November 18, 2019, 05:24:55 PM

Author Topic: 2010 torpedo clarification  (Read 9303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2010, 08:28:52 AM »
Aaah, with all the other agreements going on.... ;)

Well, here everybody likes the new torp rule.

The rationale is there and exists. But we had this discussion on yahoo so I better leave it at that. Right?

Offline silashand

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2010, 08:35:23 AM »
Aaah, with all the other agreements going on.... ;)

Couldn't let that trend continue now could I? ;)

Quote
Well, here everybody likes the new torp rule.

Hardly. From what I have seen those who disagreed have simply left the discussion. But that's what I get for going through the various threads/posts and counting for and against. Ah well, no biggee since as I said I and my group won't be using the rule. I do find it amazing how easily some people will accept a change when it is promoted as being fact, as if it's already been made official even when it has not.

Quote
The rationale is there and exists. But we had this discussion on yahoo so I better leave it at that. Right?

I have no intention of pursuing this discussion anymore. It just grates on me that people use this to justify something they want when the majority of the rest of the game would indicate how silly it actually is. But again, what do I know. Obviously nothing. Frankly I'm just going to buy up another couple copies of the 1.5 blue book and I'm set. Only one fleet left to buy and I will have them all (FW Tau) :D).

Cheers, Gary
« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 08:06:04 PM by silashand »

Offline Eudaimon

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #32 on: November 22, 2010, 03:58:59 PM »
Quote from: silashand

Quote from: horizon
Well, here everybody likes the new torp rule.

Hardly. From what I have seen those who disagreed have simply left the discussion

I am an IN player that uses only torpedoes. The truth is only that players who use torpedoes don't want to lose an hight amount of power and versatility of this powerful weapon.
Think about this: I can fire a salvo of 18 torpedoes (only three cruisers, maybe only three Dauntlesses!) that may be larger than a planet. Where is the problem? Well, here you the problem: it is absurd that a ship that is in contact only with a side of the salvo, can be hit even by the torps that are at the opposite side of the same salvo. There can be 15 cm between the two sides, that is an entire movement of some ships! It's too strong, if you use them, you have noticed that.

One 2x2cm base per s6 salvo can work, but only one base for more then s6 is ridiculous: at this point I find more convenient do not fire combined salvos

Quote from: silashand
my group have decided to simply ignore this particular "FAQed-up rule."

when the faq's will be official, your opponent will have to agree on this, it's mandatory

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2010, 07:23:05 PM »
Ofcourse every group is entitled to use the rules which they think work best (with us Eldar MMS, original blastmarkers primary).

Offline silashand

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2010, 07:40:22 PM »
Quote from: silashand
my group have decided to simply ignore this particular "FAQed-up rule."

when the faq's will be official, your opponent will have to agree on this, it's mandatory

Ummm, excuse me? As I said my group has agreed not to use it and if it does become "official" then we will just house rule it away. I don't think the GW police are going to come knocking on my door. What are they going to say? "Acceptance is unnecessary. House Rules are irrelevant. You will be assimilated?" Yeah... I'll buy that for a dollar...  ;D

Cheers, Gary

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2010, 07:43:14 PM »
You said I, that's why he mentioned it. You should've said we/us. ;)


Offline silashand

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2010, 07:47:22 PM »
You said I, that's why he mentioned it. You should've said we/us. ;)

Huh? Where did I say that? My original post stated:

Quote
It is for all of the above reasons that my group have decided to simply ignore this particular "FAQed-up rule."

Seems clear to me.

Cheers, Gary

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2010, 07:54:55 PM »
Oh, keep in mind the 1.5 rulebook has some issues for which you need FAQ2010:
* Asteroid field rules: 3d6 on AAF has been ommited per mistake.
* The FAQ adresses/clarifies point swaps.
* Repulsive shield upgrade
* Some ordnance thingies.
* something else

;)

You said at one point I... perhaps an edit. Doesn't matter I know what you mean. Go and buy that Tau fleet.

Offline silashand

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2010, 08:10:07 PM »
Oh, keep in mind the 1.5 rulebook has some issues for which you need FAQ2010:
* Asteroid field rules: 3d6 on AAF has been ommited per mistake.
* The FAQ adresses/clarifies point swaps.
* Repulsive shield upgrade
* Some ordnance thingies.
* something else

;)

You said at one point I... perhaps an edit. Doesn't matter I know what you mean. Go and buy that Tau fleet.

Ah, I see it. Fixed.

Also, I understand the FAQ is necessary for some areas. However, frankly the 2007 FAQ answers pretty much all of the real grey areas. It's yet again why I think this 2010 effort is more an attempt to change rules because some players want to than clarify them. I suspect such a thing would not even be possible if GW actually gave a rat's behind about SG anymore. Though with what happened to the BBRC, who knows. I guess if someone here oversteps their bounds then BFG could suffer the same fate. I had a fleeting hope that the dissolution of the BBRC was due to GW possibly re-releasing Blood Bowl this year like they did with Space Hulk, but alas, that did not happen so I think the other factors were probably it. JMO though.

As for the Tau, it's happening, albeit slowly. Real life expenses seem to get in the way far too often ;).

Cheers, Gary
« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 08:12:29 PM by silashand »

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2010, 08:28:29 PM »
i like the idea of one base representing up to 6 torpedo strength but what happens when you launch a salvo of 9?
one 6 plus one 3?
one 5 plus one 4?


might be better to represent 1-3 per base. this will make a launch of 6 4cm wide, nearly what the old marker size is

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2010, 09:01:04 PM »
It should work as follows:

Each torpedo marker counts for 1-6 torpedo's. In the event that a salvo of greater then st 6 is launched, place down two markers side by side.  Each token must be consolidated to maximized in strength to the strength of the salvo. For example, A Desolator fires a strength 9 salvo, Two tokens are placed on the ships base, one is st 6 and the other is st3 (you cannot have one 5 and 4).  When strength is reduced, you always reduce from the lowest strength token first.

Example: The Desolater fired it's torpedo's at an imperial cruiser, and scored (luckily!) 4 hits, reducing it's strength to 5.  The strength 3 marker is removed, and the strength 6 is reduced to strength 5.  The single marker continues on it's path to it's maximum movement. You DO NOT reduce the strength 6 to a strength 2, and have two markers for a strength 5 salvo.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2010, 02:31:57 AM »
It wouldn't matter in the slightest if one were 5 and the other 4 or if they were 6 and 3. They count as 1 marker of strength 9. As soon as the total strength drops down to 6 or less you drop down to a single 20 x 20 base. Under the old rules, for a strength 9 torp salvo you'd use either 5+4 or 6+3. It's no different now.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2010, 03:59:35 AM »
So long as you consolidate strength to the minimal number of markers, i don't have a problem with that. I just don't want to see six counters, each with st 1, but all in the same 'wave'.

Offline Mazila

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 141
Re: 2010 torpedo clarification
« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2010, 01:20:07 PM »
I say that if you want to make unified salvos then they have to be represented by a single marker from a single ship (up to 9 in str). If ships are making a combined launch then just put 2 markers from each ship together.