December 11, 2019, 03:32:09 PM

Author Topic: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions  (Read 148490 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #225 on: June 27, 2010, 05:02:26 AM »
Personally I don't see the need to allow stacking of anything. With the ships it creates odd situations where ships either need to be removed from their bases or precariously balanced to fit. I think it fundamentally necessary to allow ships to pass freely OVER the base of any ship in the course of their movement, but should not end movement on top of a base be it friend or enemy. Regardless of the cleverness of balancing friendly ships inside a large base, I don't see it adding any wondrous tactical depth and much more room for gaminess with attempting to wedge a base into areas they can't easily fit in hopes of gaining a slight advantage.
-Vaaish

Offline Mazila

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 141
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #226 on: June 27, 2010, 10:38:14 AM »
I agree with others - there is no need to allow overlapping. In the last few years of gaming i have never ever encountered this problem with boarding, and as i said before, we did not even try overlapping ever. But ofc ships can pass through each other.

Offline phil-o-mat

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #227 on: June 27, 2010, 10:39:04 AM »
don`t like the stacking rules, too. had some games last week and we tried that stacking thing. now my bases are full of scratches >:(
so please drop it!

Offline RayB HA

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 424
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #228 on: June 28, 2010, 01:13:07 PM »
Hi Guys,

In the rule book there is NO rule even suggesting that you can't stack/overlap ships, in fact it is mentioned that you can go over under other ships and even planets. If overlapping isn't allowed it would be strange not to mention such an important limitation and offer methods of moving ships with this restraint. E.g. add/remove speed not to end with bases overlapping.

This isn't a rule invention or crazy assumption.

I'm trying to prevent (friendly) overlapping, I'm not going to drop the issue. It's odd that you'd ask me to drop it since you obviously aren't a fan of overlapping.  :)

You maybe a fan of area denial, preventing ships from boarding and for slow ships like the Emperor or Explorer turning due to lack of speed, but Iím not. This is unreasonable and unrealistic (as these things go).

Can anyone think of any other exploits you could use if you couldnít end movement overlapping an enemy ship?

Prevent boarding, preventing full movement, prevent turning of slow ships, forcing extra movement to hit ordy/asteroids etc, forcing a ship to turn. Note: 2 escorts can force a ship to move 12cm straight forward (or have to make a turn) if it has a small base, if the ship had a large base it would be considerably further.

Herding ships is ridiculous, hence why Iím for overlapping of enemy ships!   

phil-o-mat,

How did you scratch your bases? Iíve never had that problem..(do you file the bottom?)

Kraken,

Actually that might be a really good way of getting the Voidstalker in the CWE list for the time being.

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 Kraken

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #229 on: June 28, 2010, 01:41:26 PM »
Admittedly It might also make the prince and his ultra expensive re- rolls a bit more attractive ...

Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #230 on: June 29, 2010, 03:07:37 AM »
Can anyone think of any other exploits you could use if you couldnít end movement overlapping an enemy ship?

My innocent comment I first made when concerned about non-overlapping enemies... You have potential of denying your opponent a double broadside.  I can't tell you how many times my opponents have had to say "I'm moving between your two ships right there, but I'm placing my ship 5cm in front since it doesn't fit".  This allows them to make a great offensive maneuver as a reward for clever navigating (or my poor command skills) and after I move my ships we adjust his ship's position according to where it should have been.**

As I said before, if you can some how compensate for all the edge cases that would affect an enemies ability to maneuver advantageously then I'm fine without overlapping ( i.e. I get to move past, but shoot my broadsides), but that would probably entail a large amount of FAQ text to accomplish such a compromise for each possible case.  I guess I'm the black sheep, but not allowing my opponent to overlap, or represent overlap in some clear manor, seems to have potential for changing the feeling of the game.  Also, it just feels so out of spirit to strictly deny space (no option to move) on the board when there is nothing else in the rules that does that.

Russ


** I mean seriously, is it really that hard to just place a ship offset along it's heading from where it should be?!  The only thing one needs is some tokens with numbers on them.  If a ship is 5cm off from where it should be, you just put a reminder beside it and all measurements to that ship's steam occur from that "phantom" point, not where the model currently is.  My group does this all the time without confusion or need to compensate in the rules.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #231 on: June 29, 2010, 04:15:35 AM »
Seriously Ray, if you start negating us all on overlapping I am going to think you are a member of the government.

I've seen no one here being in favour of overlapping. Or did I miss someone. In that case: sorry. ;)


Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #232 on: June 29, 2010, 06:29:10 AM »
Seriously Ray, if you start negating us all on overlapping I am going to think you are a member of the government.

I've seen no one here being in favour of overlapping. Or did I miss someone. In that case: sorry. ;)



If you read my post carefully, I'm saying that allowing enemies to overlap is not a problem.  I don't think people should actually stack bases ontop of each other, but I do think there are solutions to allowing enemy ships to be moved wherever they want without simply denying the player his move.

Russ

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #233 on: June 29, 2010, 06:40:18 AM »
Hi Guys,

In the rule book there is NO rule even suggesting that you can't stack/overlap ships, in fact it is mentioned that you can go over under other ships and even planets. If overlapping isn't allowed it would be strange not to mention such an important limitation and offer methods of moving ships with this restraint. E.g. add/remove speed not to end with bases overlapping.

Take this with humor Ray, but there's also no rule saying I can't get the metal Kroot sphere and whack someone on the head with it. If the rule is available then point it out. Otherwise, it is not and that...

This isn't a rule invention or crazy assumption.

...Yes, you ARE assuming seeing as you cannot point out an explicit rule.

I'm trying to prevent (friendly) overlapping, I'm not going to drop the issue. It's odd that you'd ask me to drop it since you obviously aren't a fan of overlapping.  :)

No Ray, I'm not asking you to simply drop it. I've even given a couple of reasons why you should. That's not just simply asking you to drop the issue. Unless you can provide us with a solid, beneficial-to-the-game reason WHY Overlapping SHOULD be in the game, especially your version, you will not get any support from us naysayers or change our minds.

You maybe a fan of area denial, preventing ships from boarding and for slow ships like the Emperor or Explorer turning due to lack of speed, but Iím not. This is unreasonable and unrealistic (as these things go).

Huh! So increase the speed of the Emperor or Explorer. Will you? No, I don't think so. Fluffwise, will you even try to board a ship knowing there is a bigger ship out there waiting to pound you? No, you wouldn't. You want to be able to board ships, fine, change the rule to say if a ship is within 5cm or the target, you may initiate boarding even if the ship has shields up. Simple is it not? Much better than allowing overlapping bases both in rules and actual gameplay.

Can anyone think of any other exploits you could use if you couldnít end movement overlapping an enemy ship?

Yes. I shoot at the enemy ship. I knock down the shields. I do a H&R attack. I send my AC and/or torps and attack the blocked ship, AC avoiding the blocking base and torps shooting through the blocking base. Yes, there are many exploits I can use to get at the ship being blocked physically by another base. See Ray? I have other options to use than Boarding which may actually even hurt my ships.

Prevent boarding, preventing full movement, prevent turning of slow ships, forcing extra movement to hit ordy/asteroids etc, forcing a ship to turn. Note: 2 escorts can force a ship to move 12cm straight forward (or have to make a turn) if it has a small base, if the ship had a large base it would be considerably further.


Preventing full movement? Again borrow the rule from another system and move the bases around which causes the least disturbance. it's not going to be that much of a big deal. Aside from which, the base does not prevent full movement, rather it can be bothersome to position the place where the ship ends. It does not prevent a ship from turning. You can turn anywhere along the line of movement and move on from there as long as you meet the minimum movement requirements.

Herding ships is ridiculous, hence why Iím for overlapping of enemy ships!  

Sorry but if you are allowing enemy ships to overlap their bases then too bad, you allow friendly ships overlap as well. Fair is fair. Ridiculous is not a game term nor is it a suitable and valid enough reason. Otherwise, if you allow this, then I find your insistence on allowing overlapping bases ridiculous in the first place.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind people putting a marker on the base and measuring from there. This is to avoid my problem about physically damaging the ships. But don't call it overlapping bases as people will assume you can literally overlap bases by stacking bases which will then realistically cause damage. Call it something else. placemarker or something. This way you can even discard the idea of friendly ships not allowing overlapping.

Maybe this is the issue here. What do you really mean by Overlapping, Ray? I (as in me, I do not know about the others) read it as you really want us to put our models on another model's base which I can tell you right now I do not approve of and I am pretty sure my opponent will not agree to as well since it realistically will cause damage. If you mean that a ship can exist at the same point in time on the table, then my last suggestion should have merit in application. Best to use markers and measure from that point.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2010, 06:50:16 AM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »

Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #234 on: June 29, 2010, 07:41:28 AM »
Maybe this is the issue here. What do you really mean by Overlapping, Ray? I (as in me, I do not know about the others) read it as you really want us to put our models on another model's base which I can tell you right now I do not approve of and I am pretty sure my opponent will not agree to as well since it realistically will cause damage. If you mean that a ship can exist at the same point in time on the table, then my last suggestion should have merit in application. Best to use markers and measure from that point.

I don't think anyone is talking about physically stacking the models!?  The point is that an enemy ship should be allowed to exist at a point on the table that in occupied by an opponents base.  If this is represented by an offset with a marker as I've described in my above post or some other method other than physical stacking, then great.  It would be nice if there was an "official" way to handle the scenario in the upcoming FAQ.  I suppose if someone wants to actually stack there models then they can do so, but it would be best discouraged by having an "official offset method" in my opinion

With this in mind, I still firmly agree that a friendly ship can not occupy a point on the board covered by another friendly vessel due to all the abuse that has been described by others.

I hope we are starting to get someplace with this discussion. :)

Russ

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #235 on: June 29, 2010, 07:56:09 AM »
I do not agree. It is either all bases overlap (enemy & friendly) or none. Such a thing is what I consider a core mechanic which needs to be as simple as possible.

Offline phil-o-mat

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #236 on: June 29, 2010, 02:32:38 PM »
the scratches were not from escorts or cruisers. they were from a highly modified battlebarge in the one game and from a tombship in another.

bye, phil

edit: my bases are painted (black), i don`t like those acrylic bases. so, the scratches are all just scraches of the paint, but they still sXXk!
« Last Edit: June 29, 2010, 10:07:37 PM by phil-o-mat »

Offline RayB HA

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 424
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #237 on: June 29, 2010, 04:09:42 PM »
Hi Guys,

The Assumption: I suppose I am assuming that bases can overlap, but you are assuming that they canít. Now all other table top games that spring to mind have no overlapping with a clearly defined rule like no enemy with 1Ē or 5cm, granted most of these games are ground based. But a few space ship games have the no overlapping rule as well, in which case they celebrate this fact with a few paragraphs of explanation and methods of dealing with it when it is unavoidable.
So it is either an oversight that no overlapping wasnít explained or even mentioned in the rulebook, or area denial wasnít an intention in the rules at all, which given the 3D element seems reasonable.

So at current we have a situation where any ship may overlap or stack.

Models and bases: Of course removing the models that are overlapping or stacking is necessary, with lines on the bases determining direction and one model remaining if possible.

Friendly overlapping exploits:
Hiding ships with small bases inside the perimeter of ships with large bases preventing ordnance from attacking it (unless torpedoes which will attack after).
Stacking Necron escorts/capital ships for massed turrets and making them more efficient at moving and firing.
Stacking Eldar for efficient moving and firing. However blast markers may be more destructive.

Necrons gain heavily and some ships canít be attacked with ordnance. A Dictator with a large base squadroned with a Dauntless is straight out abuse IMO. Given these weird advantages coupled with wasting the great BFG models and the clumsiness of overlapping bases I would say NO to friendly overlapping. A fluff reason could be that it is considered too risky by most admirals.

NO overlapping exploits (area denial):
Stopping ships from turning by reducing their movement. (especially easy to do to slow BBís).
Stopping ships from moving their full distance.
Forcing ships to move further than they wanted. (possibly into ordnance or celestial phenomenon).
Forcing a ship to turn by occupying the length of movement including a little of the minimum movement and all of the extra. (preventing Lock-on, and changing its firing angles).
Denying ships getting both broadsides on close vessels.
Preventing boarding.

I dislike all of these conditions, theyíre unrealistic and change the state of play massively with unreasonable tactics. So a NO to not being able to overlap with enemy ships.

If I had to pick between no overlapping or full overlapping Iíd pick the later as its exploitability is felt far less. But we can do better by allowing ships to overlap with enemy ships, eliminating all exploits from both!

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 Don Gusto

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #238 on: June 29, 2010, 05:23:05 PM »
I'm with you all the way Ray, except for your preferance of full overlapping if all else fails.
You also safed me the work of writing a long text myself, I was just in the middle of it. ;D

I would just like to add a part of what I had already written down:

The rules say this:
"To allow for the vagaries of three dimensions and the vast distances involved, ships can move and fire past each other without any risks."(page 6)
And thats it, at least all I can find about it. Since ships have limited speed and maneuverability it is entirely possible within the rules, that they will end up so close to each other that their bases overlap. Now what?
"To prevent this becoming a problem in the game it is assumed that the ships actually occupy the point in space shown by the stem of their base."(also page 6)

The rules do allow overlapping of bases albeit implicit. Ray is not making this up. The rules are also not very vocal about an issue that can be quite important in some situations. So its a good idea to clear it up.

How would people feel about the following:

Bases Overlapping and Stacking: At the end of the movement phase friendly bases may not overlap if possible. Keep in mind the movement of ships that can't turn before moving your ships. Intentionally overlapping with enemy bases is still possible.


Seems to me a good solution. Maybe change it further that ships with fixed speed/course must be moved first

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #239 on: June 29, 2010, 06:25:26 PM »
Ray

i do not think the examples you give of friendly stacking are egregious at all!
i would be fine with allowing it.