Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Sigoroth on May 08, 2011, 05:43:46 AM
-
As pointed out by RCG in the FS thread allowing free squadroning of different sized capital ships can obviate built in weaknesses such as 5+ prows. This causes a problem in that ships with 5+ prows are a good deal cheaper than those with 6+ prows, therefore you get a very large effectiveness bump.
I don't disagree with allowing these ships to form squadrons (or battle groups) but I do disagree with the way squadrons work. At the moment the rules for squadrons are:
- highest leadership used for all SO and leadership tests
- one SO used for entire squadron, including BFI and shared AAF rolls
- hits assigned to nearest ship that can be effected, with excess hits spilling over
- 15cm proximity rule (must maintain, stragglers can't use SO and have to reform)
These rule have caused a fair amount of confusion in the past with interaction with terrain and other elements. For example, asteroid field navigation. One Ld test for entire squadron or one per ship? Test using highest leadership or against ship's own Ld? One d6 damage for each ship upon failure or for the entire squadron? One ship disengages the whole squadron disengages? One ship hits a warp rift all effected?
Also there have been ways of getting around the targeting restrictions. For example, squadron targeting rules allow players presented with multiple target aspects to choose which they wish to select for calculating WB dice on the gunnery table. The caveat being that you can't hit ships with a more defensive aspect than the one you've chosen. So a ship further away can be selectively targeted if it is in a more favourable aspect than closer ships. I myself took advantage of this loophole in my last game (Tau CPF vs Chaos) by manoeuvring such that I was in the aft quadrant of the further ship and abeam of the closer one.
It seems silly that you can't target the capital ship you want to and it seems sillier that you can get around this restriction via a targeting quirk.
All this on top of the potential to obviate the weakness of 5+ prows.
I have suggested in the past a fundamental change to the way squadron rules work and I'll reiterate my suggestions here:
- For targeting, terrain and BFI all ships treated individually and use own Ld
- Use one SO for each squadron (BFI excepted), rolling once for entire squadron
- Compare roll to each ships Ld to see if that ship passes the test, if at least 1 passes Chain of Command satisfied
- Coherency rules as before, those outside 15cm auto-fail SO tests (BFI excepted).
The biggest effect of this change would be the trade-off. Currently the major trade-offs are extra protection, easier SOs and combined fire for squadron wide BFI. Minor trade-offs are Chain of Command (CoC) improvement vs movement and SO restrictions (can't RO with one ship and LO with another, etc). This change dumps a lot of the major trade-offs. Capital ships should be able to be targeted individually, poor leadership shouldn't be so easily circumvented and ships should not be forced to BFI in "sympathy" with a ship being pounded by bombers.
This leaves combined fire and CoC enhancement ( ;D) vs movement and SO restrictions.
From past experience there are 2 main arguments against this change. They are:
- With such light downsides, why wouldn't you always squadron?
- Without the ability to protect ships in squadron you lose some tactics from the game
To the first argument my counter is that the most typical situation should be that cap ships form squadrons. They do in modern navies and I can't see why this isn't the norm. As far as I'm concerned lone wolf squadrons should be the exception.
To the second argument my counter is twofold. Firstly, tactical elements that do not make sense should not be added simply for the sake of it. We could say that only half your fleet could fire in any given turn and this would add a tactical element and alter our fleet selection criteria. It's just arbitrary and senseless. Secondly, by easily circumventing the weaknesses of some ships we actually remove some tactical depth from the game. Things become a bit more uniform and bland.
That about wraps it up, I'd like to hear what people think either positive or negative (particularly if there are other arguments against the idea I've not covered here). I know that some of the problems with the current squadron rules that I pointed out have been resolved (such as individual disengagement) but I included them anyway, because of the confusion that these rules have caused in the past and to highlight the problems inherent with the ruleset. One last note is that I would leave the old rules in place for escort squadrons. I think the original squadron rules were created with them in mind and suits them better, treating them pretty much as a single capital ship.
-
Hey,
the BFI per ship is a given. Without a doubt.
The Ld roll order you describe and consequences make sense. But doesn't this mean, it is still the highest Ld wins and in effect?
Targetting a ship in a squadron? That's good.
-
So, in your changes, squadroning would really just demand coherency with the benefit of using the highest ship's leadership for all orders besides BFI, which becomes an individual SO for each ship?
-
Hold on a sec. Because of the confusing way squadrons are written, in the latest version the entire section has been reworded, taking the newer rules into account. These are the proposed rules currently going through the editorial process for the next update of the rules:
Squadrons may be formed from any mix of capital ships, or Light Cruisers and Escorts.
Leadership is rolled for each capital ship, then squadrons are formed, then leadership is rolled for all the escorts in the squadron. The highest leadership is used for taking orders affecting the entire squadron.
All ships must stay in formation. If not in formation, none of the ships may take any special orders (not even BFI), and if not in formation at the end of the movement phase, any Lock On orders are cancelled. This is a heavy penalty for dropping out of formation. It also eliminates the assumption that just one ship will be out of formation in the official rules.
Capital ships may go on special orders individually, subject to the penalties of not remaining in formation. The squadron may take a command check using the highest leadership in the squadron (escorts ignored if cap ships present) to go on special orders as long as no vessel in the squadron is on special orders already, and this is the only way escorts can go on orders.
The shooting at/by squadrons remains largely the same, but reworded in places.
-
Iirc. in BFG:R I currently have that ships may BFI individually, however if one does so then the entire squadron cannot use special orders the next turn.
Also that squadrons not in coherency simply cannot use SO. Rather than just the stragglers.
Thanks for the post Sig! These are some good things to adress. Just a note, but Characters in squadrons should force you to use their leadership rating instead of the highest rating (I.e. fleet admiral LD8 in squadron with ld9 ships).
Terrain should be individual. So each ship would take an LD test on its own to go through asteroids, and take damage. They can still use comander re-rolls as normal. Similarly with navigating warp-storms.
radiation bursts should force squadrons to not use special orders.
hmmm.... that's all I can think of.
-
So, in your changes, squadroning would really just demand coherency with the benefit of using the highest ship's leadership for all orders besides BFI, which becomes an individual SO for each ship?
Not quite. I didn't provide an example, which I should have, because the post was already quite long. I'll provide an example now to clarify what I mean.
Suppose you have a squadron of 3 Devastations. You rolled 6, 3 and 1 for leadership, giving one with Ld 9, one with Ld 7 and the last with Ld 6. At the start of your turn you put the squadron on RO, rolling an 8. The ship with Ld 9 passes and so is reloaded (on RO orders), the other two ships fail, and so are not reloaded (and are not on orders). Since at least 1 ship from the squadron passed the test you may now choose another ship or squadron to issue orders to.
Using the above example, if there was an enemy ship on special orders then the Ld 7 ship would have passed its test also due to the +1 bonus and so would have also reloaded. Blast marker or gas/dust cloud penalties are issued to those ships actually in contact with them. If the squadron enters an asteroid field each ship rolls against its own leadership.
Using the same ships as in the above example, let's say the Ld 9 vessel comes under fire and elects to brace and passes its test. It alone is braced, and the other ships are not. On the following turn the Chaos player can elect to attempt to reload again. Let's say he does and rolls a 9 this time. The Ld 7 and Ld 6 vessels again fail their test. Normally the Ld 9 vessel would pass, but this time it's braced and so can't go on RO this turn. Thus no vessels pass the test and so the chain of command breaks down and the player can no longer issue orders.
-
Wouldn't it be easier to say squadron leadership is the highest leadership -1? To represent the problems of the weakest link as well as chain of command among "equals"
Should a capital ship in squadron have the option to leave the squadron? With say a leadership test? But once apart can never rejoin.
-
Wouldn't it be easier to say squadron leadership is the highest leadership -1? To represent the problems of the weakest link as well as chain of command among "equals"
Possibly easier, maybe. But not as good.
Should a capital ship in squadron have the option to leave the squadron? With say a leadership test? But once apart can never rejoin.
I've thought about this. My musings have been, "yes, but can't rejoin", "yes, but only if led by a purchased character", "yes, but only via the expenditure of a FC re-roll" and "no". I'm undecided between these myself.
-
I'm for targeting capital ships individually and BFI independently.
But the proposal for the way the leadership rolls will work is a problem. Squadroning is a way to mitigate bad Ld rolls. These new rules make it harder to RO, which is a big nerf to ordnance.
Also, what if only one cruiser passes one of the manouvering SO? Thats problematic.
Is using squadroning as a way to mitigate bad LD rolls a problem now? If its an issue, then I'd rather give every fleet a flat Ld rating.
-
All ships must stay in formation. If not in formation, none of the ships may take any special orders (not even BFI), and if not in formation at the end of the movement phase, any Lock On orders are cancelled. This is a heavy penalty for dropping out of formation. It also eliminates the assumption that just one ship will be out of formation in the official rules.
BFI should always be possible. It is dumb to not have this option for an out of formation ship.
In essence I think RcG version makes squadrons (aside of BFI) stronger.
I like Sig's idea more.
-
Hmmm...
This is how we have been playing...
Capital Ship Squadrons must be within 15cm of each other.
All orders go off the highest leadership in the squadron, and effects every ship in the squadron. (Including BFI)
You may shoot at any ship in a squadron, as long as you pass a leadership test to shoot at not the closest target
Shots do NOT carry over to other capital ships in the squadron.
When firing ships, you may combine fire from a squadron to shoot at the same target without having blast markers get in the way
So...This is how I was taught how to play the game, so is this wrong? It works pretty well to be honest as there are obvious down sides and obvious up sides to squadroning. If you make it so BFI only affects one ship, then there is basically NO downside to squadroning and that seems wrong. Squadroning must be a tactical decision, not something you do with every single capital ship you have just because there is no reason not to, so I am opposed to making BFI only affect one ship, and not the entire squadron. If you do that, just remove squadroning all together (Which would also be stupid)
-
I thought you couldn't target further ships if they are squadroned. And that hits do move on to the next closest in the squadron as long as theyre in range and arc.
Not that I remember those situations ever coming up in a game.
Tag has a point. If each ship can brace individually, then what is the point of not bracing? Usually only one or two ships take hits anyway. Just brace with them and fight back with the rest.
-
It has come up a couple of times recently, but I didn't think much of it and just assumed all the other shots went straight into that cruiser but since it was destroyed already they just blew up upon it's hull. It doesn't really make much sense that if you fire at one capital ship in a squadron, and it's destroyed the others automatically hit another does it? These ships are an absurd amount of distance apart, even at 15cm...so lining up a shot like that just seems impossible to me...
Does that make any sense?
-
@Tag
Yeah, they're not the official rules. In official rules hits spill over and you can't target individual ships within a squadron.
As for the argument that the entire squadron bracing = good because it provides a downside to forming squadrons I must say that I've encountered this argument before and found it extremely unconvincing. I don't think that people should be discouraged from forming squadrons. I don't buy the "downside must equal upside" argument. To me running lone wolf squadrons should be the exception. The tactical element should be in constructing your squadrons; their size and composition. The larger your squadrons the greater their hitting power but the less effective number of units you'll have and so less versatility.
However, the biggest problem with bracing the entire squadron isn't that it overly discourages forming squadrons (which it does) but rather that it's just stupid. So a wing of 8 bomber squadrons attacks your sister ship some 100,000 kms away, what do you do? Do you:
A) Do nothing, because there's nothing you can do but hope they come out of it alive
OR
B) Brace your ship, reducing your combat effectiveness, in a show of solidarity and sympathy.
Well?
@Phthisis
I, at least, think that there is a problem with the way leadership is currently handled. As it stands you can give a ship +3 leadership for free simply by forming up a Ld 6 ship with a Ld 9 ship. I don't think that this makes any sense. A poorly drilled/commanded ship should perform worse than a well drilled/commanded ship.
However, having said that, there has been some justification for allowing this in the past. That justification is the Chain of Command. To a degree the CoC idea makes sense. However, it should be split up. In other words, command responsibility should be delegated, at least in part, to subordinate officers. As it stands the fleet commander is relegated to micromanaging, making the penalty for failing a single leadership test too severe.
With this proposal the FC's plans only go awry if a squadron's commander reports catastrophic failure. Anything less than that is the squadron commander's problem to deal with.
All ships must stay in formation. If not in formation, none of the ships may take any special orders (not even BFI), and if not in formation at the end of the movement phase, any Lock On orders are cancelled. This is a heavy penalty for dropping out of formation. It also eliminates the assumption that just one ship will be out of formation in the official rules.
Being in squadron implies a ship's captain subverting his own judgement to that of his commanding officer, at least to a degree, hence the one SO for the entire squadron. However, if a captain is cut off from his squadron, I think he can be trusted to know when his ship is in for a pounding. Particularly if he's allowed to make that decision even when in formation.
Capital ships may go on special orders individually, subject to the penalties of not remaining in formation. The squadron may take a command check using the highest leadership in the squadron (escorts ignored if cap ships present) to go on special orders as long as no vessel in the squadron is on special orders already, and this is the only way escorts can go on orders.
Hang on, you say that cap ships may go on special orders individually but then say that you can't go on orders if there's another ship in the squadron on orders already? So if, for example, you had a squadron of 3 ships you would have the option of going on LO with them all or just one, but could not LO with one and RO another?
The shooting at/by squadrons remains largely the same, but reworded in places.
So you still have spill over hits and protected targets. Bad methinks.
-
Why not use the rules I have been playing with anyways that I thought were the regular rules lol...
There are tactical consequences to however you play it, and that's how I think it should be done.
Also...Spilling over shots and protecting ships is stupid, and that should get changed lol.
@Sigoroth
No offense, but the idea of making there no bad sides to squadroning up, dumbs down the game play way too much. This is a game of tactics, and removing another layer of those tactics just doesn't sit well with me. If you want to reap the benefits of being in a squadron (IE Orders, Leadership, and Combining firepower) you better be prepared to accept the fact that you may need to brace the squadron to save a ship.
As for if that makes sense...I can see it making sense. If your a captain and you know a salvo is coming in your vicinity and there are 2 other ships in your squadron...you won't know exactly who's about to get hit, so all ships may brace just in case that salvo is coming at your ship and not Captain Retard next to you. (IE...1000km away)
-
In the rules currently under proposal:
Upsides:
Ships may combine firepower.
Ships may take one command check for the entire squadron to go on the same SO, using highest character's leadership value, else highest capital ship, else escorts own.
Ships may still go on special orders individually using their own leadership.
Ships cannot be targeted individually - this to prevent a formation being picked apart by strategic shots.
Downsides:
Formation must be maintained. No ship in the squadron may take any orders whatsoever, not even BFI, if the ship is not currently in formation, and any Lock-On orders are cancelled if the ships lose formation during the movement phase. (significant new penalties)
If any ship goes on SO unilaterally, the squadron may not take SO as a whole, negating all the squadron's leadership/Command Check benefits to other ships.
Hits spill over. Necessary mechanic for firing at escorts, and arguable for any formation of ships moving coherently together.
Larger formations are more unwieldy than individual units.
I'd say there are still significant drawbacks to squadroning your vessels. But these can be modified slightly.
-
Why should individual ships not be targetable individually? Especially if I can pick apart the ships with strategic shot? If it's a problem with formation then just put in a rule requiring them to get into coherency as much as they can. Real life wise, it would means forward ships would maintain speed while the ships behind try to catch up.
And why should hits just spill over? If a ship not in B2B with another ship is being targeted, I would think that ship should be the one receiving all the fire. Now if both ships are in B2B then the spill over would happen as the shots are too close. Primary ship would still receive the shots and the shots missing the primary target would now be re-rolled on the ship in B2B.
-
Not being able to target and the spill over rules are stupid (ONLY in regards to capital ships. Escorts need to have the spill over rule). I understand that these are the actual rules, and that my point of view is biased since I have never played with those, but just thinking of playing that way seems lame.
While we are at it...I think failing a SO should only affect that squadron, and not the entire fleet, it kind of makes sense but in reality in a game of this sort of scale, if one ship is too retarded to reload it's ordnance, why does that affect a ship on the other end of the solar system?
Edit...Realized why I never thought of it that way with Capital ships is because in all the examples they only reference escorts lol
-
Spill over ain't cool. Admiral said it well.
Target individually = should be allowed.
BFI individual allowed (come on, that's common sense).
-
It makes perfect and obvious sense, but not from a game balance stand point.
-
Even with escorts, they shouldn't be hit with spillover.
-
The reason this section has been rewritten was primarily to tidy things up and make compatible with the concept of mixed squadrons, as well as to allow BFI individually. When the ramifications of a ship going on a SO individually were thought through, it was found to be at significant detriment to the squadron as a whole, hence the allowance of any SO. If one capital ship in the squadron needs to CTNH to avoid losing formation, then the rest of the squadron will be unable to do what it needs to do, such as reload or lock on. These changes were to make the rules more flexible, not to fundamentalyl change how they work.
Changing the way targeting and hits spilling over work does fundamentally change the core rules. The official rules operate this way already. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't do this, but these are changes of a different magnitude to just allowing any squadron composition or ships to go on SO unilaterally.
@Admiral: That would be a significant buff to escorts.
-
Pretty cool for the escorts. But I have to consider impact.
-
I would love that escort bit ^_^ My all escort fleets wouldnt be so fail then. Ever seen 24 cobra's launching torps at a cruiser? Its not pretty at all....
-
No spill over on Escorts is probably the worst idea EVER.
I hope you are joking Admiral because if not, you really have no concept of any sort of game balance then.
-
And having to split fire and designate amounts of WB fire firing at which specific escort would make for a whole bunch more rolling, confusion, and longer games. I think the idea of being able to target specific cruisers would be a good change but I don't think it would be a good idea to have to specifically target each escort.
-
Taggerung, do you use escorts?
Afterimagedan, you?
-
I do yes...half my ork fleet is escorts. With my Imperial fleet, not so much, a squad or 2 of escorts thats it.
If these were the rules there would be no reason to not just spam Ork Ravagers since they could never all be stopped...or even an entire fleet of Ram ships.
Do you use escorts Horizon?
-
1500pts
9 in my renegade Chaos fleet.
9 in my IN fleet (never played them, its new & fresh)
6 in AdMech
8-10 in Tau fleet (depends on the re-roll wish or not)
15 Corsair Eldar
2-4 Craftworld Eldar (option depending)
My RT fleet will feature a lot as well.
So do I use them? YES! They are tricksy to use but can be game winners.
Never leave without them imo.
Keep in mind that spill overs are not done. But individual targetting is and splittig fire power has always been an option.
But yes, it could lead to more rolling and keeping better in check what is fired.
That's why I said consideration.
-
Yea I think they are great, and even with spill over can be great.
-
No spill over on Escorts is probably the worst idea EVER.
I hope you are joking Admiral because if not, you really have no concept of any sort of game balance then.
No, I am not joking. Yes, I do bring escorts. My IN brings at least 2 3-ship escort depending on the game size. Bigger games, those 2 squadrons go max. No concept of game balance? Why would no spill over on escorts affect game balance?
Because of this line of yours: "If these were the rules there would be no reason to not just spam Ork Ravagers since they could never all be stopped...or even an entire fleet of Ram ships." Solution, bring escorts of your own. Then maybe we'll actually see more of them on the table.
As for 24 escorts shooting torps at a cruiser, that is what would happen if you decide to not bring escorts or anything to deal with them in the first place.
I do not see a reason why one would have one rule for cap ships and another for escorts. I already included a way for spillover to happen. When ships are in B2B because they're in a small tight area. Anything more than that and spillover shouldn''t be happening.
Spillover on escorts are a big disadvantage for escorts, would make people think "why should I bring them when a couple of WB shots can kill them with spillover so might as well bring mostly cruisers?" which makes a player take less of them and perpetuate the bringing of cap ships (unless a race is escort dependent like Eldar, Orks and Nids). Makes a player "lazy" in the sense they do not bring escorts and rely on the resilience of cap ships and spillover to handle the escorts.
So spam away your Ravagers if you want. Hell, that IS what Orks are supposed to be. An escort heavy fleet. Doesn't mean you can't lose. Heck from your statement, spillover is the one keeping you from taking these kinds of lists which means you're being limited. Wouldn't it be better that you can bring these kinds of lists?
I do quite know about the concept of game balance, thank you. I understand the concept of 1 target, 1 kill and not 1 target, kill X more targets, not unless one is using AoE weapons and the WBs even with their description, aren't really true AoE weapons. They still fire at a specific area defined as the base of a target. Why would something a couple of cm away be affected unless it is an AoE weapon like an NC or AG? I play Warmachine-Hordes, a more cutthroat game rules-wise yet more tactically challenging than BFG. Whether one plays jack/beast heavy or infantry heavy, everything is viable. The same should be the case here. All the factions should have viable reasons to bring cap ship heavy, balanced or escort heavy and be reasonably expected to have a chance to win.
You want to kill more than 1 target with 1 cap ship, split fire. Other methods are use AC, use torps and especially, use more escorts.
So before you accuse someone of not having an inkling about game balance, look at yourself in the mirror first and see if you understand the same concept.
-
Oh I do understand the concept. An all escort fleet would be impossible to stop with your rules.
No ifs, ands or buts...An escort fleet would completely destroy ANY other fleet besides another escort fleet. There would be no way to stop it. It doesn't matter if you split up fire power because at most you are getting 1-2 dice per escort, and then you have to hit with both dice.
Why would no spill over on escorts affect game balance?
Wow...just wow. Do you play this game?
Because of this line of yours: "If these were the rules there would be no reason to not just spam Ork Ravagers since they could never all be stopped...or even an entire fleet of Ram ships." Solution, bring escorts of your own. Then maybe we'll actually see more of them on the table.
Escorts are already very good, and I always have great success with them, and they really do not need a buff to the point where they are unstoppable. Nor would I want to be forced into taking nothing but escorts. They are there to assist the main part of your fleet (IE the cruisers)
/facepalm at your entire post.
-
Oh I do understand the concept. An all escort fleet would be impossible to stop with your rules.
No ifs, ands or buts...An escort fleet would completely destroy ANY other fleet besides another escort fleet. There would be no way to stop it. It doesn't matter if you split up fire power because at most you are getting 1-2 dice per escort, and then you have to hit with both dice.
So again, bring a couple of escorts yourselves. Maybe it will destroy any other fleet, maybe it won't. You won't know until you've tried it. If it really turns out to be that bad then things can be adjusted further but without actual hard evidence other than "theorygothic", it would be hard to make positive changes. You have a good gaming group there. So try it out and see first. Look at ways to add some built in safeguards. At least, it now comes with actual results.
Worst case scenario, put a cap on the number of escorts though I don't like caps and I'd like the all escort fleet to be as viable as the all cap fleet. Another would be command checks penalties, both SO and leadership, once the escorts in one squadron have been brought down to 50% or less or some other disadvantage which is logical. Penalties which can also be applied to the cap ship squadron.
Why would no spill over on escorts affect game balance?
Wow...just wow. Do you play this game?
Yeah I do, thank you. Other than throwing out comments which create hostility however, why not debate about it? Then maybe a proper ruleset satisfying both parties can be achieved.
Escorts are already very good, and I always have great success with them, and they really do not need a buff to the point where they are unstoppable. Nor would I want to be forced into taking nothing but escorts. They are there to assist the main part of your fleet (IE the cruisers)
/facepalm at your entire post.
Facepalm away. Sorry but I don't like the "lazy" way to deal with them. Still doesn't change the fact that spillovers have rarely, if ever, happened in real life combat or fluff. "I fire at the ship to the left and I kill it and actually also killed the ship to the right! Well, hot diggity damn! Am I good or not?!" Yes, this is a game where one can make rules but really to have one ruleset for Cap ships and another for Escorts, that's the facepalm.
-
To further add, Horizon knows about this, but Volandum (sp?) has a nasty all Nightshade list already. So nasty that even with spillovers, I don't think it would be enough to take them out easily. Now these are Eldar which are pretty hard to take down but I don't think an all Ravager or Brute Ram list with their 6+ prow would be easily taken down as well as long as the player positions them correctly. But even then 1,500 points of Brutes translates to 60 Brutes. Again spillovers will not be able to finish them off before the second wave crashes into the 10 or so cap ships of the enemy fleet.
Another example would be 50 Cobras firing Str 2 torp salvos. Something not to be discounted or 30 or so Firestorms firing 30 lances. Not as bad but will still hurt and again spillovers will not take them down easily. Or imagine the deadliest lance escort, the Hemlocks which can do much, much better than the Firestorm.
So the problem of an all Escort list exists already, just that no one does it regularly (except maybe Eldar, though I have heard about Ork escort lists as well as the Cobra) and while it is true my suggestion giving them a boost as well, this is where discussion would come in as to how to help address the problem of a massed all escort list. It might require another thread or we can still discuss the solution in this thread on a squadron level since I would prefer to only have 1 rule for both cap and escort ship squadrons.
-
So if there is already a problem, its okay to make it worse because its already a problem? ???
Im not a fan of your 'logic'.
-
There is a problem, find a solution. At the same time streamline the rules. I really do not see why there should be one squadron ruleset for Cap Ships and one for Escort.
-
I do like the non-spillover idea, unless they are in btb
Ordnance boats want to be in btb. Being in BTB is more dangerous. Therefore a balance. As well as being in BTB makes you more resistant to ordnance but not direct-fire weapons... interesting...
As well there is another side of this. Iirc... (depending on how it's worded) squadrons must combine fire, and may only split to one other target. Therefore a squadron of cruisers would have a major disadvantage against squadrons of escorts. As they could only annihilate 2 escorts, a measly 60-100 pts. Whereas the escorts could potentially kill a cruiser without wasting firepower.
food for thought!
-
If a round of shooting was one shot, spillover would be a bad idea. But since a turn is a couple hours or so, its reasonable that they would stop shooting a dead ship and move onto the next one.
-
@RCG
I think that the method you've described is at once too harsh (you get one straggler and the rest of the squadron is paralysed?) and convoluted (wait, what ships can go on what orders again?) and doesn't address the two biggest issues with capital ship squadrons: targeting and spill-over.
@Admiral
Escort squadrons should simply be treated as a single capital ship. You don't role leadership for each escort do you? When they fail a Ld test for traversing an asteroid field you don't apply d6 hits to each escort do you?
The fact is that escorts are treated fundamentally differently to capital ships. This is fine. Problems arise however when the squadron rules which work perfectly well for escorts are applied to capital ships. The solution then is to treat them differently, which isn't any great stretch, since the rules already do.
@Tag
I agree that the inability to target individual cap ships in a squadron and spill-over hits are absurd. However, I do not agree that the tactics of the game will be dumbed down.
If you want to reap the benefits of being in a squadron (IE Orders, Leadership, and Combining firepower) you better be prepared to accept the fact that you may need to brace the squadron to save a ship.
Why? I understand the concept of a trade-off, but this seems to be a trade-off for the sake of making a trade-off. If forming squadrons were the norm then you wouldn't lose a tactical element, it would simply be shifted. Since everyone has squadrons then the tactical element would be their size, composition and use. Ie, when do you take a Lone Wolf? Should I break my 4 Lunars down into 2 squadrons to gain versatility? Etc.
As for if that makes sense...I can see it making sense. If your a captain and you know a salvo is coming in your vicinity and there are 2 other ships in your squadron...you won't know exactly who's about to get hit, so all ships may brace just in case that salvo is coming at your ship and not Captain Retard next to you. (IE...1000km away)
Well, 1000 km away would put the ships on top of one another, as that's 1cm on the board. 100,000 kms away is 10cm. Also, I don't see why being in squadron would have any effect on a captain's decision to brace. For example, let's say that the Admiral forms up his fleet all in a line, each ship 100,000 kms apart from the next, on the same plane, facing the same direction, in a perfect line. All ships operating as "lone wolf" squadrons. Incoming fire against 1 ship, 1 ship braces. Now consider the exact same formation but ships operate in squadrons of 3. Incoming fire against 1 ship, 3 ships brace. What?
@All
Also, I don't quite know why a Ld 6 ship should get a +3 Ld bump simply by being in squadron with a Ld 9 ship. With this proposal the biggest advantage to forming up squadrons comes not from giving one or two ships a tremendous Ld boost, but rather by mitigating the problems such poor Ld cause the FC. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that ships shouldn't get Ld boosts like this. But to counter the CoC bonus there is the penalty of only being able to issue one blanket order (RO, LO, AAF, etc), so there are balances.
I also thought of a possible use for special characters using this system. You could for, say, 30 pts, buy a captain (Chaos Lord, what have you) that would act as a mini-FC for a squadron. That is, it would allow each ship in a squadron to use different orders (at own Ld of course) and after the first time you fail an order with a ship in that squadron you cannot issue further orders to other ships in that squadron for that turn.
For example, say you have a squadron of 4 Lunars. One is positioned well and you'd like to LO (Ld 7), but 2 will need to turn so you decide to RO (Ld 9 & 6) and the last is pointed in the wrong direction so will need to CTNH (Ld 8) to maintain formation for next turn. You choose to RO first, rolling a 7 (1 passes, 1 fails, CoC satisfied) then you decided to LO the one ship, rolling an 8 and failing (CoC broken). Now you can't CTNH the final ship and it will inevitably fall out of formation next turn. You douche, you should've rolled the CTNH first!
Anyway, that's just an ancillary thought though.
P.S. - this idea would reduce the effectiveness of ordnance, since this is very Ld dependent and the current method of dealing with this is simply to boost their Ld by squadroning with a high Ld ship.
-
If a round of shooting was one shot, spillover would be a bad idea. But since a turn is a couple hours or so, its reasonable that they would stop shooting a dead ship and move onto the next one.
Then why isn't this equally reasonable when the targets aren't in a squadron?
-
@Sigoroth
If they don't all brace, then the bare minimum I will agree with is that the other ships in the squadron cannot go on any other special order. Though they themselves are not braced. Seem reasonable?
And yes I do agree that one ship forcing the others to brace isn't logical from a fluff point of view lol, I was never arguing that. This is purely from a game balance stand point.
-
I imagine that it would be hard to detect when exactly a ship is dead, as the vessels would be firing a lot of hot plasma/lasers/debris in the enemies direction, and likely receiving such as well.
They would probably require a third party to function as a spotter to determine the destruction of a vessel. Although logic isn't so much a part of any tabletop wargame. If it were we would have far more difficulties on our hands.
-
@Sigoroth
If they don't all brace, then the bare minimum I will agree with is that the other ships in the squadron cannot go on any other special order. Though they themselves are not braced. Seem reasonable?
And yes I do agree that one ship forcing the others to brace isn't logical from a fluff point of view lol, I was never arguing that. This is purely from a game balance stand point.
Well, to be honest, no it doesn't seem reasonable. I'm not trying to be a dick, and I know you're looking for a compromise, but it just doesn't seem a "reasonable" stance, by definition. It seems arbitrary and forced. I don't think that the game demands balance between squadroning and not squadroning. If forming squadrons were a special rule available only to certain fleets then yes, I could see some game balance issues. At the moment I think that "balance" merely means a contrived way to make the player feel angst about what to do. To force a decision.
I don't think that there will be any fewer decisions to be made with this change, though maybe the player will feel better about them or rather feel that his decisions were more tactical in nature as opposed to being forced by some outside element. For example, players often feel forced to form squadrons of carriers, and relatively free to not do so with gunships. Carriers get considerably greater benefit from forming squadrons and these benefits finally outweigh the tremendous disadvantages inherent to doing so and as such people feel inclined to do so. Likewise in larger points games the penalty for Chain of Command breakdowns and the value of conserving re-rolls (combined with increasing cost of subsequent re-rolls) becomes such that forming squadrons of gunships finally outweighs the downsides.
The extreme differential valuation of squadrons for carriers compared to gunships is silly I think, and their increased value at larger points values is also a little bit off. That is to say, I think that they should, of course, be more valuable in larger games, but it's silly that the downsides to squadrons become forced rather than a trade-off.
-
Well as it sits, I won't play with the rules proposed so far. They change the game mechanic too much and dumb it down far too much.
-
Well as it sits, I won't play with the rules proposed so far. They change the game mechanic too much and dumb it down far too much.
I agree that it changes the game mechanic considerably. I disagree that it dumbs the game down too much, or even at all.
-
This....
If a round of shooting was one shot, spillover would be a bad idea. But since a turn is a couple hours or so, its reasonable that they would stop shooting a dead ship and move onto the next one.
Agree completely.
-
Wrong.
A players turn is about 15 minutes.
Who ever said it was hours?
-
Whoever said it was 15 minutes?
-
Andy Chambers.
-
Horizon has win here! Actually I thought it was 30, but maybe that's Rogue Trader.
-
And where does it say this? If it's not in print this is all just hear say.
-
http://www.redstargames.net/retrospektiv.html
Deep Space Combat has a bit.
I am searching the part where it says 15minutes but I am kinda upset you are not believing it from me.
:(
;)
-
Ha!
Got it.
http://www.wolfedengames.com/battlefleetgothic/scale.htm
Andy Chambers
Scale in Battlefleet Gothic
by Andy Chambers
I'm not sure if I've talked about scale before but here goes anyway. BFG works around an approximate scale of 1cm=1000KM for the planets and other tabletop features. Obviously this means the ship models are massively out of scale, an Imperial cruiser is NOT 9000KM+ long! The scale is basically there as a rule of thumb and I didn't worry about it too much when it came down to setting weapon ranges, ship speeds and so on. These were all done to create the right impression of distance on the tabletop. For example 60cm 'feels' like a long way and 30cm doesn't, the weapon ranges aren't defined by some pseudo-science calaculation of the energy dissipation rate of lasers (fairly obviously ) but to create an interaction between the (massively out of scale) models on the tabletop.
The more interesting question is perhaps how long is a turn, and that one I don't know the answer too - I'd guess somewhere between 15 minutes and an hour (quite likely telescoping so that at long range a turn is an hour but by the time you're within 15 cm its 15 minutes). This would make an attack craft capable of moving 30cm per ordnance phase capable of doing approximately 30-120,000 km/h. I've got no idea if this is realistic for starfighter speeds, or unfeasibly fast, incredibly slow or what , perhaps someone on the list could enlighten us all on this front (don't just tell us what it says it the Star Wars technical manual though!).
:)
-
Ok cool, I was really just looking for a definitive statement is all. Makes sense it's all telescopic since that makes more sense.
-
I'm so far in agreement with Taggerung. The rules so far in BFG:R are simply an evolution of the current rules that allows for mixed cap ship/escort squadrons and individual special orders. The proposals being thrown about here are a fundamental change, and I'd like to err on the side of caution for now.
There's only one ship I can think of at the moment that would really abuse the inability to target it directly, and that's the Avenger thanks to its strong linebreaking ability and lack of vulnerability from any other angle. Both the 5+ prow BBs are too slow/marginal as gunships to abuse it, the Vengeance/Exorcist are priced high enough for it not to matter, and the 5+ light cruisers are comparatively easy to attack from other angles.
Also,
@RCG
I think that the method you've described is at once too harsh (you get one straggler and the rest of the squadron is paralysed?) and convoluted (wait, what ships can go on what orders again?) and doesn't address the two biggest issues with capital ship squadrons: targeting and spill-over.
A line of five ships has the centre ship destroyed, dropping it out of formation in two groups. Define 'the rest of the squadron.' This is a significant difficulty in the official rules which effectively forces the penalty to apply to all ships.
I don't think it's convoluted at all. A ship can go on any orders it likes, but not two at once. This means that if any ship in the squadron is on orders, the squadron as a whole may not go on orders and vice versa.
-
If you do evolution just take official rules and allow BFI per individual ships.
Done.
-
If BFI per ship is allowed there MUST be a reason to not squadron your ships! If so it gets rid of a tactical decision and dumbs it down!
Either brace the entire squadron OR disallow special orders for the other ships the next turn while the ship on BFI is still braced.
-
The 15cm is a big restriction to me and my playstyle.
-
If BFI per ship is allowed there MUST be a reason to not squadron your ships! If so it gets rid of a tactical decision and dumbs it down!
Either brace the entire squadron OR disallow special orders for the other ships the next turn while the ship on BFI is still braced.
`
That is what I currently have. Ships may BFI individually, but the squadron may not use SO the next turn (but don't have their FP halved!).
-
The 15cm is a big restriction to me and my playstyle.
What? I've never had issues with it. Then again I don't play Eldar.
Playing Orks is like throwing a brick at your enemies face.
-
I like falling out of formation. :)
With Tau, AdMech, Chaos, etc all of them!
-
@Plaxor
I can live with that system. It makes more sense anyways, and doesn't make squadroning an automatic thing to do.
Good analogy lol
Also...15cm isn't a big deal, even for Eldar lol, then again squadroning Eldar always worked out to be a bad idea.
-
Also...15cm isn't a big deal, even for Eldar lol, then again squadroning Eldar always worked out to be a bad idea.
I know! They have the high leadership and fewer vessels so they really don't need to.
-
Well, squadroning Eldar is kinda ... ehm...odd.
However consider a squadron of Void Dragon (Flame) + Wraithship.
As long as individual targetting is not allowed the Wraithship is great ablative armour. :)
-
As long as individual targetting is not allowed the Wraithship is great ablative armour. :)
Wraithships have another function?
-
eh... Snipers, hunters... 2 pulsar/4 torps
On a fast moving manouevrable hull with 6 hits.
Cool!
-
A line of five ships has the centre ship destroyed, dropping it out of formation in two groups. Define 'the rest of the squadron.' This is a significant difficulty in the official rules which effectively forces the penalty to apply to all ships.
The one with the squadron leader of course. This is either the one with the character, or, if no character, the one with the highest leadership. Or whichever one the controlling player nominates in case of a tie. This makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is some stragglers stopping the rest of the squadron from going on orders. Hell, a case could even be put forward for the stragglers to go on orders (potentially different from the rest of the squadron) to get back into formation. Picture something akin to the Nid instinctive behaviour table.
I don't think it's convoluted at all. A ship can go on any orders it likes, but not two at once. This means that if any ship in the squadron is on orders, the squadron as a whole may not go on orders and vice versa.
This is still confusing. How does one relate to the other? OK, so a ship can't be on two orders at once. Fine. But why can't one ship in the squadron be on BFI while the rest, say, reload? That's not 2 orders at once.
If BFI per ship is allowed there MUST be a reason to not squadron your ships! If so it gets rid of a tactical decision and dumbs it down!
Why MUST there be a reason to not squadron? Why do we need a nonsensical tactical decision? If you want that then how about we put in a rule for Tag and all like him that only half your ships can fire direct fire weaponry per turn. Hmm, which ones will you fire? Maybe you'll take more ordnance ships. Maybe you'll feel more free to brace gunships rather than carriers. Feel the tactical depth. Absurd.
What dumbs the game down is abstract sweeping and nonsensical rubbish such as not being able to target a 5 km long BB 30,000 kms away because there's a 1km long escort 29,500 kms away from you and 150,000 kms away from your intended target. This is dumb. I don't see you arguing that this particular piece of crapness should remain, even though it adds a tactical layer.
Squadrons should be the norm of the game. The discussions should not be centred around "should I form squadrons?" but rather, "how should I form my squadrons?".
-
Squadrons should be the norm of the game. The discussions should not be centred around "should I form squadrons?" but rather, "how should I form my squadrons?".
The line is good & catchy though I have to ask (bold part): Why?
Under 1000pts. If I field 2-3 cruisers I find squadroning somewhat silly. ;)
Squadroning should/could be considered from 1500pts and upwards.
-
To solve the escort problem without spillover being used you can do several things.
Tone down their weapons, I dont like this one.
Allow limited spilliage within certain radius, IE the base to base already stated previously.
Limit the number of escorts to pair up with capital ships in your list. IE per single Cruiser you can bring 5 escorts, or something else along these lines. Thus encouraging the use of both Caps and Escorts. Or you could use squadron's as the limiter instead, 2 escort squadrons per capital ship. Thus if you wanted to take only odd numbers to take advantage of the cripple rules taking sqaudrons of 3 would be less advantagous then taking squadrons of 6 in this case if you wanted more bang for your buck.
Maybe require them to be so close before they get to combine fire? For lances this wont affect much, but for WB's it sure will. And torps alraedy have to be B2B so there shouldnt be any adjustment there.
And lastly Use any combination of the above as it applies to the race specific escorts.
-
A line of five ships has the centre ship destroyed, dropping it out of formation in two groups. Define 'the rest of the squadron.' This is a significant difficulty in the official rules which effectively forces the penalty to apply to all ships.
The one with the squadron leader of course. This is either the one with the character, or, if no character, the one with the highest leadership. Or whichever one the controlling player nominates in case of a tie. This makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is some stragglers stopping the rest of the squadron from going on orders. Hell, a case could even be put forward for the stragglers to go on orders (potentially different from the rest of the squadron) to get back into formation. Picture something akin to the Nid instinctive behaviour table.
I don't think it's convoluted at all. A ship can go on any orders it likes, but not two at once. This means that if any ship in the squadron is on orders, the squadron as a whole may not go on orders and vice versa.
This is still confusing. How does one relate to the other? OK, so a ship can't be on two orders at once. Fine. But why can't one ship in the squadron be on BFI while the rest, say, reload? That's not 2 orders at once.
If BFI per ship is allowed there MUST be a reason to not squadron your ships! If so it gets rid of a tactical decision and dumbs it down!
Why MUST there be a reason to not squadron? Why do we need a nonsensical tactical decision? If you want that then how about we put in a rule for Tag and all like him that only half your ships can fire direct fire weaponry per turn. Hmm, which ones will you fire? Maybe you'll take more ordnance ships. Maybe you'll feel more free to brace gunships rather than carriers. Feel the tactical depth. Absurd.
What dumbs the game down is abstract sweeping and nonsensical rubbish such as not being able to target a 5 km long BB 30,000 kms away because there's a 1km long escort 29,500 kms away from you and 150,000 kms away from your intended target. This is dumb. I don't see you arguing that this particular piece of crapness should remain, even though it adds a tactical layer.
Squadrons should be the norm of the game. The discussions should not be centred around "should I form squadrons?" but rather, "how should I form my squadrons?".
What dumbs the game down is abstract sweeping and nonsensical rubbish such as not being able to target a 5 km long BB 30,000 kms away because there's a 1km long escort 29,500 kms away from you and 150,000 kms away from your intended target. This is dumb. I don't see you arguing that this particular piece of crapness should remain, even though it adds a tactical layer.
I already said that you should be able to target any ship you wish as long as you pass a leadership test. This is how I have been playing the game the entire time anyways. Go back and read my proposed rules.
Why MUST there be a downside? Because that's how the game was intended and in any game there should be an upside and downside to ANY decision you make! When you are making your fleet, how you build it has it's inherit weaknesses and strengths, same with different fleets. As with upgrades for vessels, nothing should be "Oh well this is infinitely better so why shouldn't I take it!", NOTHING in this game should be a no brainer "Derp how am I going to make my squadrons up herp" decision. IN ANY GAME THAT WAS ANY GOOD there is always a consequence to your decisions, and depending on how you play them out will show if it's a good one.
This is a game about Space Fleets, not a game about Squadrons. Squadrons are a part of the game, and NOT the game.
So, this is how I plan on playing the game...
SO affects everyone in the squadron
BFI only affects that ship, however rest of the squadron cannot go on other orders
Spill over for any type of squadron (Still dumb for capital ships but whatever)
Leadership tests to target specific ships. None of this hiding good ships behind shitty ships (Doesn't make any sense anyways)
(Rule test needed here) Only ships that are within 30 cm of a ship that fails a special order are not allowed to try a special order...doesn't make much sense that a ship across the solar system can't reload ordnance just because one other crew is too stupid to figure it out themselves.
-
Eldar (official) MSM was intended as well and it is crap. ;)
-
I don't think it's crap lol...I have a good record both against and with them.
-
That is not the point if you have good record. MSM rules are crap. They are unfluffy, unbalanced (underpowered AND overpowered).
Ahem... lets no hijack this.
-
Im on board with Tag. Seems like this is how we will play here.
One thing though. Perhaps the failed SO disallowing further SOs needs to be tossed out the window, even inside 30cms. How many times has that screwed poor Jim over? Its even harsher on low LD fleets like Orks. I don't see why if one squadron can't get it together the whole fleet shuts down. The LD boost from squadroning is enough of a benefit.
-
Characters will allow the squadron they're in to continue to roll special orders as long as the failed special order wasn't part of the squadron.
-
Characters as in fleet admirals or warbosses? Not special ship characters I hope.
-
Secondary commanders: veteran captains, warbosses etc.
-
That would be a nice change. Give reason to take the secondary captains for sure.
-
Good idea.
-
Squadrons should be the norm of the game. The discussions should not be centred around "should I form squadrons?" but rather, "how should I form my squadrons?".
The line is good & catchy though I have to ask (bold part): Why?
Under 1000pts. If I field 2-3 cruisers I find squadroning somewhat silly. ;)
Squadroning should/could be considered from 1500pts and upwards.
Cruisers do form in minimum of 2 ships so I don't see a problem with 2-3 ships squadroning in below 1k point matches. And Sig is correct. Squadrons should be the norm rather than the exception.
-
Spill over for any type of squadron (Still dumb for capital ships but whatever)
Most definitely dumb esp if only done so to preserve the spillover on escorts. Bryantroy has provided good examples on how to solve the no spillover on escort problem. Am sure there are others.
-
Squadrons should be the norm of the game. The discussions should not be centred around "should I form squadrons?" but rather, "how should I form my squadrons?".
The line is good & catchy though I have to ask (bold part): Why?
Because that's what makes sense. It's how modern navies operate. Because the downside to forming squadrons is contrived and absurd.
I already said that you should be able to target any ship you wish as long as you pass a leadership test. This is how I have been playing the game the entire time anyways. Go back and read my proposed rules.
Le sigh. My point just flew right over your head. Being unable to target individual cap ships in a squadron was stupid and unrealistic. Spill over hits was stupid and abstract. Having to brace the entire squadron is stupid and unrealistic and contrived. Yet you only disagree with 2 of those 3. Why are the first 2 wrong and the last one not? Because that's simply how you've been playing it all along? You're willing to let go of those particular rules, removing a tactical layer from the game, but removing sympathetic bracing is too radical?
Why MUST there be a downside? Because that's how the game was intended and in any game there should be an upside and downside to ANY decision you make! When you are making your fleet, how you build it has it's inherit weaknesses and strengths, same with different fleets. As with upgrades for vessels, nothing should be "Oh well this is infinitely better so why shouldn't I take it!", NOTHING in this game should be a no brainer "Derp how am I going to make my squadrons up herp" decision. IN ANY GAME THAT WAS ANY GOOD there is always a consequence to your decisions, and depending on how you play them out will show if it's a good one.
OK, this ^ is retarded. You could bring in any form of arbitrary rule with a trade-off you want and justify it with this argument. It's a no-brainer that we spend points on buying ships. Want to throw in a trade-off for doing that? OK, your opponent automatically gets 50% VPs of any ship you field. Now there's an incentive to not spending your points on ships. Trade-off. Win.
This is a game about Space Fleets, not a game about Squadrons. Squadrons are a part of the game, and NOT the game.
Er, fleets are made up of squadrons. They aren't made up of a multitude of individual ships operating independently.
So, this is how I plan on playing the game...
SO affects everyone in the squadron
BFI only affects that ship, however rest of the squadron cannot go on other orders
Why can't they?
Spill over for any type of squadron (Still dumb for capital ships but whatever)
Leadership tests to target specific ships. None of this hiding good ships behind shitty ships (Doesn't make any sense anyways)
Ah, but it adds a tactical layer to the game. It's one of the trade-off abilities of squadrons. This is good isn't it? Why does sense come into it now?
I don't mind you or others objecting to my idea. There have been some decent alternatives put forward. But you have elected to respond with the 2 arguments that I raised and countered in the original post, while adding nothing new to it. I feel bound to point out the rather large inconsistency in your thinking.
-
If its not broke....
I think Tag and I are looking at this as a game with cool fluff. Sig, you may be looking at this as more of a 40k spacefleet simulator in this respect.
I'm willing to sacrifice some realism and common sense for playability and ease, within reason. So far tthe proposal strips the biggest advantaged and disadvantages of squadroning. So why squadron?
Besides, in real life squadroning is done because its too hard to try and issue orders to every ship in a battle. Your proposal mitigates the leadership advantage of squadroning, doesn't it?
-
Sigoroth,
Lol, you shouldn't have even posted. You never do anything but say "You're idea's are stupid". You're just a douchebag, but we all already knew that, so thanks for once again showing us all again.
I'm done even responding to you, you honestly never have anything good to contribute.
-
Oh, the fun is high again.
-
Hey, play nice.
As far as squadrons go, we already implimented a few changes from the original rules. Mainly that secondary commanders (chaos lords, warbosses etc.) can still make command checks after one is failed for their squadron.
BFI may be taken individually, but orders may not be performed next turn by the squadron.
Things I need to add
Squadron interactions with terrain.
Some coherency restrictions/definitions
Considering
It is LIKELY that I will be implementing individual targeting for all types of squadrons.
I am considering making it so you can only hit one vessel unless the ships are in BTB. However I worry how this will affect balance. It might be possible that the game would be dominated by smaller vessels, such as Iconoclast fleets.
Perhaps there could be some system where vessels made a leadership check to 'count' their overflow hits on the next-nearest vessel in the squadron.
On that note; squadron command checks. I know that the most common reason to squadron cruisers is as a boost to LD. I do like Sig's system, however I would like to see it as so;
Ships in a squadron always consider their leadership as at least the value of any primary/secondary commanders in the squadron.
-
I am considering making it so you can only hit one vessel unless the ships are in BTB. However I worry how this will affect balance. It might be possible that the game would be dominated by smaller vessels, such as Iconoclast fleets.
Nothing but Escort fleets...because they will be unstoppable by anything other than an escort fleet...
-
I really do think there should be carry-over hits for escorts. This is one of those changes that, I believe, would really turn people away from BFG:R. It would be one of those talked about things like, "BFG:R has all sorts of new ships and great revisions except it has this one rule that really makes me not want to use it." "Do you use BFG:R rules?" "Nah, no spillover." "You mean, if I shoot my awesome new better rules Retribution at this Sword squad, I can only kill one? All that firepower for ONE?!"
-
IF BFG:R sees many fans? I am not sure. I think people will pick the parts they like.
"You mean, if I shoot my awesome new better rules Retribution at this Sword squad, I can only kill one? All that firepower for ONE?!"
SPLIT WEAPON FIRE!
So 3 shots on escort 1, next 3 on nr 2 etc etc
Tag/aid,
you can split fire, so you can simulate 'spill-over' you just have to think about it.
But in that light, as you can split, spill over would make only a very slight difference.
Why?
Because of blastmarkers in between. With spillover the 2nd escort has no protection from blastmarkers. Without spillover it has.
So, a very small increase in protection only!
But staggered dice rolls instead of one roll with many dice.
-
Or you space them out so blast markers don't hit more than 1...which is super easy to do.
Your example only affects escorts in B2B, which can be useful for non ork torp vessels, but unnecessary for gun ships.
I say it again...A ravager fleet...It will destroy EVERYTHING.
-
BM only ever hit 1 base. Never more. Stupid rule from bfg1.5 I think. Back to BM v1.0!
If I line up my escorts well they do not need b2b.
But from your reply you acknowledge splitting fire is the 'solution'.
Ravagers, what do they do again?
-
Ork escort
D6 torps each, with 6+ prow...and a str 2 battery in the prow, also 2 turrets...
They can't even combine salvo's if they wanted to so need to ever be B2B, and they are only 40 pts a piece...
Splitting fire is a solution, but won't work...With the few shots you get against escorts anyways, they really don't need a buff imo.
With the 2010 FAQ, you can position blast markers if they are lined up right to tag 2 ships with 1 BM if you do it right.
-
What's the difference between 1 roll with 9 dice or 3 rolls with 3 dice?
URGG! I though BFG:R did not have that rule.
Blastmarkers MUST SHOULD WILL be placed in line of fire, then fanning out l/r.
Blastmarkers do not count as allround.
Thus BM in port is not intervening in starboard.
But since Ravagers aren't in b2b it doesn't matter. ;)
Cobra's at 30pts are numerous and faster. Interesting match.
Or MMS Nightshades (50pts) less but more evil.
-
BFG:R goes back to previous BM rules, and does not follow v1.5 or FAQ2010 on this matter.
1 ship contact only unless BtB, located only where it actually is.
-
Horizon you are correct. BFG:R is BM1.0
BMs are placed according to location of the firer. Players do not choose to place them in contact with multiple vessels unless that is the line of fire.
They do not count as all round.
-
Pheeeeeeeeew-ie.
:)
-
Oh ok...I haven't really used the rules you guys have written yet. Mostly going off the 2010 FAQ for the rules, but using all the fleet lists in BFG:R
Horizon...the difference is in the statistical chance that you will destroy an escort. With one batch, you have on average 1.5 hits (9 dice at 6+ armor). Now, if you split it up you probably won't even destroy a ship, but together you have a chance to destroy 1, and if you roll really well, you may destroy 2.
If escorts all had 4+ armor, then it would be reasonable, but since some fleets (Orks) have 6+ armor on the prow with theirs it buffs them quite a lot. Someone want to do the math on Eldar escorts? They would rape house since they are hard enough as it is to kill.
-
I really do think there should be carry-over hits for escorts. This is one of those changes that, I believe, would really turn people away from BFG:R. It would be one of those talked about things like, "BFG:R has all sorts of new ships and great revisions except it has this one rule that really makes me not want to use it." "Do you use BFG:R rules?" "Nah, no spillover." "You mean, if I shoot my awesome new better rules Retribution at this Sword squad, I can only kill one? All that firepower for ONE?!"
If you fire all its weapons vs one target, yes you would. Just like fluff or real life will happen. If you decide to split some of the weapon batteries (esp FP18 WBs as well as the lances with different targets, you might just kill more than 1.
-
Against escorts abeam at 30cm, FP18 would get 4 dice. This is unlikely to kill 1 escort even under current rules.
Against escorts closing at 30cm, FP18 would get 9 dice. For 5+ escorts, the breakdown is:
14.3% no kills
50.7% 1 kill
30.7% 2 kills
4.1% 3 kills
0.09% 4 kills.
Average 1.25 kills.
Splitting fire 4 dice vs 5 dice with no carry over, the breakdown for 4 dice is:
59.3% no kills
40.7% 1 kill
and 5 dice is:
46.1% no kills
53.9% 1 kill
average: 0.94 kills, but a leadership test is needed to even split fire. Assuming average leadership 7.5 (averaging the fail chances of ld8 and ld7), there's a 34.7% chance fire won't be split, in which case you'll expect 0.86 kills. The total average would therefore be 0.915 kills, a 26.8% reduction in effectiveness.
Splitting fire with 3 dice at 3 targets and no spill over, the breakdown is:
74% no kills
26% 1 kill
x3
average: 0.78 kills, which is worse than firing at 1 target, so why would you?
As I said earlier, this is a significant buff to escorts.
-
Spillover hasn't been problematic to the game so far. Its really rare on cruisers and you fixed those with targeting capital ships in squadrons individually anyway. Not spilling over is too much of a buff to escorts.
So, in BFG:R, if 2 ships are in b2b and one gets hit, both still lose a shield, right?
-
Only if the 2nd ship is also directly in the line of fire.
Only ships actually touching a BM lose a shield. BMs are placed as near to the firing ship as possible, except when that would cause the BM to overlap another BM or touch the base of a ship not in BtB.
-
So, now there is really no downside for running ships b2b in order to mass turrets..
-
Yes there is:easier to hit with torps. And remember: bm are not allround. So use tactics, hit em from more sides. :)
-
Good thing Chaos is brimming with torpedos then.
But just so I understand, have we changed the rules to allow torpedo salvos to hit multiple ships in b2b head on? And how does turret massing make torpedos easier to hit with?
-
Infidels
Desolator
Repulsive
Despoiler
Good enough for me. I am an Infidel fan (6).
Turret massing = b2b contact = thus marker can hit more bases.
-
Ok, so the following has been determined:
[1]Hits must continue to carry over on escorts, as not doing so is a huge buff. Hits will not carry over on capital ships.
[2]Capital ships may be picked out individually by passing a leadership test.
[3]Capital ships may go on BFI individually.
[4]Secondary commanders can strengthen the chain of command by allowing special orders within their squadron to continue if a command check is failed outside the squadron.
I can rewrite the squadrons section to clearly follow the above points. There are still a couple of points of contention:
A: Considering that the logical implications of [3] is that the squadron cannot take special orders as a whole if any ship is braced, I see no reason not to let ships within a squadron go on whatever special orders they want, as doing so eliminates 1 of the three reasons you would form a squadron in the first place, namely squadron leadership and reduced number of command checks.
B: What should the penalties for dropping out of formation be? There are two approaches.
1) Formally define a squadron command ship, any ship not in coherency with a part of the squadron containing the command ship may not take special orders or mass fire.
2) If any ship is not in coherency, then the entire squadron may not mass fire or go on special orders.
C: How should squadron command checks be taken? I think they should remain as is, with a squadron leadership value and one command check for all ships. Sigoroth proposes that only the ships which would normally have passed the single squadron command check if it had applied to them personally should go on special orders - no squadron leadership.
-
I still have issues with the fact a ship cannot do something 'special' if another ship is braced.
In such cases one might think the sister ships in the squadron would do something special if another of them is under siege.
Thus allow special orders if one is on BFI is logical to me.
-
And the other two issues?
-
B.
2) seems good.
1) thinking
C)
Sig's option has more realism, the other is more easier for games.
thinking
-
With regard to C, I agree that Sig's option has more realism, but from a gameplay perspective I'd rather things remain as they are.
-
I would rather Ld tests be taken Vs highest LD in the squadron.
Comprimise? Ships with squadronmates on BFI may RO, BFI and LO only. Other SO are manouvering and may cause the braced ship to fall out of position and so may noy be taken.
BFI always taken on individual ship's Ld.
-
I would rather Ld tests be taken Vs highest LD in the squadron.
Comprimise? Ships with squadronmates on BFI may RO, BFI and LO only. Other SO are manouvering and may cause the braced ship to fall out of position and so may noy be taken.
BFI always taken on individual ship's Ld.
I can imagine circumstances where issuing movement orders to the rest of the squadron would help the braced ship maintain formation and, for that matter, issuing movement orders would help a straggler regain coherency (AAF to catch up to the straggler, CTNH to come around to the straggler, BR to allow the straggler to catch up). However, taken altogether this is a reasonable compromise. Certainly a huge step forward from the brace one brace all current state of affairs and not so illogical as the "oh crap, a squad mate is under fire, I can't reload!" alternative.
Having said that though, in rejecting the use of the ship's own leadership against the squadron's command check roll I don't want to hear any crap about ordnance being too strong ever again! The built in weakness to ordnance is the reliance on passing RO command checks, and allowing highest leadership really goes a looong way towards obviating this weakness.
So when addressing the situation of ships being practically immune to bombers at high turret levels any fix should not be limited by whether or not there will be a minuscule increase in bomber effectiveness against 2-3 turret targets.
I think that the individual leadership with shared order and single roll is better than the "use highest leadership" system. It helps to remove the flat-lining of fleets leadership which currently occurs without making the Chain of Command system too onerous. It would also help, as I noted above, to reduce the effectiveness of ordnance in relation to direct fire ships. So I was wondering if there was anyone out there who would give it a test? I am unfortunately unable to do so for some time. I ask this out of curiosity. As for BFG:R I'm willing to use the compromise set of rules Phthisis posted.
-
I would rather Ld tests be taken Vs highest LD in the squadron.
Comprimise? Ships with squadronmates on BFI may RO, BFI and LO only. Other SO are manouvering and may cause the braced ship to fall out of position and so may noy be taken.
BFI always taken on individual ship's Ld.
I see no reason why other squadmates can't use whatever order they want, provided they use their own leadership to do so.
-
Could you write your idea out as it should be written as a rule?
-
I see that RC has taken this section over.
I do think that damage carry-over is an all-or-nothing kind of thing. So if damage is carried over on escorts then it must be on capital ships.
It's pretty rare that damage will carry onto another capital ship anyways....
Otherwise, I do really like Sig's LD concept. Making each individual vessel pass/fail based off one LD check. However, I would ALWAYS make ships in a squadron be considered at least the leadership of any primary/secondary commanders in their squad.
Regarding B: it MUST be that the squadron cannot make command checks, as defining squadron coherency is difficult without a designated command ship. Besides, I really want to deter any idea of breaking formation with squadrons.
Regarding 3: I don't think that squadrons should be able to choose which special orders they do. (other than BFI). We could remove the clause 'Squadrons with a ship on BFI may not use special orders" which would work fine.
Squadrons should always be using the same special order. Which would force players to put vessels with similar roles in squadrons, instead of whatever (for potential leadership benefits).
-
We could remove the clause 'Squadrons with a ship on BFI may not use special orders" which would work fine.
/sigh...
I am done arguing on this point, I just won't play it that way.
-
heh,
If we keep one BFI rest may do nothing then I see no point in playing with squadrons. And in the rule at all.
Breaking point for me. I gave logical sense / realism reasons why as well.
-
the option plaxor is presenting is:
Ships may go on BFI individually, but only BFI. The rest of the squadron is unaffected by whatever that ship does, and may go on a different special order collectively without the braced vessel.
-
Basically it would mean that braced vessels would not benefit from the commands of the rest of the squadron. It would make sense that the commander was shouting out the orders, but they were still trying to recover from being braced so they couldn't perform the same. It doesn't mean that the commander would stop giving orders to the rest of his squadron!
This works out as BFI isn't done at the beginning of the turn like the other orders.
-
I think this is workable. I like to read a written rule.
-
K, here in a bit (once I get to the squadron section in RC's edit) I will CnP the squadron rules with the changes appropriate here for review.
-
I think it'll need to be slightly more than a cut and paste to what I've written previously Plaxor. I've been holding out on updating it because doing so would be time consuming, particularly if it were all just going to change again. But I think I now have enough to go on to put something together now. There's just one final thing:
I'd drop escorts squadroning with light cruisers. I know I've been a big proponent of this up until now, but I've changed my mind, and here's why:
Ideally, I'd have liked escorts to be able to squadron with any type of capital ship. There were a number of objections to this, and so with LCs was the compromise. In the original idea, the number of rules required for squadrons wuold be reduced because if all squadrons worked the same you wouldn't have to point out the differences between escorts and capital ships. It would allow capital ships and escorts to work more closely together in what I think is a cool way.
However, it's not quite as simple as that. The way escorts roll leadership and can't go on special orders individually (even just BFI) marks them out as different, so you don't get the ideal complete merging of rules. In addition, preventing hits from carrying over on capital ships, and allowing the part of a squadron that isn't out of formation to continue using special orders marks them out as more different still. Also, the restriction to Light Cruisers seems arbitrary, as there's less difference between Light Cruisers and Cruisers than there is between Light Cruisers and escorts. There isn't even an easy way to define 'light cruiser'. For example, a space marine strike cruiser should probably count, but tau and eldar cruisers shouldn't. You can't define it by hits, because that includes the Eldar/Tau ships, but you also can't define it by 'Says Light Cruiser In Profile', because that excludes the SMSC.
So all in all, I think it's more trouble than it's worth, and i could write simpler, more concise rules if we just forgot that idea.
-
That's fine, do whatever you guys want, but this dumbs down the game and makes taking squadrons the ONLY choice when deciding how to setup your fleet.
You say you won't play squadrons without this method, well with this setup there is NO reason to not play with everything squadroned.
It's just dumb is all, but like I said, my group will quite honestly just ignore all the rules you guys are doing anyways.
-
RcG,
good reasoning. ;)
Taggerung,
not at all not at all.
I still won't squadron all of my fleet. Perhaps a ship or two. But I like the lone wolf approach better. I dunno why. I need to see someone levelling me with squadrons first. ;)
If a ship is on BFI, this means the others are still restricted in some orders and such. Plus individual targetting is allowed. Right? Right?
And people need to think past cruiser clashes. Think escalating engagements, small scenarios, fleet engagements. No longer perfecrt deployments. :)
-
As about to be written, there are at least two significant downsides.
The first is that ships have to remain in formation, or they get no special orders at all (I'm tempted to make this not even BFI - the ship is not where it's supposed to be and has been pounced on by the enemy after all), nor any benefits from being in a squadron at all.
The second is that not all orders are universally useful, such as Reload Ordnance, or an ideal situation to use Lock On or Come To New Heading for some ships would leave other ships out of position or lacking in firepower.
@Horizon: One ship being on special orders won't affect the rest of the squadron, but the ship on BFI won't be able to participate.
-
As about to be written, there are at least two significant downsides.
The first is that ships have to remain in formation, or they get no special orders at all (I'm tempted to make this not even BFI - the ship is not where it's supposed to be and has been pounced on by the enemy after all), nor any benefits from being in a squadron at all.
The second is that not all orders are universally useful, such as Reload Ordnance, or an ideal situation to use Lock On or Come To New Heading for some ships would leave other ships out of position or lacking in firepower.
@Horizon: One ship being on special orders won't affect the rest of the squadron, but the ship on BFI won't be able to participate.
I know. ;)
-
As about to be written, there are at least two significant downsides.
The first is that ships have to remain in formation, or they get no special orders at all (I'm tempted to make this not even BFI - the ship is not where it's supposed to be and has been pounced on by the enemy after all), nor any benefits from being in a squadron at all.
The second is that not all orders are universally useful, such as Reload Ordnance, or an ideal situation to use Lock On or Come To New Heading for some ships would leave other ships out of position or lacking in firepower.
@Horizon: One ship being on special orders won't affect the rest of the squadron, but the ship on BFI won't be able to participate.
Staying in formation and not all orders being universally useful? Really? Those are NOT downsides, it's nearly impossible to break formation with your ships if you know what you are doing, and if you don't have ships of similar types (IE carriers with carries or gun boats with gun boats) you are playing the game wrong.
The ONLY fleet that will have issues with staying in formation are Eldar, and that's just because they like to fly around a lot, but in reality it's still super easy to stay within 15cm.
Also...changing the game types won't change anything I have been talking about so mentioning that really doesn't do anything.
-
@Tag,
The hope is to get squadroning close to even-footing with not. Falling out of formation is a big deal when you have some bracing and some not, as well as some being crippled.
Also the disadvantage of only ever being on one SO has it's merits. The LD bonus, and fewer command checks are really the bonus. (plus a little play with simultaneous fire)
Now, since nerfing the LD bonus is coming into play (using Sig's system, with my compromise), there are quite comparable
Also, the restriction to Light Cruisers seems arbitrary, as there's less difference between Light Cruisers and Cruisers than there is between Light Cruisers and escorts. There isn't even an easy way to define 'light cruiser'. For example, a space marine strike cruiser should probably count, but tau and eldar cruisers shouldn't.
RC, I have arduously worked to define Light Cruisers and cruisers in every fleet list. In space marines for example, Vanguard cruisers are light cruisers, but strike cruisers are not. In Tau, Merchants are always light cruisers.
It is really just defined in a name. However I can see your point of writing in the exceptions (i.e. can the CL bfi without the rest of the squadron?)
Also, Escorts should be subject to the same coherency restrictions of capital ships, but they shouldn't gain the benefit of individual bracing. (That and their leadership should be the only difference)
-
Just out of curiosity, granting that the rules favor squadroning (which really does happen in real life), why would that dumb down the game?
-
I think he has issues with only having a few pieces on the table, rather than a bunch of individuals.
Like I said, neither should be better than the other (other than by a very small amount) preferably each would have its own advantages/disadvantages.
A lot of this work was to make larger games more playable, (every 3000 point game I played took forever) and a huge part of that is squadrons being viable.
We already have tiered bm removal, to help with large games, and secondary commanders helping with the LD endings. Squadrons are part of larger games. Smaller ones, I doubt that there would be squadrons still.
-
Once again, our play style here is very different from all of you. Squadroning is the norm with us. We all like the benefit of taking fewer LD tests and grouping our WB fire. So far its been working rather well with the rules as is.
The greatest downside to squadroning is that if one ship braces, the whole squadron is screwed. That is something we think is stupid and want rectified. Other ships shouldn't go on lockdown because their squadron-mate is recieving fire.
The issue Tag and I have with these rules changes is allowing other ships in a squadron with a ship on BFI to go on SO. This would dumb our games down because there is no downside to bracing for the fleet. Even if the other ships can act as normal, there is a decision to be made if you want to go on SO next turn. Now its a no-brainer to brace with any ship that isn't a carrier or has an NC.
Since ships have to concentrate fire to overcome shields, allowing ships to brace in squadrons will mean ships die slower and the game takes longer. It makes our games less dependent on strategy and more dependent on luck. We don't like making games drag on or more dependent on luck.
We are looking at this from the opposite direction you are. To you, youre making squadroning more viable. To us, youre eliminating an important strategic decision from the game entirely and making it easy.
-
With these new rules, there IS a downside to bracing still; halving the firepower of that ship. It's not a no-brainer.
-
There is a downside, but the benefits of bracing easily outweigh the costs in most situations. Strategically, its a no-brainer.
-
So, you would have it where individual ships in a squadron can brace and have the penalties of bracing but the other ships can't use special orders but do NOT suffer the penalties of bracing unless they brace themselves? I can dig that. I think it is less realistic but is probably the best game-wise.
-
Exactly.
-
@Pthisis,
You do have a really good point as far as bracing goes (which is why I like the idea of the other ships not going on SO).
The main reason for this, is that players could have a specific 'brace boat' to absorb hits for the squadron whilst the other ships are unaffected.
Actually this is a lot bigger deal than I initially thought, now that you've brought it up. As it would prevent the 'brace your opponent' strategy that is important to the game.
-
The greatest downside to squadroning is that if one ship braces, the whole squadron is screwed. That is something we think is stupid and want rectified. Other ships shouldn't go on lockdown because their squadron-mate is recieving fire.
The issue Tag and I have with these rules changes is allowing other ships in a squadron with a ship on BFI to go on SO. This would dumb our games down because there is no downside to bracing for the fleet. Even if the other ships can act as normal, there is a decision to be made if you want to go on SO next turn. Now its a no-brainer to brace with any ship that isn't a carrier or has an NC.
Uh, well, to me this set of statements is contradictory. You at first don't want 1 ship being braced to shut down the squadron and then want exactly that. There are 2 penalties associated with bracing and 1 bonus. The 2 penalties are halving firepower/ordnance for next turn and the inability to go on orders next turn. The bonus is getting a 4+ save. Now, as it stands, shooting at a squadron of Devastations until they brace shuts down the entire squadron. Because they can't reload next turn. As an afterthought they also get half firepower. Buuuut the entire squadron gets the 4+ save too, so it's not like you could redirect a bomber wave to attack a fresh Dev in the squadron and avoid giving away the save. Oh well.
Now, you want the opponent to be able to do the exact same thing only now the attempt to brace isn't as likely to succeed because it's at own Ld. Because if one of those Devs braces then the others can't reload, and therefore the squadron is shut down. They don't halve their firepower, but then again, you can now redirect both AC and direct fire to an unbraced ship in the squadron, since it hasn't got the 4+ save and will have to attempt to brace against the incoming fire, again at own Ld.
The main reason for this, is that players could have a specific 'brace boat' to absorb hits for the squadron whilst the other ships are unaffected.
Actually this is a lot bigger deal than I initially thought, now that you've brought it up. As it would prevent the 'brace your opponent' strategy that is important to the game.
Firstly, with the ability to target individual ships within a squadron, you couldn't have a "brace boat". At least, no more than you can have now by just running a non-squadron ship in front of the squadron.
Bracing the opponent would still be a viable stratagem. It's just as valid with Necrons under this rule as before. It's just as valid against BBs. It's just as valid with cruisers. What it is not as valid with is squadrons, which is the whole point. You shouldn't be able to brace an entire squadron by shooting at just the one ship.
I want to ask the community a question. Would you form so many squadrons if there was no such thing as the Chain of Command, assuming all other squadron rules are as per official rules? So if you failed one test you could simply go on to another ship. I suspect that the answer to that is "No way! Oh wait, hmm, maybe. There is the higher leadership, so I'd probably make small carrier squadrons, and in larger games I might even form some gunship squadrons to cut down on Ld tests and to make re-rolls more valuable ... meh, I'd form less squadrons."
Now I think that the CoC is a good idea, but affects the game too much. You should be able to reduce its effects. This is where squadrons come in. Currently the major downside to forming squadrons is illogical (brace one shut down all). However, one of the major upsides, using highest Ld, is very strong for carriers. There has been complaint in the past about AC being too strong and too prevalent in the game. That it's a must have. This is probably in part due to the fact that one of the major weaknesses of AC (having to reload) has been obviated to a degree by the fact that you can significantly bump your chances of reloading (reduced number of Ld tests, higher leadership, greater effectiveness of re-roll).
Hence the original suggestion, that you just check the roll against each ships Ld to see if it passed. Reduces the upside to squadrons, weakens AC and allows for individual bracing.
-
Write it as a written rule pleasy. :)
But I do follow the logic and do see the benefits.
-
Now I think that the CoC is a good idea, but affects the game too much. You should be able to reduce its effects. This is where squadrons come in. Currently the major downside to forming squadrons is illogical (brace one shut down all). However, one of the major upsides, using highest Ld, is very strong for carriers. There has been complaint in the past about AC being too strong and too prevalent in the game. That it's a must have. This is probably in part due to the fact that one of the major weaknesses of AC (having to reload) has been obviated to a degree by the fact that you can significantly bump your chances of reloading (reduced number of Ld tests, higher leadership, greater effectiveness of re-roll).
Hence the original suggestion, that you just check the roll against each ships Ld to see if it passed. Reduces the upside to squadrons, weakens AC and allows for individual bracing.
Sig, I intend to use this system that you've come up with. With one addendum, that ships consider their leadership to be at least as high as any characters in their squadron (such as chaos lords)
I do understand that individual targeting would deal with bracing quite nicely. Hmmmm... will need to write out as rules.
-
I agree with Sig on the one ship bracing doesn't shut down the squadron, but I'd prefer leadership checks to remain as they are, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
-
I still need some more clarification. How would it lengthen the game and make it more dependent on luck when if one can LO the other ships even if one ship is on BFI, it means they can shoot at targets more efficiently possibly destroying a ship or two?
Or as another example, by having the rest of the carriers successfully re-roll and launch its AC against another target less the one ship is on BFI?
My questions stems from the confirmation of the idea by Pthisis that he is amenable to a ship going on BFI but the other ships cannot go on SO.
That's kinda quirky. Why would one ship in the squadron affect the performance of the entire squadron? Just because one ship BFIs my other ships cannot go on LO or worse my carriers cannot RO?
The idea of going on BFI for one ship and not allowing the other ships in its squadron to go on SOs actually lengthens the game more as well as makes things more dependent on luck since I now will have to be content with the results of my gunships instead of making them more efficient.
-
@Sig
Lock-down, not shut down. Why is a ship not being fired at weakening its fire and sealing preassure doors? The mechanic I object to specifically is a squadron-mate going on BFI because another ship in their squadron is being fired at. I don't think the whole squadron should panic. But I don't think they should just go on their merry way either.
I realize that fluff-wise there is little to keep another ship in the squadron from going on another SO, but there is also little reason in fluff for them to have to stay within 15cm. Same is true for taking a LD test to fire at a ship other than the closest. Or not being able to issue orders after you failed a test. Or for not being able to fire turrets against both torpedos and bombers in the same turn. Or a hundred other little thingsin the game. Some want BFG to become a naval combat simulator. I want it to remain a well bslanced game. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief to an extent to make the game function correctly.
If you want realism, squadrons are really just an administrative entity anyway. Do away with them completely. Youre doing away with the major benefit and drawback to squadroning anyway. Why maintain the arbitrary unit coherency rules that also make no sense in fluff?
You could brace one and target another ship, but then you will have to knock shields down again, resulting in a net decrease in the effectiveness of your firepower. And then that just braces too, so youve wasted 2 hits that could have damaged the first one for a second ship on brace.
@Admiral
The whole squadron ruleset is quirky both in the existing version and the proposed versions. Not my doing.
How often do you get to LO in a game? LO is very situational, BFI is not. Throughout the course of the game, BFI will absorb a lot more firepower than the LOs can put out. Unless you LO every turn, BFI is far more effective.
Plus, the increase in damage output for WBs on LO is less than BFI's save. As WBs are the most common weapon system in the game, and lances merely equal the damage resistance of BFI, there is still a net decrease in damage.
You do realize that these rules make Chaos a stronger fleet, don't you?
@Plaxor
There is no reason not to brace with these proposed rules. Every ship you fire at will just brace if it might take damage. Its an easy choice and has very little effect on the overall strategy of the fleet, so why not brace? It will be like squadrons don't exist at all. The game gets dumber and is more dependent on luck because its more dependent on failed LD tests to cause damage. And since everyone is bracing all the time, the potential for damage is decreased and the damage resulting from recieving fire is further decreased. Games will take a long time.
-
@Sig
Lock-down, not shut down. Why is a ship not being fired at weakening its fire and sealing preassure doors? The mechanic I object to specifically is a squadron-mate going on BFI because another ship in their squadron is being fired at. I don't think the whole squadron should panic. But I don't think they should just go on their merry way either.
As far as a carrier is concerned, being unable to RO is practically identical. Most carriers have at least half their firepower tied up in their ordnance, meaning that if a squad mate braces they are, in effect, braced themselves. There might be reason to not use movement orders (ie, go on their merry way) but there'd be no reason to not use RO or LO.
I realize that fluff-wise there is little to keep another ship in the squadron from going on another SO, but there is also little reason in fluff for them to have to stay within 15cm. Same is true for taking a LD test to fire at a ship other than the closest. Or not being able to issue orders after you failed a test. Or for not being able to fire turrets against both torpedos and bombers in the same turn. Or a hundred other little thingsin the game. Some want BFG to become a naval combat simulator. I want it to remain a well bslanced game. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief to an extent to make the game function correctly.
I don't think that staying in formation is unrealistic, though the distance may be arbitrary (not necessarily a bad thing). Chain of command isn't terrible either. If you're an admiral and you're plan of action depends upon a key formation being able to AAF, or a carrier battlegroup being able to provide cover, etc. With the failure of these orders then the admiral's plans have gone awry, throwing chaos and confusion into the fleet.
If you want realism, squadrons are really just an administrative entity anyway. Do away with them completely. Youre doing away with the major benefit and drawback to squadroning anyway. Why maintain the arbitrary unit coherency rules that also make no sense in fluff?
I don't think that squadron coherency is senseless, nor do I think that squadrons should be done away with. I think that they should be the norm, and that they would be with these rules.
You could brace one and target another ship, but then you will have to knock shields down again, resulting in a net decrease in the effectiveness of your firepower. And then that just braces too, so youve wasted 2 hits that could have damaged the first one for a second ship on brace.
My opponents and I loathed forming squadrons because of the onerous and senseless downsides. Let me tell you, forcing your opponent to brace individual ships is still powerful. Never have we just blindly braced because there was some firepower incoming. We would always carefully weigh up the options and strive to avoid bracing wherever possible. Allowing individual brace decision in squadrons will not change this.
@Admiral
The whole squadron ruleset is quirky both in the existing version and the proposed versions. Not my doing.
How often do you get to LO in a game? LO is very situational, BFI is not. Throughout the course of the game, BFI will absorb a lot more firepower than the LOs can put out. Unless you LO every turn, BFI is far more effective.
Plus, the increase in damage output for WBs on LO is less than BFI's save. As WBs are the most common weapon system in the game, and lances merely equal the damage resistance of BFI, there is still a net decrease in damage.
A locked on Carnage (15-30cm bracket) against a closing braced Carnage = 2 hull hits past shields and saves. A braced Carnage (15-30cm bracket) against a closing unbraced Carnage = 0 hull hits (shields down only).
So how does bracing beat LO?
@Plaxor
There is no reason not to brace with these proposed rules. Every ship you fire at will just brace if it might take damage. Its an easy choice and has very little effect on the overall strategy of the fleet, so why not brace? It will be like squadrons don't exist at all. The game gets dumber and is more dependent on luck because its more dependent on failed LD tests to cause damage. And since everyone is bracing all the time, the potential for damage is decreased and the damage resulting from recieving fire is further decreased. Games will take a long time.
I think a reason not to brace is that you will get half firepower and be unable to use special orders next turn. This loss of firepower can result in a net decrease in performance (hits saved < hits lost). Usually bracing only becomes attractive when the hits saved > hits lost. Thresholds (crippled/destroyed) and positional considerations would alter the calculation.
-
@Admiral
The whole squadron ruleset is quirky both in the existing version and the proposed versions. Not my doing.
How often do you get to LO in a game? LO is very situational, BFI is not. Throughout the course of the game, BFI will absorb a lot more firepower than the LOs can put out. Unless you LO every turn, BFI is far more effective.
Plus, the increase in damage output for WBs on LO is less than BFI's save. As WBs are the most common weapon system in the game, and lances merely equal the damage resistance of BFI, there is still a net decrease in damage.
You do realize that these rules make Chaos a stronger fleet, don't you?
The present rules are quirky which is why the BFG:R rules are changing them. I LO lots of times, if I can, not to mention RO. Chaos might become stronger but so will the other races. Not like it singles out Chaos only.
-
The present rules aren't quirky...at all. All these changes do is make it retarded to not squadron.
-
The present official rules are quirky in that one ship can dictate what a squadron can do by going on one special order, BFI or disengaging. That's what's retarded.
Why would you not want to squadron? Why would it be retarded?
In real life it happens, it should be more advantageous and one ship should not just affect another ship in a squadron by going on BFI or even disengaging.
Ships which take incoming fire, numerous examples of which can be presented in Jutland, will take a beating but the rest of the squadron goes on fighting efficiently.
Squadroning should be promoted and it should make things better than having individual ships on the table doing their own thing. The downside is they cannot just move independently although that can be ameliorated somewhat by allowing them to choose their own targets, which again does happen in real life.
Lastly, while the rules being proposed make it favorable for squadroning, if you don't want to squadron, you are free not to do so.
-
Agreed, the present rules are just plain daft & quirky. There is a reason I never ever squadron!
-
By your logic Admiral, one ship shouldn't dictate if another ship goes on a special order....but yet in a squadron you benefit from higher leadership, from one ship.
Squadroning as it is in the base rules is still a very powerful thing, even with the brace for impact rules hurting the squadron.
Horizon...you never squadron because you play eldar and squadroning with eldar is something a bad player does. Orks, for example ALWAYS squadron because you need that precious leadership bonus. Imperial Navy should squadron their carriers or gun boats because they are very dependent on other ships to make them work better.
My entire point is that squadroning is already being used and people are, at least around here, using them quite well already. With this new system, there isn't even a tactical choice between taking squadrons and not. Every ship in the game from now on will be in a squadron, because there is NO REAL REASON NOT TOO! (Staying within 15cm isn't a downside, so don't play it off like one.)
Like I said, do whatever the fuck you want, but if this is how the Revised rule system is going, I just won't use it. Which is sad, because it has the potential to be great...not the POS it's starting to become.
-
Horizon...you never squadron because you play eldar and squadroning with eldar is something a bad player does.
How uninformed.
I play:
Renegades
Chaos
Adeptus Mechanicus
Corsair Eldar
Craftworld Eldar
Tau CPF
Soon to play
Imperial Navy
Rogue Traders
Last games have been with AdMech and Tau.
-
By your logic Admiral, one ship shouldn't dictate if another ship goes on a special order....but yet in a squadron you benefit from higher leadership, from one ship.
Certainly not as worse than punishing a squadron by preventing them from actually going on other special orders or disengaging.
Squadroning as it is in the base rules is still a very powerful thing, even with the brace for impact rules hurting the squadron.
Not with the rules of one ship BFI/Disengage the whole squadron on BFI/Disengage. No one would want to squadron with such a harsh penalty.
My entire point is that squadroning is already being used and people are, at least around here, using them quite well already. With this new system, there isn't even a tactical choice between taking squadrons and not. Every ship in the game from now on will be in a squadron, because there is NO REAL REASON NOT TOO! (Staying within 15cm isn't a downside, so don't play it off like one.)
Sure there is: You don't want to. More importantly, you don't have to. Good enough reason. You sacrifice the SO Ld check efficiency yet rigid formation of squadrons for more flexible and maneuverable individual ships.
Like I said, do whatever the fuck you want, but if this is how the Revised rule system is going, I just won't use it. Which is sad, because it has the potential to be great...not the POS it's starting to become.
Funny. You haven't even tried their proposal and you already condemn it. Why not try it first before you decide if it is good or bad. Until then you're just theorizing it will be bad and not really have anything to back up that assertation.
-
Funny. You haven't even tried their proposal and you already condemn it. Why not try it first before you decide if it is good or bad. Until then you're just theorizing it will be bad and not really have anything to back up that assertation.
Neither have you, and you guys are making it out to be the greatest thing ever.
-
@Taggerung
If you write your proposed rules in this thread, it may sway opinions. I would like to see what you would prefer and what rules you think are making BFG:R bad.
-
Funny. You haven't even tried their proposal and you already condemn it. Why not try it first before you decide if it is good or bad. Until then you're just theorizing it will be bad and not really have anything to back up that assertation.
Neither have you, and you guys are making it out to be the greatest thing ever.
Perhaps, but as said the current rules are crap in my opinion so a change which in theory sounds good is a good idea to me.
But still no 'all out squadron' rule to me. So, good.
-
All right, calm down everyone, we can come up with something fair and balanced. Taking a page out of RC's book we know:
A): Coherency is a must, and due to issues with defining coherency, 15cm is a must for special orders.
1. Squadrons must attempt to move into coherency if they ever fall out of it, taking the shortest movement method possible to regain coherency. They may not make any attempt to use SO if out of coherency, and if they fall out of Coherency, they lose the benefit of being on any SO they were issued that turn.
Or
2. Squadrons out of coherency will not be able to make any SO checks, and will lose any benefits of SO they were issued that turn if they fall out of coherency. They MUST fire at the nearest enemy vessel (if they choose to fire at all), and may not make any leadership checks other than those to disengage.
B): Individual Targeting, this has its own issues, and solutions. Essentially with individual targeting you lose a lot of difference between not-squadroning and squadroning.
1. Capital ships may be targeted individually in squadrons as though they were individual vessels.
a) mixed hits (e.g. 5+ hits going on any chosen vessel with 5+ armour, and 6+ hits going on any with 6+ armour) still being a factor. Hits carry over just the same, to the nearest vessel.
Or
b) Ships are hit individually, and hits can in no way carry over onto the rest of the squadron.
or
2. Squadrons follow previous targeting/hit rules (as in you hit the nearest always, and hits carry/weaker armour hits carry as well)
C): Individual Bracing, this is coupled with individual targeting, as well as making squadrons not unique from not squadroning.
1. Capital ships may brace individually, and have no effect on the remainder of the squadron using special orders (other than the potential of losing LD advantages).
Or
2. Capital ships may brace individually, and do not allow the remainder of the squadron to use special orders.
D): Leadership rules: there are a few opinions on this, however this is often considered the biggest advantage of squadroning, I don't like the idea of squadroning being a huge pile of advantages, but I don't mind adding to the importance of secondary commanders.
1. Leadership workings function as previous rules, meaning all vessels pass/fail on highest LD.
Or
2. Leadership works as Sigoroth's system, where 1 leadership test is made, and each ship passes or fails based on its own leadership.
a). Primary/Secondary Commanders involved in squadrons will make any ship in the squadron count it's leadership as at least the commanders value.
b). The leadership test will be considered as 'failed' ending further command checks if one ship fails.
Everyone tell me (in short words) if you feel positively or negatively on each option/point.
-
A): Coherency is a must, and due to issues with defining coherency, 15cm is a must for special orders.
1. Squadrons must attempt to move into coherency if they ever fall out of it, taking the shortest movement method possible to regain coherency. They may not make any attempt to use SO (except Brace for Impact) if out of coherency, and if they fall out of Coherency, they lose the benefit of being on any SO they were issued that turn.
Or
2. Squadrons out of coherency will not be able to make any SO checks, and will lose any benefits of SO they were issued that turn if they fall out of coherency. They MUST fire at the nearest enemy vessel (if they choose to fire at all), and may not make any leadership checks other than those to disengage.
Added bold part. Thus that option is my vote.
B): Individual Targeting, this has its own issues, and solutions. Essentially with individual targeting you lose a lot of difference between not-squadroning and squadroning.
1. Capital ships may be targeted individually in squadrons as though they were individual vessels.
a) mixed hits (e.g. 5+ hits going on any chosen vessel with 5+ armour, and 6+ hits going on any with 6+ armour) still being a factor. Hits carry over just the same, to the nearest vessel.
Or
b) Ships are hit (& targetted) individually (usual Leaderships needed to fire at further away targets), and hits can in no way carry over onto the rest of the squadron.
or
2. Squadrons follow previous targeting/hit rules (as in you hit the nearest always, and hits carry/weaker armour hits carry as well)
Bold has my vote. italic added
C): Individual Bracing, this is coupled with individual targeting, as well as making squadrons not unique from not squadroning.
1. Capital ships may brace individually, and have no effect on the remainder of the squadron using special orders (other than the potential of losing LD advantages).
Or
2. Capital ships may brace individually, and do not allow the remainder of the squadron to use special orders.
Bold one.
D): Leadership rules: there are a few opinions on this, however this is often considered the biggest advantage of squadroning, I don't like the idea of squadroning being a huge pile of advantages, but I don't mind adding to the importance of secondary commanders.
1. Leadership workings function as previous rules, meaning all vessels pass/fail on highest LD.
Or
2. Leadership works as Sigoroth's system, where 1 leadership test is made, and each ship passes or fails based on its own leadership.
a). Primary/Secondary Commanders involved in squadrons will make any ship in the squadron count it's leadership as at least the commanders value.
b). The leadership test will be considered as 'failed' ending further command checks if one ship fails.
2.a&b Thus per usual. Failed SO, all stop.
-
Funny. You haven't even tried their proposal and you already condemn it. Why not try it first before you decide if it is good or bad. Until then you're just theorizing it will be bad and not really have anything to back up that assertation.
Neither have you, and you guys are making it out to be the greatest thing ever.
Yes, I haven't but am willing to try it unlike you who has closed your mind to anything you don't find acceptable.
-
All right, calm down everyone, we can come up with something fair and balanced. Taking a page out of RC's book we know:
A): Coherency is a must, and due to issues with defining coherency, 15cm is a must for special orders.
1. Squadrons must attempt to move into coherency if they ever fall out of it, taking the shortest movement method possible to regain coherency. They may not make any attempt to use SO if out of coherency, and if they fall out of Coherency, they lose the benefit of being on any SO they were issued that turn.
Or
2. Squadrons out of coherency will not be able to make any SO checks, and will lose any benefits of SO they were issued that turn if they fall out of coherency. They MUST fire at the nearest enemy vessel (if they choose to fire at all), and may not make any leadership checks other than those to disengage.
Uh, what's the main difference? No. 1 can still make SOs which are issued by the Squadron Leader? Wouldn't this be better:
"Ship(s) part of a squadrons must attempt to move into coherency if it/they ever fall out of it, taking the shortest movement method possible to regain coherency. It/They may not make any attempt to use SO if out of coherency, and if it/they fall out of Coherency, they lose the benefit of being on any SO they were issued that turn. Ships out of coherency MUST fire at the nearest enemy vessel (if they choose to fire at all), and may not make any leadership checks other than to BFI or to disengage. Ships still in coherency can use the SO issued by the Squadron Leader"
B): Individual Targeting, this has its own issues, and solutions. Essentially with individual targeting you lose a lot of difference between not-squadroning and squadroning.
1. Capital ships may be targeted individually in squadrons as though they were individual vessels.
a) mixed hits (e.g. 5+ hits going on any chosen vessel with 5+ armour, and 6+ hits going on any with 6+ armour) still being a factor. Hits carry over just the same, to the nearest vessel.
Or
b) Ships are hit individually, and hits can in no way carry over onto the rest of the squadron.
or
2. Squadrons follow previous targeting/hit rules (as in you hit the nearest always, and hits carry/weaker armour hits carry as well)
I vote for 1.b
C): Individual Bracing, this is coupled with individual targeting, as well as making squadrons not unique from not squadroning.
1. Capital ships may brace individually, and have no effect on the remainder of the squadron using special orders (other than the potential of losing LD advantages).
Or
2. Capital ships may brace individually, and do not allow the remainder of the squadron to use special orders.
I vote for 1.
D): Leadership rules: there are a few opinions on this, however this is often considered the biggest advantage of squadroning, I don't like the idea of squadroning being a huge pile of advantages, but I don't mind adding to the importance of secondary commanders.
1. Leadership workings function as previous rules, meaning all vessels pass/fail on highest LD.
Or
2. Leadership works as Sigoroth's system, where 1 leadership test is made, and each ship passes or fails based on its own leadership.
a). Primary/Secondary Commanders involved in squadrons will make any ship in the squadron count it's leadership as at least the commanders value.
b). The leadership test will be considered as 'failed' ending further command checks if one ship fails.
Everyone tell me (in short words) if you feel positively or negatively on each option/point.
I am still not sure on D. I will abstain for now and try to understand Sigoroth's rules better. It's more on the execution which I have to understand further.
-
Horizon...you never squadron because you play eldar and squadroning with eldar is something a bad player does. Orks, for example ALWAYS squadron because you need that precious leadership bonus. Imperial Navy should squadron their carriers or gun boats because they are very dependent on other ships to make them work better.
Er, this is backwards. I always felt fine forming squadrons with Eldar. That's because Eldar don't get shot. Therefore the downsides of bracing just don't apply.
My entire point is that squadroning is already being used and people are, at least around here, using them quite well already. With this new system, there isn't even a tactical choice between taking squadrons and not. Every ship in the game from now on will be in a squadron, because there is NO REAL REASON NOT TOO! (Staying within 15cm isn't a downside, so don't play it off like one.)
Yeah, ok, so there will be squadrons formed. So what? Why should there be an incentive to not do so? Just to enforce some sort of arbitrary tactical choice? That's silly. There are any number of tactical choices which can be input into the game which don't make sense. Why keep this one?
Also, staying within 15cm is a real restriction. It's not terribly onerous or punitive, but it does reduce the number of elements available to the fleet, as they must move as a unit. So if you had a squadron of 4 you could not send 2 ships off one way and the other 2 off another to chase down diverse elements. So yes, there will be a lot more squadrons (which there should be) but the question will be "how large should I make my squadrons?" and "what should I put in squadron with ship X?", etc.
Sure the Ld bonus from forming squadrons is a little unbalancing and does flatline Ld values but if that's the extent of the bad of squadron rules then that's something I can live with.
-
Oh, my votes are as per Horizon's, except part 2. b). If all ships fail then the check is considered failed, ending further command checks. If at least one ship passes then any failures are the squadron commander's problem and the fleet commander can continue enacting his plan of action.
-
Hits MUST still carry over on escorts. It's simply too unbalancing to do otherwise. Escort squadrons remain exactly as they are now.
For capital ships, I would do the following:
#1. Define a Squadron command ship. This is the ship with the highest level character, else the ship with the most hits, else the ship with the highest leadership. The squadron uses this ship's leadership for command checks affecting the squadron. If the command ship is lost or suffers a Bridge Smashed critical, the next most eligible vessel becomes the squadron command ship.
This prevents a Ld9 Siluria buffing a Ld6 Retribution, reducing Ld buff shennanigans and helps to define what counts as 'the squadron' for coherency purposes in the next section.
#2. The squadron MUST move in such a way as to retain coherency. If this is impossible, it must move so as to be as close to coherency as possible, and move back into coherency at the earliest opportunity. A ship is out of coherency if it cannot link itself to the command ship either directly or through other ships without any link being more than 15cm.
A ship which moves out of coherency at the end of the movement phase immediately loses the benefits of Lock On special orders. Whilst out of coherency a ship may not combine fire with other ships in the squadron, gains no benefit from special orders executed by the rest of the squadron, and automatically fails any Leadership Test it is called upon to make. It may still make a Command Check to go on BFI orders using its own leadership if necessary.
I like this formulation because it emphasizes the role of the command ship, and defines the squadron in such a way that the entire squadron isn't penalised for a single straggler.
#3. The ships in a squadron act with a unified purpose, and as such the squadron takes just one Squadron Command Check to put the whole squadron on the same special order using the Command Ship's leadership value. Individual vessels within a squadron may not take command checks to go on their own special orders, with the exception of Brace For Impact which may be taken by individual vessels using their own leadership value as normal, replacing any previous orders.
If a squadron contains braced vessels when making a command check, then only the vessels which are not braced are put on the new special order. If the command ship is braced, then the squadron may not go on collective special orders at all!
This is sort of a compromise between BFI stops entire squadron going on SO, and the squadron operating just as well braced as with stragglers out of coherency (which should be vaguely equivalent.) it also bigs up the command ship idea, which i've decided I like. :)
#4. Capital ships within a squadron are treated exactly like individual ships when fired at, eg leadership check to shoot non-closest and hits don't carry over.
I think everyone agrees this bit.
-
Here's how I would revise it.
Squadron rules are as original with these changes.
Ships may BFI individually but use their own LD. Squadron-mates are not braced but may not use SO.
Ships may be targeted individually if dersired, but no hit spillover. Ships must test on own LD to target individual ships. Otherwise, they may target the squadron as a whole with no LD test. Damage goes to closest ship to the firing vessel and excess hits spill over to the next closest in that arc.
These rules should be applied equally to escorts and capital ships.
And a general change so that failing an SO test doesn't stop further orders that turn. Just because one captain can't hold his crew together doesn't mean the whole fleet is panicing.
-
Squadron-mates are not braced but may not use SO.
Don't agree. The ship under fire could more than three times the diameter of earth away from the ship under fire. That isn't going to disrupt the squadron much. Now the command ship being udner fire, that's a different matter.
And a general change so that failing an SO test doesn't stop further orders that turn. Just because one captain can't hold his crew together doesn't mean the whole fleet is panicing.
Changing this breaks the price, and even the point, of rerolls. This is already being negated to a large extent by the greater use of secondary commanders.
-
I'm looking at this purely as a game mechanic, RC. I realize the fluff doesn't support it, but I'm ignoring it in favor of good gameplay.
Maybe rerolls need to be changed.
-
We've already addressed re-rolls and the chain of command to an extent by making them cheaper and making secondary commanders more readily available.
In addition, what do you think of my compromise of no orders if the command ship braces? that's more realistic than either no orders if a straggler gets pummelled or orders in spite of the commander's ship going up in flames, and strikes a balance between them.
-
Its better, but I still feel icky about it. Everyone will just target the leader's ship. Something feels flawed.
So, what if the squadron leader's ship is destroyed?
-
The next eligible ship would become squadron command ship, and command checks could be taken at the most likely lesser leadership of that vessel instead. Any secondary commander attributes would be lost.
The difference is between seeing your commander's ship wink out on the tactical display and moving on to the next in command vs the uncertainty of whether he's alive or not, the difficulty of getting and interpreting signals from a ship wreathed in enemy fire whose comms officers may or may not still be at their posts and whose communications systems may not even be operational anymore, and the risk of court marshall for usurping command.
-
Not a fan of the 'command ship' definition. It adds an unnecessary complication to squadron rules. At least with Sec. Commanders, people have a good reason to target flagships (other than a small boost in VPs).
I think Horizon has it about right as far as rules go. He selected a nearly identical ruleset that I would. Admiral D is on board, although still has yet to swallow Sig's LD system, and I imagine Sig likes what is written.
Pthisis & Tag have quite a different metagame than the rest of us (from what I understand). Which isn't a bad thing, as it allows comparison. Here we trade the LD bonus, (loosely) for allowing individuals to brace for impact.
Like I said, I want a system where one option (lone wolf/squadroning) would not be better than the other, save on a minimal level.
Now our squadron advantages with Horizon's selection (compared to lone wolfing):
Fewer LD checks.
Small boost to LD if taking Sec/prime commanders in squadron.
Combined fire (to ignore BMs)
Combined Waves
Disadvantages:
Need to stay within 15cm of other squadmates
Small loss of firepower when combining.
REQUIREMENT to be on the same SO as squadmates, (save BFI)
Seems pretty close to me, and far more logical than current system.
-
Love it! So, now the only reason for keeping ships base to base is turret massing?
-
Love it! So, now the only reason for keeping ships base to base is turret massing?
And combining waves of ordnance.
-
Ah, ok.
-
Its broken. Ships out of formation can't go on SO. In a squadron's SO test, some may pass and perform the action while others fail. Hence the following:
A squadron of 3 ships tests to go on SO. One has Ld 8, one has Ld 7 and one has Ld 6. The score rolled is a 7. Two ships pass, one fails....
They tested to AAF. The dice rolled for their extra movement will be average 14. Unless the ship that failed was within 1cm of another ship in the squadron, they are now out of coherency.
They tested to CTNH. Although they remain in coherency this turn, their minimum movement distance will bring them out of coherency unless the failed ship starts within 7cm of another squadron mate. They would have to occupy the same point to allow one to move its full distance while the other moved half. Likely the failed cruiser would fall out of coherency.
They tested to Burn Retros. Perhaps you get the drift by now. The ships that passed have to be careful not to break coherency.
Two pass and one fail. You need these orders to go off, but you'd like other ships to go on orders too. The one failed ship means no more orders. Do you reroll when the odds are just as good that all will pass and all will fail? Is that even chance of failure when youve already partially succeded worth 25pts?
You take a character to even the Ld of the squadron. His ship can be singled out. Nova Cannons, long range lances, attack craft.... Smashed bridge? BFI?
These squadroning rules won't do. For us in our metagame, it makes squadroning utterly worthless anyhow.
This is what happens when youre locked in groupthink and wont listen to outsiders who see things differently.
-
Hi Phthsis,
How odd. Taggerung from your group (you as well iirc) went about on how these new rules would make squadroning standard. Stating there is no reason not to squadron. As there are no downsides as you state... And now you go on about ranting the rules make squadrons worthless.
I.Am.Confused.
-
Horizon...
That has to do with using a weird leadership system in which certain ships can pass SO orders where others cannot (If you had read the post you would have realized that)
-
So...
it was all part of Sigoroths initial idea. Nothing new.
-
@pthisis,
Commander re-rolls are good for situations like that and such (secondary commander re-rolls matter, woot!)
Interestingly not a problem for Orks.
Also, I will add the clause; if one ship in the squadron fails the SO, all ships in the squadron can choose to have failed the SO.
Or
If though the results of a special order ships in the squadron would be required to fall out of formation, the order is cancelled and considered a failure.
The only real downside to your situation would be that the squadron could not make SO the next turn. The same thing could happen if someone killed the center of a chain of vessels (another comparative disadvantage of squadroning, although not as big).
-
I really have no issues with anything proposed, other than spill over NOT happening on escorts, and there not being a penalty for a ship going on BFI. Whether or not that is BFI affects the whole squad, or the rest of the squad doesn't get to go on SO after a ship goes on BFI.
-
I really have no issues with anything proposed, other than spill over NOT happening on escorts, and there not being a penalty for a ship going on BFI. Whether or not that is BFI affects the whole squad, or the rest of the squad doesn't get to go on SO after a ship goes on BFI.
Escort squadron rules are pretty much being left alone (other than the coherency revisions). Damage will still spill over.
-
I really don't like Sigoroth's proposal for command checks. Phthisis brings up some very good points about some special orders requiring them to go off in a predictable manner to be useful to squadrons. If you know the two braced ships likely won't be able to keep up, you can make that informed decision before putting the entire squadron on AAF.
But if you don't know which ships are going to pass/fail because you don't know if you'll roll high enough leadership or not, that puts a real spanner in the works.
I had been on the fence, but I don't see myself coming round to the idea now.
-
Its broken. Ships out of formation can't go on SO. In a squadron's SO test, some may pass and perform the action while others fail. Hence the following:
A squadron of 3 ships tests to go on SO. One has Ld 8, one has Ld 7 and one has Ld 6. The score rolled is a 7. Two ships pass, one fails....
They tested to AAF. The dice rolled for their extra movement will be average 14. Unless the ship that failed was within 1cm of another ship in the squadron, they are now out of coherency.
Well not quite, the ship that failed might have been up to 15cm in front of the other ships and still retain coherency after the failure so they don't really need to be that close. However, aside from that, your point is right and this is what I like about using a ships own Ld for the test. Yes, falling out of coherency will likely happen far more often than occurs at present. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, as coordinating the squadron should be the hard part (or "downside") of squadrons. This will also lead to people wondering whether they should try for equal Ld squadrons for greater ease of use or a mixed Ld squadron so that low Ld ships don't break the CoC or just squadron as per the admiral's own preference (cruiser type, etc).
Two pass and one fail. You need these orders to go off, but you'd like other ships to go on orders too. The one failed ship means no more orders. Do you reroll when the odds are just as good that all will pass and all will fail? Is that even chance of failure when youve already partially succeded worth 25pts?
Actually the rules that I proposed would consider the CoC satisfied if at least one ship in the squadron passed its test. This I felt to be an example of delegation. The fleet commander issues orders to his squadron commanders. The responsibility of the squadron's performance passes to its commander. Only if the commander reports catastrophic failure of orders does this muck up the FCs plans and bring things to a grinding halt. If at least one passes then the squadron is expected to perform as ordered and its efficacy is the squadron commander's problem. By following this reasoning we get delegation of responsibility, a somewhat more realistic CoC system and a Ld based upside to forming squadrons that doesn't negate the inherent value of a ships Ld (and thus differentially favour ordnance ships).
You take a character to even the Ld of the squadron. His ship can be singled out. Nova Cannons, long range lances, attack craft.... Smashed bridge? BFI?
Well we still meet this problem under the current rules. A character embarked ship can be targeted freely by bombers, a-boats and torpedoes. If it's the closest ship in the squadron it has to be the target of all directed fire at the squadron. Even if not the closest but very near one that is it can be targeted by a NC (has to touch the nearest ship). If it isn't in a squadron it can be targeted freely anyway. So smashed bridges and BFI are still factors that such ships have to deal with. In the system I proposed if the commander's ship is braced all that does is prevent his ship from going on SO next turn. This might have knock on effects. For example, if you've got a squadron with leaderships 6, 7 & 9 (commander) then when they attempt to RO the turn after the comm ship has been braced then a roll of an 8 or 9 would result in no ship passing the special order, thus breaking the CoC. If the comm ship wasn't braced then it would have gone on RO and therefore satisfied CoC requirements.
These squadroning rules won't do. For us in our metagame, it makes squadroning utterly worthless anyhow.
This is what happens when youre locked in groupthink and wont listen to outsiders who see things differently.
I'm not sure why these rules would make squadrons utterly useless in your metagame. This hasn't been explained. How would it make squadrons utterly useless for your group? Also, I don't know what you mean by "this is what happens when ...". What is what happens when we get locked into "groupthink"?
Lastly, on the notion of "groupthink", I'm not entirely sold on this being a negative. When you think in a vacuum your brains get spread out all over the place. Wait, no, wrong kind of vacuum. I mean the metaphorical kind. Right, so when you think in a vacuum (metaphorical) then you can miss things easily that occur to others. By coming together in a group you get more points of view and thus a more rounded view of the game. Now, it's possible that a group can fall prey to the same kind of faults that a person alone can. This is less likely to occur but also harder to shift. This is presumably your point.
However, in coming to the established group and putting forward your experience, if the group finds it anathema and, after listening, conclude that your experience has been skewed, then perhaps it is you/your group that is locked into a way of thinking. This is the more likely scenario anyway. I know from our PMs that your group do things rather differently to the majority of players. Perhaps a free flowing interaction between groups would produce a paradigm shift in your group as other tactics are demonstrated. Perhaps a greater insight into your objection will produce such a shift in the BFG community. If you could supply answers to the questions I bolded above maybe we can get somewhere.
-
I really don't like Sigoroth's proposal for command checks. Phthisis brings up some very good points about some special orders requiring them to go off in a predictable manner to be useful to squadrons. If you know the two braced ships likely won't be able to keep up, you can make that informed decision before putting the entire squadron on AAF.
But if you don't know which ships are going to pass/fail because you don't know if you'll roll high enough leadership or not, that puts a real spanner in the works.
I had been on the fence, but I don't see myself coming round to the idea now.
Commanders want to avoid falling out of coherency. Fine. Does that mean we should make it so that they can't? Tag said that the coherency rules were a joke of a downside for squadrons. The implication being that it's sooooo easy to maintain coherency and soooo unlikely that you'll even want to move more than 15cm away from each other that it's not a downside at all.
Why is there objection to the removal of a tactical consideration in the form of a nonsensical arbitration but then objection still to the introduction of a tactical consideration which is characterful and sensible?
-
Having re-read Sigoroth's proposal and understasnding it better, I think it works. Simple too since it's one SO check compared to each ship's individual Ld. It also balances things out, not making squadroning too strong because a low Ld ship can still not make the SO check and so there is still a downside. Makes re-rolls also valuable.
How would this affect low Ld factions like Orks though? Though I do think the Orks would lean more towards individual ships rather than forming squadrons.
Also, another question. Would this be unbalanced towards the ships not squadroned in terms of failed SO checks? Individual ships failing would mean SO checks would stop and would be a painful occurrence if it happened early on unlike squadroned ships which can still issue orders as long as one ship passed the SO check. Of course, a squadron can fail its SO check early on but the chances go down the more ships there are in a squadron. However, I do understand it is a mechanism meant to encourage squadroning.
-
Sig likes orders continuing if only one ship passes. I think that for balance sake it's better that it would end if even one failed.
I would think that Orks would still remain fairly individualized. Only one of their commander options has improved LD, and is 0-1 in Waagh! fleets. Although, there is the Hammer 'tank' possibility, which would mean taking a Big Mek on a Hammer with extra powerfields, then swapping the best leadershipped cruiser with his. About the best that you can do, but still relatively sub-par compared to other fleets.
All I can say is that with Horizon's option, it will make list building a much bigger deal than it is currently.
Oh, as a side note, Orks have the most mixed role ships, which make them strange for squadroning (unless you are using ones from the same class), a Hammer has equal argument for squadroning with shooting vessels as not.
-
Sig likes orders continuing if only one ship passes. I think that for balance sake it's better that it would end if even one failed.
Would be too harsh and discourage squadroning tho. There is a chance for many ships getting low Ld. How about this? If half the ships in a squadron passes, then the SOs can continue?
-
Would be too harsh and discourage squadroning tho. There is a chance for many ships getting low Ld. How about this? If half the ships in a squadron passes, then the SOs can continue?
It promotes the use of commanders, as these 'improve' the leadership of their squadmates. Otherwise, they would fail regardless. Chances are most 1500 lists would have only 1 squadron of capital ships, so this would only occur once.
-
Some could and would make multiple squadrons or even combinations of squadron and individual ships. Certainly a battleship would not squadron with cruisers and it is a common sight to have 1 battleship at that level points level. No, too harsh if SO ends with just 1 ship failing.
-
It promotes the use of commanders, as these 'improve' the leadership of their squadmates. Otherwise, they would fail regardless. Chances are most 1500 lists would have only 1 squadron of capital ships, so this would only occur once.
Needless to say, I agree with Admiral d'Artagnan. The point of forming squadrons from my point of view is to ameliorate the CoC problem, not to emphasise them.
However you may have noticed that I haven't said much about your idea for secondary commanders. This is because these rules allow secondary commanders to be able to do so many things, including your suggestion, and I was reticent to form blanket rules for them in the squadrons section. Rather I imagine them to be list specific rules.
These rules could be many things. You've noted raising minimum Ld to that of the commander (fairly powerful so I imagine a fairly low Ld commander). Another special rule could be to allow 2 or more different (non-brace) special orders to be used throughout the squadron (so some CTNH while others RO, etc). Another could be a lone wolf rule, ie, when not in squadron with other ships the character's ship can attempt special orders even if there's been a chain of command breakdown. Another possibility could be to allow re-rolls of secondary commanders to only affect ships that failed initially (so ships which passed couldn't fail as a result of the re-roll). Another rule might be +1 squadron Ld (race dependent cap), so a squadron with 6, 7 and 9 becomes 7, 8 and 9. There's a lot that can be done with secondary commanders with these rules.
-
@Horizon
You really need to read posts more carefully. We were discussing the effect of BFI not effecting the rest of the squadron, not leadership. And we didn't say it would make everyone always squadron. We said it dumbed down the game by making the decision to BFI an obvious one.
Then a rule was proposed and I'm now pointing out why this rule is broken.
@Sig
You need to work out with Plaxor whether one ship failing in a squadron counts as a failure or not. I was targeting the proposed rule specifically although the major part of my critique applies to your proposal as well.
Ive pointed out that you'll be breaking coherency with manouvering SO and that this system makes rerolls less useful. I expected you to say that it was a good thing. If you really think that players will look at this and say 'cool, now I can fail SO with part of my squadron and break coherency in a way that I won't be able to regain for multiple turns. That's just what the game needed!' Then go ahead and publish these rules. Take my name off the cover page. I don't want to be associated with it. Not one of my ideas has been considered or warnings heeded anyway, so there is none of me in this.
If BFG was written this way I wouldn't squadron. I primarily use squadroning to get portions of my fleet to perform the same action in unison. This means that won't happen and then I'm screwed for SO for a couple of turns afterward. It takes away the primary purpose of squadroning.
Look up groupthink on wikipedia if you care to.
-
Is there really a problem with the scenario you posted? So one ship fails. So what? 2 ships still succeeded and they can perform the SO you want to perform. It's up to that ship to get back into coherency next turn. The current rules are actually the dumbed down rules since the squadron tests using the highest leadership and the low LD ship can get away with it.
The point of Horizon is that first yOu're claiming the proposed rules are dumbing the game down which in effect you're saying it's making things too simple and that you're saying it's making squadroning the norm but now you are claiming it's problematic and people will not want to squadron. It doesn't matter whether the SO is BFI or AAF or LO or whatever.
So which is it really?
-
You need to read better too Admiral.
BFI not effecting the rest of the squadron for LO and RO dumbs down the game. Allowing ships to pass movement SO independently makes them break coherency. There are 2 problems with this ruleset.
Were ships allowed to go on LO or RO when another squadron-mate was on BFI, and that were the only change, there's no reason not to squadron. Now that youve introduced these screwy leadership rules, youre better off not squadroning. If you can't see that, then you shouldn't be playing at games designer.
-
he's saying that squadroning isn't different enough from not.
I don't think it really should be. It should be more a different way of issuing orders than anything else. LD represents crew skill level, and just because the ship has friends doesn't mean it should be more likely to succeed at a task.
-
Actually I'm saying its worse. There is no difference between squadroning or not except that if I fail a movement SO with a lone ship, I can attempt a SO the next turn.
Lets say one ship fails AAF and the other ships are far ahead. It could catch up to the formation if it could AAF the following turn, but since its out of coherency it can't go on SO. So the ship cant go on SO but is required to move in such a way to bring it into coherency, a SO would bring it into coherency, but it can't because its out of coherency and therefore can't go on SO.
-
So why not force it to try AAH if it will bring it bring it into coherency. If it fails then it just moves as close as it can to coherency as it can. Of, if a ship is out of coherency, it must try to use a special order that will bring it back into coherency.
-
Because for this to happen the ship will have to have low Ld. And what if the rest of the squadron goes on AAF again?
Why doesn't the whole squardon just go on SO at the same time?
The complaint everyone had against squadroning was that BFI forced all the ships to BFI. Allowing ships to BFI individually eliminates that. Nothing else was broken or needed changing. Keep the same squadroning rules but ships BFI individually and the rest of the squadron can't SO.
-
You need to read better too Admiral.
And you need to understand the question better.
BFI not effecting the rest of the squadron for LO and RO dumbs down the game. Allowing ships to pass movement SO independently makes them break coherency. There are 2 problems with this ruleset.
Were ships allowed to go on LO or RO when another squadron-mate was on BFI, and that were the only change, there's no reason not to squadron. Now that youve introduced these screwy leadership rules, youre better off not squadroning. If you can't see that, then you shouldn't be playing at games designer.
Weren't the two of you the ones who wanted a downside for every upside? Well there you have it. You have an upside in BFI being independent of other SOs but a downside in the Problem or coherency which you actually think is bad. You complain about the squadron rules being dumbed down and now complain the rules are bad which is absurd any way you look at it.
Now since obviously the both of you can't hold back the rhetoric and just have to, HAVE TO, insert snide and snippy remarks instead of having a debate about the topic and have given up on said topic, why don't you get the hell out of the topic and maybe the forum if you can't hold a civil conversation.
-
Actually I'm saying its worse. There is no difference between squadroning or not except that if I fail a movement SO with a lone ship, I can attempt a SO the next turn.
Lets say one ship fails AAF and the other ships are far ahead. It could catch up to the formation if it could AAF the following turn, but since its out of coherency it can't go on SO. So the ship cant go on SO but is required to move in such a way to bring it into coherency, a SO would bring it into coherency, but it can't because its out of coherency and therefore can't go on SO.
Now it's worse but there is no difference. Just keeps getting better and better.
As for your example, you don't have to go to an SO which will further take the ship further away to get all the ships back into coherency but if the situation is such that such a maneuver will be advantageous to you, then do it. Better the remaining squadron do what is best for it than have to wait forthe straggler.
Again, have either of you tested this out? Because until you have, it's all anecdotes. Better the actual game results rather than pure theory. And not just a game but multiple games.
I'm just waiting for my friend to have the time available to play. Then we'll try the rules out.
-
Sorry if I hurt your feelings Admiral.
I didn't say that there needed to be a downside for an upside. That was Plaxor saying he wanted a downside to the upside of the leadership bonus squadroning gives. I am also not responsable for defending Tag's arguments from several days ago. Lets talk about the rule and drop the rhetorical tactics. Instead of attempting to discredit me again, defend the rule on its merits.
Squadrons go on SO, but they can't go on multiple SO simultaneously with the exception of BFI. I don't like ships being able to BFI without effecting their squadton because it's an obvious choice and dumbs down the strategic elements of squadroning and should drag the game on. I don't like the leadership rules because the can force ships to break coherency on movement SOs if some fail and it will be hard for them to get back into coherency. A broken rule isn't a downside, its just broken.
I am thinking of creating a competing alternate ruleset because I think this one is going bad and I don't think my opinion is respected enough by the loudest members of this group to be considered. Its like if I say it, it must be wrong. I don't deserve the personal attacks. I may not have been playing for a decade but I play well and have good ideas. I have done or said nothing to deserve having my character assassinated. Im just trying to help the project. If you don't want my perspective or just plain dislike me for some reason, I don't need to be here. Tell me you don't want my input and I'll go.
-
I don't understand why a compromise can't be reached: one can BFI but the rest can't use SO but don't have to also BFI. Why won't this work? It's closer to realistic than the old way when they all had to BFI but not so far to have ships able to go on SO even when others in the squad BFI.
-
I don't understand why a compromise can't be reached: one can BFI but the rest can't use SO but don't have to also BFI. Why won't this work? It's closer to realistic than the old way when they all had to BFI but not so far to have ships able to go on SO even when others in the squad BFI.
A few reasons. One, it doesn't make sense. Two, because it unfairly punishes carriers which rely on RO.
Squadrons go on SO, but they can't go on multiple SO simultaneously with the exception of BFI. I don't like ships being able to BFI without effecting their squadron because it's an obvious choice and dumbs down the strategic elements of squadroning and should drag the game on. I don't like the leadership rules because the can force ships to break coherency on movement SOs if some fail and it will be hard for them to get back into coherency. A broken rule isn't a downside, its just broken.
I find myself in complete disagreement with you. I'll tackle this point by point so you can see the nature of the disagreement.
- obvious choice - well the choice is obvious either way. You either brace or you don't. Very obvious. What I think you mean is it becomes an easy choice, such that you will always brace. This is not true. I can tell you categorically that, sans squadrons, it is always a bonus to force the opponent to brace and always something to be avoided if you can. Therefore it only becomes an "obvious choice" if the incoming fire is overwhelming. In which case the attacker has over committed himself and the defender deserves the easy brace.
- strategic elements - this does not dumb down strategic elements. It does remove a strategic element, but it does not dumb it down. Being able to brace an entire squadron by shooting at one ship is a pretty dumbed down situation already. If anything this change to the BFI rule would require a lift in people's tactical performance.
- automatic squadroning - not a specific point you raised here, but has been raised before by others. This does not dumb down squadroning, though yes you should see more squadrons (not a bad thing). It is still something the player has to think about, but now it's about composition rather than just "should I?"
- dragging game on - I can't agree here. If you have less ships braced then you have more firepower, which means more hits, even if the opponent is braced. So you may find more braced targets, but you'll also find more firepower to use against them. Besides, what if your opponent has no squadrons? Are you going to berate him for dragging the game on because you can't force him to brace multiple ships by shooting at one?
- Coherency issues - yes, coherency would be harder to maintain. Why is this a bad thing? When you form a squadron of ships the benefits are seen in those ships working together. Combining fire, acting as a single unit, etc. However this should be harder to coordinate than a single ship. If all Ld are the same then it won't be harder (so the group works well together). This adds a tactical dimension to the game. It is hard to accept an argument of "dumbing down" with the removal of a bad (nonsensical) tactical element when you also object to the input of a good (ie, sensible) tactical element.
Also, I want to run an example by you. Let's say you have a mixed Ld Lunar squadron. They are all lined up perfectly evenly right next to each other (so the low Ld vessel isn't in front like you'd expect). You go on AAF and the low Ld vessel fails while the rest pass. Rolling your AAF roll you get 24(!), leaving the low Ld vessel some 25cm away from the next closest ship, putting it out of coherency. So next turn it can't go on orders, therefore can't AAF to try to catch up. You can still regain coherency. The rest of the squadron can go on BR to allow it to catch up. Or, if you don't want to do that, you can have 1 ship in the squadron move minimum distance (now 35cm away from straggler) while the straggler moves maximum distance (now 15cm away) regaining coherency.
I am thinking of creating a competing alternate ruleset because I think this one is going bad and I don't think my opinion is respected enough by the loudest members of this group to be considered. Its like if I say it, it must be wrong. I don't deserve the personal attacks. I may not have been playing for a decade but I play well and have good ideas. I have done or said nothing to deserve having my character assassinated. Im just trying to help the project. If you don't want my perspective or just plain dislike me for some reason, I don't need to be here. Tell me you don't want my input and I'll go.
Eh, I don't think I've done this. As for whether or not you're welcome here, the answer is of course yes. Hell, even Baron Iveigh is welcome, and he's completely insane. My god, I even allow Nate to air his views! ::)
Opposition to your opinion stems mostly, I think, from simple disagreement. This comes in two parts, one is disagreement with the current state of play (you have an interpretation somewhat different to the norm) and the other is disagreement with the impact that the proposed rule would have. You seem to think it would mean doom to the game.
The impression that I get from you is that your group regularly forms squadrons and so expects to either brace multiple ships or get a lot of unbraced hits through. This might also go some way to explain why you're so enamoured with line carriers, since using squadrons is the norm for you.
I rarely form squadrons and I usually do so only to reap the maximum benefits for minimum risk. This usually comes in the form of carrier squadrons, particularly support carriers that can hang back and sometimes also gunship squadrons that can hang back (Carnages specifically). Most of the time the rest of my ships are individual. Sometimes a squadron of 2 ships here or there. Therefore in my games there are very few "free" hits. If overwhelming fire comes in; brace. If not, don't brace till shields are down and it looks like 2-3 hull hits incoming at least.
So for me these changes would allow me to squadron more. For you it'd mean rethinking the way you play (given my assumptions about your groups' game style is correct). I believe the liberal use of squadrons in the current system to be a disadvantage, particularly in low points games. I'm surprised that you haven't run into this problem yourselves (again, see assumptions). Therefore shifting your game from current rules to proposed rules should be less of a shock to the system than coming up against an opponent that plays predominantly single ships.
TL;DR - I'm right and you're wrong, but in a considerate way, not at all condescending. ::) :P
-
I am starting to think that each cruiser, regardless of squadron, functioning independently, wouldnt be a bad thing. Mainly because it wont penalize gun boats or carrier specifically. To help balance it, a leadership test to target a further vessel in the squad would be a nurf to the old squadron rules and my earlier thoughts would buff it. Also, to balance this a bit, there would need to be some way to make sure a person couldn't squadron 6 cruisers, be able to use the highest leadership for all SO, and use whichever SO they want individually. I can see 4 lunar and 2 dictator squads doing this. How could this be regulated against?
-
You need to read better too Admiral.
BFI not effecting the rest of the squadron for LO and RO dumbs down the game. Allowing ships to pass movement SO independently makes them break coherency. There are 2 problems with this ruleset.
Were ships allowed to go on LO or RO when another squadron-mate was on BFI, and that were the only change, there's no reason not to squadron. Now that youve introduced these screwy leadership rules, youre better off not squadroning. If you can't see that, then you shouldn't be playing at games designer.
No, the proposed ruling was made by Sigoroth in his very first post, in the same post he said individual BFI should be. So these two things have been in effect the whole discussion from page 1 on.
You make it as if it was added. This isn't the case.
edit: I think no one is doing personal attacks. Merely giving disagreement on point of views. Personal attacks would be something like, you're sh*te, we do not listen to you. And/or simply ignore every post from you. Ignoring is the worst form.
-
Hell, even Baron Iveigh is welcome, and he's completely insane.
\
Lol, this made my night.
RC, I know you disagree, but you've been rather quiet.
Regarding loss of coherency,
I don't think this is as likely as it is being put out to be, assuming that the low ld ship isn't dragging behind, then you would have to roll at least 14cm, which is already above average. As well, there are re-rolls, and planning ahead.
Additionally, this assumes that you would be forming squadrons out of linebreakers, which is an obvious disadvantage. Note, that orks do not suffer from this (which is kind-of cool).
Squadrons shouldn't work seamlessly together, and can work fine with proper planning and precaution. This mechanic doesn't simplify or dumb things down, if anything it adds a tactical element to the game, and forces players to plan ahead if they intend to squadron.
-
I play with squadrons, so I know how they work pretty well. Were not running them in b2b. Theyre spread out a bit. I believe falling out of coherency will happen alot more than you think. And I think it will be harder for a straggler to regain coherency than you think. I do think this is a bad thing because the ship that failed their Ld will lose the opportunity to go on SO for at least 2 turns and the rest of the squadron is almost forced to attempt to regain coherency, aren't they?
Sig, in your example, what would happen if they started 10cm apart? Or if the ship that failed was the center link? Or if the ships that used the SO didn't cancel the advantage gained bt the SO to let the straggler catch up. I dont believe the game needs this dimension of difficulty.
This needs to be playtested.
How do you guys kill ships? Do you whittle them down point by point over the course of the game or smash them to bits in a couple turns of concentrated fire?
-
How do you guys kill ships? Do you whittle them down point by point over the course of the game or smash them to bits in a couple turns of concentrated fire?
Boarding actions w/orks. And desperate ramming attempts.
With other fleets (demiurg, IN, Chaos) usually it is a forced brace tactic. Shoot someone until they brace, or if they choose not to/fail an attempt take advantage of the situation and murder!
-
I've been quite busy. Things are rough at work, and it's the GF's birthday coming up so I've been occupied.
I know I said I wasn't likely to come around, but then Sigoroth made a decent argument for making it harder to stick in coherency (damn him! :)), so I don't object to these Ld rules, even though i'd still prefer the previous.
However, if we're going to create stragglers much easier, it means we MUST define the squadron in such a way that the stragglers don't gimp the entire squadron. This means a squadron command ship. Also, given that large formations become increasingly unwieldy with this method, is there really a necessity for a 4 ship restriction on Cap Ship size?
Ok, so based on what's been discussed, I'd formulate the rules something like this:
Squadron Command Checks:
A single command check is rolled for every ship in the squadron, and every ship whose leadership equals or beats that roll has passed the special order. This is called a Squadron Command Check. If a re-roll is used, this only affects ships which did not pass the first time, so that ships which have passed remain on special orders even if the re-rolled value is lower. As long as at least one ship in the squadron passes, the squadron is considered to have passed for the purposes of issuing orders to other ships or squadrons.
Individual ships within a squadron may Brace For Impact using their own leadership, but otherwise may not check to go on Special Orders. Braced ships are unaffected by special orders attempted by the squadron.
Squadron Command Ship:
This ship is determined first by which has the highest level character on board (if any), then by the ship with the most hitpoints, and finally by the ship with the highest leadership (including any modifier for Improved Auspex Arrays, as these ships make ideal command vessels).
If the Command Ship is destroyed or suffers a Bridge Smashed critical, the next most eligible ship becomes the Command Ship.
Squadron Formation:
A ship must be able to link itself back to the command ship either directly or through other ships in the squadron without any individual link between ships being more than 15cm. A ship which cannot link itself back to the Command Ship in this manner is out of formation.
Ships which are out of formation at the end of the movement phase lose the benefit of Lock On orders. In addition, whilst out of formation they may not combine fire with other members of the squadron, are unaffected by squadron command checks, and automatically fail any leadership tests they are called upon to make. Ships which are out of formation MUST attempt to move back into formation at the earliest opportunity.
Targeting Capital Ship Squadrons:
Capital ships within a squadron may be targeted in the same manner as individual ships. As usual, a leadership test must be passed in order to target any ship which is not the closest. Unlike escort squadrons, hits do not carry over onto other capital ships.
Commanders:
Fleet Admirals confer their leadership to the ship they are on even if it would normally be higher. Their re-rolls may be used for any command check taken by any vessel or squadron within the fleet.
Veteran Captains allow their ship or squadron to attempt a command check even if a command check has been failed previously. Their re-rolls may only be used for command checks affecting the vessel they are on, or for Squadron Command Checks if they are part of a squadron.
-
Squadron Command Ship:
This ship is determined first by which has the highest level character on board (if any), then by the ship with the most hitpoints, and finally by the ship with the highest leadership (including any modifier for Improved Auspex Arrays, as these ships make ideal command vessels).
If the Command Ship is destroyed or suffers a Bridge Smashed critical, the next most eligible ship becomes the Command Ship.
I'm confused about your hit point statement. Do you mean the ship with the highest current hit points or highest maximum?
-
Phthisis, put down your proposals. I will read them and will not just react negatively even if it sounds bad. I will read it and understand it. No one has a monopoly on good ideas here. I have ideas which I think are good and same with the others and ideas which others may think are bad. Case in point is the recent Escort and spillovers. While I still think it can be feasible (though most probably a major change to escorts which may or may not be bad), majority think it is not but at the very least I put the idea on the table to be discussed. It is also my responsibility to put any ideas I have on on paper so if you have your own ideas, voice it out and let it be discussed.
-
Squadron Command Ship:
This ship is determined first by which has the highest level character on board (if any), then by the ship with the most hitpoints, and finally by the ship with the highest leadership (including any modifier for Improved Auspex Arrays, as these ships make ideal command vessels).
If the Command Ship is destroyed or suffers a Bridge Smashed critical, the next most eligible ship becomes the Command Ship.
I'm confused about your hit point statement. Do you mean the ship with the highest current hit points or highest maximum?
Base hitpoints. I certainly wouldn't want the command ship swapping about just because it took one point of damage over the untouched ships in the squadron! EG a ship with a commander aboard will be command ship in preference to anything else, a Retribution will be command ship in preference to a Mars, and a Ld9 Lunar will be command ship in preference to a Ld8 Overlord. If you have a commander on a Ld7 Retribution with another commander on a ld8 Mars, the Retribution has priority. Possibly another step for Fleet Admiral is necessary.
-
I play with squadrons, so I know how they work pretty well. Were not running them in b2b. Theyre spread out a bit. I believe falling out of coherency will happen alot more than you think. And I think it will be harder for a straggler to regain coherency than you think. I do think this is a bad thing because the ship that failed their Ld will lose the opportunity to go on SO for at least 2 turns and the rest of the squadron is almost forced to attempt to regain coherency, aren't they?
Yarp, mishandled squadrons would result in lost opportunities by the stragglers. I don't think that's a bad thing. As for regaining coherency, only stragglers are forced to attempt to regain coherency. The rest of the squadron is not obligated to attempt to regain coherency, though the controlling player may choose to do so.
Sig, in your example, what would happen if they started 10cm apart? Or if the ship that failed was the center link? Or if the ships that used the SO didn't cancel the advantage gained bt the SO to let the straggler catch up. I dont believe the game needs this dimension of difficulty.
Well, if they were already 10 cm apart with the low Ld ship the furthest back and it was the only one that failed the AAF and the rest of the squadron rolled 24 on their 4d6 then the player could still BR for the rest of the squadron to regain coherency (note, the straggler would not have halved firepower). Let's assume the same situation again but there was only a 14 rolled for the AAF, then the player could regain coherency by moving one ship at minimum and the straggler at maximum, as per my previous example.
Also, I'd like to point out that you, as the player, have some control here. You can place the lower Ld ship forward. Means that any AAF would be unlikely to cause a coherency failure. Similarly, you can place a low Ld ship on a wing, so that it is not the lynchpin.
This needs to be playtested.
Yarp.
How do you guys kill ships? Do you whittle them down point by point over the course of the game or smash them to bits in a couple turns of concentrated fire?
Typically I commit only enough firepower in one shot to make it a difficult decision to brace. If they do not I put a bit more in. Then more, until they're braced or crippled/destroyed or I have no more to put in. I also try to position my ships such that they have more than one target each so that I can switch when my primary has braced. I also like to ensure that the primary hits come from a direction away from my main deployment of force, so that there is no interference. This method serves until I have manoeuvred into a position where I can bring overwhelming force to bare.
Against squadrons or closing cap ships with 5+ armour where hits come fast and easy I like to put as much firepower as I can into them, since the former aren't likely to brace (or if they do I get a lot out of it anyway) and the latter take enough damage that even if they brace a significant amount of hull hits gets through.
-
I agree with Sigoroth, shutting down the enemy fleet is a good strategy. Making sure return fire is as minimal as possible.
It may give you less victory points as the enemy can disengage but it also ensure your opponent gets less victory points.
This is also why it can be tricky to use Elite fleets with few ships. These are easy to surpress.
-
It just occurred to me that your example Phthisis was 10cm abeam, not astern. This makes it even easier to regain coherency. You would be able to regain coherency without recourse to using BR for the rest of the squadron if the AAF roll was 23cm or less (on 4d6). If you were to roll four sixes (1 in 1296) then you would fall short of regaining coherency next turn by 1.2 millimetres. This can be easily worked out by some simple trig (h2 = a2 + b2 = 442 + 102 = 2036, so h = 45.12 cm. Movement (30cm) + coherency (15cm) = 45cm = 0.12 cm short).
So regaining coherency in that sort of situation won't be too hard (1295/1296 chance to be doable without recourse to SO). In fact, you can even calculate how much you have to slow down a ship to regain coherency based on how your AAF roll went. Since we know the hypotenuse can be a maximum of 45cm and the width was 10cm then any combined movement totalling 53.87 cm across the 2 turns will be satisfactory (this includes the 10cm movement before the straggler is able to turn). So if you rolled 19 on your AAF then you can slow the nearest ship to the straggler down to 14.87 cm and still retain coherency (which is nearly full speed if you made contact with a BM).
-
I'm ending all rules discussion on BFG:R, for further information see the flawed ships thread.
-
Hey,
Yesterday we played Imperial Navy vs Chaos // 1000pts.. Was my first Imperial Navy battle. Using all official rules including FAQ2010. Except stacking ofcourse.
So.... I decided to run a squadron of two Lunars... and exactly this is why I lost the battle (212 vs 252 vps iirc) (I always lose the first battle with a race I never used before). The two Lunars where being targetted. I did not brace as this would make them not as good next turn. So.. the Idolators decided to roll 3 sixes with batteries versus the prow, plus 3 lance hits, plus thrusters damaged = crippled. Subsequent fire fire killed it, didn't brace... ah well. Lunar down.
If I had them separate as usual I would have braced. The Lunar would still be alive, perhaps crippled, but not destroyed.
I rather have a second Lunar lose a dice for firing through blastmarkers and a second SO Ld test then above crap.
So either indiviudal BFI allowed or don't squadron at all.
Positive points: IN plays nice. Dominator is good. Dictator as well (combo attack in one turn with ordnance, albeit bombers rolled abysmal). And why would someone not take the Widowmaker upgrade on Cobra's. That squadron performed perfect.
For completeness:
Imperial Navy
fleet admiral
Dictator
Dominator
2x Lunar
2x 3 Cobra's (one widowmaker squadron)
Chaos:
Styx with nurgle
2x Slaughter
4x Idolator (not to be underestimated)
4x Iconoclast
-
I agree on squadrons but spill over and targeting specific ships need to be fixed too imo. If spill over is allowed it should work so that all hits are spread across the squadron. In your case two lunars take 6 hits in a squad that should be 2 shields down each and one hit each, unless they had opted to target just one (with a command check). It doesn't make sense that they are peppering the area with shot to hit the squadron but only one ship takes all the shots.
-
Well, under official rules the closest vessel is being hit.
-
I know I'm just saying it would make more sense if that wasn't the case
-
Given the scale size true.