Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: RayB HA on April 18, 2010, 11:36:39 PM
-
Hi Guys,
The following is an example of using warhammer bases as Ordy bases.
(http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt232/RayCBell/BFG/Warhammerbasesasordnancebases.jpg)
The colours signify the ordnance type, in the picture RED = Assualt boats, GREEN = Thunder Hawks, GREY = Fighters, BLUE = Bombers and BLACK is Torpedoes.
The dashes show how many that base represents (1's and 2's), in the picture there are 2 waves of 2 assault boats, a wave of 2 Thunderhawks, a mixed wave of 1 fighter and 3 bombers, a fighter on CAP and a 5 strong torpedo salvo.
In the case of torpedoes, dice represent the strength. RED dice would represent boarding torps.
Please comment.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Personally I think the warhammer bases are too thick. They look out of place on the board to me. I'd rather go with the old 20x20 epic bases and keep them black. I think that the models themselves do a pretty good job of showing what type of ordnance they are.
-
While I agree with Vaaish, I appreciate the point made by Ray.
The old 20x20 epic bases are not made anymore, if you can find em, hoard em and use them with the metal ordnance!
otherwise, since warhammer squares are exactly the same dimensions, you might as well use them if you don't have anything better to use.
-
The torpedo markers really are not acceptible i am afraid... the torpedo counters really are as they are supposed to be.
-
Zelnik
The torpedo markers really are not acceptible i am afraid... the torpedo counters really are as they are supposed to be.
Supposed to be?! Even Andy Chambers regrets using varying sized torp markers! There are so many advantages to having this single sized marker:
You need less markers in your collection.
You don't need to keep swaping out markers.
You don't have to push multiple markers together to make a large salvo.
The warhammer base is square, having an obvious centre and makes 45* turns really easy.
If AC use them as well it unifies all ordy markers.
Torpedoes would stop having a stupidly large presence, larger than planets in some cases!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
On the point of them being too thick. Well it's kind of the point as you can see how many are in the wave from the sides! :)
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
i rather see the epic based used with the model indicative of what is in the wave
1 model = str 1 AC
1 fighter model & 3 bomber models = a wave of one fighter and 3 bombers
etc
two epic bases can be glued together (to make a stand 2cm x 4cm) for waves larger than 4
-
The problem is, that in this way the waves of AC need less space, having 2 or even 4 squadrons on 2cmx2cm. With the normal markers you would need 2cmx8cm or 4cmx4cm for 4 squadrons of AC.
Having a different size changes the movement of the ordnance for you as well as for your enemy. For example is it easier you shoot torpedo salvos if the enemies 4 fighter squadrons only use the space of 2cmx2cm. There are more examples. Having only 2cmx2cm markers for torpedo salvoes of any strengh makes it easier to fire them as well.
-
Then Andy Chambers should be the one to fix it. Has he suggested anything?
as they are now, they work well as a navigation hazard and work well to block the path of enemy movement, putting them on the 20x20 bases sort of ruins the effect.
How can we make the navigation hazard that the torpedo's are today?
-
The problem is, that in this way the waves of AC need less space, having 2 or even 4 squadrons on 2cmx2cm. With the normal markers you would need 2cmx8cm or 4cmx4cm for 4 squadrons of AC.
Having a different size changes the movement of the ordnance for you as well as for your enemy. For example is it easier you shoot torpedo salvos if the enemies 4 fighter squadrons only use the space of 2cmx2cm. There are more examples. Having only 2cmx2cm markers for torpedo salvoes of any strengh makes it easier to fire them as well.
hence the need to standardize the base size for each squadron and for waves
-
Fracas,
The single epic base is okay. However I find that taking bases from the stack is easier and less demanding of your marker collection, especially for mixed waves. Granted you can use magnets, but I feel that is too far to travel for your average gamer.
Also the fact that it is square is a safer for movement than a rectangle. I realise circular is even better for this but I’d like to allow players to be able to mix these with the chits, or even glue the chits straight on to bases. Also square bases makes turning easier, if this is relevant.
Caine-HoA,
Having AC take up less space is great! It makes them easier to move and more ‘realistically’ scaled.
In the case of fighters, space them out 1.9cm apart corner to corner, why would they be in a wave anyway.
Torps are easier to fire, but can’t attack as many targets. Granted some of those targets might be sacrificial lambs. But it weighs out fairly in my opinion.
As for large AC waves, this stops them using the two headed ‘snake’ movement which can be exploited to a crazy degree. For example even a wave of 4 bombers stretched out in a line that could be 16cm long (using epic bases), that’s almost their normal speed!
Zelnik,
Andy Chambers has no say in SG or GW anymore. He left with his genius for the colonies.
You are worried about torps not creating the navigational hazard they can currently, I suppose you should be worried, 2cm is a little bit smaller than a 3str salvo. But good placement still puts them in the path of capital ships, and at range it makes very little difference anyway except to prevent AAF or Lock-on, which is still doable.
As above it makes them more realistically scaled, but more importantly much easier to change strength. There is room for a little compromise here, as we could have a warhammer base show every 6 torps or part there of. So a strength 10 salvo would have 2 bases side by side.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
As for large AC waves, this stops them using the two headed ‘snake’ movement which can be exploited to a crazy degree. For example even a wave of 4 bombers stretched out in a line that could be 16cm long (using epic bases), that’s almost their normal speed!
I could be wrong, but the rules on page 29 seem to imply that only Markers which actually come into contact with an enemy are actuallyto make attacks, so spreading them out more than their speed would only be detrimental - only a few will be capable of rolling Attack Runs whilst the entire wave is removed afterwards unless it is split before the attack. That appears to be a good issue for the FAQ though...
For the Markers themselves; why did you go with square ones instead of round ones for the Attack Craft? It seems logical for Torpedoes to require a square base so the front can be easily determined, as well as the width of its 'trail' when moving. Attack Craft on the other hand are 'omni-directional' for all rule purposes, so it seems odd to give them a few millimetres more or less 'range' depending on the angle at which their marker lies.
-
You can mark me down as a vote for standard 20x20mm AC bases. Probably will DIY my own since I agree that the warhammer bases are silly tall. Although I like the appearance of round, it just makes more sense to form waves with bases that tile. Not sure how I feel about 1 marker representing more than one strength.
On the flip side, I certainly vote for standard torp markers. I want to enjoy the game, not micro manage the size of markers. Something like a 40x20mm as the universal compromise (I'm saying this while being the owner of a desolator). Possibly, two sizes to cover a greater range...just not X number of sizes! ::)
Russ
-
Fracas,
The single epic base is okay. However I find that taking bases from the stack is easier and less demanding of your marker collection, especially for mixed waves. Granted you can use magnets, but I feel that is too far to travel for your average gamer.
Also the fact that it is square is a safer for movement than a rectangle. I realise circular is even better for this but I’d like to allow players to be able to mix these with the chits, or even glue the chits straight on to bases. Also square bases makes turning easier, if this is relevant.
i currently mount my ACs on 1/2 a warmaster base. so it is 2cm x 2cm flat, with 2 models per square.
but it seems less than ideal imo because now i have ran out of extra warmaster bases to cut up, and it seems such a waste to discard the epic bases that come with the blister.
As for large AC waves, this stops them using the two headed ‘snake’ movement which can be exploited to a crazy degree. For example even a wave of 4 bombers stretched out in a line that could be 16cm long (using epic bases), that’s almost their normal speed!
precisely the reason why i suggested using the epic base with variable models mounted, to minimize the abuse of a wave 16cm wide (from a tau explorer for instance) even using 2x2cm bases. thus AC waves (if using the epic mount) will typically be 4cm wide.
-
Hi!
my comment:
I think they are a bit too thick - why not cut them from plasticard.
What I really do not like about them is the multitude of colours on the table. I find the bases to be too dominant. I do not like my BFG table with too much stuff on it - painted stars and comets (background) are fine, though! :)
cheers,
-
The color is a point for me as well. Bases shouldnt be dominant for BFG. I dont even like written ship names on the bases.
-
Hi!
my comment:
I think they are a bit too thick - why not cut them from plasticard.
not direct at you in particular but toward the FAQ (and yes, i am repeating myself)
why not use the base they came with?
-
mspaetauf,
Well I suppose you could camouflage them. Keep 'em black but paint colured lines on them to denote number and AC type. Or different coloured stars. (I'll give this a go when I get a moment).
It will be up to the player how they want to base thier ordy as long as it's to the correct dimensions.
Epic bases are the wrong shape. But cut 'em in half, and they can be used with a warhammer base.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I want something that is easily obtainable by anyone and I do not like the fact that my well kept markers from the original box are no longer 'official' in a way.
I prefer a premade PDF which has all markers at correct sizes and which you can print and cut out.
Glue this on thicker paper/cardboard if you wish and add miniatures to them if you have them :
as it stands most people do not have miniatures for AC.
-
why are E:A bases the wrong shape? I use them myself for my ordnance. After all, if you group two bases together, it does not matter anymore if they are 1x4 cm or 2x2 cm size. And most carriers launch 4 bases, anyway.
When playing I am fine with both options. I do not think it really makes a difference, as long as the base size isn't any larger than 1x4 or 2x2 cm.
Just take what you are happy with. :)
cheers,
-
I hate invalidating any model, I'm sorry.
5 strong Epic bases do look cool, but square, hexagon or circle bases are far more suited to BFG's scale. As square bases match the chits and show dirrection (if this is ever relevent), they win me over. Hex bases don't exist in GW's armoury so we miss out sadly. Also if we don't stack, square bases are better for laying them side by side.
There would have to be wave distribution rules to stop 'two headed snake' exploits, such as at least one marker has to be in contact with all other markers, where corner to corner counts as base contact. This would limit waves to str9, so if this was exceeded they would then have to be placed in contact with the 'outer ring', but it would rarely come into it.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
i think the epic bases are more directional, i.e. have a clear front and back. from a distance it easily identifiable. just like torpedo markers.
from a distance the square chits for ac can be confusing to me as to which way they are facing as there are now 4 equal sides.
i understand this is subjective and thus think we should allow both.
i am all in favor of stacking, and if this comes to pass, would make the square ac markers easier to manage. models can still be used to be the topmost chit, with increasing size of the wave denoted by how many chits lie underneath the model. while functional, i believe this is less aesthetically pleasing. a problem might be though is what would you put as the top marker. in a mixed wave, do you always put the fighter chit? the chit representing the most numerous in the wave? what if it is a tie in fighters, bombers, and assault boats? it could get problematic.
i think the best visual would be to denote the size of the wave based on the number of models on the marker. and as a complementary benefit, denote the content of the wave based on the actual models used. 4 attack craft models will easily sit on a 2cm x 2cm chit; and readily on the epic base.
the compromise and alternative solution to stacking, as i suggested previously, would be to limit how wide a wave can be, regardless of the size of the marker used, to be no more than 8cm wide. this would have minimal impact on the game as the standard carrier has 4 launch bays. when using 2x2 markers, the wave thus would be 2cm x 8cm, when using epic bases, the wave would remain 2cm x 8cm.
-
I hate invalidating any model, I'm sorry.
5 strong Epic bases do look cool, but square, hexagon or circle bases are far more suited to BFG's scale. As square bases match the chits and show dirrection (if this is ever relevent), they win me over. Hex bases don't exist in GW's armoury so we miss out sadly. Also if we don't stack, square bases are better for laying them side by side.
There would have to be wave distribution rules to stop 'two headed snake' exploits, such as at least one marker has to be in contact with all other markers, where corner to corner counts as base contact. This would limit waves to str9, so if this was exceeded they would then have to be placed in contact with the 'outer ring', but it would rarely come into it.
i don't get what you are trying to say :(
about stacking counters: A.Chambers himself said that there should be no stacking the counters.
cheers,
-
Fracas,
I can't really see how you can get facing confused with basically triagular ships on a square base...
In the case of mixed squadrons I'd put the models of the most in the wave on top, unless I had half epic bases in which case I could put both, oh wait I do. ;)
I do like your idea for mixed bases, you could easily put one on top of a mixed wave. The colour of its base(If you use this), being the majority, so most likely bombers.
mspaetauf,
Andy Chambers removed the stacking rule because it penalised players with models over those with chits, as you can only stack chits. However, if you use empty warmammer bases you can stack with models.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Then Andy Chambers should be the one to fix it. Has he suggested anything?
Sometime when people were first proposing new counters for torpedoes, including the single-size with die for str, Andy replied that alternate torpedo markers were the one thing he wished he had had thought of. If he had they would have been in Armada with the other major changes: reloading, launch limit and nova cannons.
as they are now, they work well as a navigation hazard and work well to block the path of enemy movement, putting them on the 20x20 bases sort of ruins the effect.
How can we make the navigation hazard that the torpedo's are today?
This has a point. Imperial players who concentrate on torpedoes rather than nova cannon rely on old-school unguided torps being wide enough to block movement or hit after a two moves. With very small markers, it is easy to line up where the torps are going and avoid them.
OTOH I think the tau gain too much advantage from large markers. I've been victim to 8-wide waves that were a bit too efficient at hitting multiple ships by clipping bases.
-
Here's a more subtle version of the bases
(http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt232/RayCBell/Warhammerbasesasordnancebases2.jpg)
Cheers,
RayB
-
That's friendly, showing off with an original Voss Prow CL.... ;)
-
What can I say, it caught my eye! ;D