Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: Zelnik on November 15, 2010, 07:50:59 PM
-
Do we put the torpedo marker on a 2cmx2cm base as well? i hope so..
Also, when the strength gets over 6, should we add a second 2x2 base next to it, with a second die to determine the additional strength?
-
Ah, you noted the fact that stickied threads are tend to get overlooked? ;)
Funny enough none of our battles haven't seen larger waves then 6.
Ok, since vessels with waves larger then 6 may split them in two seperate waves I would say that the single wave also consists of 2 markers/bases next to eachother. One dice per marker ofcourse.
First they had the str2 torp marker, then the 2cm x 2cm base, then the str3 torp marker.
I think the str3 and 2x2cm are almost the same.
-
I STRONGLY suggest that it is made 2x2, just to keep the game uniform and reduce the need for 'special counters.
It's very simple. One 2x2 counter for every 6 torpedo's. That way you get the benefit of area denial for the larger torpedo spreads. So..
Say you have a Desolator or a Retribution. you would have two counters side by side, one with a 6, and the other with a 3.
-
How I read things it was supposed to be one marker for ever 6 points of torpedo strength (this also works out well since a d6 can only represent... well, a s6 salvo and removes the issue of balancing multiple d6 on the same marker)
-
I assume one fighter would still remove an entire wave?
-
yup.
-
Ah, you noted the fact that stickied threads are tend to get overlooked? ;)
Funny enough none of our battles haven't seen larger waves then 6.
Ok, since vessels with waves larger then 6 may split them in two seperate waves I would say that the single wave also consists of 2 markers/bases next to eachother. One dice per marker ofcourse.
First they had the str2 torp marker, then the 2cm x 2cm base, then the str3 torp marker.
I think the str3 and 2x2cm are almost the same.
Have we really just ruled that Torpedoes count as one marker (purposes of RO), but also as two?
-
I do not understand your question.
-
guys, seriously, all this dice on a 2x2 marker is crap. Dice get accidently rolled away, look terrible and are not really that informative.
There were good markers in warp rift and they were size of str 4 torpedo salvo with a NUMBER printed on them.
I suggest we just use them. For a combined salvo simply use 2 markers if that salvo exceeds 9 torps alltogether.
-
guys, seriously, all this dice on a 2x2 marker is crap. Dice get accidently rolled away, look terrible and are not really that informative.
No, it works great:
* when strength of wave is reduced no need to pick up marker and place a new one. Thus marker stays in same position at all times. Just take the dice and adjust number.
* in all our battles with it (we used it before FAQ2010 at times) dices never have been rolled away.
* it is very informative.
we like it very much!!!
-
We don't like it because it looks bad and has a limit of 6 only. The marker on the other hand can contain any number and looks better. Also, it solves problems with combined waves in a better way
-
It doesn't look bad imo.
Modelled torps would look good... yes.. lets make 2cm bases with a varied number of torps on it. :)
-
you can't put a dice on a modeled torp - you have to put it near it which may lead to confusion.
Who said you can't model torps on a marker with a number? ))
-
I meant:
make markers with 1 torp miniature model on it.
make markers with 2 torp miniature models on it.
make markers with 3 torp miniature models on it.
make markers with 4 torp miniature models on it.
make markers with 6 torp miniature models on it.
make markers with 7 torp miniature models on it.
etc.
That looks best. Same problem as markers: adjusting, misplacement when a wave changes in size.
-
if marker is standard, it's ok. But really, no one prevents us to put dice or make em with numbers or with models, i think the idea is just to make a standard marker and decide how it works when in larger waves. The only difference between my idea and idea to use 2x2 is the size of it (since i personaly think 2x2 is small) and a larger limit before combining it with another one. You can always put a dice on it anyway ))))
My point is that there is ALREADY a set of markers with numbers and i think Ray said that he wanted it to look as a str 4 torp salvo
-
Actually you can put a d6 on top of a modeled torpedo, just you need to have the marker designed to accommodate it. I actually like idea of it.
-
Actually you can put a d6 on top of a modeled torpedo, just you need to have the marker designed to accommodate it. I actually like idea of it.
Yeap. I'm right there with Vaaish. It's not hard to design a 20x20mm base that will accomadate a 12mm die with a ring of torps around it. The actual torp model count is irrelevant of course. I like this idea.
Russ
-
I used to be against it, but the fact is, printing out torpedo counters on paper is a RIGHTEOUS pain in the ass, and the nice cardboard ones are rare on the ground.
I have talked to a certain resin mini maker about designing torpedo counters for everyone, so don't worry about that.
The simple truth is... over time, the old torpedo counters will disappear, and if we can make most, if not all, counters in the game run off of the same sized marker, it will streamline and simplify the logistics of the game.
The best way I see it working is one 2x2 torpedo counter for every six strength. (1-6 strength salvo is 1 marker, if it gets bigger, add a second marker directly next to it, each counter should have a dice determining it's strength of 1-6.
-
guys, seriously, all this dice on a 2x2 marker is crap. Dice get accidently rolled away, look terrible and are not really that informative.
No, it works great:
* when strength of wave is reduced no need to pick up marker and place a new one. Thus marker stays in same position at all times. Just take the dice and adjust number.
* in all our battles with it (we used it before FAQ2010 at times) dices never have been rolled away.
* it is very informative.
we like it very much!!!
I still do not like it at all. But oh well, nothing at all I can do about it except refuse to use the rule which my group has already decided we will be doing.
Cheers, Gary
-
Counters can't disappear - download from GW website - glue on 1mm carboard - cut out.
-
I'm a big supporter of the 3 strong marker over the 2. Its a good balance.
-
For what it's worth, a resin maker has contacted me about making a 2.5cm (3-torp) -wide marker that accomodates two 5mm dice on it so you can indicate torp strengths from 1 to 12. You can find gazillions of 5mm dice online for next to nothing -go ahead, Google it- and he says he can have the markers made for about $1 each, sold in packs of 10. I don't know if these can be used at GamesDay, but from what I've seen so far, I'll probably be buying at least two packs of the things!
- Nate
-
Still, is it one marker per s6 torpedo or will it be one marker for any size torpedo salvo?
-
Hi Vaaish,
per Nate's new idea it is 2d6 per marker... but what above 12? (Combined waves).
Hi Nate,
bad idea. I am not going to shell out money for torpedo markers/holders. If these become available they should be the size of freely available markers.
-
Please explain me reason to replace standard torpedoes with small marker and counter on it?
I don't understand why you so easily discarded such fundamental(and essential) part of game mechanics as torpedo salvo's width.
-
it's partly due to the ludicrous amount of space the torpedo markers take up on the table allowing for odd sniping and clutter on the table and partly to standardize all ordnance markers in size and partly to make it simpler to track salvo size by changing the dice rather than the marker. It's not a bad change when each marker is only up to s6, but if one marker represents a salvo of any size it becomes problematic.
-
I really like the idea of each 2x2 counter equating to 1-6 torpedos. it means that when your salvo strength grows, so does your area denial, which is the way it should be. I confess it's not going to be HEUG like it is now, but it just looks better when your launching TWO tokens from a squad of six cobra's, or just one from all of them together
-
For what it's worth, a resin maker has contacted me about making a 2.5cm (3-torp) -wide marker that accomodates two 5mm dice on it so you can indicate torp strengths from 1 to 12. You can find gazillions of 5mm dice online for next to nothing -go ahead, Google it- and he says he can have the markers made for about $1 each, sold in packs of 10. I don't know if these can be used at GamesDay, but from what I've seen so far, I'll probably be buying at least two packs of the things!
- Nate
I've already been down this road with ship bases that use 2 5mm dice trays for damage. 5mm dice are to small and awkward to flip on an already small and cramped space. The goal is to not have to move the torp from the table to flip the dice. Additionally you really need to ensure you have 2 separate trays per die so once one is set you don't have to mess with it to flip the other die. I really don't want to see it become 2D6 for this reason, besides needing "special" bases in the first place. I suggest sticking with a torp rules mechanic that will allow 1D6 and on a 20x20mm base. A single 12mm or maybe 8mm die is probably fine.
Russ
-
Please explain me reason to replace standard torpedoes with small marker and counter on it?
I don't understand why you so easily discarded such fundamental(and essential) part of game mechanics as torpedo salvo's width.
Because it is just better. :)
Keep in mind 1cm = 1000km in BFG. Now look at the width of a marker and see the amount of space taken.
-
Because it is just better. :)
Funny how only a few people online seem to think so. All the players I know who actually play the game think otherwise :).
Keep in mind 1cm = 1000km in BFG. Now look at the width of a marker and see the amount of space taken.
I really wish people would drop this stupid rationale. If that's the case then how exactly does a blast marker 3000km from a battleship still slow it down? How does a single shot/volley/whatever from a ship generate a blast over 1000km in diameter? This ridiculous distance argument falls on its face right about when you reach this point and stays there. Using it to rationalize this change when the majority of the other rules, and in fact the size of the miniatures themselves would suggest something else entirely. The simple fact is that regardless of fictional distances, the aesthetics of the game are meant to *look* like something maybe out of age of sail engagements, i.e. at relatively close range, broadsides, etc. In that regard the torp markers look far and away better and more appropriate than a single 20mm base with a dice on it, and I won't even go into again how wonky that particular mechanic seems. It is for all of the above reasons that my group have decided to simply ignore this particular "FAQed-up rule."
Cheers, Gary
-
Aaah, with all the other agreements going on.... ;)
Well, here everybody likes the new torp rule.
The rationale is there and exists. But we had this discussion on yahoo so I better leave it at that. Right?
-
Aaah, with all the other agreements going on.... ;)
Couldn't let that trend continue now could I? ;)
Well, here everybody likes the new torp rule.
Hardly. From what I have seen those who disagreed have simply left the discussion. But that's what I get for going through the various threads/posts and counting for and against. Ah well, no biggee since as I said I and my group won't be using the rule. I do find it amazing how easily some people will accept a change when it is promoted as being fact, as if it's already been made official even when it has not.
The rationale is there and exists. But we had this discussion on yahoo so I better leave it at that. Right?
I have no intention of pursuing this discussion anymore. It just grates on me that people use this to justify something they want when the majority of the rest of the game would indicate how silly it actually is. But again, what do I know. Obviously nothing. Frankly I'm just going to buy up another couple copies of the 1.5 blue book and I'm set. Only one fleet left to buy and I will have them all (FW Tau) :D).
Cheers, Gary
-
Well, here everybody likes the new torp rule.
Hardly. From what I have seen those who disagreed have simply left the discussion
I am an IN player that uses only torpedoes. The truth is only that players who use torpedoes don't want to lose an hight amount of power and versatility of this powerful weapon.
Think about this: I can fire a salvo of 18 torpedoes (only three cruisers, maybe only three Dauntlesses!) that may be larger than a planet. Where is the problem? Well, here you the problem: it is absurd that a ship that is in contact only with a side of the salvo, can be hit even by the torps that are at the opposite side of the same salvo. There can be 15 cm between the two sides, that is an entire movement of some ships! It's too strong, if you use them, you have noticed that.
One 2x2cm base per s6 salvo can work, but only one base for more then s6 is ridiculous: at this point I find more convenient do not fire combined salvos
my group have decided to simply ignore this particular "FAQed-up rule."
when the faq's will be official, your opponent will have to agree on this, it's mandatory
-
Ofcourse every group is entitled to use the rules which they think work best (with us Eldar MMS, original blastmarkers primary).
-
my group have decided to simply ignore this particular "FAQed-up rule."
when the faq's will be official, your opponent will have to agree on this, it's mandatory
Ummm, excuse me? As I said my group has agreed not to use it and if it does become "official" then we will just house rule it away. I don't think the GW police are going to come knocking on my door. What are they going to say? "Acceptance is unnecessary. House Rules are irrelevant. You will be assimilated?" Yeah... I'll buy that for a dollar... ;D
Cheers, Gary
-
You said I, that's why he mentioned it. You should've said we/us. ;)
-
You said I, that's why he mentioned it. You should've said we/us. ;)
Huh? Where did I say that? My original post stated:
It is for all of the above reasons that my group have decided to simply ignore this particular "FAQed-up rule."
Seems clear to me.
Cheers, Gary
-
Oh, keep in mind the 1.5 rulebook has some issues for which you need FAQ2010:
* Asteroid field rules: 3d6 on AAF has been ommited per mistake.
* The FAQ adresses/clarifies point swaps.
* Repulsive shield upgrade
* Some ordnance thingies.
* something else
;)
You said at one point I... perhaps an edit. Doesn't matter I know what you mean. Go and buy that Tau fleet.
-
Oh, keep in mind the 1.5 rulebook has some issues for which you need FAQ2010:
* Asteroid field rules: 3d6 on AAF has been ommited per mistake.
* The FAQ adresses/clarifies point swaps.
* Repulsive shield upgrade
* Some ordnance thingies.
* something else
;)
You said at one point I... perhaps an edit. Doesn't matter I know what you mean. Go and buy that Tau fleet.
Ah, I see it. Fixed.
Also, I understand the FAQ is necessary for some areas. However, frankly the 2007 FAQ answers pretty much all of the real grey areas. It's yet again why I think this 2010 effort is more an attempt to change rules because some players want to than clarify them. I suspect such a thing would not even be possible if GW actually gave a rat's behind about SG anymore. Though with what happened to the BBRC, who knows. I guess if someone here oversteps their bounds then BFG could suffer the same fate. I had a fleeting hope that the dissolution of the BBRC was due to GW possibly re-releasing Blood Bowl this year like they did with Space Hulk, but alas, that did not happen so I think the other factors were probably it. JMO though.
As for the Tau, it's happening, albeit slowly. Real life expenses seem to get in the way far too often ;).
Cheers, Gary
-
i like the idea of one base representing up to 6 torpedo strength but what happens when you launch a salvo of 9?
one 6 plus one 3?
one 5 plus one 4?
might be better to represent 1-3 per base. this will make a launch of 6 4cm wide, nearly what the old marker size is
-
It should work as follows:
Each torpedo marker counts for 1-6 torpedo's. In the event that a salvo of greater then st 6 is launched, place down two markers side by side. Each token must be consolidated to maximized in strength to the strength of the salvo. For example, A Desolator fires a strength 9 salvo, Two tokens are placed on the ships base, one is st 6 and the other is st3 (you cannot have one 5 and 4). When strength is reduced, you always reduce from the lowest strength token first.
Example: The Desolater fired it's torpedo's at an imperial cruiser, and scored (luckily!) 4 hits, reducing it's strength to 5. The strength 3 marker is removed, and the strength 6 is reduced to strength 5. The single marker continues on it's path to it's maximum movement. You DO NOT reduce the strength 6 to a strength 2, and have two markers for a strength 5 salvo.
-
It wouldn't matter in the slightest if one were 5 and the other 4 or if they were 6 and 3. They count as 1 marker of strength 9. As soon as the total strength drops down to 6 or less you drop down to a single 20 x 20 base. Under the old rules, for a strength 9 torp salvo you'd use either 5+4 or 6+3. It's no different now.
-
So long as you consolidate strength to the minimal number of markers, i don't have a problem with that. I just don't want to see six counters, each with st 1, but all in the same 'wave'.
-
I say that if you want to make unified salvos then they have to be represented by a single marker from a single ship (up to 9 in str). If ships are making a combined launch then just put 2 markers from each ship together.