July 21, 2019, 02:25:55 PM

Author Topic: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions  (Read 136437 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 #240 on: June 29, 2010, 07:28:26 PM »
not necessarily related, but what kind of dictators are you using, Ray? All I know of use the small base like the dauntless. Second, all of the scenarios you've posted regarding possible exploits with overlapping friendly and enemy bases seem rather... precise in their implementation and you seem to be disallowing the possibility of moving over the enemy base entirely.

Quote
Stopping ships from turning by reducing their movement. (especially easy to do to slow BB’s).
Ok, possible, but who in the their right mind parks that close to a BB. Easily countered by the BB boarding or AAF over the ship entirely, besides, why not just shoot at the BB for the same effect? (looking at IN BB, thats ripe picking for the empys full complement of bombers backed up by the forward S10 batteries. Ret, yes please do, s9 torpedoes, s3 lances. Oberon, Empy light. Apoc, ok, not much here, why not lock on or board?)

Quote
Stopping ships from moving their full distance... Forcing ships to move further than they wanted. (possibly into ordnance or celestial phenomenon).
This will probably happen more often, but I think that the method posted on the old forums of placing the model on the other side of the base if movement takes it past the stem and placing it in front if it doesn't works well. On the second part, no one forces the ship to move into the ordnance or phenomena, there are other options available that don't end up that way which makes this seem contrived.

Quote
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).
I'm not seeing how this one works. It seems relatively complicated to achieve and like all of the exploits, parking in front of a ship like that doesn't seem the safest place to be.

Quote
Denying ships getting both broadsides on close vessels.
I don't see an issue with someone moving in close formation to prevent this from happening. getting both broadsides isn't a right. Sitting ships that close opens them for other attacks like torpedoes or NC strikes to encourage them to move further apart and allow you to get those dual broadsides.

-Vaaish

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #241 on: June 29, 2010, 09:29:08 PM »
because of some of those dirty tricks ray presented, i revoke my previous revoke, and re-agree with ray. No Friendly Overlapping. (but know i still hate having to pull my cruisers off their bases and put them off the side of the table, asking myself why i bought them in the first place if i'm just playing close range slugging matches with flying bases...)

no friendly overlapping simplifies much, while 'altering the core mechanics' very little.

Offline RayB HA

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 424
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #242 on: June 30, 2010, 12:41:14 PM »
Fracas,

Indeed, the exploits capable with friendly overlapping feel somewhat realistic and are minor, except with Necrons (but massed turrets have been reduced to +3 anyway, even with overlapping allowed). However removing models due to swarming isn’t really ideal. This would be my main reason for disallowing it.
(Ps: Thanks for teaching me a new word!)

Vaaish,

Dictators and Dauntless combo: All capital ships may replace their small bases with large bases, from the last FAQ. So the Dictator could have a large one with the Dauntless hiding inside.

Affecting movement: A single escort vs a large flying base has a circular area denial of 9cm across (add both bases together). This is useable against BB’s with 15cm or 20cm speed. This is also large enough that if placed correctly will always be overlapping with a 15cm movement!
Against a cruiser 2 escorts can deny a 12cm line which against a 20cm speed cruiser can ‘force’ it to turn.
You could also place a ship to stop a ship from moving its minimum, forcing it to go further and possibly turn due to obstacles.

Both Broadsides: What’s wrong with this fluff/gamewise?

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 Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #243 on: June 30, 2010, 03:00:25 PM »
Quote
Dictators and Dauntless combo:
We have more serious problems afoot if people start doing this. Personally I'd be leery of someone showing up with large base on any imperial ship outside of the CG and BB's. Smells highly of WAAC or at least lawyering since that would probably be the only benefit of adding a large size base to a ship of that size.

Quote
A single escort vs a large flying base has a circular area denial of 9cm across
Ok, and a single escort isn't going to be that hard to either board or shoot to oblivion for the trouble of denying the BB passage. At the very least, the BB can AAF past the escort. IT doesn't seem like an overly useful tactic.

Quote
Against a cruiser 2 escorts can deny a 12cm line which against a 20cm speed cruiser can ‘force’ it to turn.
You could also place a ship to stop a ship from moving its minimum, forcing it to go further and possibly turn due to obstacles.
Again, this would require some pretty precise timing and placement to pull off and assuming the other player is more than a little off his game for not compensating. Again, there are other options and no guarantee that LO is the only order of use.
-Vaaish

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #244 on: July 01, 2010, 03:59:02 AM »
Hi Guys,

The Assumption: I suppose I am assuming that bases can overlap, but you are assuming that they can’t. Now all other table top games that spring to mind have no overlapping with a clearly defined rule like no enemy with 1” 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 wasn’t explained or even mentioned in the rulebook, or area denial wasn’t 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.


Not a situation which automatically means stacking is allowed. I can point out that FAQ prevents ordnance from being stacked. That would indicate a no overlapping or stacking assumption.

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.

See Russ? This meant the idea was about physically overlapping, not just putting a marker.

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).

Large bases won't be able to hide against small bases. Small bases maybe able to hide inside large bases. If this is the case, I would suggest the active player decides which ship the ordnance can attack first if it has the distance to reach both bases. Ex. If AC only had enough speed to reach the big base, then that would be the only ship attacked. If it was enough to reach the other base, then the attacking player gets a choice which to attack. East enough to measure anyway. This problem would not happen if bases did not overlap. But if you insist on overlapping, then too bad, you have to take the bad with the good. I would insist that I have access to friendly advantages as well as disadvantages. Fair is fair Ray.

Stacking Necron escorts/capital ships for massed turrets and making them more efficient at moving and firing.

It's not as if you can't do the same if ships can't overlap. Massed turrets work on the assumption of ships in B2B contact. Not a good reason.

Stacking Eldar for efficient moving and firing. However blast markers may be more destructive.

You mean they're not as efficient even if they don't stack? C'mon. Not a good reason.

Necrons gain heavily and some ships can’t 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.

Again not a good reason. The issue is only with ordnance, easily addressed by something similar to the rule I made above. Sorry but fluff reason is if the ships need to defend against ordnance, then grouping together to concentrate their firepower against ordnance makes more sense.

NO overlapping exploits (area denial):
Stopping ships from turning by reducing their movement. (especially easy to do to slow BB’s).

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).

Again I cannot fathom how you can come to this conclusion. If you are allowing overlapping bases it means the ship can exist at the same point, regardless of whether both bases are friend or foe. The point here is that overlapping is allowed. And so, the ship should not stop and instead proceed as if there is no base in that area and continue to turn.The ship should not be forced to turn. I do not know where you get this idea that a ship's movement is reduced or a ship is forced to turn just because it is in another ship's base. This only happens if there is a no overlapping rule and I again point out that since you insist on this, both sides should benefit.

Denying ships getting both broadsides on close vessels.

As well it should. if you don't have the space to fire both your broadsides, why should you be able to?

Preventing boarding.

Addressed similarly like my rule with ordnance. Not that hard to get a B2B contact with a ship hidden by a large base.

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

Fine if you want to change the rules but you cannot limit it to only enemy. You cannot just take the good and leave the bad. You open up being able to overlap enemy bases, well for sure as hell, you allow friendly bases overlapping as well. You're giving an advantage to the enemy while at the same time denying the advantage to the friendly and the disadvantage to the enemy. I do not like limiting overlapping only to enemy ships.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 04:02:24 AM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #245 on: July 01, 2010, 04:04:34 AM »
because of some of those dirty tricks ray presented, i revoke my previous revoke, and re-agree with ray. No Friendly Overlapping. (but know i still hate having to pull my cruisers off their bases and put them off the side of the table, asking myself why i bought them in the first place if i'm just playing close range slugging matches with flying bases...)

no friendly overlapping simplifies much, while 'altering the core mechanics' very little.

Sorry but I don't think such "dirty" tricks are indeed dirty. Those are just the advantages a player can use for his own which would not happen if the no overlapping rule was followed.

So Ray has a choice, either to allow overlapping or disallow it. I would not agree to only one side benefiting from an overlapping rule.

Offline RayB HA

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 424
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #246 on: July 02, 2010, 01:34:14 AM »
Admiral_d_Artagnan,

This isn't a case of one player getting an advantage over the other in any way! My proposal is that your ships may overlap with enemy ships, their ships can overlap with yours, but your ships can't overlap with yours and their ships can't overlap with theirs.

If overlapping was allowed entirely this would reduce the presence/number of models on the table for fleets that want to stack (Necrons, Eldar, and Nids).  Weapons range does get a small boost along with turning and speed as there is no slowest ship to slow you down or to slightly have the wrong facing. For Necrons the advantage here is that you can't chip away at the massed turret formation to open a weak point.

Earlier I suggested that if a ship's base is completely inside another AC should be allowed to select it as a target, this is a rule addition. This would solve the Dauntless/Dictator scenario.

Either way just like with AC, hiding models isn't very favourable and in the case of curved bases it’s quite clumsy as well.

No overlapping at all does throw spanners in the works with area denial. You seem to think that it's hard to predict if a player wants to turn a ship or not, which I can't really agree with. Also stopping a BB in its tracks (or forcing it to go on special orders) is easily worth the life of an escort. But then area denial doesn't have to be suicidal, you do still get to shoot, launch ordy or what have you, it’s just an extra weapon in your arsenal. A weapon that shouldn’t exist!

Boarding while being near (within 2000km) other ships and flying closely in between ships to broadside both of them seems fair and realistic. I don’t quite see why these should be disallowed.

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 Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #247 on: July 03, 2010, 05:29:17 AM »
Again, Ray, that's the good and the bad. You want to allow overlapping, then you allow both enemy and friendly ships to overlap. A player can do what you pointed out. These would be that players advantage. Disallowing it would rob that person of options. I don't think that's fair.

If it reduces the models on the table then tough. That's what you get.

On the subject of no overlapping, no game is perfect. Some compromises have to be made since there is no way at the moment to have a true 3D miniature game. It's still a 2D game with 3D ideas thrown in. You can't perfect it. No overlapping simplifies things. Maybe too much. But it has less problems than introducing overlapping then deliberately removing overlapping advantages to one side.

Might as well not have overlapping then if you just want to limit it to enemy.

Offline Zhukov

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 258
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #248 on: July 08, 2010, 11:23:58 PM »

Going to state my opinion here.

I do not believe friendly vessels should be allowed to overlap with each other as a tactic. If friendly vessels "collide" or overlap due to getting better firing angles that's one thing. But as a tactic, in my opinion, should not be allowed. It takes away models from the table, provides no real combat advatage that is already present with the rules, and in general, seems like it would look out of place on a space game table. 

Ships from opposing sides should be allowed to overlap bases with each other. The only negative to this maneuver is any blast markers inflicted will affect all vessels. True, it's a tricky matter trying to maneuver models on a game table in that distance. In this case, you can easily use something as a substitute for the ship(s).

-Zhukov
I am Zukov's Klaw.

"Oh mah gawd its like a giant veil was just lifted off my face and the beautiful maiden before my eyes just turned into a hideous Ork with a giant, bloody choppa."

Offline RayB HA

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 424
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #249 on: July 10, 2010, 05:53:01 PM »
Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Why don't you want to mix no overlapping of friendly bases with overlapping of enemy bases? Why should we be limited to all or nothing?

Cheers,

RayB
+++++++++++

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 fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #250 on: July 10, 2010, 09:26:42 PM »
Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Why don't you want to mix no overlapping of friendly bases with overlapping of enemy bases? Why should we be limited to all or nothing?

Cheers,

RayB

i've come around to agreeable with enemies overlapping but not friendlies

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #251 on: July 11, 2010, 01:00:47 PM »
Admiral_d_Artagnan,

Why don't you want to mix no overlapping of friendly bases with overlapping of enemy bases? Why should we be limited to all or nothing?

Cheers,

RayB

As I pointed out, you're limiting options to one side of the table. Friendlies cannot have defensive advantages while the enemy player can do everything from shooting to ordnance to teleport attacks to boarding? I think not.

I have addressed every problem you think may come up and the solutions are fairly simple.

Overlapping friendlies do not prevent enemy ships from shooting at any of them as long as they pass the check for shooting at a target closer. If both are at the same point, then the enemy player gets to choose.

Same with boarding. As long as the enemy ship can touch the base of the ship under the template, than it should be allowed to board that ship.

AC rules should be modified similar to boarding. If the AC can get to the small based ship under a large based ship, then player gets to choose which to attack with the caveat that massed turrets will work against the AC attacking as it should.

There is no way that an enemy ship's speed or turning should be hampered by another base in any way.

On the other hand, any advantages which friendlies get by overlapping should be allowed. Massed turrets is one advantage and I would say this should be changed to be included in boarding actions. If 2 ships can gang up on one ship, then two ships being so close together should also be able to assist each other by adding their turrets. Possible prevention of broadsides being able to hit 2 targets. I am pretty sure there will be others.

Both sides MUST benefit from overlapping. Otherwise, let it not exist at all.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 01:13:32 PM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »

Offline Caine-HoA

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #252 on: July 13, 2010, 01:18:12 AM »
We already more or less play without overlapping most of the time. it simply doesnt make much sense to play with nicly painted models if u have to put away half of them. even with putting away models the problem is not solved because even the bases arent free to place obove each other.
So most of the time i simply move my ships in ways that make it possible to have them all on their bases. Maybe thats an disadvantage sometimes. And yes in really close fights when fleets engage each other it just happens as you wont turn only because there is no space.

So after all we more or less play without friendly overlapping and with enemy overlapping. That makes the most sense practically.

Offline RayB HA

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 424
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #253 on: July 13, 2010, 10:43:58 PM »

As I pointed out, you're limiting options to one side of the table. Friendlies cannot have defensive advantages while the enemy player can do everything from shooting to ordnance to teleport attacks to boarding? I think not.

Both sides MUST benefit from overlapping. Otherwise, let it not exist at all.

Once again, why all or nothing? This isn't unfair, both sides are affected equally!

Area denial is an ugly mechanic for a naval space game, especially at this scale! 

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 Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #254 on: August 03, 2010, 06:20:03 AM »
Fairness Ray. Simple fairness.

And to reiterate again: There is NO area denial. It's just a matter of introducing rules to reiterate and clarify that idea. Now if you don't want to introduce the mechanics, then drop the idea of overlapping.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 06:25:35 AM by Admiral_d_Artagnan »