August 21, 2019, 11:23:06 PM

Author Topic: BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions  (Read 121563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2010, 09:40:25 AM »
Hi Commx,
in the rulebook, under planetary defences, don't know exact location it is stated that you roll a seperate d6 for blastmarker removal on defences.
cheers,

Offline Commx

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2010, 10:53:27 AM »
Hi Commx,
in the rulebook, under planetary defences, don't know exact location it is stated that you roll a seperate d6 for blastmarker removal on defences.
cheers,

Yeah, I was certain that I had seen a rule like that somewhere, but when looking over the list of Planetary Defences, I couldn't find it any more. It turns out to be under the general rules for Planetary Defences on page 36. Who would have expected them to be in the obvious place...

Offline enderwiggin

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2010, 02:54:50 PM »
Horizon's post on Tauonline led me to a look over here, but some of the rulings surprised me enough to join up and start questioning.  ;D


So to start it off.

Blast Markers and multiple bases: When a ship has multiple bases in contact and its shield goes down, the blast marker may be placed anywhere on this ships base potentially taking down other ships shields up to a maximum of three in total. (Needs a HA Ruling)
My main contention with this is the next bit that was ruled on, there's no reason to limit the negatives when the positives are found in equal measure. Shield amounts should go down by the maximum possible if the players are deciding to fit in the maximum possible massed turrets. Why should the penalty stop at three when the turrets can go far beyond this?

Massed Turret Limitations: There are no limitations to the number of ships you can benefit from when calculating massed turrets. This is particularly effective for Necron escorts where you can ‘stack’ an escort squadron, giving a six strong escort squadron 6 massed turrets! Note: bomber attack runs are only affected by the ships actual turrets strength.


Ork Fleets

Fighta-Bommas: Fighta-Bommas are fighters with a speed of 25cm. They may also attack like bombers with D3 attack runs instead of D6. Fighta-Bommas count as having +3 to turret suppression. E.g. If a wave of 4 Fighta-Bommas attacks a cruiser with 2 turrets they will have (D3-2)+(D3-2)+(D3-2)+(D3-2)+ turret suppression(2x4).   

Fighta-Bommas and fighta support: When a wave of fighta-bommas attacks a ship you must decide if any of the markers will forgoing their attack runs in favour of giving fighter support. (Needs a HA Ruling)
This one is odd to me.

The first and second part aren't particularly fair, so if your going to be "fixing" things, I'd start there. A fighter suppression of three is ridiculous. Fluff aside, the game mechanics of the Orks just do not justify being three times the fighter of other navies.

Why not use simple(r) errata? I've seen it suggested before that every Ork Fighta-bomma has/contributes +1 to the overall fighter suppression total. Larger wings are still very deadly, but you don't have silly cases like 2 bringing down all the turrets of a ship when Imperial/Eldar/Tau/etc. need many times the number to do so, but still retain a nice level of lethality all around. This, in totality, makes the Ork FB very much inline with the rest of the fleets in the games versions or fighters/bombers. You may only have a D3 bombs, but the added ability of the suppression, the numbers you can throw out (twice the normal limits of launch bays), more than make up for some partial speed loss.

Much more fair all around, which is something I'd like to see continue to happen in BFG (fairness being one of the bigger draws of the game compared to GW's normal stock).

(The suggestion originally found here actually. http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=699.0 )

Necron Fleets

Brace for Impact and Reactive Hull saves: Necrons do not get a 4+ Brace save, the Reactive Hull save replaces it.
About time it was officially addressed. This one has been no small personal headache of mine.  :P
« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 03:14:05 PM by enderwiggin »

Offline RayB HA

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 424
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2010, 03:30:51 PM »
Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Iím not going to re jig any points values in this FAQ that arenít mistakes. (The Nid list really does need to be completely reworked, especially with the new background material hitting the shelves).


Commx,

On the previous FAQ and boarding with BMís: there are 2 points that cover this, are you missing one?

Escorts canít be squadroned with capital ships! If this were the case in the Nid list it would definitely be mentioned!
 
The Sepulchre could be taken by Scythes in an earlier version of the rules. I donít think this needs mentioning in the FAQ though.

Defences do remove BMís, d6 at the end of each player turn, as described in the rule book on page 36. Actually whether or not its in both player turns is something Iíve seen come up before.


Enderwiggin,

The maximum of 3 shields taken down by a single BM is in the previous FAQ, however I disagree with it for the reasons youíve mentioned, hence the ĎNeeds a HA Rulingí.

Ork FBís are way too good with +3 turret suppression IMO. In fact Iíve been pushing the idea of +1 fighter suppression well before the 2007 FAQ. I hope this will change.
 I Ďwasí on the side of allowing FBís to make their turret suppression attack even if destroyed, a kind of kamikaze attack. However I donít mind losing that.
Cheers,

RayB HA
+++++++++++

When I joined the Corp we didn't have any fancy smancy tanks! We had sticks! Two sticks and a rock for an entire platoon, and we had to share the rock!

Offline Commx

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2010, 05:18:01 PM »
Commx,

Escorts canít be squadroned with capital ships! If this were the case in the Nid list it would definitely be mentioned!
 
RayB HA


I know that they can't do that currently. But since you already changed the 'may' into a 'must', meaning at least 90 points of Escort Drones are required per Hive Ship, I was just wondering if you could make it so instead. ;)

Offline enderwiggin

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2010, 05:24:32 PM »
I wasn't aware the "needs a HA ruling" was being utilized in such a way. I thought the written stuff in the first post would be how it appeared in the errata/Faq and not just subjects being brought up.

Offline RayB HA

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 424
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2010, 05:53:10 PM »
Enderwiggin,

Good point, the 'needs a HA Ruling' means that it could change at time of publication(or at the very least I have a problem with it). If it says needs a HA ruling please comment on the rule if it is important to you.

Nothing is set in stone yet, but the answers so far are unlikely to change.

Cheers,

RayB HA



+++++++++++

When I joined the Corp we didn't have any fancy smancy tanks! We had sticks! Two sticks and a rock for an entire platoon, and we had to share the rock!

Offline lordgoober

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 151
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2010, 09:28:24 PM »
Another Tyranid one,  which would also be addressed by a fleet redesign.  I can't remember this myself but was it addressed somewhere whether it was 3 upgrades total for a ship of 3 TYPES of upgrades with being able to max out the particular upgrades if you wanted.  As it is,  if it's the latter it is quite possible to make extremely hard to kill hive ships. 

Offline RayB HA

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 424
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2010, 11:47:39 PM »
lordgoober,

It seems pretty clear in Armada: A Hiveship can have 3 different refits, and may therefore have 4 reinforced carapaces, 2 extra spore cysts and another refit. A cruiser could have the 3 reinforced carapaces(as 4 would make it a hiveship unless in a one off game) and 2 extra spore cysts.

Cheers,

RayB HA
+++++++++++

When I joined the Corp we didn't have any fancy smancy tanks! We had sticks! Two sticks and a rock for an entire platoon, and we had to share the rock!

Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2010, 12:48:19 AM »
[ignore me please]

Russ
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 08:03:24 AM by russ_c »

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2010, 02:50:30 AM »
Ray, isn't that a bit much for an extra shield on the Repulsive? I had in my files from the old site that the extra shield was 5 points which brought the repulsive up to 245 points with the lance upgrade.
-Vaaish

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2010, 05:32:31 AM »
Hi Vaaish,
checked it up and I have it at 15...

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2010, 06:51:20 AM »
It's possible I wrote it down wrong, but since I've never had a chance to bring the repulsive to the table it's never come up.
-Vaaish

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2010, 10:13:17 AM »
lordgoober,

It seems pretty clear in Armada: A Hiveship can have 3 different refits, and may therefore have 4 reinforced carapaces, 2 extra spore cysts and another refit. A cruiser could have the 3 reinforced carapaces(as 4 would make it a hiveship unless in a one off game) and 2 extra spore cysts.

Cheers,

RayB HA

Actually it wasn't clear hence the need for the clarification via FAQ. And hence I stand by my claim that since that is the case, the Evolution upgrades are too cheap and really need to be reworked. I don't mind the Hiveships getting all those goodies. But I do mind that they can do it for cheap.

I also noted the change you want for the Apocalypse. I'm of the opinion that the Apoc should not suffer from the thruster crit but rather from the engine room crit. Now I think it should still take the +1 damage but to minimize it, the Apoc should be able to fire up to 45 cm without any problems on LO. The fluff does support this. Anythign beyond 45 cm and the engine room crit kicks in.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 10:23:00 AM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2010, 02:11:35 PM »
While we are spitballing here, any chance that the Oberon could get it's batteries straightened out? It's pretty tough to justify it as it stands vs the emperor and boosting the batteries back to 60cm would go a ways for fixing that.
-Vaaish