November 12, 2019, 01:02:02 PM

Author Topic: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions  (Read 145493 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DarknessEternal

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #300 on: August 25, 2010, 05:28:53 AM »
That the small base would hit the large base first. ;)
Which is as it should be.  Don't fire dumb bombs when you're on top of your friend.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #301 on: August 25, 2010, 06:20:37 AM »
But with this stacking nonsense it is unclear weather this happens or not. :)

Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #302 on: August 27, 2010, 04:49:22 AM »
But with this stacking nonsense it is unclear weather this happens or not. :)

+1

Offline DarknessEternal

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #303 on: August 27, 2010, 05:48:07 AM »
How is it unclear?  The torpedo marker makes contact with a base of the non-firing ship.  Therefor, it gets hit with that salvo.

This is very clear.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #304 on: August 27, 2010, 06:22:17 AM »
Darkness, then read this:
Two ships stacking torpedoes when firing doesn't work the same way because individual ships launch ordnance separately, just as they shoot separately. If they happen to be in a squadron it isn't an issue either because if in a squadron AND in base contact, they may combine torp salvoes (except Ork Ravagers). Now if a friendly ship is in base contact and "firing through" another friendlly ship that it is not in a squadron with, the rule in the past has been that you have to defend yourself. However, I have always played it that if teh friendly ships were actually in base contact, they don't have to, following the same logic of how squadrons behave. That however is NOT in the FAQ an will need an HA ruling- I'll get to work on that. See, this is why having you guys dissect a first draft works so great!

- Nate

So Nate says:

when in squadron
eg Repulsive with small base in squadron with Repulsive on large base. Stacked. Small inside big base.
Torps are fired from furthest away ship = small base. Torp salvo combined.
Torp would hit large base first. But now it doesn't.

See, your normal rule doesn't work.

However Nate goes on and now goes for the possible ruling that torpedoes cannot hit friendly vessels when in base contact with friendly vessel.

That means I can put my Infidels behind a Desolator, touching its base, and fire through the Desolator without harming it.

It is going from quirky to quirky.

Nate states that stacking is in its core a rule for accidental movement issues. But I can see this developing into tactics and further.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #305 on: August 28, 2010, 08:12:45 PM »
Darkness, then read this:
Two ships stacking torpedoes when firing doesn't work the same way because individual ships launch ordnance separately, just as they shoot separately. If they happen to be in a squadron it isn't an issue either because if in a squadron AND in base contact, they may combine torp salvoes (except Ork Ravagers). Now if a friendly ship is in base contact and "firing through" another friendlly ship that it is not in a squadron with, the rule in the past has been that you have to defend yourself. However, I have always played it that if teh friendly ships were actually in base contact, they don't have to, following the same logic of how squadrons behave. That however is NOT in the FAQ an will need an HA ruling- I'll get to work on that. See, this is why having you guys dissect a first draft works so great!

- Nate

So Nate says:

when in squadron
eg Repulsive with small base in squadron with Repulsive on large base. Stacked. Small inside big base.
Torps are fired from furthest away ship = small base. Torp salvo combined.
Torp would hit large base first. But now it doesn't.

See, your normal rule doesn't work.

However Nate goes on and now goes for the possible ruling that torpedoes cannot hit friendly vessels when in base contact with friendly vessel.

That means I can put my Infidels behind a Desolator, touching its base, and fire through the Desolator without harming it.

It is going from quirky to quirky.

Nate states that stacking is in its core a rule for accidental movement issues. But I can see this developing into tactics and further.

Okay, here’s what I’m saying, and I will use your examples to try and clarify what I’m reading here:

1.   Two Repulsives in a squadron, #1 on a small base, #2 on a large base, with #1 maneuvering so that it always stays inside the base of #2. This example assumes #1 is physically inside the base of #2 and not merely beside it or overlapping. Because they count as being in base contact, they can launch torpedoes in a single salvo, counting as having launched from the base FARTHEST from the ship being attacked, just as described on p.39 of the current rules.  Here’s what happens according to the FAQ. If the squadron is attacked by ENEMY torpedoes, the torpedoes attack Repulsive #2 because they will never reach the base of Repulsive #1 hiding inside it. If the squadron is attacked by enemy attack craft, the attack craft can pick between Repulsive #1 or #2 as long as their movement allows them to physically reach #1. #1 and #2 can mass turrets with each other, but only against torpedoes or attack craft, not both.
2.   Two Repulsives NOT in a squadron, #1 on a small base, #2 on a large base, with #1 maneuvering so that it always stays inside the base of #2. Again this example assumes #1 is physically inside the base of #2 and not merely beside it or overlapping. Because they are NOT in a squadron, they CANNOT launch torpedoes in a single salvo and must launch separate salvoes. Here’s what happens according to the FAQ. However, because they count as being in base contact, they can each fire torpedoes without the worry of their torpedoes immediately attacking the other Repulsive. Once again, if the squadron is attacked by ENEMY torpedoes, the torpedoes attack Repulsive #2 because they will never reach the base of Repulsive #1 hiding inside it. If the squadron is attacked by enemy attack craft, the attack craft can pick between Repulsive #1 or #2 as long as their movement allows them to physically reach #1. #1 and #2 can mass turrets with each other, but only against torpedoes or attack craft, not both.

Horizon, I know you’re worried about this developing into a tactic. Why this was in the FAQ is because it is ALREADY a tactic. Necron players that don’t launch ordnance discovered that by hiding their escorts inside the base of a Tombship, their escorts essentially become invisible to ordnance. The knee-jerk reaction the HA’s had to this tactic was to simply not allow bases to EVER be stacked. However, this got messy because we were in effect saying that “if I put a Brute squad to ram a battleship and they roll AAF to move just enough to hit the battleship, some of the Brutes won’t make it not because they don’t reach, but because they’re not allowed to stack bases.” When we tried to amend it by saying they can’t normally stack bases but may do so if ramming or if unavoidable, we ended up needing so many “except when” clauses that the ruling was essentially broken. There are a lot of other examples that make a no-stack rule just as messy, far more examples than there are for simply saying how torpedoes and attack craft behave when bases are stacked.

In the end, there is absolutely no way we as HA’s are going to make everyone happy. All we are striving for is to make this as fair as possible to as many players as possible.

I hope this helps.

-   Nate
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #306 on: August 29, 2010, 09:01:02 AM »
Hi Nate,

as far as I know, in our group, never encountered online as well, no one hid ships in other bases or allowed overlapping.
So this issue of being a tactic never happened.

See, disallow overlapping and the tactic that never was will never be. ;)

Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #307 on: August 30, 2010, 12:33:42 AM »
Horizon, I know you’re worried about this developing into a tactic. Why this was in the FAQ is because it is ALREADY a tactic.

I'm with Horizon on this one.  I've only played BFG for 2 years, but never in that time has anyone I've played with or discussed BFG with ever assumed it's okay to stack ships (maybe I live in a small world of CA and Portmaw! ).  The way it's been clarified in the FAQ is inviting it as a tactic and people will use it as such.  Many years have already been put into the game exploring a wide variety of rules scenarios and although I believe a game should have room to evolve ( to improve ) I think stacking ships and all the AC and Torp clarification that are following this ruling is a very Gray zone that remains to be tested as thoroughly as the rule needs to be.

The knee-jerk reaction the HA’s had to this tactic was to simply not allow bases to EVER be stacked.

Was this really the case?  All the discussions with Ray Bell and the contributing members on this topic up to the first draft of the FAQ didn't indicate that.  Although a few people didn't like the idea of stacking ever, a lions share of people did finally come around to supporting Ray in the concept of stacking only on enemy bases.  This has happened every game since I've played and it's yet to confuse any of the game rules when a ship is overlapping with an enemy ship.

However, this got messy because we were in effect saying that “if I put a Brute squad to ram a battleship and they roll AAF to move just enough to hit the battleship, some of the Brutes won’t make it not because they don’t reach, but because they’re not allowed to stack bases.” When we tried to amend it by saying they can’t normally stack bases but may do so if ramming or if unavoidable, we ended up needing so many “except when” clauses that the ruling was essentially broken. There are a lot of other examples that make a no-stack rule just as messy, far more examples than there are for simply saying how torpedoes and attack craft behave when bases are stacked.

Nate, this is an excellent example of how denying friendly stacking can effect the game; one that I had not thought of.  Can you name the other situations that can not be avoided by tactical forethought?  I really am interested in hearing them so I can put them on the table and think about the problem.  I fully acknowledge that not allowing friendly or any stacking will have a number of affects on situations.  Though, ironically, you've already created a host of "except when" rulings in the FAQ regarding AC, torps, and blastmarkers.

Addressing your ramming example above, it's true that not allowing friendly stacking or any would make it difficult to Ram another vessel with more then 2 to 3 ships and probably impossible with 4+ ships.  Certainly this has some tactical affect on every race (I would argue not very much) , but it impacts Ork Ramships the most.  I'm not looking for an "except when" clause for all fleets in this case, because it would be nonsense to add a special rule for everyone when it's going to only benefit brute ramships 95% of the time.  I would be willing to sacrafice the other 5% change, just to keep things smooth.  In this particular case I would find it except-able to create a unique, but simple ramming rule for ramships alone that both does not contradict non-overlapping and doesn't sacrifice there ability to overwhelm a single vessel with ramming.  Of course I need to really think hard about the possibility of this, but the point is to avoid creating a global rule change that will make every race play different, when it might only benefit a small number of exceptions the majority of the time.

Lastly I think this is worth repeating from my FAQ post, just in case it didn't get read...

I'm going to make a final attempt to list why the stacking rule should not exist and should be replaced with "A ship may end it's movement overlapping with an enemy, but not a friendly base unless completely unavoidable.  This does not restrict any ship overlapping during it's movement."

1.) As Nate has stated to me, "Bases stacking on each other is supposed to result from an unhappy accident when trying to move your ships maximum distance and optimum firing arc."  Unfortunately, as stated, the stacking rule (along with the following FAQ paragraph) fully permits ship bases to stack not only in an unhappy accident, but even as a suggested tactic.  The critical point is that when friendly ships are being moved in relation to one another, they can all be moved in an informed manor with the player having the ability to consider each ships placement to provide them with maximum distance and optimum firing arc while taking into account how other friendly ships will be placed during that game turn.  This means the player has ample ability in nearly every case to place them advantageously without the need of stacking if just a little forethought is used.  But that player did not have this luxury when his enemy placed his ships, so to avoid situations where an enemy base would deny the player an advantageous position we must allow a ship to be placed overlapping an enemy if necessary.

2.) The rule is creating additional paragraphs in the FAQ to address, clarify, and support this ruling.  A perfect example is the entry on "Blast Markers and Multiple Bases".  This entry has become confusing as it attempts to both explain scenarios with bases touching and overlapping.  Torpedoes now require more explanation on how to deal with launching and resolving attacks.  AC now has contradictory exceptions to the conventional rules (see point 3 below).  We should be thinking about how the rules can be clarified to keep the essences of the game but help remove the need to excessively "provide solutions to problems that are not addressed in the current rules because in most cases, frankly they don't often come up in normal game play".  This is a challenge yes, but it should be in the forethought of every rules decision.  Essentially, allowing friendly bases to overlap is creating exceptions to current rules and requiring new rules to be drafted.  Allowing enemy overlapping does not conflict with any of the current rule set and thus requires little to no explanation for how to deal with AC attacks, torpedo launch and hits, etc.

3.) In an attempt to clarify bases "hiding" inside another base and to not allow this to be abused there is a new rule / clarification stating "attack craft can select to target vessels with bases hiding inside the large base in this manner".  This new ruling is contradictory to the core mechanic of what constitutes AC engaging a ship (i.e the moment it touches a base).  This contradiction is clear seen in the FAQ on page 6 where it's stated "Ordnance markers must always attack the first ordnance or vessels the come in contact with" and "they [attack craft] are assumed to be able to avoid or ignore closer targets or obstructions unless the course of their movement unavoidably brings them in contact".  This situation creates a rules paradox were the rule exception is trying to be shoe-horned in to make friendly overlapping function within the theory of the original rule, while not tangibly working with the core mechanic.

4.) In regard to point 2, in my opinion it's best to create clarifications that enhance the game by making rule scenarios simpler to understand and minimize the edge cases that cause confusion, disputes, or vagary.  Any rule that creates the need for more rules to justify or clarify is a classic indicator that something is mechanically wrong.  A good example of a simplified rule in action is the choice for blast markers affecting all around a base.  Sure it makes some tactical decisions moot, but it does a grand job of simplifying situations, avoiding vagary, and thus keeping the game moving while retaining the essence of the original rules.  The shortest path to achieving the same results with overlapping bases is of course to not allow any overlapping at all, but this might provide to much compromise to the essence of the game. Instead I offer a shorter path to simplicity at less of a sacrifice: allow non-friendly overlapping.

5.)  My last point is a bit abstract and ill-informed, but worth throwing out for some thought I think…  I would encourage everyone to think about how the average BFG gaming session goes within your game group and how tournament play has occurred for the last 10 years.  How common is it really for friendly ships to necessitate overlapping?  How many past tournaments would have been affected by people "stacking" ships?  Now, how many times have you needed to overlap your ship with an enemy to gain the position you intended?  I don't want to sacrifice the essence of BFG or the intent of the original designer, but I would say that how the game has been "traditionally" played by the community at large for the last 10 years, has weight in what's right for the game.

Granted I'm certainly biased here because I only have my gaming group's experience to reflect on.  In my group we just assumed for whatever reason (probably because of the models) that when moving our own ships we should not overlap them if not necessary (it's never been).  But, when my opponent moves his ships I sportingly allow him to place his ship in any legal place, even if it overlaps with my ship, to give him the advantage he deserves due to good commanding.  So I am genuinely curious if other people's gaming groups have found these scenarios common or not.

Cheers,

Russ

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #308 on: August 30, 2010, 02:51:06 AM »
Quote
I'm with Horizon on this one.  I've only played BFG for 2 years, but never in that time has anyone I've played with or discussed BFG with ever assumed it's okay to stack ships (maybe I live in a small world of CA and Portmaw! ).


I've also not seen this happen deliberately either.
-Vaaish

Offline RayB HA

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 424
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #309 on: August 30, 2010, 03:50:55 AM »
Hi Russ (all other contributors and secret listeners),

I have been exposed to the mass stacking style of play on numerous occasions and by numerous players (mainly Eldar, Necron and a crazy Ork player  ;D). I'm very happy that it seems the vast majority of BFG gamers haven't, as it is super powerful without correction. At current it is legitimate and even tournament legal (unless the organisers make a judgement). Either limiting its abuse or preventing friendly stacking are the only responsible options.

As friendly stacking/overlapping can at times be unavoidable simply using the rules that would cover this hapenstance don't weigh the rulebook(/FAQ) down any extra. Also limiting the effect of stacking rather than banning it will allow players that use (and like) this tactic to play competetively against players that don't.       

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 #310 on: August 30, 2010, 04:31:39 AM »
So whats the problem with saying that ships may not stack unless it occurs unintentionally due to standard movement constraints or as the result of movement with special orders?

Seems that would stop people from deploying their ships stacked and prevent them from attempting to move in such a way as to stack the ships.
-Vaaish

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #311 on: August 30, 2010, 06:26:16 AM »
That would be clear & simple.

It still needs the clarifications on what happens during an attack.

Offline silashand

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #312 on: September 02, 2010, 02:18:30 AM »
I was rather surprised by the inclusion myself since I've never seen anything mentioned about grand cruisers being problematic

This is my experience as well.

Quote
However, despite all ships having those areas, the Vengeance and its variants are unique in that they are the only capital ships that do not mount any form of prow weapons which means they have a particular vulnerability to AB that no other capital ship has. While we shorten the name to prow criticals, it's actually a prow armament critical. Since all other captical ships have prow weapons, the same issue does not exist with them and doesn't necessitate the expansion of the changes to all other ships.

It may not necessitate it, but I don't think it's an appropriate change to begin with. After all, other Imperial ships have just as big if not bigger prows and could easily be justified in this ruling as well.

Also, people seem to be equating having prow weapons with exterminatus devices. AFAICT, torpedoes, including things like the cyclonic variety and virus bombs don't have to be fired out of a prow weapon. A torpedo is a torpedo, after all.

Cheers, Gary
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 02:27:45 AM by silashand »

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #313 on: September 12, 2010, 12:29:46 PM »
In all honesty... I can really go either way with the ruling on grand cruisers ignoring prow weapons damage.

On the upshot, it gives the GC's a bit of a handy boost, and not in a way that is breaking the game.

on the downside, it creates another rule that counters the established ruleset (for the auto-shift up to six)


Offline Temurill

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #314 on: September 14, 2010, 01:19:53 PM »
I have a question concerning the Armageddom Gun:
what happen when u fire against an asteroid field?
It stops the armageddom gun?
Can u hit something inside the asteroid field (eldar  ;D)?

Thank u for your attention.