Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Experimental Rules Feedback => Topic started by: Don Gusto on October 26, 2010, 09:01:44 PM
-
While reading in the FAQ2010 Ordnance thread and thinking a bit more about bombers/turrets I got this very simple idea. I'm posting it here since the discussion in the other thread has become a bit too focused on that topic. Not sure if its been brought up before:
Each surviving bomber squadron makes d6-turrets attacks with a minimum of one.
I think this would make bombers roughly equivalent to x/x waves under the proposed turret suppression rules from the faq, clear up fighta-bommaz and be much simpler overall.
Thoughts?
-
Is the effect caused by fighters or natural to bombers? It effectively makes no difference between S5 and S6 turrets since those will be more likely to need the min 1 attack.
-
alternative formats:
1. each bomber making a run rolls a D6. total this value with +1 per surviving fighters.
each turret rolls a D6. subtract this total from the above to get number of bombing attacks against the lowest armor.
2. each bomber making a run rolls a D6 + number of surviving fighter - number of turrets
-
@Vaaish. Fighters would play no role in this. Just a minimum of 1 instead of 0 for the number of attack runs.
This would give a boost to bombers overall but it is comparable in effect to the FAQ2010 suppression rules.
With the original rules each surviving bomber will on average get:
0 Turrets: 21/6 = 3.5 attacks
1 Turrets: 15/6 = 2.5 attacks
2 Turrets: 10/6 = 1.7 attacks
3 Turrets: 6/6 = 1.0 attacks
4 Turrets: 3/6 = 0.5 attacks
5 Turrets: 1/6 = 0.17 attacks
6+ Turrets: 0/6 = 0.0 attacks
With a minimum of 1 these increase to:
0 Turrets: 21/6 = 3.5 attacks
1 Turrets: 16/6 = 2.7 attacks
2 Turrets: 12/6 = 2.0 attacks
3 Turrets: 9/6 = 1.5 attacks
4 Turrets: 7/6 = 1.17 attacks
5 Turrets: 6/6 = 1.0 attacks
6+ Turrets: 6/6 = 1.0 attacks
A wave of 4 bomber should thus get on average (if the turrets shoot at them):
0 Turrets: 3.5*4.0 = 14 attacks
1 Turrets: 2.7*3.5 = 9.45 attacks
2 Turrets: 2.0*3.0 = 6 attacks
3 Turrets: 1.5*2.5 = 3.75 attacks
4 Turrets: 1.17*2.0 = 2.34 attacks
5 Turrets: 1.0*1.5 = 1.5 attacks (rough approximation, exact value is 1.53125)
Compare this with a wave of 4 AC using the FAQ2010 TSR:
0 Turrets: (4b+0f) 3.5*4.0 = 14 attacks
1 Turrets: (4b+0f) 2.5*3.5 = 8.75 attacks
2 Turrets: (2b+2f) 1.7*2.0+2 = 5.4 attacks
3 Turrets: (2b+2f) 3.88 attacks (calculation gets a bit more complicated from here on)
4 Turrets: (2b+2f) 2.69 attacks
5 Turrets: (2b+2f) 1.85 attacks
-
Wasn't the point of the turret suppression rules to give fighters some reason to escort bombers though? Second, wouldn't this remove most of the difference between 5 turrets and 6 turrets?
-
I don't know what motivated it. The main effect however is that it makes bombers more viable against high turret targets.
It would remove the invulnerability of ships with 6 or more turrets and furthermore require them to actually use them. The difference between 6 turrets und 5 turrets would be one die.
Edit:
Btw. with FAQ2010 TSR there is also not much difference between 5 and 6 turrets.
-
While I disagree with making bombers more viable against high turret targets, I think that fighters should be tied to the effect if you are going that way. Also, wouldn't you get at least 2 attacks off this with the FAQ2010 rules because of the two fighters each granting an attack:
5 Turrets: (2b+2f) 1.85 attacks
-
While I disagree with making bombers more viable against high turret targets, I think that fighters should be tied to the effect if you are going that way.
You've lost me here. You are against the general idea but want it done in a certain way? ???
As for your second question, 5 turrets can roll 4 or more hits - in which case you'll get zero attacks. The average number of attacks includes that probability.
-
I'm still for AC (bombers/TBs/ABs) getting relatively stronger but losing to attrition (fighters jumping bombers/TBs/ABs, turrets knocking down bombers).
-
Don't worry about it. I'm just saying I'd go a different direction.
-
5 Turrets: (2b+2f) 1.85 attacks
Well, 1.84 but close enough. :P
-
I like the idea for minimum hits.
Maybe if fighters need some sort of escort role, make fighters be able to select what AC they attack in a wave. And if fighters outnumber the other AC in the wave the other AC get a resilient save. This will give fighters an escort role like you read in history books (In reality fighters didn't help with the bombing run only getting there.)
Just an idea, reject it if you want.
But I like the idea for minimum hits caused by bombers.
-
With the original rules each surviving bomber will on average get:
0 Turrets: 21/6 = 3.5 attacks
1 Turrets: 15/6 = 2.5 attacks
2 Turrets: 10/6 = 1.7 attacks
3 Turrets: 6/6 = 1.0 attacks
4 Turrets: 3/6 = 0.5 attacks
5 Turrets: 1/6 = 0.17 attacks
6+ Turrets: 0/6 = 0.0 attacks
With a minimum of 1 these increase to:
0 Turrets: 21/6 = 3.5 attacks
1 Turrets: 16/6 = 2.7 attacks
2 Turrets: 12/6 = 2.0 attacks
3 Turrets: 9/6 = 1.5 attacks
4 Turrets: 7/6 = 1.17 attacks
5 Turrets: 6/6 = 1.0 attacks
6+ Turrets: 6/6 = 1.0 attacks
So to be clear, we're talking about a 5-fold increase in the average attacks for standard bombers vs a T5 target, and a 2.4x increase against T4.
The difference between boosting bombers and changing turret suppression is that one boosts all bombers regardless of wave size, whereas the other has the possibility to scale with wave size, which is more to the point - small waves will get annihilated by a well defended target, but even well-defended targets can be overwhelmed by attack craft waves that blot out the stars.
-
With the original rules each surviving bomber will on average get:
0 Turrets: 21/6 = 3.5 attacks
1 Turrets: 15/6 = 2.5 attacks
2 Turrets: 10/6 = 1.7 attacks
3 Turrets: 6/6 = 1.0 attacks
4 Turrets: 3/6 = 0.5 attacks
5 Turrets: 1/6 = 0.17 attacks
6+ Turrets: 0/6 = 0.0 attacks
With a minimum of 1 these increase to:
0 Turrets: 21/6 = 3.5 attacks
1 Turrets: 16/6 = 2.7 attacks
2 Turrets: 12/6 = 2.0 attacks
3 Turrets: 9/6 = 1.5 attacks
4 Turrets: 7/6 = 1.17 attacks
5 Turrets: 6/6 = 1.0 attacks
6+ Turrets: 6/6 = 1.0 attacks
So to be clear, we're talking about a 5-fold increase in the average attacks for standard bombers vs a T5 target, and a 2.4x increase against T4.
Good job on missing the point there.
If you would have bothered to read the following two examples you might have realized that the FAQ2010 turret suppression rules give more of a boost to bombers than having a minimum of one.
-
Im not sure that bombers really need a boost but I'm not really satisfied with the way the turret suppresion works now, especially orks. I don't see any particular reason bombers should be effective against battleships. However, if this has to be done, why doesnt each surviving fighter escort after turret fire remove the effect of one turret deduction from the number of attacks each bomber makes? So if 2 fighters and 2 bombers make it through against a ship with 2 turrets, the bombers make D6 attacks each.
-
I think there's no particular reason battleships should be near-invulnerable or for turrets to scale so non-linearly.
The rule you've proposed is actually the way most people misread the rule. I think it makes a lot of sense.
-
i believe it does too (perhaps more so though if bombers made D3 attack runs).
however HA wanted large waves of 1/2 fighters 1/2 bombers. not an styx launching 5 fighters 1 bomber, for example.
-
On what basis do they want mixed waves and why is it ok for assault boats to launch without fighter escort?
HA wants half and half instead of all fighters except a single bomber, but thats exactly what the current rule makes it easy to do against high turret targets. If I'm guaranteed an attack for every fighter but only get one by rolling 5 or 6 with a bomber. Id be more inclined to do a more evenly mixed wave if each fighter took away a deduction from my bomber runs.
This rule seems to do exactly what everyone says they dont want it to do... Im confused here! ??? ???
-
i was under the impression the rule was changed in faq2010 to: +1 total attack run for each fighter you have *up to the number of bombers*
-
As FAQ says:
"TURRET SUPPRESSION: Each fighter in a wave of bombers actually attacking a ship will add +1 attack to the total attack runs of the wave, regardless of whether they are shot down by turrets or not. The maximum number of bonus attacks that can be added in this way cannot exceed the number of surviving bombers in the wave. There must be at least one surviving bomber in the wave after turret fire to gain these bonus attacks, and fighters are removed before any other type of ordnance. Fighters that never made it because they were intercepted by defending fighters (even those on CAP) don‟t add to this suppression bonus."
Pretty clear to me, don't know where all the misunderstanding comes from? ;)
-
True. :)
-
The confusion in my group stemmed from two things. First the rule is called 'Turret Suppression' and yet the way turrets are used is completely unaffected by the rule. You still get all your turret rolls and still deduct turrets from bomber run rolls. The title lead us to believe we should be modifying how the turrets work somehow. Semantics is a powerful force on the mind. Even though it is written clearly, the title screws everyone up except those who have read the rule slowly and paid careful attention.
Second is the wierd mechanic. It appears as though fighters are doing damage, even after they are dead and even though it states in the rulebook that they cant. Its an abstract, I understand that, but its a much higher level of abstraction than people are used to seeing in GW games for a very long time. The rest of the BFG rule set is pretty straight forward.
Also, dont the rules for ork figh eutabommers make them better at attacking high turret targets than everyone else? Those rules are confusing too.
-
Fighters aren't doing the attack. Fighters are allowing the bombers to get 1 more attack in because they managed to suppress some turrets to allow the bombers that extra attack.
-
Yes, I know. But its abstract. You add attacks for fighters even though the bombers are making them.
-
I'm in complete agreement with you. It's a stupid rule, and it should have been changed. I kicked up a massive fuss about it a couple months back, but it didn't make any difference, and this is the rule we're being stuck with.
There is actually a chance of affecting the FS Ruleset - at the moment bombers get D3 attacks regardless of turrets and the Fighter Suppression rule seems to have been dropped, but it's all open to negotiation.
-
I'm in complete agreement with you. It's a stupid rule, and it should have been changed. I kicked up a massive fuss about it a couple months back, but it didn't make any difference, and this is the rule we're being stuck with.
There is actually a chance of affecting the FS Ruleset - at the moment bombers get D3 attacks regardless of turrets and the Fighter Suppression rule seems to have been dropped, but it's all open to negotiation.
Yes, and I've been trying to keep my ear to the ground to see what creative things people are coming up with.
The reason for the turret suppression drop is that the game designers didn't really intend for it to exist. It was added in so that bombers could potentially hurt high-turret targets. The value of turrets was exponential with each increase, making having 3 turrets twice as good as two, and 4 twice that!
It also made the game unreasonable to have more than 6 turrets, and made bombers too powerful against low turret enemies, and too weak versus high turrets enemies.
With D3, the idea is that it makes bombers slightly worse against most vessels, and by comparison making ABs better. Now with this system both ABs and Bombers can gain a benefit from fighter escort (a type of resilient ordinance).
The only representation of turret suppression however is that fighters are taken first against turrets. Presumably because they were distracting them... or whatnot.
This system is very simple from the extremely confusing system that turret suppression and ordinance has become, but I'll keep my eyes open for new ideas.
-
Years ago when BFG first came out, we just understood bombers were to be used for taking out crippled ships. Battleships had to be crippled with gunnery and then coud be finished off with bombers. The turrets number is an abstract rating that indicates the combined strength of defensive turrets on a ship, not the actual number of turrets, no the ecponential increase in strength increase per turret didn't seem like a mistake. Also high turret ships arent very common. It makes sense to me that a battleship would have near imenetrable defenses. This is 40k.after all and everything is over-the-top deadly.
I'm not against working out some way for fighters to help out in bombing runs, but the inclusion of this mechanic is arbitrary and unnecessary for BFG to be a playable working game system. Its sort of just a fetish. Everyone agreed that tjey didn't want to make ordinance more powerful and then went right ahead and made ordinance more powerful. Add that to the abstract nature of the rule and it sounds like nobody got what they want. Is there any hope of reworkong this rule now?
If we want bombers to be able to attack high turret targets, then we need to make ordinance more powerful. Why dance around it? Fighters removing turret deducts is a straight forward way of acheiving this effect and lots of people are playimg this rule that way anyway. It also makes sure that ork fightabommers arent more effective than everyone else against high turret targets.
If we only want to allow bombers to attack high turret targets, then just say bombers get a minimum of 1 attack each after the roll and deducts. Against low turret targets it wont make hardly any difference at all because they will lilely get more than one attack anyway. This rule doesnt effect how bombers work on anything else in the game and so doesnt boost their ability to attack low turret targets and it is easy to understand and implement.
-
I'm all for a new way of doing AC. If there is any way to cause fighters in any way to benefit A-boats and bombers, as well as not having to have a count-keeping system, then I will love it like a father.
-
If we only want to allow bombers to attack high turret targets, then just say bombers get a minimum of 1 attack each after the roll and deducts. Against low turret targets it wont make hardly any difference at all because they will lilely get more than one attack anyway.
This was one of the first things we thought of, but actually it gives an extra 1/6th of an attack per turret, which equates to a 20% buff against T2.
-
True. I didn't think that was a cause for concern considering the increase in effectiveness under the current rules for higher turret targets is much higher and currently taking fighter escort against t2 makes bombing runs less effective.
-
I'd rather get rid of the 'roll to see how many attacks you get' step all together.
Its the most confusing part of the game for some.
What about 2 or 3 dice per bomber marker, so long as one fighter remains in the wave after turrets shoot. Otherwise, 1 dice each.
-
or:
Bombers get 2 attacks each so long as surviving AC in the wave outnumber the turrets. They get 1 attack if they don't, and 3 attacks if they more than double the number of turrets.
Fighters count as 2 for purposes of determining outnumbering.
-
But still there is no reason to escort attack craft. What about RC's idea for single fighter squadron wiping out waves if they are unescorted? I keep bringing it up and nobody addresses it.
-
What do you mean no reason? They get more attacks.
-
Sorry, I meant assault boats instead of attack craft.
-
Had another idea....
Bombers have 1 attack each. Each fighter in the wave (after turrets kill them) reduce the armor value of the vessel by one.
Or each fighter would make one bombers attack auto-hit.
-
All of the ordnance work following the same principle. So, all should be 'revised' not only fighters and bombers or only torpedoes.
All 'old' AC worked on the principle of a squadron/salvo ocupying a certain amount of space.
Torpedoes are changed to a fixed amount of space for any salvo strength; all others are left as they are.
Now trying to make fighters and bombers more powerfull.
Assault boats?
Better to redesign the ordnance as a whole.
-
@commander, I agree. Which is what I plan to do. Except every bomber proposal gets shot down for one reason or another. It's difficult to keep them at the same effectiveness (or close) while making them simpler without someone not liking some aspect.
-
Phthisis, my idea for A-boats was getting +1 on the crit roll if a fighter survived, as fighter coverage allowed them to pick a more favorable landing zone.
-
or for each surviving fighter (up to the number of a boats), you may choose which *weapon system critical* to inflict upon the target ship.
explanation as above. fighter cover allows choice landing zone.
and aren't people tired of running 8 a boats into a ship only to severely knock out the weapons systems on the WRONG BROADSIDE!
I like the 2 attacks per surviving bomber. total attacks - turrets. 1 auto hit per surviving fighter (up to the # of bombers). fighter bombers get 1 attack, and any FB may forgot its attack to act as a fighter (see above)
explanation: fighters guiding in the bomber's missiles/ screening bombers on attack runs.
*note, this is just off the top of my head and seemed like a good basis of an idea.
-
Had some weird ideas, but they worked pretty well, if you use them all.
1. turrets shot down Ordnance on a 2+
- +2 for fighters
- +2 for torpedos
- +2 for resilent aircraft
So e.g. a fighter or resilent bomber is shot down on 4+, a resilent fighter on 6+ etc.
Roll never gets better than 2+ or worse than 6+.
(you can later include more modificators for races, quality, elite-pilots etc. if you want)
2. Escort batteries can shot at Ordnance like they were turrets. The downside is that these guns can't inflict critical hits.
(If you want a background explanation: escorts lack the power/calibre to do heavy damage, but their smaller guns have better targetting arrays/can be readjusted faster)
3. Escorts don't need to be in base contact to protect a capital ship with “massed turretsâ€, instead they can do this if they are up to 5cm away.
4. fighters remove other fighters on a 1:1 ratio, but up to 2 markers of any other ordnance. But if they remove any enemy marker, they are also removed
E.g 2 fighters attack 2 Bombers - 1 Fighter and both bombers are removed.
If these 2 fighters attack a wave of 3 or 4 Bombers (or two Bombers and 1 fighter) all markers are removed.
5. Bombers do D6 attacks each. The number of turrets is only subtracted once. So if 4 bombers attack a cruiser with 2 turrets the wave does 4D6-2 attacks.
6. If a mixed wave of of ordnance (means: different result to hit them needed) turrets are rolled one by one. You have to beat the best value before you move on to the next one.
E.g. a wave of 1 fighter (hit on 4+) and 3 Bombers (hit on 2+) attacks a Battleship with 4 turrets.
You roll for the first turret. If it shows a 4+ the fighter is removed and the remaining 3 turrets shot down a bomber on 2+. If you don't roll a 4+ the fighter is still alive and you roll for the second turret.
There is no turret suppresion and suriving fighters don't cause any damage.
These rules are also used if a escort shots with its batteries at a mixed wave.
SO what do these 6 rules do?
Basically they give escorts a dedicated role: they protect capital ships from Bomber raids: activly by shooting them down and passivly by ading turrets to the ship they protect.
The enemy really wants to get rid of them before he can send in his Bomberwaves.
Unprotected captial ships can now take heavy damage from Ordnance if not protected by escorts and/or own fighters on CAP
On the other hand waves of Aboats/Bombers are very vulnerable if not protected
→ works well on regular sizes, but I admit that it gets impractical if wavesizes get higher than 8 (combined wave of two emperors andsuch things) or if you max out launchbays, because the infliced damage can be very high. So probably you'll need a wavesize and/or launchbay limit (8 or 10 wavesize 4 lanchbays per 500 points or something like this...). But I haven't tried it in such sizes always used “regular†fleets.
But in regular 1500P games it works fine: you'll really want to have some escorts now, even as Chaos.
-
seemed neat until your last paragraph (no offense intended).
splitting the horns:
bombers 1 attack each, but +1 attack per surviving fighter (up to the number of bombers). this *should* get plax's 1.5 attack average.
some similar (or +1 to roll) for AB's
-
So I have a few thoughts on Ord that I wan't you guys to think about before I do my long post (Ugh)
Now the thing is that I want Bombers to be useful against bbs, ordinance to be less confusing and ABs to be at least decent.
We could make bombers slightly better (D3 system) but then make fighters take out D3 bombers (or all) in a wave if there are no fighters escorting them.
Turrets could get better I suppose, hmmmmm.
Yes, Ideally bombers would have 1.333-1.5 attacks. Or some other system (such as the fighter escort allowing auto-hits or whatnot) that would result in the best case scenario of 1.333-1.555 eq attacks.
-
^^ and without marginalizing fighterbommaz
i'd help but another exam tomorrow...
-
So far I did not see a single idea which I would want to see replace the official rules.
-
^^ and without marginalizing fighterbommaz
i'd help but another exam tomorrow...
Exactly, but ideally they would do about 2/3-3/4 as much damage to ships as regular bombers.
-
Brainstorminh here...What if turrets only suppressed a number of attacks equal to their strength?
So the equation would be (Nd6)-t instead of N(d6-t). That would allow large waves of bombers to overwhelm high turret targets. Would it make bombers too powerful against lower turret values?
-
Tried it, didn't fit well, it neuters low lb carriers.
-
This has probably been discussed already but I couldn't find it:
- Bombers do d3 attacks, Fighters do 1
- Turrets don't reduce the number of attacks, only shooting down incoming squads. In waves, fighters are shot down first.
- 1 Fighter attacking bombers kill d3 (or d6) markers or one fighter. In waves fighters are killed first.
That gives a reason to give the bombers some fighter escort, but keeps the damage in check. Probably still more powerful against high turret ships than before, I think.
-
Makes bombers actually more powerful against everything but T1. That one's a loss.
-
I still say a straight 2 or 3 as long as a fighter survives is the way to go. So wonderfully simple. And it lets you slap more turrets on things.
-
Too powerful LS.
Ideally bombers would have the equivalent of 1.5 attack runs. The only way to do this is either...
Hmmmmm.... you actually gave me an idea......
-
So 2 per even with the caveat of 'must have a remaining fighter' is too powerful?
That gives the typical 4 slot carrier...not that many attacks. And it provides some strategic thought as to how to compose your attack wave, as the risk/gain would be different.
-
I have been often thinking about the attack craft situation (which you can see in the other treads, BFG Advanced and More Detailed Attack Craft Interactions), and I was thinking that perhaps a slightly more in-depth system would be of benefit?
It definitely seems that there are two main balancing issues: balance of attack craft (AC) against ships and balance of attack craft against attack craft. The AC against ships seems to mainly be a fleet composition issue (I agree that AC should be a viable alternative to gunfleets/torpedo fleets etc. without overpowering any of the choices). I think that the AC interactions with ships should be the first thing fixed (which, of course, is what has been happening here), and that AC versus AC interactions (which are quite seperate) should be considered afterwards. I also prefer (as most people do) a more 'elegant' solution to the problem (so hopefully avoiding tricky things like D3 -1 + .5 for every fighter with a 6+ save for every turret etc.). I think that it is beneficial to consider attack craft as a weapons system for this purpose, and compare it with lances and weapons batteries (it would also be nice to test the better suggestions in order to discern the best of them :) ).
As a bit of a summary, AC versus ships should be:
1. Balanced against ships of all types, such that attack craft are roughly equally effective against all targets. This would mean that attack craft would kill smaller ships more quickly than larger ships simply due to the sturdiness of larger ships.
2. This could be modified, however, to give AC its own 'tactical flavour'. That is, lances are good against armoured targets but suffer because of their lesser strengths (e.g. against shielding, a Gothic = heavy lance ship does not, on average, damage a standard cruiser); weapons batteries suffer against armoured targets and are range-dependent but carry the real firepower of the fleet. Lances are particularly good at taking out escorts whilst weapons batteries are not; both require lots of firepower to take out a big ship. Thus, what are AC good against and what do they suffer against?
3. Able to fulfill a role that other ship types (e.g. gunships, torpedo ships, fast ships) cannot. However, fleets should not be penalised for not having AC; the are not meant to be a 'be-all-and-end-all' weapon, but rather one type of weapon that can fill a tactical 'gap' that certain gunship fleets cannot fill.
4. Fleets without ordnance should be able to defend themselves (after a fashion) against ordnance. This is so that all-gunship fleets, although not ideally protected against ordnance, can survive long enough to win in their own way. Likewise, all-AC fleets should survive against gunship fleets long enough to unleash their primary weapons, the AC. But players should also be rewarded for constructing a 'combined arms' fleet: not maxing out on AC or gunships but taking a balanced fleet with one or two carriers (say) and three or so gunships with about two or so escorts per ship. The combined arms fleet would be hard to use because you cannot go out 'all guns blazing' (or whatever guns do in the far future) or simply overwhelm the enemy through AC or even torpedo the enemy to death, but they would be very effective because a (suitably skilled) player can counter all threats and always has the right tool for a job (e.g. need to kill those escorts so that I can bomb their battleship into dust, so I'll just use my lances here.... Whereas a gunship fleet would have to tackle the tough battleship on its own, whilst being able to easily destroy the escorts, and a carrier fleet would have trouble destroying the escorts before mincing the battleship).
My suggestions in response to these tactical dilemas is to make AC good against larger capital ships and weak against escorts and smaller ships. This is in keeping with one of the roles of escorts and will make them especially useful against carrier fleets (which seem to be popular) whilst also giving the fleet some extra firepower/torpedoes. I'm not sure if ordnance should be the best defence against ordnance, from a gameplay point of view. This would make the AC fleets quite offensive in nature but would mean that defending fleets don't have to be carrier fleets themselves to survive. This is an area where good (defensive, not torpedo/gunboat escorts, which have their own uses) escorts are important! :) Or, perhaps, limiting the number of ships that can launch bomber-type ordnance and allowing more ships to launch just fighters (which are kind of ubiquitous, anyway, and I'm sure the image of a massive battleship flying along with little fighters in CAP formation, drawn in classic Warhammer-style pencil is appealing to most :) ). (I know that htis is AC versus AC, unlike the summary above, but) perhaps the fighters would only be on CAP? That way escorts could launch the fighters and not be overwhelmingly powerful, whilst giving them incentive to remain in base contact with capital ships that they are escorting.
Sorry for the long post, but hopefully my ideas will spark some useful thinking. For the record, I like resilient AC because the rolling of their save makes the ordnance phase much more interesting and not just a matter of removing markers. Even if ordnance battles had multiple rounds in the ordnance phase, it would not disrupt other parts of the game and would make ordnance more interesting and higher-tactical-stakes (since you might not win by virtue of having 60 AC (or 8, that's more reasonable... :o). Maybe this way, ordnance could have a chance at being good at destroying other AC but it is not particularly likely that this will occur; one should rely upon escorts and turrets for reliable defences. Although some people really dislike the addition of 'random' bits (such as a 4+ save), I think that this is the whole point of Warhammer-esque games, sincethe removal of chance just makes the game like chess (and a poorly balanced one, at that, it seems). While this is okay, truly great generals (and admirals, in this case) can win, even if the chance goes against them. Of course, the sign of a well-made game is that a player can still win if they are unlucky, but it requires a great show of their skill.
.
-
What, is a stated purpose of escorts to ward against AC? Just a minor quibble.
-
Had an idea about escorts being able to do 'Overwatch' where they could choose to wait to fire their weapons until the Ordnance phase (of either players turn).
-
I've never been very keen on any sort of overwatch mechanic in any game. They're too much out of the ordinary.
-
I know, neither is Sig.
-
Overwatch in BFG? Eeeeeek no!
-
How about... ships can only suppress attacks from a number of fighters = to number of their turrets.
So a T6 ship would subtract 6 from 6 dice in an attacking wave. Meaning that any AC over 6 you have in a wave get to do some damage. I know that needs a lot of refining, but the idea is that a ship has a maximum number of attacks its turrets can suppress before being overwhelmed by numbers.
The issue as I see it is that T6 ships are invincible vs a wave of 1000000 bombers. But as the majority of ships are T2/3, we need to find some way to bump up the high end, but keep T2 pretty much where it is. Is that what other people are feeling?
-
Ships can only have a maximum of 3 turrets. Ork fighta-bommas always make one attack per squadron regardless of turrets because theyre half suicidal anyway.
There, now BBs are vulnerable to bombers without effecting the way they work vs anything else.
The fighters escort bombers if you have to break through CAP, but do nothing once the bombers reach their target (except absorb turret fire). There isn't any historical analog or example in fluff for fighters suppressing turrets. Its just a fetish for some. There is no reason to force people to take fighter escort in game if there aren't fighters in the way. Same goes for assault boats.
This turret limit effects torpedos as well. Lets say you can fire turrets against bombers and torps in the same turn.
There. Simple rules that we can do on the fly. BBs are not invulnerable anymore. Ordnance isn't more powerful against other targets. Ordnance gets a very slight nerf overall to account for there being no more invulnerable targets.
-
2 problems: Turrets make bombers worthless, and there's no reason to escort bombers with fighters.
Turret Suppression was introduced because there was no reason ever to escort a wave of bombers/assault boats with fighters. Your version fixes bombers, there is still no reason to ever escort bombers/assault boats with fighters.
Fighters have to be more lethal if bombers/assault boats are ever going to be threatened enough to make escorting them worthwhile.
-
Why do bomber waves need an escort? Why do we have to change the rules so that bomber waves require an escort?
-
Because the rules of the game are such that an all bomber wave and mixed bomber/fighter wave are pointless because there is no difference in the results. If a fighter jumps a bomber wave, they remove the same number of bomber counters as the fighter counters that attack the wave. If there is a mixed wave, then the number of counters removed are still the same.
Personally, this is a problem of not having attrition in the game. There's no reason for fighters to escort bombers because it doesn't hurt. Bomber counters are lost? No worries, there's more where those came from. Even if one uses a 2:1 ratio, still wouldn't ignore the fact that bomber counters can still come out.
I personally think its time attrition rules for AC counters and even torps should be introduced.
-
Why is that an issue? Fighters have very limited ammo, light armor and limited fuel. Bombers have heavier armor and are bristling with defensive weapons and fly in tight formation. Shooting down bombers isn't a milk run. Why should one squadron of fighters be able to take down many times their number in bombers. They never were able to historically. Shooting down waves of bombers took many squadrons of fighters and even then lots of bombers tended to survive to make their attack runs. Or in naval aviation, fighters had a hard time shooting down torpedo bombers until they were stuck making an attack run. Bombers aren't sitting ducks and one squadron of fighters probably shouldn't be able to take that many of them down.
In WWII, the allies tried several methods of escorting bomber waves. Including fighters in the wave worked sligjtly better than no escort at all, but once the fighters reached the bombers it was very difficult to keep them from making attack runs and we lost figjter escorts to friendly fire from the bombers defensive weapons. They eventually started sending up deep escorts to clear the air of enemy fighters before the bombers got there, which was the most reliable way of keeping bombers alive. The current system of sending individual fighters to clear the way and deal with CAP before moving bombers in reflects this strategy very well. I see no need to change it.
As for attrition, its realistic but it would be a real pain determining which squadrons were dead and which just went back to rearm. And keeping track of it would be no fun either.
-
But when fighter markers can only take down one marker what is the use of fighters in the whole game?
Giving them an extra when escorting bombers is needed.
-
I think the simplest solution is giving fighters a save. 4+ standard, 3+ resilient. Other doesn't have a save, or a 4+ when resilient. That way a mixed wave intercepted by fighters is tougher than a bomber wave intercepted by fighters.
If you allow the save against AC and Turrets, but not against Main Weaponry or Torps, then you no longer need turret suppression, as turrets will shoot down fewer AC and that too gives a benefit to an escort, both for Assault Boats and Bombers.
-
Of course fighters are useful. They defend your ships from torpedos, bombers and assault boats.
The problem is you want them to defend bombers and assault boats from enemy fighters too. Perhaps the problem isn't with how the fighters work, but rather with how the bombers or assault boats work. Instead of making fighters capable of wiping out multiple squadrons of bombers, how about a wave of bombers with close fighter escort in the same wave gets a 4+ save. A failed save removes a fighter escort and an attacking fighter. A successful save just removes an attacking fighter. Once the escort fighters are gone, no more save, its just 1 to 1.
The wave doesn't get a save against turret fire.
So this gives a real benefit to escorts within waves, but its not so good that you can ignore deep escort. But its not so strong that you can't defend against it. It doesn't make it appear that fighters are attacking ships and doesn't increase bomber wave strength. Maybe it also makes long range bomber strikes a bit more viable. In some ways it evens out a marked disadvantage to fleets with fewer launch bays than their opponents. And the rules are simple and easy to understand.
Combine this with limiting turret values to 3 and making Ork fighta-bommas 1 bombing attack only. How does this system look to everyone?
-
I really don't like that system Phthisis.
Your examples of fighters shooting down bombers works well and good for pre missile technology. However, those numbers change greatly when considering missiles. With modern technology, a squadron of fighters could easily shoot down a squadron of bombers even twice it's size due to the potency of weapons, and much larger range. If you notice that modern bombers from pretty much any nation don't even bother with defensive guns, because the day of carpet bombing like we saw in ww2 is gone.
I personally like the idea of fighters taking down bombers 2:1 as I can imagine one fighter carrying enough missiles to take down at least 2 bombers.
Or we just get rid of the system over all and go back to how the system was before, and especially with fighta bommaz...I liked ignoring up to 3 turrets lol.
-
But they don't have guided missile technology. I think Tau do. Im not sure about Eldar but I don't remember seeing anything suggesting they do. But Imperials, Chaos and Orks just have dumbfire rockets that they use for ground targets. 40k aeronautics is just like WWII but with jets and lasers.
Aside from fluff, does the mechanic acheive the desired effect?
-
They do have guided missiles. On Lightnings and Thunderbolts they're called Skystrike Missiles.
-
News to me. Ive never heard of them before. My Apocalypse book has a Thunderbolt in it but no options for 'skystrike' missiles. Double Eagle by Dan Abnett has not a single mention of any guided
missiles in the whole book. Who made them up and is there any confirmation they can be used on Furys or in space even?
-
Imperial Armour Apocalypse II, Aeronautica Imperialis, Aeronautica Imperialis Tactica Aeronautica.
They are AA mounted, and the guidance system allows re-rolls to hit against flyers.
Furies are barely mentioned in fluff, but Lightnings are used in Space Superiority by Dan Abnett. It's proof that seeker missiles do exist, and that they are equipable by Fighters usable in a space superiority role.
-
Fair enough. Back in the 90s when BFG was released, that wasn't the case. It was all autoguns and lascannons. Wish I had enough $$ to buy all those books and keep up.
So if guided missiles exist, then all the defensive weaponry on the bombers are for nought. Shouldn't fighters be able to take out many times their number in bombers then? And how can you expect fighters to defend against guided missiles in close range support? Missiles make close escort completely worthless.
And doesn't guided missile technology make the turret suppression rules rediculous?
-
Missiles do exist, in real life and in BFG, but there hasn't really been any concrete proof yet that bombers are that vulnerable because bombers themselves are advancing in tech, either through Stealth or other defensive systems like chaff or ECM and they themselves are shooting ship killer missiles from farther out where fighters can't just engage them.
-
When BFG came out, the state of aeronautical combat was strictly WWII era. The game mechanics reflect that era of aerial warfare.
I'm not in favor of increasing the attack power of fighters. Removing multiple unescorted bombers and assault boats will make attack craft virtually useless and make multi-use craft like fighta-bommas comparativelt way better than anything else.
I don't know of many who like the turret suppression rules. My gaming group isn't happy with them either. It seems to be a comprimise where nobody gets what they want. The consensus is that bombers need to be usable against BBs without making them more powerful against other targets. The current suppression rules make bombers more powerful against everything. It doesn't even make bombers effective enough to really bother with against BBs. The other reason for turret suppression was to give incentive to use fighters to escort waves. It doesn't do this well either as enemy fighters do exactly the same damage to waves, the extra attack for fighters against ships is awkward and not really much of an incentive to take fighter escorts either. Whats worse is nobody will agree on a new solution.
There is no way to make bombers effective without also making them better against everything else. Reducing the turret values of battleships is the only way to make them more vulnerable without boosting bombers vs all targets. I think people would take fighter escorts if they actually protected the wave they were defending. A saving throw does that. Making fightabommas 1 attack each and no saving throw makes them behave as they should, as fighters that can bomb opportunistically.
Ive never understood why turrets had to choose between torpedos and bombers. Each turn is supposed to be several hours of elapsed time. The turret gunners likely have enough time for tea and possibly a nap between the bomber attacks and torpedo salvoes. Eliminating that limitation helps keep the power of ordnance in check and eliminates some cheesy tactics.
Or, I'm also happy with going with the original rules without suppression.
-
Saving throw isn't the only way. Limit the number of AC counters per type per ship. Then you'd see fighters protecting bombers.
Limiting the number of bombers would then allow for them to become more powerful against everything but still not be in a position to dominate unless the opponent's fighters are taken out first.
And Turrets should also be allowed to shoot at both incoming ordnance.
-
Ok, that could work too, but a saving throw is easier and faster. We already keep track of damage points, whether ordy is reloaded or not and critical hits. I can see how some would like the added dimesnsion of squadron selection and attrition. But doing so would double the amount of record keeping required to play. I don't know about you, but when my friends and I play BFG we have a few beers and BS. After a couple of beers I'm not going to want to have to keep track of any more than I have to or watch my opponent to make sure they are tracking their squadrons fairly as well. More record keeping means more mistakes, on purpose or not. I am usually short on time as well and more record keeping means the game will take longer. Plus we would robably have to reasses carrier point values due to decreased effectiveness of AC and invent an entirely new mechanic to determine victors in dogfights and attrition.
-
Playing Warmachine Hordes now, I think keeping track is not that hard of a problem, esp noting if a carrier has RO'd successfully.
We don't even need to worry about number of AC on the table. Launch everything if you want. Just have a sheet of paper detailing what ordnance you have and cross out the appropriate AC marker when removed. With AC being removed, the number of AC markers will go down round after round. Later on just ask for how many of what type of AC he has left. The faster you egt rid of his AC the less you have to monitor.
Re-assessing the carrier's points won't be necessary if one improves the bombers (improving vs high turrets) and ABs (opening up the entire crit table) to compensate.
We eat and drink as well when playing.
-
Do, if a Devesataion carrier loses 1 bomber to fighters and 1 to turret fire during a bombing run, the Devestation can then only launch 2 squadrons of any type after it reloads ordnance?
-
The number of AC would require fine tuning. I think there are also issues with combined waves from multiple ships in a squadron.
-
A lot of things would need fine tuning because we'd have to design a new ruleset.
I can't say I hate AC attrition. It would be fine in a smaller scale game like Privateer. It would allow midway style battles. But in BFG it would shift focus onto ordnance over cruisers. Also the larger the scale of the game, the more difficult and time consuming the new AC rules would be.
Why don't you come up with a substitute ruleset for attack craft that players can choose to use if they like. I probably won't, but others will.
My focus is on creating a quick and dirty modification to the rules to replace Turret Suppression and better allow for bomber runs on BBs and fighter escorts. Many may not like my solution, but it cuts to the heart of the matter and does exactly what we wanted suppression to do, but cleaner, faster and better
-
Quick fix:
Bombers do D3 attacks regardless of turrets.
Fighter Bombers do 1 attack regardless of turrets.
Turrets hit on a 3+ instead of a 4+.
Turrets may fire at both torps and AC.
These changes equate to a 6% buff overall for a wave of 4 bombers vs T2, but being able to fire at torps as well cancels this out to a degree. It evens things out a lot more for T1 and T3+ whilst still providing strong incentive to have good turrets. +1 turret is +1AC per wave shot down, which is pretty decent.
Turret Suppression is discarded.
Fighters have a 4+ save against Turrets and AC interactions, but not torpedoes or Main Weaponry.
This provides incentive to escort bombers and ABs as well. Resilient Bombers/ABs also have a 4+, whilst resilient fighters have a 3+.
Job done.
-
If turrets hit on a 3+, what would happen if natural bombers rolled D6 and fighta-bommas rolled D3?
On the attrition rules, will try to come up with rules. How many squadrons per ship though? x2 or x3? I think x2 would be ok but others might prefer x3.
-
RC, I have some questions with your version and see some problems.
What score do you need to hit Eldar with?
I get an 18% increase in effectiveness for a wave of 4 bombers vs T2. Can you confirm its only 6%? What's the math?
You give a 4+ save for fighters vs turrets. How does this function if a successful save is made? What is the point of giving fighters saves vs turrets?
Do fightabombers get a 4+ save as they act as fighters?
How do we account for the nerf to torpedos because of the 3+ turret hits?
Without the turret reduction for the attack roll after turrets, doesn't this system make waves of 6 or 8 bombers rediculously powerful?
Would you consider my proposal? It only effects bombers vs battleships and leavs everything else identical. Fighters are the same as in your proposal, but without a save vs turrets. What was wrong with mine that you rejected it?
@Admiral
It depends on whether we have to declare how many squadrons of what type we have on board each ship before the game. If I have to say I have so many fighter squadrons and so many bombers, I'd say 3x the number of launch bays. Nimitz carriers fit 90 fixed wing aircraft below decks, so holding 3 squadrons or more per bay in a gargantuan starship should be easy. If you don't have to declare before the game 3x would not likely be any kind of limit, so 2x should be the rule.
Just a thought... By itself, how does this encourage players to take fighter escorts? Don't you still need a rule that lets fighters protect other attack craft? Otherwise you just save your AC for close range and use fighters to suicide and soak turret shots.
-
You encourage it because once a fighter counter takes a bomber counter out, the bomber counter is gone from the game. Fighters would still engage fighters first in a mixed wave, just the way real life would happen. So would you still send an all bomber wave vs a fighter wave knowing that once the bomber counter is removed that you've lost it for the rest of the game? That your carriers are now going to be doing basically nothing?
I'm still figuring things out though and will present something.
-
RcGothic's proposal plays harder on fleets designed to do layered/multi attacks. Especially Tau will feel this. But also Imperial Navy carrier fleets.
-
I like it. Although I think that it hurts Orks more than IN, as most IN lists don't use carriers offensively like Orks do. Especially with the fact that fighta-bommers have half as many attack runs as normal bombers.
Of course you would have them have 5+ res saves.
Interestingly I had a thought along Admiral D's lines, that carriers had some limit of every type of ordnance (say 12 of each) and for every 4 ordnance types that they launched in the previous turn you would 'recover' D3.
I am a fan of Warmachine, and there is quite a bit of things to keep track of in that game (MK.1 was terrible with out of turn actions). It would be nice to see some more community things developed for the game, for record keeping, I would kill for ship-profile cards that I could mark hits, criticals (even multiple criticals) similarly to how Warmachine does it, with dry-erase markers.
-
I like the limited orndance approach as well. Also check here for a principle on the orndnance pool.
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/sg/forum/index.php?topic=1849.0
-
If turrets hit on a 3+, what would happen if natural bombers rolled D6 and fighta-bommas rolled D3?
D6 is an average 3.5 attacks average each - that's more than double the current 5/3 attacks each.
What score do you need to hit Eldar with?
Whatever is balanced. 6+ would be a 20% buff, 5+ would be a 9% buff , 4+ would be a 2% nerf compared to current.
I get an 18% increase in effectiveness for a wave of 4 bombers vs T2. Can you confirm its only 6%? What's the math?
Bombers do 2/1.6667 = 120% damage output. However, only 67% of the squadron will survive, as opposed to 75% now. These effects average out at a 6.7% increase.
You give a 4+ save for fighters vs turrets. How does this function if a successful save is made? What is the point of giving fighters saves vs turrets?
To give incentive to escort bombers/ABs even when you have space superiority. This is a part of the rule that I'm not wedded to. I can see there would need to be some sort of hit allocation, but you really need this anyway for resolving interactions between AC with a save. The current resilience rules are a mess, and a flat 4+ save to everything makes multiple fighters in a wave redundant.
Do fightabombers get a 4+ save as they act as fighters?
I don't see why not. They're only half as effective as regular bombers in the bombing role, so I don't see this as game breaking.
How do we account for the nerf to torpedos because of the 3+ turret hits?
For a wave of 6 torps, this nerfs by 6.7%. Combined torp waves are less affected, which incentivises trying to make them work.
Without the turret reduction for the attack roll after turrets, doesn't this system make waves of 6 or 8 bombers rediculously powerful?
Waves of 8 get a 14.3% increase after turrets. It is certainly an increase, though I think it's a tolerable one. Only a couple of ships can pull off a wave of 8 by themselves, and I don't see anything wrong with incentivising combined waves.
Would you consider my proposal? It only effects bombers vs battleships and leavs everything else identical. Fighters are the same as in your proposal, but without a save vs turrets. What was wrong with mine that you rejected it?
I rejected it because it was merely a patch to a bad system. To take an over the top example, if the gunnery chart had no multiples of 5, then that would clearly be a bad system. We could alter the ships to never use a multiple of five (analogous to your solution), or we could alter the core rules and add extra rows to the gunnery chart. I don't think modifying the profiles of battleships to have fewer turrets really solves anything and makes the ships much the same.
-
Without the turret reduction for the attack roll after turrets, doesn't this system make waves of 6 or 8 bombers rediculously powerful?
Waves of 8 get a 14.3% increase after turrets. It is certainly an increase, though I think it's a tolerable one. Only a couple of ships can pull off a wave of 8 by themselves, and I don't see anything wrong with incentivising combined waves.
This is still a main issue to me. I think it increases carrier spam in an already (at times) ordnance dominated game.
-
@Plaxor
Who's proposal do you like?
@RC
The mean average for bomber attacks per squadron vs T2 is 1.5, not 1.6667. That translates into a 18.5% increase in effectiveness for your system.
With D3 attacks per squadron, there is a MAJOR increase in the effectiveness of bombers vs all targets. Waves larger than 4 become devestating. Waves are more powerful overall vs everything over T1. This is exactly what we were trying to avoid. Its not a fix. It breaks the game in the opposite direction.
Your explanation of why you rejected my proposal made no sense. You rejected the repair because you think the system needs to be repaired? Gunnery table, what? Didn't you just try to use the Chewbacca defense? Reject my proposal on its own merit, not on the merit of a fictional gunnery table issue.
One problem brought up was BBs near invulnerability to fighters. The reason for this is the very highturret values on BBs. Solution: lower turret values on BBs to reasonable levels.
The other issue was there was no benefit to escorting bombers. The reason is a fighter in escort died just like a bomber in a wave, making taking out waves predictable and easy. Solution: give fighters a defensive bonus when used as an escort like a 4+ saving throw. This system even makes multiple fighters more wlrthwhile than a single squadron. And ot works for assault boats too.
@admiral
How are we determining winners when fighters vs fighters? Im assuming fighters auto-win vs all other ordnance.
Can we launch all squadrons simultaneously?
As a player that uses AC aggressively, all I think attrition will do is force me to deploy AC only when I'm in range to reach the target in one ordnance phase. Any attempt to send waves long distance will telegraph how many fighters they ned to launch to destroy all my bombers and that would cripple my attack power for the rest of the game. Better to play defensively until I get close and then dump massive waves of bombers to overwhelm them. Once again, offensive attack craft become more powerful.
I dig the ability to fight air battles Midway style, but it has to be done right otherwise it can be easily abused.
Actually, my idea of fighter escorts giving waves a saving throw may go a long way to make that feasable.
-
@RC
The mean average for bomber attacks per squadron vs T2 is 1.5, not 1.6667. That translates into a 18.5% increase in effectiveness for your system.
The possible results are 0,0,1,2,3,4, total 10 from 6 options. Mean 1.666667.
How do you get 1.5?
Your fix doesn't address the real issue, which is that D6-T attacks for bombers is broken. It artificially limits the number of turrets a ship can have and requires re-writes of every profile involved. The core issue is that D6-T is broken. Let's not mess about with work-arounds, let's change the core problem.
-
You get 1.5 by taking 3.5, the mean average for a d6, and subtracting 2 for turrets. Which effectively counts a die roll of 1 as a -1 instead of 0 and skews the mean average downward slightly, giving me an incorrect average.
If I see that I'm wrong, I admit it.
This is an artificial game system with artificial rules and artificial fixes set in an artificial universe. The games designers didn't accidentally make BBs effectively impervious to bomber attack. That's why they have so many turrets. The players don't like that and so have been trying to change the game. Turrets are designed to keep bombers from being effective. So if theyre the problem, remove them. You could just as easily say turret values above 3 are artificially high since there are only 4 ships in the original fleet lists with 4 turrets or more. Your fix has more claim to being artificial as it changes core mechanics.
My fix means changing one piece of info on a few ships and adding a blurb to fighters. Your fix requires rewriting an entire section of the rulebook. Don't fault my idea for its implimentation when yours is much more difficult.
On top of that, your system boosts bombers to being immensely powerful in larger waves and nerfs torps. Those are two things that an alternative to suppression can't do.
How is D6-T broken exactly? We have been using it for years, and other than on battleships there hsan't been a problem. What about it makes the game unplayable?
-
Bombers = D6 - Turret Value
Fightabommaz = D3 - Turret value, but you ignore up to 2 turrets.
Fighters = Do nothing to help bombers on bombing runs, however fighters when intercepting bombers, remove 2 bombers per fighter.
Both old and new rules...This doesn't allow fighta bommaz to be way more effective against large targets than bombers, but aren't worthless. Bombers can still bomb the crap out of stuff, and if fighters escort bombers into a bombing run, then they can be shot down instead of bombers.
Someone do the math and tell me what ya think, because I personally hate both of the systems put forth already.
-
If turrets hit on a 3+, what would happen if natural bombers rolled D6 and fighta-bommas rolled D3?
D6 is an average 3.5 attacks average each - that's more than double the current 5/3 attacks each.
I mean how would it affect on a more strategic level since 3+ turrets would let you shoot down more bombers than normal. So say a 4 bomber wave vs 2 turret ship using original rules vs your proposal vs what would happen if it was D6 and D3 for bombers and fighta bommas respectively?
@Phthisis:
There will be some mechanics involved in fighter vs fighter combat. Personally I prefer a dice off on who wins and the loser's counter is eliminated but that is one option. Another is saving throws. But will see. Am still thinking about it first.
-
@Tag
I have 2 problems with that system.
First, fightabommers are 20% better than regular bombers against targets that have 2 turrets, which is by far the most common turret value in the game.
Second, fighters take out bombers at way too fast a rate. It makes it impossible to launch successful AC attacks at anything beyond reach in one ordnance phase.
Of course, if you allow fightabommers to act like fighters they will be by far the best AC in the game.
Whag don't you like about my system? Fightabomma waves get an even shot against BBs as IN or Chaos in my system. You always say they should behave like crappy bombers. In my rules they act like crappy bombers that can pounce on other ordnance. They act just like fluff would suggest they should.
-
Easy fix...
Fighters have a 5+ resilient save when attacking fighta bommaz. Fighters which have resilient get a 3+ against them.
Fightabommaz should be less effective (Shitty) against ships, and having half as many as attacks makes them exactly that. You making them only get 1 attack makes them completely worthless. If they act like suicide craft like you have stated, then shit...they should act like giant ass torpedoes and do a suicide ram so should always wound on a 4+ if they only get 1 attack.
As they sit now, they are half as good as regular bombers, but slightly faster, and the same as fighters just slower.
How about this...
Bombers have 6 attacks, Fightabommaz have 3, get rid of the dice rolling on it. Still use turret suppression rules, but fightabommaz can't suppress turrets, but they still get 1 attack each for each being fighters as well as bombers.
So with a wave of 4, of each type hitting 5 turrets...
Bombers = 4 attacks
Fightabommaz = 4 attacks
Wave of 4, of each type hitting 2 turrets..
Bombers = 16 attacks
Fightabommaz = 8 attacks.
Assuming nothing is shot down..
With this, they are exactly the same as regular bombers as large craft, however they are half as good against regular bombers.
-
Fightabommaz should be less effective (Shitty) against ships, and having half as many as attacks makes them exactly that. You making them only get 1 attack makes them completely worthless. If they act like suicide craft like you have stated, then shit...they should act like giant ass torpedoes and do a suicide ram so should always wound on a 4+ if they only get 1 attack.
Does not compute. D6-T gives 1.67 attacks for bombers. 1 attack each for Fighter Bombers is more than half of that.
-
@Tag
16 attacks for 4 bombers vs T2 is unhinged. So is 8 for FBs vs the same.
A 5+ save vs FBs doesn't come near to fixing the problems associated with fighters taking down 2 AC per. If fighters are that dominant, just scrap ordnance alltogether.
I don't see what all your fuss is about. 1 automatic attack per FB is a fair shake better than they got before Turret Suppression was introduced, is more than the 'half as effective' benchmark that you set, and is comperable to what you're getting in the 2010 FAQ. If this makes FBs completely useless, you must believe them to be completely useless now since weve been playing with the 2010 FAQ for a while now.
-
Lol except with Turret Suppression I can cheese it out to get at least 2 if not 3 attacks for each FB.
With the 2007 FAQ they were even better because they ignored up to 3 turrets.
At least with my system they are almost always getting half the amount of attacks as bombers. If you guys don't like it, then fine, but I won't be playing with the rules you guys came up with, and since both Plaxor's and the 2010 FAQ are what we use anyways, and the FAQ is more or less official, I don't really have to worry about Fightabommas' being worthless.
-
The Ork FB suppression rules in the 2007 FAQ were broken, which was one of the driving factors behind the 2010 FAQ.
And how exactly do you manage 2 or 3 attacks per FB under the 2010 FAQ by 'cheesing' it out?
-
I can use FB's to suppress turrets.
4 FB's attack a two turret ship.
2 FB's suppress = 2 attacks
2 FB's attack = 2 attacks for being FB's, and if I roll a 5 or 6 for their amount of their attacks thats another attack
Total for two FightaBomba's that attacked : minimum 4 attacks with the possibility of 6 attacks, and it doesn't matter if the other two are shot down because they are suppressing, and thus already giving me the bonus attacks.
Also, don't try and say Fighta bommaz were the "Driving factors" behind the 2010 FAQ because your just making that up. It was an issue that needed to be addressed, but they changed a lot of things.
-
I said it was one of the reasons, not the only reason. Nevertheless, its an acknowledged mistake and was corrected. I don't want to make it all over.
That's 1 to 1.3333 attacks per FB, not 2-3. For the whole wave, you get 4 minimum and a small chance of 5 or 6. In mine you'd get 4 minus anything you lost for turrets. Theyre comparable. Is it really that 1/3 potential of an adfitional attack that has you digging in your heels? Thaf sliver of probability can make them go from useful to worthless? Yes, you can lose attacks for squadrons getting shot down now, but so does everybody else. That happens when you eliminate turret suppression.
-
and I am saying that Turret Suppression isn't broken and I personally like it. Not only because I play orks because you know I have an Imperial Fleet now too. I like Turret suppression because even fightabommaz have an chance to hurt a BB, and regular bombers have an even higher chance.
-
Im not accusing you of anything. I'm trying to find an alternative to the turret suppression mechanic, which is what this thread is about. I knew you wanted bombers to have a shot at BBs. When we talked about it a couple of weeks ago I relented on my assertation that BBs should be near invulnerable to bombers because I was the only one who seemed to think that way. But at the time you said you didn't like the turret suppression either.
I don't like TS for a few reasons. First the rules are counter-intuitive, complex and confusing. Second, they increase bomber effectiveness against everything, not just BBs. Third, the new rules still make FBs superior bombers vs anything T3 or greater. Fourth, it encourages fighter escort on bombers but not adsault boats.
My alternative allows attacks on BBs without causing any otf the glitches I mentioned above. The rules are straight forward and easy to remember. Bombers aren't boosted vs low turret targets, but can effectively attack BBs. FBs are never more effective than normal bombers, but still can dent BBs. And fighter escorts are worthwhile for assault boats as well.
-
The turret suppression from the FAQ is balanced but should have the added rule that only surviving fighters (from turret fire) add an attack.
In the game of BFG some aspects are abstracted, thus turret suppression can be abstracted to.
-
I agree it should only be surviving fighters
-
If turrets hit on a 3+, what would happen if natural bombers rolled D6 and fighta-bommas rolled D3?
D6 is an average 3.5 attacks average each - that's more than double the current 5/3 attacks each.
I mean how would it affect on a more strategic level since 3+ turrets would let you shoot down more bombers than normal. So say a 4 bomber wave vs 2 turret ship using original rules vs your proposal vs what would happen if it was D6 and D3 for bombers and fighta bommas respectively?
D3 for Fighta Bombers would be the same as Bombers under my proposed - 106% effectiveness for a wave of 4, 114% for a wave of 8, 120% for a wave of infinite.
D6 for Bombers would be 186% effectiveness for a wave of 4, 200% for a wave of 8, or 210% for a wave of infinite.
D6 without turret really is too powerful to contemplate.
I do think D3 is within the realms of acceptability, especially given the negating effects of increased effectiveness of turrets (which carries over to turret massing), increased effectiveness of fighters, reduced incentive to launch waves of pure bombers, and the ability of turrets to fire at both torps and AC.
So let's put this in perspective:
If all these unquantifiable aspects have a total nerfing effect on AC of just 10% then the net effect will be -4% for a wave of 4 to +4% for a wave of 8. These are negligible deviations from the current ruleset. Am I overstating these effects at 10%? Well launching just 1 escort fighter in a wave of 8 nerfs that wave by 12.5% instantly. The figure is 25% for one escort fighter in a wave of 4. So yes, it is plausible to say that Turrets hitting on 3+ with D3 attacks per bomber and Resilient fighters are no more powerful than the current system.
Does it even unbalance for fleets without a defensive carrier? The increased effectiveness of turrets carries over to turret massing. A T2 ship with 1 supporting vessel will now be 4.2% better protected against a wave of 4 than the same situation at present, whilst with 2 supporting vessels it's just 6% more vulnerable against a wave of 8 than in the same situation at present. These are again negligible differences.
To cap it all off, Battleships are still much better defended than cruisers (being just 50% as vulnerable to waves of 4 or 80% as vulnerable to waves of 8 for a T4 battleship) but not to the point of ridiculousness. This is a far better situation than at present where they're 5 times less vulnerable to a wave of 4 bombers than cruisers are.
Yes, raw bomber output is increased by 20%. But it's not as if that's the only change. The tools to deal with that have been provided. Give 3+ turrets, D3 Bombers and Resilient Fighters a chance.
-
The turret suppression from the FAQ is balanced but should have the added rule that only surviving fighters (from turret fire) add an attack.
In the game of BFG some aspects are abstracted, thus turret suppression can be abstracted to.
The original turret suppression rules were better than the FAQ rules. It should simply be each surviving fighter reduces the ships turret value by 1 when calculating the number of attack runs bombers in the wave make.
-
The turret suppression from the FAQ is balanced but should have the added rule that only surviving fighters (from turret fire) add an attack.
In the game of BFG some aspects are abstracted, thus turret suppression can be abstracted to.
The original turret suppression rules were better than the FAQ rules. It should simply be each surviving fighter reduces the ships turret value by 1 when calculating the number of attack runs bombers in the wave make.
That is the intuitive way to play turret suppression, but unfortunately we keep coming back to the fact that D6 with modifiers is broken. D6+T-F also suffers from exponential adjustments, so that 3F&5B vs a T2 target will do 50% more attacks than 8 bombers will at present.
-
That is the intuitive way to play turret suppression, but unfortunately we keep coming back to the fact that D6 with modifiers is broken. D6+T-F also suffers from exponential adjustments, so that 3F&5B vs a T2 target will do 50% more attacks than 8 bombers will at present.
That's fine by me.