April 25, 2019, 11:37:48 AM

Author Topic: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)  (Read 98211 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Xca|iber

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 206
  • *Transcribing Intensifies*
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
« Reply #360 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:


  • DARK ELDAR UPDATE: Here
  • FLEET SUPPORT UPDATE: Here
  • ORK UPDATE: Here
  • TYRANID UPDATE: Here

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.
++Ask Not, Fear Not++
-------------------------
BFG:XR - The Battlefleet Gothic Expanded Revised Rules Project

Offline Bessemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 340
    • Loc: UK
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
« Reply #361 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...
  • All ships use Ld of highest HS within Synapse range range
  • Ships outside Ld 6 (except Navigation), cannot use re-rolls, must close on enemy ships/planets(PA).
  • Optional rule- Non HS gain +2 hits, if outside Synapse, must disengage if crippled.

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.
I refuse to be killed by something I've never heard of.

Offline DrDaniel5

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
« Reply #362 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:






Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 770
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
« Reply #363 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.


Offline Thinking Stone

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 151
    • Loc: The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
« Reply #364 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).

Offline Fr05ty

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
« Reply #365 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!

Offline Gothmog Lord of Balrogs

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 613
  • Lord of the Seven
    • Sepulchre of Heroes
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
« Reply #366 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!
"Give me a thousand men crazy enough to conquer Hell and we shall do it!"
www.sepulchreofheroes.blogspot.com
sepulchreofheroes@gmail.com

Offline Thinking Stone

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 151
    • Loc: The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
« Reply #367 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.

Offline Thinking Stone

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 151
    • Loc: The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
« Reply #368 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!

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Year's Update 2/10/2019)
« Reply #369 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.