decent torpedo Salvo and better lances.  I'd trade that for a single escort somewhere.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 05, 2015, 03:40:51 AM
Repugnant finalized, unless anyone has anything else
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 05, 2015, 04:27:12 AM
Looks good.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: horizon on April 05, 2015, 07:58:12 AM
Is there any other vessel that can shoot with 7 lances @ 30cm?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 05, 2015, 07:33:21 PM
Not that I can think of. SM Ultima BB gets 8 Bombardment Cannons. The only thing that gets close. Makes the Proposed Repugnant unique. But do you think that makes it too powerful?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 06, 2015, 12:28:06 AM
Is there any other vessel that can shoot with 7 lances @ 30cm?

Only the Despoiler if you combine Dorsal and Prow Lances.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 06, 2015, 02:11:53 AM
Is there any other vessel that can shoot with 7 lances @ 30cm?

Only the Despoiler if you combine Dorsal and Prow Lances.

Only in original BFG, not in BFG:R
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 06, 2015, 02:39:50 AM
Ah! Forgot the ASC was for BFG-R... :-[

I'd probably give it the Dorsal WB's as standard to help differentiate from the Repulsive. Otherwise it steps on the Executor's toes a little too much for me, but that's my two pence :)
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 06, 2015, 02:56:49 AM
Ah! Forgot the ASC was for BFG-R... :-[

I'd probably give it the Dorsal WB's as standard to help differentiate from the Repulsive. Otherwise it steps on the Executor's toes a little too much for me, but that's my two pence :)

Would you keep the lance exchange for +10 points then? And would you base price it at 230 or still at 240?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 06, 2015, 04:08:25 AM
I like the lances.  At the very least I'd say keep them as an upgrade. It can be part of the executioners lineage.  Repgunant > Executioner > Gothic class.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 06, 2015, 04:23:43 AM
I like the lances.  At the very least I'd say keep them as an upgrade. It can be part of the executioners lineage.  Repgunant > Executioner > Gothic class.

I like that line of thought
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 06, 2015, 05:08:54 AM
Thank you.  It also fits with the pocket battleship idea that was originally posted. 
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: horizon on April 06, 2015, 07:59:56 AM
Is there any other vessel that can shoot with 7 lances @ 30cm?

Only the Despoiler if you combine Dorsal and Prow Lances.
Yeah, but that is a battleship costing 400points (in the original rules).

Having the dorsal as weapon batteries would solve the 7 lance itch.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 06, 2015, 06:16:31 PM
The despoiler is 400 points for a lot more To it. Launch bays, alot more WB and range. Not to mention 2 more hits and more shields and turrets.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 06, 2015, 07:28:27 PM
S6 weapons batteries are okay as an option. I wouldn't take them personally, but that's me. I think it's a good stop gap between a heavy cruiser and battleship as is. 
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 06, 2015, 11:14:36 PM
Yes I would go with WB's as standard with a Lance option. It does have 2 shields, so you're sacrificing some defense for offence, even with the lance option. channeling more power to weapons perhaps? Actually, thinking along those lines removing the option for a 3rd shield may be a consideration.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 07, 2015, 01:13:50 AM
Due to power consumption. Maybe make it Lance all round standard w 2 shields, or upgrade to dorsal WB and a 3rd shield.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 07, 2015, 01:29:24 AM
Seems reasonable enough. Plus it gives some character to the vessel.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 07, 2015, 02:37:22 AM
So below is what we have. I will be building one tonight or tomorrow. As well, I am working on PDFs this week for the IN fleet.

Repugnant Class Grand Cruiser- 240
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port Lances- R: 45cm S:4 Arc: L
Stbd Lances- R:45cm S:4 Arc: R
Dorsal Lances- R:30cm S:3 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- Boarding/Standard, Speed: 35cm S: 6 Arc: F
Special Rules: You may swap the Dorsal Lances for R:45cm, S:6 Weapons batteries and add one shield (the two are inseparable) for +10 points, but the vessel must be on a large base.
Design Notes: The Repugnant is based on the same hull of a Repulsive GC. The weapons batteries and shield come together due to power restrictions with the number of lances. To get an extra shield like a repulsive, the dorsal lances have to be removed to afford the power required. This will be justified in the fluff later.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 07, 2015, 03:21:09 AM
Any chance of a chaos light cruiser variant a la  the IN defiant class?  Maybe trade the torpedos for an extra wb point of strength and up the speed by 5cm?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 07, 2015, 04:34:04 AM
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Chaos%20Fleets.pdf

That is the BFG:R Chaos Fleet List. The ships here aren't in that, but that DOES have 3 classes of Chaos Light Cruiser. Both the Heretic and Unbeliever are similar to the Dauntless.

There is also the Pestilaan and the Pagan still to do for chaos, but I have to find their source material again to make sure I get the build started in the right direction.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 07, 2015, 05:03:20 AM
Yeah I saw those, the one I'm talking about has launch bays. I'll smotherman one up tomorrow on my lunch break if it doesn't already exist.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 07, 2015, 05:07:45 PM
Okay here is the chaos defiant counterpart. I used the smother man formula so I think it's pretty fair

Hellraiser class lt cruiser: 113 points
Hits:6
Speed: 30cm
Turns: 90°
Armor: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port launch bay: 1sqdrn f/b/ab
Starboard launch bay: 1 sqdrn f/b/
Dorsal weapons battery: R:30cm S:2 Arc: L/R/F
Special Rules: +1D6 on AAF
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 07, 2015, 07:13:41 PM
Okay, well instead of Hellraiser, I say we stick with the established Pagan class (originally found in the book of Nemesis). Trying to avoid inventing parallel ships that already have a role filled by a similar ship.

You can always check the main dev list here http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=7097.0

But I'll start with those stats and jump them onto the Pagan.

I think that it is a little underpowered, especially when compared to the original. As well since it is a support vessel with Launch bays, I vote leave it at 25cm speed.

Basically, keep it that same as Book of Nemesis with a small point reduction (135 to 130), unless anyone thinks it should be lower. As well, I don't know if it should have Dreadclaws or not. I left them in there for now, but for such a small ship it seems unfluffy.

Italics while being developed

Pagan Class System Control Cruiser: 130 points
Hits:6
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90°
Armor: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port LB:  Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 1 Arc:-
Stbd LB:  Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 1 Arc:-
Prow WB: R:30cm S:6 Arc: L/F/R
Special Rules: +1 LD, +1D6 on AAF
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 07, 2015, 08:11:50 PM
Don't know how I missed that. guess I need to do some more research before I open my trap.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 07, 2015, 08:51:18 PM
Well what do you think of the Pagan though. Any suggestions?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: horizon on April 07, 2015, 09:21:18 PM
Any chance of a chaos light cruiser variant a la  the IN defiant class?  Maybe trade the torpedos for an extra wb point of strength and up the speed by 5cm?
Now ask the question: why?

It is all to easy to create copies of IN and Chaos vessels within the opposite fleet. But I think both fleets should be different. Hence the IN with its NC/Torpedo/Prow aspect and Chaos with Speed/Launch Bays per example.
This is also why Chaos never had CL's in the first place: to have differents fleet.

And now with the Rogue Trader or allies rules you can build a fleet having a CL in a Chaos fleet or similar. But just not as a Chaos vessel.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 07, 2015, 10:15:37 PM
Any chance of a chaos light cruiser variant a la  the IN defiant class?  Maybe trade the torpedos for an extra wb point of strength and up the speed by 5cm?
Now ask the question: why?

It is all to easy to create copies of IN and Chaos vessels within the opposite fleet. But I think both fleets should be different. Hence the IN with its NC/Torpedo/Prow aspect and Chaos with Speed/Launch Bays per example.
This is also why Chaos never had CL's in the first place: to have differents fleet.

And now with the Rogue Trader or allies rules you can build a fleet having a CL in a Chaos fleet or similar. But just not as a Chaos vessel.

While I'd agree for the normal playlists, the point of the additional ship's compendium is to have vessels that people want, not that are necessarily there for game balance. Since the Pagan exists in the Book of Nemesis, there is no reason it should not be included here to allow someone who lovingly takes the time to build one the ability to use it. Sure, it is not that "Chaosy" of a vessel in terms of fleet design, but in the whole of the 40k universe and in the 10,000 years since the Heresy, there easily could have been a handful that did exist. Thus to me there should be a way to use, though it should remain here in an unofficial fan made fashion.

Basically, all the ASC ships are this sort. Not official and for fun play only. If you as a player don't want to play against someone using them, that is fine. They aren't official. But in a one off pick up game for the sake of getting a game in, there should be no reason to limit your opponents fun. If a Carrier variant CL is what is fun for them, then why not.

But they should be slightly different and not exact copies for flavours sake
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 07, 2015, 11:41:09 PM
Quick word on the Emasculator; wasn't this officialised (in BFG 2010) as the Inferno class?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 08, 2015, 12:46:55 AM
Quick word on the Emasculator; wasn't this officialised (in BFG 2010) as the Inferno class?

Yes. Odd thing is I had it lined out in the main ASC 2.0 Dev thread. I guess back in 2013 I had made the emasculator and then this same thing was figured out and I forgot to delete it from my Microsoft word drafts which I copy and pasted here. Going in and deleting that one. Thanks!
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 13, 2015, 03:16:12 AM
Pestilaan Class Light Cruiser-
Hits: 7
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port Hives of Nurgle- R: 30cm S:6 Arc: L
Stbd Hives of Nurgle- R: 30cm S:6 Arc: R
Prow Torpedoes- R: 30cm S: 4 Arc: F
Notes: MoN (included in profile). Hives of Nurgle function exactly like Terminus Est. May only be taken in Plague Fleets of Nurgle or fleets where over ˝ of the vessels have the MoN. May not be taken in fleets where a vessel has the MoT. These restrictions are lifted for fleets led by Abaddon.

Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 13, 2015, 06:13:16 AM
Is the 20cm speed from MoN? It makes sense fluff wise I just didn't know if there was a rule that mandated it.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 13, 2015, 10:36:48 AM
Just fluff wise. MON Doesn't mandate it. Not sure on points cost yet, or if weapons should be upped since it is slower than all the other chaos cl
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 13, 2015, 02:39:46 PM
6 is pretty standard and it's got a heavy torpedo spread.  Maybe bump the wb up to 7? Or add a dorsal battery.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 13, 2015, 03:29:09 PM
 Fpw 7 Hives I'm for, but let's leave the dorsal batteries for the big stuff ;) Since it's a Cl, I'd also remove a shield. With MON it's pushing cruiser level hits, having cruiser level shields is just overkill. 135?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 13, 2015, 05:58:17 PM
I see your point with the shield. The point was that the fluff described a cl that traded speed for protection. This should be the heaviest of the any cl for chaos.
The only other issue with the shields is how it conflicts with the Hives of Nurgle special rule. If I choose to generate a blast marker, then I loose my one shield. Would it be better to go with weapons batteries and then give it the miasma of pestilance and/or ark of Nurgle rule instead
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 13, 2015, 06:11:55 PM
Actually, with the Hives, the BM is placed anywhere along the course the ship makes, not in base contact. It's shield is unaffected.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 13, 2015, 06:33:41 PM
yep. My bad. 1 shield it is then.

Shold it be able to be boarded?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 13, 2015, 06:38:02 PM
I reckon so. The BFG-R MON is just the +1 hit, but IIRC the Hives on the TE still retained the No Boarding rule, so it would fit.

It's been a long time, and it's a long thread to go through, so I might be wrong on that :-[
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 13, 2015, 07:45:47 PM
The TE MoN still says no boarding in BFG:R
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 13, 2015, 08:33:57 PM
Correct!
 I thought that the Hives Of Nurgle, rather than the Mark, had been given the whole no boarding thing. Couldn't find anything to support that, though.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 13, 2015, 09:22:23 PM
How is this?
Changed Hives to S7, Turns to 90*, Shields to 1, May not be boarded, and went with 140 pts

Pestilaan Class Light Cruiser- 140
Hits: 7
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port Hives of Nurgle- R: 30cm S:7 Arc: L
Stbd Hives of Nurgle- R: 30cm S:7 Arc: R
Prow Torpedoes- R: 30cm S: 4 Arc: F
Notes: MoN (included in profile). May not be boarded. Hives of Nurgle function exactly like Terminus Est. May only be taken in Plague Fleets of Nurgle or fleets where over ˝ of the vessels have the MoN. May not be taken in fleets where a vessel has the MoT. These restrictions are lifted for fleets led by Abaddon.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 13, 2015, 10:38:38 PM
Looks good.  The 20cm is still jarring for a cl. But that's on me. :o
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 13, 2015, 11:28:12 PM
Agreed, looks good. 20cm isn't that bad. My Repulsive still manages to keep up :)
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 13, 2015, 11:59:08 PM
The 20cm owes to the fluff of the pestilaan and the fact it should be the heaviest of the CL and more of a mini-ship of the line than a flank fighter. It still has a 90* turn making it more manueverable
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 14, 2015, 12:17:19 AM
Although thinking on it, I am liking 20cm less and less as well.

What about 25cm instead, but make it 3d6 AAF?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 14, 2015, 12:33:41 AM
Nah it fits. Like I said it's just a personal foible.  It's good the way it is.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 14, 2015, 12:38:22 AM
What  gives me pause now is that it is slower than IN CLs, but if there is concurrence then no worries I guess
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 14, 2015, 12:53:26 AM
It's also a lot beefier than IN CLs. With the torpedos and MoN it punches above its weight class but not in a munchkin way.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 14, 2015, 02:20:12 AM
Apostate Class Heavy Raider- 55
Hits: Escort/2
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 1
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R: 30cm S:2 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Lance- R:45cm S1 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- R: 30cm S: 2 Arc: F
Notes: Not automatically destroyed by a critical hit like 1 hit escorts.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on April 15, 2015, 12:12:35 AM
Reduce the Lance to 30cm, and it looks OK. Maybe even make the Lance fwd only for 50 pts?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: TheIronPrice on April 15, 2015, 07:22:16 AM
I agree knock it down to 30cm, but keep it as a turret. The reduced range should justify the points cost. Actually, now that I think about it, is there a drawing available for it?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 18, 2015, 04:39:45 PM
Apostate Class Heavy Raider- 50
Hits: Escort/2
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 1
Weapons:
Weapons Battery- R: 30cm S:2 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Lance- R:30cm S1 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Torpedoes- R: 30cm S: 2 Arc: F
Notes: Not automatically destroyed by a critical hit like 1 hit escorts.

The picture is in the old school ASC. It is exactly like an Infidel with a lance turret on the bow.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 18, 2015, 05:01:11 PM
The Night Hag (CH, SM or RT)- 290
Hits: 8
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 3
Armour: 6+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port Weap Battery- R: 45cm  S: 6 Arc: L
Stbd Weap Battery- R: 45 cm  S: 6 Arc: L
Dorsal Lance Battery- R: 45cm S: 3 Arc: L/F/R
Prow Launch Bay- (RT) Standard Fight/Bomber/AB S:3 (SM&CH) Thunderhawks S: 2
Macrocannonades- R:30cm S: 6 Arc: F
Special Rules: Space Marine Crew MUST be taken by SM and Chaos fleets. See fleet list for cost. Macrocannonades may not be combined with WB, however they function the exact same but may Reroll failed attempts to equal or beat the chosen target's armour. Additionally, Blast Markers from a Macrocannonade MUST remain on the table at least until the end of the Firing Unit players next turn.
Darkling Engines- For every direct hit scored against the Night Hag (ie anything that does not use templates, pass through blast markers, hit and run attacks, critical damage, other ships catastrophic damage) roll a D6. On a 6, ignore the hit.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on May 08, 2015, 05:26:34 AM
I don't like how the Enticer compares to the Heretic. It is comparably better and yet extremely similar for only 10 more points.

I want to change it. Probably to a Carrier Light Cruiser HOWEVER I can't find/forget where the source material for the Enticer is and want to ensure I am not obliterating its fluff by doing so.

Anyone have anything?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: zprinslo on May 14, 2015, 11:29:31 PM
You could possibly reduce dorsal/ prow WB str to 4 and then perhaps give it an upgrade to ignore the long range right shift. So at that point it is only putting out total 8 shots on a dorsal/ port-star combined fire where as the heretic does 12. not sure about the points tho, i would use the enticer over the heretic if it was more of a cheap mid range support vessel. To be honest i think the Heretic and the Schismatic are a bit out of place when compared to what at least i perceive as the chaos trait of long range.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on May 15, 2015, 03:51:59 AM
I like the idea. Ill play around with it some this week. The idea of a light carrier is still attractive to me as well though, seeing as there is nothing like that.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on January 26, 2016, 12:17:23 AM
This is the topic I meant to bring to the top page
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on January 26, 2016, 12:17:55 AM
I KNOW I haven't put out an updated product in a bit. School (Post grad) and life sometimes catches up. BUT That does not mean this project is dead by any strectch of the Imagination. I WILL FINISH IT. I PROMISE. I have been blogging since 2008, playing since 1998-99 and I stick with my hobby.

View the main ASC 2.0 thread here
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=7097.0

Here is what I have thus far

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

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

Annihilator Class Grand Cruiser- 295 (IMPERIAL NAVY/CHAOS)
Hits: 10
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 3
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 3
Weapons:
Port LB- Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 5 Arc:-
Stbd LB- Swiftdeaths: 30cm Doomfires: 20cm Dreadclaws: 30cm S: 5 Arc:-
Special Rules:

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

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

Kharnath Class Grand Cruiser- 320
Hits: 10
Speed: 25 cm
Turns: 45*
Shields:  3
Armour: 5+
Turrets:  3
Weapons
Prow Boarding Torpedoes- Speed: 35cm S: 6 Arc: F
Port Launch Bays- Dreadclaws: 35cm S: 5 Arc:  -
Stbd Launch Bays- Dreadclaws: 35cm S: 5 Arc:  -
Prow Talons- R: 15 S: 2 Arc: F
Special Rules:  5d6 AAF
Blood for the Blood God:  MoK and CSM crew. May only be taken in Bezerker fleets or fleets where at least ˝ of the ships (including Kharnath GC) have the MoK. May not be included in fleets where any ship has the MoT.
Talons of Khorne: Prow mounted Talons are fired like WB with a Left Col Shift. They ignore shields. If you successfully hit a vessel, instead of inflicting damage all boarding actions conducted by AC from the Kharnath receive a +1 bonus.
Boosted Craft- AC from the Kharnath are boosted from the Kharnath, adding +5 to speed, already included above.

Hellfire Class Heavy Cruiser (CH)-190
Hits: 8
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: R
Port Lance Battery- R: 45cm S: 2 Arc: L
Stbd Lance Battery - R: 45cm S: 2 Arc: R
Prow WB- R: 30cm S: 6 Arc: L/F/R
Dorsal Lance Battery- R: 60 S: 1 Arc: L/F/R
Special Rules: When AAF or Burn Retros, the ship may not fire its lance batteries.


Hellbringer Class Planetary Assault Ship (CH)

Emasculator Class CA (CH)- 180
Hits: 8
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 6 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 6 Arc: R
Port Lance Battery- R: 45cm S: 2 Arc: L
Stbd Lance Battery - R: 45cm S: 2 Arc: R
Prow WB- R: 30cm S: 6 Arc: L/F/R

Pagan Class System Control Cruiser CL (CH)
Pestilaan Class CL (CH)
Chaos SM SC (CH)
Apostate Class Heavy Raider (CH)

Enticer Class Light Cruiser- 145
Hits: 6
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 90*
Shields: 1
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port WB- R: 45cm S: 4 Arc: L
Stbd WB- R: 45cm S: 4 Arc: R
Prow WB- R: 45cm S: 8 Arc: L/F/R
Notes: MoS. 5d6 AAF. May only be used in Pleasure Fleets of Slaneesh or fleets where over ˝ of the vessels have the MoS. May not be taken in fleets where a vessel has the MoN. These restrictions are lifted in fleet led by Abaddon.

Pestilaan Class Light Cruiser-
Hits: 7
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45*
Shields: 2
Armour: 5+
Turrets: 2
Weapons:
Port Hives of Nurgle- R: 30cm S:6 Arc: L
Stbd Hives of Nurgle- R: 30cm S:6 Arc: R
Prow Torpedoes- R: 30cm S: 4 Arc: F
Notes: MoN (included in profile). Hives o Nurgle function exactly like Terminus Est. May only be taken in Plague Fleets of Nurgle or fleets where over ˝ of the vessels have the MoN. May not be taken in fleets where a vessel has the MoT. These restrictions are lifted for fleets led by Abaddon.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: timdp on February 03, 2016, 04:05:05 AM
Re the Havoc Frigate/Praetor Frigate/Onager/Chaos Havoc Raider/Chaos Infidel Raider/Meritech Shrike Raider ships in ASC and Chaos lists, I'm just trying to come up some coherent deep background as a basis for the fluff for this series of ships. It does not ALL have to fit into the fluff descriptions

We have two ships built pre-Heresy, one first built during the heresy and three supposedly first built after the Heresy, all based on the same hull.

Praetor Class Frigate: Pre-Heresy.  How did the Praetor become a frigate? Havoc Class Frigate description in 2010 calls the Praetor a destroyer while the Havoc is a frigate.

2010 Havoc Class Frigate:  Pre-Heresy.

Onager: Heresy era ship. Would not Heresy era Onagers be built out of already existing Havoc frigates instead of building a "new escort"?

It seems likely that the plans for this pre-Heresy ship have been floating around the galaxy, not to mention ex-Heresy ships fleeing to the Eye of Terror and still existing as well as being replicated, all leading eventually to:

Chaos Havoc Class Raider: M36
Chaos Infidel Class Raider: M40
Meritech Raider: M41


Suggested hull development flowcharts:

Preator Class Destroyer  > Chaos Havoc Class Raider > Infidel  (All are torpedo equipped ships)
Design aspects incorporated into: Cobra

2010 Havoc Class Frigate > Meritech Raider (With additional non-Imperial technologies added.) (Weapons batteries only)
Design aspects incorporated into: Sword

Having two different ship classes named Havoc is a bit confusing. Not sure how Onager would fit in. Could be an offshoot of both designs.

Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 03, 2016, 06:02:51 AM
The novel Shadowpoint, which is the best source/cannon on BFG IMO, has the Praetor as a frigate.

The Onager was an ad-hoc stop gap design, essentially anything that had a NC dropped into it of escort tonnage became an "Onager"

Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 03, 2016, 06:11:26 AM
As well, BFG:R already reconciled the difference between the Havoc Frigate/Raider. It made them the same class. Just chaos utilizes theirs as a raiding vessel instead of a line/escort frigate. Same ship, different factions, different roles.

It is quite possible a Praetor "destroyer" did exist at some point, but I am going to stick with Shadowpoint rather than the 2010, seeing as virtually everything BFG put out since like '07 has been a slow, poorly researched, march of retcons and "THIS IS COOL, DAMN THE IMPLICATIONS" by Black Library/FW
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 03, 2016, 06:18:54 AM
And last point, if the Preator was a destroyer, it would really beg the question of why Chaos does not have some form of Torpedo destroyer. I'd like to think that the Cobra and Viper are a pure evolution on the Imperial Side only, where chaos never had nor developed a torpedo destroyer.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Chios on February 03, 2016, 03:39:50 PM
Hi!
Just something I noticed:
In your list, the Karnath Class Grand Cruiser is excluded from fleets where there is a ship with the Mark of Tzeentch, while the Enticer Class Light Cruiser is prohibited in fleets with a Mark of Nurgle.

Is this a deliberate act of balancing or motivated by the fluff of the particular ships? The antagonist pairings for the named battle barges are Khorne-Slaanesh / Tzeentch-Nurgle in the BFG:R document.

Keep up the good work, I'm really looking forward to the Apostate Heavy Raider!
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 04, 2016, 05:16:20 AM
Motivated by fluff. Abaddon removes these restrictions.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on March 27, 2016, 11:16:31 PM
First chaos (only) vessel done after a 3 month break!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxtz8dsplzqa2qk/ASC%202.0%20draft.pdf?dl=0

Trying to figure out if I need to add any more variants to Chaos to even out with IN...
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Fr05ty on April 02, 2016, 02:12:42 AM
Mind if I suggest a new ship to add? The Dethroner class Battleship :)
I have provided the PDF from that ship as it was meant to be part of Battleship Nemesis (a book from cypra.net). Might be that we need to ask permission from whoever made it though?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on April 06, 2016, 11:09:15 PM
Mind if I suggest a new ship to add? The Dethroner class Battleship :)
I have provided the PDF from that ship as it was meant to be part of Battleship Nemesis (a book from cypra.net). Might be that we need to ask permission from whoever made it though?

Definitely adding that! Thanks
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Fr05ty on April 06, 2016, 11:26:57 PM
Got the revised version that's compatible with BFG:R here. It's quite underpowered otherwise.

Dethroner class Battleship - 405 points

(http://i326.photobucket.com/albums/k424/Maverick_1901/Maverick/DethronerclassBattleship.jpg)

The Dethroner class Battleship was built in a small numbers during the later years of the 36th Millenium, in the Reeash Forgeworld repair dockyard (Segmentus Tempestus) as a cheap, field conversion of the Conquest Battleship. According to Adeptus Mechanicus archives, at least four vessels were rebuilt to this configuration, but nowadays no Dethroner serves in the Imperial Navy.
The Heart of the Galaxy was lost during the battle at Alveo II in the middle of the 37th Millenium, when it was overwhelmed by Ork Kroozers. After a long fight of nearly 18 hours, the ship exploded but managed to destroy at least 3 capital ships and a couple of escorts before it went.
The Bright Star exploded in 989.M37, when its plasma drive was overloaded in the Uviro III dockyards, as a result of sabotage. The explosion killed all its crew and heavily damaged a few other ships and the docks themselves.
In the beginning of the 38th Millenium, after the battle of Artemida III, the heavily damaged Light of the Emperor was reverted back to a Conquest class, which fits standard Imperial Navy doctrine much better.
The last Dethoner class battleship - the Saltatio Fidusum - was lost in the Perseus Nebula, when it was captured by two Chaos battleships. She was renamed the Saltatio Damnatibus by its new captain, and disappeared for more than one hundred years. In the Second and Third century of the 38th Millenium she saw much combat, and plagued Imperial systems almost throughout the Imperium, wandering from sector to sector, and left only death and destruction behind her, avoiding confrontation with the Imperial Navy. She was finally stopped in an ambush at the Usmeutus passage, when she was crippled and barely menage to escape intact.
There is an Adeptus Mechanicus legend about three other Dethroner battleships, but there is no confirmation of this. All information about them was lost during a Chaos raid in 198.M40, when the Forgeworld archives were hit by a torpedo.


Type/Hits Speed Turns Shields Armour Turrets
Battleship/1220cm4545+5
ArmamentRng/SpdFirepower/StrArc
Prow Torpedoes30cm6Front
Prow weapon battery60cm6Left/Front/Right
Dorsal weapon battery60cm8Left/Front/Right
Port launch baysAs attack craft4-
Port lance battery45cm3Left
Starboard launch baysAs attack craft4-
Starboard lance battery45cm3Right

The Dethroner class Battleship carries Swiftdeath fighters (speed: 30cm), Doomfire bombers (speed: 20cm) and Dreadclaw assault boats (speed: 30cm).
The Dethroner as with all Chaos ships, carries both standard and boarding torpedoes.

Special rules:
The Dethroner class battleship cannot be given Come to New Heading orders. As with all Reeash pattern battleships, the Dethroner has a traditional symmetrically built engine compartment. Unfortunately this reduces the ship's performance so the Dethroner rolls only 2D6 on All Ahead Full! special orders.

Options:
During the War in the Purity sub-sector in the 38th Millenium, the engines of the Statio Damnatibus were refitted and the mass of the ship was reduced. The ship gains +5cm of speed, but reduces its launch bay capacity from 4 to 3 at no extra cost.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on May 17, 2016, 08:53:55 AM
AWESOME!!! THANKS!!!
SHOULD MAKE IT IN THIS WEEK!
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on June 21, 2016, 01:25:51 AM
A little late, but an updated look on the Dethroner. Also tweaked the rules you gave a little BUT very much still the same ship. Thanks.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Fr05ty on June 22, 2016, 11:46:04 PM
A little late, but an updated look on the Dethroner. Also tweaked the rules you gave a little BUT very much still the same ship. Thanks.

I like the prow cleaning, don't like the back of it though :( Feels too much like a GK crossed with a Chaos cruiser (especially with the weird vanes coming down at the rear and in the middle of the ship)
What did you change rules-wise?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on June 23, 2016, 12:17:26 AM
I wanted to use your image but it wasn't cleaning up well with the limited setup I have, so I had to start from scratch and used an apoc as the base. Tried to make it look a little more like a traditional imperial ship in doing so due to the fluff. The rear find is the standard apocalypse fin, just with the aquilla removed. Also changed the keel using a repulsive I believe

As for rules I bumped the wb down to 45 but upped the lances to 60, however at s2. This was done primarily to be different than the Majestic, Despoiler and desecrator, giving it a more concrete fleet role.  There was nothing wrong with you version,  just needed to be "more different", you know?

Also made it that you get 3d6 AAF along with the 5cm speed if you take the engine upgrade.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: lord_blackfang on June 26, 2016, 08:59:54 AM
Excuse me, but is there a point to these schematics? It's not like anyone will build them. A lot of them can't even be physically built.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: harec on June 26, 2016, 09:44:01 AM
Excuse me, but is there a point to these schematics? It's not like anyone will build them. A lot of them can't even be physically built.

Well they are quite useful as inspiration, specially for modellers.
What do you mean by nobody and physically?. :o
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: horizon on June 26, 2016, 10:04:18 AM
The underestimation of resin, 3d printing and quality modelers. ;)
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on June 26, 2016, 03:03:01 PM
I actually use partsome from existing sematics almost exclusively so people can attempt to model them. I have made a few myself. And there are ALOT of 3d and resin bits or suitable proxies floating around the Internet. Also, they are there as a "guideline". Ifor someone makes one, they don't need to follow it exactly,  but they get a good idea of what the end design should be similar to

The biggest thing is each ship needs to look different and grounded in the big universe.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Xca|iber on June 26, 2016, 05:43:17 PM
Hey Gothmog, I was working on the BFG:XR Chaos list and I had an idea for a Chaos ship that I think would fit well in the ASC. (It's a little too out there for the regular fleet doc, in any case  ;) ).

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

Black Ark, Voice of Hal........400 Points
Type/Hits: Battleship/12
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45
Shields: 4
Armor: 5+
Turrets: 5

Armaments:
Dorsal Lance Battery: R60cm, S2, Left/Front/Right
Dorsal Torpedo Launcher: Sp30cm, S6, Left/Front/Right

Port Obliterator Array:
.........Gunnery: R60cm, S8, Left
.........Lances: R60cm, S2, Left
.........Turrets: +2 Turrets Value

Starboard Obliterator Array:
.........Gunnery: R60cm, S8, Right
.........Lances: R60cm, S2, Right
.........Turrets: +2 Turrets Value

Prow Obliterator Array
.........Gunnery: R60cm, S12, Front
.........Lances: R60cm, S3, Front
.........Nova Cannon: R30-150cm, S1, Front

Special Rules: The Voice of Hal is ponderous and cannot use Come to New Heading special orders. In addition, it is a unique vessel; only one may be included in your fleet. If taken in a campaign, it must be designated as your flagship.

Obliterator Arrays: The Voice of Hal's weapon arrays have been slowly corrupted by the Obliterator Virus, fusing guns with their crews over the last ten thousand years, transforming the ship into a bizarre hybrid of flesh and technology. At the start of each of your shooting phases, you must choose which mode each of your Obliterator Arrays will use from the types listed in their profiles (each may use a different mode, if desired). An array cannot use the same mode it used on your previous turn (if any), unless the ship is on Lock On special orders. The choice of mode lasts until the start of your next shooting phase. Lastly, due to the regenerative properties of the Obliterator Virus, damaged Obliterator Arrays are repaired on a roll of 4+ instead of 6 (all other systems must be repaired normally).

Spectral Shielding: The Voice of Hal uses an advanced but unstable form of void shields stolen from the Martian Vaults of Forbidden Technology at the dawn of the Horus Heresy. Each time the vessel is hit (and its shields are up), roll a D6. On a result of 5+, the hit is absorbed completely - do not place a blast marker. On a result of 1, the shield belches forth a cloud of debris from previously absorbed hits - place two blast markers instead of one. Otherwise, the hit impacts the vessel's shields normally. When suffering multiple hits, resolve each hit one at at time until there are no more hits to resolve or the ship's shields run out (any remaining hits affect the ship's hull as normal).

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

Anyway, that's it. Just a silly evil version of the Ark Mechanicus, since I was thinking there's no real representation of obliterators (one of my favorite Chaos units) in BFG. If you think the numbers need tweaking, have at it; this is just a sketch. Feel free to change whatever you want!

P.S. Also, would you be able to take the Heretic, Unbeliever, and Schismatic CLs from the BFGR Chaos book into the ASC? I'm cutting down the CL choices in the BFG:XR Chaos book (due to the voting from before BFGR went into limbo) but I don't think they deserve to be completely scrubbed.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on June 26, 2016, 09:59:54 PM
I'll take a better look at your ship later. Got a long drive today and tomorrow. I like the idea of a chaos ark mechanicus.

As for the light cruisers, yes I can, but I think they should stay in BFG:R for 3 reasons

1- that vote was small and so long ago. They have been part of it for so long that it is kinda understood they are in bfg:r
2- chaos light cruisers are canon now in all the dark heresy/rogue trader rpgs, where they didn't used to be.
3- they are also now in the BFG video game too, lending even more credibility and officiality to their existence.
4- because of 2 and 3, new players are expecting chaos cl, and I virtually guarantee that they will show up in the rerelease (whenever that will be). And imo we should look forward and make these projects for new players and not just old gronards (the old voting base) as that is what is keeping the game alive. On the largest BFG facebook (I am an admin) group there is more activity from people starting BFG than the vets, trust me.

Basically the old argument "they don't belong and aren't in anything official" is no longer true. As such I really REALLY hope you keep them. But if you do ditch them I will pick them up.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Xca|iber on June 27, 2016, 12:16:27 AM
I'll take a better look at your ship later. Got a long drive today and tomorrow. I like the idea of a chaos ark mechanicus.

As for the light cruisers, yes I can, but I think they should stay in BFG:R for 3 reasons

1- that vote was small and so long ago. They have been part of it for so long that it is kinda understood they are in bfg:r
2- chaos light cruisers are canon now in all the dark heresy/rogue trader rpgs, where they didn't used to be.
3- they are also now in the BFG video game too, lending even more credibility and officiality to their existence.
4- because of 2 and 3, new players are expecting chaos cl, and I virtually guarantee that they will show up in the rerelease (whenever that will be). And imo we should look forward and make these projects for new players and not just old gronards (the old voting base) as that is what is keeping the game alive. On the largest BFG facebook (I am an admin) group there is more activity from people starting BFG than the vets, trust me.

Basically the old argument "they don't belong and aren't in anything official" is no longer true. As such I really REALLY hope you keep them. But if you do ditch them I will pick them up.

Ah, I did not know that about the Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader RPGs. I knew there was a new one in BFGA but I haven't done anything with it. In that case, I can put the CLs back into the book. It shouldn't be too difficult; probably just a 1-page add before I finalize it.

Take your time with the Chaos Ark. It was just something I thought of in the shower and wanted to write it down before I forgot  ;D
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Chios on June 27, 2016, 03:27:26 PM
I like the Chaos Ark, I think a whole ship with the obliterator virus is a nice idea. If Deamons can infest anything from a sword to a Battlecruiser, the Obliterator-virus paired with a ship full of Dark Mechanicus lunatics would HAVE to end up taking over the vessel like you proposed!

That said, I was biased from the moment I read the name of the ship! ;D

Haven't had a closer look at your posted stats or point costs, so no input from me on that front. The only thing I'm not so sure about is the improved Holofield paired with a shield strength of 4... it seems a little excessive, but keep in mind I haven't considered the points cost as of yet, and I'm a pretty new player myself. I leave the finetunig to other, more experienced people, saying only that the idea is frickin cool! 8)
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: ErikModi on June 28, 2016, 01:57:34 PM
Ooh, which BFG Facebook group?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Fr05ty on October 24, 2016, 10:08:20 PM
Got a suggestion:

There are BFG ships hidden in the Horus Heresy books, so you could add those (they don't have rules so you'd have to make them) to the Compendium :)

Love the Tribune with its planetary assault petard!
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Fr05ty on October 24, 2018, 05:46:27 PM
Hey Gothmog, just noticed a funky thing: The Scylior, the modified Sword class Frigate from the Space Marines has 40cm range for its weapons batteries. Is this intended or a typo? Shouldn't it be 45cm or 30cm?

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

Love so many of the new designs you've done. The Lone Serpent as you've done it feels a lot better than the old one, also the use of the Nihontu's prow makes it so pretty! Please keep it up :)
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Fr05ty on December 14, 2018, 05:03:04 PM
Another ship that might be interesting for the book:
https://portinvicta.weebly.com/guest-articles/terra-invicta-space-marine-battle-barge?fbclid=IwAR0dSmOwNGPhVDyLeVBi1fy1N9craSFrntSD7dOfhyf1RcpYtnWa7bFHsxQ
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Zelnik on December 17, 2018, 03:24:32 PM
Hey folks, long time no see.


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

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

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

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

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


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

Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Zelnik on December 17, 2018, 03:44:52 PM
Comments in bold.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

I like fluffy ships, but I don't really see why this needs to exist when for just 35 more points I can take a Slaughter, which is faster, tougher and WAY more shooty. One slaughter can easily take on two of these and pound them into the dirt, when light cruisers are really meant to be more then the sum of their parts. This is beyond my normal disdain for chaos light cruisers because there just isn't a need for them when you have the Slaughter.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: kerros on December 29, 2018, 01:51:52 PM
Hello all,

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

Traitorous Cruiser- 180 (CHAOS)

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

What do you think?
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on December 30, 2018, 02:09:09 AM
Hello all,

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

Traitorous Cruiser- 180 (CHAOS)

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

What do you think?

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

shouldn't the prow Wb's be 60cm, though? At 30cm you're probably looking at about 170 if I have to pull a number from my posterior (been away from BFG for a looong time!).
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Bessemer on December 30, 2018, 02:16:11 AM
@zelnik

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

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

 Edit: Not meaning to sound negative about the ASC's content, but a lot of fan creations do step on the toes of official ships or go out of theme for the faction in question. I'm just as guilty, all of mine being consigned to oblivion long ago :D
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: kerros on December 30, 2018, 02:39:17 AM
Yes, you are correct. It is a cheaper Acheron in cruiser form. That's kinda what I was going for. Also think of it as a "Chaos-y" version of the Imperial Gothic. Also, you are half correct about the price. I must have miscalculated somewhere (almost a decade ago when I first came up with this design lol) along the way cuz running the numbers again it's actually 160 pts. Super cheap! I actually wanted the prow weapons batteries to be short range as I didn't want this to be a cheap cruiser that could sit back and fire at range. The 30cm WB forces you to choose between sitting back or getting in the fight and using your full complement of weapons.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: horizon on December 31, 2018, 05:39:38 PM
@zelnik

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

Nah, the HA is into hibernation only to be awoken when the eye of terror spills out GW heresies.
Only a few rare mails from Ray, Nate and Bob have been done.
I posted the few FAQ2010 clarifications in the rules sub forum.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Zelnik on January 02, 2019, 04:53:03 PM
@zelnik

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

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

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


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


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


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


Blacktooth Class Demon Ship.

Points: 150

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

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

Special Rules

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

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

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

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



Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 13, 2019, 11:44:36 PM
I AM BACK!!!

I was actually working on this again AFTER ANOTHER HIATUS (Sorry). Great to see some feed back. I will catch up and try to get a ship out a week.
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 13, 2019, 11:48:20 PM
Ooh, which BFG Facebook group?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2387912808/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/2387912808/)
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 13, 2019, 11:52:57 PM
Hey Gothmog, just noticed a funky thing: The Scylior, the modified Sword class Frigate from the Space Marines has 40cm range for its weapons batteries. Is this intended or a typo? Shouldn't it be 45cm or 30cm?

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

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

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

I honestly am unsure why the conquest changed. I'll look. Glad you like the designs!
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 13, 2019, 11:54:29 PM
Another ship that might be interesting for the book:
https://portinvicta.weebly.com/guest-articles/terra-invicta-space-marine-battle-barge?fbclid=IwAR0dSmOwNGPhVDyLeVBi1fy1N9craSFrntSD7dOfhyf1RcpYtnWa7bFHsxQ
My Charybdis class is well suited to match this 3d print
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 14, 2019, 12:04:26 AM
Hey folks, long time no see.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Basically, if it is in the fluff or previously published for use with the original game, I am trying to recreate it for use in BFG:XR
Title: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Thinking Stone on February 14, 2019, 12:51:40 AM
As an interested observer (which is really all I generally am :P), I’d also like to reinforce the appreciation of experienced eyes looking at ship designs and list creations.

My experience has often been like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it’s little wonder that people making new stuff have that misunderstanding when people shutting down their ideas is so commonplace. Maybe a little more understanding and care on both sides would make it better for everyone? (And you don’t have to be as wordy as me to do it! :D ).
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 14, 2019, 02:25:47 AM
As an interested observer (which is really all I generally am :P), I’d also like to reinforce the appreciation of experienced eyes looking at ship designs and list creations.

My experience has often been like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like your flow charts.

I am in no way upset at his input. I hope my answer didn't come off that way. Just trying to explain the scope of the project in question. It is supposed to be OTT and ridiculous to a certain extent. A proverbial "option for everything."

I am taking to heart what he pointed out about the points though, as that is a basis for fine tuning the ships.

I completely understand where he was coming from, and if I was trying to make something for the core game, all his points would be extremely applicable. That being said, I hope going forward it is clear what the purpose of the ASC 2.0 is, and that it is by no means intended to be taken super seriously. I personally want people to enjoy the fluff and designs (and easter eggs, See if you can find them all) the most.

So please keep bringing any and all feedback. Just know the frame of reference I am working from means not all of it will be incorporated. Or as you said "That’s cool, thanks for your input! But say I was going to play with it anyways!"
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 14, 2019, 02:27:42 AM
AND a new draft is UP! Only a few changes from the last one. But I will try and keep doing it. I really really really will. I do want to finish this before a new edition comes out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxtz8dsplzqa2qk/ASC%202.0%20draft.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxtz8dsplzqa2qk/ASC%202.0%20draft.pdf?dl=0)
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Fr05ty on February 14, 2019, 02:42:55 AM
AND a new draft is UP! Only a few changes from the last one. But I will try and keep doing it. I really really really will. I do want to finish this before a new edition comes out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxtz8dsplzqa2qk/ASC%202.0%20draft.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxtz8dsplzqa2qk/ASC%202.0%20draft.pdf?dl=0)

Might be a good idea to keep a changelog to know what's changed since the last draft. Also, what're you thinking of working on next? Just to know how we can assist you :)
I've got a list of ship classes that show up in the Rogue Trader RPG books that are also missing in this, so might be worth exploring if they make it in. Also, the Tribune is amazing and we need to make some rules for it!

Also, these are awesome: https://www.deviantart.com/martechi/gallery/67112360/Wh40k-Void-Fleet Would be amazing if we could slot in some into the book too
Title: Re: ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
Post by: Gothmog Lord of Balrogs on February 14, 2019, 02:54:33 AM
I should do a change log... but that would add time and I am already slow enough. Once the 2.0 is done, I swear up and down there will be one for tweaks and modifications going forward. As a WIP I'm going to leave it out.

HOWEVER there is a list of all the ships. Its just in a different post
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=7097.0 (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=7097.0)

Comment there if you think anything needs to be added or was missed!