Specialist Arms Forum

Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: Lord Duggie The Mad on June 20, 2012, 04:01:44 AM

Title: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: Lord Duggie The Mad on June 20, 2012, 04:01:44 AM
Greetings all,

Forgive me if this question has surfaced before but I cannot seem to find an answer for myself:

I know that tyranid spores cause unshielded ships to take a point of damage on the roll of a 6.  Similarly, should ordnance traverse a blast marker it is destroyed on the roll of a 6.  My question is: supposing a tyranid ship has not had any blast markers placed against it, would incoming ordnance be removed on the roll of a 6 owing to the effects of the spores?

Thanks in advance.


LDTM
Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: Sigoroth on June 20, 2012, 01:42:27 PM
No. Spores act as turrets against ordnance. Only if the ordnance physically flies through a BM or if there is a BM touching the base of the Tyranid ship (2010 FAQ) will the ordnance need to test for premature detonation.
Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: Mycen on June 20, 2012, 02:33:17 PM
I know that tyranid spores cause unshielded ships to take a point of damage on the roll of a 6. 

I have a question about this part specifically: When did the rules change to this? In Armada it says that unshielded ships automatically take a point of damage instead of placing a blast marker.

I know that the FAQ clarifies the movement effects of spore impacts, but is it actually meant to change the damage effects of spore impacts against unshielded ships as well? I had always thought it was just more sloppy writing in the FAQ.

If not, does that section of the FAQ apply solely to ships moving into contact with Tyranids, or does it apply to any contact between a Tyranid and enemy vessel, regardless of who's moving?



Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: Lord Duggie The Mad on June 21, 2012, 04:36:30 AM
Thank you, Sigoroth, for the answer - very good of you, sir.

Mycen, indeed - referring to my copy of the Armada book unshielded vessels are said to take an automatic hit.  Upon reading the 2010FAQ (page 29), I took it to mean that instead of the 'automatic hit', a ship would only take damage if a 6 should surface - much in the same way as blast markers. 

I can only speculate, but I imagine this alteration may have been made to remove the 'instant death' for eldar escorts and the like if they happen to cross a tyranid's path. 

I would also suppose that the effect manifests itself irrespective of who is moving. 

Thoughts?

Thank you kindly,

LDTM
Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: AndrewChristlieb on June 21, 2012, 12:25:10 PM
Yes this does apply to both turns and thanks to the FAQ2010 the effect is exactly like moving into a blast marker. The automatic hit mechanic is very overpowered vs unshielded ships, on the other hand its few and far between that its rarely a problem, especially if your using the Eldar MMS rules. The thing I wonder about is that now that the rules state (If an unshielded ship moves into a tyranid vessel on their turn roll a d6 and take a point of damage on a six, roll only once regardless of how many tyranid ships are touched) how does  this play in the Tyranid players turn? can they still run a squad of escorts over other ships and for a hit attempt for each one or is it still only one roll for all hits?
Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: Mycen on June 21, 2012, 12:58:17 PM
how does  this play in the Tyranid players turn? can they still run a squad of escorts over other ships and for a hit attempt for each one or is it still only one roll for all hits?

This is exactly what my followup question was going to be. I personally don't consider the original rules for spore impacts versus unshielded ships overpowered, as Necrons and Eldar should not be allowing themselves to get caught in the path of a swarm of Tyranid vessels in the first place. I suppose I could see how some would consider them overpowered, but I'm skeptical.

My issue is that, as with many of the changes to Tyranids, this swings it too far in the opposite direction. If the damage effect only takes effect once per movement phase in either player's turn, it goes from 'close to' to 'entirely' useless as a means to inflict damage. I don't understand what justification the FAQ writers could have for moving in that direction.

At the very least, am I correct in interpreting the FAQ to mean that spore impacts will still produce a blast marker/knock down a shield per shielded ship that makes contact in the usual way, even if each involved ship might only test for damage once a turn?


Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: AndrewChristlieb on June 21, 2012, 01:28:52 PM
The faq states that you only place blast markers if ending your movement in base contact with a tyranid ship. I imagine this would also apply to their movement phase. I dont see anything changing the ruling about applying a blast marker for each ship tho so i would say that if you end your movement in base contact with multiple ships you would apply a bm for each ship.
Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: Jimmy Zimms on June 21, 2012, 02:05:45 PM
The faq states that you only place blast markers if ending your movement in base contact with a tyranid ship. I imagine this would also apply to their movement phase. I dont see anything changing the ruling about applying a blast marker for each ship tho so i would say that if you end your movement in base contact with multiple ships you would apply a bm for each ship.

i could handle that provided there's an upper cap, probably something like 3 (similar to many people's massed turret cap)
Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: AndrewChristlieb on June 21, 2012, 03:20:05 PM
I dont know if a cap is really needed other than to max it at the number of shields the ship has. Really if your trying to get more than 3 ships on one theyre bases are probably going to be overlaping some anyway and trying to fit blastmarkers on top of all that is a pain.
Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: Lord Duggie The Mad on July 16, 2012, 07:21:11 AM
One more question about spores if I may:

Spore impacts:  Suppose a vanguard with tentacles attacks a cruiser.  The vanguard touches the cruiser setting off a spore impact and blacing a blast marker between both ships.  After the tentacle attack, the vanguard continues moving but must roll anything but a six since it is touching a marker and must -5cm from the rest of its move. 

Do I have that right?

Thanks

LDTM
Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: AndrewChristlieb on July 16, 2012, 12:22:28 PM
Quote
Spore impacts:  Suppose a vanguard with tentacles attacks a cruiser.  The vanguard touches the cruiser setting off a spore impact and blacing a blast marker between both ships.  After the tentacle attack, the vanguard continues moving but must roll anything but a six since it is touching a marker and must -5cm from the rest of its move.

Ok anytime you come into contact with a blast marker during movement you reduce your speed by 5 (note that you only reduce your speed by 5 once no matter how many blast markers you come in contact with). so in that reguard you are correct.

You only have to roll for damage when in contact with a blast marker if your ship has 0 shields. If your ship has even just one shield on the fleet registry you do not have to make this test even if that shield is "down" due to blastmarkers in contact. Tyranids are a bit different as they are listed as having no shields but they do have the spores which act as shields so if you have at least one spore listed on the fleet registry you would not need to make the damage test for moving through the blastmarkers. 

In other words you have everything right except:
Quote
but must roll anything but a six since it is touching a marker
Title: Re: Tyranid Spores protecting against ordnance
Post by: Lord Duggie The Mad on July 18, 2012, 06:21:43 AM
Andrew, thank you kindly good sir.  That makes much better sense.

Cheers,

LDTM