Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: horizon on May 09, 2011, 10:08:31 AM
-
BFG: Revised : Fighter Rules Topic
Hi,
throughout various posts I expressed my dislike for the BFG:R proposed fighter rules.
I'll tell you why.
It adds a layer of extra rolls and luck to the game.
It increases the amount of AC in the game.
It increases the strength of AC in the game.
Since the more the merrier is applying.
In the official rules one fighter marker would remove one opposing marker. Straightforward, simplistic, easy to play. Balanced to both parties.
I could see a wave of 8 (6 bombers + 2 fighters per example) coming to me, send two fighters and now it'll be 6. Turret fire shooting vs 6 incoming. And no +2 fighter attacks.
Under the proposed rules of BFG:R I could sent in 2 fighters, roll bad, lose both, yet opponent rolls good, keeps both. Opponent goes on to attack with all 8 markers.
Thus more AC = more dice rolls = more chance on good rolls (aka more chance your markers survive).
I think it is a layer of luck added to the game with no tactical improvement to the game. Only downsides to the complete package.
Now, try to convince me it has a good tactical merrit to the game.
:)
-
It adds a layer of extra rolls and luck to the game.
True.
It increases the amount of AC in the game.
False. Fighters will remove AC faster, therefore there will be less.
It increases the strength of AC in the game.
False. It increases the strength of Fighters. Everything else stays the same or requires escort, an effective decrease.
In the official rules one fighter marker would remove one opposing marker. Straightforward, simplistic, easy to play. Balanced to both parties.
But makes fighter escorts pointless, except by an additional bad mechanic that favours only bombers.
I could see a wave of 8 (6 bombers + 2 fighters per example) coming to me, send two fighters and now it'll be 6. Turret fire shooting vs 6 incoming. And no +2 fighter attacks.
Under the proposed rules of BFG:R I could sent in 2 fighters, roll bad, lose both, yet opponent rolls good, keeps both. Opponent goes on to attack with all 8 markers.
Or you could roll really well and the fighters will not only eliminate the bombers, but go on to attack a different wave as well. On average each fighter will remove 2 other AC unless they're escorted.
So the plus is that the fighters get better at being fighters, reducing the need for stupid mechanics like turret suppression. There's also more thought involved in the composition of a wave - you can't just send an unescorted wave into contested space. Encounters may have more dice rolling, but I feel this is more interactive and the risks involved make it more like a battle rather than a forgone conclusion.
-
So roll dependant. Not tactical improvement.
This:
It increases the amount of AC in the game.
False. Fighters will remove AC faster, therefore there will be less.
No, more AC will be added to have more fighters.
Why? Because you are making bombers better as well.
Turret Suppression is abstract.
It is balanced.
-
Who's making bombers better? They're remaining exactly as is except fighters will kill more of them.
We discussed changes to bombers (and also the dropping of turret suppression - it may be abstract, but it's a bad abstract based off a flawed D6-T system) but agreed not to make any changes for now.
The additional thought required for wave composition is tactical improvement. The risk involved means you have to be aware of and plan for alternate outcomes - both tactical improvements.
In addition, an increased sense that this is actually a battle going on, not just a forgone conclusion, and additional involvement in the ordnance phase is an end in itself.
-
?
No, the bomber rules have remained the same; combined with turret suppression bombers can still hurt battleships. If we were to change the rules, it would be to make bombers more effective against battleships.
I am preparing for the future. ;)
Your turret suppression makes bombers better.
-
I wouldn't have turret suppression at all. But either way, changes to bombers/turret suppression are off the cards.
-
Odd. I would (ref : Wing Commander (per Plaxor ;) and Star Wars).
If you add layers why not a modifier for outnumbering?
-
Because that reduces the effect of token fighter escorts, and the whole point of the rules are that fighter escorts are worthwhile. Also more complicated.
-
I think outnumbering should have more effect then resilience for every fighter.
More complicated, yes, perhaps. But this resilience: nah. Not like this.
-
Horizon's right, the current rules are to luck based. A 4+ save for ALL fighters is just ridiculous. but outnumbering is good enough as is. I would suggest reducing the save to a 5+ or 6+ which would make the ord. phase less luck based while retaning the effectiveness of token fighter escorts. If you want fighters to be more complicated, then allow some ships to purchase upgrades to the resilient save and create rules for how fighter combat is affected by celestial phenomena. Dogfighting in a asteroid belt would be a lot diffent than in open space, it would be a lot harder to find and shoot down enemy craft. this would make sending wings through phenomena less of a no-brainer and more of a calculated risk. thats my 2 cents.
-
In the official rules one fighter marker would remove one opposing marker. Straightforward, simplistic, easy to play. Balanced to both parties.
I could see a wave of 8 (6 bombers + 2 fighters per example) coming to me, send two fighters and now it'll be 6. Turret fire shooting vs 6 incoming. And no +2 fighter attacks.
Under the proposed rules of BFG:R I could sent in 2 fighters, roll bad, lose both, yet opponent rolls good, keeps both. Opponent goes on to attack with all 8 markers.
Now, try to convince me it has a good tactical merrit to the game.
Without reading the proposed rules you are asking about, I will say this to the post you wrote,
1. Combat in this game is already luck of the dice. So adding the die rolls to the attack craft is not harming the game any.
2. Combat is never a forgone conclusion. History has repeated itself over and over of the most remarkable things happening in combat. To resist the idea of adding a bit of randomness to the fighter combat is actually an insult to the game, IMO.
3. I have yet to play the Warp Rift article about enhanced fighter coverage, but thought that was pretty well written out. I guess this idea is just a simpler version of that?
-Zhukov
-
I don't like the idea of fighters all being resilient. The only thing I think makes sense in terms of all being resilient is getting a save against bombers. That would kind of force people to escort bombers with their own fighters.
-
I brought this up in another thread, but as long as we are talking about fighters getting a save....
How about fighters only get a save when used as an escort for bombers & assault boats? If theyre in the wave they get a 4+, but otherwise 1 for 1. Fighters take out torpedos 1 wave for 1 counter and unescorted AC 1 for 1.
-
Because then, for example, 3 fighters and 1 bomber are a more effective fighter force than 4 fighters.
-
instead of making it an auto universal rule, why not make people pay a premium for it and the costs increase as the number of LB's increase in the fleet? And if taken for one it must be taken for all across that fleet, reflecting the crafstmanship/piloting skills of the ordinance in question.
2lb's = 15pts
4lb's = 25pts
6lb's = 35pts
8lb's = 50pts
10lb's + = 80 pts
Tweek scale as you prefer. And to make it clear, I didnt think of this involving bombers or AB's to be included in this resliancy price chart. If you want that the cost is likely to go up even more and less depending on the race specific AC. Imperial vessels for example dont get AB's except on the BB's and Orks/Choas/DE get them on any LB.
As for Tyranid Ord, make it 5cm slower then the contemperary counterpart in the Navy/Choas lists and apply above chart.
Feel free to disagree and point out the weakness's with this proposed solution, but if you do please offer counter points that would work instead. No system is perfect or satisfy's every one in question, the objective is to find something close enough to satisfy the majority and add's something to the game.
-
@RC
But then youre wasting a whole wave to do what 1 lone fighter could do per turn. The wave has to stop when it hits an enemy marker, whether it makes its save or not. So a wave intercepts a torpedo salvo and takes it out. A fighter has a 50% chance to survive and the other markers are a waste... Very inefficient use of AC and easy enough to counter. You have a much better chance of dealing with enemy ordnance if its fighters alone.
Really the only use for a save in a squadron is to protect them on the way in.
Alternatively, a save vs bombers would be better than what we have now.
-
4 fighters vs 8 bombers. 4 bombers survive.
3 fighters 1 bomber vs 8 bombers. 2 bombers survive.
That's why that system won't work.
-
We should do a pool system. Later more...
-
@RC
Each fighter takes a bomber at least with a 50% chance of taking a second. Thats an average of 1.5 per fighter, not 2. So average 3.5 bombers left. Of course, there's a possibility of 5 bombers surviving which wouldn't happen with 4 fighters.
Also, your fighters are now stuck moving 20cm because of the bomber.
-
Ordnance Pool.
Okay this system is not new. I am just gonna re introduce it.
All Official Rules apply to fighter-aboats-bombers
Turret Suppression : per faq 2010 but only surviving fighters add an attack (this is wing commander/xwing ;) ).
Nate Montez rip off...
SET-UP:
Before the start of a game, each player assembles a number of attack craft counters equal to twice the number of launch bays available to the fleet, in any combination desired.
In mixed fleets that field special ordnance types, no more than twice the number of bays carried by the ship launching the special ordnance can be fielded, counted against the total for the fleet.
For instance, if a fleet has a total of twelve launch bays but only one cruiser equipped with torpedo bombers, up to twenty-four markers may be assembled for the fleet, but no more than eight torpedo-bomber markers may be taken, counted against the total.
When calculating for fleets that have variable launch bays (such as Orks), assemble a number of attack craft markers equal to twice the maximum number of bays available.
For instance, two 'Ammer battle kroozers (each with D3+1 launch bays) would count for sixteen total attack craft markers.
This "store" or Space Wing of attack craft is all the fleet will have available in the course of the battle.
ORDNANCE PLAY:
As attack craft are removed from play for any reason, the markers are NOT returned to the fleet's Space Wing, they are set aside until the End Phase.
END PHASE:
* After all critical damage is repaired by both fleets and all hits are tallied(Huh), each fleet discards (removes permanently from play) one attack craft marker of the owning player's choice from the fleet's Space Wing for every launch bay permanently lost due to starships becoming crippled, destroyed, etc.
* Afterward, each fleet rolls a D6 for each attack craft marker removed from play for any reason. For every roll of 1, an attack craft marker of the owning player's choice is discarded. However, the number already discarded due to lost launch bays may be counted against this total.
In other words, if a player loses two launch bays in a given turn and then rolls a single 1 in the end phase for discarding removed attack craft, he only loses two ordnance markers, not three.
NOTE: Obviously, only the ship equipped to carry special attack craft such as Thunderhawks or torpedo bombers may launch them, so if that ship is lost in the course of the battle, ALL the special ordnance markers attached to that ship must be discarded, even if it exceeds the maximum number of ordnance counters that must be discarded.
For instance, during set-up an Imperial player fielding a single Emperor battleship decides to max out on assault boats and adds 16 of them to his Space Wing. If in the course of a battle the battleship is lost, all sixteen of them must be discarded at the End Phase even if only eight launch bays were lost that turn.
-
genius. pure genius. that is THE best ordinance idea I have ever heard.
-
Really really dislike.
-
lol
I like it. It makes for tactical thinking on what you deploy and use.
-
Definitely a good start and should be the case really. AC shouldn't be unlimited.
-
Hey, while we are at it, lets limit the amount of ammunition the ships have. And lets keep seperate hit points levels for crew and ship structure. Oh, and lets seperate each ship into sections and account for damage so if you take too many hits there the weaponty goes out and can't be repaired. :'(
You know, one thing I like about BFG is that the ruleset is relatively simple and uncomplicated.
-
I would like to be able to play this game in a day, not several. Can we keep the micromanaging down?
-
The above two posts epitomise my objection.
I'm actually think it would be cool to develop a more complicated game surrounding perhaps up to three cap ships. A BFG:Necromunda if you will.
Similarly, I wonder about a streamlined BFG:Epic.
-
Then play Battlefleet Koronus, only for the space combat. hehe
-
The rule provided by Horizon will not slow things down especially since the number of AC will dwindle down as the game goes on.
I don't mind running out of torps. WBs and Lances will generally have enough ammo and power to fight at best a 6 hour (a player turn being the equivalent of 30 minutes) combat in space.
Objections answered.
-
Sure. No extra time at all. That whole extra phase twice a turn will just whiz by. Tough decisions get made quickly. And having to come up with an AC roster before every game won't take any extra time either.
If you want to include AC micromanagement in your games, be my guest. I want to finish a game in 3 hours. Don't force this on every player. Make it optional.
-
Sure. No extra time at all. That whole extra phase twice a turn will just whiz by. Tough decisions get made quickly. And having to come up with an AC roster before every game won't take any extra time either.
Of course. You haven't even tried it and you're knocking it already. And coming up with a roster before the game is a problem?
If you want to include AC micromanagement in your games, be my guest. I want to finish a game in 3 hours. Don't force this on every player. Make it optional.
Again, you don't even know if the game will finish in 3 hours or 1 even with the new changes.
-
That happens all over the place all the time. People use their minds to think about what a change to a rule will be like in games and form opinions on it. You don't have to try everything to understand, at least on a basic level, what a change will look like.
-
I think it is a lot better then rolling extra dice.
-
Nice one Dan! :D
Have you tried stabbing yourself with a fork, Admiral?
I know how long games take with the new rules because so far nobody has added more rediculous record keeping, so it has stayed about the same.
How about you try it, and if you like it then you play that way and I don't because I don't want to spend all that time. I have trouble enough finding time to play 6 turns in an evening as it is.
@Horizon
I think there are a lot of better solutions than rolling saves for every fighter. Primarily among them is just not rolling more dice. I agree that the saves for fighters should go away. Although the pool is a novel solution, I'd rather streamline the game and keep it moving at a good pace. But it's a good option for people who enjoy micromanagement.
-
The save system was to make fighters more defensive. Making it less dominating when someone runs 6 explorers in 1500 points.
As well the fighters don't get a save against torps, which added a small layer of tactics.
Anyways, when RC and I discussed it we both thought that people wouldn't like it, and that if they hated it too much then we would just scrap it. So consider all-round fighter saves scrapped.
Anyone have any better ideas? Nate's system doesn't have all that many fans, and personally I don't like the idea of ordnance running out.
-
I'm not saying I don't like the rules Horizon posted, I just think having those as an option is good and not the norm. I honestly didn't mean to jab at Admiral with my comment, I just think people have the right to comment on something without having to try it out.
-
Plaxor,
Wrong. The Explorers can sent out fighters to counter as well (for speed).
On Nate's system:
if people dislike micro management :
keep the pool. Thus pre-select ordnance you take.
But scrap the discard dice rolls in the end phase. But do discard upon crippled/destroyed carriers.
-
Well I'm seriously disappointed that you guys have killed fighters being that little bit better. It was the best of not very many options to sort ordnance out, and now it's dead the chances are things will just remain as they were, with fighters being pointless in an escort role, yet more potent than bombers vs T3+ targets.
-
Plaxor,
Wrong. The Explorers can sent out fighters to counter as well (for speed).
On Nate's system:
if people dislike micro management :
keep the pool. Thus pre-select ordnance you take.
But scrap the discard dice rolls in the end phase. But do discard upon crippled/destroyed carriers.
That completely defeats the point of the pool, as it would be no different than at present yet still be more complicated.
-
You are correct on that. Would only work if you have as many markers (preselected) as launch bays.
-
Nice one Dan! :D
Have you tried stabbing yourself with a fork, Admiral?
Have you? It's one thing to know stabbing you a fork will hurt. It's another to try out someone's idea which can possibly improve the game which in no way is related to fork stabbing.
I know how long games take with the new rules because so far nobody has added more rediculous record keeping, so it has stayed about the same.
Yeah but can you or can you not say with certainty that Horizon's suggestions will really add more time to the game or more time as RCG's suggestion.
How about you try it, and if you like it then you play that way and I don't because I don't want to spend all that time. I have trouble enough finding time to play 6 turns in an evening as it is.
I would but the rule Horizon has reposted is still incomplete. There will still be some things needed to be clarified.
-
I don't need to try it to know it will add a lot of time to the game.
Many in our group see fighters as already pretty good. Adding a save to all of them adds a luck factor without adding to their defensive capability.
I still favor giving fighters a 4+ save when escorting AC only. Then they have a better chance of defending than they do attacking and this is the only option so far that works out that way.
-
Many in our group see fighters as already pretty good. Adding a save to all of them adds a luck factor without adding to their defensive capability.
I still favor giving fighters a 4+ save when escorting AC only. Then they have a better chance of defending than they do attacking and this is the only option so far that works out that way.
A save benefits both defensively and offensively. Fighters would become necessary defensively because without them enemy fighters can kill more than their own number of bombers and assault boats. People around here are often arguing to tone down AC slightly - this would do precisely that by causing higher casualties AND forcing LB slots to be 'wasted' on offensively useless fighters. The save mechanic forces no more rolls than if the Ordnance were resilient, a current rule. What would cause more dice rolling is forcing AC battles to continue to the death. This need not be a feature, or it may happen over multiple Ordnance Phases - eg: Bombers or ABs which begin their movement in contact with enemy fighters move half distance to represent their evasive actions. This would allow fighters to slow enemy ordnance and fight defensively without stopping it in its tracks.
A save only when escorting causes 3 fighters and 1 bomber could expect victory over 4 fighters, and is therefore ridiculous.
-
Could the resilient save just decrease? I mean, 4+ seems a bit much. The numbers of a 5+ resilience may make more sense?
-
Bombers have significant defensive armament. 3 squadrons of fighters should have a good shot at driving 4 squadrons of attacking fighters away as the bombers will contribute to their own defense. It makes sense to me.
But 1 bomber in a wave of 4 is a bit of a waste isn't it? I don't think anyone will waste their AC that way. More likely 2 fighters and 2 bombers. In this scenario, the fighters are better at protecting the bombers than with the 4+ save to all fighters. Its only half as dependant on luck as well.
But maybe the 4+ save to fighters isn't so bad. I didn't like it at first, but I like it better than the pool.
-
Reducing the save makes it not really worth it to take fighter escort and sacrifice offensive power, vs just risking interception and taking more bombers
But having the save only apply to escorted waves means escorted waves can defeat pure fighters. The official rulebook states this about fighters contacting bombers: "the fighters quickly eliminate the lumbering bombers" . Thus it makes no sense from a fluff perspective or a game mechanics perspective.
-
How about trying these rules instead:
Fighters may remain in play on a 4+ after every interaction. Resilient fighters have a 3+.
When the markers first contact, one round of interaction is fought.
Any marker that has an interaction has its speed for that turn halved. If it has already moved up to half speed, then it stops where it is.
If survivors are in contact at the beginning of the ordnance phase, a round of combat is fought.
The surviving markers may interact twice in one ordnance phase if, after moving off, they are caught again by the enemy.
I think this is a better iteration of the rules that I first proposed, as multiple rounds are not fought all at once and AC may still move off (though at half speed to represent the necessary combat manoeuvres).
-
Sigoroth's resilience rule seems clearer. I think you're trying to introduce something similar but I am not sure. Are you?
-
I don't know what Sigoroth's rules are, so I can't say.
Basically, fighters become tougher, with a similar mechanic to resiliency, but which resiliency can modify.
Apart from that, the difference is that AC may move away after interactions at up to half speed.
Everything else is just a logical following through of these two points.
-
Here:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/sg/forum/index.php?action=search2
Remove all the limitations on resilient ordnance except one: can only attempt to save once per turn. So if I send out 4 fighters and after interceptions 2 of them survive. Then I've got the choice of intercepting 2 more AC, losing my remaining fighters, or waiting till next turn for my 4+ save to regenerate.
-
If that's the way people would like to play it, I'm happy to integrate that into the rules I've just proposed. They seem like complementary mechanics.
-
How about fighters on cap gain a 6+ resilient save (ideally combined with the above much simpler ïŠ resilient save rules so they can intercept twice from a single wave some of the time) this would nerf an advantage in ac somewhat by allowing the player with the smaller number of bays to defend somewhat more effectively.
-
If people want the normal resilience for fighters I would like to see 6+. Not 4+.
Resilient fighters: 3+
-
6+ or 5+ isn't enough of a boost to make escorting worthwhile. For the fraction more of an AC you'd save by escorting your bombers, it would be more worthwhile to just send more bombers and risk interception.
For example: 3 bombers 1 fighter are intercepted by 2 fighters.
With 4+: 50% chance bombers are untouched, 50% chance 1 is killed. Average 2.5 survive.
With 5+: 33% chance bombers are untouched, 66% chance 1 is killed. Average 2.33 survive.
With 6+: 16.7% chance bombers are untouched, 83.3% chance 1 is killed. Average 2.16 survive.
4 Bombers unescorted, 2 survive.
Compare to an unescorted wave not being intercepted (4 bombers survive):
Escorted not intercepted is at 75% effectiveness.
4+ escorted reduced to 62.5% effectiveness.
5+ escorted reduced to 58.3% effectiveness.
6+ escorted reduced to 54.2% effectiveness.
Unescorted reduced to 50% effectiveness.
So in exchange for 25% absolute power, 6+ and 5+ provide too marginal a benefit compared to just sending all bombers and hoping not to get intercepted. Even with a 4+ you would only escort if you were pretty certain you were going to get intercepted.
-
Yeah well, I think 4+ is too strong.
It makes normal fighters too strong and devaluates the strength of resilient AC.
You can throw arguments and % at me but in this game where AC abuse is already around every corner I cannot go ahead with such edits.
6+ is fine if you go by it since fighters should add in bombing runs.
-
Stronger fighters means weaker AC.
Every wave that includes a fighter escort is fewer bombers that gets to make an attack. Additional casualties due to fighters also means a reduction in AC offensive effectiveness per bay.
You say that will mean people take more bays? People can already spam LBs, but they generally don't because a mixed approach is better, and there's a hard cap to the number of bays that can be taken in the form of a points limit. If people take more bays to make up for a reduction in offensive power, that's only getting them back to where they were at the expense of their gunships.
On the other hand, if Fighters are worth more defensively then people can get away with taking fewer defensive AC, in which case the number of AC in play would reduce. I have no idea how you think this will make ordnance more dominating. ???
-
Stronger fighters means weaker AC.
Or more AC. ;)
As you say.
-
Or less AC, as defensively you don't need as much.
Offensively, to get the same power you would need more AC, but this is a nerf as you lose firepower in this trade off. Additionally, people who had already taken max carriers find themselves with a straight up nerf to ordnance power.
Either way, ordnance dominates less. More AC != More Ordnance Domination.
-
Just giving fighters a resilient save doesn't change much.
We have been playing AC heavy here (16 bays usually in 1500pts) and at that level I can't say that I've seen AC do anything spectacular. Even when one side dominates in terms of ordnance, fighters can nerf waves to the point they aren't much of a threat.
The real damage is from shotgunning, and I don't see how fighters gaining a save will change ordnance strength.
-
They won't increase it, certainly.
-
But we don't want to ruin an ordinance heavy fleet, do we? I mean, we want fleets to be able to do damage with bombers.
Would these resilient rules work alright with the turret suppression listed in faq2010? I think game-wise it would but I wonder if that would make the AC in a fleet so much more dependent on fighters. Maybe it should be that way?
-
I would happily bin Turret suppression and make bombers do an unmodified D3 attacks in all circumstances. Fighter-Bombers could do 1 attack. But I got my head chewed off for suggesting that last time.
-
I think I would prefer something to that effect.
-
So here we have 2 options;
Delete resilient fighters, or reduce their save to 5+. I'm assuming no 'yays' on that one but we'll see.
-
If fighters are resilient, are fightabommerz resilient too?
-
This is a good question... It they are resilient, they are much more powerful as bombers as well, not just fighters.
-
Nate Montez rules rock. After the first game my group ever played, we've played with the Montez rules every game ever since (and that's YEARS of BFG games, btw).
In fact, after discussing it, our group gives the fighters, bombers, and assault boats of each race an attacking (for fighters only) and defending value for combat. Any survivors of combat need to roll to see if they have expended their fuel (hence needing to go back to base). The remaining AC on the board need to decide whether they disengage or continue to fight. We also give the option of having green, veteran, or elite AC pilots. Green pilots mean cheaper carriers and have a -1 in combat. Veteran are normal. Elite have a +1. We have played this way for a few years and it hardly slows the game down at all.
-Zhukov
-
Fightabommaz would have a resilient save of 6+. Our plan was 5+, but this works fine too.
-
I really do think fighters should have the 4+. They're just not worth using as escorts otherwise.
It doesn't matter whether or not fighterbommers get the save, as they're never going to be used to escort anything.
-
Ok. I'm on board with 4+ saves for fighters, 6+ saves for fightabommerz.
I'm also on board with bombers making D3 attacks and figtabommerz making 1.
-
As a general note: this save is not going to be called resilience.
Resilience is a different (though similar) mechanic where things get even tougher than they already were.
I think D3 attacks for bombers is an argument for another edition.
-
So from balanced ordnance we go to weak ordnance.
If such a ruling as phtthisis writes comes please deduct points from carriers across the board...
I'm no ordnance fan but this is the other end.
-
RC's idea was D3 with no subtraction for turrets. Its an increase.
@RC
Another edition? Good idea.
-
It would be counterbalanced by turrets hitting on a 3+ and fighters having a 4+ save.
But no, I don't think giving fighters a 4+ save will have too much effect. Their 1 round damage potential would be identical to what it is now - under current and proposed rules, 4 fighters will eliminate 4 bombers. If they can subsequently catch the bombers, then yes they'll do some more damage if they've survived and you didn't just re-launch a fresh wave anyway.
-
@RC
Another edition? Good idea.
There are some things worth fighting over now, and some that aren't. We couldn't come up with an easy solution so the simplest is to just... well wait and think about it after the other changes settle.
-
D3 is better then D6-turrets (but suppression allowed)???
RcG
Pretty weird you can say 4+save has little effect...
-
I think I will save all further ordnance matters (including the resilient fighter save) for another edition of BFG:R. Let's get 1.0 done first, then we can get the Bomber/fighter situation resolved after things cool down.
Just as a note, in case my wording was problematic, fighters will not have an auto-res save.
-
So, no resilience but still turret supression? Just would like to know so I can give it a go in the upcoming games.
-
Good. A save to fighters like that would ruin AC ordnance.
-
So, no resilience but still turret supression? Just would like to know so I can give it a go in the upcoming games.
Yes. Still turret suppression.
-
RcG
Pretty weird you can say 4+save has little effect...
8 bombers fly into a CAP of 4 fighters. 4 bombers survive.
Give the fighters a 4+ save, and perhaps 2 fighters survive, but the same amount of bombers are killed. Any additional damage must be done in subsequent ordnance phases, but it's too late because the bombers have effectively shotgunned.
Now under current rules 6 bombers and 2 fighters fly into a CAP of 4 fighters. all the fighters and 2 bombers die, leaving 4 bombers. You might as well have taken more bombers. However, give the fighters a 4+ save, and there's a 25% chance 2 bombers die, 50% chance 1 bomber dies, and 25% chance 0 bombers die. On average, 5 bombers are left, an improvement for the bombers over at present.
-
8 bombers fly into a CAP of 4 fighters. 4 bombers survive.
Give the fighters a 4+ save, and perhaps 2 fighters survive, but the same amount of bombers are killed. Any additional damage must be done in subsequent ordnance phases, but it's too late because the bombers have effectively shotgunned.
Now under current rules 6 bombers and 2 fighters fly into a CAP of 4 fighters. all the fighters and 2 bombers die, leaving 4 bombers. You might as well have taken more bombers. However, give the fighters a 4+ save, and there's a 25% chance 2 bombers die, 50% chance 1 bomber dies, and 25% chance 0 bombers die. On average, 5 bombers are left, an improvement for the bombers over at present.
I disagree with this idea because I disagree with the current rules for resilience that only allows one interception and halted movement for resilient fighters. Eldar have much fewer AC than other races and it's supposed to be roughly 50% better to make up for the lack (quality over quantity). This means that 4 Eldar fighters should take out 6 enemy AC on average. This would happen if they were allowed to continue movement and removal each turn. So a fighter could remove and enemy fighter, take its save and, if passed, remove another enemy ordnance marker before itself being removed too. This is a fix to balance Eldar against other races.
If all fighters were resilient and could continue on they would essentially become (fixed) Eldar fighters. This is unbalanced between races and would devalue AC offensively. So it has to be one or the other and I prefer a fixed Eldar.
-
Yes, Eldar/Dark Eldar and SM will be the ones directly impacted by All-Fighters-Have-4+-Saves.
-
Yes, Eldar/Dark Eldar and SM will be the ones directly impacted by All-Fighters-Have-4+-Saves.
Tau a bit as well, their resilient Manta's drop some in worth.
-
How about doing it another way? Instead of fighters getting a 4+ save, ABs and bombers have to do a check if half of their (as in their type, ABs or bombers) number are destroyed? This at least now gives a 50-50 chance of ABs/Bombers staying on the table or being removed and would I think encourage fighter escorts.
Examples:
a. 8 bombers in a wave are attacked by 4 fighters. 4 counters removes and they now have to roll a 4+ in order to stay on the board. Failure means they were shaken by the fighter attack and the bombers are dispersed and go back to their ships.
b. 6 bombers and 2 normal fighters are attacked by 4 normal fighter counters. 2 fighters are removes as well as 2 bombers. 6 bomber counter remains. The remaining 4 don't need to make the 4+ check to stay on the table since they are still more than 50% of their original number of 6.
Of course the 4+ is just an example. Eldar might improve to 3+ while Orks and maybe Nids need 5+ though being Fighta Bommas they might need a different rule. Tau bombers, I do not have much experience so Horizon, what would you think about them? SM already have a 4+ save for the vanilla TH so not sure if they need additional saves.
Also this would encourage number crunching of sorts to get the optimum conditions to minimize checks but then again, what game doesn't have it?
Thoughts?
-
Anyway, the Ordnance rules will be staying mostly as they are currently in BFG:R.
Later, I may do an optional swap-out of the following:
Fighters have a 4+ save.
Bombers do D3 attacks. Fighterbommers 1.
Turrets hit on a 3+.
Turret Suppression Binned.
But that would be another project, without any implied obligation for anyone to use it.
-
I don't know that would need to say it either way though, as it is implied that BFG:R as a whole is not mandatory.
-
But so BFG:R is RcG's vision where as it started as a democratic voting system for the ships. ;)
-
That's not a fair representation, given that I'm in no way forcing my ideas for ordnance into BFG:R against popular opinion. :-\
-
heh, you made that post sound like you would just do it in a follow up edition. ;)
-
I'm ending all rules-discussion on BFG:R, for further information see the flawed ships thread.