I guess you are right about points. In Epic epic, the amry lists and points for each selection are designed for the single standard scenario, non other.

If you had different scenarios, then conceivably you need different points and perhaps different list structures for each scenario.

I do love the idea of different scenarios though, and goals can be designed specifically for each.

You're right that, if epic is a guide, few players achieve 5 goals. It usually takes an almost total wipe-out to achieve that. Yet the game can be won with only two, You are also correct that some armies are more suitable towards certain goals than others. And that different individual armies from these lists will be designed with different goals in mind.
Further, when a player sees his opponents army, he'll sometimes change his aims. "His most expensive formation looks vulnerable and easy pickings for my army, I'll try for BTS on this occasion", for example

I'm liking the look of your goal ideas btw.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

To be honest I think the Epic system has flaws:

- The activation system is flawed in the fact almost all lists can be tailored to gain max activations.
(Though I would prefer a better movement system in BFG then IGOYOUGO

- The system leads to many army lists having a abuse factor.

The BFG system is a lot clearer in that. It has 'abuse' fleets but they spin around the ordnance problem in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, the goals in Epic are probably the greatest thing. Having such a thing in BFG would be great.

Though creating it is difficult. I think Reg would like to chip in on this one.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

You'll have to debate that point with the epic guys in the epic section!

Yes you can stretch your activations out as far as you like. This has it's own balancing factor though. It creates what epic players call 'popcorn' armies. For the tactical advantage of having more activations, you get week, easily destroyed and easily broken formations. (being broken easily is important)

An ork blitz brigade, 4 gun wagons, is an example of a formation you might find in a popcorn army. The enemy has only to shoot at it once, killing one unit, and the other three run for the hills and struggle to rally through the entire game.

A max activation popcorn army in BFG would be all escorts?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

In Epic a failed activation means a unit cannot do anything at all that turn, right?

Now in BFG due the must-move-we-are-in-space thing what would that mean? A ship that flies straight and does nothing?

Doesn't work for me. A form of initiative system would be better, so everything can actually do something, just in a different order then I-go-You-go.

edit: if you take small squadrons: yes.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

Failed activations means the formation takes a blast marker and must perform a hold action. IIRC a hold action allows for one move or shoot or regroup.

In BFG sense, the ship would continue moving but would be unable to take special orders or launch ordnance perhaps.

_________________
-Vaaish

Thanks, in the end my point stays the same though as a ship could only move.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

That's only if you translate the epic rule word for word to BFG. I'd say that it needs some editing to work in a BFG setting anyway because elements don't make sense like rallying which is nonexistent in BFG. For BFG, failed activations should probably have effects like no special orders, reducing weapons strength, or some other alteration that shows the ship isn't fighting at full efficiency instead of affecting movement.

_________________
-Vaaish

An idea, then, might be calling activations "Blips" or "Contact". Bonuses depending upon what you're trying to do (AAF, for instance, would be quite easy to 'activate' on, but perhaps not to actually achieve the full lock-on).

A failed Contact would mean that your ship (or squadron) is out of contact, i.e. it's somehow lost communications, surveyor contact or is otherwise hindered by and lost in what we might call the void of war.


An uncontacted item might, say, suffer:
- Half speed
- Half weapons range
- May not launch ordnance (other than CAP?)
- -1Ld to all command checks/leadership tests.
- May attempt SOs but is still constrained by the above (i.e. half range, half speed). Represents them being somehow impaired from their role in the battle.
- Otherwise can move as normal [so if they can turn, they can turn, shoot they can shoot etc]

A contacted ship may act, essentially, as they do now, but in an IGOUGO style (with ordnance mods).

Governing Contacts

This allows for a degree of 'fleet-wide' tactics to be employed. Space Marine (1+ Expert Mariners), CWE/DE/CE (2+/1+/1+?) and Necron (2+ 'Failling systems'/drowsiness) ships are/might be highly independent, so they perhaps gain little 'active' support from their nearby ships save the actual fire-support provided.

Orks (4+) might gain benefits from being within range of other ships. For every six, say, HPs of friendly vessel nearby (<30cm) the sqn might gain a (+1) bonus to Contact. This, alongside Warboss (+1?) (and similar) effects might mean a larger, denser ork fleet is fairly easy to Contact and work with, but that if you've got 'em too piecemeal you gain no benefit and struggle in a wider scenario? (Combine elements of Ork/Nid ideas to share between fleet styles?) A good threshold value could perhaps be set which allows a judicious ork commander to judge whether he wanted a truly resilient 'gargantuan' spacemob, or a few more dispersed and handy kunnin' killy pack hunters...

The Tyranids (5+), then, might gain bonuses to Contact tests for being 'near' objectives-triggers (+1/2/3) and enemy vessels (+1/2/3 depending on proximity?). This would mimic the 'natural' style encouraged by Instinctive Orders (i.e. it's easier to do instinctive things) but also permit a form of 'Imperative Bonuses' allocatable by Hiveships etc.

The Imperial Navy (2+), Chaos Warfleets (2+) and Tau Korvattra (3+) might find themselves with a more basic Contact setup, closely in line with the 'out of the box' rules. If they present the 'middle ground' with fewer constraints, but fewer bonuses. (Chaos might gain Contact bonuses for Warlords/masters, Marks and Astartes, IN might gain Inquisitorial/intelligence/strategy bonuses and Tau might be able to gain some benefit from their 'tracking system' or 'specialist orders'[a hark back to the original Xisor Plan way back when?!])

If there are such bonuses, then I happily imagine that there's all sorts of fun to be had with area effect celestial phenomena and perhaps even more 'strategic' weapons? Things like the Mark of Slaanesh, a certain degree of BMs and many other things might impair Contactability.

This is essentially only a basic conjecture for a system, but it might unfold nicely. It might be a miserable failure of a suggestion too, but I'm keen to hear what folks think!

EDIT: I think the range and speed halving for ships Out of Contact is sensible. This represents them failing to recieve combat data from across the fleet, their own sensors being confused in the heat of battle. It doesn't make them utterly toothless (e.g. Wrath of Khan: if you can see an enemy ship plain on your screens: you can see them, you can fire!) The Contacts represent a Strategic or Fleet-wide level of coordination, whilst the ability to still go on to Special Orders, even if 'not Contacted' might represent the individual competency of captains attempting to ensure they have their ordnance ready to go again, regardless, or that they want to break free from a hellhole situation and regroup to provide a better servive.

[My vision is of a ship being Out of Contact, amidst a hail of BMs and enemy ships {Tyranids shadow? Mark of Slaanesh? Traitors?} in the thick of the fighting being essentially a sitting duck, but the 'saving grace' being the sensibilities of its Ld10 commander who orders a direct AAF [despite half speed, say to 10cm) but still benefits from a +4D6cm boost on a 'get us the hell out of here' bearing]

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"

I dunno.

Normally ships already operate quite on their own. It is much more common to see a single cruiser with a few escorts running into a battle (pirates) then a full fledged engagement.

So captains would not quickly falter when being left alone. They know about being 'alone' all too often in deep space.

So I think they will use their ship to full capability. But I can see the option of denying them the fleet wide re-roll the admiral provides.

Has any of you tried/digested the Simultaneous Movement rules from Warp Rift (20 or 19 from my head)?
Currently I'm digesting them more and it is a real good thing. At port maw I know some people use it already.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

The 'contacts' thing wouldn't just represent 'not full use when on their own', but the effect that being out of coordination with other ships would be. In the midst of a battle it strikes me that communications are a high priority thing (much more so than a lone pursuit of a handful of pirates, as you suggest*). If there's bombs, missiles, ships and whatnot everywhere, targetting is going to be difficult. You might be able to pick out various sources, but triangulating targets and differentiating friend from foe from random explosion is going to be difficult. Keeping 'Contacts' makes sense, IMO, as it models the confusion well, but divorces the effects of that style of confusion from the 'skill of the captain'. If you can't keep comms open with the rest of the fleet, you won't be getting all that data.

That said, I could happily live without the contacts thing. I merely think it'd be an interesting route.


* Though, considering that, the key to my contact proposal would be ensuring that such a situation is representable. As I propose it: IN would generally be getting a 2+. Orks would be 4+ with a +1 if there's enemy nearby (i.e. about to ambush) and another +1 if they've a canny warboss in command. Even without a senior warboss a 3+ vs 2+ Ork/Imperial conflict seems reasonable. Then once BMs and phenomena start being laid down it changes it. I think that sort of added layer is intriguing.

On Simultaneous Movement

To be perfectly honest, I'd quite forgotten about that! Give me a wee while to digest it again.

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"

It is good to see you into a BFG discussion. Been a long time.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

1. priority ala LotR/WotR.

2. move, move, shoot, ordnance, ordnance, end.

3. make shooting "simultaneous" with ships with higher leadership shooting first (tie broken by priority winner)

4.  weapons. batteries to be field effect (easier to hit, harder to damage) while lances harder to hit but easier to damage. some weapons could be a blend of the two.