Overlapping Ordnance Markers: Ordnance may not overlap except during stacking when in a wave or it is a salvo of boarding torpedoes. (Needs a HA Ruling)
Ordnance markers in a wave ust be spread in contact with each other and cannot be stacked.
Klyith,
I'm sure this was already addressed...(anyone know where?) The answer is no, torps don't turn in the turn of launch. They already count as having turned.
Cheers,
RayB HA
As a side note, torpedo markers look to be replaced by small warhammer bases.
Cheers,
RayB
Reducing the torpedo strength can't get you an extra attack. If a ship ends its movement on torpedoes those torpedoes don't get to attack that ship again in the ordnance phase (unless they left its base and came back).
The only way you can hit the same ship twice is if you shoot in its direction of travel. E.g. so cobras fly past an enemy ship head on and then CTNH facing its aft, they then fire their torpedoes hitting it in the aft, the ship then moves into them again in its movement phase, they will hit against its prow armour.
As a side note, torpedo markers look to be replaced by small warhammer bases.
Cheers,
RayB
Thanks for your quick answer. :)
However, the situation we were arguing about was a bit more specific: if I hit a ship with a torpedo marker put the way I showed in the above picture (on the prow facing), then reducing in size the marker after turrets and hits, will the ship be hit again in its movement phase, because of its compulsory move? Or should the torpedo marker be put beyond the ship, after resolving its to hit rolls? I forgot to draw the facings of the ship, sorry. :) For example: I place 8 tau torpedoes in base contact with a Lunar: after hits and turrets, only 4 remain. The marker is now smaller in size, and no more in base contact (as the center of the marker must remain the same): if it stays where it is, the Lunar will get hit again in its movement phase, unless a Burn Retros order is issued.
The same situation could happen with all kind of non-tau torpedo, of course, provided you can get a good fire solution and the 'perfect' distance from the ship: quite difficult for non-tau cruisers, but not so much for Eldar or escorts, I think.
Thanks again. :)
Also I did some experimenting with 3D torpedo markers but gave up on it as its not practical. Torpedoes unlike other ordnance ist not removed on first contact and often has to be placed in a space which is already occupied.
The fact that torpedo markers are flat makes this a lot easier.
Think of a group of bunched up ships where you have to place a torpedo marker in the middle. And now you have to put a die on top of it?
would the current torpedo markers fit vertically into the slot of a 2cmx2cm square slota base?
Heck, even with mighty torp spread at long range wide waves aren't uber. Most people dodge them or use fighters. I do not see great changes in game play personally.
Hi Guys,
The 2cm Torp bases work. So do 2.5cm bases (when I tested them). 2cm seems more attractive as it matches AC but how would you feel about the slightly bigger bases?
My orginal intention was to have 2cm base represent each full 6 torps and the remainder. So a str 8 salvo would have 2 bases side by side.
The 2.5cm base actually has enough room on top to fit 2 D6 (or even 4D6!!!). So if only one marker/base is going to be used for every size salvo I vote for the 2.5cm base!
Cheers,
RayB HA
I second that, but I only worry is where do we send players that DON’T have 2.5cm bases to get some? What do they use in the meantime? I’m NOT saying I don’t like the idea because I do and call it good. I just want to make sure we are thinking about all the players.
Incidentally, 2.5cm is the width of a str-3 marker (I just measured it out of curiosity). With a D6 indicating the actual strength, this works out good because every BFG player out there should have easy access to str-3 torp markers!
Hi Guys,
The 2cm Torp bases work. So do 2.5cm bases (when I tested them). 2cm seems more attractive as it matches AC but how would you feel about the slightly bigger bases?
My orginal intention was to have 2cm base represent each full 6 torps and the remainder. So a str 8 salvo would have 2 bases side by side.
The 2.5cm base actually has enough room on top to fit 2 D6 (or even 4D6!!!). So if only one marker/base is going to be used for every size salvo I vote for the 2.5cm base!
Cheers,
RayB HA
I second that, but I only worry is where do we send players that DON’T have 2.5cm bases to get some? What do they use in the meantime? I’m NOT saying I don’t like the idea because I do and call it good. I just want to make sure we are thinking about all the players.
but if you want to ensure availability why not use the base that comes with the blister? the epic base that is. for attack crafts use number of models per base to represent the strength (though there is only slots for 5). bases line up deep rather than wide.
So, i could have sideways firing torps, so long as they are within the front lines of the bearing compass and are touching the ship, even end up firing slightly backwards?
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.
Not so, under old suppression (FAQ2007) they did more then under new (FAQ2010).
I think the turret reduction as LS or RcGothic described create to much high ends. I am not for it.
FAQ2010 is to be advocated to me, at least compared to that idea.
I also like that rule much better than what is currently in the FAQ2010.
It will however make large waves a lot more effective against high-turret targets and turn Eldar bombing runs into a real hammer.
On the other hand I've never been a fan of the whole turret suppression idea.
I've always wondered why turrets are calculated twice against bombers whereas they only roll to hit against torpedoes. My best explanation is that in the original design it was just d6 per surviving bomber and since this was found to be overpowered the reduction was added.
I would have simply reduced the number of attacks from each surviving bomber to a fixed number: e.g. Each surviving bomber attacks with 2 dice against the targets lowest armor value. Much simpler.
simplify the turret rules to be 3+ against bombers but that each surviving bomber has a straight up D6 attacks (D3 for fighter-bombers)
i.e. eliminate fighter suppression of turrets and turret suppression of bombers (and god forbid we even contemplate bomber suppression of fighters)
Ok, as far as the argument goes that fighters can't hurt ships so why even bother firing at fighters, it doesn't say that fighters can't obfuscate and confuse turrets. It just says that they can't hurt the ship and, if they wanted to, they could avoid the turrets. Since they can't hurt the ship and they can avoid the turrets when there's just fighters, we see no effect. When accompanied by bombers, which can hurt the ship, then there might actually be a reason for the fighter to engage the enemy turrets, therefore an effect.
However, d'Artagnan's idea of allowing fighters to suppress turrets while giving a fixed amount of attack runs to bombers (regardless of turrets) isn't all that fantastic. If the "distraction" were removed and bombers had a fixed number of attacks then there'd be no need for turret suppression at all. Why send a fighter to possibly "suppress" a turret (ie, stop it from shooting bombers) if you could just send another bomber. At least if the turret missed you'd get some extra attacks
It doesn't say they CAN confuse turrets or effectively engage a turret either. That statement is just as much conjecture as my own that turrets can discern between bombers and fighters. It would seem to me that if they were capable of effectively engaging turrets there would be some form of permanent change to the turret strength as turrets were knocked out by the fighters. Even if we consider that turrets are simply abstracted values, the fact that fighters currently provide a temporary reduction in effectiveness seems evident that they aren't capable of engaging the turret defenses with hopes of doing any real damage to them.
The entire focus of what happens seems to rest on the turrets themselves either being incapable of discerning target types or simply being indiscriminate in their fire against AC. The current suppression rules seem to point to the turrets being incapable of discriminating targets, but that seems unlikely since one can choose to fire on either torpedoes or AC rather than simply firing on whatever comes in range. You can pretty much make it however you want to support either perspective.
I just dislike the idea that it's better to send 5 fighters and a single bomber against an Empy than sending 5 bombers and single fighter. The current suppression rules make weird situations like this the norm which seem counter intuitive to what you would expect. I would expect for the fighters to provide escort to ensure the bombers make it to the target through enemy "airspace" not provide extra attacks on the target while doing nothing to escort the bombers on the way in.
Yup, not really ideal rules but it was more how to make the fighters take a more active role. Since there is a question of why turrets double dip against bombers, I was trying to find a way to eliminate the double dip and at the same time make the fighters be proactive.
It's why in my second situation, only the remaining turrets would shoot at bombers. So say a wave of 5 fighters and 3 bombers vs an Emperor. If fighters manage to suppress 2 turrets out of 5 on an Emperor battleship, then the Emperor can only roll 3 dice hitting at 4+ against the bombers. In the case of bombers having a fixed attack, I was just concerned about not making them too powerful. We could give them D3 attacks if only to show the uncertainty (fighta bommas and the like could just make a hard 1 attack each marker). So turrets shoot and say 2 out of the remaining bombers manage to attack then it would be a minimum of 2 and max of 6 attacks rolling vs 5+.
Against a cruiser, a wave of 4 fighters and 4 bombers can take out the 2 or 3 turrets and then the remaining 4 bombers can attack unmolested for a min of 4 and max of 12 attacks vs lowest armor.
Having each bomber make 2 attacks or d3 is basically the same thing. d3 adds some variance but average stays the same.
As for the concern that turrets would then always shoot at bombers because a hit eliminates more attack dice, well that depends on the situation.
In all fleets torpedoes can be fielded cheaper than ac and torpedoes can get multiple attack rolls.
2 dice per bomber would just seem about right to me.
There's nothing wrong with the way bombers work. The problem is with the turret suppression rule, which has the following things wrong with it:
#1. Easily misinterpreted and unintuitive.
#2. Written so the fighters do damage, rather than clear space for the bombers.
#3. Makes high turret targets nearly invulnerable against bombers without a similar handicap to assault boats.
#4. Makes sending more than a token bomber against T3+ pointless, as fighters do more damage than bombers, even when shot down.
#5. Removes any point in shooting turrets, because fighters get the extra attacks anyway.
#6. Completely gimps fighter bombers, because they only roll a D3, which is easily negated by turrets.
The proposed rule is:
When bombers roll for number of attacks against a ship, surviving Fighters in a wave negate one -1 modifier from turrets each, allowing bombers to proceed with their attack runs more easily.
This eliminates all 6 of the above points, at the cost of a slight increase in power of bombers. (which would put them more on a par with assault boats). This isn't complicated, it doesn't mess with the fundamental way bombers work, and is the way many people play it anyway due to misinterpretation of the current rule.
Of course, there will have to be some repricing, with carriers generally getting a reduction in points since sooner or later they will run out of ordnance to use. Also since Chaos can use all 3 types of ordnance but are more constricted in the variety, there must also be some realignment there as well as fleets with resilient AC.
While I do think the rules are fiddly, wouldn't doing it the way you propose actually increase the number of attacks available? Consider:
2 fighters and 2 bombers vs 1 cruiser.
Normally, (D6-turrets)+(D6-turrets)+2.
Under your proposal, assuming the fighters both manage to suppress the turrets it becomes:
D6+D6 which is actually in effect adding an additional 2 attacks for a total of 4 (because the turrets have been removed from the equation).
Kinda makes bombers really overpowering.
I think if that is the way we want things to go then it's time to start marking how many fighters, bombers and AB are being taken in a fleet. I don't mind bombers effectivity being increased but their availability on the table should now be affected by attrition.
This change would only really effect larger waves, and attacking high-turret targets.
A wave of 16 attack craft vs an Oberon would need 8 fighters to defeat the turrets on average, giving 8D6 attack runs, or 28 attack runs on average.The oberon only has 5 turrets but all that number needs to have happen is dial back significantly. On average the five turrets will kill 2.5 markers With six fighters, you would roll either d6-1 or d6-2 for attack runs. That's a pretty significant change from d6-5.
But this is coming from a squadron of carriers worth at least 460pts, or nearly 800pts in the case of a squadron of Emperors. If that kind of firepower has a go at you, you're going to be in trouble regardless of whether it's ordnance or not. A brace of nova-cannon shells will render that squadron useless in moments, and 16 assault boats would be more than capable of crippling two battleships if launched in place of the bombers.
And those larger waves are what you will be seeing more of. High LB fleets will be stronger for it and that is something I believe is unwarranted.
For example, you have 10 bombers and 6 fighters (just to have an even 16 LB) going up against an oberon. For the sake of the example, assume they don't suffer casualties before turret fire. Under the current rules, each surviving bomber rolls (d6-5) and since fighters die first, all 10 bombers roll which nets you something like two attacks. Since you have at least 5 fighters with them you add another 5 attacks to that so a total of around 7 attacks against the 5+ armor.
Under your proposal, we would still have around 4 fighters remaining which lets ALL of the bomber roll (d6-1). Now I'm not going to take the time to figure out what they would roll on average for their runs, but you've completely reversed the odds. Where the bombers originally had 16% odds of getting at least one attack run, they now have 84% odds of getting at least one run since they only need a 2+ on the d6 roll to get an attack.
In our example, that equals out of eight of the bombers getting at least one attack run which is the low end. All it takes is a couple of those rolling 4+ to significantly increase the number of attacks. Say, for the sake of example, you roll 1,1,2,2,2,2,4,4,4,4. With your rules, we get 16 attack runs while with the current system we would only get five. To me, that's far too much of a boost.
Perhaps instead of all this contrivance, just say that any surviving fighters allow bombers to reroll their dice if they failed to score higher than the targets turret value.
basically it grants the bombers another shot at an attack run without the fighters themselves granting bonus attacks. It doesn't guarantee any extra attacks, but it could net you a few.
Why would anyone send a wave of 16 AC into an Oberon under the current rules? I would send in a wave of 1b/5f and 2 waves of 1b/4f, giving 13.24 attacks on average.we aren't talking about the current rules. We were talking about RCGothic proposed rules.
So the total average = P(0-3)x28 + P(4)x20 + P(5)x13.33 = (1/32+5/32+10/32+10/32)x28 + 5/32 x 20 + 1/32 x 13.33 = 26.29 attacks on average.
As you can see, your maths is quite a ways off. Even according to your own calculations it goes from 7 to 16, not 5 to 16. Regardless, the proposal nearly doubles the effectiveness of a wave of sixteen AC against high turret targets.
To be honest this seems more like a contrivance to me. It's also unclear. Does each surviving fighter allow each bomber to re-roll their attack runs? So 2 surviving fighters gives 2 re-rolls for each bomber?
Assault boats are already that strong.
Ok, so bombers get a fairly sizeable boost when you have a wave of 16 against one unescorted target. The end result is a crippled, braced cruiser or a braced battleship.
You mean thats the goal, right admiral? :P
more richly rewards tactics, forces your opponent to actually think,
Well Sigoroth,
thank you for showing why that rules just means no good to the game.
Because AC increases, the gunnery player needs more cap, thus adds a carrier.
Because there is more defensive AC the ordnance player adds another carrier, "just to make sure.".
The Downward Spiral.
(Or Upward if you like to see an ordnance dominated game ;) ).
I think we have differing ideas of what richly rewards tactics.
For the high LB player, you reward him simply for having more AC to throw at the problem (read spamming) which I don't see as any great tactical depth that warrants a reward. For the other end, you penalize the lack of AC by forcing the player to counter his opponents AC by squeezing in another carrier, sacrificing ships as ablative wounds, redirecting firepower, or placing himself in a tactically weak position simply because his fleet can't bring as much AC or because his fleet is more gunnery focused. None of those things makes you THINK any more that you would already in a given situation.
High turret ships create situations where the attacking player has to put more thought into their actions as there isn't a one size fits all solution. Bombers should be less effective against high defense ships. This makes you think about launching AB at it instead, or perhaps using torpedoes on the ship rather than always launching X bombers to Y fighters and hoping for the best. By making bombers better at attacking than any other ordnance option, you remove tactical options and thought as the game devolves into who can get the most bombers out.
I'm going to make another plug for my idea here :) You want fighters to boost a bombers capabilities and get away from adding extra attacks themselves, just look at what survives the turret fire and see if there are any fighters left. If there are, reroll any dice that failed to get any attack runs.
That gives a small boost against high turret ships, helps make fighters useful and is extremely simple to use while requiring no additional math which is far more intuitive IMO. Finally, why are y'all holding to the 16 LB idea? I arbitrarily picked 16 LB for my example since it was an even number of LB and broke nicely into 10 bombers and 6 fighters.
FAQ2010
Turrets shoot down, per average 1 markers. Under FAQ2010 no effect on wave. Downed fighters apply attacks as well.
Result: (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + 2 = max @ 22 // Min @ 2
Sigoroth/RcGothic
Turrets shoot down 1 fighter. Wave remaining = 5 bombers + 2 fighters.
With 2 f => (D6) + (D6) + (D6) + (D6) + (D6) = maxed 30 / Min @ 5
Lunar VS 4 ordnance markers:Your numbers are a good deal off.
Pure 4 bombers -> 1 shot down, 3 remain - each does 3-2 hits on average -> 3 hits
2 bombers 2 fighters
FAQ 2010 -> 1 fighter shot down, 1 fighter, 2 bombers remain - bombers do 3-2 hits each +2 hit for fighter -> 4 hits
Sigoroth/RcGothic -> 1 fighter shot down, 1 fighter, 2 bombers remain - bombers do 3-1 hits each -> 4 hits
If I was given the choice between the proposed FAQ2010 turret suppression rules, Vaaish's variant and Sig/Goth's variant (which I think was proposed in this thread by lastspartacus) I would be 100% in favour of Sigoroth's/RCGothic/whatever - I will simply call them 'True turret suppression rules'. ;D
So you don't think that being able to successfully manoeuvre a reloaded base-contacting squadron containing 16 launch bays to within 23cm (furthest one out) of an unguarded battleship is very hard to do? This sort of thing shouldn't be rewarded?
Woah, you don't think that you should have to put any effort at all into deflecting 16 AC? So to you AC should be completely worthless? If your opponent simply "spams" AC then that gives you the opportunity to intercept. The onus should be on you to do something about it. If you let your opponents wave hit you unmolested then that is your fault! "Spamming" a 16 strong AC wave would be akin to firing your WBs at long range into braced, abeam 6+ armour escorts with BMs between! In other words, it's not terribly efficient.
Think about it. 16 AC is worth 48 WBs. If you only lose 1 escort in absorbing that wave of AC then that's tantamount to saying you only lost 1 escort to 48 WBs of fire! Without even bracing the squadron! If you think that a player shouldn't have to make that sort of sacrifice just to negate that awful naughty AC spamming opponent then you're high on crack or something. If you think that redirecting some fire, average it would take is 6 lances (18WBe) to negate 48WBe of your opponents shooting is so onerous then you've no idea of how to add.
As far as being forced to take more carriers, I don't believe this to be the case at all! If he has a squadron of carriers like that then take more guns and make him brace! Hell, take some incidental torps (Falchions!) and blow away his turret suppressing fighters! Then those bombers that do get through will have to deal with turrets as normal! Against a 5 turret target that means he'll get a little over 1 attack! Same deal with a defensive carrier too. Hell, you could also mass turrets to shoot down some of the fighter screen making his bombers terrible. There are so many defensive options that you can do and the penalty for doing none of them becomes so severe for the defender and rewarding for the attacker that it does make both players think more. Shocked
Ok, I don't much like this idea. For Eldar it does nothing, since you can't re-roll a re-roll. For non-Eldar it basically turns their bombers into Eldar bombers. It also doesn't scale to the number of surviving fighters and makes bombers crap against high turret targets. You'd only get 0.3 attack runs each, giving an average of 1.2 attack runs for a wave of 4f/4b. Current rules give 5.16 attack runs. Also, it doesn't actually suppress the turrets.
I think the reroll idea is a nonsence. It complicates things more than it solves, also, will Eldar bombers get 3 rerolls now?That's fine, but you need to explain HOW it complicates things more than it solves. Eldar couldn't get three rerolls. you can't reroll a reroll so they would be unaffected since they have the reroll by default.
well Vaaish, what is the bonus for Eldar fighters doing a support run? SmileyEldar are so proud in their technology and advanced nature that they do not deign to spare fighters to perform escort duty as their bombers are already more than capable. This allows them to use fighters to intercept enemy ordnance without sacrificing the efficiency of their bomber attacks. :)
My main worry is not the battleship under attack, but the regular cruiser.
I also disagree with RcGothic's reason and his assault boats comparision.
I also think Tau Armada will love it.
Chaos will see an increase of the ever popular Devestation.
Hmm, as an oddball the Despoiler may become worthwhile...har har
Say Sigoroth and others, this 'true turret' thing:
1) adds more random results to the game since low end and high end are further apart.
2) makes ordnance-bombers stronger
3) makes cruisers victims of the rule
4) empowers high end Tau fleet even more
Do you agree with that?
You are unbelievably wrong. I cannot fathom how you can think the way you do given how much effort I have gone to to point out all the options.
Firstly, you suggest that this will allow the opponent to just "spam" large waves from afar. Wrong. If he does this then you can annihilate his entire wave with direct fire or an escort. You can remove his fighter screen with torps or fighters of your own (you'd only need to drop 2 or 3 to drastically reduce the effectiveness of his entire wave). All of this requires far less commitment of resources for you than for your opponent, so if you do not do it then it is your fault.
Secondly, you imply that it will not be difficult to get a slow, ponderous BB squadron into shotgun range. Firstly, you're flat out wrong here, these carriers have 5+ prow armour. They will get cooked on the way in. At the very least they'll be braced before they get there, unless your opponent is a bonehead, in which case he deserves what he gets. Target priority tests are just that, tests. They don't prevent you from firing unless you fail them. You're going to fail them with so many ships so many times? I doubt it.
Thirdly, you ask "why should we get to ignore their defences?" Well the answer to that is because they're actively being suppressed! They are not being "ignored"! Let's compare 5 turrets under the proposed rules to a 0 turret target, using 16 AC. If it didn't have any turrets at all the attacking player could send in 16 bombers and they'd all roll 1d6 attack runs. With the 5 turret target I'm forced to send in half the wave as fighters. So, assuming I do fully suppress all 5 turrets their mere existence has reduced my maximum potential by 50%! But that's not all. There's a chance that he'll hit with 4 or all 5 of those turrets, reducing their potential even further! So that is more than a 50% reduction! The "purpose" of high turrets isn't to make the ship immune to AC, but to increase defences against AC. So they get to shoot more down and it takes more effort to suppress them. Both of these combine against bombers!
What YOU have failed to do is show why any target, no matter how many turrets it has, should ever be completely immune to bombers. Hell, let's have a look at how those damn turrets work. Against 1 bomber a single turret will prevents 1 attack to the ship. Against a wave of 1 million bombers a single turret will prevent ONE MILLION attacks! You ask why 1 fighter should improve the performance of so many bombers, well why the hell do turrets get so good the more bombers you send in!?
As for "the right AC for the right job" I agree!
However you're the one trying to limit the right jobs! In the true turret suppression proposal bombers won't cut it against a high turret target in smaller waves. So an Emperor won't just be able to send in a wave of 1b/5f/2ab to get a guaranteed 5 attacks and 2 crits, regardless of the enemy's turret rolls or his own bomber attack run rolls. Only in larger waves, where the defences of the ship can be overwhelmed would bombers come into their own.
On your re-roll idea, well it is way too weak, extraordinarily abstract, useless for some races and scales to neither the turrets on the target nor the number of fighters that survive. In short, it sucks.
You are entitled to that opinion, though it doesn't make you correct. I've gone through equally as much effort to show how that your chosen idea is bad for the game as a whole. I don't understand why you are so doggedly determined to see bombers become more powerful.
This doesn't make any impact on his desire or ability to do this. The problem lies in the potential benefit from spamming large waves over and over. Sure you can shoot at it, sacrifice an escort or snipe the fighters, but that's not anything you couldn't already do. All you have done is increase the potential payoff if you roll badly and miss the wave or don't have escorts. If you lose the wave, so what? RO and launch them all over again. He's weaker for it and you've lost nothing.
Right... I see this happen EVERY game I play. At some point the fleets close and that ponderous BB is in shotgun range. These 5+ armor carriers also have 12 hits and 4 shields. 90% of the time they don't get targeted first because there are other things in position to cause more damage and are more efficient to shoot at.
Yes, but you still fail to answer WHY ordnance deserves to get a boost! It doesn't matter that it takes a few fighters to drop a ship to 0 turrets, you can't assume that you should be allowed to roll d6-0 to attack a target and therefore are losing firepower by including fighters. The fact remains that doing so greatly increases the power of fleets that can exploit this by dropping larger waves like Tau.
You don't get to pull this. The burden of proof lies with you to point out why bombers should get a boost against heavily defended targets. You have either refused to do this or attempted to deflect onto other issues every time this comes up. Turrets work how they do because that is how the rulebook says they do. It's not on me to prove to you why the rules allow that function. Talk to Andy Chambers if you want someone to explain that.
To be fair, smaller waves don't cut it in any proposal. They only work in the current suppression rules because 90% of the wave isn't bombers. We aren't talking about those smaller waves for the most part here. We are discussing the high end and how the benefits of reaching that high end make it preferable to take more carriers to access those benefits.
Tell that to the eldar! :) You are right, it is weaker, but it only tones down bombers against high turret targets where the effects of the reroll diminish. Against less well shielded targets there is much greater benefit.
Please explain which part of the game ISN"T extraordinarily abstract? The whole concept of battery strength and turret strength is quite abstract. While some races don't benefit, why should the have to? We have all manner of variety of rules here and some races don't even HAVE turrets to give any benefit to including fighters.
Scales to the turrets as in has a means of bypassing their effectiveness? It does scale in that you get better benefit out of attacking low turret ships than you do high turret ships. It just doesn't have a way to boost the effectiveness of the bombers beyond reason.
I've mentioned this before, but it can quite easily be dependent on the number of fighters that survive, but I see doing that unnecessarily complicating the flow and making the effect so minimal as to have no justification for the mechanic's inclusion.
Sigoroth, much as I appreciate your championing the change I'd like to see, you may want to dial back a bit on the frustration and ad hominems a bit.
You're making a very convincing case, but you're unlikely to pusuade people by calling them an idiot and telling them to go back to school.
I have shown time and again why they should. It promotes tactical thinking. Rewards optimum positioning. Redeems defensive turret fire from redundancy. Is simpler than current rules and makes more intuitive sense. Removes the conceptual stupidity that a billion bombers are useless against a 6 turret target. Scales value of bombers to the size of the wave, matching the difficulty and penalties of forming large waves. Small wave = easy = weak. Large wave = hard = strong.
Right, so you're advocating a greater abstractions that doesn't effect all races equally and scales extremely poorly and nerfs AC into the ground because ... the game already has abstractions? Mind you, your abstraction is worse than any of those you mentioned.
Bombers deserve to get a boost because you pay 10pts per AC to replace your WBs with them.
In addition, your 'bombers shouldn't be good at everything' argument would hold a lot more water if assault boats didn't cripple cruisers just as well as battleships, and utterly obliterate escorts.
You would nerf bombers into obscurity, whilst I want to see them having valid uses and counter-strategies, equally as valuable as a gun fleet, but ultimately as a matter of personal opinion
QuoteYou would nerf bombers into obscurity, whilst I want to see them having valid uses and counter-strategies, equally as valuable as a gun fleet, but ultimately as a matter of personal opinion
This is untrue. I would have bombers return to their power levels before turret suppression came into effect and give them a slight boost to make escorting them with fighters useful. This is a far cry from nerfing to obscurity and promotes the valid use of all ordnance rather than a single type.
In other words, I would have bombers act appropriate to the points they were originally costed at under the BBB and Armada rules.
I gave my thoughts, they haven't been taken away. Seriously. ;)
I still think ordnance will increase to be a major factor. Orks will cry because of this rule. Already very weak to enemy ordnance and with this rule even weaker and thus we will even see more Terror Kroozers as this is the only way to Ork success.
Turret suppression was written before Launch limits. It was written because people asked why they should include fighters in a bomber wave. As it made no sense, never.
It gathered strength after the limit inclusion.
But since... ehm... no one besides me and Vaaish are really opposing the "wanna be" ;) true turret suppression system I think I should let it slide. I mean, I cannot have everything in the game like I want it to be...
Hence, the best thing about the rule is that it is easy written and easy to understand.
If the HA doesn't want this ... ... then I advocate the FAQ2010 to be rewritten that only surviving fighters can add an additional attack. While it is not like some here think suppression works it does make for balance.
You don't give any reason why bombers should be so weak while people have to pay a premium for them.I'll try this one last time. BFG was originally meant as a gunnery simulation rather than a midway simulation. Because emphasis should be on gunnery, people should pay a premium to field AC. Second, bombers won't be "so weak" as you put it. They will be incredibly useful against low turret ships and crippled high turret ships. You will just have to use more varied tactics to make them pay off which rewards those who are able to use them effectively.
You also espouse the use of different AC, citing torpedoes and a-boats. Firstly, torpedoes are not AC. AC = Attack Craft. Torpedoes + AC = ordnance. Carriers cannot launch torpedoes from their launch bays. People can take torpedoes without taking carriers.
You say that when you have a large wave of AC (such as 16) going against high turret targets, people should be encouraged to use a-boats rather than "just spam bombers". Well the fact is that no one, and I mean no one, goes through all the downsides necessary to launch such a large wave to just launch a-boats. Secondly, not all races have such easy access to a-boats. IN can only do it with a BB squadron (not a cruiser carrier squadron) and Tau can't do it at all.
The TTS rules simply make it possible, by going to an awful lot of trouble, for bombers to hurt high turret targets. There is no justifiable reason why a large enough wave of bombers shouldn't be able to hurt such targets.
Now, I am receptive to counter-arguments, it's just you haven't made any. Nothing you have said has not been overwhelmingly disproved. Hell, you've even backflipped once in your arguments.
If the HA doesn't want this ... ... then I advocate the FAQ2010 to be rewritten that only surviving fighters can add an additional attack. While it is not like some here think suppression works it does make for balance.
You have yet to disprove that large waves aren't helped by this or prove that bombers even NEED the boost you want to give them. You keep citing making them equal to gunnery, but you haven't said WHY they even should be in light of the developers comments about the place of AC in the game.
RcG:Actually looking at tournaments bombers/ordnance are already stronger, eg more prevailant (sp?) compared to gunnery.
Yes, bombers should be at least as powerful as gunnery. The whole point of games balance is that options are worth the price you pay for them.
You would nerf bombers into obscurity, whilst I want to see them having valid uses and counter-strategies, equally as valuable as a gun fleet, but ultimately as a matter of personal opinion.
and allowing fighters to form a cap around any ship, not just the one they were launched from.Is already allowed.
We freely admit that waves larger than 8 will get a significant boostVersus 2 turret ships str8 waves will have a boost.
I'll try this one last time. BFG was originally meant as a gunnery simulation rather than a midway simulation. Because emphasis should be on gunnery, people should pay a premium to field AC. Second, bombers won't be "so weak" as you put it. They will be incredibly useful against low turret ships and crippled high turret ships. You will just have to use more varied tactics to make them pay off which rewards those who are able to use them effectively.
I'm sorry if I haven't made the distinction clear. I assumed you would be able to figure out that they are separate things when I was referring to alternative means of dealing with high defense targets and didn't see the need to split them. I did rewrite several paragrahs here and there to include torpedoes so there may be instances where AC is used grouping all ordnance.
Yes, I realize that. This is why I mentioned multiple other methods of approaching the problem including gunnery and torpedoes. Tau has excellent access to guided torpedoes and chaos has excellent gunnery capabilities. Do I really need to break down every single possibility by fleet?
It's the 41st century, turret defenses could just be that good or that closely packed. It's not like an emperor only has 5 turrets defending it. Even today we have advanced tracking systems capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously. It would seem to me, though, that in gameplay terms, the maximum attack runs a bomber can make and the max turrets on a single ship being the same aren't a coincidence. That would seem to me that in some situations, bombers just can't hack it for whatever reason and are neutralized by the ships defenses. Even today we don't send bombers up against certain targets because the defense grid is just too capable to give a reasonable success compared to the risks.
No, actually you aren't by your own statement here. Anything counter to your arguments you have decided are immediately invalid. You have yet to disprove that large waves aren't helped by this or prove that bombers even NEED the boost you want to give them. You keep citing making them equal to gunnery, but you haven't said WHY they even should be in light of the developers comments about the place of AC in the game.
I apologize, but I don't recall backflipping on any arguments. I believe examples have changed but I don't believe my arguments have reversed on the issue.
Now, finally, I'm going to leave you with this:
How are you creating a richer tactical experience by making bombers more powerful? Everything you have mentioned as promoting a richer tactical experience already exists and is already used defensively and everything you mentioned as rewarding the skilled use of AC already exists. You aren't adding anything new or deeper tactically; you are simply rewarding a player for building a list with more AC! You are in fact simplifying the tactical experience by increasing the capabilities of a single type of AC so as to be effective against any target. This removes the need for tactical complexity and variety in dealing with certain targets. Why shoot at it when you could send AC? Why send AB when you can send bombers? Why use torpedoes for anything other than clearing CAP?
Versus 2 turret ships str8 waves will have a boost.
Versus 1 turret ships str4 waves will have a boost.
Sigoroth:What? Despoiler variant, Protector, variant Strike Cruiser, Dictator. Custodian, Hero. Anything else. ;)
Carriers do not have the option of launching torpedoes.
So, TTS will make large, unmolested AC waves more powerful, but it will also vastly reduce their effectiveness if you put a little effort into defending against them. The best case scenario gets better, and the worst case scenario gets worse, and which one you get is dependant on player skill.And thus you'll see a growth in carriers taken in any allround / tournament fleets. ;)
Anyway, you later go on to argue against the notion that this change will promote increased tactics by saying that people already do all the above anyway. So you first argued that people can't/won't/shouldn't have to do it, then argue that there's no difference because people actually do that as it stands. This is a backflip.
GREATER RISK = MORE TACTICS.
The torpedos are incidental. It doesn't matter if a carrier has them or not as far as this discussion goes. In fact, torpedos are another example of ordnance that, along with assault boats, can overwhelm turrets in large numbers. They take their casualties, and after that it doesn't matter how many turrets the target has. Even with TTS, the bombers still have to jump through more hoops than that. There's no good reason T6 targets should be invulnerable to them, nor that T6 should be a hard cap on the number of turrets something can have.
Seriously... you are picking at straws. Whether or not people should have to do something has no bearing on if they can. I don't believe I argued they COULDN'T or WON'T do it, that's a complete fabrication on your part of a failure to communicate on mine. Second this is two separate arguments. One argument is that those shouldn't be the normal means of dealing with a resource that simply reloads and reappears on the table at full strength after it's intercepted. The second argument is against the notion you posted that your chosen rules set somehow adds more tactical richness to the game by pointing out that all of your examples are already possible with the current rules.
QuoteGREATER RISK = MORE TACTICS.
Ok, that's just complete bunk. So the more risks I take equals out to the more tactics I have? That makes a tactical genius if I launch myself at a brick wall from a cannon because it has far greater risk than jumping into the same wall on foot! In a game sense, it's far riskier to take all gothics against eldar but that doesn't equal out to more tactics. Taking your own example, squadrons of carriers are risky so boosting bomber power makes it more worthwhile because they can damage all targets efficiently. So I squadron my carriers to boost wave size. Now what? I still send AC out in waves to hit targets. I still screen my carriers. I still try to use phenomena to block LOF to the carriers. My tactics remain unchanged for the application of the AC I have, what changes is my desire to bring more AC to increase my benefits which in turn reduces the risk involved because I have greater access to AC to account for poor dice or interception. The net effect is that I find it more desirable to bring more carriers at the cost of gunnery.
...After your "logic" was soundly defeated you then shifted your point away from people being able to spam large AC waves from afar and instead attacked the notion that the changes would increase tactical play. You did this by suggesting that since all the above mentioned defences against ordnance are currently possible that this adds no tactical ability whatsoever. This is, of course, inane as well as directly contradictory to the argument you used suggesting they would become too powerful.
I think we have differing ideas of what richly rewards tactics. For the high LB player, you reward him simply for having more AC to throw at the problem (read spamming) which I don't see as any great tactical depth that warrants a reward. For the other end, you penalize the lack of AC by forcing the player to counter his opponents AC by squeezing in another carrier, sacrificing ships as ablative wounds, redirecting firepower, or placing himself in a tactically weak position simply because his fleet can't bring as much AC or because his fleet is more gunnery focused. None of those things makes you THINK any more that you would already in a given situation.
more richly rewards tactics, forces your opponent to actually think,
If the Voss cruiser becomes balanced, even if just by reducing its cost with no other change, then wouldn't this increase tactical options?Can you not see the logic behind, if X exists and X=Y then Y already exists? No it wouldn't increase tactical options. Those options already exist and are accessible and usable because the voss cruisers exist. Making them more attractive or more effective does nothing to increase tactical options.
Oh, and btw, every damn resource except ordnance simply "reloads". Ordnance requires taking and passing a command check!Sigh.... none of those lets you sit 170cm off and maneuver at 50cm per turn to hit at full strength with skillful use. Gunnery degrades based on facing and range, most SO further reduce it. It has a limited maximum range and it requires you to put the shooting vessel in close proximity for retaliation much less hiding out of LOF. Apples to Oranges here.
Maybe checkers is for you.Ok, I understand you get off on belittling people who disagree with your viewpoint. But really, you know very little about me or my skill and know absolutely nothing of my opponents so please, stop assuming things.
Positive Changes
- Conceptual - this change removes the conceptual oddity that 6 turret targets (BSF, AM Emp/Ober, 5 turret ships which have received a +1 turret refit) are completely immune to bombers. Sending in a single wave of 1 million bombers would not do any good.
- Elegant - this change is pretty much how people read the rule anyway until they look at it closer. Actually suppressing the turret is the assumed rule and is very easy to implement and conceptualise. It makes more sense and is a little less abstract.
- Parity - this rule brings back parity in offensive and defensive scaling. 1 turret can reduce the the attacks by the number of bombers (be it 1 or 1 million). Under this rule 1 fighter could increase the bombers attacks by the number of bombers (be it 1 or 1 million).
- Redundancy - the proposed change makes the targets actual turret fire useful again. The better they do the less turrets get suppressed. So this rule removes turret fire redundancy.
- Scaling - This rule scales the value of bombers to the size of the wave such that larger waves are more powerful than smaller waves against high turret targets. In the current rules, if you had the opportunity to form a wave of 18 AC (3 Styx) against an Emp/Ober/Explorer you wouldn't do it. You'd simply send in 3 waves of 6 against. Since forming larger waves is much much harder and comes with a slew of downsides you should get rewarded for doing so.
- Tactics - This change strongly rewards tactical thinking. The net changes to effectiveness are small at 8 AC or less but this change introduces the potential to do very good damage at higher wave sizes. This means that the ordnance heavy player will try harder to achieve this and the opponent will try harder to prevent it. As the stakes go up so to do the tactics as each player is forced to think more, rather than just coast. Some people (and I use that word loosely) don't get this. However, at present you know that your high turret ship is going to take only 2 damage on average from any one carrier. Hardly even worth bracing. Sure, you might brace if there's 3 such carriers about to pummel your BB, but it's not something you need to concern yourself with so much that you start thinking about CAP or massed turrets or anything. No, the only thing people worry about with bombers is their cruisers, and waves larger than 8 aren't really rewarded there so players have no real incentive to squadron their carriers and launch large waves. Smaller waves of 8 do just as well.
However, since this rule would encourage forming large waves against high turret targets (less incentive against low turret targets) then that means that they have all the drawbacks of doing so. Which makes it easier for the opponent to take his carriers out of contention. If a player does manage to bring a large wave into base contact unmolested somehow then he should be rewarded for doing so. Risk/reward trade-off increases, therefore so does tactical play.- One rule to rule them all ... - the proposed change brings fighter-bombers neatly into the fold. Absolutely no need to have special rules for automatic turret suppression of up to 3 blah blah. Simply have some on suppression duty, some on bomb duty, declared before turret fire. Sorted.
- Escorts - I feel that with the proposed rule escorts would become more valuable for 4 defensive reasons. 1) They'd be more attractive for small torpedo salvoes to knock out the fighter screen of large waves. 2) There direct fire would become more useful in knocking out large waves. 3) They will be able to easily provide extra turrets to larger ships. 4) As a last resort they will make excellent fodder to run into large waves.
In essence I feel that escorts would increase in their escorting value. That is, they'll be used to protect larger ships. This is on top of their current role as flankers/opportunists.
Sigh.... none of those lets you sit 170cm off and maneuver at 50cm per turn to hit at full strength with skillful use. Gunnery degrades based on facing and range, most SO further reduce it. It has a limited maximum range and it requires you to put the shooting vessel in close proximity for retaliation much less hiding out of LOF. Apples to Oranges here.
I find myself agreeing with Sigoroth. If you want to stay at 170cm, then even if I have nothing but 30cm range weapons, you're going to be exposed to at least one course of fire, and even if you survive that gauntlet I'll easily be able to castle up enough to render the AC next to useless, and with fleet launch limits, you'll be launching one wave every 6-7 turns.
So with this rule I would deploy like 8 Iconoclasts around my Desolator. Giving it 12 turrets for all purposes. Making every attack craft wave with or without fighters operating at a -12 modifier to begin with. So I need to have a wave of ... ehm at least 7 surviving fighters to do something?
I mean that is what you are telling, right?
Yes, gunnery could finish some escorts before but that'll little the area. I could even deploy some heavier escorts (better armour) in front of a capital ship, touching the base making sure AC needs to fly around some extra.... centimetres. Or even impossible to touch ship at all.
Well, then we can start rewriting squadron rules as well : escorts & capital ships may form a group.
This leads to BFG: Apocalypse ;)
I think Massing Turrets is fine for adding additional fire, but not in the suppression area. Really, makes for more +/- as well etc..
(ps I am exaggarating but do not forget these anomalies.)
What about Tau tossing in missile salvos to intercept cap?
And those missiles themselves have to run a gauntlet of fire, counter-barrages and fighter screens. Just play test it, try and break it, and see what you think. I think it works very nicely.
... you may not have the option to snipe fighters with low torpedo salvos ...
... Turret massing isn't always possible or practical ...
... If you lose the wave, so what? RO and launch them all over again. He's weaker for it and you've lost nothing.
Can you not see the logic behind, if X exists and X=Y then Y already exists? No it wouldn't increase tactical options. Those options already exist and are accessible and usable because the voss cruisers exist. Making them more attractive or more effective does nothing to increase tactical options.
Ok, to sum this whole thing up. One. I'm not being contradictory. I begin by saying your idea is overpowered with large waves and, as the discussion moves to tactical depth, that it doesn't give any added tactical depth to the game. Two. I supported this as evidenced by your stated examples of expanded depth already being possible in the current game. Finally. Stop restating my posts as you want them to read instead of how they actually read.
QuoteOh, and btw, every damn resource except ordnance simply "reloads". Ordnance requires taking and passing a command check!
Sigh.... none of those lets you sit 170cm off and maneuver at 50cm per turn to hit at full strength with skillful use. Gunnery degrades based on facing and range, most SO further reduce it. It has a limited maximum range and it requires you to put the shooting vessel in close proximity for retaliation much less hiding out of LOF. Apples to Oranges here.
Ok, I understand you get off on belittling people who disagree with your viewpoint. But really, you know very little about me or my skill and know absolutely nothing of my opponents so please, stop assuming things.
So out of curiosity, have you tried playing using the rules as they stand in the BBB for ordnance without any of the turret massing or fighter suppression rules? If so did you find ordnance too weak?
I never said add tactical options, I said add tactical depth.Actually... you did say tactical options:
If the Voss cruiser becomes balanced, even if just by reducing its cost with no other change, then wouldn't this increase tactical options? Even though people could have bought it before, it now becomes attractive which increases its tactical use.
o, I don't get-off on belittling people, I just call a tool a tool.
And the contingent isn't based upon disagreement, it's based on delusions of adequacy. You think that you're "arguing" whereas you're not. Despite showing just how implausible your "sit back and spam" idea is you hold to it. Despite showing mathematically and axiomatically how negligible the difference is of overall utility of AC you hold to the "encourages AC fleets" idea. Despite being shown how it makes it possible for a gunfleet to hold its own without carriers now you still maintain that they'll be required to take more.
QuoteI never said add tactical options, I said add tactical depth.Actually... you did say tactical options:QuoteIf the Voss cruiser becomes balanced, even if just by reducing its cost with no other change, then wouldn't this increase tactical options? Even though people could have bought it before, it now becomes attractive which increases its tactical use.
That whole bit you are having difficulty understanding started by quoting the above. I'm just using your own words here.
I have nothing more to say to you on this subject because you refuse to entertain any point of view but your own. If that point of view is attacked it is easy to discount the opposition as "not arguing" and "prove" your point when you decide unilaterally that their argument is invalid.
IN: 1 carrier in 5 capital ships involved in a battle/raid
Chaos: 1 carrier in 4 capital ships involved in a battle/raid
Tau: 1 carrier in 3 capital ships involved in a battle/raid
When crippled ordnance (AC+torps) is halved as well.
BFI vs Bombers = declared before turret rolls!
For the sake of clarity, a non-braced ship with LB capacity 4 launches 2 bombers only. Does it have to reload before launching another 2?
So if it's possible to not launch all Ordnance, can a Retribution fire 6 torps in one turn and 3 in the next?
What about cruisers, perhaps firing one torp every turn for six successive turns?
Further reading of pg28 shows that "Torpedo salvos have a strength value and a speed value, which are shown on the ship's characteristics. The higher the strength, the more torpedoes there are." This would imply that if you have S6 torpedoes, you have no option but to fire S6 torpedoes.
On the other hand "Launch bays are rated by the number of squadrons they must launch at once." Use of the word CAN might suggest that you can launch less than that if you wish.
Further reading of pg28 shows that "Torpedo salvos have a strength value and a speed value, which are shown on the ship's characteristics. The higher the strength, the more torpedoes there are." This would imply that if you have S6 torpedoes, you have no option but to fire S6 torpedoes.
On the other hand "Launch bays are rated by the number of squadrons they must launch at once." Use of the word CAN might suggest that you can launch less than that if you wish.
Firstly, if as Horizon says, there is nothing forcing you to fire an entire salvo of weaponry at once, if you fired 4 you would still have 2 loaded. Weapons Batteries are also described as firing by Salvoes.
Secondly, I don't think "CAN LAUNCH 4" is used in any sense other than "CANNOT LAUNCH MORE THAN 4".
Each marker is considered its own entity as far as being launchable is concerned. If you have a Dictator you can launch 4 AC markers, each of strength 1, and 1 torpedo marker with a strength of up to 6. Whatever you decide to fire is expended. Whatever you don't fire is still loaded. So if you fire 2 torpedoes, say, to fit the salvo through a narrow gap in your lines, then your torpedo marker has been expended and it requires a reload order to be able to fire your torpedoes again.
Both these issues (the holding over of AC and the inability to hold over torpedoes) have been ruled upon by the HA a long time ago, not that I could be bothered looking for the rulings.
However, there are some common sense considerations that confirm this ruling to a degree. Firstly, a Dictator that fires its torpedoes in one turn could not possibly have to RO in order to launch its AC. This would be ridiculous. By extension a carrier that launches from its port bays only should certainly not need to reload again before launching from its starboard bays.
As for the rule which says that when a ship has launched its ordnance it must RO before launching again, this strongly implies having launched all its ordnance. For example, the ordnance complement of an Emperor BB is 8 AC. So once it has launched its ordnance (8 AC) then it must reload before launching again. While it still has AC then it hasn't yet launched its ordnance complement.
Again, torpedoes are launched as a single marker, of variable strength. A single fighter can take out a single torpedo marker, whether it is a strength 1 or 27.
Boarding torps are so broken atm so noone apart from the Tyranids really uses them anyway. So this further nerf is not needed really.
With regards to Fighters on Cap - for some reason i think it was intended to keep al fighters as a wave on the cap so that they pass only 1 check for being in contact with BM when ship is under fire.
A clarification about torpedoes hitting a wave of fighters is needed in that case or clarification that 1 torpedo salvo, no matter what strength counts as only 1 ordanance marker.
Per FAQ2010 torpedo markers are no longer used. Place a marker of str3 or a 2cm x 2cm base with a dice on top to represent the strength.Boarding torps are so broken atm so noone apart from the Tyranids really uses them anyway. So this further nerf is not needed really.
With regards to Fighters on Cap - for some reason i think it was intended to keep al fighters as a wave on the cap so that they pass only 1 check for being in contact with BM when ship is under fire.
A clarification about torpedoes hitting a wave of fighters is needed in that case or clarification that 1 torpedo salvo, no matter what strength counts as only 1 ordanance marker.
The higher the strength, the more torpedoes there are in a salvo andthe larger the marker placed to represent the salvo(BBB pg 28 Torpedo Rules section, first paragraph - emphasis mine).
Per FAQ2010 torpedo markers are no longer used. Place a marker of str3 or a 2cm x 2cm base with a dice on top to represent the strength.
My question has not been resolved, do you put down a second marker side by side for the next six torps?
I am fine with using a 20mm square base as torpedo markers, with a die to represent the strength
What I would prefer is that each ship launches it's own marker and thus a squadron of 3 combining launch would use three bases, one for each ship of the squadron
Plaxor, the imperial navy really does not need a huge advantage in this case, they have gotten plenty of glitter in the FAQ, and there is nothing special about their torpedo's.
And the greater number of turrets represents the additional casualty caused whilst closing.
But whilst the number of casualties in the closing stages depends linearly on the number of turrets, when the bombers are making their attack runs suppression should depends on the turret per area.
Now suppose a battleship has twice the turrets of a cruiser (4 vs 2). Whilst the bombers are closing, they'll be able to score twice as many kills. Up until this point, the rules are a good fit.
However, once the bombers have closed to close range and the turrets have to track tens of degrees to aquire a new target rather than a fraction of a degree, the bombers are flying every which way instead of nicely lined up in formation, and the contours of the ship itself are obscuring firing lines, the turrets required for suppression should depend strongly on the turret density.
A battleship with twice as many turrets and twice the surface area would be no better than a cruiser at suppressing close-range bombing runs.
And the greater number of turrets represents the additional casualty caused whilst closing.
But whilst the number of casualties in the closing stages depends linearly on the number of turrets, when the bombers are making their attack runs suppression should depends on the turret per area.
Now suppose a battleship has twice the turrets of a cruiser (4 vs 2). Whilst the bombers are closing, they'll be able to score twice as many kills. Up until this point, the rules are a good fit.
However, once the bombers have closed to close range and the turrets have to track tens of degrees to aquire a new target rather than a fraction of a degree, the bombers are flying every which way instead of nicely lined up in formation, and the contours of the ship itself are obscuring firing lines, the turrets required for suppression should depend strongly on the turret density.
A battleship with twice as many turrets and twice the surface area would be no better than a cruiser at suppressing close-range bombing runs.
Sorry, I don't agree. Yes you've closed in a certain area. So let's say density is the same. Fine. However, that doesn't change the fact that the area of a battleship is much bigger than a cruiser and so the number of turrets shooting at you from the adjoining areas are still much more than that of a regular cruiser. There is still more flak being thrown up compared to a regular cruiser which may throw one's aim off. Whether actively shooting down the attacking bombers or passively suppressing them, the amount of shots being fired are still almost the same even assuming some turrets won't be able to shoot at the bomber in the said area.
The only way for your scenario to happen would be for the bombers to be on top of the target at point blank range. Anything beyond that turrets would still be able to shoot at the bombers.
Diminishing field of fire, inability to traverse fast enough, and a target rich environment all play a part at allowing bombers to break suppression at close range and are a good argument for suppression being independent of turrets.
It's not only density. Battleships will have much more turrets and more powerful turrets than an Escort. More turrets means more chances of shooting a bomber down.
It is about density. Turret weaponry is pretty much the same as 40k weaponry. There would be no difference in size of turret between an escort and a battleship. BBs would not have more powerful turrets. While they would have more, they would also have a lot more blind spots. They're over 5km long.
So no, they wouldn't force the bombers to jink from further out. No there wouldn't be more firepower coming at the bombers.
If we followed your idea then the cruiser would also have to have its turret suppressing weakened to 1 since that is the lowest amount of turret available in a cruiser. Why? Because we can then say I don't think a regular cruiser would have more turret density than a light cruiser. So now we're going to say a bomber attacking a battleship would be rolling at (D6-1)? Uh...NO!
Under current rules, the bombers then get D6-2 each, +3 from the fighters (IIRC there was no neccessity for fighters to survive in FAQ2010). That makes an average 11.3 attacks.Between 3 - 7 attacks.
Under proposed rules, the bombers get D6-2+1(surviving fighter)-3(cobras in contact) for D6-4, and 0.5 attacks each, 2.5 attacks.Between 0-2 attacks.
Well, ships in Gothic just aren't all that flat. There are crenellations, buttresses, towers, folds, etc. Also, we are talking 40k weaponry here, burst cannons, lascannon, autocannon, multi-lasers, etc. That gives them a range of, like, a couple hundred yards! I really don't see BBs being more protected than even an escort, let alone a cruiser. Maybe if you're going for a lot of AA then the turrets/km2 could be upped to a rating of 3 I suppose.
I just don't see ratings of 4, 5 or 6. I suppose it's possible, if the ship is just bristling with AA guns. But if we're going to be using the whole "d6-turrets for attack runs" thing then I think that the most well defended anti-ordnance ship should be 4 turrets. Bonuses to hit or re-rolls to hit and/or being able to fire at both torps and bombers are possibilities, but give bombers a chance to overwhelm a target.
If we followed your idea then the cruiser would also have to have its turret suppressing weakened to 1 since that is the lowest amount of turret available in a cruiser. Why? Because we can then say I don't think a regular cruiser would have more turret density than a light cruiser. So now we're going to say a bomber attacking a battleship would be rolling at (D6-1)? Uh...NO!
Sorry, what sort of weird logic is that? A BB has twice as many weapons, but has twice the surface area, therefore its turret density and suppressive ability remains the same. IIRC, Cruisers are 5km long (FFG numbers), and thunderhawks are 26m long, up to 7 million times smaller. There are going to be blind spots.
Turret lethality scales with number of turrets, whilst turret suppression scales with turrets squared. An increase to 5 turrets from 4(to 120% lethality) would only be an increase to 110% suppression. On the other hand, a difference between -2 and -3 modifiers is a drop of 40% for the bombers. How is that fair? 4,5and6 turret ships are also effectievly invulnerable to bombers.
It makes far more sense to go for a flat D6-2 attacks. This makes BBs just as vulnerable to bombers that survive the initial flack wave as cruisers, which is how it should be.
Now on top of that, you can add in a couple of modifiers. +1 if the bombers are attacking a crippled ship, +1 for surviving fighters in the wave, -1 for ships in BtB contact. +/- 1 for particularly well defended/poorly defended ships, which would be noted on their profile special rules. These similtaneously provide a risk/protection trade off - increased vulnerability to bombers vs invulnerability in close formations vs risk of taking direct fire.
It could even be D6-3 attacks base, in which case a bomber wave would need fighters to help it break through suppression, even in the case of lone ships. It's a very star-warsy feel, which I find very appealing.
Having seen a lot of footages where battleships can throw up almost a wall of flak, I would still believe a battleship can throw off a bombers attacks much better vis a vis a cruiser. However, I can agree to battleship types getting capped at (D6-4) with cruiser types getting capped at (D6-2) meaning change the modifier to "Type" rating rather than "Turret" ratings. Escorts at 1, cruisers at 2 and battleships at 4. There would be a problem with the Light Cruiser though. Would it be a 1 or 2?
It doesn't have to be escorts, other capital ships would work too.
I don't mind a larger ship having more defence against AC than a smaller one, but this should be a simple linear relationship. So more turrets equals more enemies shot down. The suppression of attack runs is fine in principle, but in execution it's terrible. Six turret ships being immune to bombers is silly. The turret density that value represents is insane too.
RcG
Excuse on the numbers I forgot to add the bombers themselves (took one d6 only).It doesn't have to be escorts, other capital ships would work too.
So you create a rule that dictates tactics.
Also: if I plant the bomber wave few centimetres before your ship you will lose the b2b status when moving (as this is fact per current rules).
I don't mind a larger ship having more defence against AC than a smaller one, but this should be a simple linear relationship. So more turrets equals more enemies shot down. The suppression of attack runs is fine in principle, but in execution it's terrible. Six turret ships being immune to bombers is silly. The turret density that value represents is insane too.
Am fine with D6-4 for battleships, D6-2 for any cruiser type and D6-1 for Escorts.
Note: I am NOT trying to make Ordnance in general more powerful, except in the case of bombers vs battleships.Why? Battleships aren't overpowered.
Apart from the fact it still leaves battleships as near as invulnerable to bombers, which is where we have the disagreement in the first place.
I don't know what more I can say about D6-TYou just did. ;)
I see no problem with this increase.
- It gives an exponential bonus to ships with high turrets, far more than a simple linear increase, which in itself would be tenuous. - There's no physical reason why extra turrets should impact so hard.
A-boats is more of a problem. Torps are good.
- It discriminates against bombers, but not against torps/ABs (which are both fine - the problem is defnitely with the bombers). There's no reason a battleship should be more than 3.5 times better defended against bombers, yet only shoot down one additional AB/Torp on average.
Yes, there is.
- It gives no concessions to wave size - there's no ability to overwhelm with numbers.
Turret suppression is clear (with add I would use surviving fighters only).
- Turret suppression is horrible, and frequently played incorrectly. (probably because people see the -4/-5 modifiers as so overpowered there must be a way round them)
Assault boats is only available to half of the races.
- It wouldn't be a serious harm to battleships to be more vulnerable to bombers - as is people just send ABs instead.
QuoteI see no problem with this increase.
- It gives an exponential bonus to ships with high turrets, far more than a simple linear increase, which in itself would be tenuous. - There's no physical reason why extra turrets should impact so hard.
QuoteA-boats is more of a problem. Torps are good.
- It discriminates against bombers, but not against torps/ABs (which are both fine - the problem is defnitely with the bombers). There's no reason a battleship should be more than 3.5 times better defended against bombers, yet only shoot down one additional AB/Torp on average.
QuoteYes, there is.
- It gives no concessions to wave size - there's no ability to overwhelm with numbers.
QuoteTurret suppression is clear (with add I would use surviving fighters only).
- Turret suppression is horrible, and frequently played incorrectly. (probably because people see the -4/-5 modifiers as so overpowered there must be a way round them)
QuoteAssault boats is only available to half of the races.
- It wouldn't be a serious harm to battleships to be more vulnerable to bombers - as is people just send ABs instead.
QuoteQuoteA-boats is more of a problem. Torps are good.
- It discriminates against bombers, but not against torps/ABs (which are both fine - the problem is defnitely with the bombers). There's no reason a battleship should be more than 3.5 times better defended against bombers, yet only shoot down one additional AB/Torp on average.
Eh? I agree that there's a problem with a-boats, namely that they're pretty weak. They were only useful against escorts but this rubbish FAQ has nerfed them further. So, given that they're weak, and the problem with high turret targets is that it's more worthwhile sending in a weak substitute (ie, a-boats instead of bombers) then how is it a problem with a-boats? Assuming that a-boats were "fixed" to be a worthwhile choice against capital ships then this would just make the decision to take a-boats even easier when attacking high-turret targets. Therefore the problem becomes exacerbated, not fixed. This is a problem with the turret rules. Like MSM it's a bad mechanic. It makes no sense.
The turret suppression rule in FAQ2010 is a neater written version of the previous FAQ versions. So nothing new here.QuoteQuoteAssault boats is only available to half of the races.
- It wouldn't be a serious harm to battleships to be more vulnerable to bombers - as is people just send ABs instead.
Yes, and those that have them available send in a-boats against BBs instead of bombers. At least, they will once people start playing the new turret suppression rules.
Then why does RcG suggest that people always sent assault boats to battleships in stead of bombers? Against 6+ armour it is better to sent in assault boats. I've experienced this from facing a lot of Marines.
I HATED the (almost) auto kill from assault boats on escorts. It made no sense at all. It was a rubbish rule to begin with. ;)
The turret suppression rule in FAQ2010 is a neater written version of the previous FAQ versions. So nothing new here.
They actually made it weaker as in the fact that a single bomber must survive.
(Again: I say a fighter must survive to help).
I think we are on the line:
Group A: Attack Craft are too weak.
Group B: Attack craft are too good.
Tell me : why are tournaments so heavy dominated by carrier fleets? It is because aboats & bombers. Not fighters. It is because ordnance is strong.
Aboats are a b*tch to any capital ship.
Aboats should not overwhelm escorts on auto kill, that is impossibel giving the size of these vessels.
Ok, FAQ2010 nerved them (bombers+fighters) => AWESOME.
:)
I think we are on the line:
Group A: Attack Craft are too weak.
Group B: Attack craft are too good.
Tell me : why are tournaments so heavy dominated by carrier fleets? It is because aboats & bombers. Not fighters. It is because ordnance is strong.
Aboats are a b*tch to any capital ship.
Aboats should not overwhelm escorts on auto kill, that is impossibel giving the size of these vessels.
Ok, FAQ2010 nerved them (bombers+fighters) => AWESOME.
:)
Because BFG isn't suited to such big battles due multiple factors (squadron rules, special orders). But it can be played.Completly disagree. The balancing ~ 3000 to 4000 points is WAY better than in small 1500 games. Single aspects (be it dominant ships (Cairn, Voi Stalker) or spamming of a particular ship/feature) are less dominant in big games.
The reason not to use ND6-TD6:
#1. Ships like the Defiant would effectively not be able to hurt other ships, they're so unlikely to beat the turret roll.
#2. The standard 4B vs T2 gets significantly worse - Down to 3.5 attacks on average from 5, a reduction to 70%. This would neccessitate a rebalance of all carriers.What exactly do you mean? 4d6 would be... 14 attacks average, minus 7 average from turrets, so 7 attacks. (this is if you take away shooting down bombers, which i did suggest). While 4(d6-2) is on average 6 attacks.
#3. 8B vs T2 gets significantly better - Up to 17.5 from 11.7, an increase to 150%I'd expect 8 bombers to utterly destroy any ship with t2 in the first place, how often do you see a wave of 8 bombers anyways? This is what fighters are for.
#4. Potential damage for a wave of 8 against T2 goes to 48 attacks from 32. This is far too dependant on luck - Defensively, you can do everything right, not brace because you don't expect a wave to penetrate your defences, fluff your turret roll and get annihilated.
This will require an extensive rebalancing - if it even can be balanced! The Emperor certainly doesn't need to get better, and the IN's other carriers certainly don't need to get worse. This is why number one on my ideal system is that the standard outcome for most waves isn't much changed.
The reason not to use ND6-TD6:
#1. Ships like the Defiant would effectively not be able to hurt other ships, they're so unlikely to beat the turret roll.
Defiant can launch 2 waves, not as bad as one wave.
My mistake - my calculation included casualties from turret shooting. 7 attacks is also a substantial increase from 5 though - 4x more of an increase than the 2 attacks/outnumbering system.#2. The standard 4B vs T2 gets significantly worse - Down to 3.5 attacks on average from 5, a reduction to 70%. This would neccessitate a rebalance of all carriers.What exactly do you mean? 4d6 would be... 14 attacks average, minus 7 average from turrets, so 7 attacks. (this is if you take away shooting down bombers, which i did suggest). While 4(d6-2) is on average 6 attacks.
#3. 8B vs T2 gets significantly better - Up to 17.5 from 11.7, an increase to 150%I'd expect 8 bombers to utterly destroy any ship with t2 in the first place, how often do you see a wave of 8 bombers anyways? This is what fighters are for.
In my system 8d6 would be 28 average, minus 7 average from 2 turrets is 21. Granted, its much better than the average of 12 you'd get from 8(d6-2).
The fundamental problem with this is that changes to turrets require a rewrite of every ship profile in the game. It's no longer a quick fix to the core rules.#4. Potential damage for a wave of 8 against T2 goes to 48 attacks from 32. This is far too dependant on luck - Defensively, you can do everything right, not brace because you don't expect a wave to penetrate your defences, fluff your turret roll and get annihilated.
This will require an extensive rebalancing - if it even can be balanced! The Emperor certainly doesn't need to get better, and the IN's other carriers certainly don't need to get worse. This is why number one on my ideal system is that the standard outcome for most waves isn't much changed.
46, not 48. I see your point. I do like my system in principal. It does get wonky with big wave sizes like you point out. Balancing it out would actually call for a different turret system, which I'm sure some people would be happy with, one based on turret density.
Off the top of my head, you would see it in ship profiles something like... 1 turret per wave, 1 turret per 2 waves, 1 turret per 3 waves. Something like that.
1 turret per 2 waves would still be the standard t2 vs a wave of 4, it would be bumped up to t4 vs a wave of 8.
Or of course a small table could be created showing how many turret dice to use vs a specific wave size, and have columns for the different turret density, kind of like how there's the gunnery table for weapon batteries. So you'd see a ship profile be like.. Turrets A, B, C, D, etc. Look up the A column, or B column, etc. VS the size of the bomber wave, and thats how many d6 you'd roll vs the bomber wave.
| Turret number | (theoretical) Damage caused |
| 1 | 4.58 |
| 2 | 2.778 |
| 3 | 1.5 |
| 4 | .667 |
| 5 | .19 |
| Turret number | (theoretical) Damage caused |
| 1 | 3.667 |
| 2 | 3.333 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 2.667 |
| 5 | 2.333 |
| 6 | 2 |
| Turrets | number of hits |
| 1 | 3.88 |
| 2 | 3.77 |
| 3 | 3.66 |
| 4 | 3.55 |
| 5 | 3.44 |
interesting thought on bombers.
ever played x-wing alliance? it takes frakkin forever to take out a star destroyer with a wing of bombers.
similarly, bombers tend to suck against high turrets enemies. albeit quite annoying, once your target is crippled, bombers sweep. i think the system works fine as is - though it is quite convoluted. your proposition is nice and simple, but may make bombers too strong [no judgement, just observation, i'll test out a few dozen rolls later]. also eldar bombers get even better as those turrets never hit them anyway and they'd have >50% chance to roll a 3 (per bomber).
Under the new rules for Assault Boats attacking Escorts.
Do Tyranid Escorts
(a) force the enemy to roll 2D6/take the lowest, meaning both must show a 4+ to destroy a Escort
(b) are destroyed on a roll of 5+. the negative modifier overwrites the regular rules for h&r attacks
I know it is a bit late but I would like to suggest a tau merchant variant that has 3-4 hooks
Each model comes with 2 hooks and 2 weapon platforms
The current 2 variants are 2 hooks +2 weapons or 4 weapons
Thus if you buy 2 ships and build a 4 weapon variant you are left with bits for a 4 hooks variant . . . which doesn't exist!
Why one rather than till failed?
Less record keeping as to which has used it's save and which has nit
How about
Attack Craft Marker Size.
Either 2cm x 2cm or 1cm x 4cm (since the cardboard/printout markers are 2x2cm but the blister comes with 1cm x 4cm)