Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: Zhukov on August 31, 2012, 06:22:00 AM
-
I was playing a game with a new gentleman to BFG, and wouldn't you know it, he came up with a fascinating query. We were playing a battle of Imperial vs Chaos and he (Imperial) wanted to fire his short range weapons batteries to create blast markers in the void. His idea was if the Chaos wanted to snipe him at long range, they would have to go through his little shield and at least take an extra column shift. However, I had no idea how to make this work, so we agreed for that game to make it count as an ordnance shot. If you can believe it, he rolled many 6's that night and really made my life as a corrupted human... difficult.
What say you, BFG community? Should a vessel be allowed to use his WB's to create a blast marker screen? And if so, how in the rules is the best way to do this?
-Zhukov
-
Wrong. The shells need to detonate.
Officially.
Blastmarkers are generated when a shield is hit or a vessel destroyed.
Hence Necrons do not generate blastmarkers when being hit.
Cute tactic though.
-
Well there are a lot of reasons to place a blast marker (shield hit, ship destroyed, holofield save, nova miss, firing on minefield *I also allow firing on asteroid fields, etc) the problem isnt creating a blast marker in my opinion its what is the target? Each weapons refers to a target (to determine los, range, fire arc) and you have nothing to actually target. Of course its up to you if you like the rule use it, i can see it being somewhat useful.
-
I'd allow the rule. Just because.
-
not at empty space
at asteroid or dust i'd be ok with
might be amusing that a dust blast could set off a chain reaction throughout the dust cloud
-
not at empty space
at asteroid or dust i'd be ok with
might be amusing that a dust blast could set off a chain reaction throughout the dust cloud
I'm entirely new to this game, but I agree that this makes the most sense.
Don't forget - and now we're talking realism, which is usually silly in these games - but empty space is really... freaking... empty. There isn't a lot out there for weapons to interact with to create blasts, except for extremely small amounts of dust, gas, and tiny rocks.
-
I was playing a game with a new gentleman to BFG, and wouldn't you know it, he came up with a fascinating query. We were playing a battle of Imperial vs Chaos and he (Imperial) wanted to fire his short range weapons batteries to create blast markers in the void. His idea was if the Chaos wanted to snipe him at long range, they would have to go through his little shield and at least take an extra column shift. However, I had no idea how to make this work, so we agreed for that game to make it count as an ordnance shot. If you can believe it, he rolled many 6's that night and really made my life as a corrupted human... difficult.
What say you, BFG community? Should a vessel be allowed to use his WB's to create a blast marker screen? And if so, how in the rules is the best way to do this?
-Zhukov
According to the rules you can't do this. If someone sprung this on me in a game I might not feel inclined to allow it (petulance mainly). However, having the luxury of viewing it at my leisure, I think that it's quite a nifty idea and should be allowed. The way you implemented it seems about right too.
Historically speaking, warfare, like many other pursuits, has at times fallen into a 'rut', so to speak. That is, a rigid adherence to accepted doctrine. Rules of games systems mimic this rigidity very well, but don't do so well at reflecting the very occasional instance of lateral thinking that causes paradigm shifts.
The inevitable problem that arises with allowing this sort of thing is determining just what should and should not be allowed as an exception to the rules. I have no clear idea myself. By and large I'm usually against on-the-fly changes as I often find them ... meh. It's hard to describe. Sometimes it's feels as if people make suggestions that are too broad and sweeping in scope and not thought through, or that are hopelessly bogged down in some piece of minutia, or which is reasonable but unnecessary and breaks the character of the game (such as Chaos having full access to IN ships and vice versa). This idea seems all right though.
-
Fire some torpedoes/launch some fighter craft from one of your ships, then shoot at the torpedoes with another ship?
Destroying the ordinance would leave a BM, right?
-
It would yes and although im not opposed to shooting at your own torpedoes i dont know about shooting at the attack craft. The meaty bits are expendable but those ships are not so much...
-
Shooting own attack craft sounds as scrupolous as the most heretic trick ever:
Eldar official msm rules:
Lock On with Hemlock squadron. Move them, shoot.
Have a torpdoe Eldar hit the squadron per accident.
Hemlocks go on BFI.
BFI is no longer on Lock On,
thus Hemlocks may turn in the ordnance phase! (with lock on they may not turn).
It was proved rule proof yet.... devilish exploitment and against fluff in a really grand way.
heh
-
Thats just cheating. Luckly it was addressed in the faq, any orders you were on before being braced must still be followed: aaf must still move full distance and cant turn, reload on ships are still reloaded, lock on cannot turn etc...
-
I didn't think destroyed ordnance from shooting leaves blast markers
-
I didn't think destroyed ordnance from shooting leaves blast markers
Correct. Ordnance being hit does not leave a blastmarker.
Andrew, at that time it wasn't cheating, it was really ' wrong' though.
-
If I recall correctly, batteries are a large variety of different direct fire weapons; sword escorts, for instance use lasers, tyrant cruisers use plasma and retribution battleship use macroshells. Admittedly, it seems silly to argue that lasers or plasma blasts could be suspended in mid-air(void?), but macro cannon shells could be fired en masse at lower velocities to create mini flak clouds. Thus we can assume that a weapon's maximum range is a combination of velocity and accuracy. It could be said that a ship can with direct fire weapons could fire at maximum range only, creating a blast marker at that point only (no firing them closer). Instead of rolling dice to hit, I would humbly suggest a leadership test to represent trying to effectively coordinate the barrage; it is more of a matter of crew training and practice then actual accuracy.
Quote blue book p.24
"...Blast markers represent all kinds of events - huge explosions, expanding shockwaves, intense radiation clouds, tumbling debris, unexploded warheads, plasma bursts, etc." Could we not then assume that a massive cluster of plasma/high intensity energy/ exploding or undetonated shells could represent a blast marker? Everyone is entitled an opinion, but this seems a reasonable middle ground. Although it does seem more effective for shorter range fleets, who can use it to screen more effectively, long range fleets benefit from more aggressive placement, potentially limiting movement more drastically versus defensive cover. Number of blast markers could be fixed, or use a formula such as 1 blast marker per part of 4 strength (hypothetical number).
@Sigoroth Although I am fairly new to the game, this probably fits into your functional but unnecessary category, although I can see a problem that veteran players such as yourself could run into; it adds an additional element of unpredictability. In any scenario that involves competition, variability always benefits the underdog. This is not, I repeat not an insult or sly remark: just fact. PM if you would like to discuss this particular statement rather than my house ruling :) I would be happy to discuss it.
Thoughts?
-
@Sigoroth Although I am fairly new to the game, this probably fits into your functional but unnecessary category, although I can see a problem that veteran players such as yourself could run into; it adds an additional element of unpredictability. In any scenario that involves competition, variability always benefits the underdog. This is not, I repeat not an insult or sly remark: just fact. PM if you would like to discuss this particular statement rather than my house ruling :) I would be happy to discuss it.
Thoughts?
Eh? My reputation striking again? I was in favour of the house rule the original poster suggested. You make it sound like I'm a grandpa bemoaning the goings on of you young whipper-snappers and dead set against all change.
I'm not sure about the notion that any form of variability favours the underdog though. Presumably they're underdogs for a reason, and maybe that reason is that they're not as good at utilising all the options they have at hand as their opponent. In which case adding options would seem to favour the favourite. I would suggest that this particular option would favour the short ranged fleets though, which some might construe as the underdog, though I certainly do not.
As for the method for enacting it, I think that if we're to buy into the premise that a ship can create a screen of interference by coordinating their gunnery then they can do it at any range, not just at their extreme effective range. This limitation seems harder to justify, requiring more assumptions, and seems needlessly restrictive.
Concerning a leadership test versus the shoot-as-if-at-ordnance idea, well I'm partial to the latter. I think it's simple and scales directly with the amount of firepower the ship has at hand. How many blast markers would a ship get to place if it passed its leadership test? One? Two? Seven? What about a single Cobra compared to a Retribution? Also, passing leadership tests is, in general, pretty easy, making for potentially a lot of blast markers. Lastly, is this something that should be scaled by skill rather than resources? For example, are we saying that Orks should have a really hard time of creating a wall of fire but that Eldar should have an easy time of it?
-
Sigoroth found the idea of creating blastmarkers through shooting one he would allow in the end. Just like me.
The rules say it can't be, yet the idea is good and would be allowed.
So what's the problem in this case? None. ;)
///as for using Ld instead of gunnery dice I disagree. You are still trying to achieve something with shooting a smoke curtain. So you want to hit the correct spot, just like a smoke grenade in 40k,
- warning
lol, Sig replied.
Agreed on bm placement.
Perhaps limiting the screen to 15 or 30cm max?
As for racial modifiers: Nah, it gets to fiddled for a niche rule. Orks throw enough scrap into the void to make up for Eldar's accuracy.
-
Haha I do not mean to imply you are set in your ways, Sig. I have great respect for your design skill and solid logic. As for the leadership/ordinance you and horizon bring forth valid points about blast marker quantity. My max range comment was not based on a game play element but a rather weak (on hindsight ::)) attempt to enforce some minor realism, while ignoring other realistic aspects (face palm). Forgot AI/AO rule. I personally think that resolving it like ordinance hits makes it to unlikely to create any effective cover, but I suppose that depends on how impactful you consider a blast marker to be.
-
Placed correctly a single bm can make a real difference. I would agree that it should be past 15cm you wouldnt want the blasts too close to the ship after all and that limits people targeting within 15 just to get a couple extra dice. Overall though when your talking a mechanic like this which would take place in the early game more than later theres a good chance that any markers you manage to place will have to be removed during the end phase.
-
My point exactly! With so little dice and only a one in six chance of hitting, your looking at roughly 1 blast marker per 36 firepower, which is not exactly phenomenal. Matter of fact, from the lists I have seen, not many fleets can muster 36 battery to one side in a single squadron...heck, some 1500pt lists don't even have that much battery in a broadside across the whole fleet! Along with the fact that you remove 1d6 a round, the odds of blast markers sticking around to protect you with the models that the good folks of this forum are suggesting is...astronomically unlikely, at least in the first turns were it matters. Having to roll sixes is not a big issue, but having it count as ordnance allows almost no chance of effective use.
Perhaps if you could count it as something other than actual ordinance, as it is a lot easier to create a blanket cloud than hit a target. Although I don't have a number, I remember reading 1cm=10,000km somewheres. Assuming even 1cm=1000km (ludicrous), a ship is only a couple of km long, whereas a blast marker (3cm, I believe) is thus 3000km, or more likely 30,000km. Hitting a 20 meter fighter and a 30,000km should not be equally difficult, no? Just my two cents. :)
-
BFG: 1cm = 1000km.
I think it should be : ordnance column for number of dice. 4+ to succeed in create the bm.
-
So were going to go with ordnance column, 4+to create...that actually sounds pretty good. What about range modifiers? Or range minimums like me and Andrew suggested? To be honest, I actually prefer his... :P
-
Here is where I'll put in some of my 2 cents.
With this idea, what exactly are we talking about? We are suggesting a ship fire it's WB's as timed rounds to create a screen between two vessels. Well, that is incredibly hard to do. Besides getting the placement and distance right, you have to hope the rounds fired into enough of a density to create a screen thick enough to interfere with a targeting computer. Hence why I think firing at Ordnance (specific location) and requiring 6's to hit (creating a screen thick enough to interfere) is the best way to represent this. I also believe that shooting within 15cm and receiving that column shift is extraordinarily important in seeing this tactic work (with of course the off chance those blast markers end up interfering with your own movement and firing later in the game). Of course, the firing player must designate his target first, and yes, one blast marker for each 'hit' rolled should be placed.
Certainly not an idea that a lot of people will use, but I can see it coming in handy from time to time.
-Zhukov
-
@Zhukov The problem with your interpretation isn't that it wouldn't work, or that it wouldn't make sense; youa re correct in both. It's that without it conferring a reasonable benefit and a reasonable chance of working, it is almost never worth using, which makes a fringe rule. As sigoroth mentioned, a fringe rule that is only of minor use every few games is hardly worth writing specifics about. That said you can always just use your own rules if you think their better; if the games you play are large enough (2500pt+) even with your rules you might see some effective use due to larger quantity of standing blast markers. ;)
-
What about the following method?
In the shooting phase, any number of weapon batteries in a squadron can be combined to create a single blast marker, just as they could be combined to fire at any other target. A leadership test is then rolled, where the ld to be passed is twice the number of batteries allocated to the blast marker. A successful test allows the player to place one blast marker anywhere within the arc or range of all the weapon batteries, providing it is not touching another ship.
This method would properly distinguish between the ability of a Cobra to throw up a wall of fire, and a Lunar, for example.
-
@Silent Requiem Hah! Someone who finally understands that the concept of coordination has nothing to do with gunner skill! I thought I was going to languish alone... :'(
Hmmm...if I understand you correctly, then a lunar battery would have to roll under 12 and a cobra under 2? Seems like we should just use unmodified battery strength; makes it a bit harder to do (impossible for just 1 firepower :-\) but encourages multiple ships to do it together. I will throw this idea out to my regular gaming partner.
-
From your regular gaming partner: I am disinclined to adopt this rule, but I am willing to try it out. It does seem like a rather one sided benefit, though. None of my fleets muster much battery strength, while all of yours do. (Beofer you shoot back that we play some of the same fleets, I am also considering composition;p)
-
@ThaneAquilon Actually your Eldar fleet has more battery than any composition I have used, along with better leadership to go with this rule. Not to mention you benefit from being screened more than I do since you have shorter range...combined with maneuverability and prow facing armaments, you fleets can also position the shots in more useful places. So although the rule is very much one sided in benefiting you only, I am curious to try it out. It is not a tactic I would use; I am merely curious to see if the battery=leadership test is viable or too easy/too hard. RAW, it seems solid though.
How would we integrate existing ship leadership into this? As is its as easy for orks as for SM, despite the LD difference.
-
I use like three aconites for my battery now that I've painted up my lighter escorts, and you're running 2 carnages, or 2 dominators and emperors and such...and coincidentally, IN are not know to have longer range than Tau or Eldar or Chaos. I'll give that having prow weapons would be useful with this tactic.
I also would not use this tactic, generally (Hence my disinclination to have it).
-
@ThaneAquilon Have yet to run chaos...who, admitedly, would gain stand to gain the most, aside from orks of course and potentially nids. Also, I averaged out at around 30ish directed battery in our 750pts games (all we have actually played so far) whereas you ran in actuality 2 squadrons of 4 aconite and a hellebore...44 directed battery.
Its not a common tactic, and one that (like everyone else on this thread) they would use only seldom if at all. The point of this is more "how viable is this?" and "how would we implement this?". For myself, I am mostly trying to brainstorm a simple but effective way to do this. I am still in favor of a leadership test, with -1 for long range and +1 for short, +1 per battery involved. The disparity between smaller ships and bigger ships can be explained by better coordination/firing arcs.
-
Hey guys! long time no see.
I agree that Ld tests are too easy, especially Ld scaled by # of batteries. chaos could clog a flank like Tau do with missiles.
I am much more of a fan of actually rolling to shoot. but it shouldn't be too easy to pull off, imagine two zig-zagging IN squads covering each other's prow's...
so my - initial - thoughts are 1.) only captial ships can do it. and 2) roll as per hitting ord. if you get a 6 place a BM for each WB slot on your ship (2 for a dominator/tyrant, 1 for lunar, 3 for a ret). and of course these Bm's have to be touching and in a straight line
thoughts?
-
<SNIP>
However, I had no idea how to make this work, so we agreed for that game to make it count as an ordnance shot.
<SNIP>
This.
-
We are suggesting a ship fire it's WB's as timed rounds to create a screen between two vessels. Well, that is incredibly hard to do. Besides getting the placement and distance right, you have to hope the rounds fired into enough of a density to create a screen thick enough to interfere with a targeting computer.
...We can do this now, actually. Just take a standard airburst round and instead of metal shrapnel load it with metallic chaff.
I would have it as a 'once per game' thing to represent the fact that it's not a standard munition.
As far as Sig goes... dammit, people meet him, fifty secs later, have the same opinion of him that I do after years of arguing with him...
-
As far as Sig goes... dammit, people meet him, fifty secs later, have the same opinion of him that I do after years of arguing with him...
Are you saying you're slow?
-
Are you saying you're slow?
I'm saying I'm fairly tolerant and it takes me a while to take offense compared to a lot of people.
-
I'm saying I'm fairly tolerant and it takes me a while to take offense compared to a lot of people.
Right, slow.
-
Yes, fine, done with it.
Stop trollin and discuss BFG.
-
Have you considered creating a new round that needs to pass a ld check to be loaded, then can shoot "smoke" at half the normal range of the WB and then needs another check to re-load normal ammo? maybe you have so if that is the case ignore this..
or you can plainly ignore it ...
-
Blowing smoke is not a bad idea, reminds me a bit of one of the refits.
Evasive Jets. The hull of the vessel is studded with powerful short-burn engines which allow it to drastically turn to avoid incoming fire. At the start of the enemy shooting phase, the ship may take a Leadership test. If it is passed, the ship may make a single 45° turn immediately. However, the ship may not go on to special orders during the next turn.
-
I think a 'once per battle' munition that costs, say, 5 points? would work.
Beehive Round would be a good name for it.
-
I'd also suggest that if its a special round, it has a maximum deployable range of 15cm or 30cm. Otherwise you have an option I don't think anyone's considered yet of deliberately seeding the opposing fleet's travel path with blast markers if you have 60cm guns (I know the effectiveness of that is debatable, but you could try boxing in eldar or preventing slow BBs from turning). I know you can in theory do this with nova cannon anyway, but I'd want to see this used defensively.
-
I like this, I think it should be a rules, to represent once ingame, but if say the opponent purchases it for the entire fleet? or for each cap ship?
-
only read some of the first posts
Its a good idea, but i'd only allow it, if the other player is targeting asteroids, dust lcouds, ect
you could make a rule for some sort of special amunition that detonates and creates a "smoke screen" of sorts