October 20, 2019, 11:41:11 PM

Author Topic: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions  (Read 143633 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #45 on: April 22, 2010, 01:09:16 AM »
Fracas,

Well, actually you can! We answered this a while back. It's the same for Ork Heavy Gunz. All gunnery weapons from a squadron get to fire at once, however you calculate thier dice on the gunnery table seperately for each type of gunnery weapon. Meaning they don't suffer from gunnery shifts due to BM's caused by other members of the same squadron.

I can't find a reference for this so I'll have to ask the rest of the HA.

Cheers,

RayB HA


i thought that was the case but just cannot find it (like the turret suppression rule, delayed in the warp)
so clarification in the FAQ would be much appreciated

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #46 on: April 22, 2010, 03:07:17 AM »
As far as I can recall, this was a proposal but never approved. Sigoroth was not a supporter of it as I recall.

Offline Don Gusto

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #47 on: April 23, 2010, 04:19:27 PM »
Damage to squadrons on BFI

How is damage distributed in squadrons (escorts in particular) that are on "Brace for Impact!" special orders?

For example:
A squadron of three Cobras takes 8 damage.
The first point places a blast marker on the closest cobra, knocking down its shield.
The second would destroy it unless it rolls 4+ for BFI. Do I make this check before allocating further damage?

Imho it makes more sense to allocate all damage before BFI saves. Otherwise you have to make a separate BFI save for each point of damage until the first ship ist destroyed, then proceed to the second ...

In my example I would assign two points of damage to each Cobra (enough to destroy them), assign the remaining two points of damage to the two closest Cobras and then check for BFI.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #48 on: April 23, 2010, 07:31:25 PM »
Hey admiral,

I believe Sigoroth was a fan of rolling together with different coloured dice iirc.

Hi Don Gusto,
in the past we did it wrong.... but this is how it goes :
but it is indeed seperate damage throws.

A downfall in allocating hits (by attacker or defender?) is that the attacked could allocate hits to a different ship which is more expensive/dangerous in the squadron (example : a (useless) Hellebore at the back of a Hemlock squadron).

cheers

Offline BlueDagger

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2010, 10:53:16 PM »
I would liek to bring this one up again

Nova Cannon Blast and Holofields: Although Holofield saves are taken against the shell from a Nova Cannon they are not against the blast. Therefore if the template touches a ships base with holofields it will always cause one point of damage, unless the ship is braced. (Needs HA Ruling)


A question was brought up on port maw and I wanted clarification on this.

"You are incorrect with your assumption about the NC rules updated in the 2010 FAQ. You would not get d6+1 hits no more than any other vessel that has the center hole over the base takes d6+1 hits. Think of it as an eldar ship will always take at least one point of damage unless braced from a NC template touching it but if the center touches the base they get a holofield save. If they fail they take d6 damage, if they pass they take 1 damage."

So if I getting this right the poster is stating that an imperial ship will take D6 if hit by an NC and if they roll a 1 the ships just eat the blow and no extra dmg is done. If an Eldar player is hit by an NC and saves the D6 they still take 1 point of damage.

By this logic Eldar players will always take a point of damage, but any non-holo ship will just soak the dmg on their shields? We have holos in place of our shields. If your going to FAQ that a ship always takes a point of damage if it's hit by the blast then it needs to be that ALL ships do even if they are taking the D6 hits as well, otherwise your just singling out one Race without justification.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2010, 12:04:14 AM »
All other ships already do take 1 point of damage.... we just have shields to absorb it instead of holofields. It's a danger of not having actual shields and relying on waving your hands while repeating "you didn't see anything" to stay alive. Yes it does nerf eldar a bit when facing IN or the PK, but really you guys run all escort fleets and ignore practically every other rule in the game and we still have to deal with scatter on the NC so it's no guarantee it'll even cause damage. You just have to decide if you brace like the rest of the world on a NC shot.
-Vaaish

Offline BlueDagger

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2010, 12:19:24 AM »
While I like the fact that your crying about your own race's deficiency that is no reason to use an FAQ (clarification that that stands for frequently asked questions)  to nerf another race. Holofields are used by fleet that do not run all escorts as well so by grouping the races together as such your making an unnecessary nerf to other lists as well.

As an FAQ ruling the blast marker auto doing 1 hit makes sense and that I fully agree with, but there is no reason that a non-holo field fleet would not take that hit as well. Holofields soak up the D6 and shields have the same chance depending on your shields and the D6 rolled, but there is no logical reason that a Holofield ship would take the extra damage and not a shielded ship.

Please try to come up with a logical reason and not a "cry nerf" response.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2010, 12:35:31 AM »
We have shields which absorb things and you don't it's as simple as that. I'm not crying nerf, The NC change popping up surprised me just as much as you. With the change, you might take more hits because you don't have shields, but you are ignoring all the penalties for being in contact with a BM that we have to deal with by doing so but saying we don't take the hit is blatantly inaccurate.
-Vaaish

Offline BlueDagger

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2010, 01:36:11 AM »
Once again your incorrect.

CWE react the exact same to blast markers as other ships.

So, we get hit by a NC have a chance to take D6 hits and if we avoid that we auto take a hit then once we try and move we take another auto hit on a 6. All of the hits scored crit on a 4+

Non-holos take an NC hit the other player rolls a number equal or less then your sheilds, your shields eat the hit. Then you proposing you don't take the additional hit for being under the blast. On your turn your shields are back up so on a 6 your shields take a hit. Any hits scored crit on a 6+

Which sounds a tad more devastating?

My argument is if Holofield ships auto take a hit for being under the NC blast template then ALL ships should auto take a hit for being under the blast. Your shields can defend against the D6 and so can eldar holofields.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2010, 02:42:27 AM »
The NC hit is absorbed by a ships shields generating a BM which then gives us penalties for being in contact with the BM. Against CWE or any ship with holofields, no BM is generated for the hit since it goes directly against the hull. With no shield to absorb the hit the eldar vessel is thus avoiding the penalties for the BM because no BM exists in contact with the base.

Quote
So, we get hit by a NC have a chance to take D6 hits and if we avoid that we auto take a hit then once we try and move we take another auto hit on a 6. All of the hits scored crit on a 4+
Since you are still taking a hit from the NC you shouldn't be having a BM placed on the ship for the "miss" like you currently do if the template falls over you (template is over ships base, your roll holofield save, put BM in place for passing and do not take a hit). That means you just take the one hit, no BM are generated and you are free to act as normal in your turn providing you didn't attempt to brace the NC hit. Basically, the only thing that has changed is that you no longer get a holofield save against the NC template unless the hole in the NC template is over your ships base.

Quote
My argument is if Holofield ships auto take a hit for being under the NC blast template then ALL ships should auto take a hit for being under the blast. Your shields can defend against the D6 and so can eldar holofields.
Quote

Your argument is flawed because all ships already take an automatic hit for being under the NC template. Shields can defend against the hit because they provide a "physical" barrier against the destructive energy of the blast; Holofields do not because they do not protect against physical attack by absorbing the energy of the attack rather by causing the attack to be directed in the the wrong location.

-Vaaish

Offline BlueDagger

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2010, 03:17:55 AM »
Correct on the touched by template, but that isn't what is being debated. If the template just touches a Holoship and isn't underneath the hole you take the hit and no blast marker is created, but at the same time a shieldship just suffer one lost shield and is in no danger of damage from the blast marker next turn. I'd much rather take the no dmg and -5cm vs auto dmg with 4+ crit thnx.

What IS being debated is the NC template hits a holoship you pass the save but now get an auto dmg hit. If you hit by the NC and pass your save why are holoships suddenly subject to the additional effect of being touched by the blast that shieldships are not. If being under the hole counts as being under the template for 1 dmg as well then that is fine, but then all ships should be subject to both effects not just eldar.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #56 on: April 25, 2010, 05:08:33 AM »
I would say that you act like you would if the hole hadn't been over the base when you pass the holofield save because you are in effect saying the shell didn't pass through the target vessel when you pass the holofield save. No BM create, one autohit generated. You shouldn't have the effects of a missed shot any more than any other eldar vessel that touches the template but is not under the hole. Effectively the NC can no longer "miss" and eldar vessel so long as the vessel is touching or under the template. Basically any eldar ship under the template is always hit unless braced and if under the hole you will either take one damage or d6 damage depending on if you pass the save. Since in either case a hit is generated you shouldn't have to generate a BM.
-Vaaish

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #57 on: April 25, 2010, 05:18:23 AM »
I see. The NC template lands a direct hit on an Eldar vessel. But the hole is smaller then the Eldar's base.... wait, that has always been the case:

if a ship has the hole from NC template over the base the ship takes D6 hits.
if a ship does not have hole over base but edge of NC template it takes 1 hit.

Now, the Eldar is attacked by the 'hole' : it will roll a holofield save first: 2+ is saved, blastmarker is placed. If missed the Nova Cannon does D6 attacks.

If it is no 'direct' hole attack the ship takes 1 attack automatically from the NC.

Pretty poor wording in FAQ 2010 as it still leaves room.

Well, if I was attacking Eldar escorts I would place the NC template in the middle of the escort squadron to touch as many bases as possible. Just glancing those bases with my NC template.

Yes, I can see a design flaw in that NC vs Eldar ruling.

(But then again I see a problem with the official Eldar rules.)



Offline BlueDagger

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #58 on: April 25, 2010, 05:30:34 AM »
And that in effect is completely changing the rule for NC and as such really shouldn't be in an FAQ just as much as other ideas that are being scrapped for overstepping their bounds. the ruels specifically state 3 things: If under the hole take D6, if under the template take 1 hit, and Holofields may save against NC shots. The hole is clearly savable and none can contest that without changing the Eldar rules. Should the template as a whole be savable? It's a rules change but agreeable.

Forcing a capital ship to without any shields to ALWAYS take a hit with a 4+ crit unless it scatters into oblivion regardless if their holofield save was made vs the D6, is too much. Rules wise it is essentially telling a Hive ship player that their shields absorbing the the 6 hits from the NC roll of 6 on a D6 wasn't enough, so it needs to take a dmging hit for being under the blast as well.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #59 on: April 25, 2010, 05:59:52 AM »
I do think such things can be in the FAQ. Remember the old FAQ for the original rulebook it introduces the Scatter dice for NC and ordnance limits, I mean, those are much more changing then a slight adjustment for NC vs Eldar.

If the NC blast template just put on a blastmarker when it is partially hitting the Eldar base the vessel could get an auto blastmarker which in the next round does damage on a 6+, something Imperial/Chaos does not have to worry about.