November 19, 2019, 04:13:10 AM

Author Topic: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions  (Read 146068 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 #270 on: August 07, 2010, 03:40:52 PM »
On the point of rewriting the rulebook- an unofficial copy incorporating the FAQ would be a great work of human civilization!  ;D When this FAQ is 'fixed', I can really see this happening, if I can get a few volunteers!  ;)

Cheers,

RayB HA



Great!

attack craft basing ruling?

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #271 on: August 07, 2010, 07:26:02 PM »
I'd rather update the CWE pdf's ;)

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #272 on: August 08, 2010, 12:40:09 AM »
Hi all! I'm going to try and help Ray out here. Here are teh thoughts Ray and I shared concerning some of these.

Blast Markers: Having them count all around happened a lot longer ago than this current FAQ. What was hapening was that by NOT having them count all around, players with a blast marker behind them were saying "I'm not slowed down because I'm not moving through it." This ws particularly irksome against Eldar, which tend to come in, shoot and run away, making it very dfficult to EVER get a closing shot on them.

As for blast markers being shared with other ships in base contact, that rule is as old as the massing turret rule itself. If massing turrets didn't come with a shortcoming, BFG would be reduced to a game where escorts did nothing but hover around battleships, which was never their intent.

Unfortunately, what we have discovered during this process with every ruling is that we constanty have to examine the fairness and balance of the rules against the worst way the rule can be broken. It sucks having to do it like that, but it isn't fair for everyone else if we accidentally incorporate something that gives cheaters an unfair advantage. Trust me- you would be AMAZED at some of the stuff I've seen...

Hi Ray,
this:
Quote
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. This has no limitation to the number of ships shields the blast marker can take down.  
Could that please be changed? It is a real downer to escorts which need massing versus the assault boat dread and now are hampered by this in the shooting phase.

I say old rules for blastmarkers:
Place them in arc where gunnery came from, direct line. Thus no attacker decision to place them so to drop all shields.

And when we are at it drop that ruling that markers count as all around.

Hi Don Gusto,
tabletop effect: that is pretty well explained in the rules... :

SUN - TARGET - ATTACKING SHIP:

If distance between target and attacking ship is above 30cm two column shifts right instead of one.
If distance between target and attacking ship is under 15cm shift left

iirc ;) Check the ranges I say.

Turret suppresion:it does make sense: see Star Wars ;)
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 flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #273 on: August 08, 2010, 12:53:44 AM »
Sorry for the double post, but I've been thinking about the limit of +3 turrets for massing. I can see your reasoning for the limit but I think it weakens escorts unnecessarily. Could the change limit massed turrets on capital ships to +3 and escorts to +6 (the maximum size their squadrons can be to prevent multiple 6 strong escort squadrons from stacking and gaining ridiculous turret strength).

The +3 turret limit actually doesn't create much of a difference except for specific situations where players are purposely stacking ships (and in some cases entire fleets!) in order to create statistically impossible situations, which is what this rule is supposed to correct.

I'm a big fan of escorts and typically fly them in very tight formations. When bases are in contact with each other and NOT stacked, teh most you can get in contact with any one escort to protect it against attack craft is five others. "Wai a minute Nate, you can actually get six if you get them in a circle all around!" Correct, but when you do this, the escort in the missle is now essentially invisble to ordnance because no marker can get past the ring of bses to get to the ship in the middle.

That's all fine, but even with the +3 limitation, a single Sword +3 is now rolling 5D6, the same strength as an Emperor battleship! Now every escort in contact with it is also individually rolling the same turret strength! Keep in mind that ships can now brace against hit and run attacks so a-boats are no longer teh "escort killers" they used to be. The intent of massing turrets rule was to negate attack craft's overpowering ability over escorts, not to neuter attack craft as a weapon system in BFG.

- 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 flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #274 on: August 08, 2010, 12:58:02 AM »
I'd rather update the CWE pdf's ;)

We're working on that as well. If you happen to have a self-printed copy of the BFG living rulebook, you will be happy to know the final copy of the FAQ will be in landscape format with lots of BFG-themed graphics and backgrounds (GW artwork, not fan-made).

Good times!

- 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 flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #275 on: August 08, 2010, 01:54:18 AM »
The overlapping issue is HA sorted: You can do it without limit, but AC can attack small bases hidding in large bases.


..and torpedoes can not?  So I can protect my Repulsive from boarding torps by putting it "inside" my Desolater? (I could not do this in good conscience, but I'm sure a number of people will squeeze every edge case benefit out of this official ruling that they can)  Was there any play testing to try and sort out if the game changes or to find any other ways this can be abused?

If two ships with the same base size are on-top of each other, how do I determine which base the torps are resolved against first?  A die roll or attacker/defender choice?  What if two ships stacked fire torps...since the torps come from the stem, do they automatically hit the other friendly ship?

What about AC stacking? Is that permitted now or is this only for ship bases?  How about defenses, can they stack?

Russ


Yes, attack craft can now pick out shps hiding inside a ships base, which are basically treated as if boteh bases are edge-on when the attack craft touch it. Keep in mind that massing turrets still works normally in this case.

No, this would NOT work for torpedoes. Torpedoes are much dumber than attack craft, just as a Harpoon missile is far more dangerous against friendly ships than say an F/A-18 Hornet. I would say torpedoes will only attack the first base they come in contact with, but that's just coming from me without rolling any dice and has not yet been discussed with Ray and Bob.

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. If a player is purposely stacking their ships so perfectly that they are for all intents and purposes occupying teh same place in 2D space and there's no way to tell which one is closer, then I say the attacking payer gets to pick, just as teh attacking player gets to pick if firing between closing and abeam if the target ship is right on the line between fire arcs. Again, that's just me.

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!

We have specifically ruled in the FAQ against AC in an individual wave stacking,though there is no reason why different waves can't stack as long as they are ALWAYS treated as different waves, including when attacking and being atacked. Defenses on the other hand don't move. While I don't have a problem with defenses being in base contact, actually stacking defenses is just plan cheating. I say no and boo, but that's just me and will require an HA  ruling.

- 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 flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #276 on: August 08, 2010, 02:15:22 AM »
Also, the rules for AC attacking overlapping ships is a complete contradiction to the rules "Ordnance attacks are ALWAYS solved immediately" and "Ordnance markers must always attack the first ordnance or vessel they come in contact with (when applicable)".  I see the resolution was to create a special clause ("oh, except in this case...").  I generally find that rules that create the need for special clauses is a good indicator that it's a poorly constructed rule.

What happened?  Clearly I favor: a ship can end move overlapping an enemy, but not a friendly.  I feel this is pretty true to how the game currently plays and doesn't result in a bunch of edge cases. BUT, not overlapping at all is certainly better then the proposed FAQ overlapping rules.

I'm concerned that the text of the FAQ is now larger then the rule book.  This might be an indication that the wording can be streamlined and I've noticed some statements already exist in the core rulebook and have been redundantly inserted into the FAQ.  Example: "If a combination of ships in a squadron has a firepower value greater than 20..."

Russ


Russ,

Excellent points all around! I know what you mean, and it was a big concern of mine as well. Right now the FAQ is a whopping 33 pages!! Granted when we re-format it into the final copy it will be a bit smaller, but it has nonetheless grown significantly. Some of teh repitition can come out of it, but we tried to address the fact that lots of people are still playing with the 1st Ed rulebook. One quick fix for that would be to simply state up front taht you ned teh 2nd-Ed rulebook or download the Living Rulebook to use this FAQ.

The biggest goal (and thus problem) with the FAQ is that its intended to 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. For variety, the game comes with eight different races, each with their own rule set and special weapons, meaning there are multiple different ways a given tactic can take effect. If the rulebook tried to inclue the what-if for every possible scenario, it would be an extra 100 pages long. Teh opposite solution would be for all teh races to behave exactly the same way, in which case the game would be simple to learn with little to discuss but be about as interesting as Chess. Don't get me wrong, I like Chess, but I don't pay upwards of $35 a piece and the better part of two days of paint to play it!

- 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 #277 on: August 08, 2010, 07:45:43 AM »
Hi Nate,

stacked ships fire torps individual. Yes. But what when these are in a squadron? Example: Repulsive with big base and Repulsive with small base. :)

On the CWE: nice. Do you have cool -new- space ship art as well?


Offline Gron

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #278 on: August 08, 2010, 04:14:00 PM »
Are there any plans for an official points calculator for designing own ships or shall we settle with Smothermann's formula?
Personally I preferred the more accurate calculations made by Shame Riel Krall at Port Maw (that is currently unavailable).   

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #279 on: August 08, 2010, 08:56:26 PM »
BFG is designed in such a way no formula will get there 100%.

And I think Smotherman is a good base. As the creator intended, a basic calculation, never a conclusive one. You need to adjust vs other vessels and playtest.

On the blastmarker issues earlier: well, it was easy in the past I think. Moving away is still touching so it still counted as being in contact for Ld and speed. I never saw the problem. Really.

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #280 on: August 08, 2010, 10:38:04 PM »
I am good with 2cm square bases for torpedoes

But what happens when a squadron launches a combined torpedo attack? Each ship launches a marker (with a die to denote it's strength) and the markers line up?

Offline russ_c

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #281 on: August 09, 2010, 07:09:23 AM »
Nate,

Welcome, I'm pleased that you are joining Ray on the "battlefront" to have a more direct participation in the conversation.  I've begun a through critique of the entire FAQ text in horizon's post about the WIP version.  Hopefully you and Ray will have the stamina to get through it all!  :D

@ fracas,
Quote
I am good with 2cm square bases for torpedoes

I would be too, unfortunately the str2 torp marker is actually 1.5x2cm.  It would be really nice to have all ordnance use the exact same base size, *nudge HA members, but I understand the choice to keep existing markers due to availability.  Now that torps don't change size I'm encouraged to model and base some.

The more I think about it I'm concerned that they can no longer be used for area denial effectively.  Also the smaller size will probably magnify the difficulty of hitting targets when combined with the torps inability to maneuver, as well as making it easier for ships to navigate around in the movement phase.  I like a fixed size for sure, but my instincts tell me that using a str4 torp (or a 2x4cm marker) will not compromise to much, allowing torps to maintain most of their current feel.

This is one change that really really needs playtesting in my opinion to make sure the correct size is selected verse impact on how the game will play.

Russ

« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 07:29:29 AM by russ_c »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #282 on: August 09, 2010, 07:11:13 PM »
On the yahoo group some have been pretty vocal against the torp marked idea.

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #283 on: August 09, 2010, 07:59:25 PM »
On the yahoo group some have been pretty vocal against the torp marked idea.

i saw that :)
would have added comments there as well but forgot my log on



standardizing ordnance bases is really needed imo.
the game will change some because of it but that is to be expected
and not the end of a very good game still

Offline Dan_Lee

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 67
Re: BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions
« Reply #284 on: August 19, 2010, 12:12:06 PM »
Your rulings about boarding values contradict themselves. In one you state that your boarding value does not include your turret value, and in the very next ruling you say that your boarding value is equal to your remaining hit points (plus your turret value if you are defending).

Various BFG and other gaming articles that I've written can be found (and downloaded for free) on my website, www.danleeonline.com. Enjoy.