Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: RayB HA on April 14, 2010, 07:15:44 PM
-
Hello everyone,
I'm going to collate all post 2007 FAQ and then add this to a newer and eventually official BFG FAQ 2010.
Please help by putting up General Rules questions unanswered by the 2007 FAQ or are unclearly resolved in official material.
There are two other topics, one for fleet specific questions and ordnance questions.
Fleet Specific Questions: http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1345.0 (http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1345.0)
Ordnance Questions: http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1362.0 (http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1362.0)
I will be adding answers to the questions by editing this first post.
If an answer has the term ‘needs HA ruling’ it may change before publication.
Thank you very much for your help,
RayB HA
+++++++++++++
Basic Rules
Game Turns: A game turn is both player turns, so a game that lasts eight turns has had sixteen player turns.
Premeasurement: You may premeasure movement and range unless all players agree not to. Note: To aid in premeasuring use a couple of empty flying bases with bearing compasses dropped over the stems.
Secrecy of Fleet Lists: If your opponent wishes to see your fleet list during the game you must show it to him or her. Note: If you both agree you may keep your fleet lists secret until the end of the game. (Needs HA Ruling)
Secrecy of Subplots: Subplots are rolled for in front of your opponent. If you both agree you may keep your subplots secret until the end of the game. (Needs HA Ruling)
Orders/Leadership
Reload Ordnance and Movement: Movement is unaffected by the reload ordnance special order.
Brace For Impact and Shields: Assuming there is no special rule or refit you will never get brace saves for hits against shields. (This is in the Rulebook on page 23)
Movement, Shooting and Blast Markers
Flying Bases Overlapping and Stacking Squadrons: As ships can overlap by flying over/under one another it is possible to stack ships. The drastic weakening of their shield strength usually discourages this, but it is completely legal. When ships overlap it is common practice to remove the models from their flying bases. To keep things clear it is usually best to have a few stemless flying bases around with a straight line draw from the central hole to the bases edge to indicate direction.
Halving Weapons Strength: When a ship’s or squadron’s weapons are halved for whatever reason total up the combined strengths before halving or splitting firepower. (Needs HA Ruling, and rewording)
Multiple Gunnery Weapons: If a ship or squadron has multiple types of gunnery weapons, like Bombardment Cannons, Heavy Gunz or Standard Weapons Batteries, they may be fired simultaneously. Calculate the dice on the gunnery table separately for each type of gunnery weapon. This means you do not suffer gunnery shifts due to blast markers caused by other members of the same squadron in the same shooting phase. The order in which these weapons hit is up to shooting player, so Bombardment Cannons can hit after weapons batteries have taken down shields for instance. (Needs HA Ruling)
Splitting Weapons Fire Against a Single Ship: You cannot split your fire at a single target!
On The Line Shooting: When shooting and the arcs are on the line in between arcs, whether it be the attacking or defending ship the shooting player chooses which arcs to use.
***Remove from FAQ as is answered in another point: A vessel is considered to be moving through blast markers even if it is moving away from blast markers it is in contact with at the beginning of the movement phase, such as blast markers in contact due to a previous round of shooting.
Ships with Blast Markers in Base Contact: A ship in base contact with a blast marker counts as being in contact all around it. If a ship is in base contact with a ship with a blast marker but the blast maker does not touch it’s own base it does not count as having a blast marker in contact as well.
Blast Markers and Multiple Bases: When a ship has multiple bases in contact and its shield goes down, the blast marker may be placed anywhere on this ships base potentially taking down other ships shields. This has no limitation to the number of ships shields the blast marker can take down.
Blast Markers Caused by Exploding Escorts in Base Contact: When an Escort is destroyed you replace it with a blast marker, this blast marker is placed as centrally as possible. As a blast marker is smaller than a small flying base it is only possible to take down a ships shield with this blast marker if their bases overlapped.
Area Effects and Special Weapons
Nova Cannon Template: The correct dimensions of the Nova Cannon template are a 5cm outer diameter with the holes diameter at 1.2cm. The Nova Cannon’s dimensions can be found on Games-workshop’s small green blast template where the Nova Cannon’s perimeter is marked with a 2, this does not include the width of the line. Use the larger hole in the centre of the template if there are two sizes.
Nova Cannon Blast and Holofields: Although Holofield saves are taken against a direct hit from a Nova Cannon where the hole is over the base, they are not taken against the blast template. If this save is successful the effect of the Nova Cannon is reduced as if only the template were touching the base. No blast marker is placed. Therefore if the template touches a ships base with holofields it will always cause at least one point of damage, unless the ship is braced. (Needs HA Ruling)
Ramming, Boarding and Base size
Ramming and size: There are four sizes concerning the leadership check to ram. From biggest to smallest: Defence>Battleship>Cruiser>Escort. The worst this test can be is on 3D6 and the best it can be is on one D6, so an Ork Rok would try to pass a leadership check on 3D6 against an escort, cruiser or battleship.
Ships Exploding due to Ramming: If either ship is destroyed and explodes due to ramming the explosion is resolved at that moment. The other ship will always be in the explosion. If it was the rammed ship that exploded it is easier to finish the ramming ships movement as normal, but remember unless it has special rules to navigate blast markers it will be slowed by blast markers from the explosion.
Boarding in the Enemies Turn: You may not initiate a boarding action in the enemies turn. (Needs HA Ruling)
Boarding Values and Turret Strength: Turret strength is not part of a ships boarding value. So if the ship is defending and has a bonus, like the mark of Khorne’s doubling of the value, the turret strength is added after and is not affected by this.
Boarding Value and Boarding Modifiers: The boarding value is your remaining hits (plus turrets if you’re defending) which may offer a +1, +2, +3 or +4 boarding modifier. You add this modifier and any others you have to your single boarding dice, as does your opponent. The winner is the player with the highest modifier+D6 (boarding dice), causing damage equal to the difference of these totals.
Multiple Boarding Actions and Race Modifiers: Race modifiers are only counted once, so if you had a Chaos Murder class cruiser with a normal Chaos crew and a Devastation class cruiser with a Chaos Space Marine crew boarded an Imperial cruiser they would get a +3 race modifier, +1 from being chaos and +2 for having any ships with a CSM crew.
Hit and Run Attacks, Critical and Catastrophic Damage
Multiple Fire Criticals: Damage from numerous fire criticals is cumulative. E.g. if a ship had 3 fire criticals and failed to repair any in the end phase it would suffer 3 points of damage.
Multiple Thrusters Damaged Criticals: A ships speed is only affected once by multiple thrusters damaged criticals. Note: All thrusters damaged critical must be repaired to regain the ships speed.
Placement of Exploding ships Blast Markers: When placing these blast markers they may not overlap with each other but may overlap with blast markers previously placed. First place a single blast marker exactly where the ship was then place as many blast markers from the explosion as possible in contact with it, this should give you eight blast markers in total. If more blast markers were caused place them in contact with the ring of blast markers surrounding the first.
Moving Drifting/Blazing Hulks: The owning player moves his drifting Hulks in which ever order he wishes. Roll for blazing hulks exploding at the end of the movement phase rather than the end of its movement. (Needs HA Ruling)
Drifting/Blazing Hulks and Blast Markers: Drifting/blazing hulks are unaffected by speed modifiers and are not damaged by blast markers. (Needs HA Ruling)
Drifting/Blazing Hulks and Gravity Wells: When a drifting/blazing hulk enters a gravity well it must make any extra turns that are conferred to it towards the centre of the gravity well. In the case of a Space Hulks gravity well the drifting/blazing hulk makes its compulsorily turns as above and is merely removed from play if its base makes contact with the Space Hulks base. In addition if it were a blazing hulk, roll once on its catastrophic damage table before its removal. (Needs HA Ruling)
Squadrons
Shooting at Squadrons: When shooting at a squadron you have to shoot at the closest target first. This is an intended game mechanic. The only ways to shoot at a more distant member of a squadron is with gunnery weapons if the ship has more left modifiers on the gunnery table or has weaker armour where only the hits that could not hurt the closest target hit it. If because of weaker armour, armour ignoring weapons cannot exploit this rule.
Disengaging
Celestial Phenomena
Flying Bases and Terrain Interaction: With the exception of Gas/Dustclouds, which act as large blast markers, a ships stem must pass within the perimeter of celestial phenomenon to be affected by it.
Leadership Check to Traverse Asteroid Field: You must pass a leadership test to traverse asteroid fields or suffer D6 damage. In the case of capital ship squadrons, test for each ship that moves through the asteroid field, each ship that fails suffers D6 damage.
***ER: In the case of escort squadrons, take a leadership test for each ship that moves through the asteroid field, each ship that fails suffers D6 damage. (Needs HA Ruling)
Asteroids and All Ahead Full: When traversing an asteroid field on All Ahead Full you must pass a leadership check on 3D6 instead of 2D6 or suffer the usual D6 damage.
Shooting at Asteroid Fields: Asteroid fields are treated as minefields if you wish to shoot at them. You must first pass a leadership test to shoot an asteroid field even if it is the only possible target. (Needs HA Ruling)
Asteroid Shield Impacts: Blast markers are not placed when asteroid impacts take shields down, however the ship will act as if it has moved through blast markers that turn. (Needs HA Ruling)
Ships Exploding Inside Asteroid Fields: If a ship explodes, including when due to the D6 damage from failing a leadership test to safely navigate an asteroid field, the explosion will hit all ships and ordnance within the asteroid field but none outside the field. Blast markers from the explosion are scattered throughout the asteroid field, each player taking it in turns to place a blast marker. Note: You don’t roll for the range of the explosion. (Needs HA Ruling, and consideration)
Ships Exploding due to Gas/Dustclouds: If a ship having 0 shield strength explodes due to the gas/dustcloud, the explosion will originate at the point the ship entered the cloud.
Ships on a Planetary Template: When a ship is on a planetary template the template does not block its line of sight or any ships line of sight to it. If multiple ships are on a planetary template they can all see each other.
This is an abstract rule, if you and your opponent wish you may declare whether you are going over or under the planet, where the planet blocks line of sight between these two plains. (Needs HA Ruling)
Torpedoes on a Planetary Template: Torpedoes are only destroyed when they come into contact with the templates edge. So it is possible to launch torpedoes while on a planetary template but they will be removed when they touch its edge.
Multiple Radiation Bursts: Only one radiation burst can happen per turn even if multiple radiation burst were rolled for. Note: You roll every turn until the end of the game for radiation bursts, making it possible for a radiation burst to occur every turn from one radiation burst result on the Flare region or Mercurial zone generators.
Fighting Sunward: This effect only occurs in the Flare Region, Mercurial Zone and Inner Biosphere. To determine if you are shooting sunward place the bearing compass over the firing ship with the arrows parallel with the sunward edge. If the target is within the arc facing the sunward edge you are shooting sunward. (Needs HA Ruling)
Transports and Planetary Defences
Transport Variants in Scenarios: The Transport variants are only intended for the Convoy scenario, and may only be taken in other scenarios if stated in the scenarios rules. (Needs HA Ruling)
Escort Carriers taking Orbital Mines: This is not allowed!
Shooting at Minefields: Treat minefields as ordnance for purposes of target priority.
Defences and Blast Marker Removal: You remove D6 blast markers from each defence in each end phase after all other actions in the end phase.
Ramilies Class Star Fort and Massed Turrets: The Ramilies Quadrants may not mass turrets with one another given their limited lines of sight. (Needs HA Ruling)
Ramilies Class Star Fort and Ramming: When ramming the Ramilies you may pick to ram any quadrant your ships base comes into contact with. (Needs HA Ruling)
Ramilies Class Star Fort and Boarding: Only an Ork Space Hulk can board a Ramilies, if it does so it is up to the Ramilies player to decide if additional quadrants beyond the one (or ones in the case of bases overlapping) in contact take part.
The Ramilies can always board back in its own turn against any enemy in contact, and once again can decide how many quadrants are involved.
Ramilies Class Star Fort and Quadrants treated as Asteroid Fields: When a quadrant is destroyed its quarter of the flying base is treated as an asteroid field, this cannot damage the other quadrants!
General Fleet Restrictions and Options
Fleet Commanders: A fleet with a total points value of more than 750pts must be led by a Fleet Commander, unless specifically stated otherwise in the fleet list.
Fleets of Escorts and Fleet Commanders: If your fleet list doesn’t allow you to field a Fleet Commander on an escort you must have a capital ship in a fleet of more than 750pts.
Single Escort Squadrons: A squadron of a single escort may be taken in a fleet as long as there are no other escorts in the fleet. Note: If there are other restrictions due to the fleet list, such as a minimum of six escorts in a squadron, these restrictions cannot be ignored.
Class Variants: Some ship classes have variants listed in their notes, such as the Imperial Dauntless being able to exchange its lances for torpedoes. Unless specifically noted as unique you may take multiple duplicates of any class variant.
Reserves: For every three battleships, cruisers or escorts chosen from a fleet list, you may also pick one ship of the same type from another fleet list belonging to the same race. For this purpose, the races are Imperial Navy, Space Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Necrons, Tyranids and Tau.
Reserves with specific requirements such as a battle cruiser requiring two cruisers to be fielded has these requirements fulfilled as if it were part of the primary fleet list.
Upgrades (excluding Fleet Commanders and Characters) and refits may only be taken from the fleet list the ship belongs to. E.g. a Chaos Vengeance Grand Cruiser upgraded as a Daemon ship could be taken as a reserve for the Chaos Incursion fleet list but may only have characters or a fleet commander from the Incursion fleet list.
Some fleet lists have access to ships from other races, these may not be taken as reserves.
-
Perhaps I missed something, but:
Therefore if the template touches a ships base with holofields it will always cause one point of damage, unless the ship is braced.
Is the 'surf trick' ride the wave ditched?
-
Hi Roy,
Eldar will still be able to 'ride the wave' against Solar Flares but won't be able to do so against Nova Cannons.
It sounds nasty, but they will still get a 2+ save vs the D6 damage. It makes for an excellent reason not to 'stack' your escorts against IN.
You never know though, if there is enough public concern it may be rethought.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I like the idea of giving the IN one more useful weapon against eldar escort swarms. It makes ships like the dominator which could normally be ignored with their 30cm range a bit more teeth since even a near miss has the opportunity to knock out an escort or force a brace.
-
My brain is a slow trickle of questions...
Grand Cruisers and Ramming: Are GCs there own type for the purpose of determining size differences for the Ramming LD test? (i.e. are they larger than a cruiser, but smaller than a BB)
Nevermind, I missed your ruling.
Russ
-
Can Grand Cruisers without a prow weapon (Vengeance etc) be given an exterminatus weapon?
-
I think the rules for it are clear, if they don't have a prow weapon, they cannot
-
The logic behind it as daft as can be.
-
Daft.. but there are more then enough ships in the fleet that can take it..
If you want to change this, it's really not a problem for me, but something must be done to explain why you can suddenly jerry-rig a giant planet smiting gun on a ship with nothing to support it. Again i don't know why we are worrying about this, since the rules are pretty clear on the matter.. Imperial grand cruisers were not meant for this mission.
-
Personally I think it easier to implant such a weapon into an empty room then that you first have to dismantle torpedeo tubes, bays, storage room etc.
-
Critical Hits
With the clarification on fire criticals in mind, are thrusters criticals cumulative too?
Catastrophic Damage
Are drifting/blazing hulks affected by blast markers (since they always have at least one in contact)?
How are ship explosions resolved against ordnance? Lance shots needing a 6 to hit?
Tabletop effects
How do you determine if a target is 'sunward'?
Scenarios
Regarding game length, what constitutes a turn. E.g. Above Belis Corona lasts eight turns. Is that eight player turns (thus four each) or eight turns for each player?
Weapon strengh for ships braced/crippled
This never occured to me before I read the discussion about the CWE FoA. Consider the following:
Tau Merchant Class with Ion Cannon configuration has the same problem (FW Custodian too, launch bays of the Defiant class, ...). If the weapon bays are handled separately they will never be reduced by crippling/bracing. If you put two of them in a squadron however all the ships weapon strength/firepower is added up and then divided in half if they are braced. Makes no sense to me.
Imho all weapon strength/firepower should always be added up before dividing for bracing/crippled, especially for individual capital ships.
Turret supression rules
I don't like them and was glad they were not included in the FAQ2007. They feel awkward and not very intuitive. Overwhelming a high-turret target should be done by sending more bombers, not less.
-
Hi Ray,
this:
Blast Markers and multiple bases: When a ship has multiple bases in contact and its shield goes down, the blast marker may be placed anywhere on this ships base potentially taking down other ships shields. This has no limitation to the number of ships shields the blast marker can take down.
Could that please be changed? It is a real downer to escorts which need massing versus the assault boat dread and now are hampered by this in the shooting phase.
I say old rules for blastmarkers:
Place them in arc where gunnery came from, direct line. Thus no attacker decision to place them so to drop all shields.
And when we are at it drop that ruling that markers count as all around.
Hi Don Gusto,
tabletop effect: that is pretty well explained in the rules... :
SUN - TARGET - ATTACKING SHIP:
If distance between target and attacking ship is above 30cm two column shifts right instead of one.
If distance between target and attacking ship is under 15cm shift left
iirc ;) Check the ranges I say.
Turret suppresion:it does make sense: see Star Wars ;)
-
How are the effects if a drifting hulk enters the gravity well of a Space Hulk ?
Does it keep moving as if not effected at all or is it captured by the Space Hulk and moves on with it ?
What about a ship that was stationary in the gravity well before turning into a drifting hulk (given an entering drifting hulk is not effected) ?
-
Don Gusto,
Good questions.
What do you mean ‘sunward’?
In the case of turret suppression, try to imagine the supporting fighters as bombers then. :)
Weapons strength when halved: I personally agree with you, but a lot of players really like this game effect. Actually, I’ll be asking the rest of the HA about this.
Trynerror,
Nice question about the Space Hulk. I’ll have to get a ruling, but I’d say the ship gets ‘lost’ on the Space Hulks surface and is removed from play.
There are no special rules for Drifting hulks remaining stationary.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
TURRET SUPPRESSION RULES: Each fighter in a wave of bombers attacking a ship will add +1 attack to the total attack runs of the wave, regardless of whether they are shot down or not. The maximum number of bonus attacks that can be added in this way is equal to the number of turrets the target ship has on its profile (so not including bonuses from other ships in base contact using the massed turret fire rule). There must be at least one surviving bomber in the wave after turret fire to gain these bonus attacks and fighters are removed before any other type of ordnance.
Note: the number of attacks that each individual bomber makes is not altered by the addition of fighters. So if two bombers are attacking a two turret target they will each make 1D6-2 (minimum zero) attacks regardless of whether there are accompanying fighters or not. If one fighter accompanies the bombers, +1 attack is added to the total. If two or more fighters are accompanying the bombers then +2 attacks are added to the total (since it has two turrets).
Also note that crippling a vessel constitutes a permanent change to its turret value and thus the maximum number of attacks that can be gained by supporting fighters. A crippled Lunar will only have 1 turret and so you can only gain a maximum of +1 attack due to fighter support.
I'm not keen of such MT rule. I think the version, which was proposed on old (very, very old!) SG forum was better (I do not remember it literally):
When wave attacks the ship, every fighter counter which is not destroyed reduce the number of turrets by one when calculating the number of attacks made by bombers.
Also one thing should be clasified: pre-measurement. I suggest the following ("Epic") solution:
Pre-measurement
The pre-measurement is always possible, unless both players agree that it isn't allowed.
-
Hi MKG,
There have been numerous versions of turret suppression kicking around in the bag of possibilities. As it is an addition to the ruleset it can't be too strong otherwise it would make carriers potentially too cheap.
In my personal opinion you have to work bombers really hard to make them worth it, either by combining them with torp attacks, having a massive(over 4) wave or attacking only 0 or 1 turret ships.
Good point on premeasurement, it's not really clear. But yeah, its allowed by default.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Here's a pic of the 'new' GW blast template in between a NC Blast Template and a Bearing Compass.
(http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt232/RayCBell/BFG/BearingCompassandNCTemplate.jpg)
Note: This is a pretty close in shot and because the blast template is quite thick it looks a little larger than it should for comparison.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Ray, with respect to the "sunward edge" question. It's pretty much with respect to the solar flare effect I think, could be the radiation burst which places a blast marker on a ship's base on the side of the sunward edge.
That being said, there is a chart at the beginning of the Eldar section which lets you determine the sunward edge.
Essentially it's 1-2 long, 3-4 other long, 5 short, 6 other short I think.
Planetary template question.
With respect to the torpedos and the planetary template edge ruling, does this mean that ships that are on a planet template can shoot at other ships that are on the planet template?
-
Ah yeah, planets and the error they made during design and playtesting of the game (3d models vs templates).
We use a scatter dice to determine sunward edge. Both systems work I guess.
-
@ RayB
The MASSING TURRETS was an addition to the rules as well and it does have a big impact on the ordnance system. SURPRESSING FIRE in comparison doesnt do a lot.
The +1 per fighter makes only sense vs turret amount where bombers do almost no dmg, and even then u get a 1/3 chance to have 1dmg done vs a +5armor. In fact its relativlly easy to defend your own ships vs big bomber waves by thinning them out with your own fighters. And 3 Bombers dont do a lot of dmg even vs a turret 2 target. Agains turret value of 1 bombers are very good against 2 they are ok from turret value 3 on they are almost wasted points.
So having both rules is worse than having none of them, at least for Tau (and othes who use Bombers). I understand that massing turrets is necessary for escorts versus assault boats but it gives Bombers a reduction in efficency.
In the end the problem with bombers is about the same as with nova cannons. If you roll well they can do massive dmg but in avarage they are overestimated.
-
Ah yeah, planets and the error they made during design and playtesting of the game (3d models vs templates).
We use a scatter dice to determine sunward edge. Both systems work I guess.
Lol, big difference ;) only a 66% chance it will be one of the long board edges vs 50% wit ha scatter.
-
Sunward Shooting
My question about 'Sunward targets' was related to weapons battery fire. If the target is sunward then shifts for range are doubled. but how do you determine if the target is standing sunward from the attacker?
Horizon suggested to draw a line from the attacker through the target and beyond. And if that line reaches the sunward edge then the firing is considered to be 'sunward'. If you do it this way a ship standing close to the sunward edge will have a much larger 'arc' in which its shooting is considered sunward (could be almost 180°) than a ship standing further away.
The problem is similar to how eldar ships determine their sunward arc. The sunward table edge doesn't mark the position of the sun but its direction.
Imho there are only two practical ways to resolve this:
1) find the attackers sunward arc in the same way as for eldar ships and consider all targets in that arc to be 'sunward'
or
2) place the firing template over the attacker with one of its arcs centered on the shortest line to the sunward edge and consider all targets in THAT arc to be 'sunward'
The rules are not very specific on this.
Blast Markers
RayB I see you want to remove the 'even if moving away' part of the blast marker rules.
Imho the general abstraction of the blast marker rules is a good thing. If you have a blast marker in contact, you have a blast marker in contact - deal with it.
Eliminating the importance of the exact position of blast markers goes a long way to streamlining gameplay and preventing heated discussions.
Moreover removig the 'moving away' part mostly benefits the eldar fleets and I don't think they need a break here (note: my favourite fleet are corsair eldar and I play them alot).
Drifting/Blazing Hulks
The other problem with hulks is that they have no shields. Therefore they could take damage on a roll of 6, which would force another roll on the catastrophic table. But I don't think that was intended by the rules.
-
Lordgoober,
Good point on the planetary template, at current you can shoot at any ship ‘on’ the template but not behind it.
Roy,
Scatter dice!? What if it rolls into a corner? :)
Caine-HoA,
Actually the massed turret thing came in to being to counter the minimal bonus turret suppression gives. Just before my time in the HA.
The problem with bombers ‘is’ that they are so random, but you could use these ER’s:
Instead of deducting the turret value from the attack runs, roll all your attack runs together, any that beat the turret value then roll against the weakest armour value.
This means that Fighta Bommas D3 attack runs can get by without special rules. :)
Don Gusto,
Option 2 is the one you want to go with, however I might term it differently.
BM’s: the rule is not being removed just the answer as it is already answered in another point about BM’s.
Blazing/drifting hulks: It’s not the intention but it does make sense. Hmm...
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Hey Ray,
This is probably completely out of scope, but...
What are the chances of ever seeing rules for a universally sized torpedo marker?
Russ
-
Russ,
Maybe ;D
RayB HA
-
Russ,
Maybe ;D
RayB HA
Hey, thats more then I expected! Cool.
Russ
-
Ray,
right on the point? heh...re-roll...
-
Calculating Boarding Results: The FAQ needs a clear example of calculating boarding results. It's very common for people to think that Boarding Value is a part of the Boarding Modifiers. This comes up so much with newer players and it's understandable considering how inprecise the example in the BBB is. The example completely skips calculating Bording Value and looking up the modifiers.
Example Thread: http://www.portmaw.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?38055.post (http://www.portmaw.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?38055.post)
Russ
-
Thanks Russ, mixing value with modifier does come up quite alot.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Will be reading through what has been posted later. I got a connection somehow. chances are I won't be able to connect later again. In any case, change the definition of Turns into something like this:
Instead of Game Turns, call it Game Rounds. A Round is composed of the Turns of each player. A game lasting 8 Rounds would mean a total of 16 turns between both players.
If I remember correctly, there was an issue before re Ork Fleet Commanders being taken in 1 every 500 points. I just don't recall what exactly it was. Horizon, can you help remember?
Also clarify that a fleet with only 1 escort in it is legal.
I'll try to add some more questions and thoughts when I read through the proposed FAQs.
-
I have absolutely no clue on the Orks. Maybe someone should resurrect Soulstone?
-
I think it was the wording. An Ork Warlord can be included in a fleet worth 500 points. This means in a fleet of 1-499, you don't have to take a Warlord. But the moment the fleet is exactly at 500 points, the Warlord is mandatory. Is it 1 Warlord per exact 500 points? What if it was only 750? Can you take 2 or is it only 1? For some reason I am remembering that an Ork player was claiming he can take 3 Warlords in 1k point matches. Probably a mistake on my memory but I remember the question was about the Warlord.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Although rounds and turns sounds nice, we can't really dump the baggage of GW's turn labeling. :(
The Ork question: You may only have an Ork Warlord per full 500pts, this may include the value of Ork Warlords.
Is that what you're getting at?
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
That's just the problem. I can't remember the issue with the Orks. Just that it had something to do with the 1 in 500 point requirement. So does this mean Orks can only have 1 Warlord in 750 point match since they do not have full 500?
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
As the rules are written, yes. However we might make a ruling to allow 'or part there of' as Orks need all the help they can get! ;D
Cheers,
RayB
-
Gosh darn it we've just reached the 20,000 character limit again so I'm making an Ordnance FAQ Thread.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
SM Bombardment cannon.
can it fire at the same time as the regular batteries using different colored dice?
-
NO, the bombardment cannon is not a battery. It just uses the table like one and ignores holofeilds like one.
-
NO, the bombardment cannon is not a battery. It just uses the table like one and ignores holofeilds like one.
and it will suffer from blast marker shifts like one as well. which is why i am asking for clarification whether it can be shot at the same time as batteries to avoid blast markers.
-
Welcome to the horrors of reality.
No you cannot because it is a separate weapon system.
-
Welcome to the horrors of reality.
No you cannot because it is a separate weapon system.
i appreciate your opinion regarding my question for FAQ :)
-
Fracas,
Well, actually you can! We answered this a while back. It's the same for Ork Heavy Gunz. All gunnery weapons from a squadron get to fire at once, however you calculate thier dice on the gunnery table seperately for each type of gunnery weapon. Meaning they don't suffer from gunnery shifts due to BM's caused by other members of the same squadron.
I can't find a reference for this so I'll have to ask the rest of the HA.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Next unclear thing:
How to resolve moving squadrons thought celestial phenomena? Roll one Ld test for all or separately for every ship? How the hits are distributed? Every ship takes a damage or they are distributed like in case of shooting? Where to place blasts?
-
MKG,
We need to hammer down rules for asteroids. Thanks for your questions.
RayB HA
-
Ray,
Did you say somewhere that after the 2010 FAQ you might start a thread concerning ships that need to be re-worked? Perhaps it's my imagination, but I have ship to go on that list for reconsidering.
Thanks,
Russ
-
Fracas,
Well, actually you can! We answered this a while back. It's the same for Ork Heavy Gunz. All gunnery weapons from a squadron get to fire at once, however you calculate thier dice on the gunnery table seperately for each type of gunnery weapon. Meaning they don't suffer from gunnery shifts due to BM's caused by other members of the same squadron.
I can't find a reference for this so I'll have to ask the rest of the HA.
Cheers,
RayB HA
i thought that was the case but just cannot find it (like the turret suppression rule, delayed in the warp)
so clarification in the FAQ would be much appreciated
-
As far as I can recall, this was a proposal but never approved. Sigoroth was not a supporter of it as I recall.
-
Damage to squadrons on BFI
How is damage distributed in squadrons (escorts in particular) that are on "Brace for Impact!" special orders?
For example:
A squadron of three Cobras takes 8 damage.
The first point places a blast marker on the closest cobra, knocking down its shield.
The second would destroy it unless it rolls 4+ for BFI. Do I make this check before allocating further damage?
Imho it makes more sense to allocate all damage before BFI saves. Otherwise you have to make a separate BFI save for each point of damage until the first ship ist destroyed, then proceed to the second ...
In my example I would assign two points of damage to each Cobra (enough to destroy them), assign the remaining two points of damage to the two closest Cobras and then check for BFI.
-
Hey admiral,
I believe Sigoroth was a fan of rolling together with different coloured dice iirc.
Hi Don Gusto,
in the past we did it wrong.... but this is how it goes :
but it is indeed seperate damage throws.
A downfall in allocating hits (by attacker or defender?) is that the attacked could allocate hits to a different ship which is more expensive/dangerous in the squadron (example : a (useless) Hellebore at the back of a Hemlock squadron).
cheers
-
I would liek to bring this one up again
Nova Cannon Blast and Holofields: Although Holofield saves are taken against the shell from a Nova Cannon they are not against the blast. Therefore if the template touches a ships base with holofields it will always cause one point of damage, unless the ship is braced. (Needs HA Ruling)
A question was brought up on port maw and I wanted clarification on this.
"You are incorrect with your assumption about the NC rules updated in the 2010 FAQ. You would not get d6+1 hits no more than any other vessel that has the center hole over the base takes d6+1 hits. Think of it as an eldar ship will always take at least one point of damage unless braced from a NC template touching it but if the center touches the base they get a holofield save. If they fail they take d6 damage, if they pass they take 1 damage."
So if I getting this right the poster is stating that an imperial ship will take D6 if hit by an NC and if they roll a 1 the ships just eat the blow and no extra dmg is done. If an Eldar player is hit by an NC and saves the D6 they still take 1 point of damage.
By this logic Eldar players will always take a point of damage, but any non-holo ship will just soak the dmg on their shields? We have holos in place of our shields. If your going to FAQ that a ship always takes a point of damage if it's hit by the blast then it needs to be that ALL ships do even if they are taking the D6 hits as well, otherwise your just singling out one Race without justification.
-
All other ships already do take 1 point of damage.... we just have shields to absorb it instead of holofields. It's a danger of not having actual shields and relying on waving your hands while repeating "you didn't see anything" to stay alive. Yes it does nerf eldar a bit when facing IN or the PK, but really you guys run all escort fleets and ignore practically every other rule in the game and we still have to deal with scatter on the NC so it's no guarantee it'll even cause damage. You just have to decide if you brace like the rest of the world on a NC shot.
-
While I like the fact that your crying about your own race's deficiency that is no reason to use an FAQ (clarification that that stands for frequently asked questions) to nerf another race. Holofields are used by fleet that do not run all escorts as well so by grouping the races together as such your making an unnecessary nerf to other lists as well.
As an FAQ ruling the blast marker auto doing 1 hit makes sense and that I fully agree with, but there is no reason that a non-holo field fleet would not take that hit as well. Holofields soak up the D6 and shields have the same chance depending on your shields and the D6 rolled, but there is no logical reason that a Holofield ship would take the extra damage and not a shielded ship.
Please try to come up with a logical reason and not a "cry nerf" response.
-
We have shields which absorb things and you don't it's as simple as that. I'm not crying nerf, The NC change popping up surprised me just as much as you. With the change, you might take more hits because you don't have shields, but you are ignoring all the penalties for being in contact with a BM that we have to deal with by doing so but saying we don't take the hit is blatantly inaccurate.
-
Once again your incorrect.
CWE react the exact same to blast markers as other ships.
So, we get hit by a NC have a chance to take D6 hits and if we avoid that we auto take a hit then once we try and move we take another auto hit on a 6. All of the hits scored crit on a 4+
Non-holos take an NC hit the other player rolls a number equal or less then your sheilds, your shields eat the hit. Then you proposing you don't take the additional hit for being under the blast. On your turn your shields are back up so on a 6 your shields take a hit. Any hits scored crit on a 6+
Which sounds a tad more devastating?
My argument is if Holofield ships auto take a hit for being under the NC blast template then ALL ships should auto take a hit for being under the blast. Your shields can defend against the D6 and so can eldar holofields.
-
The NC hit is absorbed by a ships shields generating a BM which then gives us penalties for being in contact with the BM. Against CWE or any ship with holofields, no BM is generated for the hit since it goes directly against the hull. With no shield to absorb the hit the eldar vessel is thus avoiding the penalties for the BM because no BM exists in contact with the base.
So, we get hit by a NC have a chance to take D6 hits and if we avoid that we auto take a hit then once we try and move we take another auto hit on a 6. All of the hits scored crit on a 4+
Since you are still taking a hit from the NC you shouldn't be having a BM placed on the ship for the "miss" like you currently do if the template falls over you (template is over ships base, your roll holofield save, put BM in place for passing and do not take a hit). That means you just take the one hit, no BM are generated and you are free to act as normal in your turn providing you didn't attempt to brace the NC hit. Basically, the only thing that has changed is that you no longer get a holofield save against the NC template unless the hole in the NC template is over your ships base.
My argument is if Holofield ships auto take a hit for being under the NC blast template then ALL ships should auto take a hit for being under the blast. Your shields can defend against the D6 and so can eldar holofields.
Your argument is flawed because all ships already take an automatic hit for being under the NC template. Shields can defend against the hit because they provide a "physical" barrier against the destructive energy of the blast; Holofields do not because they do not protect against physical attack by absorbing the energy of the attack rather by causing the attack to be directed in the the wrong location.
-
Correct on the touched by template, but that isn't what is being debated. If the template just touches a Holoship and isn't underneath the hole you take the hit and no blast marker is created, but at the same time a shieldship just suffer one lost shield and is in no danger of damage from the blast marker next turn. I'd much rather take the no dmg and -5cm vs auto dmg with 4+ crit thnx.
What IS being debated is the NC template hits a holoship you pass the save but now get an auto dmg hit. If you hit by the NC and pass your save why are holoships suddenly subject to the additional effect of being touched by the blast that shieldships are not. If being under the hole counts as being under the template for 1 dmg as well then that is fine, but then all ships should be subject to both effects not just eldar.
-
I would say that you act like you would if the hole hadn't been over the base when you pass the holofield save because you are in effect saying the shell didn't pass through the target vessel when you pass the holofield save. No BM create, one autohit generated. You shouldn't have the effects of a missed shot any more than any other eldar vessel that touches the template but is not under the hole. Effectively the NC can no longer "miss" and eldar vessel so long as the vessel is touching or under the template. Basically any eldar ship under the template is always hit unless braced and if under the hole you will either take one damage or d6 damage depending on if you pass the save. Since in either case a hit is generated you shouldn't have to generate a BM.
-
I see. The NC template lands a direct hit on an Eldar vessel. But the hole is smaller then the Eldar's base.... wait, that has always been the case:
if a ship has the hole from NC template over the base the ship takes D6 hits.
if a ship does not have hole over base but edge of NC template it takes 1 hit.
Now, the Eldar is attacked by the 'hole' : it will roll a holofield save first: 2+ is saved, blastmarker is placed. If missed the Nova Cannon does D6 attacks.
If it is no 'direct' hole attack the ship takes 1 attack automatically from the NC.
Pretty poor wording in FAQ 2010 as it still leaves room.
Well, if I was attacking Eldar escorts I would place the NC template in the middle of the escort squadron to touch as many bases as possible. Just glancing those bases with my NC template.
Yes, I can see a design flaw in that NC vs Eldar ruling.
(But then again I see a problem with the official Eldar rules.)
-
And that in effect is completely changing the rule for NC and as such really shouldn't be in an FAQ just as much as other ideas that are being scrapped for overstepping their bounds. the ruels specifically state 3 things: If under the hole take D6, if under the template take 1 hit, and Holofields may save against NC shots. The hole is clearly savable and none can contest that without changing the Eldar rules. Should the template as a whole be savable? It's a rules change but agreeable.
Forcing a capital ship to without any shields to ALWAYS take a hit with a 4+ crit unless it scatters into oblivion regardless if their holofield save was made vs the D6, is too much. Rules wise it is essentially telling a Hive ship player that their shields absorbing the the 6 hits from the NC roll of 6 on a D6 wasn't enough, so it needs to take a dmging hit for being under the blast as well.
-
I do think such things can be in the FAQ. Remember the old FAQ for the original rulebook it introduces the Scatter dice for NC and ordnance limits, I mean, those are much more changing then a slight adjustment for NC vs Eldar.
If the NC blast template just put on a blastmarker when it is partially hitting the Eldar base the vessel could get an auto blastmarker which in the next round does damage on a 6+, something Imperial/Chaos does not have to worry about.
-
BD: I think you are overacting. You seem to think that you will suddenly get hit with this every single turn of every single game with every shot. The odds are higher you won't get hit at all but it gives you good reason to brace your escorts and capital ships from time to time. While the wording could be cleared up I really do not think it will do more than make one more weapon useful against eldar. Just reword it a bit so that a passed holofield save doesn't create a BM but takes one damage with the NC or the ships under the hole that pass the save don't take any damage and get the BM. You can always brace like the rest of the world too to get a 4+ against that hit.
-
If your attempting to fix escort spam, then why not introduce a FoC of some sort?
NC auto hits if under template means that escorts are going to brace and either die or survive a loss of 40pts, but vs capital ships which you DO want to encourage the use of you brace and have a 50% chance of dmg and 50% of crits. That means when NC hits now you have a 25% chance to score a crit against a holofield capital ship.
It will encourage escort spam that just spreads out and uses asteroids more then it already does when playing IN. Why take a capital ship that will get NCed from across the board and auto-hit on lowscatter/hit that could be getting serious dmg round 1?
-
So don't change the holofield because it's too great a change for a FAQ, but by all means completely reorganize the corsair fleet list? Honestly, if you play with a fair amount of phenomena there will be plenty of ways to out maneuver or block LOF to the NC but it would require more skill and effort than previously because you will have to maneuver. Secondly it will mean that Eldar need to think about bracing against something other than long range WB and maybe ordnance/AC when facing IN. Finally, as I've mentioned time and time again, the end result of the change is a slight reduction in the effectiveness of the eldar holofield which is still pretty amazing. Focusing on capital ships only, there are only around 40% odds of actually landing a hit on the target or scattering and still touching the ship at anything over 60cm where you seem to be so worried that eldar will be wiped out by the NC fire.
Yeah, there is the possibility that it'll hit or touch and you have to take a hit, but that's part of the tactics of the game. Decide when to brace and when not to and use what phenomena you have to minimize when you'll need to choose.
-
Vaaish, I think waht bluedagger means (I am connecting multiple threads and crossover with the Port here) is that with these new Holofield rules there will be even more escorts then there allready are. It would be even less worthwhile to take cruisers in a Corsair fleet.
Then again, I always find it best to not know what you will be facing. Much better for list making anyway.
-
Correct Horizon, that is what I'm getting at. I will see if i can get a few play test games in with this change to get a feel for how it is. Until then I think we have all argued the points that we can on this one so best to leave the thread for other FAQ questions and let the HA make the call.
-
With CE, it's all about the escorts so no change there. With CWE and DE, the cap ships are much better that you wouldn't see an escort spam. Really, I can't for the life of me figure out how making the NC better against the Eldar will result in an escort spam. Really, will the NC change totally neutralize the Eldar? I HIGHLY doubt it.
-
Seen the speed of Eldar I reckon that in most 1500 matches the IN will be happy to have 1 good Nova shot.
-
Yup most likely indeed 1 shot only.
-
I'll have a look at the wording for the NC 'answer'. The intent is that holofields can only save against the 'hole'. If succesful the effect is reduced to the template hitting the base.
This shouldn't discourage the taking of EC capital ships against NC's. You get a 2+save vs the nasty hit and then will only sufer a single hit (crits are likely, but it's just 1 hit!). Escorts just die! And 'normal' ships just take the D6 hits!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
So a NC which hits an Eldar ships with its hole gets D6 attacks (saveable on a 2) PLUS the auto attack for being under the blast PLUS a D6 attack next turn for being in contact with a blastmarker from the save?
So even if they save the NC they get a hit (auto) and a 16% chance of a hit next turn from the Blastmarker?
-
I think thats a bit much to be honest.
Its already threadening a Eldar player enough that Escorts will "auto-die" when under the template. And btw exactly this makes it not that less likly to hit with a NC, because when shooting at Escorts you can lay the template to hit as many as possible having a 33% chance of destroying all of them. But even if the NC-Roll is a miss its likly that at least one escort is under the template to get the auto hit because even if the template scatters everywhere around the target are escorts as well.
I guess as always with the NC in some game it will destroy too much and at some games it sucks. Another random factor as with the bombers that can influence games in a too big degree. Its ok to have some randomness but for some weapon systems its a bit too much for my taste.
-
Horizon,
The entry in the first post of the thread specifically states that no Blast Marker is placed. Similarly, it is either d6 Hits if the Holoshield Save fails, or just one Hit if it does not, not both upon failure. Because of this, the average amount of damage done will be equal to 1.42 (1/6*3.5+5/6*1), which is approximately 41% of the average damage dealt to a 'normal' vessel upon a direct hit (3.5). This means that - presuming the 'normal' vessel has two Shields which are not yet downed - they will both receive around one-and-a-half Hit from a Nova Cannon direct Hit. Personally, I consider this quite an improvement over the former average of 0.58 Hits which would be taken by the Eldar.
-
BFI:
In the wording it gives the save against "any hits inflicted by the enemy". This should be extended by "or celetial phenomena" or fixed by ending the sentence with "incflicted". (Are torpedoes from a friendly ship attacking me "the enemy" when I fly into the salvo ? :o )
I´m sure nearly everybody already played it this way, but it is not covered by the wording of the rules at the moment.
Does a Space Hulk have a low Orbit ?
I don´t think so, it has a gravity well but no atmosphere. Anything with a low Orbit can not fire it´s surface weapons on other ships in the gaming table, unless it is a low orbit table, so Space Hulks can´t have a low orbit.
I heard there are some scenarios out there in which a Space Hulk has a low Orbit, but I never came across one myself, so I doubt any official ones exist.
-
@Commx
Eldar get lower dmg from the most attacks, thats how they survive with less hitpoints and armor. An Eldar Cruiser costs more than an avarage Cruiser of most other fleets and still has less Hitpoints, thats why they are saved better. So why should a NC be able to do the same dmg? It seems fair to deal the same dmg but in most other cases/weapons its not like that.
Im not especially against it but im not for it as well. Im not sure if the rules need that change. Moreover i think games with Eldar fleets are very dependent on the scenario and the phenomena on the field/map. I dont think this rule will change this in a high degree.
-
@ Commx - Your equation fails to take into account Critical hits. If a Captial Ship fails it's save against NC D6 it's going to be hurting something fierce if not outright destroyed depending on the roll.
Also if you save against any hit with holofields you place a blast marker in contact with the ship, that is in the Holofield rules. We understand that is not blast marker for just being under the template, but if you save the direct hit you place the marker then take an auto hit then 17% to dmg again next turn. Hence what Horizon was saying.
-
I think thats a bit much to be honest.
Its already threadening a Eldar player enough that Escorts will "auto-die" when under the template. And btw exactly this makes it not that less likly to hit with a NC, because when shooting at Escorts you can lay the template to hit as many as possible having a 33% chance of destroying all of them. But even if the NC-Roll is a miss its likly that at least one escort is under the template to get the auto hit because even if the template scatters everywhere around the target are escorts as well.
I don't get this. Is every Eldar player really bunching up their squadrons and not maximizing the 15 cm between bases advantage? Really? With a 5 cm diameter template, the NC will only hit at most 1 unless the Eldar players are so nice as to bunch their squadrons close together. Really? This is happening?
I guess as always with the NC in some game it will destroy too much and at some games it sucks. Another random factor as with the bombers that can influence games in a too big degree. Its ok to have some randomness but for some weapon systems its a bit too much for my taste.
A lot of NCs in a game against Eldar will destroy it? In a 1k game if I bring all Dominators, at most I have 5. CE escorts can bring 23 escorts if they have to use an FC. In a 1.5k game, I can bring 7. CE can bring 35 escorts. So how many Eldar can the NC kill before the Eldar overwhelm the Dominators?
Ah but what about the CWE and DE? Sure they have more capital ships. So what I would do is scream past the Dominators soaking in some shots under BFI if I have to and then swing around back and start mauling the Dominator fleet from the rear. Don't tell me it can't be done.
-
Trynerror,
BFI was updated in the last print and 2007 FAQ. Enjoy :)
Space Hulks don't get a Low Orbit table, they're not that big! They're still just stem sized afterall.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I think thats a bit much to be honest.
Its already threadening a Eldar player enough that Escorts will "auto-die" when under the template. And btw exactly this makes it not that less likly to hit with a NC, because when shooting at Escorts you can lay the template to hit as many as possible having a 33% chance of destroying all of them. But even if the NC-Roll is a miss its likly that at least one escort is under the template to get the auto hit because even if the template scatters everywhere around the target are escorts as well.
I don't get this. Is every Eldar player really bunching up their squadrons and not maximizing the 15 cm between bases advantage? Really? With a 5 cm diameter template, the NC will only hit at most 1 unless the Eldar players are so nice as to bunch their squadrons close together. Really? This is happening?
I guess as always with the NC in some game it will destroy too much and at some games it sucks. Another random factor as with the bombers that can influence games in a too big degree. Its ok to have some randomness but for some weapon systems its a bit too much for my taste.
A lot of NCs in a game against Eldar will destroy it? In a 1k game if I bring all Dominators, at most I have 5. CE escorts can bring 23 escorts if they have to use an FC. In a 1.5k game, I can bring 7. CE can bring 35 escorts. So how many Eldar can the NC kill before the Eldar overwhelm the Dominators?
Ah but what about the CWE and DE? Sure they have more capital ships. So what I would do is scream past the Dominators soaking in some shots under BFI if I have to and then swing around back and start mauling the Dominator fleet from the rear. Don't tell me it can't be done.
1. It depents on the field and phenomena. Sometimes its better so keep a close formation and as you usually have more than one eldar squadron you would nee A LOT space to have them all keep a distance of 15cm. When preparing an attack its better to have the escorts an a line to have the same distance (and be able to guess the distance correctly) for most of them, another point why you cant simply place them all across the field.
2. I didnt say that a lot of NCs will destoy a game vs eldar. I said in some games NCs are stronger and in some weaker. And this range is too big in comparison to other weapon systems. Moreover this was meant as an general issue not only vs eldar.
3. PPL keep talking about getting into the back of a fleet easily. I dont get it as many ships have weapons on their sides that makes only a gap of 90° radius for their "back" in the next round a ship can turn 45° to whatever side it wants. Even if one ship is directly in the back of another it means that there are exactly 45° on each side. If a ship is on the line of two arcs (back and side) the one firing can chose, thus chose side arc. If the follow up ship is not exactly behind the other ship it simply turns its 45° to the side the following ship is. Effectivly their is no back for most ship types (except those who only fire in front arc, but those often have 90° turn radius).
Now take in account that there are always more than tweo ships on the battlefield its even more impossible to get into the "back" of any of those ships without getting backfire. And we didnt even talk about the space a fleet needs to fly into the back of another without getting into the other fleets range.
-
Nova Cannons and Holofields
Why not generally declare the effects of Nova Cannon template and center as cumulative?
e.g.:
- ships under template suffer one automatic hit (area effect, not safeable by holofields)
- ships under center suffer an additional d6-1 hits (targeted, safeable by holofields)
New stuff with asteroids
Ships Exploding Inside Asteroid Fields
How asteroid fields affect area effects is currently clarified in the faq2007, page3 - they don't. Why the change? I don't see the need for it.
Asteroid Shield Impacts: Blast markers are not placed when asteroid impacts take shields down.
But blast markers are the only way to reduce shield strength.
I always played it that blast markers from asteroid impacts are placed at the end of the ships movement, even if that's outside of the field. But I can't find that rule now, don't know where I read it. ???
Anyway shields should either work against asteroids (and be reduced by blast markers) or not.
-
1. It depents on the field and phenomena. Sometimes its better so keep a close formation and as you usually have more than one eldar squadron you would nee A LOT space to have them all keep a distance of 15cm. When preparing an attack its better to have the escorts an a line to have the same distance (and be able to guess the distance correctly) for most of them, another point why you cant simply place them all across the field.
The table isn't that small that you will be packing all your ships in one small space, certainly not small enought that a 5 cm template can hit a lot of the. I don't believe the escorts should be in a line to have the same distance. You don't need to guess distance correctly because this FAQ officially allows pre-measuring. So yes, you can simply place them across the field.
2. I didnt say that a lot of NCs will destoy a game vs eldar. I said in some games NCs are stronger and in some weaker. And this range is too big in comparison to other weapon systems. Moreover this was meant as an general issue not only vs eldar.
And with the current NC rules and how they aren't that great, I don't see it as an issue. Sure you can roll hits if you're lucky. What about the times you miss more often than not? The NC as it currently works should be spammed because that's the only way you'll get anything good out of it. Now if they improved it then I wouldn't mind putting in built in limits in the fleet lists. Otherwise, NC away.
3. PPL keep talking about getting into the back of a fleet easily. I dont get it as many ships have weapons on their sides that makes only a gap of 90° radius for their "back" in the next round a ship can turn 45° to whatever side it wants. Even if one ship is directly in the back of another it means that there are exactly 45° on each side. If a ship is on the line of two arcs (back and side) the one firing can chose, thus chose side arc. If the follow up ship is not exactly behind the other ship it simply turns its 45° to the side the following ship is. Effectivly their is no back for most ship types (except those who only fire in front arc, but those often have 90° turn radius).
Now take in account that there are always more than tweo ships on the battlefield its even more impossible to get into the "back" of any of those ships without getting backfire. And we didnt even talk about the space a fleet needs to fly into the back of another without getting into the other fleets range.
Of course you can easily get into the back arc. Remember that cruisers still have to move 10 cm forwards. So if the Dominators move, fire and then move off chances are the ship won't be able to fire back. If there were some Mars in the fleet sure they can shoot back. Maybe. Assuming the targeted ships did not go into BFI. Trust me, it's easy for Eldar to get into the rear of any opposing fleet bar Eldar. And this is just assuming there are no celestial phenomena like asteroids. If there are, all the more Eldar will screw with the IN fleet.
-
Don Gusto,
Nova Cannons having cumulative damage in the manner (or wording) you described was considered but rejected. I would be up for the rewording but I’d doubt it’ll be more ‘popular’ this time, you never know though.
Ships exploding in asteroid fields is really annoying ruleswise, I saw an easy way out but it will be further considered.
As the shield attacks occur in the movement phase no BM’s are placed in contact with the ship at the end of (after) the movement phase. The ship has already suffered enough, to have its shields down at the end of its movement is a little too harsh.
However the effect of reduced movement (and other BM effects like killing CAP) due to asteroids impacts should be enforced. Thanks for your input.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
would like to see BFI changed to command test (like shooting at farther targets or navigating asteroid fields) rather than a special order
to be replaced with a special order for "silent running" type special order.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120681 (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120681)
-
End Phase
When do boarding actions and teleport attacks happen?
Before repairs/blast marker removal or afterwards?
-
Before.
-
As the shield attacks occur in the movement phase no BM’s are placed in contact with the ship at the end of (after) the movement phase. The ship has already suffered enough, to have its shields down at the end of its movement is a little too harsh.
However the effect of reduced movement (and other BM effects like killing CAP) due to asteroids impacts should be enforced. Thanks for your input.
RayB if you handle it this way 4-shield BB's don't have to worry much about asteroids, even on AAF. That's not an effect I would like in the game.
Btw. I found the rule I was refering to. It's in the german rules, 1st and 2nd printing (2nd can be downloaded from gw). The effects section on asteroids includes a last sentence in brackets about placing bm's after movement. Was that rule also in the previous versions of the english rules? (I don't have them)
-
Don Gusto,
There was nothing like that in the english version.
Battleships with 4 shields have never been scared of asteroids... Is this necessary? Given the lack of manueverability of a BB there should be a more likley fail though, say BB's always count as if they are on AAF for asteroid tests.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
"Shooting at Minefields: Treat minefields as ordnance for purposes of target priority."
What? I totally disagree with the BBB on this. Shouldn't it be considered a defence? Individual mines should be ordnance yes. But mineFIELDS counting as ordnance? No way. When your firing at the minefields your just looking to cause a distraction to the sensors, not aiming at individual mines (according to the fluff that is). I like the armor six to this and i like the Lances needing a six to hit, just not the type on the chart.
And another thing. How are asteroid impacts considered NOT similair to torpedoes or attack craft? What's the reasoning for allowing shields to negate asteroid impacts? Makes no sense to me.
-Zhukov
-
"for purposes of target priority" has nothing to do with the number you need to hit it ...
-
You totally misread my response trynerror. I said I agreed with the needing a six to hit minefields to get the "swirling gas" effect that reduces their ability to detect is something I agreed on but it was the counting them as ordnance on the gunnery chart. And for that matter, what does it mean by "target priority"? I may be misunderstanding something here.
-
Target priority is at what targetyou have to fire (= the nearest) and you have to test if you want to fire at any other target. For this purpose you can ignore ordnance (and, regarding to the quote, minefields).
I understand your response, but it has nothing to do with the quoted sentence ;D
-
Ok thanks for that clarification trynerror. My two rules suggestions are these then:
1. When firing at minefields, they count as a defense and not as ordnance.
I'm sorry but if your firing at a very, very, very large area of asteroids and mines only to create a distraction for the sensors of the mines, it shouldn't be hard to target. However, I do feel it should be a 6 to hit with Lances and Weapons Batteries due to the difficulty of creating an effective "screen" of debris.
2. Shields should not defend against asteroid impacts.
Reason? How are they not considered the same as torpedo and attack craft going through shields?
-
Asteroid Impacts
Battleships with 4 shields have never been scared of asteroids... Is this necessary?
Probably not it just felt natural. After all everyone knows what happens when you send Star Destroyers into an asteroid field. ;D
I was wondering though were the translator for the german rules got that information (assuming he didn't make it up) and found this in the Q&A section of Warp Storm:
Q: "A ship is moving though an asteroid field and fails its Leadership test ... The ship ends its movement on the other side of the asteroid field. Where do you place the blast markers?"
A: "Place them in the front arc of the ship."
That's pretty old of course, many things have changed.
My concern in this matter is not really where the blast markers are placed but that they are placed.
Alternatively, as Zhukov suggested, asteroids could ignore shields. In that case however turrets should offer some kind of protection.
How about d6-turrets? (just think of the Star Destroyer ;))
-
I completely agree that turrets should work against asteroids about to impact a vessel. However, CAP fighters I would say no (weapons aren't strong enough to break down an asteroid that's large enough to damage a capital ship). The procedure would work like this with my suggestion:
1. Ship passes through asteroid field and fails Ld check.
2. Roll a D6 to determine how many asteroids may impact the ship.
3. Roll turret defensive fire against the number of asteroids rolled above.
4. Any asteroids that are still around after turrets, impact the ship for one hit point of damage each.
Makes sense to y'all?
-Zhukov
-
Given the massive effect of minefield suppression, making it easy would be a little harsh.
Asteroids ignoring shields is a fair point, what if it were simply D6 damage –turrets, instead of shields?
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
turrets instead of shields vs asteroid makes alot of sence
-
Ray,
That ruling would be fine with me!
-
You guys really think turrets, even turrets in the 40k universe, would and should work against asteroids, these same asteroids which mass in the megatons, fluff-wise?
I don't think so. The best solution? Don't go into asteroid fields. If you do, then prepare to take yer lumps. I think the rules are ok as they are.
-
Asteroids can be huge but I'd imagine the bigger ones would be easy to detect and a avoid, the ones that are say 100 metres across will be the threats.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Which is why I think the rules are fine. If you really want to change it (which I find odd since you claim you don't want to make any changes, just clarifications), then let the asteroids roll vs the armor the way bombers would. I still don't think turrets are enough against the asteroids, especially since D6 isn't really representative of the number of possible asteroids which could hit a ship, if you're talking about the 100 meter sized ones.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
This almost certainly won't make it into the FAQ, but its worth some consideration if only for another time.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Ok. Fair enough.
-
Hi All,
As the speed of questions for the FAQ is slowing to a trickle, further answers will be added in bold to help me add them to a single FAQ document.
I’m going to mention anyone who has got any questions nailed onto the FAQ. If this is okay with you please let me know.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
...and Eldar do not have turrets and are supposed to hide in asteroid fields. ;)
-
They don't have shields either, nothing would change for Eldar ships.
For all ships that have the same number of shields/turrets the threat of asteroids wouldn't change either.
But the issue with blast markers would be gone, so imho it would be a big improvement.
-
I have a question in regards to BFI. On 23 page or rulebook it says that a ship may not attempt any special order in it’s next tern. Does that mean that if I fly into ordnance during my turn and go BFI, I will still be braced during opponents and my next turn as well?
-
I have a question in regards to BFI. On 23 page or rulebook it says that a ship may not attempt any special order in it’s next tern. Does that mean that if I fly into ordnance during my turn and go BFI, I will still be braced during opponents and my next turn as well?
Yes.
-
Yes.
wich I suggest to change. You see, in this case placing an ordnance markers in front of the ship so that they cannot be outmaneuvered even in case of 'burn retros' (full stop of course helps but ship will become a defence next turn and you need to counter enemy markers in an ordnance phase anyway) is extremly advantageous. In fact I will place my markers only in this way. If my opponent would brace - welcome to two turns of halved firepower. If he will burn retros he is still halved for a turn, count as defence on my turn, and still have to deal with my ordnance. If he have a carriers at working condition and use their potential on my markers while forced to do 'burn retros' - I'm happy.
I suggest that this unfair advantage should be removed. For example: "If brace for impact order is issued during the ship's movement phase, negative effects only applied for the remainder of the turn".
-
forgot to add.
Of course you could, for example, sacrifice an excort, if you have one around, but the point is that a 2-turn penalties in just one case of a game process seems to me strange and exploitable.
-
I suggest that this unfair advantage should be removed. For example: "If brace for impact order is issued during the ship's movement phase, negative effects only applied for the remainder of the turn".
You bring up a good point Don. What's always been curious to me, and I forgotten for inclusion into this FAQ, is that on page 11 of the BBB it says:
"This order is unusual in that it can only be used during the ordnance phase or during an opponents turn."
That would imply that your just screwed in your movement phase. But, that is later contradicted by the text that further details the SO. I'm curious if the original designer was thinking about this problem at the time of writing.
Russ
-
Mazila,
Thanks for reminding me of this point!
What do people think of the following: You may BFI as if it were a normal special order, so you would then lose BFI at the begining of your next turn like any other special order. However if you only decided to BFI at the point impact in your movement phase you'd be BFI'd for almost 2 turns including 2 of your shooting phases!
Bracing as a normal special order is handy if you want to make sure you definantely want to shoot next turn.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I think that both positive and negative effects of BFI issued during ship's movement phase in response to danger should end in the end of ship's current turn. Other way, ship would get 'free' bracing in an opponent next turn.
to RayB
you propose a drastic change, i don't say it is bad, but this require a good analysis.
You see, certain short-ranged fleets will be quite upped by this change. For example imperial fleet could mass brace (squadrons are preferable) in their turn BEFORE they would be hited by eldar or choas, and then they would unleash thier full potential upon traitors and xeno scum.
This change seems pretty logical (admiral can anticipate incoming fire), but it will change the balance in major way.
I am personaly dreamed of opportunity to brace before incoming fire from eldar held asteroid field and then stomp them to oblivion (and this really would help to poor orks).
But I fear that in this case imperial cruisers would be nearly unstoppable in certain occasions and certain tactics will be upped greatly (Slaughter rush for example)
Personaly, I vote for this, because I love to do things in advance and it is, you now, quite in style. Also this will add a whole new branch of tactical decisions, which is always good for a game
-
I'm not fond of changing BFI so that a failed attempt ends special orders. This seems like something an individual captain can decide on without the need for the armirals intervention to tell them to brace as such I think the current method works pretty well.
-
to Vaaish
proposed change add a possibility to issue BFI as standard special order. I suppose it has nothing to do with normal way of issuing this order (during opponent turn for example), even if some special order (including BFI) was failed at at begining of the ship's turn. In fact it adds a new "Fleet level BFI" order wich is issued by admiral and as such follows the regular rules for SO.
But, again, for good or evil, it is a MAJOR balance change favoring various attack run tactics.
To make it absolutely clear.
this change brings the following:
you can BFI
A) voluntary at the beginning of your turn (count as normal SO. duration: current turn and the following enemy turn)
B) Ordanance or movement phase, ship under fire (duration: the remainder of the current turn, following enemy turn and, next turn of the vessel)
C) During enemy turn, ship under fire (duration: enemy turn and next turn of the vessel)
variant (A) brings the possibility to issue an order in the beginning of your turn before enemy ships will commence heavy fire (during their turn), survive it being on BFI, and then engage at full power. So you can issue BFI in advance for ships which probably will come under fire in an opponent following turn, and then retaliate in strength, while normal course of events is: come under fire - BFI - next turn firepower reduced.
-
Our group has always been ahead of the curve cause we have always done A.
I think B is a little too harsh. It really would make deploying AC in front of capital ships instead of attacking them in the Ordnance phase the only sensible thing to do, which doesn't make any sense.
-Zhukov
-
Don:
I think A removes the downside of BFI. Why NOT BFI before closing if you estimate your movement will end out of range or out of optimal range? You sacrifice nothing to obtain a 4+ save because you will be able to lock on, RO, etc. in your turn or return fire without any consequence.
The current effect of BFI is that you have to choose between weathering incoming fire in hopes of returning fire at full strength, or bracing in hopes of keeping you ship alive for later attack or disengagement. I feel that changing this to a SO level command would be too advantageous. Instead of such a drastic change, perhaps it would be more prudent to simply clarify the duration of the BFI. Ie. say that the weapons are halved only for the next shooting phase rather than the next turn. That would make the rule look more like this:
...A ship which uses this special order may not use special orders at all in its next turn and the ship's Firepower, ordnance, and armament strength is halved for the owning player's next shooting phase...
It should have the effect that a ship which braces in its movement phase will be able to act at full power outside of SO in it's next turn while ships which brace in the ordnance phase of either turn or the opponents shooting phase function with BFI as it currently stands.
-
I was thinking more along the lines with Vaaish when i asked my question. I also think that making BFI a regular order is way too big change for a FAQ.
-
yet BFI remains the exception to all the the other SO
doesn't take place early in movement phase and may occur in opponent's turn even
may be repeatedly attempted, even by the same ship, when shot at by a new source despite failure against other source
to clarify the rules (goal of FAQ) either make it a command decision instead of a special order (replace it with "Silent Running") or bring it in line with the other SO to be tested at the beginning of the movement phase, and have failed test end all further attempts not just with BFI but with all other SO as the SO rules specify
-
There is no such thing as a command decision in the current BFG rules, only Command Checks and Leadership tests. The BFI order was demoted from full SO requiring a command check to a simple leadership test in the PDF rulebook. It still retains some of its SO status since it replace existing special order and is still in the special order sections, but it's not a true SO because of the LD test to activate rather than a command check.
I'm not certain how that adding a completely new SO or making the BFI order activate using a command check again will clarify things, Fracas. There doesn't seem to be any confusion on what BFI does, when you may test for it, or how often it may be done. The confusion that needs clarification is on its duration given the high number of points in a turn it can be potentially activated causing a variable penalty duration.
-
Brace for Impact is actually more special then a special order since it overrides other special orders.
Personally I would not recommend a change to the current working, heck, the FAQ2007 only changed wording to make things clearer but in essence it are still original rules.
I say keep it as is.
-
IF you do consider changing BFI. I would be more inclined to agree with a hybrid of the current suggestions (pehaps it's what Don first suggested?):
If you take BFI prior to the ordnance phase, it's effects only last until then end of the current players turn.
This allows you to save against crafty placed Ordnance, but you will not get a free +4 save during your opponents shooting phase. Making it an SO as suggested in Don's option A would give you a free save only to be able to return full firepower. Vaaish suggestion seems to have the same problem. You'll get the save and then return to full power next time you can fire. By cutting it off immediately after the end phase of the current turn, the player can take the BFI if needed in the movement, shots at half strength, and then does not get a free save during the opponents turn. Thoughts?
Ugh, I'm not sure I like this suggestion, because when I write it down on paper it seems like trouble keeping track of when the BFI was initiated. But it's kind of a middle of the road solution. Fixes the initial issue, but still has a balance of half weapons during that shooting phase.
This is a tough one.
Russ
-
Hi Guys,
I like the solution of ALL your ships losing BFI at the end of your turn no matter what. It's quite clear and barely changes how the rules work presently.
Having BFI as a normal SO was quite cool back in the day of email gaming. But I agree its too big a change to throw into an FAQ.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I'm in the camp of BFI rules are fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-
I don't mind all ships losing BFI at the end of the turn no matter what, but it does have the somewhat odd situation where some ship will BFI for less than a phase thus gaining a 4+ save vs ordnance strikes and then coming back to full strength as the turn ends.
Russ:
I think you misread my proposed change. Firepower is halved for the next shooting phase so there shouldn't be a point where you can brace and then spring back to full to strike. No matter when you brace, your weapons will be at half strength for one shooting phase whether it is the one immediately following or the one in your next turn.
IE. If you brace in your movement phase, your weapons will be halved in your shooting phase. If you brace in your opponents ordnance phase you will be at half strength in your shooting phase when your next turn starts.
-
Russ:
I think you misread my proposed change. Firepower is halved for the next shooting phase so there shouldn't be a point where you can brace and then spring back to full to strike. No matter when you brace, your weapons will be at half strength for one shooting phase whether it is the one immediately following or the one in your next turn.
Ah yes, got it. What I had suggested is roughly a variation of your wording. It creates the same situation in which you're only braced for a single one of your shooting phases. Perhaps your idea is more elegant in delivery then! :) When you said "next shooting phase" I understood that to mean any shooting phase including opponents, not, "for that player's next shooting phase". So perhaps you could clarify that portion and then I could get behind that wording!
Russ
-
I don't mind all ships losing BFI at the end of the turn no matter what, but it does have the somewhat odd situation where some ship will BFI for less than a phase thus gaining a 4+ save vs ordnance strikes and then coming back to full strength as the turn ends.
But that is the exact problem of always losing BFI at the end phase, you get a free save against Ordnance without the negative impacts. Everyone will just BFI in the ordnance phase! Thus, the solution that one of your shooting phases will always be affected. Makes you actually think about using BFI during an opponents ordnance phase.
Russ
-
exactly
go on SO (lock on for instance) as normal, then go on BFI afterward. and occasionally try and try again till you get it.
again, imo either bring it in line with other SO or make it something other than a SO, like a command check to shoot at a further target, or maneuver through an asteroid field.
-
Russ: would this make the intent more clear; "...A ship which uses this special order may not use special orders at all in its next turn and the ship's Firepower, ordnance, and armament strength is halved for the owning player's next shooting phase..."?
Fracas, I really don't think anything that extreme is needed. All we are really discussing is ways to clarify the duration and iron out some minor oddities.
-
What I want is the following (But for some reason I'm having trouble putting it into words):
When you BFI, after your next shooting phase you lose BFI at the end of that end phase.
So if you BFI in your movement phase, you'll lose BFI at the end of the same turn. If you BFI in your ordnance phase you'll be stuck with BFI until the end of your next turn.
Does this sound okay?
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Ray, I think that's basically what Russ and I have been discussing. The problem with the way you are saying it though is that it doesn't address the duration of BFI if you brace in your opponents shooting or ordnance phases.
Disregarding what we had been talking about, perhaps you are looking for some thing that just says: If a player braces in their own turn, BFI is cleared in the end phase of their opponents turn. If a player braces in their opponents turn, BFI is cleared in the end phase of their next turn.
-
Vaaish,
The duration of BFI should vary as its end point should always be the same.
You may Brace For Impact whenever your ship may take damage. Brace for Impact lasts until the end phase following your next shooting phase. E.g. If you braced during your ordnance phase or during the enemy's turn you will be braced until the end of your next turn. If you braced in your movement phase you would be braced until the end your turn.
Cheers,
RayB
-
So, if I brace in my own ordnance phase I am braced in my following opponents turn, then in my own movement & shooting phase and unbrace when my ordnance phase starts?
Correct?
When I brace in my opponents shooting phase I am unbraced as soon as it is my opponents turn again (thus in between a braced turn of my own)?
-
Roy,
If you brace in your own ordnance phase you are braced in your following opponents turn, then in your own movement, shooting and ordnance phase and unbrace at the end of that turn NOT when your ordnance phase starts.
When you brace in your opponents shooting phase you are unbraced at the end of your next turn so just before it's your opponents turn again.
Clear?
Cheers,
RayB
-
Ray, what you are writing sounds like you are trying to say that you come off BFI when the end of the phase you braced in passes again. is this right?
-
BFI: no matter when this is issued the ship will always be braced untill one full turn of the player with the braced ship has passed?
-
;D
You lose your BFI at the end of the turn you have your next shooting phase. That's it!
Player B is Bracing:
Player B Movement Phase/Shooting Phase/Ordnance Phase(BFI due to Ordy)/End Phase
Player A Movement Phase(BFI due to ramming)/Shooting Phase(BFI due to shooting)/Ordnance Phase(BFI due to ordy)/End Phase
Player B Movement Phase(BFI due to Ramming/Ordy/Cellestial Phenomenon)/Shooting Phase/Ordnance Phase/End Phase (BFI Ends here for all of those cases)
Clear? Please say yes! ;D
Cheers,
RayB
-
Yeah, that is how we always played it. I am getting confused of all this re-wording and discussion.
-
Russ: would this make the intent more clear; "...A ship which uses this special order may not use special orders at all in its next turn and the ship's Firepower, ordnance, and armament strength is halved for the owning player's next shooting phase..."?
Yes. This works to satisfy my wording concern.
You may Brace For Impact whenever your ship may take damage. Brace for Impact lasts until the end phase following your next shooting phase. E.g. If you braced during your ordnance phase or during the enemy's turn you will be braced until the end of your next turn. If you braced in your movement phase you would be braced until the end your turn.
This is very close to the proposal that Vaaish and I are arriving at. The only difference I can discern in the two different wordings is that Vaaish's statement has the effect of denying you SO your following turn even if you brace during your movement and gives you the added benefits during the opponents turn. They both deny the player a single shooting phase at full power, which is getting closer to resolving the original issue.
The main problem with your version Ray is that you can BFI during your move to trade half weapons for a save moving through ordnance, BUT when it comes time for the enemies turn you no longer have BFI and could be forced to take it AGAIN, which would then deny you a second turn of shooting at half, which it's very similar to the initial problem. The only difference is you have a tactical choice to go back into BFI duirng the enemy phase or not. Either way you're put into a potential defensive cycle once you've taken BFI.
Vaaish proposal leaves you with BFI during the enemy phase so you're not stuck making the choice again, then you can come out of the defensive cycle in your next shooting phase to have a fighting chance. The balance point is that although you come back with full power you can not SO. The only problem with this mechanic is it still hurts ships dependent on Reload Ordnance.
Russ
-
Yeah, that is how we always played it. I am getting confused of all this re-wording and discussion.
Hmm, me to. Ray are saying this is how you want it to be or how the rule should already be played based on the current wording?
Russ
-
Oh come on.. why so serious?
It is an attemt to make rules look smart or something?
We don't have much of an options here.
brace during movement phase - ends in the and of ship's current turn.
brace any other time - ends in the end of ship's next turn.
you BFI during your ordnance phase and then have been attacked in your next movement or ordnance phases? Well, lucky you - free BFI.
that's all folks
-
Currently as per the wording in the rulebook if you BFI in your movement phase you'll be braced for 2 of your shooting phases (which is really harsh).
The change is just for this circumstance, meaning you are only BFI'd for one of your shooting phases(unless you brace again).
Cheers,
RayB
-
Yeah, that is how we always played it. I am getting confused of all this re-wording and discussion.
Can I third that? :)
I think all of us are trying to adjust BFI so it only affects one shooting phase at half strength weapons. If that is the case, I put forward my adjusted version of the current rule. I think it accomplishes what we are discussing with minimal change and clarifies the intent we all seem to be dancing around.
-
Oh come on.. why so serious?
It is an attemt to make rules look smart or something?
:D
It's about writing a rule that is clear in it's language so it doesn't require an FAQ sentence or paragraph! Good rules writing is tough since you have to drill down into intent and vocabulary sometimes to arrive at something that reads the way the designer intended, without a shadow of a doubt.
I don't think anyone is being too serious, where just enjoying a good mind-storming session! Maybe I'm coming across to serious? :)
-
My personal opinion - the simpliest way to tell something is usualy the best.
In given conditions of limited variants it's seems to me that the simplest way to clarify when the BFI ends, is to tell when its ends depending on when it have been issued.
especially since we have only two different conditions: ship's movement phase and anything else.
-
Imho the real disadvantage of using BFI is that you miss your next chance for going on special orders. When a ship goes on BFI it is taking its next special order in advance.
With the propesed change using BFI in the own movement phase is less restricting than at other times.
What bothers me more though is when you get to the point where BFI is removed there's always two types of BFI orders. Those that are removed and those that last longer. And you can't tell which by looking at the situation, you just have to know (keep track) when they were issued.
I can't think of an elegant way to solve this but would like to propose this:
- All BFI orders are removed between the owning players shooting and ordnance phase.
- Ships on any special orders cannot BFI in the movement phase.
This would also prevent a ship from bracing while ramming which always felt odd to me.
-
...or the Nightshade-Hemlock suicide Lock On tactic (Volandum tm).
-
Bracing when ramming is vital for Orks (especially for Brutes). They have a big red button für the boss to go faster, all the other Gitz can do what ever is needed to brace. Without BFI when ramming I can skip my hit-them-through-the-asteriod-field-ramming surprises >:(
-
Don,
The slight rules change I've suggested means BFI is always lost in your end phase unless it was declared in that ordnance phase. That's easy to keep track of, isn't it? (after all if you did BFI in the Ordy phase, you'd have to have a pretty poor memory to forget! Actually, you might brace against ships exploding in your own shooting phase, but that's the only other exception)
Cheers,
RayB
-
Currently as per the wording in the rulebook if you BFI in your movement phase you'll be braced for 2 of your shooting phases (which is really harsh).
The change is just for this circumstance, meaning you are only BFI'd for one of your shooting phases(unless you brace again).
Cheers,
RayB
Harsh it may be but that's the trade-off for getting better survivability.
I don't get the problem at the moment especially with all the post on suggestions.
1. Current BFI rule is you can use it in any instance which you can take damage. Ordnance phase and opponent's phase defines this well already. Even if an opponent parked his ordnance in front of your ship in your movement phase, this is covered by the any instance you can take damage clause.
2. When you BFI you will be on BFI until the ship's next turn. It's very much clear.
The BFI rules are simple. The rules are not broken. The rules are fair.
So why propose any changes? Harsh is not a good enough reason. To avoid the situation where an opponent parked his ordnance in front of your ship so that you can't avoid it? Well, kudos to the player who did that because he used a good tactic. I would not deny him that. If I saw ordnance that close, then I would park my fighters on the ship's base that will plow through them in my movement to avoid BFI-ing. So again, I ask: why the need to change?
-
As i see it - the main problem is that with current wording it is ALWAYS better to put ordnance in fron of enemy instead of point-blank shots since you are disabling the ship for 2 turns. And doing this is very easy with any fleet.
-
I don't get the problem at the moment especially with all the post on suggestions...So why propose any changes? Harsh is not a good enough reason. To avoid the situation where an opponent parked his ordnance in front of your ship so that you can't avoid it? Well, kudos to the player who did that because he used a good tactic. I would not deny him that. If I saw ordnance that close, then I would park my fighters on the ship's base that will plow through them in my movement to avoid BFI-ing. So again, I ask: why the need to change?
I agree that the rules are currently clear, but "harsh", if deemed unbalanced, is absolutely a good reason to change a rule. Clearly a number of people feel the rule is unbalanced when taking BFI during the movement phase since you suffer two turns of half weapon strength....and clearly this doesn't bother you! :D
Russ
-
Yes, it doesn't bother me. To BFI in your movement phase because enemy ordnance is parked in front of your ship is your decision. You can always opt not to BFI. As I said, there are ways around it. Yes, doing it is easy. To one or two ships. The AC has to be in a wave. Put out fighters and put them on CAP duty. Escorts massing together to max their turret. Sending one escort to contact the AC wave in front of the cap ship you want protected. Sending an escort squadron and shooting the wave out of the table with its main weapons.
If there were no ways to avoid or minimize the problem, then i would agree to a change. As it is, there are ways around the problem. Therefore, I do not see any reason to change BFI. Yes, it sucks but if my ship survives for another round, then great.
-
Your movement phase (and shooting in weird circumstances) is the ONLY time where you can be BFI'd for two of your shooting phases. It's pretty unbalanced to be penalised twice when the benefit is just the same.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Bracing when ramming is vital for Orks (especially for Brutes).
But ... if the first ramship changes AAF to BFI in its move, how would the second ramship be able to ram?
Actually, you might brace against ships exploding in your own shooting phase, but that's the only other exception
Oh no, I forgot about the exploding ships. That would require a rewording of my rules but I won't bother for now. ;D
Ray,
ramming is a good example to illustrate the problem with your proposed change.
If a ship starts its turn with AAF and switches to BFI on a successful ramming attack it will end its turn with no special order.
This could deny the opponent a +1 on command checks and in most cases theres NO disadvantage to it (only exception I can think of is a loaded ordnance ship).
I can't see this as an improvement over the current rule.
-
I still advocate no change.
-
Don,
Hmm, perhaps you are right. The fact that there are so many exceptions and the odd exploit leads me to think the benefits don't out weigh the cost.
I'll still put forward the clarfication about being braced for 2 shooting phases.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Your movement phase (and shooting in weird circumstances) is the ONLY time where you can be BFI'd for two of your shooting phases. It's pretty unbalanced to be penalised twice when the benefit is just the same.
Cheers,
RayB
Again, I don't see it as a problem. It's a decision the players make. If they think the ship needs to survive, then do it. BFI at the cost of halving weapons for 2 shooting phases. Reward should go to the player who makes an excellent tactic.
-
just limit all SO to beginning of your movement.
-
Huh? So in my turn I need to brace if their is a chance I might be shot next turn?
-
yes. plan ahead if you are going to get into the thick of things.
-
That makes things too predictable. The first to close to range locks on and the the second just braces.
-
And for the attacker it would be too easy to shoot at the 2nd row ships that maybe didnt brace because someone wants to shoot back.
-
Some more thoughts on the current FAQ
Ships on a Planetary Template
Do ships on a planetary template benefit from being inside the planets gravity well? Naturally one would assume yes but running circles around the polar region feels like an exploit to me. "Turning towards the planet" would in this case probably imply "turning towards the center" but with a ship close to the center this could get ridiculous.
Fighting Sunward
Currently also applies to the Primary Biosphere. This will be dropped? Not really concerned about this, just curious.
Multiple Boarding Actions
Since Race modifiers are not cumulative (which makes sense) are the other modifiers cumulative?
E.g.: 2 crippled ships, both on special orders combine in a boarding action. Defending ship gets a +6 modifier?
and if the defending ship was also crippled and on special orders it gets a +6 and the attackers a +3 modifier?
Flying Bases Overlapping and Stacking Squadrons
This just begs for exploiting.
I can put a single Nightshade on the table and play it as a squadron of 6. That would make for really nice torpedo 12-board shooting and I wouldn't be too much concerned about the blast markers in contact.
Imagine small-base ships hiding inside large-base ships - unreachable for bombers and assault boats.
Also Necron's will really love this since they don't care about blast markers.
BFG is tabletop game, the whole point is to have (painted!) models on the table not abstract placeholders.
Overlapping should imho only be allowed if absolutely necessary, something like "...if it cannot be avoided...".
Personally I prefer to adjust a ships movement to avoid bases overlapping.
-
lol, escorts hiding in the battleship template. Good idea. ;)
-
Do they get the advantage of the 4 void shields of that battleship too, and their own offcourse? :o
-
Just rule that the base must be present on the table including the stem (-> The stem can´t be overlapped !) so you can´t hide inseide another base.
-
Just drop the whole overlapping thing. My humble opinion.
-
"Blast Markers and Multiple Bases: When a ship has multiple bases in contact and its shield goes down, the blast marker may be placed anywhere on this ships base potentially taking down other ships shields. This has no limitation to the number of ships shields the blast marker can take down"
TBH this will be a cause of arguments and a waste of time during the game since some beardy players will be placing blast markers in such way so that it is in front of ships next to it causing them -5cm movement even if fire came from the other side and the ships were not in base contact. Also it's unclear on who places the blast markers.
I suggest that blastmarker in contact with a ship, no matter from where it came, counts as being all around for the purpose of downing shields of other ships in base contact, but must be placed as close as possible to the direction the hit came from. This is fair and makes logical sence.
Also, this means that only 1 shield will ever be taken down from ships in base contact but from all ships at once, which i think is fair trade for mass turret.
So to be absolutely clear on what i mean: If a ship has at least one blast marker in contact it's base counts as blast marker for all ships in btb contact.
-
Don Gusto,
Ships on a planetary template: This is up for review right now. I’m of the view that if you’re on the template turning towards it would mean going down/up so there would be no game effect, as it’s a very abstract world.
Fighting Sunward: Yep, with a very lose interpretation of the wording we’ve ‘clarified’ it so this only effects the first 3 zones to coincide with the flares and radiation bursts and also to give gamers less of a headache.
Boarding modifiers: Good point, you cannot get the same modifier twice, this will definitely be added.
Flying bases overlapping and stacking: This is just a clarification of the rules at present, this isn’t a change. You are right though it is open for a abuse, the nightshade thing not so much however.
Hiding ships inside a large base goes far beyond escorts hiding in on a BB’s base: cruisers can do it too! And for Necrons this is brutal!
Not to mention that if you wanted to you could use a Large flying base for a Dictator and protect a Dauntless inside its turret coverage completely stopping bombers from attacking it.
Although slightly risky you could also hide small defences on a Ramilies base.
Now there are 2 solutions to this I can see:
1. Damage the already abstract 3d and make movement strangely awkward by banning overlapping.
2. Allow AC to choose which ship to attack when bases completely overlap, as long as the AC can reach the target ships base with its remaining speed. (If the bases were the same size and they weren’t completely overlapping there is no problem). This will allow Aboats to attack an escort hiding on/in a large flying base.
I’m for number 2.
Mazila,
The attacking player places the BM, thanks for spotting that.
I think taking down every ships shields with one BM is a little harsh, unless you’re stacking!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Please:
1. Damage the already abstract 3d and make movement strangely awkward by banning overlapping.
Best option.
-
Roy,
The disadvantages are clear (except for Necrons), why are you against it?
Because less models will be used? You'll still need to be able to field all your ships if they weren't stacked.
Because it's annoying swaping a ship with a stemless flying base? It's annoying putting big ships with small bases next to each other as it is.
Because you're afraid of Necrons? :D
Cheers RayB
-
Ray,
Never played vs Necrons.
Stacking/overlapping is uncool. You need to use markers to represent the ships (heading etc). It is a visual thing, yeah. What happens with a direct NC hit?
You will add a complex written rule with a lot of specialities and add-ons.
We have no problem with putting them next to each other. Sometimes you need to use a marker if it is really crowded but with stacking this problem will increase.
-
I vote for banning.
But I play Orks and with Space Hulk and Rocks and their fixed movement I can´t avoid overlapping sometimes. Should a Rock go less than 10 cm in this case (given both units are Rocks) ?
As I supposed before, if overlapping will be kept bann overlapping of the stem and hiding of a smaller base in a large one is impossible
-
Ray, your no. 2 rule would break the rule about AC attacking the first base it hits. Allowing something to break this rule when you can just remove the issue by declaring no stacking will just make things more problematic.
-
No overlapping if possible, is an okay solution. But I like the over/under element that gives the illusion of an extra dimension. Also it makes moving Eldar/Necron escorts alot easier ;). This is still under consideration, please try to persuade me.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
"making it 3d is just another range modifier" - isn't it what it was in the rulebook? This game is about beautiful ships painted and assebeled into an army, not about 1 ship representing entire fleet.
Also you are complicating things that are meant to be simple. Stacking is against the core system of the game. I dont see any roblem to moove ships a couple of cm less or more to avoid stacking. I am surprised this topic even got here.
-
Good Call.
-
Mazila,
Why are you suprised to see this here? At current you are allowed to stack, I see this as being wide open for a abuse and wish to limit it. However I do like the abstract 3d that allows me to do so....
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
if you’re on the template turning towards it would mean going down/up so there would be no game effect
My thoughts exactly.
you cannot get the same modifier twice
That simple sentence would clear it all up, including racial modifiers.
-
On base stacking: I agree with the rest of the BFG community who has spoken up. No stacking allowed. It provides a dangerous opportunity for far to many edge cases that will be debated in the future and will need a whole host of rule clarifications. I would much rather see the placement of ships simplified in this case to make the game run more smooth.
Does this imply that I can deny my opponent from placing his own ships advantageously? i.e. Will it deny him moving a ship between two of my own for a double broadside if there isn't space for his own base to sit on the table? This is my only concern and would want the intention of the rule to properly address this.
Russ
-
Mazila,
Why are you suprised to see this here? At current you are allowed to stack, I see this as being wide open for a abuse and wish to limit it. However I do like the abstract 3d that allows me to do so....
Cheers,
RayB HA
Ray, because not a single person i have played bfg has ever tried stacking anything )) It just never came into mind of any one i know. People dont stack 40k or FB but it also never says you can't stack ))
I think taking down every ships shields with one BM is a little harsh, unless you’re stacking!
Ray, it's not harsh. This means that only 1 shield ever will be taken down from a ship in btb. For escorts it will be harsher, but 4 turreted escort is a bit too much also, so i think it is a fair trade. This game is about tactical desigions.
-
the stacking argument is one of the most ridiculous things ever.
stacking ships: offers practically zero bonus'.
1.) your shooting will be a few cm closer. 2.) enemy shooting will be a few cm further
with a major drawback
1.) if your hit, YOUR SHIELDS DROP ON EVERY SHIP
2.) a direct NC hit can wipe out an entire squadron.
stacking torp salvos:
1) violation of the rules imho, because torps that touch other torps (friendly or enemy) are both removed.
stacking AC:
the only worthwhile argument. stacking keeps those massive tau waves from taking up as much space as a planet. also decreases wave size/formation abuse.
with no stacking allowed, the only issue would be as russ said, with ships in close order preventing a double broadside between them.
three possible solutions:
1.) if not in b2b, ships must be 5cm apart (like fantasy and 40k style). this allows a cruiser to fly between two close ships, but not a big bulky BB.
2.) bit your lip, either torp the ships in close-by formation, or board them.
3.) no *friendly* stacking. a single enemy ship may fly between your two bases, and unload that double broadside. obviously, two enemy ships cannot stack and fly between as that is a violation of "no friendly stacking"
feel free to comment/complain, or expand on this.
however, if someone wants fluffily explain that escorts are smaller than cruisers and sqeeze more of them between two ships in close-by formation, they're gonna have to argue for smaller flying bases for escorts.
-
1cm represents 1k km, base is 2cm you really think a ship needs that much distance not to collide? )
Nah, no need any fancy rules, you can always place ships closer or further away but just keep in mind actual position and then start to moove it from the actual point - no need complications.
-
I will make the point that some of these ships are over 5km long, so i fear your argument is somewhat invalid.
The base is a "zone of effect", an area in which 'stuff' can effect the ship, such as ordnance, astral phenomena, etc. In regards to ramming and boarding, the declaration to do so is basically your ship using it's turn to move in contact with the enemy vessel.
IF you want to stack your ships, do so, it means they all die faster to my weapons.
-
I will make the point that some of these ships are over 5km long, so i fear your argument is somewhat invalid.
So a 5km ship needs 2000 Km to manuver?
-
My argument came from a game play standpoint, not a fluff standpoint. hence if you want to sqeeze between some ships, you need a small base.
rules are not made by fluff.
-
with no stacking allowed, the only issue would be as russ said, with ships in close order preventing a double broadside between them.
three possible solutions:
1.) if not in b2b, ships must be 5cm apart (like fantasy and 40k style). this allows a cruiser to fly between two close ships, but not a big bulky BB.
2.) bit your lip, either torp the ships in close-by formation, or board them.
3.) no *friendly* stacking. a single enemy ship may fly between your two bases, and unload that double broadside. obviously, two enemy ships cannot stack and fly between as that is a violation of "no friendly stacking"
Solution 3 was what I had in my mind when I posed the problem...probably because that's how my group plays. We never assumed friendly ships could stack, but if an enemy vessel needed to overlap to position its self, we allowed it. BUT, when it's stated as a rule to follow it kind of left me feeling uncertain about how elegant the resolution was as an official rule.
Solution 2 isn't really a solution, you're just implying that any overlapping, enemy or friendly, is not allowed therefore you have to choose a different action.
Solution 1, doesn't seem like an option to me. It just further complicates moving ships relative to each and will bring a whole host of exceptional situations with it.
With these thoughts, I would say that if Ray choses to go with no overlapping then the rule should be stated something like this:
"Overlapping with other friendly bases is not permitted unless otherwise unavoidable."
Russ
-
Why would one ba able to overlap enemy ships but not overlap friendly ships? Really, just eliminate overlapping and borrow a rule from another game system where when there is no way to avoid overlapping, you can either end your ship's movement before the base if you don't have the distance or after the base if you have the available movement distance. Then after movement but before shooting, declare that you're shooting both broadsides against both targets. Simple.
You can call it "Broadsides" if you want just to keep it simple.
-
How would people feel about the following:
Bases Overlapping and Stacking: At the end of the movement phase friendly bases may not overlap if possible. Keep in mind the movement of ships that can't turn before moving your ships. Intentionally overlapping with enemy bases is still possible.
Something that just occurred to me,
Ork Hulk Gravity Well: As an Ork Hulk is stem sized a ship may still use free turns from the Hulks gravity well even if its stem is over the Hulk's base, but not if their stems overlap!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I love it.
keeps the eldar from hiding too much and also keeps more pretty models on the table.
confused on the hulk - an ork space hulk may make a free turn from its own gravity well, unless its stem doesn't overlap with ???? its own stem?
-
Valhallan,
A 'ship' may benefit from grav well turns while on an ork hulks base (as in the rules it says 5cm from the base not the stem).
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
How would people feel about the following:
Bases Overlapping and Stacking: Friendly bases may not overlap if possible. Consider the movement of ships that can't turn before moving your ships. Intentionally overlapping with enemy bases is still possible.
Something that just occurred to me,
Ork Hulk Gravity Well: As an Ork Hulk is stem sized a ship may still use the free turn from its gravity well even if its stem is over the Hulk's base, but not if their stems overlap!
Cheers,
RayB HA
Of course I agree with this new rule consideration for Bases Overlapping and Stacking, especially since it's so close to my original wording. :) I don't think the second sentence is necessary to say though because it might make some people believe they need to move ships that can't turn first.
@Valhallan and Ray
Concerning the Ork Gravity Rule. As a means of clarification, I believe Ray is saying: "As an Ork Hulk is stem sized, another ship may still use the free turn from the Hulk's gravity well even if it's stem is over the Hulk's base, but not if their stems overlap!
Although, I find this rule inclusion curious. Why bother with such detail in regards to this particular ship. Aren't stems so small in the first place that the 5mm diameter isn't really a big deal to take a pass on in order to simplify the gravity well?
Russ
-
I still don't get why friendly ships can't overlap but enemy ships can. It's just opening a can of worms. Either keep overlapping or remove it.
-
I agree. just simpler to prohibit ship stacking. models without enough movement end in base to base before, and those with enough end just after the other ship base.
easier also to allow broadsides in the latter circumstance.
I am in favor of ordnance, in particular attack crafts, stacking.
-
I am with the admiral and fracas. And I am for dissallowing stacking capital ships.
Attack craft: well, dunno, people with miniatures for them cannot stack. And torps will still make the wide spread.
-
I'd be in favor of making the ruling that ships can't end movement overlapping bases. I think that it just makes for smoother gameplay even if it causes dual broadsides to be more difficult to achieve.
I still do not like AC marker stacking.
Another thing worth mentioning that's seems to have stimulated some discussion is Escorts vs. AB and making escorts more resilient to AB.
-
okay, i'd conciede to vaaish, ships can move over each other's bases, but cannot end their movement stacking/overlapping with anything, friend or foe, period. besides, the side arcs have 45* fire zone toward the back, you if you *just* pass over two enemy ships, you'll still get the shots - perhaps even at Away in place of Abeam.
-escorts vs a-boats are just fine - if you run them in b2b, massed turrets can usually make hit and running escorts a poor tactical choice.
-still on the edge about AC stacking. horizon has the point that if you have models for them as apposed to cut outs, stacking keeps you from fielding all your pretty minis.
- however, fighting two squadroned explorers launching a combined wave is ridiculous..... perhaps AC waves MUST be as square as possible?
-
Square is good, though what is the measuring point? Front or back? Gain some extra speed or lose some? What happens if front two reach base, last two not. Personally I'd say keep it easy on that.
However the long lines of bomber waves: what is wrong with that? They either go on 1 ship in 1 turn or move for several turns. That way they are easy to hit from a lot of angles. No, I do not think attack craft spread is a problem.
Torpedo spread can be cheesy with large waves angled in such ways to clip enemy bases on the edge. I see a solution where a str.4 marker size wise is the norm and a dice on top shows torp marker strength.
The assault boat discussion, ages old and I agree on the fact escort go down to easy vs aboats.
However: which races use assault boats:
Chaos
Tyranids
Space Marines
Craftworld Eldar (extra cost)
In the Marine fleet the assault boats are a needed thing. Same applies to Nids. Chaos has so many strengths they depend less on aboats to survive but make great use of it. Perhaps slower aboats for Chaos...
-
square waves would be launched and distance measured from the ships stem - no AC markers can move further than their movement value. generally measure front to front works well for this (as fast cav in WFB)
square waves as a standard just minimizes confusion/abuse. and lets you use WFB regiment trays (if ray's 20mm base idea goes through) to hold AC waves.
aboats totally destroy escorts. my comment was that escorts w/ massed turrets force the enemy to launch quite significant waves that imho are more effectively used against cap ships.
-
Not allowing a ship to finish ontop of another, but allowing it to still fire, accomplishes both my concerns. So i can definitely get behind the suggestions of admiral and co.
Russ
-
you can stack attack craft models by varying the number of models on the base.
-
Horizon, you left out IN with AB. The Empy and Oberon can take them. For marines, yes they are essential which makes things tricky.
-
If stacking is going to be forbidden then this should be a core movement mechanic that applies to everything, including ordnance markers. The concept of stacking physical ac models by mixing ship types on a single base is cumbersome in my opinion and will only lead to people having to make special bases or carry a lot of ac models around. Sorry fracas, can't agree this time! :)
Russ
-
Ah, correct, the IN has some some a-boats as well, thanks Vaaish.
-
but mixing models not that big of a deal
usual combos are:
1 fighter (more is unnecessary)
1 fighter + 3 bombers
2 fighters + 2 bombers
and an occasional 3 fighters + 1 bomber
same for assault boats instead of bombers.
-
its really nothing big, as ray's got it on the first page (of the ord faq thread) that we're moving to 20x20mm warhammer bases. 1 base=1 squadron of ac.
-
Allowing ships to overlap with enemy ships is a necessity, otherwise I can see some players forcing the movement of enemy ships with area denial and preventing boarding by having friendly ships close by (they don't need to be in base contact either).
AC will be using the warhammer bases, waves will not stack and will be formed in a similar way to 40k squads deep striking. Place one AC marker then place as many as possible in contact with it, side to side, not corner to side. (as these are square bases and not circular, careful wording will have to be used.
Russ,
Stating that the Ork Hulk Grav well includes its base seems quite a reasonable inclusion.
I'm rewording the overlapping bases paragraph to make the second sentence clearer.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Oh frell, AC cannot stack and ships can overlap?
I dislike overlapping. I really really really dislike it. I dunno about my opponents so I'll adapt to them but for me I will forward a big NO to the issue since I see no problem with the current non-overlapping movement.
Your issues will not solve the problems you put forward to be honest.
Are the cardboard markers the same size as the warhammer bases?
-
I don't mind AC not stacking, I think it helps make things more plain and open with regard to AC. My only concern is interaction between large waves and enemy ships or ordnance that allows one marker touching a base to draw in all the other markers regardless of movement distance.
I don't mind overlaping of bases for ships, but I think that it makes things easier to position if movement stops in base contact if you don't have the remaining distance to make it past the stem of the base you would end movement on. Failing that, maybe just state that any ship ending movement in base contact with an enemy vessel allows the opposing player to initiate a boarding action. It would give consequences for ending in contact but no eliminate it.
-
i'll accept the HA ruling even if i don't like it regarding stacking.
seems odd though that to ram does not require over lapping yet overlapping can occur without ramming :)
-
Allowing ships to overlap with enemy ships is a necessity, otherwise I can see some players forcing the movement of enemy ships with area denial and preventing boarding by having friendly ships close by (they don't need to be in base contact either).
Cheers,
RayB HA
I call this nonsense. Forcing the movement of enemy ships with area denial (what this exactly means is still questionable) should be a benefit given to the player who thought of it. If forcing movement of enemy ships is a problem, then we might as well remove torpedoes and AC from the game because it's obvious they deny a much larger piece of the table real estate than lowly bases will ever do. Even direct fire weapons by themselves can deny huge areas. You want to remove those too?
Why insist on something which is totally unneeded? Sorry, Ray, I say NO to stacking. There's nothing BENEFICIAL to be gained from it and can only result in weird situations with more problems than answers both in game and reality where the models can be damaged.
-
I call this nonsense. Forcing the movement of enemy ships with area denial (what this exactly means is still questionable) should be a benefit given to the player who thought of it. If forcing movement of enemy ships is a problem, then we might as well remove torpedoes and AC from the game because it's obvious they deny a much larger piece of the table real estate than lowly bases will ever do. Even direct fire weapons by themselves can deny huge areas. You want to remove those too?
Why insist on something which is totally unneeded? Sorry, Ray, I say NO to stacking. There's nothing BENEFICIAL to be gained from it and can only result in weird situations with more problems than answers both in game and reality where the models can be damaged.
Admiral, you've made some fair arguments thus far. But this particular point is moot. Torpedoes, AC, and even direct fire weapons don't actually deny an enemy movement options, they just make the choice more dangerous. So it's not the same thing as actually denying the enemy space on the board to maneuver a ship into an advantageous firing position. Try again. ;)
Russ
-
you'd have to be playing a REALLY big game to cause significant area denial by bases. easily >2000, maybe >3000.
i see no issue with:
*if a base overlaps, and the stem has not crossed halfway - move it backwards into b2b. if the stem has gone over half (past the other stem) then move it forward and into b2b.
-
Admiral, you've made some fair arguments thus far. But this particular point is moot. Torpedoes, AC, and even direct fire weapons don't actually deny an enemy movement options, they just make the choice more dangerous. So it's not the same thing as actually denying the enemy space on the board to maneuver a ship into an advantageous firing position. Try again. ;)
Russ
Really? You're willing to put ships in an area where torpedoes or AC will be moving through even if you can avoid it? Only situation where that will happen is if there's something good which will come out of it. Otherwise people tend to avoid areas like that. Which means that IS area denial. Because it IS dangerous to be in that area. You ARE in effect manipulating your foe into going somewhere you prefer him to go. How different is that in not allowing overlapping bases?
I need not try again.
-
*if a base overlaps, and the stem has not crossed halfway - move it backwards into b2b. if the stem has gone over half (past the other stem) then move it forward and into b2b.
Yep, with addition that boarding still needs to be declared (thus no auto boarding in this case. And this applies to friendly and enemy bases.
(this is what answer-mod Sigoroth ruled in the past iirc).
-
Really? You're willing to put ships in an area where torpedoes or AC will be moving through even if you can avoid it? Only situation where that will happen is if there's something good which will come out of it. Otherwise people tend to avoid areas like that. Which means that IS area denial. Because it IS dangerous to be in that area. You ARE in effect manipulating your foe into going somewhere you prefer him to go. How different is that in not allowing overlapping bases?
It's different because you don't have the ability to make a choice. As you just said, "Only in situation where...there's something good which will come out of it." Why you can't see the difference between having a choice and none at all is beyond me.
Ray will sort it all out from here I'm sure,
Russ
-
I hope he sorts it... so far I''ve seen no points pro-overlapping. ;)
Only sentimental veterans... lol. Kidding. We have good points. haha
-
It's different because you don't have the ability to make a choice. As you just said, "Only in situation where...there's something good which will come out of it." Why you can't see the difference between having a choice and none at all is beyond me.
Ray will sort it all out from here I'm sure,
Russ
How would you not have the ability to make a choice in this case of no overlapping whether bet friendly or enemy ships? The bases are big enough that they cannot obscure another base behind it unless a large base of a BB or GC is blocking the small bases. Even then, smart manuevering will get you onto the bases at the back if you really want to shoot at them.
Even with boarding, if the intended target of boarding has a few friends nearby because the owning player wants to protect it from such tactic, then by George, he should be rewarded. If the boarder still wants to try his hand at boarding a ship which has a friend nearby which can help the target in boarding resolution, then by golly, that's the boarder's choice if he wants to risk it.
If a big battleship or grand cruiser base blocked the way to the heavily damaged target of boarding, then again, kudos to the player for wanting to protect his damaged ship. In any case, you can still get to within 10 cm of the damaged ship, knockdown the shields and do a teleport attack against it. Won't destroy it unless you're one of those races with the bonus to H&R but it's going to be further hurt for sure.
-
Hey
can you clarify , according to what you have listed for reserves ruling I would need 9 CWE escorts to take three Corsairs ones as reserves ?
and as Craftworld have no battleship getting a Stalker (which is a craftworld ship) is impossible ?
why on earth would you ever use the reserve rules , incidentally you pay 50 points on a pirate prince to be 'allowed' to use reserves rules , currently i think i would pay 50 points NOT to use them.
-
Yes, that are the rulings for reserves.
Now the downfall for the Eldar is that they need the Hero (soon to be 100pts) to access reserves.
Within MMS we did this:
Eldar may do reserves standard, with Hero the ratio is lowered to 2:1 instead of 3:1.
Neat little bonus.
You need to keep in mind that if reserve rules would be changed everyone would create a fleet with CWE cruisers, a Void Stalker
added with Nightshades / Hemlocks.
Destructive and best of both worlds in an even very strong fleet. Scary.
-
That is entirely possible Horizon ,but atm it is completely and totally pointless, it makes the reserves rules a waste of words on a page as far as eldar go and the yriels raiders pdf might as well be printed out and saved for when you run out of toilet paper.......
Even 2:1 is not really that appealing given that for CWE to field enough corsair escorts to justify taking the prince you would still need 12 of the shadowhunters, (which is enough of a handicap) his re-rolls are so expensive on top of his grossly inflated price that I would never take them.
If you could only spend a quarter of your points on reserves that would be fine.
But currently I can only see IN or Chaos using the rules with any sort of benefit/point
-
Currently overlapping and ship stacking is allowed! I'm not inventing the rule!
I do like the 3D aspect of overlapping BUT in some cases it can be unreasonably exploited and it's quite awkward. Therefore it needs to be limited is some manner.
Disallowing friendly overlapping is NEW and extreme but IMO necessary.
KEEPING overlapping with enemy ships is really important. As otherwise you can prevent boarding from large base ships quite easily and even small base ships if you have a few ships near a likely target.
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Area denial is the complete prevention of a ship being placed. Ordnance, weapons and even terrain don't do this so neither should an enemies base! (The reason for disallowing friendly bases is for game balance, no such need arises when on an enemy base).
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Kraken,
The reserve rules are intended for the odd ship to be thrown into the mix and not to be an unbalancing influence.
For CWE and CE the reserve rule given by the Hero is far more limited than for conventional fleets as one is escort heavy and the other cruiser heavy making 'good' reserves a costly affair. Also it is impossible for a CWE fleet to get a Voidstalker and for the CE to get a Dragonship(unless its the Hero's ship)! The FAQ will reduce the cost of the Hero because of this.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Thanks for the response Ray.
As I thought really , so reserves for Eldar will subsequently be a complete waste of time, was just shocked just how pathetic the actual amount of ships you can actually get through reserves is, if the prince can get a dragonship as his ride , why cant he take a stalker ? he does not technically belong to either list.
or am I just grasping at straws ?
-
Currently overlapping and ship stacking is allowed! I'm not inventing the rule!
Can you point out specifically where it is? I've never seen the rule.
I do like the 3D aspect of overlapping BUT in some cases it can be unreasonably exploited and it's quite awkward. Therefore it needs to be limited is some manner.
True so if it can be unreasonably exploited, why allow it?
Disallowing friendly overlapping is NEW and extreme but IMO necessary.
Allowing overlapping is unnecessary in the first place.
KEEPING overlapping with enemy ships is really important. As otherwise you can prevent boarding from large base ships quite easily and even small base ships if you have a few ships near a likely target.
Again, I don't see why you should penalize one party. If he managed to protect his ships, kudos to him.
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Area denial is the complete prevention of a ship being placed. Ordnance, weapons and even terrain don't do this so neither should an enemies base! (The reason for disallowing friendly bases is for game balance, no such need arises when on an enemy base).
Cheers,
RayB HA
Yes but the rule you propose is awkward. Anyway, the issue is only with Boarding and not a general problem. You can still shoot at the ship being blocked. So might as well not include a rule which is awkward at best. This situation, while it may come up, will not come up that often. Allowing Overlapping will not simplify it. There is no added benefit.
-
With the admiral here. There is no thing in the rule book saying overlapping is allowed. The rules more or less say it is not allowed.
Just drop the whole thing. Please. *Puppy Eyes*.
-
Personally I don't see the need to allow stacking of anything. With the ships it creates odd situations where ships either need to be removed from their bases or precariously balanced to fit. I think it fundamentally necessary to allow ships to pass freely OVER the base of any ship in the course of their movement, but should not end movement on top of a base be it friend or enemy. Regardless of the cleverness of balancing friendly ships inside a large base, I don't see it adding any wondrous tactical depth and much more room for gaminess with attempting to wedge a base into areas they can't easily fit in hopes of gaining a slight advantage.
-
I agree with others - there is no need to allow overlapping. In the last few years of gaming i have never ever encountered this problem with boarding, and as i said before, we did not even try overlapping ever. But ofc ships can pass through each other.
-
don`t like the stacking rules, too. had some games last week and we tried that stacking thing. now my bases are full of scratches >:(
so please drop it!
-
Hi Guys,
In the rule book there is NO rule even suggesting that you can't stack/overlap ships, in fact it is mentioned that you can go over under other ships and even planets. If overlapping isn't allowed it would be strange not to mention such an important limitation and offer methods of moving ships with this restraint. E.g. add/remove speed not to end with bases overlapping.
This isn't a rule invention or crazy assumption.
I'm trying to prevent (friendly) overlapping, I'm not going to drop the issue. It's odd that you'd ask me to drop it since you obviously aren't a fan of overlapping. :)
You maybe a fan of area denial, preventing ships from boarding and for slow ships like the Emperor or Explorer turning due to lack of speed, but I’m not. This is unreasonable and unrealistic (as these things go).
Can anyone think of any other exploits you could use if you couldn’t end movement overlapping an enemy ship?
Prevent boarding, preventing full movement, prevent turning of slow ships, forcing extra movement to hit ordy/asteroids etc, forcing a ship to turn. Note: 2 escorts can force a ship to move 12cm straight forward (or have to make a turn) if it has a small base, if the ship had a large base it would be considerably further.
Herding ships is ridiculous, hence why I’m for overlapping of enemy ships!
phil-o-mat,
How did you scratch your bases? I’ve never had that problem..(do you file the bottom?)
Kraken,
Actually that might be a really good way of getting the Voidstalker in the CWE list for the time being.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Admittedly It might also make the prince and his ultra expensive re- rolls a bit more attractive ...
-
Can anyone think of any other exploits you could use if you couldn’t end movement overlapping an enemy ship?
My innocent comment I first made when concerned about non-overlapping enemies... You have potential of denying your opponent a double broadside. I can't tell you how many times my opponents have had to say "I'm moving between your two ships right there, but I'm placing my ship 5cm in front since it doesn't fit". This allows them to make a great offensive maneuver as a reward for clever navigating (or my poor command skills) and after I move my ships we adjust his ship's position according to where it should have been.**
As I said before, if you can some how compensate for all the edge cases that would affect an enemies ability to maneuver advantageously then I'm fine without overlapping ( i.e. I get to move past, but shoot my broadsides), but that would probably entail a large amount of FAQ text to accomplish such a compromise for each possible case. I guess I'm the black sheep, but not allowing my opponent to overlap, or represent overlap in some clear manor, seems to have potential for changing the feeling of the game. Also, it just feels so out of spirit to strictly deny space (no option to move) on the board when there is nothing else in the rules that does that.
Russ
** I mean seriously, is it really that hard to just place a ship offset along it's heading from where it should be?! The only thing one needs is some tokens with numbers on them. If a ship is 5cm off from where it should be, you just put a reminder beside it and all measurements to that ship's steam occur from that "phantom" point, not where the model currently is. My group does this all the time without confusion or need to compensate in the rules.
-
Seriously Ray, if you start negating us all on overlapping I am going to think you are a member of the government.
I've seen no one here being in favour of overlapping. Or did I miss someone. In that case: sorry. ;)
-
Seriously Ray, if you start negating us all on overlapping I am going to think you are a member of the government.
I've seen no one here being in favour of overlapping. Or did I miss someone. In that case: sorry. ;)
If you read my post carefully, I'm saying that allowing enemies to overlap is not a problem. I don't think people should actually stack bases ontop of each other, but I do think there are solutions to allowing enemy ships to be moved wherever they want without simply denying the player his move.
Russ
-
Hi Guys,
In the rule book there is NO rule even suggesting that you can't stack/overlap ships, in fact it is mentioned that you can go over under other ships and even planets. If overlapping isn't allowed it would be strange not to mention such an important limitation and offer methods of moving ships with this restraint. E.g. add/remove speed not to end with bases overlapping.
Take this with humor Ray, but there's also no rule saying I can't get the metal Kroot sphere and whack someone on the head with it. If the rule is available then point it out. Otherwise, it is not and that...
This isn't a rule invention or crazy assumption.
...Yes, you ARE assuming seeing as you cannot point out an explicit rule.
I'm trying to prevent (friendly) overlapping, I'm not going to drop the issue. It's odd that you'd ask me to drop it since you obviously aren't a fan of overlapping. :)
No Ray, I'm not asking you to simply drop it. I've even given a couple of reasons why you should. That's not just simply asking you to drop the issue. Unless you can provide us with a solid, beneficial-to-the-game reason WHY Overlapping SHOULD be in the game, especially your version, you will not get any support from us naysayers or change our minds.
You maybe a fan of area denial, preventing ships from boarding and for slow ships like the Emperor or Explorer turning due to lack of speed, but I’m not. This is unreasonable and unrealistic (as these things go).
Huh! So increase the speed of the Emperor or Explorer. Will you? No, I don't think so. Fluffwise, will you even try to board a ship knowing there is a bigger ship out there waiting to pound you? No, you wouldn't. You want to be able to board ships, fine, change the rule to say if a ship is within 5cm or the target, you may initiate boarding even if the ship has shields up. Simple is it not? Much better than allowing overlapping bases both in rules and actual gameplay.
Can anyone think of any other exploits you could use if you couldn’t end movement overlapping an enemy ship?
Yes. I shoot at the enemy ship. I knock down the shields. I do a H&R attack. I send my AC and/or torps and attack the blocked ship, AC avoiding the blocking base and torps shooting through the blocking base. Yes, there are many exploits I can use to get at the ship being blocked physically by another base. See Ray? I have other options to use than Boarding which may actually even hurt my ships.
Prevent boarding, preventing full movement, prevent turning of slow ships, forcing extra movement to hit ordy/asteroids etc, forcing a ship to turn. Note: 2 escorts can force a ship to move 12cm straight forward (or have to make a turn) if it has a small base, if the ship had a large base it would be considerably further.
Preventing full movement? Again borrow the rule from another system and move the bases around which causes the least disturbance. it's not going to be that much of a big deal. Aside from which, the base does not prevent full movement, rather it can be bothersome to position the place where the ship ends. It does not prevent a ship from turning. You can turn anywhere along the line of movement and move on from there as long as you meet the minimum movement requirements.
Herding ships is ridiculous, hence why I’m for overlapping of enemy ships!
Sorry but if you are allowing enemy ships to overlap their bases then too bad, you allow friendly ships overlap as well. Fair is fair. Ridiculous is not a game term nor is it a suitable and valid enough reason. Otherwise, if you allow this, then I find your insistence on allowing overlapping bases ridiculous in the first place.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind people putting a marker on the base and measuring from there. This is to avoid my problem about physically damaging the ships. But don't call it overlapping bases as people will assume you can literally overlap bases by stacking bases which will then realistically cause damage. Call it something else. placemarker or something. This way you can even discard the idea of friendly ships not allowing overlapping.
Maybe this is the issue here. What do you really mean by Overlapping, Ray? I (as in me, I do not know about the others) read it as you really want us to put our models on another model's base which I can tell you right now I do not approve of and I am pretty sure my opponent will not agree to as well since it realistically will cause damage. If you mean that a ship can exist at the same point in time on the table, then my last suggestion should have merit in application. Best to use markers and measure from that point.
-
Maybe this is the issue here. What do you really mean by Overlapping, Ray? I (as in me, I do not know about the others) read it as you really want us to put our models on another model's base which I can tell you right now I do not approve of and I am pretty sure my opponent will not agree to as well since it realistically will cause damage. If you mean that a ship can exist at the same point in time on the table, then my last suggestion should have merit in application. Best to use markers and measure from that point.
I don't think anyone is talking about physically stacking the models!? The point is that an enemy ship should be allowed to exist at a point on the table that in occupied by an opponents base. If this is represented by an offset with a marker as I've described in my above post or some other method other than physical stacking, then great. It would be nice if there was an "official" way to handle the scenario in the upcoming FAQ. I suppose if someone wants to actually stack there models then they can do so, but it would be best discouraged by having an "official offset method" in my opinion
With this in mind, I still firmly agree that a friendly ship can not occupy a point on the board covered by another friendly vessel due to all the abuse that has been described by others.
I hope we are starting to get someplace with this discussion. :)
Russ
-
I do not agree. It is either all bases overlap (enemy & friendly) or none. Such a thing is what I consider a core mechanic which needs to be as simple as possible.
-
the scratches were not from escorts or cruisers. they were from a highly modified battlebarge in the one game and from a tombship in another.
bye, phil
edit: my bases are painted (black), i don`t like those acrylic bases. so, the scratches are all just scraches of the paint, but they still sXXk!
-
Hi Guys,
The Assumption: I suppose I am assuming that bases can overlap, but you are assuming that they can’t. Now all other table top games that spring to mind have no overlapping with a clearly defined rule like no enemy with 1†or 5cm, granted most of these games are ground based. But a few space ship games have the no overlapping rule as well, in which case they celebrate this fact with a few paragraphs of explanation and methods of dealing with it when it is unavoidable.
So it is either an oversight that no overlapping wasn’t explained or even mentioned in the rulebook, or area denial wasn’t an intention in the rules at all, which given the 3D element seems reasonable.
So at current we have a situation where any ship may overlap or stack.
Models and bases: Of course removing the models that are overlapping or stacking is necessary, with lines on the bases determining direction and one model remaining if possible.
Friendly overlapping exploits:
Hiding ships with small bases inside the perimeter of ships with large bases preventing ordnance from attacking it (unless torpedoes which will attack after).
Stacking Necron escorts/capital ships for massed turrets and making them more efficient at moving and firing.
Stacking Eldar for efficient moving and firing. However blast markers may be more destructive.
Necrons gain heavily and some ships can’t be attacked with ordnance. A Dictator with a large base squadroned with a Dauntless is straight out abuse IMO. Given these weird advantages coupled with wasting the great BFG models and the clumsiness of overlapping bases I would say NO to friendly overlapping. A fluff reason could be that it is considered too risky by most admirals.
NO overlapping exploits (area denial):
Stopping ships from turning by reducing their movement. (especially easy to do to slow BB’s).
Stopping ships from moving their full distance.
Forcing ships to move further than they wanted. (possibly into ordnance or celestial phenomenon).
Forcing a ship to turn by occupying the length of movement including a little of the minimum movement and all of the extra. (preventing Lock-on, and changing its firing angles).
Denying ships getting both broadsides on close vessels.
Preventing boarding.
I dislike all of these conditions, they’re unrealistic and change the state of play massively with unreasonable tactics. So a NO to not being able to overlap with enemy ships.
If I had to pick between no overlapping or full overlapping I’d pick the later as its exploitability is felt far less. But we can do better by allowing ships to overlap with enemy ships, eliminating all exploits from both!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I'm with you all the way Ray, except for your preferance of full overlapping if all else fails.
You also safed me the work of writing a long text myself, I was just in the middle of it. ;D
I would just like to add a part of what I had already written down:
The rules say this:
"To allow for the vagaries of three dimensions and the vast distances involved, ships can move and fire past each other without any risks."(page 6)
And thats it, at least all I can find about it. Since ships have limited speed and maneuverability it is entirely possible within the rules, that they will end up so close to each other that their bases overlap. Now what?
"To prevent this becoming a problem in the game it is assumed that the ships actually occupy the point in space shown by the stem of their base."(also page 6)
The rules do allow overlapping of bases albeit implicit. Ray is not making this up. The rules are also not very vocal about an issue that can be quite important in some situations. So its a good idea to clear it up.
How would people feel about the following:
Bases Overlapping and Stacking: At the end of the movement phase friendly bases may not overlap if possible. Keep in mind the movement of ships that can't turn before moving your ships. Intentionally overlapping with enemy bases is still possible.
Seems to me a good solution. Maybe change it further that ships with fixed speed/course must be moved first
-
Ray
i do not think the examples you give of friendly stacking are egregious at all!
i would be fine with allowing it.
-
not necessarily related, but what kind of dictators are you using, Ray? All I know of use the small base like the dauntless. Second, all of the scenarios you've posted regarding possible exploits with overlapping friendly and enemy bases seem rather... precise in their implementation and you seem to be disallowing the possibility of moving over the enemy base entirely.
Stopping ships from turning by reducing their movement. (especially easy to do to slow BB’s).
Ok, possible, but who in the their right mind parks that close to a BB. Easily countered by the BB boarding or AAF over the ship entirely, besides, why not just shoot at the BB for the same effect? (looking at IN BB, thats ripe picking for the empys full complement of bombers backed up by the forward S10 batteries. Ret, yes please do, s9 torpedoes, s3 lances. Oberon, Empy light. Apoc, ok, not much here, why not lock on or board?)
Stopping ships from moving their full distance... Forcing ships to move further than they wanted. (possibly into ordnance or celestial phenomenon).
This will probably happen more often, but I think that the method posted on the old forums of placing the model on the other side of the base if movement takes it past the stem and placing it in front if it doesn't works well. On the second part, no one forces the ship to move into the ordnance or phenomena, there are other options available that don't end up that way which makes this seem contrived.
Forcing a ship to turn by occupying the length of movement including a little of the minimum movement and all of the extra. (preventing Lock-on, and changing its firing angles).
I'm not seeing how this one works. It seems relatively complicated to achieve and like all of the exploits, parking in front of a ship like that doesn't seem the safest place to be.
Denying ships getting both broadsides on close vessels.
I don't see an issue with someone moving in close formation to prevent this from happening. getting both broadsides isn't a right. Sitting ships that close opens them for other attacks like torpedoes or NC strikes to encourage them to move further apart and allow you to get those dual broadsides.
-
because of some of those dirty tricks ray presented, i revoke my previous revoke, and re-agree with ray. No Friendly Overlapping. (but know i still hate having to pull my cruisers off their bases and put them off the side of the table, asking myself why i bought them in the first place if i'm just playing close range slugging matches with flying bases...)
no friendly overlapping simplifies much, while 'altering the core mechanics' very little.
-
Fracas,
Indeed, the exploits capable with friendly overlapping feel somewhat realistic and are minor, except with Necrons (but massed turrets have been reduced to +3 anyway, even with overlapping allowed). However removing models due to swarming isn’t really ideal. This would be my main reason for disallowing it.
(Ps: Thanks for teaching me a new word!)
Vaaish,
Dictators and Dauntless combo: All capital ships may replace their small bases with large bases, from the last FAQ. So the Dictator could have a large one with the Dauntless hiding inside.
Affecting movement: A single escort vs a large flying base has a circular area denial of 9cm across (add both bases together). This is useable against BB’s with 15cm or 20cm speed. This is also large enough that if placed correctly will always be overlapping with a 15cm movement!
Against a cruiser 2 escorts can deny a 12cm line which against a 20cm speed cruiser can ‘force’ it to turn.
You could also place a ship to stop a ship from moving its minimum, forcing it to go further and possibly turn due to obstacles.
Both Broadsides: What’s wrong with this fluff/gamewise?
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Dictators and Dauntless combo:
We have more serious problems afoot if people start doing this. Personally I'd be leery of someone showing up with large base on any imperial ship outside of the CG and BB's. Smells highly of WAAC or at least lawyering since that would probably be the only benefit of adding a large size base to a ship of that size.
A single escort vs a large flying base has a circular area denial of 9cm across
Ok, and a single escort isn't going to be that hard to either board or shoot to oblivion for the trouble of denying the BB passage. At the very least, the BB can AAF past the escort. IT doesn't seem like an overly useful tactic.
Against a cruiser 2 escorts can deny a 12cm line which against a 20cm speed cruiser can ‘force’ it to turn.
You could also place a ship to stop a ship from moving its minimum, forcing it to go further and possibly turn due to obstacles.
Again, this would require some pretty precise timing and placement to pull off and assuming the other player is more than a little off his game for not compensating. Again, there are other options and no guarantee that LO is the only order of use.
-
Hi Guys,
The Assumption: I suppose I am assuming that bases can overlap, but you are assuming that they can’t. Now all other table top games that spring to mind have no overlapping with a clearly defined rule like no enemy with 1†or 5cm, granted most of these games are ground based. But a few space ship games have the no overlapping rule as well, in which case they celebrate this fact with a few paragraphs of explanation and methods of dealing with it when it is unavoidable.
So it is either an oversight that no overlapping wasn’t explained or even mentioned in the rulebook, or area denial wasn’t an intention in the rules at all, which given the 3D element seems reasonable.
So at current we have a situation where any ship may overlap or stack.
Not a situation which automatically means stacking is allowed. I can point out that FAQ prevents ordnance from being stacked. That would indicate a no overlapping or stacking assumption.
Models and bases: Of course removing the models that are overlapping or stacking is necessary, with lines on the bases determining direction and one model remaining if possible.
See Russ? This meant the idea was about physically overlapping, not just putting a marker.
Friendly overlapping exploits:
Hiding ships with small bases inside the perimeter of ships with large bases preventing ordnance from attacking it (unless torpedoes which will attack after).
Large bases won't be able to hide against small bases. Small bases maybe able to hide inside large bases. If this is the case, I would suggest the active player decides which ship the ordnance can attack first if it has the distance to reach both bases. Ex. If AC only had enough speed to reach the big base, then that would be the only ship attacked. If it was enough to reach the other base, then the attacking player gets a choice which to attack. East enough to measure anyway. This problem would not happen if bases did not overlap. But if you insist on overlapping, then too bad, you have to take the bad with the good. I would insist that I have access to friendly advantages as well as disadvantages. Fair is fair Ray.
Stacking Necron escorts/capital ships for massed turrets and making them more efficient at moving and firing.
It's not as if you can't do the same if ships can't overlap. Massed turrets work on the assumption of ships in B2B contact. Not a good reason.
Stacking Eldar for efficient moving and firing. However blast markers may be more destructive.
You mean they're not as efficient even if they don't stack? C'mon. Not a good reason.
Necrons gain heavily and some ships can’t be attacked with ordnance. A Dictator with a large base squadroned with a Dauntless is straight out abuse IMO. Given these weird advantages coupled with wasting the great BFG models and the clumsiness of overlapping bases I would say NO to friendly overlapping. A fluff reason could be that it is considered too risky by most admirals.
Again not a good reason. The issue is only with ordnance, easily addressed by something similar to the rule I made above. Sorry but fluff reason is if the ships need to defend against ordnance, then grouping together to concentrate their firepower against ordnance makes more sense.
NO overlapping exploits (area denial):
Stopping ships from turning by reducing their movement. (especially easy to do to slow BB’s).
Stopping ships from moving their full distance.
Forcing ships to move further than they wanted. (possibly into ordnance or celestial phenomenon).
Forcing a ship to turn by occupying the length of movement including a little of the minimum movement and all of the extra. (preventing Lock-on, and changing its firing angles).
Again I cannot fathom how you can come to this conclusion. If you are allowing overlapping bases it means the ship can exist at the same point, regardless of whether both bases are friend or foe. The point here is that overlapping is allowed. And so, the ship should not stop and instead proceed as if there is no base in that area and continue to turn.The ship should not be forced to turn. I do not know where you get this idea that a ship's movement is reduced or a ship is forced to turn just because it is in another ship's base. This only happens if there is a no overlapping rule and I again point out that since you insist on this, both sides should benefit.
Denying ships getting both broadsides on close vessels.
As well it should. if you don't have the space to fire both your broadsides, why should you be able to?
Preventing boarding.
Addressed similarly like my rule with ordnance. Not that hard to get a B2B contact with a ship hidden by a large base.
I dislike all of these conditions, they’re unrealistic and change the state of play massively with unreasonable tactics. So a NO to not being able to overlap with enemy ships.
Fine if you want to change the rules but you cannot limit it to only enemy. You cannot just take the good and leave the bad. You open up being able to overlap enemy bases, well for sure as hell, you allow friendly bases overlapping as well. You're giving an advantage to the enemy while at the same time denying the advantage to the friendly and the disadvantage to the enemy. I do not like limiting overlapping only to enemy ships.
-
because of some of those dirty tricks ray presented, i revoke my previous revoke, and re-agree with ray. No Friendly Overlapping. (but know i still hate having to pull my cruisers off their bases and put them off the side of the table, asking myself why i bought them in the first place if i'm just playing close range slugging matches with flying bases...)
no friendly overlapping simplifies much, while 'altering the core mechanics' very little.
Sorry but I don't think such "dirty" tricks are indeed dirty. Those are just the advantages a player can use for his own which would not happen if the no overlapping rule was followed.
So Ray has a choice, either to allow overlapping or disallow it. I would not agree to only one side benefiting from an overlapping rule.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
This isn't a case of one player getting an advantage over the other in any way! My proposal is that your ships may overlap with enemy ships, their ships can overlap with yours, but your ships can't overlap with yours and their ships can't overlap with theirs.
If overlapping was allowed entirely this would reduce the presence/number of models on the table for fleets that want to stack (Necrons, Eldar, and Nids). Weapons range does get a small boost along with turning and speed as there is no slowest ship to slow you down or to slightly have the wrong facing. For Necrons the advantage here is that you can't chip away at the massed turret formation to open a weak point.
Earlier I suggested that if a ship's base is completely inside another AC should be allowed to select it as a target, this is a rule addition. This would solve the Dauntless/Dictator scenario.
Either way just like with AC, hiding models isn't very favourable and in the case of curved bases it’s quite clumsy as well.
No overlapping at all does throw spanners in the works with area denial. You seem to think that it's hard to predict if a player wants to turn a ship or not, which I can't really agree with. Also stopping a BB in its tracks (or forcing it to go on special orders) is easily worth the life of an escort. But then area denial doesn't have to be suicidal, you do still get to shoot, launch ordy or what have you, it’s just an extra weapon in your arsenal. A weapon that shouldn’t exist!
Boarding while being near (within 2000km) other ships and flying closely in between ships to broadside both of them seems fair and realistic. I don’t quite see why these should be disallowed.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Again, Ray, that's the good and the bad. You want to allow overlapping, then you allow both enemy and friendly ships to overlap. A player can do what you pointed out. These would be that players advantage. Disallowing it would rob that person of options. I don't think that's fair.
If it reduces the models on the table then tough. That's what you get.
On the subject of no overlapping, no game is perfect. Some compromises have to be made since there is no way at the moment to have a true 3D miniature game. It's still a 2D game with 3D ideas thrown in. You can't perfect it. No overlapping simplifies things. Maybe too much. But it has less problems than introducing overlapping then deliberately removing overlapping advantages to one side.
Might as well not have overlapping then if you just want to limit it to enemy.
-
Going to state my opinion here.
I do not believe friendly vessels should be allowed to overlap with each other as a tactic. If friendly vessels "collide" or overlap due to getting better firing angles that's one thing. But as a tactic, in my opinion, should not be allowed. It takes away models from the table, provides no real combat advatage that is already present with the rules, and in general, seems like it would look out of place on a space game table.
Ships from opposing sides should be allowed to overlap bases with each other. The only negative to this maneuver is any blast markers inflicted will affect all vessels. True, it's a tricky matter trying to maneuver models on a game table in that distance. In this case, you can easily use something as a substitute for the ship(s).
-Zhukov
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Why don't you want to mix no overlapping of friendly bases with overlapping of enemy bases? Why should we be limited to all or nothing?
Cheers,
RayB
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Why don't you want to mix no overlapping of friendly bases with overlapping of enemy bases? Why should we be limited to all or nothing?
Cheers,
RayB
i've come around to agreeable with enemies overlapping but not friendlies
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Why don't you want to mix no overlapping of friendly bases with overlapping of enemy bases? Why should we be limited to all or nothing?
Cheers,
RayB
As I pointed out, you're limiting options to one side of the table. Friendlies cannot have defensive advantages while the enemy player can do everything from shooting to ordnance to teleport attacks to boarding? I think not.
I have addressed every problem you think may come up and the solutions are fairly simple.
Overlapping friendlies do not prevent enemy ships from shooting at any of them as long as they pass the check for shooting at a target closer. If both are at the same point, then the enemy player gets to choose.
Same with boarding. As long as the enemy ship can touch the base of the ship under the template, than it should be allowed to board that ship.
AC rules should be modified similar to boarding. If the AC can get to the small based ship under a large based ship, then player gets to choose which to attack with the caveat that massed turrets will work against the AC attacking as it should.
There is no way that an enemy ship's speed or turning should be hampered by another base in any way.
On the other hand, any advantages which friendlies get by overlapping should be allowed. Massed turrets is one advantage and I would say this should be changed to be included in boarding actions. If 2 ships can gang up on one ship, then two ships being so close together should also be able to assist each other by adding their turrets. Possible prevention of broadsides being able to hit 2 targets. I am pretty sure there will be others.
Both sides MUST benefit from overlapping. Otherwise, let it not exist at all.
-
We already more or less play without overlapping most of the time. it simply doesnt make much sense to play with nicly painted models if u have to put away half of them. even with putting away models the problem is not solved because even the bases arent free to place obove each other.
So most of the time i simply move my ships in ways that make it possible to have them all on their bases. Maybe thats an disadvantage sometimes. And yes in really close fights when fleets engage each other it just happens as you wont turn only because there is no space.
So after all we more or less play without friendly overlapping and with enemy overlapping. That makes the most sense practically.
-
As I pointed out, you're limiting options to one side of the table. Friendlies cannot have defensive advantages while the enemy player can do everything from shooting to ordnance to teleport attacks to boarding? I think not.
Both sides MUST benefit from overlapping. Otherwise, let it not exist at all.
Once again, why all or nothing? This isn't unfair, both sides are affected equally!
Area denial is an ugly mechanic for a naval space game, especially at this scale!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Fairness Ray. Simple fairness.
And to reiterate again: There is NO area denial. It's just a matter of introducing rules to reiterate and clarify that idea. Now if you don't want to introduce the mechanics, then drop the idea of overlapping.
-
@Admiral
Whats not fair about Rays suggestion? Both players have the same condition for playing theirs fleets.
@Topic
I dont like the idea of haveing to set aside my minitures to play successfull, so persanally i wouldnt like to be allowed to overlap my own ships.
-
Allowing Overlapping but only between enemies. Friendlies can't Overlap. That's unfair.
-
Technically they already can overlap. However, D'Artagnan, you want a new rule for using overlapping as a tactic. I don't believe that's a good idea.
-Zhukov
-
Allowing Overlapping but only between enemies. Friendlies can't Overlap. That's unfair.
You are your opponents enemy from his point of view, don´t get confused about this.
It´s not BETWEEN enemies, only if an enemy ship overlaps with one of yours or yours with one of the enemy !
-
Uh, wot?
-
@Admiral
I still dont get whats unfair about that. I dont think a game can be unfair to a part of itself (e.g. a ship) it only can be unfair to the players. As the rule is the same for both players its not unfair.
Giving players alternative fleets with different rules is a lot more unfair (as the two players have different options strenght and weaknesses) and still its part of the game and most players like to have it like that. They rather have some unfair situations (balancing question) then playing with the completely same fleets what would be a lot more fair. E.g. Chess is a lot more fair in that way.
-
The overlapping issue is HA sorted: You can do it without limit, but AC can attack small bases hidding in large bases. Note: if bases overlap and a ship is destroyed it's BM may take down a shield of the ships base whom it is overlaping, otherwise it can't. Also massed turrets are limited to +3.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Ray, was massed turrets too powerful? I don't see why a limit was needed on it. I might understand if the the massed turrets also applied to the reduction in bomber attacks, but as I see now, massed turrets really doesn't add a whole lot outside of escorts and fleet defense turrets for admech.
-
The overlapping issue is HA sorted: You can do it without limit, but AC can attack small bases hidding in large bases.
..and torpedoes can not? So I can protect my Repulsive from boarding torps by putting it "inside" my Desolater? (I could not do this in good conscience, but I'm sure a number of people will squeeze every edge case benefit out of this official ruling that they can) Was there any play testing to try and sort out if the game changes or to find any other ways this can be abused?
If two ships with the same base size are on-top of each other, how do I determine which base the torps are resolved against first? A die roll or attacker/defender choice? What if two ships stacked fire torps...since the torps come from the stem, do they automatically hit the other friendly ship?
What about AC stacking? Is that permitted now or is this only for ship bases? How about defenses, can they stack?
Russ
-
Good call on torps Russ. That'll be a general tactic vs Tau who need the Missile/Bomber synergy to win.
Just go base on base.
I see the tournaments going down with this. The playability I mean!
-
Also, the rules for AC attacking overlapping ships is a complete contradiction to the rules "Ordnance attacks are ALWAYS solved immediately" and "Ordnance markers must always attack the first ordnance or vessel they come in contact with (when applicable)". I see the resolution was to create a special clause ("oh, except in this case..."). I generally find that rules that create the need for special clauses is a good indicator that it's a poorly constructed rule.
What happened? Clearly I favor: a ship can end move overlapping an enemy, but not a friendly. I feel this is pretty true to how the game currently plays and doesn't result in a bunch of edge cases. BUT, not overlapping at all is certainly better then the proposed FAQ overlapping rules.
I'm concerned that the text of the FAQ is now larger then the rule book. This might be an indication that the wording can be streamlined and I've noticed some statements already exist in the core rulebook and have been redundantly inserted into the FAQ. Example: "If a combination of ships in a squadron has a firepower value greater than 20..."
Russ
-
Hi Russ,
I'm with you on the overlapping bases vote, but I was unable to convince my colleges to vote with me (as they were going for as little changes as possible). But it's not a mess!
Torps can hit a ship hiding in a large base, but they'll hit the big base first.
Defences can stack!
Massed turrets when combined in such away as Necron escort squadrons stacked on capital ships can get into the crazy numbers of 10 or more turrets easily with little ill effect. So the +3 limit was imposed.
On the point of rewriting the rulebook- an unofficial copy incorporating the FAQ would be a great work of human civilization! ;D When this FAQ is 'fixed', I can really see this happening, if I can get a few volunteers! ;)
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Torps can hit a ship hiding in a large base, but they'll hit the big base first.
I'll take a good hard look at the FAQ and give you better feedback on all things as soon as I get the time...but in the mean time:
You will need to add a clarification to the FAQ about how to resolve torps against two bases of exactly the same size that are stacked perfectly on top of one-another.
Russ
-
Ray, an unofficial version of the BBB isn't likely to be possible. The pdfs for the main rulebook are all image based with no selectable or editable text in it. The armada pdfs though can be edited to a degree.
-
Sorry for the double post, but I've been thinking about the limit of +3 turrets for massing. I can see your reasoning for the limit but I think it weakens escorts unnecessarily. Could the change limit massed turrets on capital ships to +3 and escorts to +6 (the maximum size their squadrons can be to prevent multiple 6 strong escort squadrons from stacking and gaining ridiculous turret strength).
-
On the point of rewriting the rulebook- an unofficial copy incorporating the FAQ would be a great work of human civilization! ;D When this FAQ is 'fixed', I can really see this happening, if I can get a few volunteers! ;)
Cheers,
RayB HA
Great!
attack craft basing ruling?
-
I'd rather update the CWE pdf's ;)
-
Hi all! I'm going to try and help Ray out here. Here are teh thoughts Ray and I shared concerning some of these.
Blast Markers: Having them count all around happened a lot longer ago than this current FAQ. What was hapening was that by NOT having them count all around, players with a blast marker behind them were saying "I'm not slowed down because I'm not moving through it." This ws particularly irksome against Eldar, which tend to come in, shoot and run away, making it very dfficult to EVER get a closing shot on them.
As for blast markers being shared with other ships in base contact, that rule is as old as the massing turret rule itself. If massing turrets didn't come with a shortcoming, BFG would be reduced to a game where escorts did nothing but hover around battleships, which was never their intent.
Unfortunately, what we have discovered during this process with every ruling is that we constanty have to examine the fairness and balance of the rules against the worst way the rule can be broken. It sucks having to do it like that, but it isn't fair for everyone else if we accidentally incorporate something that gives cheaters an unfair advantage. Trust me- you would be AMAZED at some of the stuff I've seen...
Hi Ray,
this:
Blast Markers and multiple bases: When a ship has multiple bases in contact and its shield goes down, the blast marker may be placed anywhere on this ships base potentially taking down other ships shields. This has no limitation to the number of ships shields the blast marker can take down.
Could that please be changed? It is a real downer to escorts which need massing versus the assault boat dread and now are hampered by this in the shooting phase.
I say old rules for blastmarkers:
Place them in arc where gunnery came from, direct line. Thus no attacker decision to place them so to drop all shields.
And when we are at it drop that ruling that markers count as all around.
Hi Don Gusto,
tabletop effect: that is pretty well explained in the rules... :
SUN - TARGET - ATTACKING SHIP:
If distance between target and attacking ship is above 30cm two column shifts right instead of one.
If distance between target and attacking ship is under 15cm shift left
iirc ;) Check the ranges I say.
Turret suppresion:it does make sense: see Star Wars ;)
-
Sorry for the double post, but I've been thinking about the limit of +3 turrets for massing. I can see your reasoning for the limit but I think it weakens escorts unnecessarily. Could the change limit massed turrets on capital ships to +3 and escorts to +6 (the maximum size their squadrons can be to prevent multiple 6 strong escort squadrons from stacking and gaining ridiculous turret strength).
The +3 turret limit actually doesn't create much of a difference except for specific situations where players are purposely stacking ships (and in some cases entire fleets!) in order to create statistically impossible situations, which is what this rule is supposed to correct.
I'm a big fan of escorts and typically fly them in very tight formations. When bases are in contact with each other and NOT stacked, teh most you can get in contact with any one escort to protect it against attack craft is five others. "Wai a minute Nate, you can actually get six if you get them in a circle all around!" Correct, but when you do this, the escort in the missle is now essentially invisble to ordnance because no marker can get past the ring of bses to get to the ship in the middle.
That's all fine, but even with the +3 limitation, a single Sword +3 is now rolling 5D6, the same strength as an Emperor battleship! Now every escort in contact with it is also individually rolling the same turret strength! Keep in mind that ships can now brace against hit and run attacks so a-boats are no longer teh "escort killers" they used to be. The intent of massing turrets rule was to negate attack craft's overpowering ability over escorts, not to neuter attack craft as a weapon system in BFG.
- Nate
-
I'd rather update the CWE pdf's ;)
We're working on that as well. If you happen to have a self-printed copy of the BFG living rulebook, you will be happy to know the final copy of the FAQ will be in landscape format with lots of BFG-themed graphics and backgrounds (GW artwork, not fan-made).
Good times!
- Nate
-
The overlapping issue is HA sorted: You can do it without limit, but AC can attack small bases hidding in large bases.
..and torpedoes can not? So I can protect my Repulsive from boarding torps by putting it "inside" my Desolater? (I could not do this in good conscience, but I'm sure a number of people will squeeze every edge case benefit out of this official ruling that they can) Was there any play testing to try and sort out if the game changes or to find any other ways this can be abused?
If two ships with the same base size are on-top of each other, how do I determine which base the torps are resolved against first? A die roll or attacker/defender choice? What if two ships stacked fire torps...since the torps come from the stem, do they automatically hit the other friendly ship?
What about AC stacking? Is that permitted now or is this only for ship bases? How about defenses, can they stack?
Russ
Yes, attack craft can now pick out shps hiding inside a ships base, which are basically treated as if boteh bases are edge-on when the attack craft touch it. Keep in mind that massing turrets still works normally in this case.
No, this would NOT work for torpedoes. Torpedoes are much dumber than attack craft, just as a Harpoon missile is far more dangerous against friendly ships than say an F/A-18 Hornet. I would say torpedoes will only attack the first base they come in contact with, but that's just coming from me without rolling any dice and has not yet been discussed with Ray and Bob.
Bases stacking on each other is supposed to result from an unhappy accident when trying to move your ships maximum distance and optimum firing arc. If a player is purposely stacking their ships so perfectly that they are for all intents and purposes occupying teh same place in 2D space and there's no way to tell which one is closer, then I say the attacking payer gets to pick, just as teh attacking player gets to pick if firing between closing and abeam if the target ship is right on the line between fire arcs. Again, that's just me.
Two ships stacking torpedoes when firing doesn't work the same way because individual ships launch ordnance separately, just as they shoot separately. If they happen to be in a squadron it isn't an issue either because if in a squadron AND in base contact, they may combine torp salvoes (except Ork Ravagers). Now if a friendly ship is in base contact and "firing through" another friendlly ship that it is not in a squadron with, the rule in the past has been that you have to defend yourself. However, I have always played it that if teh friendly ships were actually in base contact, they don't have to, following the same logic of how squadrons behave. That however is NOT in the FAQ an will need an HA ruling- I'll get to work on that. See, this is why having you guys dissect a first draft works so great!
We have specifically ruled in the FAQ against AC in an individual wave stacking,though there is no reason why different waves can't stack as long as they are ALWAYS treated as different waves, including when attacking and being atacked. Defenses on the other hand don't move. While I don't have a problem with defenses being in base contact, actually stacking defenses is just plan cheating. I say no and boo, but that's just me and will require an HA ruling.
- Nate
-
Also, the rules for AC attacking overlapping ships is a complete contradiction to the rules "Ordnance attacks are ALWAYS solved immediately" and "Ordnance markers must always attack the first ordnance or vessel they come in contact with (when applicable)". I see the resolution was to create a special clause ("oh, except in this case..."). I generally find that rules that create the need for special clauses is a good indicator that it's a poorly constructed rule.
What happened? Clearly I favor: a ship can end move overlapping an enemy, but not a friendly. I feel this is pretty true to how the game currently plays and doesn't result in a bunch of edge cases. BUT, not overlapping at all is certainly better then the proposed FAQ overlapping rules.
I'm concerned that the text of the FAQ is now larger then the rule book. This might be an indication that the wording can be streamlined and I've noticed some statements already exist in the core rulebook and have been redundantly inserted into the FAQ. Example: "If a combination of ships in a squadron has a firepower value greater than 20..."
Russ
Russ,
Excellent points all around! I know what you mean, and it was a big concern of mine as well. Right now the FAQ is a whopping 33 pages!! Granted when we re-format it into the final copy it will be a bit smaller, but it has nonetheless grown significantly. Some of teh repitition can come out of it, but we tried to address the fact that lots of people are still playing with the 1st Ed rulebook. One quick fix for that would be to simply state up front taht you ned teh 2nd-Ed rulebook or download the Living Rulebook to use this FAQ.
The biggest goal (and thus problem) with the FAQ is that its intended to provide solutions to problems that are not addressed in the current rules because in most cases, frankly they don't often come up in normal game play. For variety, the game comes with eight different races, each with their own rule set and special weapons, meaning there are multiple different ways a given tactic can take effect. If the rulebook tried to inclue the what-if for every possible scenario, it would be an extra 100 pages long. Teh opposite solution would be for all teh races to behave exactly the same way, in which case the game would be simple to learn with little to discuss but be about as interesting as Chess. Don't get me wrong, I like Chess, but I don't pay upwards of $35 a piece and the better part of two days of paint to play it!
- Nate
-
Hi Nate,
stacked ships fire torps individual. Yes. But what when these are in a squadron? Example: Repulsive with big base and Repulsive with small base. :)
On the CWE: nice. Do you have cool -new- space ship art as well?
-
Are there any plans for an official points calculator for designing own ships or shall we settle with Smothermann's formula?
Personally I preferred the more accurate calculations made by Shame Riel Krall at Port Maw (that is currently unavailable).
-
BFG is designed in such a way no formula will get there 100%.
And I think Smotherman is a good base. As the creator intended, a basic calculation, never a conclusive one. You need to adjust vs other vessels and playtest.
On the blastmarker issues earlier: well, it was easy in the past I think. Moving away is still touching so it still counted as being in contact for Ld and speed. I never saw the problem. Really.
-
I am good with 2cm square bases for torpedoes
But what happens when a squadron launches a combined torpedo attack? Each ship launches a marker (with a die to denote it's strength) and the markers line up?
-
Nate,
Welcome, I'm pleased that you are joining Ray on the "battlefront" to have a more direct participation in the conversation. I've begun a through critique of the entire FAQ text in horizon's post about the WIP version. Hopefully you and Ray will have the stamina to get through it all! :D
@ fracas,
I am good with 2cm square bases for torpedoes
I would be too, unfortunately the str2 torp marker is actually 1.5x2cm. It would be really nice to have all ordnance use the exact same base size, *nudge HA members, but I understand the choice to keep existing markers due to availability. Now that torps don't change size I'm encouraged to model and base some.
The more I think about it I'm concerned that they can no longer be used for area denial effectively. Also the smaller size will probably magnify the difficulty of hitting targets when combined with the torps inability to maneuver, as well as making it easier for ships to navigate around in the movement phase. I like a fixed size for sure, but my instincts tell me that using a str4 torp (or a 2x4cm marker) will not compromise to much, allowing torps to maintain most of their current feel.
This is one change that really really needs playtesting in my opinion to make sure the correct size is selected verse impact on how the game will play.
Russ
-
On the yahoo group some have been pretty vocal against the torp marked idea.
-
On the yahoo group some have been pretty vocal against the torp marked idea.
i saw that :)
would have added comments there as well but forgot my log on
standardizing ordnance bases is really needed imo.
the game will change some because of it but that is to be expected
and not the end of a very good game still
-
Your rulings about boarding values contradict themselves. In one you state that your boarding value does not include your turret value, and in the very next ruling you say that your boarding value is equal to your remaining hit points (plus your turret value if you are defending).
-
When you take a critical hit and you cannot apply it the rules say to take the next highest result. Is that the next numerically highest result, or the result higher up on the table?
e.g. you roll a 5 to damage the prow weapons, but you targeted a grandcruiser with no prow weapons so the result is irrelevant. Does it count as a 6 (the next numerically higher result), or port armament damage (which is above prow armament damaged on the table)?
-
higher result numerically which is also the higher result (more damaging) on the table. It goes from lowest to highest. The note under the table on the BBB has your exact example and pretty clearly shows it would be engine room.
-
higher result numerically which is also the higher result (more damaging) on the table. It goes from lowest to highest. The note under the table on the BBB has your exact example and pretty clearly shows it would be engine room.
Yes, except in Dan's specific example of it being a grand cruiser the new FAQ (page 23 of the draft) has ruled that prow critical's are completely ignored for whatever reason. So you won't move up the chart; You simply don't take any critical damage. ??? Why this is a necessary exception is beyond me.
Russ
-
Nate explained this on the yahoo group.
Deliberate.
I mean, there is still a prow to take damage even if nothing is there.
It is also a trade-off: Grand Cruisers without a prow weapon cannot take Exterminatus weapon.
I disagree with that by the way.
-
Sorry I forgot about the example under the table in the rulebook. It's so rare to get a game in I often forget what issues have come up before and if they've already been clarified.
I know my choice of example was poor now. I found the draft FAQ thread only minutes after posting, but I'd never expected such a unique (an quite random in my opinion) exclusion to be introduced. Every ship has a prow, dorsal area, keel, etc. regardless of whether any weapons are there are not. If the GC's are going to get to ignore prow criticals then there is no reason not to grant every ship such exceptions.
-
But now it does not ignore prow criticals!
-
Every ship has a prow, dorsal area, keel, etc. regardless of whether any weapons are there are not. If the GC's are going to get to ignore prow criticals then there is no reason not to grant every ship such exceptions.
I was rather surprised by the inclusion myself since I've never seen anything mentioned about grand cruisers being problematic and I've used them pretty extensively. However, despite all ships having those areas, the Vengeance and its variants are unique in that they are the only capital ships that do not mount any form of prow weapons which means they have a particular vulnerability to AB that no other capital ship has. While we shorten the name to prow criticals, it's actually a prow armament critical. Since all other captical ships have prow weapons, the same issue does not exist with them and doesn't necessitate the expansion of the changes to all other ships.
-
higher result numerically which is also the higher result (more damaging) on the table. It goes from lowest to highest. The note under the table on the BBB has your exact example and pretty clearly shows it would be engine room.
Yes, except in Dan's specific example of it being a grand cruiser the new FAQ (page 23 of the draft) has ruled that prow critical's are completely ignored for whatever reason. So you won't move up the chart; You simply don't take any critical damage. ??? Why this is a necessary exception is beyond me.
Russ
Here's why we did it. The Vengeance G Cis the only capital ship in the entire game from ANY fleet that doesn't have a prow weapon. What that means is that the ship now goes from a 1/6 chance of getting an Engine Room crit against attack craft to a 1/3 chance. Savvy players have figured this out and learned an easy way to really hurt this thing is to swamp it with assault boats.
One would think the easy fix is to simply give the Vengeance GC’s a prow weapon. However, the ship is used by both Imps and Chaos. What do we give it, and how much should it cost? This very quickly became a much thornier issue than we anticipated, which would have involved much more playtesting than we had an ability to commit to. The much easier fix was to make the enormous but otherwise impotent prow on this model good for something against assault boats to bring the model back into congruence with all the other capital ships in the game, hence the rule.
-
Vengeance only one?
Ehm... Excorsist, Avenger and the other (incl chaos variant) Grand Cruisers.... ;).
Repulsive is only CG with a prow weapon. Rest does not have one.
-
Yes, except in Dan's specific example of it being a grand cruiser the new FAQ (page 23 of the draft) has ruled that prow critical's are completely ignored for whatever reason. So you won't move up the chart; You simply don't take any critical damage. ??? Why this is a necessary exception is beyond me.
Russ
Here's why we did it. The Vengeance G Cis the only capital ship in the entire game from ANY fleet that doesn't have a prow weapon. What that means is that the ship now goes from a 1/6 chance of getting an Engine Room crit against attack craft to a 1/3 chance. Savvy players have figured this out and learned an easy way to really hurt this thing is to swamp it with assault boats.
One would think the easy fix is to simply give the Vengeance GC’s a prow weapon. However, the ship is used by both Imps and Chaos. What do we give it, and how much should it cost? This very quickly became a much thornier issue than we anticipated, which would have involved much more playtesting than we had an ability to commit to. The much easier fix was to make the enormous but otherwise impotent prow on this model good for something against assault boats to bring the model back into congruence with all the other capital ships in the game, hence the rule.
A fair explanation. I can see this as a note in the Graybox of all GC's (except Repulsive of course) that says they are immune to Prow Criticals. Thanks!
-
sorry horizon, I meant the grand cruisers collectively based on the vengeance hull not just the vengeance itself.
-
Hi Guys,
I’ve been a little busy recently and haven’t managed to pop by often. I should be back to normal by Monday or Tuesday (having just realised Monday is a bank holiday!).
Russ c,
Thanks for highlighting the torps hitting stacked ships of the same size situation.
The Torp base ‘should’ be 2cm by 2cm! The 2 torps should be based on a small warhammer base.
Roy,
What’s wrong with torps from a squadron in base contact? What does it matter about base size? The torps should just sail by.
Gron,
The Smotherman formula is quite terrible really. When calculating the value of a ship you really only have to consider how much damage will the ship cause. Its manoeuvrability, the amount of damage it can take and any special rules it has all affect this. Some components, like hits, can effect this exponentially (meaning a ship with twice the amount of hits will last twice as long against the same opponent), however there are exceptions like if a ship will usually be over-killed and therefore a few extra hits aren’t really that useful. Anyway, before I rant anymore, no- a points system is a pretty bad idea to throw out there as official rules!
Dan Lee,
For the purposes of multipliers, boarding values do not include turret strength.
If a critical has to be ‘upped’ it is higher numerically.
The Prow Crit sponge is only on the Vengeance and its variants.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Ray,
I don't know what I said....
-
stacked ships fire torps individual. Yes. But what when these are in a squadron? Example: Repulsive with big base and Repulsive with small base. :)
Hi Roy,
What's the beef? ;)
Cheers,
RayB
-
That the small base would hit the large base first. ;)
-
That the small base would hit the large base first. ;)
Which is as it should be. Don't fire dumb bombs when you're on top of your friend.
-
But with this stacking nonsense it is unclear weather this happens or not. :)
-
But with this stacking nonsense it is unclear weather this happens or not. :)
+1
-
How is it unclear? The torpedo marker makes contact with a base of the non-firing ship. Therefor, it gets hit with that salvo.
This is very clear.
-
Darkness, then read this:
Two ships stacking torpedoes when firing doesn't work the same way because individual ships launch ordnance separately, just as they shoot separately. If they happen to be in a squadron it isn't an issue either because if in a squadron AND in base contact, they may combine torp salvoes (except Ork Ravagers). Now if a friendly ship is in base contact and "firing through" another friendlly ship that it is not in a squadron with, the rule in the past has been that you have to defend yourself. However, I have always played it that if teh friendly ships were actually in base contact, they don't have to, following the same logic of how squadrons behave. That however is NOT in the FAQ an will need an HA ruling- I'll get to work on that. See, this is why having you guys dissect a first draft works so great!
- Nate
So Nate says:
when in squadron
eg Repulsive with small base in squadron with Repulsive on large base. Stacked. Small inside big base.
Torps are fired from furthest away ship = small base. Torp salvo combined.
Torp would hit large base first. But now it doesn't.
See, your normal rule doesn't work.
However Nate goes on and now goes for the possible ruling that torpedoes cannot hit friendly vessels when in base contact with friendly vessel.
That means I can put my Infidels behind a Desolator, touching its base, and fire through the Desolator without harming it.
It is going from quirky to quirky.
Nate states that stacking is in its core a rule for accidental movement issues. But I can see this developing into tactics and further.
-
Darkness, then read this:
Two ships stacking torpedoes when firing doesn't work the same way because individual ships launch ordnance separately, just as they shoot separately. If they happen to be in a squadron it isn't an issue either because if in a squadron AND in base contact, they may combine torp salvoes (except Ork Ravagers). Now if a friendly ship is in base contact and "firing through" another friendlly ship that it is not in a squadron with, the rule in the past has been that you have to defend yourself. However, I have always played it that if teh friendly ships were actually in base contact, they don't have to, following the same logic of how squadrons behave. That however is NOT in the FAQ an will need an HA ruling- I'll get to work on that. See, this is why having you guys dissect a first draft works so great!
- Nate
So Nate says:
when in squadron
eg Repulsive with small base in squadron with Repulsive on large base. Stacked. Small inside big base.
Torps are fired from furthest away ship = small base. Torp salvo combined.
Torp would hit large base first. But now it doesn't.
See, your normal rule doesn't work.
However Nate goes on and now goes for the possible ruling that torpedoes cannot hit friendly vessels when in base contact with friendly vessel.
That means I can put my Infidels behind a Desolator, touching its base, and fire through the Desolator without harming it.
It is going from quirky to quirky.
Nate states that stacking is in its core a rule for accidental movement issues. But I can see this developing into tactics and further.
Okay, here’s what I’m saying, and I will use your examples to try and clarify what I’m reading here:
1. Two Repulsives in a squadron, #1 on a small base, #2 on a large base, with #1 maneuvering so that it always stays inside the base of #2. This example assumes #1 is physically inside the base of #2 and not merely beside it or overlapping. Because they count as being in base contact, they can launch torpedoes in a single salvo, counting as having launched from the base FARTHEST from the ship being attacked, just as described on p.39 of the current rules. Here’s what happens according to the FAQ. If the squadron is attacked by ENEMY torpedoes, the torpedoes attack Repulsive #2 because they will never reach the base of Repulsive #1 hiding inside it. If the squadron is attacked by enemy attack craft, the attack craft can pick between Repulsive #1 or #2 as long as their movement allows them to physically reach #1. #1 and #2 can mass turrets with each other, but only against torpedoes or attack craft, not both.
2. Two Repulsives NOT in a squadron, #1 on a small base, #2 on a large base, with #1 maneuvering so that it always stays inside the base of #2. Again this example assumes #1 is physically inside the base of #2 and not merely beside it or overlapping. Because they are NOT in a squadron, they CANNOT launch torpedoes in a single salvo and must launch separate salvoes. Here’s what happens according to the FAQ. However, because they count as being in base contact, they can each fire torpedoes without the worry of their torpedoes immediately attacking the other Repulsive. Once again, if the squadron is attacked by ENEMY torpedoes, the torpedoes attack Repulsive #2 because they will never reach the base of Repulsive #1 hiding inside it. If the squadron is attacked by enemy attack craft, the attack craft can pick between Repulsive #1 or #2 as long as their movement allows them to physically reach #1. #1 and #2 can mass turrets with each other, but only against torpedoes or attack craft, not both.
Horizon, I know you’re worried about this developing into a tactic. Why this was in the FAQ is because it is ALREADY a tactic. Necron players that don’t launch ordnance discovered that by hiding their escorts inside the base of a Tombship, their escorts essentially become invisible to ordnance. The knee-jerk reaction the HA’s had to this tactic was to simply not allow bases to EVER be stacked. However, this got messy because we were in effect saying that “if I put a Brute squad to ram a battleship and they roll AAF to move just enough to hit the battleship, some of the Brutes won’t make it not because they don’t reach, but because they’re not allowed to stack bases.†When we tried to amend it by saying they can’t normally stack bases but may do so if ramming or if unavoidable, we ended up needing so many “except when†clauses that the ruling was essentially broken. There are a lot of other examples that make a no-stack rule just as messy, far more examples than there are for simply saying how torpedoes and attack craft behave when bases are stacked.
In the end, there is absolutely no way we as HA’s are going to make everyone happy. All we are striving for is to make this as fair as possible to as many players as possible.
I hope this helps.
- Nate
-
Hi Nate,
as far as I know, in our group, never encountered online as well, no one hid ships in other bases or allowed overlapping.
So this issue of being a tactic never happened.
See, disallow overlapping and the tactic that never was will never be. ;)
-
Horizon, I know you’re worried about this developing into a tactic. Why this was in the FAQ is because it is ALREADY a tactic.
I'm with Horizon on this one. I've only played BFG for 2 years, but never in that time has anyone I've played with or discussed BFG with ever assumed it's okay to stack ships (maybe I live in a small world of CA and Portmaw! ). The way it's been clarified in the FAQ is inviting it as a tactic and people will use it as such. Many years have already been put into the game exploring a wide variety of rules scenarios and although I believe a game should have room to evolve ( to improve ) I think stacking ships and all the AC and Torp clarification that are following this ruling is a very Gray zone that remains to be tested as thoroughly as the rule needs to be.
The knee-jerk reaction the HA’s had to this tactic was to simply not allow bases to EVER be stacked.
Was this really the case? All the discussions with Ray Bell and the contributing members on this topic up to the first draft of the FAQ didn't indicate that. Although a few people didn't like the idea of stacking ever, a lions share of people did finally come around to supporting Ray in the concept of stacking only on enemy bases. This has happened every game since I've played and it's yet to confuse any of the game rules when a ship is overlapping with an enemy ship.
However, this got messy because we were in effect saying that “if I put a Brute squad to ram a battleship and they roll AAF to move just enough to hit the battleship, some of the Brutes won’t make it not because they don’t reach, but because they’re not allowed to stack bases.†When we tried to amend it by saying they can’t normally stack bases but may do so if ramming or if unavoidable, we ended up needing so many “except when†clauses that the ruling was essentially broken. There are a lot of other examples that make a no-stack rule just as messy, far more examples than there are for simply saying how torpedoes and attack craft behave when bases are stacked.
Nate, this is an excellent example of how denying friendly stacking can effect the game; one that I had not thought of. Can you name the other situations that can not be avoided by tactical forethought? I really am interested in hearing them so I can put them on the table and think about the problem. I fully acknowledge that not allowing friendly or any stacking will have a number of affects on situations. Though, ironically, you've already created a host of "except when" rulings in the FAQ regarding AC, torps, and blastmarkers.
Addressing your ramming example above, it's true that not allowing friendly stacking or any would make it difficult to Ram another vessel with more then 2 to 3 ships and probably impossible with 4+ ships. Certainly this has some tactical affect on every race (I would argue not very much) , but it impacts Ork Ramships the most. I'm not looking for an "except when" clause for all fleets in this case, because it would be nonsense to add a special rule for everyone when it's going to only benefit brute ramships 95% of the time. I would be willing to sacrafice the other 5% change, just to keep things smooth. In this particular case I would find it except-able to create a unique, but simple ramming rule for ramships alone that both does not contradict non-overlapping and doesn't sacrifice there ability to overwhelm a single vessel with ramming. Of course I need to really think hard about the possibility of this, but the point is to avoid creating a global rule change that will make every race play different, when it might only benefit a small number of exceptions the majority of the time.
Lastly I think this is worth repeating from my FAQ post, just in case it didn't get read...
I'm going to make a final attempt to list why the stacking rule should not exist and should be replaced with "A ship may end it's movement overlapping with an enemy, but not a friendly base unless completely unavoidable. This does not restrict any ship overlapping during it's movement."
1.) As Nate has stated to me, "Bases stacking on each other is supposed to result from an unhappy accident when trying to move your ships maximum distance and optimum firing arc." Unfortunately, as stated, the stacking rule (along with the following FAQ paragraph) fully permits ship bases to stack not only in an unhappy accident, but even as a suggested tactic. The critical point is that when friendly ships are being moved in relation to one another, they can all be moved in an informed manor with the player having the ability to consider each ships placement to provide them with maximum distance and optimum firing arc while taking into account how other friendly ships will be placed during that game turn. This means the player has ample ability in nearly every case to place them advantageously without the need of stacking if just a little forethought is used. But that player did not have this luxury when his enemy placed his ships, so to avoid situations where an enemy base would deny the player an advantageous position we must allow a ship to be placed overlapping an enemy if necessary.
2.) The rule is creating additional paragraphs in the FAQ to address, clarify, and support this ruling. A perfect example is the entry on "Blast Markers and Multiple Bases". This entry has become confusing as it attempts to both explain scenarios with bases touching and overlapping. Torpedoes now require more explanation on how to deal with launching and resolving attacks. AC now has contradictory exceptions to the conventional rules (see point 3 below). We should be thinking about how the rules can be clarified to keep the essences of the game but help remove the need to excessively "provide solutions to problems that are not addressed in the current rules because in most cases, frankly they don't often come up in normal game play". This is a challenge yes, but it should be in the forethought of every rules decision. Essentially, allowing friendly bases to overlap is creating exceptions to current rules and requiring new rules to be drafted. Allowing enemy overlapping does not conflict with any of the current rule set and thus requires little to no explanation for how to deal with AC attacks, torpedo launch and hits, etc.
3.) In an attempt to clarify bases "hiding" inside another base and to not allow this to be abused there is a new rule / clarification stating "attack craft can select to target vessels with bases hiding inside the large base in this manner". This new ruling is contradictory to the core mechanic of what constitutes AC engaging a ship (i.e the moment it touches a base). This contradiction is clear seen in the FAQ on page 6 where it's stated "Ordnance markers must always attack the first ordnance or vessels the come in contact with" and "they [attack craft] are assumed to be able to avoid or ignore closer targets or obstructions unless the course of their movement unavoidably brings them in contact". This situation creates a rules paradox were the rule exception is trying to be shoe-horned in to make friendly overlapping function within the theory of the original rule, while not tangibly working with the core mechanic.
4.) In regard to point 2, in my opinion it's best to create clarifications that enhance the game by making rule scenarios simpler to understand and minimize the edge cases that cause confusion, disputes, or vagary. Any rule that creates the need for more rules to justify or clarify is a classic indicator that something is mechanically wrong. A good example of a simplified rule in action is the choice for blast markers affecting all around a base. Sure it makes some tactical decisions moot, but it does a grand job of simplifying situations, avoiding vagary, and thus keeping the game moving while retaining the essence of the original rules. The shortest path to achieving the same results with overlapping bases is of course to not allow any overlapping at all, but this might provide to much compromise to the essence of the game. Instead I offer a shorter path to simplicity at less of a sacrifice: allow non-friendly overlapping.
5.) My last point is a bit abstract and ill-informed, but worth throwing out for some thought I think… I would encourage everyone to think about how the average BFG gaming session goes within your game group and how tournament play has occurred for the last 10 years. How common is it really for friendly ships to necessitate overlapping? How many past tournaments would have been affected by people "stacking" ships? Now, how many times have you needed to overlap your ship with an enemy to gain the position you intended? I don't want to sacrifice the essence of BFG or the intent of the original designer, but I would say that how the game has been "traditionally" played by the community at large for the last 10 years, has weight in what's right for the game.
Granted I'm certainly biased here because I only have my gaming group's experience to reflect on. In my group we just assumed for whatever reason (probably because of the models) that when moving our own ships we should not overlap them if not necessary (it's never been). But, when my opponent moves his ships I sportingly allow him to place his ship in any legal place, even if it overlaps with my ship, to give him the advantage he deserves due to good commanding. So I am genuinely curious if other people's gaming groups have found these scenarios common or not.
Cheers,
Russ
-
I'm with Horizon on this one. I've only played BFG for 2 years, but never in that time has anyone I've played with or discussed BFG with ever assumed it's okay to stack ships (maybe I live in a small world of CA and Portmaw! ).
I've also not seen this happen deliberately either.
-
Hi Russ (all other contributors and secret listeners),
I have been exposed to the mass stacking style of play on numerous occasions and by numerous players (mainly Eldar, Necron and a crazy Ork player ;D). I'm very happy that it seems the vast majority of BFG gamers haven't, as it is super powerful without correction. At current it is legitimate and even tournament legal (unless the organisers make a judgement). Either limiting its abuse or preventing friendly stacking are the only responsible options.
As friendly stacking/overlapping can at times be unavoidable simply using the rules that would cover this hapenstance don't weigh the rulebook(/FAQ) down any extra. Also limiting the effect of stacking rather than banning it will allow players that use (and like) this tactic to play competetively against players that don't.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
So whats the problem with saying that ships may not stack unless it occurs unintentionally due to standard movement constraints or as the result of movement with special orders?
Seems that would stop people from deploying their ships stacked and prevent them from attempting to move in such a way as to stack the ships.
-
That would be clear & simple.
It still needs the clarifications on what happens during an attack.
-
I was rather surprised by the inclusion myself since I've never seen anything mentioned about grand cruisers being problematic
This is my experience as well.
However, despite all ships having those areas, the Vengeance and its variants are unique in that they are the only capital ships that do not mount any form of prow weapons which means they have a particular vulnerability to AB that no other capital ship has. While we shorten the name to prow criticals, it's actually a prow armament critical. Since all other captical ships have prow weapons, the same issue does not exist with them and doesn't necessitate the expansion of the changes to all other ships.
It may not necessitate it, but I don't think it's an appropriate change to begin with. After all, other Imperial ships have just as big if not bigger prows and could easily be justified in this ruling as well.
Also, people seem to be equating having prow weapons with exterminatus devices. AFAICT, torpedoes, including things like the cyclonic variety and virus bombs don't have to be fired out of a prow weapon. A torpedo is a torpedo, after all.
Cheers, Gary
-
In all honesty... I can really go either way with the ruling on grand cruisers ignoring prow weapons damage.
On the upshot, it gives the GC's a bit of a handy boost, and not in a way that is breaking the game.
on the downside, it creates another rule that counters the established ruleset (for the auto-shift up to six)
-
I have a question concerning the Armageddom Gun:
what happen when u fire against an asteroid field?
It stops the armageddom gun?
Can u hit something inside the asteroid field (eldar ;D)?
Thank u for your attention.
-
To answer above question, I'm not sure.... Sure the A- Gun could shoot into and probably through it fine, but you still need to be able to "see" the target player's ships to get an accurate aiming of the weapon... so I would say it would take a passed LD check when the A-Gun's line of fire crosses the base of any ships in an asteroid field to hit them. This would represent the skill of the commander of maneuvering the Planet Killer to get such a good shot off.
RULES IDEA:
Ships on BFI may re-roll failed Damage Control rolls in the end phase. I figure if BFI is described as having "repair crews around the ship on standby" their should be some benefit to this.
-Zhukov
-
I fully support this, considering how detrimental BFI can be anyway. Good idea.
-
Nah. Not so.
-
Roy,
Care to explain your position?
-Zhukov
-
Because repair crews are more busy with either shutting down doors or re-opening them again. That's what the BFI background says. They'll be glad to be on their feet.
-
Eh, could be explained either way. Still think it was a cool idea, but take it or leave it.
Heres a question. So we have cleared up that a ship is considered to fire all its weapons at once, for the purpose of BMs. What about escort/cap ship squadrons and combined fire?
Would my Iconoclast squadron have one str3 shot and then the rest combined with BM interferance?
-
Escort squadron always shoot combined.
-
But cap ship squadrons one at a time then?
-
Together as well.
-
Awesome. Really gets around BM markers.
-
Another question, very basic but it pops to mind. Does the half speed requirement on ships change when, say, they are crippled, or encounter blast markers? A Retribution class gets crippled and shot at, with BMs around it, making 10 its maximum speed that turn.
How far does it HAVE to move? 5, or the maximum distance possible until it reaches half?
-
Still 15cm for the battleship. :)
-
What about for 'must move at least half speed' part of the rules
Edit: Also, if a normal non-eldars ship's shields are down, does it take damage from BMs?
What if it runs into say, a cluster of 3 and it only has 2 shields?
Edit Edit:
Do SO's that half firepower also half bay strength?
IM ashamed of all these newb questions, but coming back to the game with so many rules, errata rules, and homerules in my mind, im confused, and trying to lead both a real life and online playgroup.
-
What about for 'must move at least half speed' part of the rules
The last sentence under 'Minimum Move Distance' on p.16 clarifies this:
"Ships who are unable to move half their speed (...) must move the maximum possible distance instead."
The Retribution in your example would move 10cm, no more, no less (unless using special orders).
Edit: Also, if a normal non-eldars ship's shields are down, does it take damage from BMs?
What if it runs into say, a cluster of 3 and it only has 2 shields?
No and no. A ship with shields (strength 1+) will only take damage from blast markers after suffering a "Shields Collapse" (10) critical (p.25).
Do SO's that half firepower also half bay strength?
Depends, see the special orders summary on page 12.
In short:
RO and LO do not reduce anything.
AAF, CTNH and BR half weapons but not ordnance.
BFI halves both.
-
In your new rules draft for the Rogue Traders you have created a heavy fuel transport. For those that have not read this document, its a heavy transport that suffers crits on a 5+ and rolls 3D6 adding together the value on the catastrophic damage table when destroyed. I was wondering, any chance of using these as "fire ships"? These to me are MUCH more effective at this role than the current escort vessel. Also, could we by chance have the attackers in the "Surprise Attack" scenario be given the chance to use Fire Ships? This idea comes from the Battle of Gravelines (and others) that used fire ships in this role to defeat numerically superior forces when catching them by surprise. I have played one game using this idea and it was quite chaotic watching the defender scattering to avoid these mysterious vessels AAFing straight to the middle of his fleet!
-Zhukov
-
In your new rules draft for the Rogue Traders you have created a heavy fuel transport. For those that have not read this document, its a heavy transport that suffers crits on a 5+ and rolls 3D6 adding together the value on the catastrophic damage table when destroyed. I was wondering, any chance of using these as "fire ships"? These to me are MUCH more effective at this role than the current escort vessel. Also, could we by chance have the attackers in the "Surprise Attack" scenario be given the chance to use Fire Ships? This idea comes from the Battle of Gravelines (and others) that used fire ships in this role to defeat numerically superior forces when catching them by surprise. I have played one game using this idea and it was quite chaotic watching the defender scattering to avoid these mysterious vessels AAFing straight to the middle of his fleet!
-Zhukov
This sounds great as a house rule, but for as long as the game has been around, planetary defenses have only been for scenarios that require them, and fireships are firmly ensconed in the category of a planetary defense. That being said, I like it. Let me see how it rolls past the other HA's, but this one may be touchy and may prove broken in playtesting.
When imagining a new rule, don't think like a fair adult interested in a fun and challenging game. Always approach a new idea from the mind of a personality-challenged 16 year old with deep pockets and the will to munchkin any rule to the fullest extent allowed.
- Nate
-
We just re-posted the Eldar Spire and refits document. No rule changes, but I did make some minor formatting adjustments and added a date stamp in the bottom left corner so if someone relies on printed copies, they will know in a glance if they have the most current copy available. This date stamp will be on all the documents we staple shut and pull out of draft status from now on.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*
A DRAFT of the 2010 FAQ/Errata is also posted. This has been formatted to read as a single document, but each individual fleet is in it's own section in case players want to pull the document apart and keep the relavant pages behind the fleets they pretain to.
Blindfold on and cigarette in mouth, I await your bolter rounds, shuriken shards, las-shots, etc. :)
- Nate
-
Hey Nate,
You could place a limit on how many you can take? We used four escort sized vessels when attacking a 1500 pt fleet. For the Heavies, I'm thinking we could do half the transport value, so make it two? Not too overpowering I don't believe. If your looking for a formula, you could always say one escort sized fire ship per 500 points in the fleet? For every two escort fire ships you can exchange them for one Heavy Fuel Fire Ship? I won't be offended if you guys say no I just thought it made for a unique scenario.
-Zhukov
-
I propose, for the final errata, that the limitation on not conducting teleport attacks on larger vessels be waived. Instead, -1 or -2 modifier, depending on size and such.
It never really made much sense to me that you would not be allowed to do it at all.
The proposed change assumes that larger ships have heavier armed and more dramatic internal defenses, but certainly not a denser population distribution.
-
i thought attack crafts were to be standardized to 20mm bases and torpedoes to 25mm bases
-
BC always rolls a 4+. this is about as clear as you can get in the rules:
I) Bombardment cannons always hit on a 4 or
more, regardless of the target’s armour (even vs
ordnance).
Deflectors just raise the armor value of the prow to a 6+ they have nothing to do with shields for the purpose of gameplay. Also note it's not just the linear accelerator, it's the warhead that causes the damage.
-
'Ship Types' should be clarified. Lets say one wants to ram, and reads that 'ship types' matter in the difficulty of the LD check.
Now, does he take it to mean just the 3 types, or the 4 different brands of cruisers as well, fit into the scale?
-
Per rulebook:
small = escorts
medium = cruisers
large = battleships
Cruisers = all cruisers.
-
'Ship Types' should be clarified. Lets say one wants to ram, and reads that 'ship types' matter in the difficulty of the LD check.
Now, does he take it to mean just the 3 types, or the 4 different brands of cruisers as well, fit into the scale?
This is already clarified in the FAQ Draft on page 10. Read it.
-
This may be idiotic, but do the same modifiers that effect SO's effect LD checks like shooting further targets? Do novas have to test for ld the same way?
-
Also, how far can left and right shifts go? This should be clarified. Can you get a left shift for close range on defences, back to your full firepower strength?
-
Yes, left till edge of gunnery table per rulebook. Right will go to far right. That's it. Not up down or off the chart.
Ld tests have same modifiers as SO tests.
-
So youd get a bonus to LD to disengage if your opponent went on SO previous turn?
Ok, good to know. So the actual strength of the battery is considered part of the chart.
-
Yes. And yes.
-
This may be idiotic, but do the same modifiers that effect SO's effect LD checks like shooting further targets?
There's a difference between leadership modifiers and command check modifiers.
Command check modifiers are:
+1 if any enemy vessels are on SO
-1 if vessel checking has blast markers in contact
These only apply to command checks, including BFI (rules page 12).
Everything else (e.g. radiation bursts, mark of slaanesh, ...) applys to command checks and other leadership tests in the same way.
There is also a special set of leadership modifiers for disengaging (rules page 33).
Do novas have to test for ld the same way?
Yes if there is a closer target within its range (i.e. closer but at least 30cm away).
-
Actually, the "firepower" column is not part of the gunnery chart, it is merely a label. So the furthest left you could go is the "defences" column. Tables have label columns and rows which do not make up part of the sample space and are not relevant, since it's an abstraction. For example, suppose that instead of being firepower 6, 12, 20, etc, it was 60, 120 and 200 but that the number of dice you actually got to roll stayed the same. So 60 WBs would give 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 attack dice, depending on aspect and modifiers, just like 6 WB does now. Now suppose you were firing from close range at a defence. Would you get a left column shift and go from 5 dice to 60? No, of course not. The amount of firepower is an abstraction and not a valid part of the table. This can be confirmed by the bold line separating the firepower column from the defences column.
However, having said all that, I do believe that it's "doable". The abstraction used is linear to the firepower, so instead of increasing by a factor of 10 as given in my example, it flows on quite neatly (6 WB could give 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 dice normally, so the next logical step up would be 6). Also, this takes some of the abstraction out of the number of WBs a given ship has since it would mean that at maximum potential you actually get 1 attack per point of firepower. This makes more sense (thematically) than always getting some attenuation. I also believe that the extra column gives greater depth to the game, because it makes it more rewarding when you manage it.
So, in principle and desire I think that we should use that column. I just don't think we do, given the way the table is set out.
-
Got it, so you cant hit defences easier from being close to them? Should we? Thats the question, as Sig said.
-
Got it, so you cant hit defences easier from being close to them? Should we? Thats the question, as Sig said.
As I said I think we should, but it should be noted that it's not just close range against defences that this is relevant. When you're battling in the inner 4 combat zones of a system (ie, not outer reaches or deep space) and firing into the sun your range shifts are doubled (close and long). So if you're close range, shooting into the sun, in one of the first 4 zones and firing at a closing cap ship you'll also get this column. Also, some weapon systems get a left shift on their gunnery, so they just need to be close range against closing cap ship. So it's a slightly more common occurrence than just point blank against defences. Something to keep in mind.
-
I'd like to officially propose the critical hit rolls for port/starboard weapons offline be changed.
As is:
4: Starboard Weapons Offline. On rolls of: 1+3, 3+1, 2+2, for 3/36.
5: Port Weapons Offline. On rolls of 1+4, 4+1, 2+3, 3+2, for 4/46.
It's a bit ridiculous that the right side of the ship is apparently better warded by the Omnisiah than the left.
So changed to:
4/5: Roll a D6, on 1-3 Starboard Weapons Offline, on 4-6, Port Weapons offline.
-
Yeah, this disparity has been known for a long time, which is why good commanders always keep the enemy to their right! :P ::)
Seriously though, I'd be down with a 50/50 split on results of 4/5. You'd have to roll each time as well, since you can get multiple crits to the one location (so if starboard go offline the first time you don't automatically offline port weapons on the second crit).
-
Not sure if this has been asked before, but given the scale and complexity of this FAQ/tweak, wouldn't it be a lot easier and less confusing to just re-write the rulebook?
-
I'd like to officially propose the critical hit rolls for port/starboard weapons offline be changed.
As is:
4: Starboard Weapons Offline. On rolls of: 1+3, 3+1, 2+2, for 3/36.
5: Port Weapons Offline. On rolls of 1+4, 4+1, 2+3, 3+2, for 4/46.
It's a bit ridiculous that the right side of the ship is apparently better warded by the Omnisiah than the left.
Well for starters you've got the wrong numbers. ;D
Starboard weapons is crit result 3, thus 2/36.
Port weapons is crit result 4, 3/36.
Personally I'd rather have this small disparity than another die roll but there is more to consider.
Ships without dorsal weapons (all cruisers) will also receive a starboard crit on a result of 2 (1/36). In this case the odds are an even 3/36.
Also all criticals dealt by H&R are generated by a single die, resulting in equal odds of 1/6 unless that ship has no dorsal weapons.
Oh boy.
Please just leave it as it is. :)
-
I'd like to officially propose the critical hit rolls for port/starboard weapons offline be changed.
As is:
4: Starboard Weapons Offline. On rolls of: 1+3, 3+1, 2+2, for 3/36.
5: Port Weapons Offline. On rolls of 1+4, 4+1, 2+3, 3+2, for 4/46.
It's a bit ridiculous that the right side of the ship is apparently better warded by the Omnisiah than the left.
Well for starters you've got the wrong numbers. ;D
Starboard weapons is crit result 3, thus 2/36.
Port weapons is crit result 4, 3/36.
Personally I'd rather have this small disparity than another die roll but there is more to consider.
Ships without dorsal weapons (all cruisers) will also receive a starboard crit on a result of 2 (1/36). In this case the odds are an even 3/36.
Also all criticals dealt by H&R are generated by a single die, resulting in equal odds of 1/6 unless that ship has no dorsal weapons.
Oh boy.
Please just leave it as it is. :)
Sorry for recalling the numbers incorrectly, and it's a good point that for cruisers the difference cancels out, but what you've just said is that hit and run attacks agaisnt cruisers are 50% more likely to hurt Starboard than Port (hadly a rare occurence!), and anything with dorsal weapons is also afflicted. I'd much rather have an extra dice roll than live with a 50% disparity!
The new system would not be biased by any of those considerations, IIRC:
2: Dorsal Weapons
3/4 Port 1-3 SB 4-6
5 Prow
6 Engine Room
Dorsal weapons criticals would be spread evenly between Port/SB.
-
I'd like to officially propose the critical hit rolls for port/starboard weapons offline be changed.
As is:
4: Starboard Weapons Offline. On rolls of: 1+3, 3+1, 2+2, for 3/36.
5: Port Weapons Offline. On rolls of 1+4, 4+1, 2+3, 3+2, for 4/46.
It's a bit ridiculous that the right side of the ship is apparently better warded by the Omnisiah than the left.
Well for starters you've got the wrong numbers. ;D
Starboard weapons is crit result 3, thus 2/36.
Port weapons is crit result 4, 3/36.
Personally I'd rather have this small disparity than another die roll but there is more to consider.
Ships without dorsal weapons (all cruisers) will also receive a starboard crit on a result of 2 (1/36). In this case the odds are an even 3/36.
Also all criticals dealt by H&R are generated by a single die, resulting in equal odds of 1/6 unless that ship has no dorsal weapons.
Oh boy.
Please just leave it as it is. :)
Sorry for recalling the numbers incorrectly, and it's a good point that for cruisers the difference cancels out, but what you've just said is that hit and run attacks agaisnt cruisers are 50% more likely to hurt Starboard than Port (hadly a rare occurence!), and anything with dorsal weapons is also afflicted. I'd much rather have an extra dice roll than live with a 50% disparity!
The new system would not be biased by any of those considerations, IIRC:
2: Dorsal Weapons
3/4 Port 1-3 SB 4-6
5 Prow
6 Engine Room
Dorsal weapons criticals would be spread evenly between Port/SB.
For teh record, the HA's are not entertaining any changes to the critical damage table.
- Nate
-
Shame. :(
Just have to continue using it as a house rule.
-
Just read through the Faq and here are my questions;
Pre-measurement: The wording doesn’t show any limitations on when players can pre-measure, or what they can pre-measure. Could a player say measure from his ship on the other side of the table to an enemy ship, or to celestial phenomena? Could a player in the movement phase measure his weapon ranges from ‘where he will be’? Are players limited to their weapon/movement distances when measuring
Blast markers: So what I’m getting out of this is that if two ships are in BTB then blast markers can be placed to affect both ships. Blast markers must be placed around the ships base but not on top of a base, so if there are no other options then these markers are stacked. What if the ship doesn’t have enough space around it to place a blast marker at all (say it is surrounded completely by ships?). I also understand that blast markers should be placed so that they only affect the ship targeted if it has no ships in btb, but has some near it. Again what if there isn’t enough space?
Exterminatus weapons: You say that a ship loses its prow weapon, but what about ships with multiple prow weapons, such as ork Kroozers? Does the player pick which weapon he loses, or does he lose both?
Ordinance and when its launched: at the end of the shooting phase. Why not say at the beginning of the ordinance phase before any attack craft are moved? Also there is no reference as to when attack craft are recalled to the ship.
Splitting torp salvoes, you say that any ship with 6 or more torpedo tubes can split their torps into two groups with each having no less than four torpedos. This would mean that a ship would need 8 torpedo tubes not six, did you mean 3?
The whole thing about how to place torpedo salvoes is kind of confusing. I would say instead that at the torpedoes must be completely within the firing arc of the ship that launched them at the end of their movement, and properly angled accordingly. (or potential movement in the case of hitting a ship extremely close)
Multiple ships and boarding: you say that each ship can roll separately for it’s boarding result. Is this one at a time or simultaneous? I.E. 2 ork ships are boarding an imperial cruiser, the ork player elects to roll separately, The orks, simply have a current +1 racial modifier. So the first ship rolls, doing two points of damage to the imperial cruiser, would the second ship now have an additional +1 for outnumbering the enemy ship? Or would he stay the same as before the damage occurred?
“asteroids are treated as minefields†shouldn’t this be removed? Or stated as asteroids are treated like minefields.
Defences and blast marker removal, is the d6 in addition to the normal d6 of the end phases blast marker removal or is it “d6 of your allowed blast marker removal may be from defences�
Allies; you say that demiurg and kroot will never fire upon each other, I assume that this means that kroot will never shoot at kroot, and demiurg will never fire at demiurg either?
-
My bets:
Just read through the Faq and here are my questions
Heh, about time... ;)
Pre-measurement: The wording doesn’t show any limitations on when players can pre-measure, or what they can pre-measure. Could a player say measure from his ship on the other side of the table to an enemy ship, or to celestial phenomena? Could a player in the movement phase measure his weapon ranges from ‘where he will be’? Are players limited to their weapon/movement distances when measuring
Pre-Measuring to me is pre-measuring all and everything.
Ordinance and when its launched: at the end of the shooting phase. Why not say at the beginning of the ordinance phase before any attack craft are moved? Also there is no reference as to when attack craft are recalled to the ship.
iirc correcly ordnance is recalled at beginning of movement phase (rulebook). Shooting phase is easier = launch bay 'shoots' ordnance.
Splitting torp salvoes, you say that any ship with 6 or more torpedo tubes can split their torps into two groups with each having no less than four torpedos. This would mean that a ship would need 8 torpedo tubes not six, did you mean 3?
Good catch, I missed the '4' part somehow.
Defences and blast marker removal, is the d6 in addition to the normal d6 of the end phases blast marker removal or is it “d6 of your allowed blast marker removal may be from defences�
per rulebook an additional D6 to normal D6 for BM removal.
-
I immensely dislike the way ordnance is measured, btw. As it stands you simply measure out from your stem 20cm or 30cm or whatever and place the ordnance there and torps have to be completely within its firing arc. I much prefer the place in base contact, centre of marker can straddle the arc line, move in ordnance phase full distance.
I really dislike the argument that they get more range in the turn that they're launched because of base size, or BBs get longer range torps because of their increased base size, etc. It's not as if the torpedoes were live as soon as they came out of the ship ... if they were they'd hit the launching ship! Torps are a fire and forget type of armament, that have their own set of stats. Hate that people bitched about torps acting differently to direct fire weaponry. Of course they do, they're bloody different!
-
oh, and every single time in the faq you say 12th black crusade, shouldn't this be 13th?
And sigoroth, I feel for you, I liked the other way better and I'm surprised that the HA's decided to go with such a small template size for torps (3) I probably would've done 5 or six, as nearly every vessel that launches torps can launch 6.
I feel that it's weird to nerf the size or torpedo salvoes but not alter the size of waves of craft. It seems weird to me that they would do that but not make you use 1 bomber to represent a whole wave, with a d6 next to it. The argument is still valid, the same as torps, that it doesn't make sense that if the one on the end hits you they all magically do, but if a single torp barely passes you then it can't hit you. But for waves? all you have to do is have one corner of your block of six be in range and then the whole thing hits.
Just an oddity that I don't exactly understand.
-
Came up from our SM post:
How to count turrets if the previous round of boarding combat was drawn?
1) Do you take turns in taking them into account depending who's turn it is?
2) Do you just ignore it since the ships are clamped together?
I personally think that 2 variant should be fairer.
BM in contact - as per FAQ atm a blastmerker counts as being all around. If 2 ships are boarding each other and thuss are in base contact, do they count as both being in touch with bm or not - clarification is needed.
-
Came up from our SM post:
How to count turrets if the previous round of boarding combat was drawn?
1) Do you take turns in taking them into account depending who's turn it is?
2) Do you just ignore it since the ships are clamped together?
I personally think that 2 variant should be fairer.
Yes, scenario 2. Neither ship is the defender now, it's a continuing combat.
BM in contact - as per FAQ atm a blastmerker counts as being all around. If 2 ships are boarding each other and thuss are in base contact, do they count as both being in touch with bm or not - clarification is needed.
Of course not. Consider an unbroken line of 20 BBs all in base contact. Put a BM in contact with one end. So do you imagine that this one BM covers such a large area? Nonsense. Blast markers only count as being in contact with the ship(s) that they're physically in contact with. These ships then count as being in contact all-around as far as incoming/outgoing fire/ordnance is concerned.
-
"Target behind intervening Blast markers – shift one column right"
If you allow attacker to place MB any way they like the aboverule will loose its affect. You guys need to seek balance between this and things like mass turret and boarding if you are suggesting a change. The ruling that most ppl use "bm in contact counts as all around for all purposes" is actually an easiest solution. And it prevents all exploits with placing Bm's. Also, it deffinately effecta attacking ordnance.
-
Hi Mazilla,
per current FAQ/rulebook the Blastmarker counts as all around thus when shooting at a vessel with a blastmarker it will always cause a shift even with a marker on the left and I shoot on the right.
I hate that.
I advocate change to original v1.0 rules:
Blastmarker is placed in line of shot. Thus if I shoot at port it is placed at portside.
This means that if I shoot at the starboard side there will be no intervening blastmarker.
Thus no column shift.
This makes for much better tactical choices & play.
-
Hi Horizon,
This needs some very good wording because i WILL put 2 blast markers even in 1 ark in such way that i will be able to shoot in the same ark and dont get an interveing BM. This was the reason why they treated bm as all around. Also, how does your rules effect ordnance?
I think generalising is more important than trying to make minor fixes.
-
"Target behind intervening Blast markers – shift one column right"
If you allow attacker to place MB any way they like the aboverule will loose its affect. You guys need to seek balance between this and things like mass turret and boarding if you are suggesting a change. The ruling that most ppl use "bm in contact counts as all around for all purposes" is actually an easiest solution. And it prevents all exploits with placing Bm's. Also, it deffinately effecta attacking ordnance.
OK, let me try to clarify some things for you. The original rule was intervening blast markerss shift gunnery to the right. Intervening. So, if you draw a line from the stem of the firing ship to the stem of the target ship and that line passes through a blast marker then you get a right column shift on the gunnery table. This is how it was originally. This rule was fine and perfect.
Now, as a fix to ordnance and as a general conceptual "buff", massed turret fire was introduced (ships in base contact share a turret each). This rule was fine, but the ruling powers at the time decreed that it had to be self-balancing and their solution was to allow blast markers from incoming fire to be moved off-true so as to touch other ships in base contact, thereby dropping the shields of multiple ships. Again fine.
However, this then lead to a slightly beardy situation whereby munchkins could actually use the rule to place blast markers out of the line of fire of subsequent ships. This meant that those ships would not be adversely effected by the blast marker like they would be if the massed turret rule and subsequent shield sharing rule didn't exist.
This situation lead to a MASSIVE over-reaction of the HA such that they decided to count a blast marker that is touching a ship as touching that ship in all directions. This meant that if you ended your movement touching a blast marker to the rear of your ship your port, starboard and prow weapon battery fire all suffered a right-column shift. It also meant that if a ship that you're shooting at had a blast marker in contact at all your fire would also get a right column shift, even if your line of fire did not directly pass through a blast marker.
Now, of course, this was a tremendously stupid decision that did more to nerf weapon batteries and remove tactics from the game than any other rule change in the game. There were three other possible solutions that the HA could have taken. They could have removed the shield sharing rule, allowing people to freely mass turrets. They could have allowed the firing player to place extra blast markers touching the ships that are massing turrets (representing their shields going down) but where all blast markers are placed on a direct stem-to-stem line. Or they could have just let the situation slide and said "hey, if you don't like them being so beardy don't bunch your ships up". Any of these three solutions would have been vastly preferable.
So, that is the why of it. That is why the blast marker counts as being in contact all-around as far as shooting is concerned. Now, as for what ships count as having a blast marker touching them, this is really simple. If you have a blast marker in contact, you count as having a blast marker in contact. If you don't, you don't. Being in base contact with a ship that has a blast marker in contact means nothing. If it did count then you could have a line of 20 large-base ships in contact with each other and put 1 blast marker in contact with a ship on an end. This one blast marker would then cover an area of 565cm2 plus the original cardboard marker. Does this sound right to you?
-
Hi,
like Sig says...
Hi Horizon,
This needs some very good wording because i WILL put 2 blast markers even in 1 ark in such way that i will be able to shoot in the same ark and dont get an interveing BM. This was the reason why they treated bm as all around. Also, how does your rules effect ordnance?
I think generalising is more important than trying to make minor fixes.
If there is no intervening blastmarker there is no intervening blastmarker (line of fire).
I am against the rule of the attacker placing the BM so it drops the shield of a vessel in base-to-base contact. BM is placed in line of fire.
Ordnance: if bomber has enough speed to fly around BM then no test is needed.
-
They could have removed the shield sharing rule, allowing people to freely mass turrets. (makes Mas turrets too good without a drawback)
They could have allowed the firing player to place extra blast markers touching the ships that are massing turrets (representing their shields going down) but where all blast markers are placed on a direct stem-to-stem line. (you will have 3 blast markers all around 3 ships which starts to look like ur example)
Or they could have just let the situation slide and said "hey, if you don't like them being so beardy don't bunch your ships up". (yeah they could just not allow mass turret at all)
What they did is actually chose the simplest solution that affects many gaming areas systematically. Apparently they forgot to clarify it entirely for every situation (where to apply it, or where to take into account the physical touching of the BM)
Simpler gameplay = faster gameplay = less possible arguments = more fun = easy to understand ,apply and use. I really hope HA just keeps the old BM thing (as per armada)
-
Hi,
what is simpler & faster then the old v1.0 rules? Nothing.
It is also more fun as it gives more tactical options.
-
Because it has a room for an exploit like Sig mentioned:
However, this then lead to a slightly beardy situation whereby munchkins could actually use the rule to place blast markers out of the line of fire of subsequent ships
-
Wrong. Per original rules the attacker cannot place the BM like he wants too.
-
Yes he can, BM has a shape, i can put it vertical or horisontal - i can put 1 directly on the line of fire but i can put the 2 one to the left or to the right of it and this is how it was cheated before
-
They could have removed the shield sharing rule, allowing people to freely mass turrets. (makes Mas turrets too good without a drawback)
They could have allowed the firing player to place extra blast markers touching the ships that are massing turrets (representing their shields going down) but where all blast markers are placed on a direct stem-to-stem line. (you will have 3 blast markers all around 3 ships which starts to look like ur example)
Or they could have just let the situation slide and said "hey, if you don't like them being so beardy don't bunch your ships up". (yeah they could just not allow mass turret at all)
What they did is actually chose the simplest solution that affects many gaming areas systematically. Apparently they forgot to clarify it entirely for every situation.
Simpler gameplay = faster gameplay = less possible arguments = more fun = easy to understand ,apply and use. I really hope HA just keeps the old BM thing (as per armada)
You're kidding right? So, because those little girls were afraid that someone might be able to take advantage of a situation that their opponent can control they decided to nerf weapon batteries AND tactics into the ground? Every damn bloke and his dog seems to think that ordnance is too damn powerful as it stands, and god knows that escorts are a joke, so who cares if there was no downside to massed turrets? Removes complaints about AC and makes escorts useful. Problem sorted. Or, you could just suck it up and take the extra hits like a man. Hell, you put the damn ships in contact, if your opponent wants to be beardy and maximise his potential due to your decision then so damn what. Or you could even just give the massed turret rules the boot. In no way shape or form should they have fucked with how the game played because of their weak bladders over a tiny bit of munchkinism.
Oh, and it is far far FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR simpler to have the actual marker represent the actual marker, ffs! None of this "oh, a blast marker effects the area of the marker except when it touches a ships base then it effects that ships base too but doesn't effect ships that touch the ships base as well" fuckin bullshit!
And I can guarantee you dollars to dogs nuts that this rule change and all its knock-on effects have created more useless complexity and arguments than the old rule ever did, even with people being beardy about it.
-
Yes he can, BM has a shape, i can put it vertical or horisontal - i can put 1 directly on the line of fire but i can put the 2 one to the left or to the right of it and this is how it was cheated before
No no and no. The exploit came from the shield sharing rules associated with the massed turret rules. This change to the original rules allowed people to manipulate where they put the BM. This was in fact the downside to massing turrets in the first place and was deliberate! It's just the HA didn't like the fact that people were using it more to clear the way for subsequent fire than as a useful aid to dropping adjacent shields. It was a bit beardy but it wasn't imbalanced. Hell, dropping shields on another cruiser usually meant nothing anyway, since you'd not likely have any excess hits with which to spill over onto that ship anyway. The problem was that this sort of manipulation didn't make sense.
However, as Horizon says, the 1.0 BM rules were manipulation free. You placed the BM in base contact with the target ship only, on a direct line from the firing ship, and subsequent BMs were placed fanned out around the first. No abuse possible.
-
You know what, I've had another idea that could work. The first BM has to be placed as per original rules, subsequent BMs can be moved to bring down shields of ships in base contact. Bingo bango bongo and Bob's your aunty. Means escorts could freely mass turrets with each other, but otherwise it's still dangerous. Allow a-boats to keep their rofl-stomp rules against escorts; massed turrets should be all the defence they need. Also gives a reason to take large squad sizes. Sorted.
-
Naah, just scratch that idea posted in reply 373. ;)
I have no issue with massing turrets without a downfall. Being so close can be a downfall in itself already.
-
I also have no concerns with massed turrets having no downfall. The upshot is that just about any possible solution, whether it was leave it as it was, only allow manipulation of BMs beyond the first, dropping shield sharing rule, dropping massed turret rule, placement of extra BMs or whatever, it would have been better than the route they took.
-
Agreed. Blast Markers should have remained on the line of fire. This "Counts as All Round" rubbish has caused more confusion than it's worth 10 times over.
-
Please give an example of how it caused confusion to you. There has never been a confusion in our games with regards to this.
-
Because it is FAQ'ed. ;)
v1.0 needed no FAQ.
-
Completely FAQ'd. Totally FAQ'd up I'd say.
-
;)
-
You know what, I've had another idea that could work. The first BM has to be placed as per original rules, subsequent BMs can be moved to bring down shields of ships in base contact. Bingo bango bongo and Bob's your aunty. Means escorts could freely mass turrets with each other, but otherwise it's still dangerous. Allow a-boats to keep their rofl-stomp rules against escorts; massed turrets should be all the defence they need. Also gives a reason to take large squad sizes. Sorted.
Another Idea which does not work - escorts have 1 shield
Horison:
Because it is FAQ'ed. Wink
v1.0 needed no FAQ.
Then clarify to me:
a cruiser has 2 shields - you have just scored 2 hits
you place 1 BM EXACTLY on the line of fire. How do you place another BM?
-
However, as Horizon says, the 1.0 BM rules were manipulation free. You placed the BM in base contact with the target ship only, on a direct line from the firing ship, and subsequent BMs were placed fanned out around the first. No abuse possible.
-
You know what, I've had another idea that could work. The first BM has to be placed as per original rules, subsequent BMs can be moved to bring down shields of ships in base contact. Bingo bango bongo and Bob's your aunty. Means escorts could freely mass turrets with each other, but otherwise it's still dangerous. Allow a-boats to keep their rofl-stomp rules against escorts; massed turrets should be all the defence they need. Also gives a reason to take large squad sizes. Sorted.
Another Idea which does not work - escorts have 1 shield
Er, I just said that. Look at what you've quoted. I say "means escorts could freely mass turrets with each other, but otherwise it's still dangerous". What doesn't work about this? Works perfectly fine.
Horison:
Because it is FAQ'ed. Wink
v1.0 needed no FAQ.
Then clarify to me:
a cruiser has 2 shields - you have just scored 2 hits
you place 1 BM EXACTLY on the line of fire. How do you place another BM?
Next to it. What's the problem here? What don't you get? There is no manipulation that could beardily boost your firepower here. The BM can't be placed in contact with a nearby ship. You've already blocked your own LoF with the first one. There's no problem here.
-
BMs were placed fanned out around the first.
Does that mean to the left or to the right of it? Who decides is it to the left or is it to the right?
Yes, it means to the left or right. The attacking player decides. What's your point? There's no manipulation here that illogically boosts your firepower. Your opponent does the same to you, so there's no balance issue. What exactly is your point?
-
Sry, deleted
Does that mean to the left or to the right of it? Who decides is it to the left or is it to the right?
because I wanted to post it again.
My point is that if opponent decides then there is manipulation to it. And if this is the case then I can manipulate the BM to be placed so that another ship shooting from the same arc may fire without modifier and this is what "all around" tried to fix.
-
What? There is no manipulation. Left or Right; attacker decides. If that leads to no intervening marker -> good with it.
Try to pull it off though. ;)
-
My point is that if opponent decides then there is manipulation to it. And if this is the case then I can manipulate the BM to be placed so that another ship shooting from the same arc may fire without modifier and this is what "all around" tried to fix.
There is no manipulation. In fact, in our group we centralised the BMs as much as possible. So the two BMs would naturally fall to the left and right of the line, but would touch so they covered the entire area. But it doesn't matter either way. With the first BM placed in the LoF then there's interference against 90% of your fleets fire. This was NOT the reason the rule was changed. The rule was changed simply because of the shared shield rule.
-
But in our gaming comunity we don't even bother about it, we just treat at as bein all around for all purposes, basically we treat a a base of a ship with BM as a big BM itself - pure and simple. And we try to place the physical bm's as close to LOF as possible.
I hope HA finds the best solution this time again.
-
So, your group is fine with the loss of an important tactical element. Plus making lances more valuable then batteries.
-
I completely agree with horizon and Sig that blast markers should go back to the way they were in v1.0
-
This is not an IMPORTANT tactical element - if you can pull that off it simply means that oponent will be shooting you from 2 broadsides which doubles his firepower. And in most cases you will be shooting through your own BM anyway.
Oh yeah, you just nerfed light cruisers because they have 1 shield and it can't obscure all as good as 2 shielded CR
-
This is not an IMPORTANT tactical element - if you can pull that off it simply means that oponent will be shooting you from 2 broadsides which doubles his firepower. And in most cases you will be shooting through your own BM anyway.
Tactical:
I move my 1st murder to the port of your lunar and fire --> Blastmarker placed/shields downed.
I move my 2nd murder to the starboard of your lunar and fire at a ship with shields down but no intervening blastmarkers.
Thus tactical play enhanced, thus batteries more valuable (lances negate BM anyway).
Oh yeah, you just nerfed light cruisers because they have 1 shield and it can't obscure all as good as 2 shielded CR
Not really. Nerve is across the whole range.
-
And then Lunar and the rest of the Imperial fleet fire from 2 broadsides.
You could achieve the same result by squardroning those murders together.
What did you achieve? Got +1 dice roll for shooting from non-bm side?
It's not a nerf for the entire range since 2 bm, as Sig pointed block 90% of LOF, but 1 bm can't do that
The point is - it CAN provide you with tactical move at some point, but it does more bad than good and i still prefer a more general solution
-
And then Lunar and the rest of the Imperial fleet fire from 2 broadsides.
You could achieve the same result by squardroning those murders together.
What did you achieve? Got +1 dice roll for shooting from non-bm side?
It's not a nerf for the entire range since 2 bm, as Sig pointed block 90% of LOF, but 1 bm can't do that
The point is - it CAN provide you with tactical move at some point, but it does more bad than good and i still prefer a more general solution
Hmm, or I move a couple of escorts behind him, drop his shields and then blow him away with the rest of my entire fleet. Not tactical now? And why the hell should a ship get to automatically hide behind shield impacts anyway? The shields end up preventing more damage by being down than by being up. But either which way, you are assuming that without the original rule your enemy will never get to break your lines and fire both broadsides ... Also, since 1 shield overloading produces less interference than 2 shields overloading then why should 1 shield ships have as much "protection" from the interference as 2 shield ships?
And how is your "general solution" a solution at all? What does it solve? The minuscule bit of beardiness that the shared shield rule brought in? That wasn't even broken. It was simply illogical. The all-round BM is even less logical! So this solution exacerbates the problem that it was meant to solve in the first place.
-
Sig, please read more carefully. I am saying we treat base of a ship with BM as a BM so all in contact with it count as being in contact with a single BM.
The rest with tactics etc is just your metagame against our one.
-
I'm late coming in but I myself saw no real reason for the change in the original rules in the BBB. They should go back. More intuitive.
-
Sig, please read more carefully. I am saying we treat base of a ship with BM as a BM so all in contact with it count as being in contact with a single BM.
The rest with tactics etc is just your metagame against our one.
Yeeeees, and your metagame is weaker, what's your point? Counting the BM as all round simply limits tactical options and reduces the comparative value of WBs to other weaponry. That's all it does. It solves no problems. It makes no sense. There was no imperative for the change. It isn't easier or better or simpler.
I know that you count the ships base as a BM when it's in contact with a BM, which is completely ridiculous btw (not to mention not the rule), since that could mean that a BM that takes up roughly 2cm2 could potentially spread to occupy many hundreds of square cm by spreading from base to base.
-
Sig, please read more carefully. I am saying we treat base of a ship with BM as a BM so all in contact with it count as being in contact with a single BM.
The rest with tactics etc is just your metagame against our one.
Yeeeees, and your metagame is weaker, what's your point? Counting the BM as all round simply limits tactical options and reduces the comparative value of WBs to other weaponry. That's all it does. It solves no problems. It makes no sense. There was no imperative for the change. It isn't easier or better or simpler.
I know that you count the ships base as a BM when it's in contact with a BM, which is completely ridiculous btw (not to mention not the rule), since that could mean that a BM that takes up roughly 2cm2 could potentially spread to occupy many hundreds of square cm by spreading from base to base.
Not really SIg, It's just different. And you really have to understand that if it has been working well for others for ceveral years it does not mean it is bad. To me some things you guys do makes no sence but it's just the way you play it. And no, it does not spread for 100500m km by making a train of ships - you are first to think of making it more like a virus. And to us making rules universal is more important than making tons of small fixes to every bug you find and then to the bug that fix caused etc...
-
Not really SIg, It's just different. And you really have to understand that if it has been working well for others for ceveral years it does not mean it is bad. To me some things you guys do makes no sence but it's just the way you play it. And no, it does not spread for 100500m km by making a train of ships - you are first to think of making it more like a virus
I don't know how you could possibly think that the all-round BM doesn't make for dumbed down tactics. It's like satirising a lion to an audience of hyenas. They laugh but don't get it.
As for the spreading BM, I'd like to know how it doesn't spread. According to your rules when a BM is placed in contact with a base, that base is treated as a BM. If that base is touching another base then that base would also be treated as a BM (since the first base is treated exactly like a BM). Repeat ad nauseum.
-
Because it does not really make any difference. Normally you would not sacrifice escorts or enable enemy to fire from 2 broadsides just to get rid of a modyfier. You could do this in some minor instance and in dogfight style fighting on a small table. Unless you are covering 90% of the LOF with 1 salvo and using those 10% with the rest of ya fleet, but thats a cunning manuver, not an exploit, right? )
So if you do this i will deffinately have a point about dumbed down tactics.
Sig i got ya point about spreading but no-one here EVER thought of it this way, and probably during the last FAQ either so stop making that crazy statement - no-one plays it like that.
-
The shields end up preventing more damage by being down than by being up
I think that is the crux of the problem.
-
Firmly on the side of the people wanting this rule changed back to v1.0
It's illogical and confusing the way it is.
-
Because it does not really make any difference. Normally you would not sacrifice escorts or enable enemy to fire from 2 broadsides just to get rid of a modyfier. You could do this in some minor instance and in dogfight style fighting on a small table. Unless you are covering 90% of the LOF with 1 salvo and using those 10% with the rest of ya fleet, but thats a cunning manuver, not an exploit, right? )
So if you do this i will deffinately have a point about dumbed down tactics.
Actually, given how severe the penalties for forming squadrons are this is a staple tactic in our group. Besides, working escorts to the rear of the enemy is a long margin from "sacrificing". Not only do they knock down shields to dramatically increase the effectiveness of the rest of the fleet (you underestimate the value of this "modifier"), but they also force the opponent to either divert AC or ships from the attack to handle them. Also it is almost impossible to stop a fleet like the IN from breaking your line at some point and using both broadsides. They're built to do it. So if you take a little extra fire from one or two ships (against which you will brace) so as to ensure your target is vaporised then this is a worthwhile pursuit. Certainly you have the option of not doing it, if that's what you'd prefer.
Sig i got ya point about spreading but no-one here EVER thought of it this way, and probably during the last FAQ either so stop making that crazy statement - no-one plays it like that.
OK, so your own group did not follow your rule to its logical conclusion. Having had the issue pointed out how do you now feel about the idea of the base becoming a BM just because it touches a BM?
-
Sig it has no affect, since it just does not work the way you say. I was using it so that i am clear on the mechanic.
Better example: Say - you have 2 ships:
Half of the base of ship 1 is in the dust cloud. Ship 1 is in btb with ship 1. The dust cloud has no effect on ship 2 but has is on ship 1.
Same thing here Ship with bm is treated as "a dust cloud" for purpose of understanding which ships it affects.
-
The very fact it needs explaining is why it should be dumped in favour of the older rules.
-
It needs explaining because Sig is obviously trolling me - everyone got what i mean ages ago.
-
Sig it has no affect, since it just does not work the way you say. I was using it so that i am clear on the mechanic.
Better example: Say - you have 2 ships:
Half of the base of ship 1 is in the dust cloud. Ship 1 is in btb with ship 1. The dust cloud has no effect on ship 2 but has is on ship 1.
Same thing here Ship with bm is treated as "a dust cloud" for purpose of understanding which ships it affects.
Alright, I don't think we're speaking the same language here because I have no idea what you mean.
-
Call me on skype then
-
By all means Mazila, your English skills are less then Sigoroth's English skills (mine are lesser as well) so it is more your fault to clarify your point of view since I don't get it as well. ;)
-
Firmly on the side of the people wanting this rule changed back to v1.0
It's illogical and confusing the way it is.
Not sure if I replied here already, but add my name to this list as well.
Cheers, Gary
-
Quite remarkable how the online veterans want this rule back. That's what you get for not getting in touch with the community when you make such changes.
So a thumbs up for the HA to gather a lot of feedback this time around. Even if we are harsh, critical and sometimes even happy. heh heh.
Quite happy.
-
i am fine with the ruling that blast marker affects the entire base rather than in line of fire
-
I prefer the 1.0 method. Makes for a more interesting game but we play it as ruled.
-
The new way at least makes you think before shooting and launching ordnance at the same target.
Going back to 1.0 certainly makes WBs much stronger.
-
If stacked blast markers mean something then v1 ruling might be interesting but as it stand the base represent an area where the ship is vulnerable and blast markers represent area affect the newer ruling works for me
-
I like the current rules for blast markers and think they are a big improvement to gameplay.
Also since shields in BFG aren't directional it doesn't make much sense to have a directional effect from blast markers.
Using this disparity to your advantage feels more like a rules exploit than good tactics.
-
I like the current rules for blast markers and think they are a big improvement to gameplay.
Also since shields in BFG aren't directional it doesn't make much sense to have a directional effect from blast markers.
Using this disparity to your advantage feels more like a rules exploit than good tactics.
Blast markers are produced from the interaction between your shields and the incoming fire. Any particular reason why this interference should reach around to the other side of the ship? The shields might be omni-directional by the incoming fire isn't.
-
From the top of my head: explosions and radiation from high energy weapons and warheads causes interfearence with targeting matrix and makes it harder to target the ship from any side - remember that we are talking about thousands of km between targets...
-
From the top of my head: explosions and radiation from high energy weapons and warheads causes interfearence with targeting matrix and makes it harder to target the ship from any side - remember that we are talking about thousands of km between targets...
Oh really, but if the explosion occurs just a few kms away then all that radiation doesn't radiate anymore. Also, one would expect that the hull of the ship would block the radiation, casting a shadow that ships on the other side of the interference could see. The whole point of a BM is to represent that that very particular piece of space is hard to get a read in. So if you try to target something on the other side of it then it will cause interference. If the ship is between you and the interference then there is no problem.
-
Oh maby, or maby not - we will know for sure in 38k years.
As you can see, different people from different gaming communities are using it this way, are happy with it and want no changes.
-
The blast engulfs the shield as it absorbs the energy. Thus all around
-
Keep in mind the lenght of an escort is above 1km (1000 metres). Now get in check how large the explosion should be.
(Cruisers 5km).
-
as i said, the whole shield absorbs the blast, not just the facing shield, so it engulfs the whole shield
-
Then I place this 1cm marker at one side. Why? As when the ship moves on the effect of the marker when all around should mean more markers are placed to reflect the distorted space.
Plus even if shields absorb total, good, does this create a swirling obscure effect on the other side of the vessel?
-
yes
interface between the shield and blast creates disturbance
-
yes
interface between the shield and blast creates disturbance
What? The blast isn't happening all around the ship though. If the shields get drained from all around the ship, fine. So what? The weapon fire isn't magically coming from the other side of the ship and interacting with the shields on that side simultaneously. Fuckin retarded rule. Brings absolutely nothing to the game. Is more absurd, dumbs down the game and solves no problem whatsoever.
-
I understand the reasons for it... I mean I don't like the rule, but I understand that there is some ambiguity to where a blast marker is placed and therefore how it interferes with weapons batteries at that point, as well as incoming/outgoing ordinance. So the HA's decided to simplify it and say "Blast markers are now doughnut shaped!"
-
there is some ambiguity to where a blast marker is placed
No there isn't. LoF.
-
Indeed. It is really simple. The marker determines the boundaries of its effects. So if the stem to stem LoF doesn't pass through the marker, then it doesn't get effected. If ordnance don't touch it on their way in, then they're not effected by it either. Where do they get placed? As close to the line of incoming fire as possible, without touching ships that aren't in base contact with the target.
-
Where do they get placed? As close to the line of incoming fire as possible, without touching ships that aren't in base contact with the target.[/color]
100% agree with this part - that's axactly how it should be, but still counts as being all around for ordnance, shooting and affecting shields of ships in btb with the ship which has this BM and therefore should affect both ships for boarding as well.
-
Nate already clarified it's only the boarding modifier is applied if a BM is in contact with the defending ship. Please don't include it.
-
Good then ;)
I mean why add a modifier if it applies to both ships the same? Then the modifier should be dropped completely!
Thus: defending ship only. :)
-
Horizon you are faster than me editing my posts )))
But still the attacker should loose a shield for being in b2b if that rule stays.
BTW, just occurred to me - Nate did point it out but it's wrong because it breaks the system. In order for it not to break it it would be better to make clarification in the Boarding modifier table - +1 to attacker if defender is in contact with BM
-
Only if it physically touches the blastmarker!
Not if it is in base-2-base contact. That is just illogical.
-
No it is not - it's universal! If friendly ships are effected then friendly+enemy in b2b is also effected.
-
But to me friendly vessels in base-2-base contact should not be affected.
Back to v1.0!!
-
Mazila, I'm having some confusion with what you're saying. Are you saying that the rule as written does or should affect both attacking and defending ships?
Nate, I believe your clarification about BMs and boarding modifiers is confusing. Either you're misinterpreting the current rule (probably due to Mazila's input) or you've changed the current rule, which I don't think is necessary.
The rule as written plays that if a ship has a BM in contact, the enemy ship gets +1 to their dice roll. This does not need to be changed to affect only the defending ship. If the attacker has a BM in contact then the defender should get the bonus.
However, there is no rule that says that a ship touching another ship with a BM in contact itself counts as having a BM in contact. This little bit of absurdity is Mazila's input. So, if you don't physically have a BM touching your ships base, you don't give the enemy +1 to their boarding roll. If you do, you do. It's that simple.
-
Yes, Sig is right, I was confused when you said that as well, as BMs dont chain throughout ships in contact.
As it is said that a BM can be placed in contact with ships in contact affecting both vessels, but if it isn't then it will only affect one (but all around)
Ah.. how the new BM rule breeds confusion...
-
Mazila, I'm having some confusion with what you're saying. Are you saying that the rule as written does or should affect both attacking and defending ships?
Nate, I believe your clarification about BMs and boarding modifiers is confusing. Either you're misinterpreting the current rule (probably due to Mazila's input) or you've changed the current rule, which I don't think is necessary.
The rule as written plays that if a ship has a BM in contact, the enemy ship gets +1 to their dice roll. This does not need to be changed to affect only the defending ship. If the attacker has a BM in contact then the defender should get the bonus.
However, there is no rule that says that a ship touching another ship with a BM in contact itself counts as having a BM in contact. This little bit of absurdity is Mazila's input. So, if you don't physically have a BM touching your ships base, you don't give the enemy +1 to their boarding roll. If you do, you do. It's that simple.
OK lets dig the history:
At the time when the book was created (Before armada) BMs counted exactly like you play it Sig. The part about boarding did exist as well. And then Armada came with mass turrets, shared shields etc. And the devs decided to make BM in contact count as being all around. In my opinion they simply forgot that it immediately contradicts with this rule for boarding because if BM counts as all around then it is same as if the attacking ship was physically touching the BM marker.
My point is that this needs either BM rule change to be fixed (like you guys suggest 1.0) OR it needs some wording changed about the boarding modefier or some kind of clarification in the FAQ. Because right now if you build a logical chain based on the fact that bm's count as all around for ships touching a ship with bm you will see that this modefier applies to both.
And no Sig, it does not mean you can chain a BM from 1 ship to others like a train since it was clearly explained how it works:
you have ships in B2B A B C If ship A has a BM in contact then ships A and B have -1 shield and C is not affected. If C gets now BM in contact as well then B will have -2 shields, while A and C will have only -1 shield.
-
OK lets dig the history:
At the time when the book was created (Before armada) BMs counted exactly like you play it Sig. The part about boarding did exist as well. And then Armada came with mass turrets, shared shields etc. And the devs decided to make BM in contact count as being all around. In my opinion they simply forgot that it immediately contradicts with this rule for boarding because if BM counts as all around then it is same as if the attacking ship was physically touching the BM marker.
No, you've merely misinterpreted it. Not so hard I suppose, given it's a rubbish rule. The "counts as having a BM in contact all round" does mean to say that the ships base becomes an extension of the BM. This rule specifically regards shooting and ordnance only. For all other intents and purpose the BM only counts as where it is.
My point is that this needs either BM rule change to be fixed (like you guys suggest 1.0) OR it needs some wording changed about the boarding modefier or some kind of clarification in the FAQ. Because right now if you build a logical chain based on the fact that bm's count as all around for ships touching a ship with bm you will see that this modefier applies to both.
Well, having a clarification or, better yet, a reversion to the old rule can't hurt. However, I disagree on your chain of logic.
And no Sig, it does not mean you can chain a BM from 1 ship to others like a train since it was clearly explained how it works:
you have ships in B2B A B C If ship A has a BM in contact then ships A and B have -1 shield and C is not affected. If C gets now BM in contact as well then B will have -2 shields, while A and C will have only -1 shield.
Given how you expect the rule to function I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. However, the shared shields rule allows the BM to be moved so as to be in base contact with secondary vessels, thus dropping their shields. It is the BM being in contact with those ships that drops their shields, not merely the fact that they're in base contact.
-
This ended up getting discussed it in detail. Here's what I should have said (sorry about the confusion):
Blast markers in base contact with vessels engaged in a boarding action only provide a negative modifier to the ship or ships actually in base contact with the blast marker. Both vessels are affected only if both are actually in base contact with blast markers.
However...
Tyranids ignore ALL blast marker effects when boarding. They do however lose a measure of their spore protection for being in contact with blast markers due to placing one on the target vessel when boarding; place the blast marker between it and the Tyranid vessel. While they ignore all blast marker effects when boarding, the target vessel does not. As such, Tyranids get a +1 for the enemy being in contact with blast markers.
- Nate
-
Blast markers in base contact with vessels engaged in a boarding action only provide a negative modifier to the ship or ships actually in base contact with the blast marker. Both vessels are affected only if both are actually in base contact with blast markers.
Still confusing as heck. This considering the fact blastmarkers count as all around (blech) :
just word it like this: the attacking ship is not affected by a blastmarker on the defending ship as long as it does not physically touch the blastmarker.
Also Nate: can we get BFG v1.0 blastmarkers back in the game?
-
+1 for having blast markers only effect the direct they are touching. Having them count all around the ship really just dumbs down the game tactically. If you position yourself well enough to pincher attack a ship with gun batteries then you should gain the tactical benefit of doing so.
-
Sense! :)
-
I'll chime in as well with v1.0 Blast Markers.
Place them as close as possible to the line of fire without touching another ship that isn't in BtB. Only Gunnery crossing the actual BM is affected, only the ship actually in contact with the marker feels any effects.
-
The most logical thing to do. We used those 'new' rules a couple of times and returned to 'old' rules.
-
Hi everyone!! There’s a big set of updates today! If you want to get to it, click the link below.
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*
Biggie: The updated 2010 FAQ/Errata is FINALLY on the street! We listened, and there are a LOT of small detail changes and additions here. Most of it will make lots of people happy, some of it may not. PLEASE take some time to pick this thing apart. If there’s something important we missed, please let us know!
- Nate
-
New FAQ, Quick Scan
Avenger: why is 200 not the correct prize. It isn't worth more then 180 either.
AdMech: the Magos/Ld description is still mistaken. You do always roll Ld for a vessel, then afterwards place the Magos/Admiral whatever. In the example the Ld roll is waived when you place the Magos. This is wrong.
Craftworld Eldar: The Flame still has the daft LFR pulsar. Keep it F only.
Blastmarkers: missed oppurtunity. We want v1.0 back (does not count as all around).
Voss CL: You announced it but still a pity to see they lose turn rate due prow armour. Still not swayed by this. Everyone wants and and.
Fighter Bombers: much better, but the following paragraph where fb nust decide what it will be must be scrapped.
-
I'd like to ask the pro bm-mark 1 crowd a question. Would you be opposed to, if going back to the original rules, a caveat that said 'Targeting ships whose base is in contact with a blast marker causes a right shift'?
That is the only issue I have with it, going back to mk1 being a boost to AC and batteries.
Agreed on the light cruisers. Mainly because I have asked, in so many posts, simply for the LOGIC as to WHY the chassis would be unbalanced with 90 degree turns and have NEVER received anything resembling a reply.
At least some kind of reasoning would go a long way in making me feel better about it.
0.o
-
I'd also put in for the 1.0 BMs.
As to the Endeavor and its ilk, 6+ prow and 90` turns can't be overpowered simply because the same effect of closing and then turning 90` to unload broadsides is already possible while retaining the benefits of a 6+ prow by squadroning with any of the IN line cruisers. This prevents most enemy fire from even touching the endeavours until they swing around to fire doing the very thing that was mentioned as being too much.
I'd still like to see the NC blast auto hit the eldar. It's not like IN has much going for them against eldar anyhow with a typical balanced list.
-
I'd like to ask the pro bm-mark 1 crowd a question. Would you be opposed to, if going back to the original rules, a caveat that said 'Targeting ships whose base is in contact with a blast marker causes a right shift'?
That is the only issue I have with it, going back to mk1 being a boost to AC and batteries.
Yes, I would be opposed.
-
I like the current blast marker rule as being more consistent and straight forward to play with
-
In what possible universe is that the case?
-
The updated v1.5 BFG universe. And now apparently the 2010 BFG FAQ universe as well
-
It's neither more consistent nor more straightforward to play with, and being official doesn't change that.
-
This:
A torpedo salvo (regardless of strength) is now
represented with a Strength 3 marker with one or
more D6 indicating the actual salvo strength.
is VERY BAD.
I have no problems with a single s3 marker with a d6 being used to represent torpedo strength, despite the reduction in salvo size. Two or more d6 on a single marker is extremely problematic because normal d6 (who wants to buy special dice for this) will effectively cover the entire marker which sort of defeats the purpose. Furthermore a squadron of three dauntless launching a torpedo salvo is s18 which now means that there are 3d6 on the same marker making more dice than marker on the table which complicates the movement of the marker because you now have three things to balance instead of one. Secondly, you are reducing the effectiveness of torpedo salvos considerably, so much so that it no longer makes sense to fire the salvo as a single entity. For instance, with your new rule it becomes better to fire three separate salvos of 6 torpedoes rather than one salvo of 18. This is because you have reduced the the marker size to 1/6 the original torpedo spread and complicated the use of it.
Please change this back to 1d6 per maker with an additional marker placed for every s6 above the original. That way s18 would be represented by three markers with a single d6 on top of each. (you are still reducing the salvo to half the size of the original rules).
-
I agree with Vaaish. If someone overlooked my one-liner. :)
-
Great job, I won't even comment on the numerous lapses that this eddition has, but i have only one thing to say:
Please don't delete the old FAQ from GW website - people who want to play normal BFG will probably prefer to have it there.
-
Well... the old FAQ has never been uploaded to the GW site. bwhuahahaha.
Very constructive by the way. lol
-
Doesnt the new FAQ include all the edits in the old faq? it damn well should! :)
As to the torps, I like the way they are now, and I like the new bm version. Because as much as i like the strategy of the old, it gives too much a boost to batteries and AC. All that needs to happen is a clarification that, while the bm is considered all around, the base of the ship isnt itself a bm in relation to other ships. Ive never even thought to play it that way, and just just needs a wording fixed.
-
wot? you like going from massive and somewhat gamey torpedo spreads to effectively useless combined salvos? A single s3 marker is far too small to represent the spread and far too impractical to balance more than one d6 on top, one marker per s6 torpedoes is logical and practical while neatly eliminating the gaminess by halving the space the salvo takes up. Should I upload a shot of my three dauntless firing to show how laughable it is to balance that many d6 on the marker? Perhaps I should just go all out and instead do a full squadron of 6 and show the marker stacked with two layers of dice making it hard to tell what the numbers are?
No, a single marker no matter the salvo size for torpedoes that stacks up dice is completely unworkable and is a totally unneeded nerf to the one fleet that relies on area denial torpedo spreads to break up formations or funnel ship.
-
Yeah, I mean advocate the torpedo marker change but not as rigid as this. And I also feel it was never the intention.
Thus: one str3 marker (or 2x2cm base) for max 6 torps.
-
Well, If you remember I was initially against any change at all.
But it was explained to me the change was for 2 reasons.
1. Ease of play, messing with the torp markers mid-move was very troublesom.
2. Fluff and realism. str3 marker is 3000km of space, and why would torps ever spread further than that?
-
On this general subject, why are the rows for FP6 and FP5 the same?
Turns out Splitting FP10 nets you more firepower than firing all together!
15 and 16 are all but the same as well.
-
Blastmarkers. ;)
But, yes, the table has some oddities.
I know Ray Bell (Raysokuk) made an altered table. On the yahoo group files?
-
ok, so here is a picture all taken from the same distance with regular d6 and 12mm d6 (anything smaller is too fiddly to use on the same token)
note the insane amount of stacking and no benefit gained from launching the larger salvos? Which of these would be easier to move on the board? the one with 3 d6 piled up or the one with a single d6? How about to determine the salvo strength?
(http://www.twolandscreative.com/wip/bfg/markers.jpg)
-
Complete agreement with Vaaish.
-
agree that each standard torpedo base should be for 1-6 strength salvo
-
I can understand if you are splitting direction (thats still allowed right?)
but for the same line, I know I certainly havn't been stacking my torps oddly on top of each other, I just sit em behind or near the torp marker. usually have a seperate color for torps as well, for easier book keeping.
-
I'd also put in for the 1.0 BMs.
As to the Endeavor and its ilk, 6+ prow and 90` turns can't be overpowered simply because the same effect of closing and then turning 90` to unload broadsides is already possible while retaining the benefits of a 6+ prow by squadroning with any of the IN line cruisers. This prevents most enemy fire from even touching the endeavours until they swing around to fire doing the very thing that was mentioned as being too much.
I'd still like to see the NC blast auto hit the eldar. It's not like IN has much going for them against eldar anyhow with a typical balanced list.
Okay everyone, much of the problems and debate I have seen concerning blast markers have centered around #1. actual holes in the FAQ rules that need mending and #2. which is "we hates 'em and don't care for anything except we want v1.0 back.
Let’s be succinct on the whole blast marker debate. Version 1.0 isn't coming back. It makes gunnery and ordnance too effective, it allows ships fired upon in their rear arc to ignore any movement penalty, and it allows Eldar to pretty much ignore blast markers completely. Before we go down the “Eldar are broken also†road, this debate ISN’T about the Eldar.
Most of the legitimate complaints I have seen about blast markers have been fixed in the current FAQ. However, based on the most recent string of comments, the fixes have either been overlooked or are phrased so poorly that they are misunderstood. I am re-smithing the wordology by breaking this up into smaller chunks to make it all as clear as possible.
In a nutshell, being in contact with a BM means the whole base is affected. This does NOT mean the whole base is a BM, meaning ships in contact with ships contacting BM’s don’t ALSO count as being in contact with BM’s unless they physically touch a BM.
When shooting at multiple ships in b2b contact, the BM can only be placed between the two bases of the ship actually being fired upon and the ship closest to the line of fire. This means no more than two ships can ever be affected by a single round of shooting from a ship or squadron. Subsequent BM’s then fan out normally around the first BM and cannot be stacked. The only time more than two ships can be affected by BM’s from a single round of shooting is as follows:
1. A battleship with multiple shields takes three or four blast markers that when fanned out normally contact more than one vessel in actual base contact (as opposed to “close to but not actually touchingâ€).
2. Ships have bases stacked or overlapping atop one another, in which case the BM affects all the ships whose bases actually overlap (as opposed to just b2b contact) with the target vessel.
This means the benefits of overlapping bases, such as getting better firing solutions, hiding crippled cruisers behind others in the same squadron, hiding escorts behind capital ships, plain good (or bad!) luck after moving AAF, etc. are counterbalanced by the risks of BM’s taking down the shields of multiple ships.
The above ruling fixes 90% (meaning NOT all) of the grievances concerning BM’s in base contact without getting rid of the massing turret rule restrictions, which is ALSO not going away or being re-tooled.
- Nate
-
Let me add to my previous post the following, because here’s the best part: it’s a GAME!! If there’s anything you really hate about the FAQ, DON’T USE IT!! However, we are under a series of constraints that for various reasons I can’t elaborate on. Keep in mind that the HA’s are rabid fans as well. Not only so, but we have the dubious honor of trying to get these products out in a timely manner, making sure they are right, having to squeak by a set of constraints placed upon us by those that ultimately decide whether or not after all our effort, all this stuff ends up in the bin anyway because for whatever reason they don’t like what we did. On top of that, we are constantly getting genuinely good feedback stitched in with crazy demands to change core fluff, ignore other core fluff or simply do what feels good.
If it were that simple, don’t you all think we would do it? A majority “we hates it†tells me maybe this is something the fans want or don’t want, but there are subtler issues at play here. Additions and FAQ edits are far easier to sell than core changes, and unfortunately this effort will likely be judged in sum as opposed to individually. Imagine all of this as one last massive Fanatic article that gets to be made official if we can get it past the editor. The best way to do that is to leave the rulebook and Armada as unaltered as possible except for where we can actually justify it is legitimately broken. In GW eyes, this is how the “broken†filter works:
1. Are people buying and using the model? If yes, then it’s not broken. If no, then it is. Case in point- everyone here wants the Devastation re-priced, but as it is a popular model, this doesn’t qualify as “broken†to GW. This by the way is why fixing the escort profiles was an easy sell. The ones people are buying in droves (Swords, Firestorms, Cobras, Hemlocks, Brutes, etc.) qualify as “not broken.†The ones NOBODY are buying (Hellebores, Savages, etc.) qualify as “broken.â€
2. Can you fix it WITHOUT changing the blue or brown book profiles? You would think it’s just a PDF, how hard can it be to fix it? I get it. For whatever reason, price changes are an easier sell than profile changes, ESPECIALLY for ships that have been in the book for a decade. Argue all you want- I’m not the person you need to convince you’re right, and it’s not necessarily an HA thing.
I promise you we’re listening, and we are still discussing a number of issues concerning your feedback on the latest FAQ version before we make it Final. I promise you we want the end product to be worth to YOU all the effort we are putting into it. In the end, everyone here is going to find something they don’t like or agree with. That’s what comes from a game as complex as Battlefleet Gothic. Just know that if in the end the HA’s don’t bend on something, it is NOT because we’re trying to ram something down the fans’ throats from our bully pulpit. Keep in mind that we’re fans too, and we aren’t even getting paid for all this effort.
Please help me by not asking me to elaborate more on any of this or make me explain why we won’t fix this or bring back that. Let’s focus on what’s actually really broken (meaning unplayable or unfair as opposed to “I hates itâ€) and try together to fix what is in our mandate to fix so that in the end, even if the rule set isn’t 100% as good as we want it, it is at least better, more varied and more FUN than the way it is currently.
- Nate
-
Before I get beat up about torps being in the "broken" as opposed to "I hates it" category, yes, we are still discussing it.
Nice pictures, by the way! ;D
- Nate
-
Let me add to my previous post the following, because here’s the best part: it’s a GAME!! If there’s anything you really hate about the FAQ, DON’T USE IT!! However, we are under a series of constraints that for various reasons I can’t elaborate on. Keep in mind that the HA’s are rabid fans as well. Not only so, but we have the dubious honor of trying to get these products out in a timely manner, making sure they are right, having to squeak by a set of constraints placed upon us by those that ultimately decide whether or not after all our effort, all this stuff ends up in the bin anyway because for whatever reason they don’t like what we did. On top of that, we are constantly getting genuinely good feedback stitched in with crazy demands to change core fluff, ignore other core fluff or simply do what feels good.
If it were that simple, don’t you all think we would do it? A majority “we hates it†tells me maybe this is something the fans want or don’t want, but there are subtler issues at play here. Additions and FAQ edits are far easier to sell than core changes, and unfortunately this effort will likely be judged in sum as opposed to individually. Imagine all of this as one last massive Fanatic article that gets to be made official if we can get it past the editor. The best way to do that is to leave the rulebook and Armada as unaltered as possible except for where we can actually justify it is legitimately broken. In GW eyes, this is how the “broken†filter works:
1. Are people buying and using the model? If yes, then it’s not broken. If no, then it is. Case in point- everyone here wants the Devastation re-priced, but as it is a popular model, this doesn’t qualify as “broken†to GW. This by the way is why fixing the escort profiles was an easy sell. The ones people are buying in droves (Swords, Firestorms, Cobras, Hemlocks, Brutes, etc.) qualify as “not broken.†The ones NOBODY are buying (Hellebores, Savages, etc.) qualify as “broken.â€
2. Can you fix it WITHOUT changing the blue or brown book profiles? You would think it’s just a PDF, how hard can it be to fix it? I get it. For whatever reason, price changes are an easier sell than profile changes, ESPECIALLY for ships that have been in the book for a decade. Argue all you want- I’m not the person you need to convince you’re right, and it’s not necessarily an HA thing.
I promise you we’re listening, and we are still discussing a number of issues concerning your feedback on the latest FAQ version before we make it Final. I promise you we want the end product to be worth to YOU all the effort we are putting into it. In the end, everyone here is going to find something they don’t like or agree with. That’s what comes from a game as complex as Battlefleet Gothic. Just know that if in the end the HA’s don’t bend on something, it is NOT because we’re trying to ram something down the fans’ throats from our bully pulpit. Keep in mind that we’re fans too, and we aren’t even getting paid for all this effort.
Please help me by not asking me to elaborate more on any of this or make me explain why we won’t fix this or bring back that. Let’s focus on what’s actually really broken (meaning unplayable or unfair as opposed to “I hates itâ€) and try together to fix what is in our mandate to fix so that in the end, even if the rule set isn’t 100% as good as we want it, it is at least better, more varied and more FUN than the way it is currently.
- Nate
NO. This is a fucking load of shit. Absolute fucking crap. "I hates it" is a customer demand of the company that they should fucking well do something about. They listen to their consumers and their game will continue to sell forever. They just look at their immediate bottom line and we will get jack of it and stop buying. Why play a game that we hate and they won't listen to? Just fix the fuckin rules, hand it in, and say this is what you do if you're smart.
I feel no fuckin compunction whatsoever to just change a few models to increase their sales. Their sales should be a by-product of a good game, not the point of our efforts. The need to be filled is ours, not theirs.
-
Sigoroth is mad.
However it does warrant my idea to have several people sign off on a file attached to the faq to help it go through.
-
By that logic, then, none of the Voss ships will ever be fixed, other then Oberon, as GW no longer sells any.
-
Nate, the one thing we want back fro the original 1.0 rules is that you have to physically fire through the BM or at the very least, fire through the quadrant that the BM is in for WB to take the column shifts.
Unless we are severely misunderstanding the intent here, the current set penalizes WB even if they are on the exact opposite side of the ship that the BM is on because the BM counts as being in contact all around the base.
-
Let me add to my previous post the following, because here’s the best part: it’s a GAME!! If there’s anything you really hate about the FAQ, DON’T USE IT!! However, we are under a series of constraints that for various reasons I can’t elaborate on. Keep in mind that the HA’s are rabid fans as well. Not only so, but we have the dubious honor of trying to get these products out in a timely manner, making sure they are right, having to squeak by a set of constraints placed upon us by those that ultimately decide whether or not after all our effort, all this stuff ends up in the bin anyway because for whatever reason they don’t like what we did. On top of that, we are constantly getting genuinely good feedback stitched in with crazy demands to change core fluff, ignore other core fluff or simply do what feels good.
If it were that simple, don’t you all think we would do it? A majority “we hates it†tells me maybe this is something the fans want or don’t want, but there are subtler issues at play here. Additions and FAQ edits are far easier to sell than core changes, and unfortunately this effort will likely be judged in sum as opposed to individually. Imagine all of this as one last massive Fanatic article that gets to be made official if we can get it past the editor. The best way to do that is to leave the rulebook and Armada as unaltered as possible except for where we can actually justify it is legitimately broken. In GW eyes, this is how the “broken†filter works:
1. Are people buying and using the model? If yes, then it’s not broken. If no, then it is. Case in point- everyone here wants the Devastation re-priced, but as it is a popular model, this doesn’t qualify as “broken†to GW. This by the way is why fixing the escort profiles was an easy sell. The ones people are buying in droves (Swords, Firestorms, Cobras, Hemlocks, Brutes, etc.) qualify as “not broken.†The ones NOBODY are buying (Hellebores, Savages, etc.) qualify as “broken.â€
2. Can you fix it WITHOUT changing the blue or brown book profiles? You would think it’s just a PDF, how hard can it be to fix it? I get it. For whatever reason, price changes are an easier sell than profile changes, ESPECIALLY for ships that have been in the book for a decade. Argue all you want- I’m not the person you need to convince you’re right, and it’s not necessarily an HA thing.
I promise you we’re listening, and we are still discussing a number of issues concerning your feedback on the latest FAQ version before we make it Final. I promise you we want the end product to be worth to YOU all the effort we are putting into it. In the end, everyone here is going to find something they don’t like or agree with. That’s what comes from a game as complex as Battlefleet Gothic. Just know that if in the end the HA’s don’t bend on something, it is NOT because we’re trying to ram something down the fans’ throats from our bully pulpit. Keep in mind that we’re fans too, and we aren’t even getting paid for all this effort.
Please help me by not asking me to elaborate more on any of this or make me explain why we won’t fix this or bring back that. Let’s focus on what’s actually really broken (meaning unplayable or unfair as opposed to “I hates itâ€) and try together to fix what is in our mandate to fix so that in the end, even if the rule set isn’t 100% as good as we want it, it is at least better, more varied and more FUN than the way it is currently.
- Nate
NO. This is a fucking load of shit. Absolute fucking crap. "I hates it" is a customer demand of the company that they should fucking well do something about. They listen to their consumers and their game will continue to sell forever. They just look at their immediate bottom line and we will get jack of it and stop buying. Why play a game that we hate and they won't listen to? Just fix the fuckin rules, hand it in, and say this is what you do if you're smart.
I feel no fuckin compunction whatsoever to just change a few models to increase their sales. Their sales should be a by-product of a good game, not the point of our efforts. The need to be filled is ours, not theirs.
See, now that's useful. I have an idea. I'll make everyone here happy, then GW will stuff it in the round file and nobody wins. Everyone loses, but we gave it to the MAN so at least we can all feel good about losing.
Really? Sig, we're trying to make something positive here. Like I said, 50% improvement that we KNOW will pass is better than 100% improvement that is destined to failure, because in the end that only leads to zero improvement.
If you aren't even trying to compromise on absolutely anything you disagree with in this process, why are you even trying to make a difference?
Oh, and the profanity is certainly a great help as well. Thanks. I'm definitely the enemy here.
- Nate
-
By that logic, then, none of the Voss ships will ever be fixed, other then Oberon, as GW no longer sells any.
Actually the AdMech CL's use the same Endeavor rules, and the models can be used in a standard IN fleet without using AdMech rules so technically they are still available.
- Nate
-
Well, it's good to see that GW's 'new' policy is still in force. Screw the game, aim for profit.
Here are a few questions for you..
The Endeavor model is no longer sold. The Admech model suffers from extremely poor design, and a warped prow on both the LC and the Cruiser model. In all honesty, the horrible design of the prows of these vessels destroyed any hope of me ever buying them, the cost aside.
The Armada book is NO LONGER SOLD! Why would they worry about something they don't print anymore!?
-
He is right. Changes with GW are played by greed. Unless we can show them the reasons that something will end with more money in their pockets, with little paperwork then its not happening.
However, I'm surprised that they're so resistant to change, at least from what we're getting from Nate. I though living rulebook meant that some changes could happen every year or so.
As well I thought that the HAs were put in custodial charge of the rules, and honestly a rebalance of all vessels would likely prove to be a money earner for GW. Isn't it their general philosophy, making everything that everyone liked in the previous edition/codex/whatnot kinda sucky, but everything everyone never bought great?
Look at the trend from 3rd to 5th edition 40k. First there was transports and large numbers of troops, GW then made this not work, making them tons of money with people fumbling for new solutions involving characters and different units. Then fifth comes along and everyone needs eighty billion transports that they never bought in 4th.
Now lets look at warmachine. They just updated their first edition. Jacks weren't worthwhile in that, so they made them necessary to take, and a little better. Same sort of philosophy. Now in their second edition units are more balanced, inspiring people to buy a lot of things that were useless.
With a balanced ruleset players are able to find multiple viable lists, and therefore are tempted to buy more vessels to fulfill these optional lists. Rather than just ignore a bunch because they are useless.
I may type up an essay/research on gothic players and lists at some point in the next two months. God knows I've written enough research proposals.
-
Guys... you really need to lay off the HA.
They are fighting tooth and nail to prevent GW from just canceling the line and ending the game, just like it did to Man'o'War, HeroQuest, and the other defunct specialist games.
The old guard is GONE, right now the company is owned by lawyers and marketing execs who want nothing but money.
-
and lets also lay off GW operating policies. it is a game company.
i think the popularity argument is reasonable. if people are buying and using it, leave it as is. yes it could be better. everything can.
if people aren't buying or using it, these are the items that should get priority to be fixed.
make sense from both a gaming point and a marketing point.
-
See, now that's useful. I have an idea. I'll make everyone here happy, then GW will stuff it in the round file and nobody wins. Everyone loses, but we gave it to the MAN so at least we can all feel good about losing.
The fact is that they're a bunch of greedy cunts that just want money. Well I say that we set the conditions under which we hand over our money. They're acting like banks. Taking our money and acting like we should be grateful for the privilege.
Really? Sig, we're trying to make something positive here. Like I said, 50% improvement that we KNOW will pass is better than 100% improvement that is destined to failure, because in the end that only leads to zero improvement.
No, it's not. If the people that they assign to make the game better come back at them and say "your mandate is unworkable, here's how to make the game better, ie, increase sales" then they've got the choice of following the will of their customers and making some money or packing it all up. Either way we, the customers, shouldn't supplicate our desires in the interests of GW making more money easily. We are the demand, they are the ones that fill the demand. To behave as if we should allow them to tell us what we can and can't demand is ABSURD. Oh yes master, whip me some more.
If you aren't even trying to compromise on absolutely anything you disagree with in this process, why are you even trying to make a difference?
Oh, and the profanity is certainly a great help as well. Thanks. I'm definitely the enemy here.
- Nate
The profanity is certainly helpful. It conveyed just how FUCKING pissed off I am about this LUDICROUS position. People should get angry more often. Stops you from getting walked all over. As for compromise, that is possible in a discussion with fellow consumers over what changes ought to be made. It is also possible to compromise due to feasibility concerns. We might all want product X but it could be impossible to produce it at a price we're willing to pay. What it is NOT possible to compromise is our voice. To be dismissed out of hand on the strength of some arbitrary decision ("oh sorry, we're not changing this part of the game ... just cuz") and money-grubbing mentality ("well obviously the only changes that need to be made are ones that increase our sales") is worse than galling. The fact that you lap it up and say "yessum" is appalling.
-
and lets also lay off GW operating policies. it is a game company.
I used to buy this, before I discovered other game companies. Yes, profit is key. But game companies are a bit special. Fan support is their lifeblood. After I discovered other companies, say, Privateer Press, ones that went out of their way to please even minute parts of their fanbase, because they were fans, let me realize how far GW had fallen, and I dropped my thousands-dollar investment got OUT. Now I just do secondhand sales, specialist games.
I will not be too hard on the HA's though. As ridiculous as I feel the current MO is, obviously they recieved it on instruction. Hate GW, love the HA I say, because I feel they do really care about the game at least, right or wrong.
Ultimately, because you aren't running BFG tournies and the like, its all about the house rules and local play style.
So play the way your group likes to play, and count the 'official' rules as a hope of future development. Thats what I do.
-
I will not condone GW's policies, not after their space marine movie (not the recent flop, the flop before that), LOTR, and the destruction of their specialist games line. They were in massive corporate debt for several years due to their terrible business decisions, and only now are out of debt on a business plan that (lets face it) has the effect of massive power creep.
We are trying to revitalize our passion. That's why we are getting angry about it. Sig, your right, we should not cow down to corporate morons who never painted a miniature. However, flybywire is right, we should not propose things that will get shot out of the sky.
-
I will not condone GW's policies, not after their space marine movie (not the recent flop, the flop before that), LOTR, and the destruction of their specialist games line. They were in massive corporate debt for several years due to their terrible business decisions, and only now are out of debt on a business plan that (lets face it) has the effect of massive power creep.
Power creep makes money. Convinces people to buy the next new army as GW appeals to the players who want nothing out of the game other than the satisfaction of winning. Played in ard boys this last year, made it to semi-finals with a sub-par witchunters army (containing no SOBS, but that's besides the point) then quit after I watched everyone get so frustrated and down-right angry about losing. Seemed dumb, I play any game to enjoy myself win or lose. I also was very bothered about that players have taken to playing 40k in the ard boys style every time, spamming some unit or another and taking only one list because it was determined to be the best. (I'm looking at you Razorwolves)
Look at SMs from their basic codex of the two marine flavors updated since you got cheaper better tactical marines, and then you got a list where you lost nothing from the original codex, but gained so much. Not to mention the Blood rage supposedly being a disadvantage, but all I see there is pure win.
We are trying to revitalize our passion. That's why we are getting angry about it. Sig, your right, we should not cow down to corporate morons who never painted a miniature. However, flybywire is right, we should not propose things that will get shot out of the sky.
I'm still amazed on the limitations here. I'm wondering what GW said/how they treated Nate to make him think that changes are so hard to pass.
-
Well, I do appreciate the effort and work of the HA's. I don't like all of the results, but there is without doubt progress in the right direction.
I'm sure that I will create some house rules, using my own ideas and those that were vented here, to compensate for what cannot/may not be changed by the HA's. Nobody can tell me not to ;)
-
The answer to how they treated nate is simple, "Do this for no money, no credit, and no major changes, or we kill the game"
-
The answer to how they treated nate is simple, "Do this for no money, no credit, and no major changes, or we kill the game"
It beats the one they gave BB: 'If anyone else but us markets a mini for this game, we kill the game.'
Frankly, I'm told that the only reason they agreed at all was the hope that improvements would move back stock. According to some reports, they're preparing to end the specialist games in general anyway.
-
The profanity is certainly helpful. It conveyed just how FUCKING pissed off I am about this LUDICROUS position. People should get angry more often. Stops you from getting walked all over. As for compromise, that is possible in a discussion with fellow consumers over what changes ought to be made. It is also possible to compromise due to feasibility concerns. We might all want product X but it could be impossible to produce it at a price we're willing to pay. What it is NOT possible to compromise is our voice. To be dismissed out of hand on the strength of some arbitrary decision ("oh sorry, we're not changing this part of the game ... just cuz") and money-grubbing mentality ("well obviously the only changes that need to be made are ones that increase our sales") is worse than galling. The fact that you lap it up and say "yessum" is appalling.
Hi Sig! Okay look. Right now what I'm REALLY fighting against is the game going away completely. They have no talent or resources at ALL directed toward preserving the game. Well so what if the game is in stasis? At least we can still keep playing it, right? Wrong. IF GW doesn't support the game anymore, they won't maintain the master molds. When those wear out, they won't renew them (a costly process), and then BFG goes the way of Spacefleet.
IF the game is going to reach a point of stasis, I at LEAST want it to get to that point with as complete and varied a ruleset as we can put on the street before it happens. Without getting into particulars, the situation is a bit more precarious than it seems, but at the same time there are unique possibilities in play from several different directions that may breathe some new life into the game, REAL life, like an opportunity to effect real changes to the fleets, core rule sets, everything. That time is NOT now and NOT yet, but it's coming.
Be angry, Sig, that’s fine. It's not helping any, but it's not really hurting either so keep it up- loud, off-kilter passion for the game is certainly a LOT better than no passion at all. However, I assure you we are not just lapping up what's happening and not doing anything about it- heck, that's the whole POINT of this project!!! We're simply NOT going to get all the changes we want right now, and forcing the issue isn't going to change any of that. We can either make slow and steady progress, or we can bitch and moan that progress isn't fast enough while in the meantime no progress happens at all.
I'm not addressing this anymore. We have too much to still get done, and we're running out of time.
- Nate
-
Well, I do appreciate the effort and work of the HA's. I don't like all of the results, but there is without doubt progress in the right direction.
I'm sure that I will create some house rules, using my own ideas and those that were vented here, to compensate for what cannot/may not be changed by the HA's. Nobody can tell me not to ;)
Well, I can tell you not to, but who the heck says you have to listen to me?!? :) :D ;D :D ;D
- Nate
-
I'm not addressing this anymore. We have too much to still get done, and we're running out of time.
- Nate
Sounds like you're running out of patience. You've said what you need to. Thnx Nate.
-
Right now what I'm REALLY fighting against is the game going away completely. They have no talent or resources at ALL directed toward preserving the game. Well so what if the game is in stasis? At least we can still keep playing it, right? Wrong. IF GW doesn't support the game anymore, they won't maintain the master molds. When those wear out, they won't renew them (a costly process), and then BFG goes the way of Spacefleet.
If we go out, lets go out with a fight. :)
-
Nate and the boys have been busting their gut putting all this stuff together for us to use, so thanks guys. As a novice player, the new blast market rule simplifies things a bit for me and my opponent (trying to find a 40k buff in Japan is hard enough, try finding a BFG player - now there's the mark of an optimist) but we haven't really played long enough to appreciate the subtleties of the differences perhaps.
My only hope is that if this game is no longer going to be supported ( :'(); we at least get a head's up. I'd be putting in a monster order in that case
-
1. Are people buying and using the model? If yes, then it’s not broken. If no, then it is. Case in point- everyone here wants the Devastation re-priced, but as it is a popular model, this doesn’t qualify as “broken†to GW.
Is there then no distinction between the Styx (which people rarely play) and the Dev (which people do) simply because they have the same model? This policy also makes it impossible to fix undercosted ships, whilst at the same time we're being criticised for wanting to fix the overcosted ones.
Anyway, we do appreciate what you guys are doing, and if we get a bit fiery sometimes it's only because we're passionate about the game and could use a little more clarity about what's actually going on. (eg new ships being separate from FAQ, yet profile changes still could sink the whole thing.)
-
Well, we know why the profile changes might sink it. GW licensed all the BFG ships to FFG as is, including the ship profiles. I'm willing to bet they have a clause that says that neither party can make radical changes to the licensed material. And on top that, I figure that GW's cut of the RPG sales is more then they're making off BFG.
-
Assume hypothetically its Christmas and we can revisit profile costs. This is a hypothetical exercise, and there is NO GUARANTEE ANY of this will be incorporated. However, I would like a ready store of this info in case the opportunity presents itself to make these changes. Before anyone asks, NO we are NOT re-doing the Eldar rules right now.
If we do get to visit any of this, it’s to fix what is ACTUALLY BROKEN, not "...you know what else would be cool?" The term “actually broken†applies to profiles and point costs, not ship profiles that don’t match their pictures well. For example, I HATE how the Despoiler doesn’t look anything like its profile and created the Chaos battlebarge as an easily cobbled alternative, but the profile in and of itself is not broken.
Let’s start with the obvious: For its current profile, the Devastation and Styx DEFINITELY are broken. For just +5 points, TWO Devastations can be bought over one Styx. Separately, for 190 points, the Devastation carries far more firepower than the Acheron, which is actually a well- balanced heavy cruiser (despite how many people feel about it).
Because the Acheron is both well-balanced for points and fits in the Chaos theme of fast with medium armor, long-range weapons with no special rules, it is NOT broken despite being a bit quirky. Not broken means it gets left as-is. This ALSO means the Devastation can’t be raised in price, so its price is set at 190 points. The fix for this ship is obvious and has already been suggested by Sigoroth and others: drop the broadside lances to 45cm and leave everything else unchanged. Good.
Now what do we do about the Styx? Even if we change the Devastation, we have to make the Styx worth taking without making it so cheap that it suffers form the same problem the Devastation has currently- murderously too cheap. Once again the fix is obvious and was recommended by the fan list here: drop the price to 260, no other changes. It’s now (-20) points over two Devastations AND has longer ranged (if less total) firepower. For a carrier-heavy fleet two Devs is still a better deal, but no longer so much so that a Styx isn’t worth even considering.
Are there any other fleets out there with completely broken ships? The Tau Merchant was brought up as an example, and we will have to look at that one. Anything else? I’m looking for broken profiles like the Syyx/Acheron/Devastation triangle. Other examples don’t have to be so extreme, but if we do this at all, we have to justify something is actually broken, not simply cool if made a bit better.
- Nate
-
Well, we know why the profile changes might sink it. GW licensed all the BFG ships to FFG as is, including the ship profiles. I'm willing to bet they have a clause that says that neither party can make radical changes to the licensed material. And on top that, I figure that GW's cut of the RPG sales is more then they're making off BFG.
You know what would be absolutely awesome? Maybe al the models are still for sale but the game is in quiet stasis because FFG is getting ready to take over BFG. I mean, look at what happened to Inquisitor- it was trucking along just nicely with a fresh new sourcebook release, then suddenly the lights went out. A year later, FFG comes out with Dark Heresy. How cool would that be?
Hey, it could happen... ;D
- Nate
-
1. make the styx cheaper rather than weaken the devastation
2. yes, fix the merchant
3. who is FFG?
thank you for all the work done so far. i am still hoping for a re-release of BFG as 2.0.
-
I don't even understand the concern about FFG licensing BFG from GW. Heck if you fix everything that would make people take them, in other words BUY them, it would only be good for FFG's sales.
And making BFG Mk. 2.0 with most everything fixed and coinciding it with FFG's releasing them can only result in good things.
-
Hi Fracas,
FFG = Fantasy Flight Games.
They made the Rogue Trader RPG, which has space combat, based upon BFG. Only more detail. It is really cool. FFG is a cool company from what I experienced with them.
So,...
Let’s be succinct on the whole blast marker debate. Version 1.0 isn't coming back. It makes gunnery and ordnance too effective, it allows ships fired upon in their rear arc to ignore any movement penalty, and it allows Eldar to pretty much ignore blast markers completely. [/quote[
No, that came from players who abused the rules. In v1.0 blastmarkers in the rear arc, touched the base, does applied a -5cm movement and shield penalty. It was just no spelt out in the rules but certainly how I and opponents read the rule. So, see. For having better gunnery: yay! Effective ordnance? Only 1d6 roll is avoided if ordnance had enough speed. Hardly affecting.
massing turret rule restrictions, which is ALSO not going away or being re-tooled.
Massing turrets is fine, and BM should not affect a ship in b-2-b contact if the BM isn't touching it. (See here is how the ordnance plus from above is balanced back again).
On some other points,
Nate: do not forget a lot of SG players are collectors as well and just buy models for the looks (I did: Despoiler. :) ). So, using sales numbers on how a model is in-game won't work or is a good idea to start with,
Devestation: lances 45cm done. Done.
Styx: 260points. Done.
Despoiler (must be broken, I never want to use it ;) ). Change profile. Done.
-
Let’s start with the obvious: For its current profile, the Devastation and Styx DEFINITELY are broken. For just +5 points, TWO Devastations can be bought over one Styx.
Your math is bad throughout this post.
190 x 2 = 380
380 = 275 + 105
-
More like:
3x Dev = 570
2x Styx = 550
20 points. Above is the best level of comparision.
-
I personally really enjoy both variants of the Despoiler.
I think the current BM rules NEED a sentence explaining that bases dont count as BM's for the purpose of other ships touching them.
My vote goes to Dev price increase rather than it losing range. Strongly would prefer that.
Edit: Devastation 205, Styx 260.
-
Let’s start with the obvious: For its current profile, the Devastation and Styx DEFINITELY are broken. For just +5 points, TWO Devastations can be bought over one Styx.
Your math is bad throughout this post.
190 x 2 = 380
380 = 275 + 105
I've been at this too long when my basic math goes to crap! :P Thanks for the catch. I'm going to bed...
- Nate
-
I personally really enjoy both variants of the Despoiler.
I think the current BM rules NEED a sentence explaining that bases dont count as BM's for the purpose of other ships touching them.
My vote goes to Dev price increase rather than it losing range. Strongly would prefer that.
Edit: Devastation 205, Styx 260.
Uh, no on Dev. Checked the flawed list thread in the discussion area. Most support was for the changes I listed (not that it where my ideas but I do like them).
-
Why are you against a price increase over lowering the range of the ship?
-
Since, 190points is a good prize. And we also have been given the guideline: no regular should cost more then a heavy cruiser.
Plus lowering the range means that the general firepower of the Devestation is brough in line with the premium firepower range of most of the chaos cruisers (45cm).
That's good.
-
The Admech model suffers from extremely poor design, and a warped prow on both the LC and the Cruiser model. In all honesty, the horrible design of the prows of these vessels destroyed any hope of me ever buying them, the cost aside.
Yes, the AdMech CL is a horrible cast. Really bad prow mould.
The cruiser is okay to be honest, just needs more filling then the average thing. The Battleship is good. Considering I constructed some battleships it wasn't worse. Got no major bend or so. So good.
-
I just really love my Dev Styx Dev squadron circling the battlefield, shooting death at a distance while sending in wave after wave :)
So, Dev goes to 45cm, and Styx to 260. Both balanced to their points, in your opinion?
-
Why are you against a price increase over lowering the range of the ship?
The most overpowered aspect of the Dev is that it provides all its AC as well as giving strong long range support firepower. Lowering this ensures that the Dev isn't overpowered (which 200 pts doesn't do) without making players restructure their lists, though they can if they miss the range. Lastly, the Acheron is not quite so crap if the Dev is unable to do what it does in half the space.
So, Dev goes to 45cm, and Styx to 260. Both balanced to their points, in your opinion?
Styx is still overpriced, but not so horribly as it used to be and this could be the "premium" it pays for being able to launch 6 AC in a single wave.
-
I remember when it was 290 :)
-
We all do. ::)
-
I didn't make it all the way through the 2.2 version the FAQ and now we're up to 2.3. These comments are from 2.2 but on a quick skim still apply to 2.3 and I thought I should post them before it's too late.
Special orders are declared before the movement phase by choosing a vessel, declaring the order and rolling leadership, repeating this over and over until a vessel fails its leadership check or all desired vessels have their special orders.
What is the reason for the change to the rules as written? The printed rulebook, the .pdf, and reference sheets all make it pretty clear that you issue orders for a ship/squadron then move it then repeat for each ship/squadron in your fleet.
When escort squadrons are braced or on any special order that halves firepower, the whole squadron adds its firepower and weapon strength together and divides it in half (rounding up).
Why does this rule specifically apply to escort squadrons? A very similar but more complete rule is already in the Shooting section on page 3.
You cannot split weapons batter or lance fire of any type at a single target!
"batter" = "battery"
Ships with multiple lances in a given fire arc may split their weapon strength between two or more targets but must still make a leadership check to fire on any target besides the closest.
Why mentions lances but not batteries? Why mention this at all? Splitting fire of lances and batteries are both clearly allowed by page 21 of the rulebook.
Ordnance is launched at the end of the shooting phase as opposed to the beginning of the ordnance phase. This means if a given carrier already has attack craft on the table at the beginning of the ordnance phase, it cannot launch any more attack craft that turn unless it recalls markers currently in play and launches new markers from the ship?s base, even if it has successfully reloaded. This prevents a carrier from attacking a target to expend its attack craft in play and then launching a new attack craft wave in a single turn. Ships and defenses that may launch up to twice the number of launch bays they have on the table are not restricted in this manner as long as they do not exceed the number of allowable attack craft markers in play.
This scenario implies that attack craft launched by a certain carrier prevent that specific carrier from launching again until they are removed. I always thought only the total number of bays and attack craft on the board mattered. The last sentence would seem to disallow a carrier from launching more craft if it had even a partial wave left on the table. I would assume it could launch another partial wave as long as the total craft on the board was not more than it had bays.
Opposing Resilient Attack Craft: If two markers that both have a 4+ save attack each other and both remain in play, they stop movement and remain in contact until the next ordnance phase. However, if any marker that saves is attacked again in the same phase, it (along with the marker that attacked it) is automatically removed. This save is used one fighter at a time. Following is an extreme example:
1. If two Thunderhawks are attacked by two Eldar fighters, and the first fighter attacks the first Thunderhawk and they both roll a 4+, both markers must immediately stop all movement and subsequent attacks but both remain in play. If the second Eldar fighter now attacks the first Thunderhawk, the first Thunderhawk is automatically removed. If the second Eldar fighter now rolls a 4+ save, it may remain in play but the Eldar ordnance phase is now complete because both ordnance markers used their save and can no longer move or attack.
2. It is now the opponent?s ordnance phase. The sole remaining Thunderhawk may now elect to move away from the two Eldar fighters, or it may elect to attack them. If it does, both it and the Eldar player again roll their 4+ save because it is now a different ordnance phase. Regardless of the outcome, all ordnance markers still surviving after this exchange remain in place until the next player turn because both ordnance phases have already taken place.
Overall I'm very happy with the resilient attack craft rules, but I think this example is incorrect. Since the first Thunderhawk temporarily loses its fighter status after surviving against the first Eldar fighter shouldn't the second Eldar fighter be forced to fight the second Thunderhawk as fighters should always be attacked before other attack craft according to the main rulebook?
Crippling a vessel constitutes a permanent change to its turret value and thus the maximum number of attacks that can be gained by supporting fighters. A crippled Lunar will only have 1 turret and so you can only gain a maximum of +1 attack due to fighter support.
With the current turret suppression this rule makes no sense at all.
As Battlefleet Gothic is a 2D representation of 3D space, a ship cannot attempt to ram more than one ship per movement phase, even if multiple enemy vessels are in its range of movement. The owning player must declare which ship it is attempting to ram before moving and cannot change this if the ramming ship ends its movement in base contact with more than one vessel.
Where a ship ends its movement has nothing to do with what it could ram. This should say that it doesn't matter how many ships the ramming ship moves over rather than ends in contact with.
Teleport attacks can be conducted by capital ships that are on Lock-On or Reload Ordnance special orders. All other special orders preclude the use of teleport attacks.
This seems like an unneccesary change. Why mention capital ships specifically? Just to prevent Necron Jackals on Lock-On from using their portals?
While enemy ships can choose to fire on a hulk, they do not have to pass a leadership check to ignore one if it is the closest target. A player can fire on an enemy hulk if it is not the closest target, but it must make a leadership check normally.
This isn't really about this rule so much as that I've always been a little unclear on something. Does every single hit on a hulk cause another roll on the Catastrophic Damage Table? The rules are silent on this issue and I've never seen a FAQ concerning it. My group has always played that an attack against a hulk that scores at least one hit will cause another roll on the table, not one roll per hit. Maybe some clarification on this should be included or someone could at least clue me in on how they play it.
When placing an exploding ship?s blast markers, they may not overlap with each other but may overlap or be stacked with blast markers previously placed (they may otherwise NOT be stacked). First place a single blast marker exactly where the ship was then place as many blast markers from the explosion as possible in contact with it, this should give you eight blast markers in total. If more blast markers were caused place them in contact with the ring of blast markers surrounding the first.
Why allow stacking in this one case? Why not just say place all the markers as close to the ship's previous location as possible?
-
Masque, THANKS for helping out- these kinds of comments, corrections and questions are exactly what we need. I will incorporate the obvious blunders and provide you line-by-line responses for everything else.
- Nate
-
I've never tried this but the thought have come up on some occasions...
Overkill: When a ship is reduced to 0 hits they would sometimes end up at a negative hit point value if the salvo was unusually accurate/lucky/critical effects. What if the catastrophic roll gains a modifier equal to the negative hit point value to represent the more likeliness to cause an explosion. A drifting/blazing hulk taking additional hits rolls 2D6 as normal.
Example: A cruiser with one hit point remaining suffers 4 additional hits (non-braced) ends up with -3 hit points. It rolls 2D6+3 on the catastrophic table.
-
Has anyone considered tiered blast marker removal? It seems weird that at 500 points blast markers are dissapearing relatively faster than at 1500.
How about:
up to 1000 points: d6 (or d3) 1000 and above: 2d6 (or d6)?
-
Has anyone considered tiered blast marker removal? It seems weird that at 500 points blast markers are dissapearing relatively faster than at 1500.
How about:
up to 1000 points: d6 (or d3) 1000 and above: 2d6 (or d6)?
I've long considered it odd that Ord flies faster when there's more players.
-
I've long considered it odd that Ord flies faster when there's more players.
This is just the fact that the game is designed for two players. Usually when playing with multiplayer most people agree on some modified movement system (i.e. my ordinance moves during my turn and the next players turn but not the third players) or they reduce the speed of ordinance to compensate.
-
I like the blast marker idea. At 2000 points its extremely crowded space.
I agree some system of ordnance moving should be made for multiple players. Its impossible to have 3 way battles with ordnance in BFG, it just doesnt work right.
I say make another ship better instead of nerfing the Dev, after consideration. 45cm sounded right, then I remembered it was a chaos ship.
Its badass for its points, though I do agree in a points increase. Meaningless standards such as cost vs HC be damned, the Acheron has less weapon hardpoints than a standard cruiser. (!?)
-
Hi Masque! Let me start by saying this was EXCELLENT work!
I didn't make it all the way through the 2.2 version the FAQ and now we're up to 2.3. These comments are from 2.2 but on a quick skim still apply to 2.3 and I thought I should post them before it's too late.
Special orders are declared before the movement phase by choosing a vessel, declaring the order and rolling leadership, repeating this over and over until a vessel fails its leadership check or all desired vessels have their special orders.
What is the reason for the change to the rules as written? The printed rulebook, the .pdf, and reference sheets all make it pretty clear that you issue orders for a ship/squadron then move it then repeat for each ship/squadron in your fleet.
This was a blooper on our part. We’ve been working on this since April, and it was supposed to be reworded several iterations ago to answer a specific FAQ question and was inadvertently forgotten. GREAT CATCH!! Fixed!
When escort squadrons are braced or on any special order that halves firepower, the whole squadron adds its firepower and weapon strength together and divides it in half (rounding up).
Why does this rule specifically apply to escort squadrons? A very similar but more complete rule is already in the Shooting section on page 3.
Because of all the problems and abuses with shooting with escort squadrons, it seemed pertinent to put this in both the shooting section and the section concerning being braced. I changed this tp put the better explanation on p.2, and I simply referenced it in the Shooting section.
You cannot split weapons batter or lance fire of any type at a single target!
"batter" = "battery"
Good catch. DONE!
Ships with multiple lances in a given fire arc may split their weapon strength between two or more targets but must still make a leadership check to fire on any target besides the closest.
Why mentions lances but not batteries? Why mention this at all? Splitting fire of lances and batteries are both clearly allowed by page 21 of the rulebook.
It is allowed, but this rule has been misinterpreted, which is why it was clarified here. I will re-word it to include all shooting weapons.
Ordnance is launched at the end of the shooting phase as opposed to the beginning of the ordnance phase. This means if a given carrier already has attack craft on the table at the beginning of the ordnance phase, it cannot launch any more attack craft that turn unless it recalls markers currently in play and launches new markers from the ship’s base, even if it has successfully reloaded. This prevents a carrier from attacking a target to expend its attack craft in play and then launching a new attack craft wave in a single turn. Ships and defenses that may launch up to twice the number of launch bays they have on the table are not restricted in this manner as long as they do not exceed the number of allowable attack craft markers in play.
This scenario implies that attack craft launched by a certain carrier prevent that specific carrier from launching again until they are removed. I always thought only the total number of bays and attack craft on the board mattered. The last sentence would seem to disallow a carrier from launching more craft if it had even a partial wave left on the table. I would assume it could launch another partial wave as long as the total craft on the board was not more than it had bays.
You are absolutely right- you can launch another partial wave; that is actually addressed separately in the same FAQ. The intent of the rule is specifically to prevent someone from moving ordnance already on the table to expend it in attacks, then launch a full strength of new ordnance, potentially getting two sets of attacks in a single ordnance phase. If you understood what I wrote here to mean you may not be able to do that, I have to re-smith it.
Opposing Resilient Attack Craft: If two markers that both have a 4+ save attack each other and both remain in play, they stop movement and remain in contact until the next ordnance phase. However, if any marker that saves is attacked again in the same phase, it (along with the marker that attacked it) is automatically removed. This save is used one fighter at a time. Following is an extreme example:
1. If two Thunderhawks are attacked by two Eldar fighters, and the first fighter attacks the first Thunderhawk and they both roll a 4+, both markers must immediately stop all movement and subsequent attacks but both remain in play. If the second Eldar fighter now attacks the first Thunderhawk, the first Thunderhawk is automatically removed. If the second Eldar fighter now rolls a 4+ save, it may remain in play but the Eldar ordnance phase is now complete because both ordnance markers used their save and can no longer move or attack.
2. It is now the opponent’s ordnance phase. The sole remaining Thunderhawk may now elect to move away from the two Eldar fighters, or it may elect to attack them. If it does, both it and the Eldar player again roll their 4+ save because it is now a different ordnance phase. Regardless of the outcome, all ordnance markers still surviving after this exchange remain in place until the next player turn because both ordnance phases have already taken place.
Overall I'm very happy with the resilient attack craft rules, but I think this example is incorrect. Since the first Thunderhawk temporarily loses its fighter status after surviving against the first Eldar fighter shouldn't the second Eldar fighter be forced to fight the second Thunderhawk as fighters should always be attacked before other attack craft according to the main rulebook?
Thunderhawks don’t “lose†being fighters, what they lose is their 4+ save. They are ALWAYS assault boats that behave as fighters. However, they only get to use their save once per ordnance phase. For example, Ork fighta-bommas are bombers that are ALWAYS fighters (except that they don’t get a save), which is different from Tau Mantas, which are bombers that get a 4+ save against fighters but are NOT fighters in and of themselves, meaning they ignore torpedoes and assault boats like other bombers do. You are probably not the only person thinking this so I will add it to the FAQ.
Crippling a vessel constitutes a permanent change to its turret value and thus the maximum number of attacks that can be gained by supporting fighters. A crippled Lunar will only have 1 turret and so you can only gain a maximum of +1 attack due to fighter support.
With the current turret suppression this rule makes no sense at all.
I understand your question, but it makes perfect sense- here’s why. The obvious question is, “why are fighters less effective when there are less turrets to defend against?†There’s no harm in explaining this further in the FAQ- you’re probably not the only person thinking this. In game terms the point of fighter support is to defend against turrets (not attack the ship), and with less turrets, there’s less to defend against. In actual rule terms, fighter support is to counterbalance the number of attacks bombers lose to turrets. Because the number of turrets go down when a ship is crippled, the actual number of bomber attacks (regardless of fighter support) go up. For example, four bombers rolling D6-2 attacks against a ship with two turrets only roll D6-1 against the same ship when crippled. The fighters offer less support because they are physically doing less to protect the bombers, but the total number of attacks is still increased.
As Battlefleet Gothic is a 2D representation of 3D space, a ship cannot attempt to ram more than one ship per movement phase, even if multiple enemy vessels are in its range of movement. The owning player must declare which ship it is attempting to ram before moving and cannot change this if the ramming ship ends its movement in base contact with more than one vessel.
Where a ship ends its movement has nothing to do with what it could ram. This should say that it doesn't matter how many ships the ramming ship moves over rather than ends in contact with.
You are right, and that's how it should have been explained. Done.
Teleport attacks can be conducted by capital ships that are on Lock-On or Reload Ordnance special orders. All other special orders preclude the use of teleport attacks.
This seems like an unneccesary change. Why mention capital ships specifically? Just to prevent Necron Jackals on Lock-On from using their portals?
Actually, this doesn’t have anything to do with Portals. Portals are a weapon system Necrons use IN ADDITION TO normal teleport attacks. That’s how Jackals get to make teleport attacks- they don’t break the rule prohibiting escorts from doing so, but they get a Portal, which is a weapon that does the same thing. That’s why Tombships can do four teleport attacks per turn, one normally and three more for its three Portals. This is explained in the Necron section of the rules so there’s nothing to fix.
While enemy ships can choose to fire on a hulk, they do not have to pass a leadership check to ignore one if it is the closest target. A player can fire on an enemy hulk if it is not the closest target, but it must make a leadership check normally.
This isn't really about this rule so much as that I've always been a little unclear on something. Does every single hit on a hulk cause another roll on the Catastrophic Damage Table? The rules are silent on this issue and I've never seen a FAQ concerning it. My group has always played that an attack against a hulk that scores at least one hit will cause another roll on the table, not one roll per hit. Maybe some clarification on this should be included or someone could at least clue me in on how they play it.
CRAP!! GREAT QUESTION!!! This was in an earlier FAQ and somehow got deleted. Andy Chambers told us some years ago that as stated on p.26 of the rules, “If a hulk suffers any hits, roll on the Catastrophic Table again.†What this means is if a ship is hulked, roll on the CD table. If you shoot at it and score two more hits, then you roll ONCE again on the table (NOT once per hit). Every time the hulk takes damage, you roll once again on the table. Because it’s turret value is zero, if you want the hulk to be dead, this is the one example where it is tactically prudent to separate a bomber wave and go at it with individual markers, for example.
When placing an exploding ship’s blast markers, they may not overlap with each other but may overlap or be stacked with blast markers previously placed (they may otherwise NOT be stacked). First place a single blast marker exactly where the ship was then place as many blast markers from the explosion as possible in contact with it, this should give you eight blast markers in total. If more blast markers were caused place them in contact with the ring of blast markers surrounding the first.
Why allow stacking in this one case? Why not just say place all the markers as close to the ship's previous location as possible?
Yet another good catch. When we re-wrote the blast marker rules to make it more congruent with (but not returned to) v1.0, I forgot to fix this section.
Once again, great work, Masque! THANKS!! If I was getting paid even a dime for any of this, I’d send you a nickel!
:) :D ;D :D
I won’t have the corrected FAQ posted until tomorrow. Everyone else, please keep in mind that except for the Errata and additions, the FAQ items themselves are intended to answer questions that have come up in unique and rare situations in game play. What may be obvious to some of us are not entirely so for others, and there’s no harm in making the FAQ as complete as possible, even if in the end this becomes a bit bigger than we intended.
Finally, someone suggested we break apart the FAQ items from the Errata items to make things easier to find and separate. That is a bit hard to do because the document is set up in the same format as the current rules in that all the Movement stuff is together, all the Shooting stuff is together, the individual fleets are in their own sections, etc. We would end up creating two separate documents if we tried to separate one from the other, each one similarly formatted and both of them functioning as addenda to the rules. As a compromise, I made a Table of Contents, and I included a few cross-reference line items in the rules. For example, for “Nova Cannons and Holofields,†we explained how Nova Cannon work against holofields in the Nova Cannon section, then left a quick note in the holofield section referencing the Nova Cannon section for how that weapon works against holofields. I don’t mind adding as much cross-referencing to this document as it needs to make it as easy to use as possible.
- Nate
-
I've long considered it odd that Ord flies faster when there's more players.
This is just the fact that the game is designed for two players. Usually when playing with multiplayer most people agree on some modified movement system (i.e. my ordinance moves during my turn and the next players turn but not the third players) or they reduce the speed of ordinance to compensate.
I didn't think this needed to be ruled upon because BFG was always an "A vs. B" game, and it should be player preference to expand it beyond that. However, here's how we do it when playing three fleets against each other.
TURN 1
1. Player A moves, then moves ordnance.
2. Player B moves, player B moves ordnance, then player A moves ordnance a 2nd time.
3. Player C moves, player C moves ordnance, then player B moves ordnance a 2nd time, player A ordnance remains still.
TURN 2
4. Player A moves, player A moves ordnance, then player C moves ordnance a 2nd time, player B ordnance remains still.
5. Player B moves, player B moves ordnance, then player A moves ordnance a 2nd time, player C ordnance remains still.
6. Player C moves, player C moves ordnance, then player B moves ordnance a 2nd time, player A ordnance remains still.
ad infinitum
Expand this pattern out for as many separate players as you have. It makes for exciting games, and not just because of the ordnance!
Should this be in the FAQ?
A really fun three-player scenario is to play Cruiser Clash between two equal-sized fleets, with Tyranids coming on one of the short table edges in D3 turns with a fleet 1.5 times as large as A or B (not both). Player A and B win conditions are based on who has the most victory points in the end, provided they win more points than they lose. Tyranids only win if both fleets lose more than they win. The "win more than lose" clause is to prevent A & B from simply calling a truce and ganging up on C. Tyranids can only attack closest enemy ships, but otherwise the rules are unchanged.
When deciding victory points against Player C, escort kills are one for one instead of going by squadron value. For capital ships, Player A and B ONLY get 100% kills on ships they do FULL damage to, meaning brought from no damage to zero hits without assistance from the other player. If the other player scores even one hit on the Player C capital ship, they have to share 50% VP's. This sounds like it wouldn't be fair, but try it- it makes for VERY interesting games!! The scenario also works well with "C" being Dark Eldar or Necrons. I imagine just about any fleet could be used as C, but 'Nids, DE and Necrons are the only fleets I have tried it with.
Would anyone like to see this as a scenario in the Rogue Trader article?
- Nate
-
Would anyone like to see this as a scenario in the Rogue Trader article?
Nate;
Do it to it.
-Plaxor
-
Well, that answers my question for a three way (which I've never seen before), but what about 4 or more players (which I have seen). I know typically, we only move ord in the player in the opposite starting area's turn, but I think that something that FAQ should make a point of clearing up is games with more then two players at the table.
-
Hi Masque! Let me start by saying this was EXCELLENT work!
Thanks, I'll try and muddle my way through some more over the next couple days. Here's some further explanation on some of the points I brought up where you didn't simply agree with me or point out something I had missed. I did some significant quote editing to try and keep this conversation coherant. I hope you appreciate it.
Ordnance is launched at the end of the shooting phase as opposed to the beginning of the ordnance phase. This means if a given carrier already has attack craft on the table at the beginning of the ordnance phase, it cannot launch any more attack craft that turn unless it recalls markers currently in play and launches new markers from the ship’s base, even if it has successfully reloaded. This prevents a carrier from attacking a target to expend its attack craft in play and then launching a new attack craft wave in a single turn. Ships and defenses that may launch up to twice the number of launch bays they have on the table are not restricted in this manner as long as they do not exceed the number of allowable attack craft markers in play.
This scenario implies that attack craft launched by a certain carrier prevent that specific carrier from launching again until they are removed. I always thought only the total number of bays and attack craft on the board mattered. The last sentence would seem to disallow a carrier from launching more craft if it had even a partial wave left on the table. I would assume it could launch another partial wave as long as the total craft on the board was not more than it had bays.
You are absolutely right- you can launch another partial wave; that is actually addressed separately in the same FAQ. The intent of the rule is specifically to prevent someone from moving ordnance already on the table to expend it in attacks, then launch a full strength of new ordnance, potentially getting two sets of attacks in a single ordnance phase. If you understood what I wrote here to mean you may not be able to do that, I have to re-smith it.
I'm more worried about the fact this rule seems to prevent the following scenario: Let's say I have two Devastations and one launches CAP fighters and the other doesn't launch. Then the next turn the first Dev reloads. This ruling now prevents the Dev that launched fighters from launching again because it still has birds in the air even though the fleet has more launch bays than attack craft in play.
Opposing Resilient Attack Craft: If two markers that both have a 4+ save attack each other and both remain in play, they stop movement and remain in contact until the next ordnance phase. However, if any marker that saves is attacked again in the same phase, it (along with the marker that attacked it) is automatically removed. This save is used one fighter at a time. Following is an extreme example:
1. If two Thunderhawks are attacked by two Eldar fighters, and the first fighter attacks the first Thunderhawk and they both roll a 4+, both markers must immediately stop all movement and subsequent attacks but both remain in play. If the second Eldar fighter now attacks the first Thunderhawk, the first Thunderhawk is automatically removed. If the second Eldar fighter now rolls a 4+ save, it may remain in play but the Eldar ordnance phase is now complete because both ordnance markers used their save and can no longer move or attack.
2. It is now the opponent’s ordnance phase. The sole remaining Thunderhawk may now elect to move away from the two Eldar fighters, or it may elect to attack them. If it does, both it and the Eldar player again roll their 4+ save because it is now a different ordnance phase. Regardless of the outcome, all ordnance markers still surviving after this exchange remain in place until the next player turn because both ordnance phases have already taken place.
Overall I'm very happy with the resilient attack craft rules, but I think this example is incorrect. Since the first Thunderhawk temporarily loses its fighter status after surviving against the first Eldar fighter shouldn't the second Eldar fighter be forced to fight the second Thunderhawk as fighters should always be attacked before other attack craft according to the main rulebook?
Thunderhawks don’t “lose†being fighters, what they lose is their 4+ save. They are ALWAYS assault boats that behave as fighters. However, they only get to use their save once per ordnance phase. For example, Ork fighta-bommas are bombers that are ALWAYS fighters (except that they don’t get a save), which is different from Tau Mantas, which are bombers that get a 4+ save against fighters but are NOT fighters in and of themselves, meaning they ignore torpedoes and assault boats like other bombers do. You are probably not the only person thinking this so I will add it to the FAQ.
The second section of Resilient Attack Craft would seem to disagree with you about Thunderhawks ceasing to be fighters. "Resilient Attack Craft in Multiple Combats in a Single Ordnance Phase: If resilient attack craft make their save they lose their fighter rules for the rest of that ordnance phase (or movement phase if save is made while in CAP)."
Crippling a vessel constitutes a permanent change to its turret value and thus the maximum number of attacks that can be gained by supporting fighters. A crippled Lunar will only have 1 turret and so you can only gain a maximum of +1 attack due to fighter support.
With the current turret suppression this rule makes no sense at all.
I understand your question, but it makes perfect sense- here’s why. The obvious question is, “why are fighters less effective when there are less turrets to defend against?†There’s no harm in explaining this further in the FAQ- you’re probably not the only person thinking this. In game terms the point of fighter support is to defend against turrets (not attack the ship), and with less turrets, there’s less to defend against. In actual rule terms, fighter support is to counterbalance the number of attacks bombers lose to turrets. Because the number of turrets go down when a ship is crippled, the actual number of bomber attacks (regardless of fighter support) go up. For example, four bombers rolling D6-2 attacks against a ship with two turrets only roll D6-1 against the same ship when crippled. The fighters offer less support because they are physically doing less to protect the bombers, but the total number of attacks is still increased.
The first part of the rule, the part about crippling being permanent is fine, though it probably belongs in a different section of the FAQ. The second sentence makes no sense now because turret suppession bonus attacks from fighters are now limited by the number of bombers not the number of turrets.
I won’t have the corrected FAQ posted until tomorrow. Everyone else, please keep in mind that except for the Errata and additions, the FAQ items themselves are intended to answer questions that have come up in unique and rare situations in game play. What may be obvious to some of us are not entirely so for others, and there’s no harm in making the FAQ as complete as possible, even if in the end this becomes a bit bigger than we intended.
Finally, someone suggested we break apart the FAQ items from the Errata items to make things easier to find and separate. That is a bit hard to do because the document is set up in the same format as the current rules in that all the Movement stuff is together, all the Shooting stuff is together, the individual fleets are in their own sections, etc. We would end up creating two separate documents if we tried to separate one from the other, each one similarly formatted and both of them functioning as addenda to the rules. As a compromise, I made a Table of Contents, and I included a few cross-reference line items in the rules. For example, for “Nova Cannons and Holofields,†we explained how Nova Cannon work against holofields in the Nova Cannon section, then left a quick note in the holofield section referencing the Nova Cannon section for how that weapon works against holofields. I don’t mind adding as much cross-referencing to this document as it needs to make it as easy to use as possible.
The one division I'd really, really like to see is to seperate the parts you don't need if you already have the .pdf version of the rulebook as opposed to the 1.0 or 1.5 printed book. Actually, a better idea may be to simply leave everything organized as is but to color code things. Red for things that are actual changes to the current .pdfs available from GW (blast markers). Green for things that are simply updating the printed books to match the .pdfs (Nova Cannon scatter rather than guess). Blue for things that are actually covered in the .pdfs but are clarified in the FAQ (splitting fire). Black for all info that is simply not in the .pdfs (turret suppression).
-
A really fun three-player scenario is to play Cruiser Clash between two equal-sized fleets, with Tyranids coming on one of the short table edges in D3 turns with a fleet 1.5 times as large as A or B (not both). Player A and B win conditions are based on who has the most victory points in the end, provided they win more points than they lose. Tyranids only win if both fleets lose more than they win. The "win more than lose" clause is to prevent A & B from simply calling a truce and ganging up on C. Tyranids can only attack closest enemy ships, but otherwise the rules are unchanged.
When deciding victory points against Player C, escort kills are one for one instead of going by squadron value. For capital ships, Player A and B ONLY get 100% kills on ships they do FULL damage to, meaning brought from no damage to zero hits without assistance from the other player. If the other player scores even one hit on the Player C capital ship, they have to share 50% VP's. This sounds like it wouldn't be fair, but try it- it makes for VERY interesting games!! The scenario also works well with "C" being Dark Eldar or Necrons. I imagine just about any fleet could be used as C, but 'Nids, DE and Necrons are the only fleets I have tried it with.
So, player A wipes out player B, losing more than half his fleet and then kills a single Nid escort before being annihilated in turn. Player A & B annihilated, Nids (player C) lose only a single escort. Player A gets more points than he loses, so he wins. Huh?
Also, how does the "win more than lose" clause prevent players A & B ganging up on player C? As far as I can see Player C wants to annihilate both other players, else he can't win. Players A and B could lose to each other or player C. So, if they gang up on player C, fetch as many VPs as they can and remove that threat they can then resume their battle. This would ensure they could only lose to each other.
-
Also, the resilient AC rules are really too complicated. What exactly is the point of having resilient fighters? Isn't it to make fewer fighters do more work? So 4 Eldar fighters should be worth as much as 6 normal fighters, right? OK, so you launch your 4 fighters, intercept 4 enemy bombers, 2 of your fighters survive ... and now they sit and watch as the remaining bombers go past. Soooo, these 4 fighters are worth ... 4 fighters!
If there are still some targets in range in the following turn, after your opponent has moved his ordnance you can then remove some. Some might even survive after having done so. Yay.
This is just rubbish. Remove all the limitations on resilient ordnance except one: can only attempt to save once per turn. So if I send out 4 fighters and after interceptions 2 of them survive. Then I've got the choice of intercepting 2 more AC, losing my remaining fighters, or waiting till next turn for my 4+ save to regenerate. Much much simpler, not OP, I don't get the problem. I don't know why we have this silly "stops where it is" rule. I think it's just a hold over from when ordnance was unlimited.
-
Like where you are going on the resilient AC thoughts, Sig. It always confused me too.
-
I like it as well
-
I went through the 2.3 version of the FAQ starting where I left off on the 2.2 version and stopping just before the fleet specific sections. I'll get to those another day.
Hits taken by an escort squadron are only distributed among the vessels that actually took fire (such as in range and fire arc), regardless of how many hits the squadron actually took, though it affects ALL escorts within range and fire arc. This also applies to hits taken by an escort squadron negotiating an asteroid field, as well as hits delivered by ordnance or Nova Cannon, as those hits (regardless of how many) affect only the vessels directly contacted by the ordnance markers or Nova Cannon blast template. For example, if an escort squadron takes a total of ten hits from gunnery fire but only three escorts were actually in range and fire arc, no more than three escorts can be destroyed.
Shouldn't most of this also apply to capital ship squadrons? Particularly the part about only those ships in range/aspect being hit?
CAPITAL SHIP SQUADRONS: Capital ships in a squadron that are being fired upon to the point that one of the capital ships is destroyed must roll for and apply all critical damage before counting as destroyed. For example, if a squadron of three Dauntless light cruisers is fired upon by a squadron of three Carnage cruisers and takes a total of 13 hits, all critical damage rolls must be made for the first Dauntless before declaring it destroyed. This means if the first Dauntless rolls a Thrusters Damaged (+1Hp) and Engine Room Damaged (+1Hp) criticals in the process of being destroyed, there remains a total 9 remaining shots to be applied to the next closest Dauntless light cruiser, with shields, blast markers, etc. still taking effect normally. This rule in particular applies to squadrons of ships that do not count critical damage normally and instead take an additional 1Hp of damage, such as Ork Roks or Kroot Warspheres.
Unless my math is bad or we are supposed to assume a non-standard circumstance the example is wrong. It would take 7 hits to destroy the first Dauntless (1 shield and 6HP). That would leave 6 hits for the next one but if 2 were added from criticals then that should leave 8. I would also make it very clear that damage only carries over for shooting, not ordnance attacks, boarding, ramming, and the like.
I would honestly do away with this entirely. It just seems counter-intuitive.
Free turns provided by gravity wells can be used even when the ship cannot normally turn, such as when under All Ahead Full or Lock On special orders. They can also be combined with Come To New Heading special orders. This does not change the fact that the free turn can only be used before the start of the move and again only at the end of the move. In either instance the ship must actually be in the gravity well to use it, and the free turn is only toward the center of the planet‟s or moon‟s gravity well or toward a space hulk‟s stem.
Can the free turn be used to turn past the planet? Say, for example, that the planet is only 10 degrees to port at the start of a ship's movement. Can the free turn end such that the planet is now to the ship's starboard side or must it stop turning when it is facing the center of the planet?
Torpedoes on a Planetary Template: Torpedoes are only destroyed when they come into contact with the templates edge. So it is possible to launch torpedoes while on a planetary template but they will be removed when they touch its edge.
I would allow torpedoes to be fired off of a planetary template. If this seemed too lopsided (which I don't think it would be) I would also allow torpedoes to hit ships on a template, but not to fire through a template.
Blast markers are not placed when asteroid impacts take shields down, however the ship will act as if it has moved through blast markers that turn.
I've always just placed the markers in contact with the ship at the end of it's move as close to the asteroids as possible. It would seem strange that ships could effectively regenerate their shields faster from asteroid impacts than from other sources of damage.
Asteroids and All Ahead Full: When traversing an asteroid field on All Ahead Full you must pass a leadership check on 3D6 instead of 2D6 or suffer the usual D6 damage. Escort squadrons still get to re-roll this result for free, as they would normally.
Did this somehow get left out of the .pdf of the rulebook? I can't find the bonus for escorts or penalty of AAF in asteroid fields anywhere and the rule about taking a leadership test at all is only alluded to. I don't have my hardcopy here to check. Assuming it's not in the .pdf you may want to write these rules out in full.
If a ship explodes inside an asteroid field, including when due to the D6 damage from failing a leadership test to safely navigate an asteroid field, the explosion will hit all ships and ordnance within the asteroid field up to 3D6cm away but none outside the field, regardless of distance. Blast markers from the explosion are scattered throughout the asteroid field, each player taking it in turns to place a blast marker.
Why make this rule? Why not just have the ship explode in the normal manner and leave blast markers as close to the ship's location as possible?
Vessels used as planetary defenses such as Defense Monitors or system ships do not roll for leadership or have a leadership value just as other normal planetary defenses do not, with the exception that they reload ordnance (where applicable) on a nominal leadership of 7. This means that they cannot take on any special orders except Reload Ordnance. They can however attempt to Brace For Impact. Note that ships that can be fired on as defenses (such as Ork Roks or Kroot Warspheres) are otherwise ships in all other respects and roll for leadership as ships do.
The rule limiting planetary defenses to only using the reload ornance order is only supposed to apply to sattelite (immobile) defenses according to page 36 of the rulebook. I would also mention whether or not sattelite defences can brace for impact. I would suggest allowing them to do so.
Though Planetary Defenses cannot attempt other Special Orders, they automatically pass any leadership checks they are required to make, such as for navigating local celestial phenomena, etc., as they are intimately familiar with the local area of space they operate in.
Defense Monitors are terrifying opponents when there is a local warp rift, who knew? I would just make them count as leadership 7 for all purposes and take all tests as normal.
Defences and Blast Marker Removal: You remove D6 blast markers from each defence with a speed of 0cm in each end phase after all other actions in the end phase. This only applies to stationary defenses, not planetary defenses that behave as ships (such as monitors or system ships). This also does not apply to ships on standby or ships reduced to 0cm due to movement effects but otherwise capable of movement.
I would have ruled to the opposite here. Ships regaining shields as they move away from blast markers is how shield regeneration is tracked mechanically. Since sattelite defenses do not move a different method needed to be invented to keep their shields operational. I would apply the same rule to ships that remain stationary for any reason because their shield generators should still function even if their engines are having a little trouble and they've already got enough problems. I would probably only make stalled ships remove blast markers at the end of their own turns though.
Any fleet chosen from one of the fleet lists may also include reserves. This applies to fleets in the rulebook, Armada or any other official fleet list, such as those on the Games Workshop‟s Battlefleet Gothic Resources website. For every three battleships, cruisers or escorts chosen from the fleet list, you may also pick one ship of the same type from another fleet list belonging to the same race. For example, or every three cruisers picked from the Gothic Sector Fleet List on p.115 of the rulebook, you may pick one cruiser from the Segmentum Solar Fleet List on p.27 of Armada, from the Adeptus Mechanicus Fleet List or from any other published fleet list. Only ships of the same “type†(battleship, cruiser or escort) count for reserves purposes so you can‟t pick three escorts from one fleet list and use them to qualify for a battleship from another. Also, for these purposes light cruisers, cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers and grand cruisers all count as “cruisers,†so that three cruisers from one fleet list would qualify you to take a grand cruiser from another fleet list of the same race as a reserve. Reserves are still subjected to restrictions on minimum and maximum numbers of certain types of vessels. For example, having three Chaos cruisers (such as a Murder, Carnage and Devastation) entitles a 12th Black Crusade Incursion Fleet to have a Repulsive grand cruiser. It also entitles the fleet to have one reserve cruiser such as the Executor grand cruiser, but that ship cannot be taken because you must have at least four cruisers to have two grand cruisers, not merely three.
The example at the end is wrong. It should say "at least six cruisers" rather than "at least four cruisers".
Except where specifically allowed in a given fleet list, no fleet may use both allies and reserves at the same time. For example, a Gothic Sector fleet list cannot take both reserves from the Segmentum Solar fleet list and Deimurg Bastion commerce vessels at the same time, though it may use either one or the other. However, just as a fleet can take any number of reserves as long as restrictions are followed concerning the number taken compared to the core fleet list, the number of allied vessels the fleet takes is only limited by the rules applied to the allied fleet as long as all other restrictions concerning reserves are also followed.
Since Demiurg in a Tau fleet are mentioned a couple times previously as examples of allies does this mean that Tau fleets containing Demiurg, Kroot, or Nicassar cannot take reserves? Does this mean an Armageddon fleet including Space Marines can't inclue reserves? I don't think that is your intention but I'm unsure.
Concerning allies: I'm prettymuch baffled by this entire section. It seems to be a big list of cans and can'ts but doesn't really explain when or how this is important. For example, Orks and Dark Eldar could be allies, but I don't really understand how or when this is possible. Are you just saying that if there was a variant Ork list that allowed you to take Dark Eldar ships then that would be okay? How is giving this list of who can ally with whom important? If there was a Necron list that specifically said you could take Tyranid allies (even though that would be so completely wrong) that would just override this list anyway, wouldn't it?
I would be very tempted to do away with the section entirely and just put the specific limitations you are trying to achieve in the appropriate ship or fleet listings. For example, add a rule to the Demiurg that fleets containing them may not include reserves unless the Demiurg ships are actually listed in the fleet list.
-
Congrats for going through it. I expected it to pass by unread like a health care bill ;)
-
Hi Masque,
not being a HA member I still like to mention I appreciate your work.
Did this somehow get left out of the .pdf of the rulebook? I can't find the bonus for escorts or penalty of AAF in asteroid fields anywhere and the rule about taking a leadership test at all is only alluded to. I don't have my hardcopy here to check. Assuming it's not in the .pdf you may want to write these rules out in full.
Correct. This is an ommission on the v15 rulebook. Only discovered this year. Doh. But the rule from v1.0 is correct and still in place as I understood from Ray Bell. Thus with AAF penalty, escort re-roll, etc..
allies
I agree.
Some notes are odd (DE & CE will work together if needed!) so dropping the section seems okay to me.
-
I got an idea while working out this evening, a new command (not special order) for ships (some factions won't have access to it).
"Abandon Ship!": Due to the death of the commander, or a ship suffering major damage with no hope of survival, the commander of the vessel orders the ship be evacuated to preserve the talented officers and crew of the ship, even if the ship is lost. A vessel may only attempt to abandon ship if it is crippled. Use the same modifiers for disengaging a vessel, but add +1 to the leadership value (as it's not hard to convince a crew to get off a burning ship!). If successful, the ship is immediately considered a drifting hulk, and the opponent gains 50% of it's victory points, not including crew or commanders (who safely escaped)
Tyranids cannot do this (as there is no crew to evacuate)
Necrons cannot do this (they can just phase out, the bony gits)
-
Well, thats interesting. An alternate to disengaging.
-
I got an idea while working out this evening, a new command (not special order) for ships (some factions won't have access to it).
"Abandon Ship!": Due to the death of the commander, or a ship suffering major damage with no hope of survival, the commander of the vessel orders the ship be evacuated to preserve the talented officers and crew of the ship, even if the ship is lost. A vessel may only attempt to abandon ship if it is crippled. Use the same modifiers for disengaging a vessel, but add +1 to the leadership value (as it's not hard to convince a crew to get off a burning ship!). If successful, the ship is immediately considered a drifting hulk, and the opponent gains 50% of it's victory points, not including crew or commanders (who safely escaped)
Tyranids cannot do this (as there is no crew to evacuate)
Necrons cannot do this (they can just phase out, the bony gits)
IN cannot do this, because they'd be executed by their own commanders.
-
IN cannot do this, because they'd be executed by their own commanders.
Sigoroth wins at arguing. Execution=Imperial solution for everything.
IMHO the only race who could do this order would be the tau, who would likely be effed anyways, as only their larger vessels have warp drives, and it takes them 7x as long to get to an area. Plenty of time for the opposing fleet to; murder, torture, eat, whatever them.
Eldar it's arguable, but the not getting home thing is another issue for them. Less risky to just ride it out and hope that you survive.
-
Not to mention that they'd just try to disengage rather than abandon ship. :o
-
If a normal crew member fled, they would be executed, a high ranking naval officer? not so much.
-
Actually, a high ranking office has a high probability that he would be executed. Execution Hour shows how concerned the captain was of how easily the onboard Kommissar could kill him easily if the latter thought he was justified in doing so. A book yes but one which flows in line with GW fluff and IG rules which make note of the Kommissar's judicial powers.
-
Yet, there are fluff examples of sanctioned evacuations.
-
Read the short story at the beginnig of the Warp Rift issue with the Commissar rules for BFG. They'll shoot any officer...
-
Not always. It would entirely depend on the commissar's decision if the evacuation was warranted. Logically, though, if the ship wasn't already going down, the reactors would be rigged to explode.
-
Masque, let me say once again you are AWESOME!!
Sorry about the delay getting back with you on this, but sometimes real life gets more complicated than we would like, especially in my line of work.
I went through the 2.3 version of the FAQ starting where I left off on the 2.2 version and stopping just before the fleet specific sections. I'll get to those another day.
Hits taken by an escort squadron are only distributed among the vessels that actually took fire (such as in range and fire arc), regardless of how many hits the squadron actually took, though it affects ALL escorts within range and fire arc. This also applies to hits taken by an escort squadron negotiating an asteroid field, as well as hits delivered by ordnance or Nova Cannon, as those hits (regardless of how many) affect only the vessels directly contacted by the ordnance markers or Nova Cannon blast template. For example, if an escort squadron takes a total of ten hits from gunnery fire but only three escorts were actually in range and fire arc, no more than three escorts can be destroyed.
Shouldn't most of this also apply to capital ship squadrons? Particularly the part about only those ships in range/aspect being hit?
Yes. Fixed.
CAPITAL SHIP SQUADRONS: Capital ships in a squadron that are being fired upon to the point that one of the capital ships is destroyed must roll for and apply all critical damage before counting as destroyed. For example, if a squadron of three Dauntless light cruisers is fired upon by a squadron of three Carnage cruisers and takes a total of 13 hits, all critical damage rolls must be made for the first Dauntless before declaring it destroyed. This means if the first Dauntless rolls a Thrusters Damaged (+1Hp) and Engine Room Damaged (+1Hp) criticals in the process of being destroyed, there remains a total 9 remaining shots to be applied to the next closest Dauntless light cruiser, with shields, blast markers, etc. still taking effect normally. This rule in particular applies to squadrons of ships that do not count critical damage normally and instead take an additional 1Hp of damage, such as Ork Roks or Kroot Warspheres.
Unless my math is bad or we are supposed to assume a non-standard circumstance the example is wrong. It would take 7 hits to destroy the first Dauntless (1 shield and 6HP). That would leave 6 hits for the next one but if 2 were added from criticals then that should leave 8. I would also make it very clear that damage only carries over for shooting, not ordnance attacks, boarding, ramming, and the like.
I would honestly do away with this entirely. It just seems counter-intuitive.
Your math is not bad, mine is. It should have been a total of nine hits applied, meaning only FOUR hits applied to the second Dauntless, NOT nine! GOOD CATCH!!!
I would love to get rid of this complexity, but that would either mean getting rid of capital ship squadrons shooting as a unit, or somehow killing all the munchkins that have taken advantage of this rule not being clarified to either abuse others or nerf being shot at themselves. And since we just can’t go around killing munchkins… :P
Free turns provided by gravity wells can be used even when the ship cannot normally turn, such as when under All Ahead Full or Lock On special orders. They can also be combined with Come To New Heading special orders. This does not change the fact that the free turn can only be used before the start of the move and again only at the end of the move. In either instance the ship must actually be in the gravity well to use it, and the free turn is only toward the center of the planet‟s or moon‟s gravity well or toward a space hulk‟s stem.
Can the free turn be used to turn past the planet? Say, for example, that the planet is only 10 degrees to port at the start of a ship's movement. Can the free turn end such that the planet is now to the ship's starboard side or must it stop turning when it is facing the center of the planet?
Andy C said long ago the free turn can ONLY point you toward the center of the planet or up to 45 degrees, whatever is LESS.
Torpedoes on a Planetary Template: Torpedoes are only destroyed when they come into contact with the templates edge. So it is possible to launch torpedoes while on a planetary template but they will be removed when they touch its edge.
I would allow torpedoes to be fired off of a planetary template. If this seemed too lopsided (which I don't think it would be) I would also allow torpedoes to hit ships on a template, but not to fire through a template.
No. Pretend you’re an experienced Eldar player with poor social skills. This allows ships to be immune from torpedoes and Nova Cannon while they sit on the center of a planet and be stationary torpedo silos until the enemy gets close, then they just dive off the opposite end of the planet edge.
Keep in mind that 90% of the FAQ/Errata isn’t to tell good people how to play- when good players find an unclear rule, they flip a coin, make a call and move on. The FAQ is an attempt to keep munchkins from being munchkins.
Blast markers are not placed when asteroid impacts take shields down, however the ship will act as if it has moved through blast markers that turn.
I've always just placed the markers in contact with the ship at the end of it's move as close to the asteroids as possible. It would seem strange that ships could effectively regenerate their shields faster from asteroid impacts than from other sources of damage.
That would be unfair to those that actually clear the asteroid field. Ships that get slowed down by passing through blast markers don’t place one in base contact with themselves at the end of their movement, and they are regenerating their shields in the same manner.
Asteroids and All Ahead Full: When traversing an asteroid field on All Ahead Full you must pass a leadership check on 3D6 instead of 2D6 or suffer the usual D6 damage. Escort squadrons still get to re-roll this result for free, as they would normally.
Did this somehow get left out of the .pdf of the rulebook? I can't find the bonus for escorts or penalty of AAF in asteroid fields anywhere and the rule about taking a leadership test at all is only alluded to. I don't have my hardcopy here to check. Assuming it's not in the .pdf you may want to write these rules out in full.
YES!!! The asteroid traversing rules in 1.0 were accidentally deleted in the 1.5 book AND the .pdf! Ray and I actually caught this one completely by accident, while arguing with each other about asteroids in fact! Good point- I will add the rules in full.
If a ship explodes inside an asteroid field, including when due to the D6 damage from failing a leadership test to safely navigate an asteroid field, the explosion will hit all ships and ordnance within the asteroid field up to 3D6cm away but none outside the field, regardless of distance. Blast markers from the explosion are scattered throughout the asteroid field, each player taking it in turns to place a blast marker.
Why make this rule? Why not just have the ship explode in the normal manner and leave blast markers as close to the ship's location as possible?
The intent is to say ship explosions can’t leave the asteroid field, but we can use your syntax to keep in simple. Done!
Vessels used as planetary defenses such as Defense Monitors or system ships do not roll for leadership or have a leadership value just as other normal planetary defenses do not, with the exception that they reload ordnance (where applicable) on a nominal leadership of 7. This means that they cannot take on any special orders except Reload Ordnance. They can however attempt to Brace For Impact. Note that ships that can be fired on as defenses (such as Ork Roks or Kroot Warspheres) are otherwise ships in all other respects and roll for leadership as ships do.
The rule limiting planetary defenses to only using the reload ornance order is only supposed to apply to sattelite (immobile) defenses according to page 36 of the rulebook. I would also mention whether or not sattelite defences can brace for impact. I would suggest allowing them to do so.
It was already decided in a prior FAQ that they would be allowed to BFI so we will add this in. Good catch!
Though Planetary Defenses cannot attempt other Special Orders, they automatically pass any leadership checks they are required to make, such as for navigating local celestial phenomena, etc., as they are intimately familiar with the local area of space they operate in.
Defense Monitors are terrifying opponents when there is a local warp rift, who knew? I would just make them count as leadership 7 for all purposes and take all tests as normal.
If by some lucky or unlucky chance something as unusual as a warp rift is on the table during a scenario where something as slow as a Defense Monitor can get to it, that is a happy or unhappy accident for all involved. This is more easily addressed to state that Warp Rifts are especially unstable and dangerous forms of celestial phenomena, and planetary defenses of any type cannot be placed closer than 30cm to a warp rift, with all other rules still applying normally. This means if a particular defense must be placed within 15cm of celestial phenomena, it still must be so AND it can’t be placed within 30cm of a Warp Rift.
Defences and Blast Marker Removal: You remove D6 blast markers from each defence with a speed of 0cm in each end phase after all other actions in the end phase. This only applies to stationary defenses, not planetary defenses that behave as ships (such as monitors or system ships). This also does not apply to ships on standby or ships reduced to 0cm due to movement effects but otherwise capable of movement.
I would have ruled to the opposite here. Ships regaining shields as they move away from blast markers is how shield regeneration is tracked mechanically. Since sattelite defenses do not move a different method needed to be invented to keep their shields operational. I would apply the same rule to ships that remain stationary for any reason because their shield generators should still function even if their engines are having a little trouble and they've already got enough problems. I would probably only make stalled ships remove blast markers at the end of their own turns though.
This is the method planetary defenses have removed blast markers for years now, and it is how the Ramilies removes blast markers as well.
Any fleet chosen from one of the fleet lists may also include reserves. This applies to fleets in the rulebook, Armada or any other official fleet list, such as those on the Games Workshop‟s Battlefleet Gothic Resources website. For every three battleships, cruisers or escorts chosen from the fleet list, you may also pick one ship of the same type from another fleet list belonging to the same race. For example, or every three cruisers picked from the Gothic Sector Fleet List on p.115 of the rulebook, you may pick one cruiser from the Segmentum Solar Fleet List on p.27 of Armada, from the Adeptus Mechanicus Fleet List or from any other published fleet list. Only ships of the same “type†(battleship, cruiser or escort) count for reserves purposes so you can‟t pick three escorts from one fleet list and use them to qualify for a battleship from another. Also, for these purposes light cruisers, cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers and grand cruisers all count as “cruisers,†so that three cruisers from one fleet list would qualify you to take a grand cruiser from another fleet list of the same race as a reserve. Reserves are still subjected to restrictions on minimum and maximum numbers of certain types of vessels. For example, having three Chaos cruisers (such as a Murder, Carnage and Devastation) entitles a 12th Black Crusade Incursion Fleet to have a Repulsive grand cruiser. It also entitles the fleet to have one reserve cruiser such as the Executor grand cruiser, but that ship cannot be taken because you must have at least four cruisers to have two grand cruisers, not merely three.
The example at the end is wrong. It should say "at least six cruisers" rather than "at least four cruisers".
Oops! Fixed!
Except where specifically allowed in a given fleet list, no fleet may use both allies and reserves at the same time. For example, a Gothic Sector fleet list cannot take both reserves from the Segmentum Solar fleet list and Deimurg Bastion commerce vessels at the same time, though it may use either one or the other. However, just as a fleet can take any number of reserves as long as restrictions are followed concerning the number taken compared to the core fleet list, the number of allied vessels the fleet takes is only limited by the rules applied to the allied fleet as long as all other restrictions concerning reserves are also followed.
Since Demiurg in a Tau fleet are mentioned a couple times previously as examples of allies does this mean that Tau fleets containing Demiurg, Kroot, or Nicassar cannot take reserves? Does this mean an Armageddon fleet including Space Marines can't inclue reserves? I don't think that is your intention but I'm unsure.
This section as a whole is rather touchy- the intent is to graft in the important parts of Armada's first nine pages of without violating IP while actually doing so. Yes, we can rant all day about even having to do that, but such are things as they are.
No, your example is NOT our intention, and your example is spot-on. The Space Marines/IN relationship is an odd duck in the Armageddon fleet list and should be cited as such, as is the Tau’s special relationship with the Demiurg/Kroot/Nicassar. The FAQ already cites the IN/Space Marine connection for the Segmentum Solar fleet list, but the Tau should have similar treatment because of how unusual the Tau fleet is in this manner. I will get this fixed.
Concerning allies: I'm prettymuch baffled by this entire section. It seems to be a big list of cans and can'ts but doesn't really explain when or how this is important. For example, Orks and Dark Eldar could be allies, but I don't really understand how or when this is possible. Are you just saying that if there was a variant Ork list that allowed you to take Dark Eldar ships then that would be okay? How is giving this list of who can ally with whom important? If there was a Necron list that specifically said you could take Tyranid allies (even though that would be so completely wrong) that would just override this list anyway, wouldn't it?
I would be very tempted to do away with the section entirely and just put the specific limitations you are trying to achieve in the appropriate ship or fleet listings. For example, add a rule to the Demiurg that fleets containing them may not include reserves unless the Demiurg ships are actually listed in the fleet list.
What we are doing here is imparting onto the game some of the background framework intended by the designers. For example, the Craftworld Eldar and Dark Eldar have a visceral hatred for each other in a way that transcends even the Imperium’s animosity toward Chaos. The Dark Eldar are all that remains of the hedonistic, depraved society that brought about the Fall in the first place, whereas the Craftworld Eldar are all that remains of the rest of their race, forced to flee in the face of their society’s insane degeneracy before the rise of Slaanesh consumed nearly the entirety of their species in an instant. Craftworld Eldar in a real sense blame the Dark Eldar for the Fall, and the Dark Eldar see their Craftworld cousins as the most delectable of all beacon-bright soul-foods they consume to stave off the predations of She Who Thirsts. It is only through intercession of the Harlequins that they don’t consume each other in an orgy of hateful destruction, and they would never EVER under ANY circumstances actually ally with each other! Likewise Necrons hate all life and don’t even communicate with the living, much less form alliances with them (the Dark Eldar made an attempt of it, and it didn’t work out so great). There was a time when the Tyranids were only beginning their incursions into the Eastern Fringe that they enslaved a race rather than merely consuming them outright (the Zoats), but that instance never repeated themselves after the Zoat race was exterminated and later ret-conned out of the Warhammer 40k universe entirely.
What I want you to see is that rather than merely be a list of “thou shalt nots,†this list is one that opens up a range of possibilities to make your games even more interesting while being fluff-true to the WH40k universe. One-off games are a riot, but I’ve seen enough fleet lists to know that players like to weave battles into campaigns and campaigns into stories. This list does no more than provide a framework for that. As with everything else we’re trying to do here, PLEASE feel free to use as much or as little of this as you want!
- Nate
-
Hi Masque! Good stuff here, so let’s get started.
Hi Masque! Let me start by saying this was EXCELLENT work!
Thanks, I'll try and muddle my way through some more over the next couple days. Here's some further explanation on some of the points I brought up where you didn't simply agree with me or point out something I had missed. I did some significant quote editing to try and keep this conversation coherant. I hope you appreciate it.
Ordnance is launched at the end of the shooting phase as opposed to the beginning of the ordnance phase. This means if a given carrier already has attack craft on the table at the beginning of the ordnance phase, it cannot launch any more attack craft that turn unless it recalls markers currently in play and launches new markers from the ship’s base, even if it has successfully reloaded. This prevents a carrier from attacking a target to expend its attack craft in play and then launching a new attack craft wave in a single turn. Ships and defenses that may launch up to twice the number of launch bays they have on the table are not restricted in this manner as long as they do not exceed the number of allowable attack craft markers in play.
This scenario implies that attack craft launched by a certain carrier prevent that specific carrier from launching again until they are removed. I always thought only the total number of bays and attack craft on the board mattered. The last sentence would seem to disallow a carrier from launching more craft if it had even a partial wave left on the table. I would assume it could launch another partial wave as long as the total craft on the board was not more than it had bays.
You are absolutely right- you can launch another partial wave; that is actually addressed separately in the same FAQ. The intent of the rule is specifically to prevent someone from moving ordnance already on the table to expend it in attacks, then launch a full strength of new ordnance, potentially getting two sets of attacks in a single ordnance phase. If you understood what I wrote here to mean you may not be able to do that, I have to re-smith it.
I'm more worried about the fact this rule seems to prevent the following scenario: Let's say I have two Devastations and one launches CAP fighters and the other doesn't launch. Then the next turn the first Dev reloads. This ruling now prevents the Dev that launched fighters from launching again because it still has birds in the air even though the fleet has more launch bays than attack craft in play.
Good catch. This needs to have added to it that launch bay limits are for the Fleet, NOT individual ships. In other words, that Devastation can launch a partial wave if it wants to as long as launch bay limits for the fleet as a whole are not exceeded.
Opposing Resilient Attack Craft: If two markers that both have a 4+ save attack each other and both remain in play, they stop movement and remain in contact until the next ordnance phase. However, if any marker that saves is attacked again in the same phase, it (along with the marker that attacked it) is automatically removed. This save is used one fighter at a time. Following is an extreme example:
1. If two Thunderhawks are attacked by two Eldar fighters, and the first fighter attacks the first Thunderhawk and they both roll a 4+, both markers must immediately stop all movement and subsequent attacks but both remain in play. If the second Eldar fighter now attacks the first Thunderhawk, the first Thunderhawk is automatically removed. If the second Eldar fighter now rolls a 4+ save, it may remain in play but the Eldar ordnance phase is now complete because both ordnance markers used their save and can no longer move or attack.
2. It is now the opponent’s ordnance phase. The sole remaining Thunderhawk may now elect to move away from the two Eldar fighters, or it may elect to attack them. If it does, both it and the Eldar player again roll their 4+ save because it is now a different ordnance phase. Regardless of the outcome, all ordnance markers still surviving after this exchange remain in place until the next player turn because both ordnance phases have already taken place.
Overall I'm very happy with the resilient attack craft rules, but I think this example is incorrect. Since the first Thunderhawk temporarily loses its fighter status after surviving against the first Eldar fighter shouldn't the second Eldar fighter be forced to fight the second Thunderhawk as fighters should always be attacked before other attack craft according to the main rulebook?
Thunderhawks don’t “lose†being fighters, what they lose is their 4+ save. They are ALWAYS assault boats that behave as fighters. However, they only get to use their save once per ordnance phase. For example, Ork fighta-bommas are bombers that are ALWAYS fighters (except that they don’t get a save), which is different from Tau Mantas, which are bombers that get a 4+ save against fighters but are NOT fighters in and of themselves, meaning they ignore torpedoes and assault boats like other bombers do. You are probably not the only person thinking this so I will add it to the FAQ.
The second section of Resilient Attack Craft would seem to disagree with you about Thunderhawks ceasing to be fighters. "Resilient Attack Craft in Multiple Combats in a Single Ordnance Phase: If resilient attack craft make their save they lose their fighter rules for the rest of that ordnance phase (or movement phase if save is made while in CAP)."
Good catch. That was bad syntax and is fixed- Thunderhawks are ALWAYS fighters that also happen to be a-boats, just like Ork FB’s are always fighters that also happen to be bombers. Incidentally, this is DIFFERENT from Mantas, which are bombers with a 4+ save but are nonetheless ONLY bombers.
Sigoroth keyed in on something really important with the syntax: in an effort to explain every permutation, resilient attack craft became confusing in and of itself. This was all essentially re-written to basically say “4+ save once per ordnance phase†like he suggested, then we used examples to break it all out. It makes for a longer document, but it’s a lot easier to read.
Once again, this isn’t written for the gentlemen players who get it. This was written as an attempt to stifle rule-lawyering munchkins. As such, a good portion of the FAQ topics will appear as “well, duh!†to seasoned players.
Crippling a vessel constitutes a permanent change to its turret value and thus the maximum number of attacks that can be gained by supporting fighters. A crippled Lunar will only have 1 turret and so you can only gain a maximum of +1 attack due to fighter support.
With the current turret suppression this rule makes no sense at all.
I understand your question, but it makes perfect sense- here’s why. The obvious question is, “why are fighters less effective when there are less turrets to defend against?†There’s no harm in explaining this further in the FAQ- you’re probably not the only person thinking this. In game terms the point of fighter support is to defend against turrets (not attack the ship), and with less turrets, there’s less to defend against. In actual rule terms, fighter support is to counterbalance the number of attacks bombers lose to turrets. Because the number of turrets go down when a ship is crippled, the actual number of bomber attacks (regardless of fighter support) go up. For example, four bombers rolling D6-2 attacks against a ship with two turrets only roll D6-1 against the same ship when crippled. The fighters offer less support because they are physically doing less to protect the bombers, but the total number of attacks is still increased.
The first part of the rule, the part about crippling being permanent is fine, though it probably belongs in a different section of the FAQ. The second sentence makes no sense now because turret suppession bonus attacks from fighters are now limited by the number of bombers not the number of turrets.
Sometimes I really am just an idiot. This is all fixed as well as properly cross-referenced, and the whole turret/Lunar example was deleted in its entirety.
I won’t have the corrected FAQ posted until tomorrow. Everyone else, please keep in mind that except for the Errata and additions, the FAQ items themselves are intended to answer questions that have come up in unique and rare situations in game play. What may be obvious to some of us are not entirely so for others, and there’s no harm in making the FAQ as complete as possible, even if in the end this becomes a bit bigger than we intended.
Finally, someone suggested we break apart the FAQ items from the Errata items to make things easier to find and separate. That is a bit hard to do because the document is set up in the same format as the current rules in that all the Movement stuff is together, all the Shooting stuff is together, the individual fleets are in their own sections, etc. We would end up creating two separate documents if we tried to separate one from the other, each one similarly formatted and both of them functioning as addenda to the rules. As a compromise, I made a Table of Contents, and I included a few cross-reference line items in the rules. For example, for “Nova Cannons and Holofields,†we explained how Nova Cannon work against holofields in the Nova Cannon section, then left a quick note in the holofield section referencing the Nova Cannon section for how that weapon works against holofields. I don’t mind adding as much cross-referencing to this document as it needs to make it as easy to use as possible.
The one division I'd really, really like to see is to seperate the parts you don't need if you already have the .pdf version of the rulebook as opposed to the 1.0 or 1.5 printed book. Actually, a better idea may be to simply leave everything organized as is but to color code things. Red for things that are actual changes to the current .pdfs available from GW (blast markers). Green for things that are simply updating the printed books to match the .pdfs (Nova Cannon scatter rather than guess). Blue for things that are actually covered in the .pdfs but are clarified in the FAQ (splitting fire). Black for all info that is simply not in the .pdfs (turret suppression).
That gets hard for two reasons. Firstly, colors won’t work. The reason why all the graphics are black and white is because as soon as we started using color graphics (or anything else), the file size went up dramatically and made it far too difficult to e-mail back and forth. Just incorporating any color at all (even by mistake) play havoc with the file sizes, and we have to be cognizant that even in this day and age, not everyone has broadband.
More importantly, some of the rulings here are changes that are also new additions, or changes that alter current rules, or additions that don’t actually change anything and are pure adds, etc. Some things correct 1.5, some (like the whole asteroid debacle) reintroduce what never should have been removed from 1.0, etc. Trying to get these things indicated one from another became more of a hassle than it was worth.
Finally, just making these kinds of distinctions implies some changes are “worth more†than others or in some way more or less valid. While individual players and groups are free to formulate what rules they want to or not want to use, one of the biggest things about this document was the effort in carefully balancing it against itself. Creating something that even implied the HA’s were saying “if desired, players can use all the FAQ items but not the additions,†subtracts from the entire effort. Fans can use this any way they want, as much, as little or not at all. However, we are not going to road-map a cut and paste guide as to what is more or less legal or applicable to the game.
- Nate
-
What we are doing here is imparting onto the game some of the background framework intended by the designers. For example, the Craftworld Eldar and Dark Eldar have a visceral hatred for each other in a way that transcends even the Imperium’s animosity toward Chaos. The Dark Eldar are all that remains of the hedonistic, depraved society that brought about the Fall in the first place, whereas the Craftworld Eldar are all that remains of the rest of their race, forced to flee in the face of their society’s insane degeneracy before the rise of Slaanesh consumed nearly the entirety of their species in an instant. Craftworld Eldar in a real sense blame the Dark Eldar for the Fall, and the Dark Eldar see their Craftworld cousins as the most delectable of all beacon-bright soul-foods they consume to stave off the predations of She Who Thirsts. It is only through intercession of the Harlequins that they don’t consume each other in an orgy of hateful destruction, and they would never EVER under ANY circumstances actually ally with each other!
Except this stance goes against previous fluff. According to which, the Dark Eldar and Craftworld Eldar merely view each other as being misguided. Certainly the DE view the CWE as a meal, but then again, they view themselves as meals too, as well as any other living soul. Certainly the CWE are wary of the DE, who wouldn't be? However, politically speaking they're all Eldar, all superior to the mon-keigh, all have similar goals in preserving their own sacred tech/places from the lesser races and are all attempting to avoid the predations of Slaanesh in their own ways (by all I mean Harlequin, Exodite, Craftworld, Corsair and Dark). Their has been fluff of Eldar and Dark Eldar allying with each other to annihilate a human outpost encroaching on their sacred turf. They joined, cordially but warily, and afterwards parted ways, cordially and warily on the part of the CWE, and with a sack full of souls on the part of the DE. The animosity you describe does not exist. The order of the Craftworld "hatred" might extend like so:
**least hated**
Harlequins
Other craftworlds
Exodites
Corsairs
Dark Eldar
Daylight
Tau
Other Lesser Races
Daylight
Chaos (Khorne, Nurgle)
Chaos (Tzeentch)
Necrontyr
Chaos (Slaanesh)
**most hated**
In the grand scheme of things, the Dark Eldar aren't so bad as far as Craftworld Eldar are concerned.
-
Daylight. How true, it does terrible things to their fair skin. Although they might like Tau better than DE, and in the new DE codex it lists a few times when the DE helped the Eldar.
One scenario the DE came and helped Iyanden against a waagh, and when the seers asked why, the DE responded, "because you're just such entertainment" Presumably meaning the struggles of the craftworld are something funny to the DE, and they wanted them to continue. (hence making them survive)
Also of note the Dark Eldar helped the Eldar defend the black library against Arhiman in the Eye of Terror campaign.
I think you're confusing fantasy a bit with 40k Nate. Dark Eldar and Eldar don't have any real solid reason to hate each other, it's like the preppy kids and the goth kids. Sure they don't like each other, but at least they share a common heritage, and have some mutual goals (survival of their species).
-
Heh, I meant daylight as in "there's a long margin between these two" but yeah, the DE in particular would be rather fond of their SPF 40,000 sunscreen. ;D
And yes, 40K DE are actually much more like Fantasy vampire counts, or at least fantasy DE crossed with them. Fantasy DE are traitors to fantasy HE. Same is not the case in 40k.
-
Hey, Sigoroth used an explanation to what I said several times in this thread: DE & CE/CWE will work together.
-
Here are a few more rebuttals. I might get to some of the fleet specific stuff tonight but I'm not sure. When I do, I'll put it in the fleet specific thread.
Vessels used as planetary defenses such as Defense Monitors or system ships do not roll for leadership or have a leadership value just as other normal planetary defenses do not, with the exception that they reload ordnance (where applicable) on a nominal leadership of 7. This means that they cannot take on any special orders except Reload Ordnance. They can however attempt to Brace For Impact. Note that ships that can be fired on as defenses (such as Ork Roks or Kroot Warspheres) are otherwise ships in all other respects and roll for leadership as ships do.
The rule limiting planetary defenses to only using the reload ornance order is only supposed to apply to sattelite (immobile) defenses according to page 36 of the rulebook. I would also mention whether or not sattelite defences can brace for impact. I would suggest allowing them to do so.
It was already decided in a prior FAQ that they would be allowed to BFI so we will add this in. Good catch!
What's the reason for non-sattelite defenses being prevented from using other special orders? Also, why do they not roll leadership normally? I'm pretty sure if you play the rules as written in the 1.0, 1.5, or .pdf rulebook they would roll for leadership like any other ship and be allowed to do all special orders. System ships are already terrible enough so why punish them like this? Also, are all transport and replacement transports leadership 7 or do they roll normally? And they are all allowed all special orders, right?
Defences and Blast Marker Removal: You remove D6 blast markers from each defence with a speed of 0cm in each end phase after all other actions in the end phase. This only applies to stationary defenses, not planetary defenses that behave as ships (such as monitors or system ships). This also does not apply to ships on standby or ships reduced to 0cm due to movement effects but otherwise capable of movement.
I would have ruled to the opposite here. Ships regaining shields as they move away from blast markers is how shield regeneration is tracked mechanically. Since sattelite defenses do not move a different method needed to be invented to keep their shields operational. I would apply the same rule to ships that remain stationary for any reason because their shield generators should still function even if their engines are having a little trouble and they've already got enough problems. I would probably only make stalled ships remove blast markers at the end of their own turns though.
This is the method planetary defenses have removed blast markers for years now, and it is how the Ramilies removes blast markers as well.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying that the rule for removing blast markers from defenses should be changed. I'm saying that blast markers should be removed from stationary ships in the same way as for defenses. It just doesn't make sense that if a ship is on standby, in geosynchronous orbit, or having engine trouble that its shields stop regenerating.
-
I won’t have the corrected FAQ posted until tomorrow. Everyone else, please keep in mind that except for the Errata and additions, the FAQ items themselves are intended to answer questions that have come up in unique and rare situations in game play. What may be obvious to some of us are not entirely so for others, and there’s no harm in making the FAQ as complete as possible, even if in the end this becomes a bit bigger than we intended.
Finally, someone suggested we break apart the FAQ items from the Errata items to make things easier to find and separate. That is a bit hard to do because the document is set up in the same format as the current rules in that all the Movement stuff is together, all the Shooting stuff is together, the individual fleets are in their own sections, etc. We would end up creating two separate documents if we tried to separate one from the other, each one similarly formatted and both of them functioning as addenda to the rules. As a compromise, I made a Table of Contents, and I included a few cross-reference line items in the rules. For example, for “Nova Cannons and Holofields,†we explained how Nova Cannon work against holofields in the Nova Cannon section, then left a quick note in the holofield section referencing the Nova Cannon section for how that weapon works against holofields. I don’t mind adding as much cross-referencing to this document as it needs to make it as easy to use as possible.
The one division I'd really, really like to see is to seperate the parts you don't need if you already have the .pdf version of the rulebook as opposed to the 1.0 or 1.5 printed book. Actually, a better idea may be to simply leave everything organized as is but to color code things. Red for things that are actual changes to the current .pdfs available from GW (blast markers). Green for things that are simply updating the printed books to match the .pdfs (Nova Cannon scatter rather than guess). Blue for things that are actually covered in the .pdfs but are clarified in the FAQ (splitting fire). Black for all info that is simply not in the .pdfs (turret suppression).
That gets hard for two reasons. Firstly, colors won’t work. The reason why all the graphics are black and white is because as soon as we started using color graphics (or anything else), the file size went up dramatically and made it far too difficult to e-mail back and forth. Just incorporating any color at all (even by mistake) play havoc with the file sizes, and we have to be cognizant that even in this day and age, not everyone has broadband.
More importantly, some of the rulings here are changes that are also new additions, or changes that alter current rules, or additions that don’t actually change anything and are pure adds, etc. Some things correct 1.5, some (like the whole asteroid debacle) reintroduce what never should have been removed from 1.0, etc. Trying to get these things indicated one from another became more of a hassle than it was worth.
Finally, just making these kinds of distinctions implies some changes are “worth more†than others or in some way more or less valid. While individual players and groups are free to formulate what rules they want to or not want to use, one of the biggest things about this document was the effort in carefully balancing it against itself. Creating something that even implied the HA’s were saying “if desired, players can use all the FAQ items but not the additions,†subtracts from the entire effort. Fans can use this any way they want, as much, as little or not at all. However, we are not going to road-map a cut and paste guide as to what is more or less legal or applicable to the game.
I would still love for all the stuff that is simply in the .pdf rulebook to go away from the FAQ rather than have the FAQ apply to 1.0, 1.5, and .pdf versions of the rules. When GW makes a FAQ for 40K they don't assume you might still have the 4th Edition rulebook instead of the current 5th Edition one. I would not be against making a seperate file or section of the FAQ for updating the 1.0 and 1.5 books to the .pdf.
Your file size argument doesn't seem to hold water. You put colored text into the Powers of Chaos document and it didn't get crazy bigger.
I still think it's useful to have stuff seperated by things that are changes to the rulebook as opposed to simply clarifications.
-
the list of possible allys is a bit strange:
- Dark Eldar Eldar would surly not ally with Chaos - there is this little thing called Slaanesh aka "nemesis of the whole race"
- on the other hand Dark Eldar would have no problem to work with corsairs or even craftworld Eldar if the interest of the whole race is touched (e.g. teach ignorant chem-pan-sey a lesson..)
- even an Dark Eldar/Imperium alliance is possible, simply because the average imperial can't see the difference between Eldar and dark Eldar... there are even storys about Dark eldar mercenarys working for the Imperium (which kill their employers after the job is done...)
- a Rough Trader working with Chaos will get a visit from the nice Inquistor living next door ... can't really see that. An alliance with xenos is worse, but working with chaos is unforgivable...
- Even if i hate to say that, but temporary Marines (not every chapter, but some of them) would work with eldar or Tau if there is a bigger treat like Orks, Chaos or Tyranids.
-
the list of possible allys is a bit strange:
- Dark Eldar Eldar would surly not ally with Chaos - there is this little thing called Slaanesh aka "nemesis of the whole race"
Yes, DE would never ally with anyone associated with slannesh. However it is possible that they would ally with renegade space marines, or on the outside the alpha legion, who are only loosely associated with chaos.
- on the other hand Dark Eldar would have no problem to work with corsairs or even craftworld Eldar if the interest of the whole race is touched (e.g. teach ignorant chem-pan-sey a lesson..)
- even an Dark Eldar/Imperium alliance is possible, simply because the average imperial can't see the difference between Eldar and dark Eldar... there are even storys about Dark eldar mercenarys working for the Imperium (which kill their employers after the job is done...)
Yes.
- a Rough Trader working with Chaos will get a visit from the nice Inquistor living next door ... can't really see that. An alliance with xenos is worse, but working with chaos is unforgivable...
There is Canon of RTs working with Tau, Eldar, Demiurg and even Orks! Read the Blood Axes fluff. RTs will often get away with it, especially on the fringes. Look at Into the Storm by FFG.
- Even if i hate to say that, but temporary Marines (not every chapter, but some of them) would work with eldar or Tau if there is a bigger treat like Orks, Chaos or Tyranids.
Marines are probably less likely to work with Eldar than the Inquisition. The ordos Xenos has the Coven of Isha, and marines don't break code. I don't know where the idea that Marines would work with Eldar came from.... I think it has some logic of; well they're good and they're good so naturally they go together.
Marines however would likely simply 'ignore' the Eldar in face of the larger threat. The Ultramarines did this with the Tau when there was a hivefleet inbound.
-
There is Canon of RTs working with Tau, Eldar, Demiurg and even Orks! Read the Blood Axes fluff. RTs will often get away with it, especially on the fringes.
Didn't said something against this. I argued against RT's working with CHAOS.
An alliance with xenos is a crime, but can be forgiven or, as you said, "overlooked" if the goal justifies it.
But an alliance with the forces of chaos, nope, this is something that can't be overlooked nor can it be forgiven...
Look at Into the Storm by FFG
I consider novels as non-canonical. As long as Black Library allows Guys like Goto to write 40k novels I can't even take them serious.
Ergo: as long as it doesn't appear in a Rulebook/Codex/WD or a dedicated "sourcebook" it doesn't exist
Yes, DE would never ally with anyone associated with slannesh. However it is possible that they would ally with renegade space marines, or on the outside the alpha legion, who are only loosely associated with chaos.
Eldar are THE main opponent to Chaos. Fullstop. Source: any Codex since 2nd Edition. OK, maybe it is possible to "trick" them into an alliance, if the eldar don't know that this chem pan sey are working for chaos, but this is such an unlikly case.... than you could also allow alliances with the tyranids arguing there is some device that locally kills of the hivemind. WhatI mean: alliances should express the "average relation" and not some special case.
I don't know where the idea that Marines would work with Eldar came from
Read more background and less bad novels ;D
-
Thing is, there are also renegade fleets which make use of the Chaos fleet list. These aren't butchering Chaos God worshipping evil. But just what they are: renegades.
Eldanesh,
Into the Storm ain't a novel. It is a supplement from Fantasy Flight Games to their RPG Corebook for Rogue Trader. FFG works with the GW IP and every page they publish must be approved of by GW itself. So FFG is canon if they write for 40k.
-
Didn't said something against this. I argued against RT's working with CHAOS.
An alliance with xenos is a crime, but can be forgiven or, as you said, "overlooked" if the goal justifies it.
But an alliance with the forces of chaos, nope, this is something that can't be overlooked nor can it be forgiven...
Yep, and yet the Official RT document says that an RT would have to be a pirate to work with orks but not with chaos :D
I consider novels as non-canonical. As long as Black Library allows Guys like Goto to write 40k novels I can't even take them serious.
Ergo: as long as it doesn't appear in a Rulebook/Codex/WD or a dedicated "sourcebook" it doesn't exist
Into the storm isn't a novel, it's a sourcebook for the Rogue Trader RPG by fantasy flight games. Although your argument still stands.... a lot of the stuff from novels is just.... well crap. They should be taken less seriously, but not ignored outright.
Eldar are THE main opponent to Chaos. Fullstop. Source: any Codex since 2nd Edition. OK, maybe it is possible to "trick" them into an alliance, if the eldar don't know that this chem pan sey are working for chaos, but this is such an unlikly case.... than you could also allow alliances with the tyranids arguing there is some device that locally kills of the hivemind. WhatI mean: alliances should express the "average relation" and not some special case.
I didn't say that the Eldar would work with chaos, I said they would work with Renegades however, like the Soul Drinkers. The 40k Chaos codex is supposed to incorporate those as well, as it was made to be more of a renegade book rather than a legion book. GW often changes fluff.
RTs working for chaos fleets... well it could be justified from a count-as perspective, as well as the fact that the Chaos fleet also incorporates renegades, so something such as in the age of apostasy or the nova terra interregnum. Most Imperial citizens don't even know that chaos exists.
Also there is the fact that an RT may have gone renegade and joined up with a chaos warfleet himself, some RTs go pirate or otherwise, hiding behind their warrant for as long as possible.
Read more background and less bad novels ;D
What? Yes... the Ultramarines are supposed to be the most Codex chapter, yet they break so many rules in novels....
-
Sorry was a reflex: Coven of Isha -> Goto -> :-X (And i confused it with sorm of iron)
But, no, I don't think that 3rd party developers have to be taken seriously in any way: Black Library is even part of GW and they publish rubbish bull**** (did I mention Goto? ;D), why should be a 3rd party better. The RT roleplay is a bit like the Trading Card Game or better fan fiction: as long as there are no other sources it is relevant, but if there is only the smallest conflict with better sources you don't have to take it to serious/can ignore it.
I said they would work with Renegades however, like the Soul Drinkers
Philosophical question: IMO on the long run there are no "neutral" renegadesm they'll all end up as slaves to chaos even if they don't know it (ahriman is a prominent example: he still believes that he controls the Powers of chaos, but is a marionette to Tzeentsh). Betray the emperor and you'll become chaos. This is as sure as playing russian roulette will always kill you if you try long enough. Soul Drinkers are good example: they belive they are "free", but hell they killed the loyal halfof the chapter, Sarpedon has spider legs (clear sign of chaos) and had a talk with a demonprince of Tzeentch... they serve tzeentch, even if they don't know.
yet they break so many rules in novels
As I said: read less bad novels. ;D and yes, everything from Goto and the Ultramarine novels count as bad. (it seems that McNeill desperatly wanted "cool" Ulras and killed the whole background of the chapter for this)
-
Sorry was a reflex: Coven of Isha -> Goto -> :-X (And i confused it with sorm of iron)
But, no, I don't think that 3rd party developers have to be taken seriously in any way: Black Library is even part of GW and they publish rubbish bull**** (did I mention Goto? ;D), why should be a 3rd party better. The RT roleplay is a bit like the Trading Card Game or better fan fiction: as long as there are no other sources it is relevant, but if there is only the smallest conflict with better sources you don't have to take it to serious/can ignore it.
I said they would work with Renegades however, like the Soul Drinkers
Philosophical question: IMO on the long run there are no "neutral" renegadesm they'll all end up as slaves to chaos even if they don't know it (ahriman is a prominent example: he still believes that he controls the Powers of chaos, but is a marionette to Tzeentsh). Betray the emperor and you'll become chaos. This is as sure as playing russian roulette will always kill you if you try long enough. Soul Drinkers are good example: they belive they are "free", but hell they killed the loyal halfof the chapter, Sarpedon has spider legs (clear sign of chaos) and had a talk with a demonprince of Tzeentch... they serve tzeentch, even if they don't know.
yet they break so many rules in novels
As I said: read less bad novels. ;D and yes, everything from Goto and the Ultramarine novels count as bad. (it seems that McNeill desperatly wanted "cool" Ulras and killed the whole background of the chapter for this)
Yeah, for novels I can understand this. But all stuff from Fantasy Flight Games regarding is the new official Canon for 40k. It counts, it is the 'truth' and it shall be read as such by us. Even if we do not like it. haha!
-
But all stuff from Fantasy Flight Games regarding is the new official Canon for 40k
How so you come to this conclusion?
At all there have been a lot of 3rd Party developers working with gw stuff, nothing has ever be considered official: be it the old whfb roleplay, any video game or the mentioned trading card game...
Sure there are always influences (e.g the events of a novel make it into the 'dex, if the author of the Codex like them), but that's it.
-
Every single word FFG writes gets a GW stamp. The RT book is started with a letter from Alan Merrit (sp?), the GW IP caretaking boss. (Heck he even writes that the first game they wanted to start many years ago was a spaceship game, before they even thought about Warhammer 40k!).
It is official. dot com.
-
Which gives some of us a headache, because FFG occasionally overturns existing fluff, like the size of cruisers. So, god knows, any random book might throw out the ongoing fluff arguments around here.
-
Jeez, how off were they?
-
Not much,
Before FFG, GW never gave sizes & dimensions. However through various things the size was estimated as follow:
Imperial Navy
escorts : 800-1200metres
cruisers: 2500-3000 metres
battleships: 4500-5000 metres
Alas, even back then various claims about 5km flew around for cruisers. Sizes also being used on Merzo, sadly they didn't change it.
With FFG Rogue Trader we got dimensions (lenght, width, mass, accell, speed, crew, etc pretty cool tbh) for spaceships in an official publication. And I know for fact that FFG got these sizes/have them specifically approved by GW.
So, well, that's that. :)
-
Not much,
Before FFG, GW never gave sizes & dimensions. However through various things the size was estimated as follow:
Imperial Navy
escorts : 800-1200metres
cruisers: 2500-3000 metres
battleships: 4500-5000 metres
Alas, even back then various claims about 5km flew around for cruisers. Sizes also being used on Merzo, sadly they didn't change it.
With FFG Rogue Trader we got dimensions (lenght, width, mass, accell, speed, crew, etc pretty cool tbh) for spaceships in an official publication. And I know for fact that FFG got these sizes/have them specifically approved by GW.
So, well, that's that. :)
FFG blew them up to 5km for cruisers.
You left out how big the crew sizes got. We went from Chambers 1k per hull point to 95,000 people to run a Lunar class.
-
For some reason I thought I saw a cruiser having a crew of 80,000 listed somewhere else. As well I thought the hull point thing was just a guess that people just kinda said. Naturally something with an internal space of about 1km cubed would be 750 times the volume of the empire state building. Considering that, each person would have around 17,000 square feet of space. However it is a space ship, so probably less than half isn't occupied by machinery, and a lot of this is hallways/work areas etc. Presumably a person would have less than 200 square feet of personal space.
-
Hi all! BIG changes here! I'll re-post this in all the pertinent places.
First of all, the FAQ/Errata is DONE!!! A LOT of work went into this, an dit will remain in draft form for another week jusnt in case there's a few more kinks to work out that all of us missed, but this is essentially what the FAQ will look like. Sorry it took so long to get right, and sorry we pushed it so close to 2011!! Barring any unforeseen problems, we should be able to stamp this FINAL sometime around December 27th. SPECIAL THANKS to Horizon and Masque- I've decided to give them every dime I make from this effort! :P
Rogue Traders DRAFT v3.5: Like the FAQ, the Rogue Traders saw a lot of back and forth so the version number is quite different. VERY SPECIAL THANKS to Sam Shepherd, the creative design lead from Fantasy Flight Games that took the time to square our Rogue Traders with their Rogue Traders! How cool is that? ;D
Powers of Chaos DRAFT v2.8: A few changes and tweaks here, specifically to the Hecate, Inferno and fleet lists. We're getting very close to what the final product will look like. Chaos is already a pretty solid fleet so most of the changes here were to correct balancing issues as opposed to anything else.
Inquisition DRAFT v1.4: A few formatting changes and minor tweaks, but nothing really different here.
Well, that's it! The link for it all is in my signature. I'll be leaving town for a week and will try to stay in touch. Keep your smiles on, game on and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
- Nate
-
nate, this is purely and utterly impractical gameplay wise and game breaking for torpedo heavy races like the IN:
A torpedo salvo (regardless of strength) is now
represented with a Strength 3, (2.5cm) marker with
one or more D6 indicating the actual salvo strength.
I can never accept this as a valid rule in BFG or even a well thought out one as noted by my pictures of the rule in effect.
-
nate, this is purely and utterly impractical gameplay wise and game breaking for torpedo heavy races like the IN:
A torpedo salvo (regardless of strength) is now
represented with a Strength 3, (2.5cm) marker with
one or more D6 indicating the actual salvo strength.
I can never accept this as a valid rule in BFG or even a well thought out one as noted by my pictures of the rule in effect.
+1.
I only got part way through reading it (was at work), but I think the section on blast markers may need re-wordsmithing also. For a clarification, I don't find it particularly clear.
-
I agree with Vaaish & RcG.
I told them. :)
-
House rule!
-
I was actually very surprised that they didn't go with a larger marker to represent torps, like a str6 one.
-
nate, this is purely and utterly impractical gameplay wise and game breaking for torpedo heavy races like the IN:
A torpedo salvo (regardless of strength) is now
represented with a Strength 3, (2.5cm) marker with
one or more D6 indicating the actual salvo strength.
I can never accept this as a valid rule in BFG or even a well thought out one as noted by my pictures of the rule in effect.
+1
And I just agreed with both Vaaish AND Horizon... so...
-
Is it purely because of d6 clutter? Wasn't there a caveat for splitting salvos if the strength was high enough?
-
LS it's impractical because of the number of d6 you either have to stack behind a marker which takes up more space than the marker itself or the hilarity of stacking all those dice on the marker. Plus, it reduces torpedoes to shotgun only because a single marker doesn't have the capability for area denial. That begs the question, if one torpedo marker can represent any amount of torpedo strength, why not the same with fighters and bombers? Why don't they just put out a single marker with d6 representing how many are there to keep things consistent? On top of all that, it makes it more useful to fire torpedoes from individual ships rather than as a large salvo because you get to put more markers down.
-
I think it makes perfect sense to do the same to ordnance. Actually, I have been playing that way, and it works very well.
It makes fluff sense, but I understand what you mean about lowering area denial, though I have still seen it used as such to effect.
Just spitballing for solutions: stacking another marker on top of the first to represent double, or, 'when a squadron launches torpedos, treat it as the same wave'.
Honestly though, I find an 18cm long band of torps, with full strength on whatever it hits, being far more ridiculous than the current build.
May be weaker at times, but its definitly an improvement. Though I have only playtested it in about 5 games, I support it so far.
-
I favor stacking with torpedoes and attack crafts
I favor using the epic base for attack crafts with the numbers of models mounted representing it's strength
-
Well the simplest method to reduce the size of torpedo spread to a reasonable level and still make the dice system work is to have 1d6 per marker. In fact, that's what the change was put forward as by the HA originally. It was a surprise change in the faq that has it with one marker no matter the strength.
A s3 marker means that torpedo spreads are half the size before the rule went into effect making a fairly common s12 salvo 5 cm across rather than 10 or so. It would be very difficult to reach 18cm across one marker for every s6 torpedoes.
-
This question came up on another board and after checking for quotable rules I'm not sure anymore if I've got it right:
When is the last chance for a ship traversing an asteroid field to go on BFI?
1 before the LD check?
2 before the d6 damage are rolled?
When is the last chance for ships ramming/being rammed to go on BFI?
1 before the LD check for the ramming?
2 before damage rolls against armor?
When is the last chance to go on BFI against a ship explosion?
1 before the roll on the Catastrophic Damage table?
2 before the 3d6 range of the explosion is rolled?
3 before the resulting lance shots are rolled?
So far I've played 1,2,2 but after thinking on it now I'd go with 1,1,2.
From FAQ2010 (and 2007 as well) I get the impression however that it should be 2,2,3.
???
-
Do ships test seperately or in squadrons for things like ramming and asteroids?
-
This question came up on another board and after checking for quotable rules I'm not sure anymore if I've got it right:
When is the last chance for a ship traversing an asteroid field to go on BFI?
1 before the LD check?
2 before the d6 damage are rolled?
When is the last chance for ships ramming/being rammed to go on BFI?
1 before the LD check for the ramming?
2 before damage rolls against armor?
When is the last chance to go on BFI against a ship explosion?
1 before the roll on the Catastrophic Damage table?
2 before the 3d6 range of the explosion is rolled?
3 before the resulting lance shots are rolled?
So far I've played 1,2,2 but after thinking on it now I'd go with 1,1,2.
From FAQ2010 (and 2007 as well) I get the impression however that it should be 2,2,3.
???
2, 2, 3.
Do ships test seperately or in squadrons for things like ramming and asteroids?
Capital ships test individually, escorts test as a squadron.
-
Like Sig said. We played it always like that.
-
Also, the squadron rules as far as shooting at them go are overcomplicated. Trying to figure out exactly what happens when 2 cruisers targeting an escort squadron, one out of range of half the ships, the escorts with blast markers on some, some abeam, some facing...it all just gets very confusing.
I propose rather than hits 'carrying' just because something is in a squadron, firepower instead be split before firing, with no leadership check for targeting something in the same squadron.
-
You cannot pick out targets in a squadron. Only the dice can do that (eg 4+ and 5+ armour in a squadron).
It is almost impossible to describe these situations and what happens when and if.
-
I know, and I think thats silly. I had a situation in a small campaign game where an escort carrier was hiding in the center of some normal transports, and i couldnt shoot at it because 'Oh, we're together'.
That rule, and the 'carry over fire' rule dont make much sense to me.
-
I know, and I think thats silly. I had a situation in a small campaign game where an escort carrier was hiding in the center of some normal transports, and i couldnt shoot at it because 'Oh, we're together'.
You answered your own opinion:
Well, I don't think the kroozers are accurate in size anyway. Alot of the escorts arent, we know. It is after all a blown up representation of whats on the stem, so its not canonical, I'd think.
The distances are so great it is impossible to pick something. The escort carrier must be part of the tranport squadron though! Otherwise it is a seperate identity.
-
think of it as targetting by energy signature rather than actual visual identification
-
Thats baloney, and makes no sense.
-
lol, it makes a lot of sense as per your own wording I quoted in the last post of the previous page.
-
Ok, Horizon. If they weren't 'together' they would be normally targetable. What changes when they say 'oh, we're all together so we can't be targeted'
-
Ok, Horizon. If they weren't 'together' they would be normally targetable. What changes when they say 'oh, we're all together so we can't be targeted'
In theory they're maneuvering around each other as they move, so their signatures overlap. However, I might point out that this means that 40k sensors are on par with 1960's and 70's technology at the canon ranges in BFG.
-
Distance = time as well
-
IT IS FINISHED
The FINAL EDITION of the 2010 FAQ/errata is complete, with about 30 minutes left in the year (if you are on Eastern Standard Time, that is!). For those of you in New Zealand and such, sorry I missed it for you guys! In any case, it can be downloaded from the BFG repository site at the link in my signature.
Happy New Year everyone!
-
Lol Nate. Congrats! But you still have a few hours by Hawaii's watch.
-
Grats!!!!! I just sending posts about BFG 2010 FAQ in my local gaming club's forums.... You keep your word and made it BFG2010FAQ ;)
Great Job!
-
I'll go :) when it is on the GW site.
-
Do we have an ETA on the release of this faq on the GW website? I ask because this FAQ will be in effect for Adepticon this year and it would be easier to be able to point a link to their site than the google docs page.
-
Do squadrons roll seperately for things like AAF? I think they do. I wonder if the squadron range can be increased to 20cm.
-
Last minute questions Nate:
You didn't mention in the FAQ that leech torpedoes count as eldar torpedoes and will only be hit by turrets on a 6 (It also isn't mentioned in armada) Also you should clarify that they don't need to roll to hit (or they do?)
I still think the description for how resilient ordinance is confusing, and should be reworded.
Oh in the FAQ you say that necrons consider their reactive armor save working exactly as a brace save. You also say that brace saves will save against H&R attacks. So this means necrons get their save against assault boats and teleport attacks.... I think this should be clarified/mentioned.
CTNH should be clarified for one thing: could say a capital ship with 20cm movement on CTNH with 45' turns instead of moving 10 turning 45' and then another 10 and turning another 45', move 20 and then turn 90'?
I think that for the Chaos and renegade imperial vessels instead of saying a chaos fleet can take a IN cruiser of 185 points or less you should say any imperial cruiser not equipped with a nova cannon (as I imagine this is the only real thing you want to limit.)
Besides at 185 points a chaos player could take a Dominator with the 'downgraded (upgrade?) weapons batteries.
-
just looking through the eldar refit FAQ and some things have popped up.
the haven's netherfield has two conflicting definitions - in the main text it applies an addition column shift (i *assume* this is in addition to the holofield shift to the right, but could do with better definition), but underneath the main entry in the text box it says it counts as an escort. are these both correct, or is this an editing error?
on the refits table, the bold text above the weapons refits says 'ship refit' where it should probably say weapons refit like the sidebar.
on the crew skills, 5 would appear to make 1 obsolete, as it gives a bonus to all special orders not just lock on. deliberate, or worth another look, possibly 3d6 to all movement special orders?
does the dark eldar version of the spire take critical hits on a 5+ (as is suggested), or on a 6 as per usual dark eldar?
lastly, with the new points cost, do people think its much more worthwhile to take mimic engines?
-
Besides at 185 points a chaos player could take a Dominator with the 'downgraded (upgrade?) weapons batteries.
Can't take ship variants.
-
Do we have an ETA on the release of this faq on the GW website? I ask because this FAQ will be in effect for Adepticon this year and it would be easier to be able to point a link to their site than the google docs page.
I agree completely, and that’s the prime mover for our New Year’s deadline. Unortunately, it will get on the GW website whenever they post it. I of course believe it will be sooner rather than later, but much of the behind-the-scenes staff has been restructured besides the game design team so I don't know much about how all that works anymore, and the few team members left are far more reticent about all the behind-the-scenes issues than they used to be.
As for the FAQ, I pulled it off the site and am keeping it on hold until tomorrow night to make sure we have all the cobwebs knocked out. Right now we have it back on hold, mainly because there isn't anything like making a document final to get EVERYONE suddenly finding things we missed, misspelled or forgot. It will be re-posted tomorrow night (05 Jan) and off to GW as soon as we get the rest of the projects done, which hopefully should be in the next two weeks at the latest. We are aiming to give them everything as a lump-sum so they can get it posted all at once.
Hi Plaxor! Thanks for this! I wish we would have received this sooner, but it’s okay because I have received a FLURRY of e-mails about what we missed, misspelled or accidentally deleted since the Final got posted. I guess “Draft†means “Ignore until Final, then nitpick to pieces,†but I’m fine with it as long as we get a good product done.
Once it goes back up, it’s getting locked. Any sudden revelations after that point will have to be decided on a gaming table with a coin toss. I know we want this to be a living document, but GW isn’t using that framework anymore, and they will NOT entertain posting a document that still needs work so we need to get it right and call it done.
Last minute questions Nate:
You didn't mention in the FAQ that leech torpedoes count as eldar torpedoes and will only be hit by turrets on a 6 (It also isn't mentioned in armada) Also you should clarify that they don't need to roll to hit (or they do?)
They behave as Eldar torps in all respects, including being hit by turrets on a 6. Yes, they have to roll to hit, but now they cause 1hp damage on top of the auto-crit. We’re adding this in and further clarifying how they work, particularly against escorts.
I still think the description for how resilient ordinance is confusing, and should be reworded.
The examples (which are intentionally extreme) illustrate what happens when everyone always passes their 4+ save. We’re adding in that resilient ordnance is always immediately removed whenever a save is failed. No, we are NOT ruling that ordnance can save and keep moving because it makes it too powerful for those that WILL abuse it.
All of these situations are pretty esoteric to start with. If it’s still confusing, make a coin toss and keep playing.
Oh in the FAQ you say that necrons consider their reactive armor save working exactly as a brace save. You also say that brace saves will save against H&R attacks. So this means necrons get their save against assault boats and teleport attacks.... I think this should be clarified/mentioned.
Agreed. Fixed.
CTNH should be clarified for one thing: could say a capital ship with 20cm movement on CTNH with 45' turns instead of moving 10 turning 45' and then another 10 and turning another 45', move 20 and then turn 90'?
No. It was never this way and won’t be now.
I think that for the Chaos and renegade imperial vessels instead of saying a chaos fleet can take a IN cruiser of 185 points or less you should say any imperial cruiser not equipped with a nova cannon (as I imagine this is the only real thing you want to limit.)
Besides at 185 points a chaos player could take a Dominator with the 'downgraded (upgrade?) weapons batteries.
The FAQ already states Nova Cannon and special weapon rules can’t be taken so this doesn’t need to be clarified further.
Do squadrons roll seperately for things like AAF? I think they do. I wonder if the squadron range can be increased to 20cm.
No, squadrons (even capital ship squadrons) ALWAYS roll together for things like AAF. This is already in the FAQ, but we will add a sentence clarifying it. The distance ships have to maintain in a squadron is not being changed.
-
Man, I guess I missed leeches getting altered!
So now its -10cm and a hit? I take it that DE ships always have them armed, since they are now like normal torps but better?
Edit: A-boats officially kill escorts on a 4+, right?
Does this apply to teleport attacks? I can see why it wouldnt, but the same concept of 'if im near a shieldless escort, i kill it one out of six times' applies
-
One last question:
How do daemonships deploy when they are squadroned? I know this rarely happens but you know...
Also why did you change the way random launch bays work on Orks? it was a tiny boost to ork vessels and made people want to buy the restricted ships more. Now terrorships are all the more valuable because they don't have this disadvantage.
Also with torpedo bombers, you made it so that not only do Ork vesels with random launch bays have to pay maximum points for them (which wasn't necessary as it was already written into the rules for most of their costs), but they are notably worse on top of that because of your 'short burn' thing.
I'll try to see if I can come up with anything more fleet-specific that you missed.... but I think you're pretty solid on everything that needed FAQed.
-
Nate, are you planning on making boarding torpedoes do 1 hit in addition to the H&R?
This would make perfect sense for Orks and nids (as boarding torpedoes are more expensive and/or slower)
Space marines... ugh... fast torpedoes filled with space marines....
-
A quick request from a person who is planning on sticking this faq on his ebook reader when it comes out in final/final version. Can we have 2 versions of this faq sent to GW? One with the fancy schmancy graphics on it like the current release and then a version that is just pure text? My ebook reader (sony 600 touch edition) chokes badly on pdfs with graphics like that in the files.
-
Hi all! Sorry about the delay, but I pulled the FAQ/Errata down for corrections just in time for a very serious personal emergency to rear its head. I'm back and the new FAQ has been posted. There were a few minor ommissions, mis-spellings and other errors in the final document that we needed to get fixed before it goes up to GW.
Here is a partial and incomplete list of some of the added rulings that were previously missed, in error or just plain forgotten. It's NOT all-inclusive and doesn't include any of the last-minute spelling errors or added cross-references so check for your favorite fleet to see if anything else was added or changed:
- All Ahead Full in squadrons was clarified.
- Catastrophic damage in asteroid fields was fixed.
- Boarding torpedoes do not cause automatic hits.
- Resilient ordnance was clarified to state in all cases, resilient attack craft that fail to make their save are immediately removed.
- The order of leadership checks to ram and how they apply was clarified.
- How capital ship squadrons make leadership checks to cross asteroid fields was clarified.
- Imperial grand cruisers do NOT count as cruisers for the purpose of adding battleships to the fleet in ANY Imperial fleet list.
- The Devastation uses different ordnance types in its profile. This in no way means their ordnance behaves differently, and for all intents and purposes their ordnance is exactly the same as other Chaos attack craft in all respects.
- Deamonships cannot be used in squadrons.
- The strength of the Dragonship’s weapons battery option is 14, the torpedo option is 8 and the launch bay option is 4.
- All Eldar ordnance (including Dark Eldar) are hit by turrets on a roll of 6. Slavebringer assault boats gain +1 when rolling their hit and run attack. Otherwise, they behave as assault boats in all respects.
- Leech torpedoes are clarified.
- When the Necron reactive hull saves apply is clarified.
- How Necrons may gain repair points in a campaign has been adjusted.
- The Tau Merchant starship is 95 points.
Please do NOT refer to this post as a source of answers, as this is not all-inclusive and leaves out important details for purposes of brevity.
The intent of a "Living Document" unfortunately never was brought to fruition by GW so when this finally makes it up to the GW site, it will probably remain as-is for the foreseeable future. If there is anything after this point that we missed, forgot or simply screwed up, the best thing to do is agree with your opponent how to handle the unclear situation. If two players can't come to an agreement, then flip a coin, game on and enjoy!
-
A quick request from a person who is planning on sticking this faq on his ebook reader when it comes out in final/final version. Can we have 2 versions of this faq sent to GW? One with the fancy schmancy graphics on it like the current release and then a version that is just pure text? My ebook reader (sony 600 touch edition) chokes badly on pdfs with graphics like that in the files.
I don't think GW will entertain creating or posting ebook-friendly versions of this document because it opens up the door to creating such versions of ALL their PDF files, which due to the current issues they have going on they will almost certainly NOT entertain. However, since this file is particularly important I should be able to create a graphics-free, ebook-friendly version of the FAQ/Errata and post it to the Repository. I will not be doing this for the other projects we are working on.
-
A quick request from a person who is planning on sticking this faq on his ebook reader when it comes out in final/final version. Can we have 2 versions of this faq sent to GW? One with the fancy schmancy graphics on it like the current release and then a version that is just pure text? My ebook reader (sony 600 touch edition) chokes badly on pdfs with graphics like that in the files.
I don't think GW will entertain creating or posting ebook-friendly versions of this document because it opens up the door to creating such versions of ALL their PDF files, which due to the current issues they have going on they will almost certainly NOT entertain. However, since this file is particularly important I should be able to create a graphics-free, ebook-friendly version of the FAQ/Errata and post it to the Repository. I will not be doing this for the other projects we are working on.
Why would creating e-book friendly versions of the Specialist Games documents, the ones which they are not making any money out of nor they are not really supporting 100% force them to create eBook friendly versions of the stuff they are making money out of? Sure the door is opened but if they don't want to go that way with WFB, 40k and LotR they don't have to.
-
Thanks Nate for the Merchant reduction.
I'm disappointed at the boarding torpedo thing, as boarding torpedoes (in orks) are more expensive and slower. I would've done; rolls to hit against the ship, causes a hit and instead of rolling to cause a critical, it causes 1 automatic H&R attack.
Therefore you essentially trade out the chance for a better critical for an auto H&R. Also with the much slower speed and higher price, I think it would work out fine.
-
Yes thanks for the 95pts merchant
-
This isn't a major issue but how to officially score VP's from minefields is not addressed at all. Currently I use a house rule that they count as 100% destroyed if the defender loose the scenario.
Boarding torps, they badly need a change as how they work. Hits like a-boats or similar would probably do the trick.
-
This isn't a major issue but how to officially score VP's from minefields is not addressed at all. Currently I use a house rule that they count as 100% destroyed if the defender loose the scenario.
Boarding torps, they badly need a change as how they work. Hits like a-boats or similar would probably do the trick.
Just give them a +1 to hit.
-
Thats actually the best idea ive heard. they are manned, afterall.
-
To be sure: I have always played, example, squadron of Idolators don't worry too much about BFI, because all they lose each is a str of battery.
I heard some talk that you actually treat the squadron as halfed. So I have been playing, say, 5 Idolators on BFI getting 5 lance shots and str5 batteries. Is this incorrect? Where does it state that the squadron as a whole is halfed, meaning that some ships essentially have no weapons to fire at all? Finally, does this apply for capital ship squadrons?
Also: Bumping support of Sig's idea.
-
To be sure: I have always played, example, squadron of Idolators don't worry too much about BFI, because all they lose each is a str of battery.
I heard some talk that you actually treat the squadron as halfed. So I have been playing, say, 5 Idolators on BFI getting 5 lance shots and str5 batteries. Is this incorrect? Where does it state that the squadron as a whole is halfed, meaning that some ships essentially have no weapons to fire at all? Finally, does this apply for capital ship squadrons?
Yes, squadron powered totalled (escorts and capital ships) then halved.
5 Idolators on BFI = 3 lances (5/2 rounded up) + 5 batteries (10/2).
FAQ2001 and newer ;)
iirc even rulebook stuff.
-
In a campaign, how much do you pay for your commander? from what i have been able to read, you get him for free.
-
You don't pay for him and you only get one. The commander in campaigns is supposed to represent you and gains renown (experience) to move up in ranks. Since he's always assigned to the flag ship you designated, it means in games over 750 points you have to bring that ship with you since there aren't provisions to purchase additional fleet commanders. Choose wisely if you want him to show up in lower point games.
-
Heres a question Im foggy on. Do you have to completely end movement before you can initiate a boarding action?
As in, if i touch bases with a ship, but havn't finished my min movement, am i not allowed to stop to board?
-
As long as you have passed your minimum movement requirement (eg half the distance with most ships) you may stop at any point.
When on AAF you must do full distance and cannot stop to board.
-
As long as you end in base contact and declare you are attempting boarding before you move you can do this. The only restrictions on movement would be that you move at least the minimum speed for the ship and that you move the total distance rolled if you are on AAF.
That means it's rather more risky to attempt boarding when on AAF.
-
Something that was never made clear to me:
Do blast markers and crippling and other speed reducers effect your minimum distance? Or are you expected if your starting speed is 20cm to have to move 10cm even if you are crippled and running through blast markers?
-
Something that was never made clear to me:
Do blast markers and crippling and other speed reducers effect your minimum distance? Or are you expected if your starting speed is 20cm to have to move 10cm even if you are crippled and running through blast markers?
I've always read it as you have to move your min distance BEFORE any modifiers take place, so the actual distance one could move under optimal conditions, considering the current physical state of the ship. So if it was crippled, you'd have to take into account the -5cm penalty, but if it was just a blast marker, it makes no difference.
-
this was never clear to me either
but as i play it, it is the maximum you can move that turn, taking into blast marker, crippling, etc, the halved
-
As long as you end in base contact and declare you are attempting boarding before you move you can do this.
Since when is boarding declared before movement?
Page 34 under "Moving in for Boarding":
If a vessel is going to attempt a boarding action it must be declared in the movement phase when contact is made.
Something that was never made clear to me:
Do blast markers and crippling and other speed reducers effect your minimum distance? Or are you expected if your starting speed is 20cm to have to move 10cm even if you are crippled and running through blast markers?
The last sentence on page 16 under "Minimum Move Distance" explains it:
Ships who are unable to move half their speed (due to damage, blast markers etc.) must move the maximum possible distance instead.
-
My mistake, we just always declare it when we start the move rather than when contact is made. It really makes no difference when it's declared in course of the ships movement so long as the ship ends in base contact.
-
Ok, so the letter of the law is 'yes, always move at least half if able.'
I dont agree with that, doesnt make sense. But at least i know how it is
-
With all the inertia going on in space it does make sense.
-
and it forces interesting tactics to be used, if things were able to stay still it would be much too safe.
-
They would be a defense, for one. But I'm not saying things should be still, the movement mechanic is one of my favorite things about BFG.
I'm only saying that minimum move should be half of current potential speed.
-
Has it ever been confirmed or allowed to go fully to the left to actual firepower on the chart? Should! I wouldnt be opposed to adding another column on the right, but thatd mean more intense revisions.
-
You can never go past defense on the gunnery table. The first column only denotes battery strength.
-
Right, but I think it should be a possibility.
-
I think it would be nonsense. Defenses represent stationary and usually fairly large targets which are by nature the easiest to hit. How can get better than that? That category is best you can get out of your ships weapons since, no matter how well placed your shots are some are still going to go wide, whether because something doesn't arm correctly, or jenkins over on targeting node three slipped and knocked the aim point off kilter.
-
I'm referring to things like column shifts and double column shifts for sunward. Would those have no effect on defenses?
I don't know about you, but I certainly have an easier time shooting a well lit object five feet away than one a hundred yards away in dim light :)
-
if the defenses column represents the best shooting you can do, then it doesn't matter if it's lit up more because you are already at the peak of your ability. Well lit on the gunnery chart IS defenses. Dim lit at 100 yards is an abeam escort. Do the math.
-
Who said its the best you could do? Theres no math to do, what does math have to do with it?
-
with a moving object, i assume youre constantly having to compensate for trajectory/speed etc. keep in mind that gunners are constantly compensating for their own vessels movement, which is where the error comes in.
at interstellar distances, id say 90% hit rate against a non moving object is pretty good - its equivalent to a guy with a pistol firing at a target several km away, and no amount of backlighting is going to cut out the inherent error. its something of an abstraction, but it works.
if there were no 'FP' column and just letters from a-t, would that solve your problem?
-
for squadrons, do you roll things like AAF as one roll for the squadron? itd be real confusing otherwise.
-
Yes, the actual firepower column is not part of the table. Yes, an abstraction such as letters could be used in place. However it doesn't necessarily follow that the Defences column is the best that you could get. Shooting at those same defences at short range should be better. Of course, maybe there will always be some sort of loss in firepower no matter how easy the target is. This is debatable, but let's assume true for now. Well, as pointed out, the actual firepower column is merely an abstraction. It could be replaced with letters. Therefore, since WB firepower is an abstraction, there's nothing to suggest that firepower 12 (or firepower class L if using letters) couldn't cap out at 14, 15 or 16 dice. It is only if you assume that each point of firepower represents 1 potential die of damage that there comes a cap on the maximum dice that a given firepower can represent. Then you could argue that you'll never achieve 100% efficiency under any circumstances, but you couldn't argue that the firepower column is merely an abstraction. So it's one or the other. If it's just an abstraction then there's no upper limit and therefore 90% of no upper limit makes, well, no upper limit. If it's not an abstraction then you could argue for the inefficiency.
However that is surely debatable. It is not beyond reason to suggest that it is possible to get all shots on target. It's also not unreasonable to suggest some loss, regardless of how plum the target is. That is to say, neither scenario is particularly unbelievable. However, the boundaries of the current table are a little unreasonable. An abeam Eldar escort at long range, into the sun (BZ 1-4), with a dust cloud between should be practically invisible. Similarly, it should be easier to hit a defence at close range than normal range, particularly into the sun (BZ 1-4). So since there's reason for the extra shift left and it's not forbidden, logically speaking, to get 100% accuracy then it is a reasonable suggestion.
If you really really didn't think it possible to get 100% accuracy then consider this scenario: All WB strength on all ships is doubled. The values in the Firepower column in the gunnery table are also doubled. So they're 2-40 instead of 1-20. Now you could insert 2 more columns between the defences column and the firepower column, representing increased potential accuracy under certain circumstances while still giving less than "100%" accuracy. That's just an example of how both the "inaccuracy" as well as "better performance" could be operationalised, not a suggestion.
As an experimental rule I would suggest including the firepower column in the chart, as well as reducing incoming firepower by 2 or 3 for each right shift beyond the furthest right of the table. To give an extreme example, targeting an abeam Eldar escort at long range into the sun (BZ 1-4) through blast markers would lose you 8-12 firepower.
-
for squadrons, do you roll things like AAF as one roll for the squadron? itd be real confusing otherwise.
Yep.
-
Who said its the best you could do?
The game designers. They are the ones who didn't make a column better than defenses for us to use so we have to take it to mean that's the best shooting you can do.
-
The firepower chart just represents some fraction that they decided, rounded to the nearest whole number.
The fact that fp20=18 makes it look like .9 for column defenses, and for the fact that the value listed averages to be 88% what the firepower actually is, makes it all the more likely that it is in fact .9
Also with that, it explains the 'plateaus' at 6 and 16
Here's a scope:
1=.9 rounded to 1
2=1.8 rounded to 2
3=2.7 rounded to 3
4=3.6 rounded to 4
5=4.5 rounded to 5
6=5.4 rounded to 5
7=6.3 rounded to 6
8=7.2 rounded to 7
9=8.1 rounded to 8
10=9
11=9.9 rounded to 10
12=10.8 rounded to 11
13=11.7 rounded to 12
14=12.6 rounded to 13
15=13.5 rounded to 14
16=14.4 rounded to 14
17= 15.3 rounded to 15
18=16.2 rounded to 16
19=17.1 rounded to 17
20=18
All perfectly true for the defenses column. So therefore, they multiplied by .9 there.
Now lets look at the 'closing cap ship' column. Having a guess, they likely did .7
1=.7 rounded to 1
2=1.4 rounded to 1
3=2.1 rounded to 2
4=2.8 rounded to 3
5=3.5 rounded to 4
6=4.2 rounded to 4
7=4.9 rounded to 5
8=5.6 rounded to 6
9=6.3 rounded to 6
That proves to be true there, and for the sake of your sanity I wont keep writing there. But then lets move another column to moving away capital ships: which ends up being .5, and abeam capital ships: .35 (seems like an odd choice.) then the ordinance column =.2
So therefore, the entire chart goes: .9,.7,.5,.35,.2
Interestingly this means that 1 eldar weapons battery is the equivalent of 1.35 lesser race weapon batteries. (according to firing at cap ships) 1.42 according to escorts, of course equal in the cases of defense and ordinance.
So then lances.... we all have this judgement that lances count as 3wbs at 30cm. Lets say you're firing at an assortment of types at this range. So we will count each column once. Jn this case yes, 3 wbs end up equaling 1.07 lances at that range, but with the way blast markers work, I think this is shifted to about 3.5wbs=1 lance.
-
So then lances.... we all have this judgement that lances count as 3wbs at 30cm. Lets say you're firing at an assortment of types at this range. So we will count each column once. Jn this case yes, 3 wbs end up equaling 1.07 lances at that range, but with the way blast markers work, I think this is shifted to about 3.5wbs=1 lance.
No, 3WB != 1 lance at 30cm range if you take BMs into account, but you also have to take short range into account. Besides, you don't just throw your WB ships in any which way. You actively manoeuvre them. Lance boats you throw in wherever they fit. That is, since you have some control you don't merely average the gunnery table. Sometimes you're called on to fire at the far right side of the table, but the majority of the time you shoot in the 0.5 and up column.
-
Yup, in most engagements with my IN I consider WBs to be easily preferable to 3L. I don't use many long range ships, but with the lack of control over which facing I get to target at long range, and the additional right shift, you can easily see how Lances are far superior at distance.
Kudos for working out the chart though, I had been wondering.
-
argument for current gunnery table:
im sure its written somewhere that a lance strike is a precision attack, directed at a ship, and weapon batteries are more of a 'fill space with explosions' (like a shotgun) kind of weapon. assuming this is the case, then every time WB's fire then against an 'invisible target', they will still know the rough location, and by sheer weight of numnbers 1 or 2 will hit. conversely, against a short range defence, that element of 'scatter' will still cause 10% of hits to go astray.
that said, personally id have no problem with being able to left shift to the FP column, or right shifts from ordnance = 0. even a 100/80/60/40/20 % in columns would do it for me, as it would even out the effect of column shifts.
-
argument for current gunnery table:
im sure its written somewhere that a lance strike is a precision attack, directed at a ship, and weapon batteries are more of a 'fill space with explosions' (like a shotgun) kind of weapon. assuming this is the case, then every time WB's fire then against an 'invisible target', they will still know the rough location, and by sheer weight of numnbers 1 or 2 will hit. conversely, against a short range defence, that element of 'scatter' will still cause 10% of hits to go astray.
Well, for the first part, if your target is practically invisible then you've got almost no chance of hitting it. Space is very big. Still, with enough firepower it's plausible. Hence the firepower reductions. As for always scattering, I don't think that's necessarily the case. Sure, as a way of compensating for movement a saturation effect is fine, but when you don't have to compensate and don't have to saturate an area then it just comes down to being able to actually point the guns at the target properly. Easier at close range.
-
I have always assumed that the additional rules for transports (-1 Leadership, +3d6 on AAF) also apply to all possible variants although this is nowhere mentioned.
Thus an Escort Carrier would have a Leadership value of 5-8, an additional -1 Leadership modifier to Reload Ordnance and only travel an additional 3d6 on AAF.
Is this correct? And regarding the Rogue Traders List does this also apply to "Transports" that are included as part of the fleet?
-
By the way, the example in the reserves section of the FAQ is wrong. You say with 6 cruisers you can pull in a reserve CG from a Bastion list and a reserver battleship from the AdMech. You'd need 3 BBs to pull in a reserve BB.
-
Does anyone find the 'add turrets' caveat to ships defending against boarding to be pretty steep?
In a game of mine, orks vs Admech, I actually fought a losing battle in my boarding actions, because even though I possessed so many bonuses, every vessel got at least a +3. Forget about the 5 turret battleship!
-
Can I suggest a modification to the campaign rules regarding character vessels (now that they are popping up more often)
In a campaign, if you lose a character ship, it may not be replaced, instead, replace it with ships or squadrons equal to it's point value. (this way you are a little more careful throwing the Arc Mechanicus or the Conqueror into a battle)
-
Does anyone find the 'add turrets' caveat to ships defending against boarding to be pretty steep?
In a game of mine, orks vs Admech, I actually fought a losing battle in my boarding actions, because even though I possessed so many bonuses, every vessel got at least a +3. Forget about the 5 turret battleship!
You know that the turret value gets added to the BV, not the dice roll right? So if one 8 hit cruiser boards another 8 hit, 2 turret cruiser it will be BV 8 vs BV 10, meaning the defending ship has a higher BV, giving it +1 to its boarding roll. An 8 hit cruiser boarding an Emperor would normally be BV 8 vs BV 12, giving the Emp +1 to its dice, but since the Emp adds turrets it becomes BV 8 vs BV 17 meaning the Emp gets +2 instead. So even in this example it only gives +1 bonus. If we take the example of a SM SC (BV 6) going against an Emperor (BV 12) the Empy gets +2 to its dice due to doubling the SCs BV. If the Empy is the defender it gets to add turrets, which makes it BV 17 which means it still only gets +2. So in this example the turrets did nothing to help the Emperor, even though it was +5. In most circumstances you'll just get +1 for being the defender.
Can I suggest a modification to the campaign rules regarding character vessels (now that they are popping up more often)
In a campaign, if you lose a character ship, it may not be replaced, instead, replace it with ships or squadrons equal to it's point value. (this way you are a little more careful throwing the Arc Mechanicus or the Conqueror into a battle)
A good point, worth taking on board.
-
No, didn't realize that -_-
-
It has been brought to my attention that you may repair twice in a turn, in each end phase.
I have never played BFG this way. If you knock out a weapon, you have to deal with it for a turn before you have time to repair it.
I dislike this idea of instant and worry free repairs, and vote that repairs should only take place in one's own end phase.
-
Another random thought: The high-end of the critical hits. Can one well placed uber cannonball really take more than half the hits off a Battleship?
Also, what thoughts of 'cascading criticals' through critical damage.
-
Can one well placed uber cannonball really take more than half the hits off a Battleship?
The Death Star says yes.
But yes, a hull breach could be the result of secondary explosions if a shot penetrates a power conduit or magazine. HMS Hood anyone?
-
I for one would not mind having cascading criticals...
-
Against.
-
In BFG, a hit of damage represents a square city-block sized ruin of flame and destruction, and mass deaths. I just don't see any one hit doing that kind of damage in BFG scale. But its no biggy.
Why against cascading crits?
Edit: dont see any one hit doing SEVEN HITS worth of damage.
-
I, for one, have always played with cascading criticals and thoroughly enjoy it :)
-Zhukov
-
I am, with all due respect, also against cascading critical hits. I'm not saying that domino effects don't happen in ship-to-ship combat. But the idea of a "cascading critical" is, IMHO, already demonstrated by the 11(Hull Breach) and 12(Bulkhead Collapse) result on the critical chart (where a single hit causes a series of additional explosions - think of the H.M.S. Hood).
-
Yes think of Hood, Queen Mary or other examples. In my thougths status quo is fine.
-
pg 21 FAQ2010
"Chaos fleet requirements: As Battleships, Grand Cruisers and Heavy Cruisers all have their own requirements you may use the same cruisers for these requirements. For example, a Chaos fleet can have afleet comprised only of two Cruisers, one Heavy Cruiser (requires 2 Cruisers), one Grand Cruiser (requires three Cruisers or Heavy Cruisers) and a Battleship (requires three Cruisers or HeavyCruisers)."
It's official rules, or fanmade?
May be if some cruisers support GC or BS they cant support any other ships?
And this fleet will be look like that:
Heavy Cruiser (requires 2 Cruisers)
2 Cruisers
Battleship (requires three Cruisers or HeavyCruisers)
One HC here need two more 2 Cruisers
total:
BH
HCru
4 Cru
Or may be:
BH
GCru
HCru
2 Cru
What's correct?
-
Clearly the second option, as is stated in your quote. What I don't understand is that imperials can take a bc or gc for 2 cruisers but not both... Seems contradictory. They can take 2 cruisers one bc or gc and a bb tho.
-
Clearly the second option, as is stated in your quote. What I don't understand is that imperials can take a bc or gc for 2 cruisers but not both... Seems contradictory. They can take 2 cruisers one bc or gc and a bb tho.
it's not imperial... it's about chaos vessels (=
but ok - analogy is clear
thanks
-
I'm sorry what I ment is that chaos can take 2 cruisers 1 hc 1 gc and 1 bb.
Imperial cannot tho their rules state one bc OR gc not both for two cruisers.
-
It is official made, eg by the High Admirality, BFG rule committee.
-
I've got quite a few questions here. My excuse is the blatantly untrue "I'm not being ignorant, I'm just trying to, uh, clarify the rules!"
I checked through the last 20 pages of this thread to see if they've been asked before, and the first 25 pages of this thread was before the updated version of the FAQ anyway.
If a ship has an odd number of hits, how many hits need to be inflicted to cripple it - half rounded up, or half rounded down? It's probably been answered before, but I can't find it in the FAQ. I would normally say that it doesn't matter much since the player could simply look to see whether we round up or down for escort squadrons with an odd number of hits, but...It counts as 25% destroyed if the squadron was crippled before disengaging, as in if at least half the escorts in the squadron were destroyed (rounding down) before the squadron disengaged. For example, if a squadron of five escorts disengages after two were destroyed, the enemy only gains 10% of its starting value, but will earn 25% of its starting value of three were destroyed before it disengaged. See the following page for more on disengaging escort squadrons.
... The example completely contradicts the sentence it is supposed to be clarifying.
Base size (page 12) and planetary defences (page 15): These sections don't mention what base size is used for ground-based defences. Would I be right in guessing that they would use the normal escort/cruiser base?
Ships in low orbit do not have to move and capital ships do not have to move a minimum distance before they can turn. To represent interference from the planet's gravity well and the outermost edges of its atmosphere, all firepower shooting in low orbit suffers one column shift to the right, lances and nova cannons require a 4+ roll to fire and torpedoes many not be fired by ships at all.
Does the "reduces effectiveness of lances" rule also apply to ground units, or only to ships?
Page 4 of the FAQ, blast markers and damage:
One paragraph starts with "When shooting at ships, the first blast marker is placed directly in the line of fire from the shooting vessel, with subsequent blast markers fanning out around it..."
The second paragraph (which starts with "When a ship has multiple bases in contact when taking fire") talks about what happens instead if there are multiple (i.e. more than 1) bases in contact. It doesn't mention what would happen if there is exactly 1 base in contact with the target ship - the paragraph could do with rewording. Maybe replace "multiple" with "one or more"?
Campaigns/scenerios: The FAQ doesn't mention very much about either of them.
Scenario: Exterminatus: Andy Chambers said that the Exterminator isn't free (over here (http://www.inisfail.com/bfg/bfg-qa-misc.html)), but there's no ruling one way or the other in the 2010 FAQ. (EDIT: 27/04/13: That website seems to be dead. You can use this one (http://www.wolfedengames.com/battlefleetgothic/qa/index.html) and click "Miscellaneous" on the left to find it.)
Campaign:
Fleet selection: How does fleet selection rules work? Players construct a single large fleet which must obey the normal fleet selection rules (e.g. up to 1 battleship for every 3 cruisers for an imperial gothic sector list). When a part of this fleet is selected to play in a scenario, are those fleet selection rules ignored entirely, or only ignored when necessary? Playing Cruiser Clash with Dark Eldar would be impossible without some modifications since each of their cruisers must have at least 3 escorts.
Refits:
Each refit increases the cost of the ship by 10%, but 10% of what? The base cost of the ship, which includes the cost of any special refits (like the lunar class replacing torpedoes with the nova cannon) that were selected when the ship was first purchased? Or do we also include the cost of everything inside the ship (Chaos marine crew, the 10% increase from a previous refit, any warlord embarked, honour guards/terminators, gubbins taken by an ork warlord, etc) in the same way that we do with victory points. If so, would any subsequent increase in the cost of the ship increase the price of refit? For example, if a ship/crews/etc costs 200 points its refit costs 20 points, but would later increasing the cost of the ship (by transferring a warlord and his retinue/gubbins across from a destroyed flagship) increase the price of the refit? I'm guessing that the answer is yes.
-
If a ship has an odd number of hits, how many hits need to be inflicted to cripple it - half rounded up, or half rounded down? It's probably been answered before, but I can't find it in the FAQ. I would normally say that it doesn't matter much since the player could simply look to see whether we round up or down for escort squadrons with an odd number of hits, but...
I'm unsure of the question here. Are you talking about capital ships or escort squadrons? With escort squadrons you have to kill 50% of the escorts before it counts as being crippled. What your quote is explaining isn't how much of the squadron needs to be killed, but how many VP are given if it is crippled. The example given does have a typo though, it should read "but will earn 25% IF its starting value of three..." The "of" currently there is incorrect.
-
Half rounded UP a 9 hit cruiser needs to take 5 hits to be crippled a 5 hit escort squad needs to take 3 hits to be crippled.
We used old epic bases for ground defenses.
Planetary defenses are not subject to low orbit dickerings, lances fire at full effect and torpedoes (missile silos) fire as normal.
We play 10% of base cost on refits, all should be redone with set costs as the tyranid lists are tho.
-
I'm unsure of the question here. Are you talking about capital ships or escort squadrons? With escort squadrons you have to kill 50% of the escorts before it counts as being crippled. What your quote is explaining isn't how much of the squadron needs to be killed, but how many VP are given if it is crippled. The example given does have a typo though, it should read "but will earn 25% IF its starting value of three..." The "of" currently there is incorrect.
Opps, I didn't notice that typo. Good catch.
I'm talking about both capital ships and escort squadrons.
Some capital ships have an odd number of hits, and I was wondering how many hits are required to cripple them (e.g. if a ship had 5 hits, would a player have to inflict 2 or 3 hits to cripple them?). Since I assumed that the decision to round up or down for capital ships with an odd number of hits would be the same as for escort squadrons with an odd number of ships (e.g. would a squadron of 5 escorts require 2 or 3 losses to be crippled?) I looked to see if we round up or down for said escort squadrons.
The section on victory points is, as far as I know, the only section there which actually explains whether we round up or down for escort squadrons.
Escort squadrons that disengage without being crippled count as 10% destroyed. Escort squadrons that disengage after being crippled count as 25% destroyed. The FAQ then explains how many hits/losses an escort squadron must take in order to be crippled.
I'll quote the text below.
It counts as 25% destroyed if the squadron was crippled before disengaging, as in if at least half the escorts in the squadron were destroyed (rounding down) before the squadron disengaged. For example, if a squadron of five escorts disengages after two were destroyed, the enemy only gains 10% of its starting value, but will earn 25% of its starting value of three were destroyed before it disengaged."
It counts as 25% destroyed if the squadron was crippled before disengaging, as in if at least half the escorts in the squadron were destroyed (rounding down) before the squadron disengaged.
So, this says that a squadron is crippled if "at least half the escorts in the squadron were destroyed (rounding down)". If we had 5 ships, then, at least half (2.5, rounded down to 2) must be destroyed in order for the squadron to count as crippled.
For example, if a squadron of five escorts disengages after two were destroyed, the enemy only gains 10% of its starting value (as the squadron wasn't crippled), but will earn 25% of its starting value of three were destroyed before it disengaged (as the squadron was crippled)."
Text in italics was added by me. The example given only counts the squadron as crippled if it had suffered 50% losses, rounding up (5/2 = 2.5, rounded up to 3).
First sentence: An escort squadron is crippled if it suffers 50% losses, rounding down.
Second sentence: For example, an escort squadron that suffers 50% losses, rounding down, isn't crippled.
Added after Andrew's post:
Half rounded UP a 9 hit cruiser needs to take 5 hits to be crippled a 5 hit escort squad needs to take 3 hits to be crippled.
So, the example it gives for escort squadrons is the line that's correct, and capital ships follow the same rules as them. Thanks.
Planetary defenses are not subject to low orbit dickerings, lances fire at full effect and torpedoes (missile silos) fire as normal.
The rules on low orbit says that only ships can't fire torpedoes (suggesting that planetary defences can fire them fine), but neither the rulebook nor the FAQ confirmed anything one way or the other with regards to ground-based lances so it's good to get a confirmation, thanks.
Thanks for the other answers, too.
-
Yep,
Andrew described it straightforward and corractly regarding victory points-crippled etc regarding escort squadrons.
-
Is a torpedo launcher an "Armament" (for the purpose of "Prow Armament Damaged" critical hits, etc)?
-
Yes, prow armament damaged will disable your prow torpedo launchers if equiped.
-
Thanks.
Yes, prow armament damaged will disable your prow torpedo launchers if equiped.
So if you roll a "prow armament damaged" on an imperial cruiser - whose only prow equipment is the torpedo tubes - the critical damage will be a "prow armament damaged" instead of moving up to "Engine Room Damaged"... right?
Do critical hits knock out launch bays and/or tau gravitic hooks as well?
-
Yes, to the prow question.
And yes, launch bays are affected as well.
Grav Hooks as well, but this doesn't have any in-game effect (eg the ships towed in won't dissapear if the ship with grav hooks is gone).
-
Grav Hooks as well, but this doesn't have any in-game effect (eg the ships towed in won't dissapear if the ship with grav hooks is gone).
Although taking out the grav hook could prevent the critical damage from being upgraded - for example, the Explorer's dorsal gravitic hook would be damaged by a "Dorsal armament damaged" critical hit, preventing the critical hit from being upgraded to "starboard armament damaged".
Thanks for the quick response.
-
A prow hit on Tau takes out their deflector if equipped also.
-
Thanks, Andrew.
This isn't about only 1 race, so I'll put it in this thread rather than the fleet specific thread.
Kroot Warspheres / Ork Roks, Armada:
For roks:Roks are sufficiently different to both Orbital Defences and true spaceships to require a number of special rules. However any rules which are not specifically noted as being modified below, apply in full to Roks.
What does this mean? Does it mean "they use the same rules as orbital defenses except where otherwise stated", or"they use the same rules as capital ships except where otherwise stated", or "they use the same rules as capital ships/escorts (true spaceships) except where otherwise stated"? The fact that the rules make a point of explicitly saying they can't use "burn retros" / "come to new heading" special orders suggests the latter, since if they used the same rules as orbital defenses they wouldn't be able to use those anyway, so it wouldn't be mentioned. Can they "lock on" like capital ships/escorts?
For leadership, do roks that aren't taken using planetary defense points roll for leadership individually (like capital ships)?
In a campaign a player can receive a capital ship as reinforcements, losing a capital ship costs 1 renown, and capital ships can be refitted. Ork capital ships (in the 2010 FAQ) can be given boarding torpedoes for +5 points and/or +2 turrets for +20 points. Various sub-plots make mention of capital ships. Do warspheres/roks count as a capital ship for any of these purposes?
Teleport attacks can only be done against a target whose shields have been knocked down. By "knocked down" does it mean "reduced to 0 by shield collapse critical hit" or "has a bunch of blast markers on it, exposing the hull to fire"? I've always assumed the latter, but I figured I should check.
Special orders/leadership:A capital ship squadron always rolls special orders or leadership tests together, benefiting from the leadership of the highest leadership of any surviving vessels in the squadron, even if crippled (this differs only if an individual capital ship wishes to disengage). They also take advantage of any leadership bonuses of any vessel in the squadron, as long as it does not exceed that of the highest leadership in the squadron. For example, if a capital ship squadron has a ship that is Ld8 and a ship that is Ld6 but gets an additional +1Ld when the enemy is on special orders (to Ld8), the squadron cannot combine these effects, meaning its leadership will only be Ld9 if the enemy is on special orders. Conversely, the squadron suffers leadership modifiers if any one vessel in the squadron is in contact with blast markers, regardless of whether or not it is the vessel with the highest leadership.
How does this interact with the "automatically pass a leadership of command check" affect from the "Elite Command Crew" crew skill if one of the squadron has it? Secondly, when it mentions a "leadership bonus", does this also apply to the "roll 3D6 and discard the highest"-type crew skills, or is it just referring to the "+1 leadership" and "+1 in certain situations"-type bonuses?
-
Lets see, on Roks they should be treated like a ship for special orders (clearly they can go AAF and the other movement orders are removed intentionally so lock on should be applicable). I would lean towards their being counted as capitol ships for those purposes listed (they are a part of the fleet and should be able to gain crew skills/ refits etc and be included in any sub plots the rest of the fleet is subject to *the meteor storm comes to mind here). I know Orks can get (build) Roks in campaigns also so it seems to fit then.
Teleport attacks are applicable anytime the shields are down for blast markers/ special effects/ or critical damage of any kind.
Leadership is a good question. I would say that if the ship has the highest leadership -or- the fleet commander then yes those are applicable. If they do not have the highest leadership (that ld 6 ship in the example) then no their skills would be ignored just like a built in +1. Basically for any kind of positive modifier to leadership it must be on the highest leadership vessel (or the fleet commanders vessel) to count.