My BFG and FAQ thoughts

[meyst]

I picked up my fleet some time ago.  Saw my local gaming group slowly move away from the game but am happy to see the renewed interest with the new FAQ rule set.

I just figured I would put my thoughts out here, in no particular order.

One of the things I really liked about BFG was the simple easy to play and understand rule set.  I fear we are losing that when we add rules like 'Blast markers count as all around", "CAP" and "Fighter turret suppression". 

I could be mistaken, but the core book and many of the ships make the game feel and look like it was based around a gunnery battle with Torpedoes and strike craft added in (To me anyway).  An oversight with reloading ordnance quickly changed the game into a who can avoid doubles the longest 'game'.  The limits on strike craft launch capacity was a great idea!  I like simple rules that work, and this is a change I really like.

Escorts not auto dieing to Assault boats would be a good change, I may even get to play against some now.
I have always been a fan of having tokens that can go on the bases of ships for critical damage and hits myself (Something like the Axis and Allies minis games).  One could handle all ships, even escorts, this way, and make it easier to see the status of ships in play.

I think turret suppression by fighters is a terrible idea...It looks cool to have fighters and bombers waved together but;
*It promotes people to take fighters (that can break off the wave) even when they plan to attack an enemy ship.
This makes the choice between Fighters/bombers moot, as you have more options and lose nothing when you bring fighters in the wave.
*Allowing bombers to be effective against high turret targets decreases the value of Torpedoes and guns in a fleet for attacking such targets.
*Makes turret attacks have almost no effect, why even bother to roll your turrets when your rolls will not change the number of attacks you will receive anyway?
*I question the need for more damage from Bombers.
*I found the rules to be an ugly read

The CAP rules are an interesting option but are very long winded rules to accomplish a very simple thing (Avoid the ordnance nastiness that happens because of the turn order.).  Why not replace the CAP rules with something like...
  "A player may move any of his fighters before normal ship moves provided the fighters move into Contact with an enemy ordnance marker and are removed from the board after the interaction, even if they would normally remain in play."
  "During the ordnance phase the player who did not move his ships this turn may move any number of fighters before any non-fighter ordnance are moved provided all fighters moved in this way interact with an enemy ordnance marker."

[horizon]

Heya, hi,

One of the things I really liked about BFG was the simple easy to play and understand rule set. I fear we are losing that when we add rules like 'Blast markers count as all around", "CAP" and "Fighter turret suppression".

So........... you never d/l our bought BFG 1.5? It has blastmarkers allround in it.

I could be mistaken, but the core book and many of the ships make the game feel and look like it was based around a gunnery battle with Torpedoes and strike craft added in (To me anyway). An oversight with reloading ordnance quickly changed the game into a who can avoid doubles the longest 'game'. The limits on strike craft launch capacity was a great idea! I like simple rules that work, and this is a change I really like.

So you did have that FAQ. Scatter Nova Cannon was also great.

And yes, Attack Craft (not torps!) was an addition that Andy Chambers would've ditched if he could. Alas with all Star Wars/Wing Commander fans it was bound to happen.

Escorts not auto dieing to Assault boats would be a good change, I may even get to play against some now.

Yes.

I have always been a fan of having tokens that can go on the bases of ships for critical damage and hits myself (Something like the Axis and Allies minis games). One could handle all ships, even escorts, this way, and make it easier to see the status of ships in play.

Wella... BFG doesn't have it.

I think turret suppression by fighters is a terrible idea...It looks cool to have fighters and bombers waved together but;
*It promotes people to take fighters (that can break off the wave) even when they plan to attack an enemy ship.
This makes the choice between Fighters/bombers moot, as you have more options and lose nothing when you bring fighters in the wave.
*Allowing bombers to be effective against high turret targets decreases the value of Torpedoes and guns in a fleet for attacking such targets.
*Makes turret attacks have almost no effect, why even bother to roll your turrets when your rolls will not change the number of attacks you will receive anyway?
*I question the need for more damage from Bombers.
*I found the rules to be an ugly read

I think the change to FAQ2010 should be that only surviving fighters add +1 to the attack run.

Also: without turret suppression : what is the use of fighters in a bomber wave then?

The CAP rules are an interesting option but are very long winded rules to accomplish a very simple thing (Avoid the ordnance nastiness that happens because of the turn order.). Why not replace the CAP rules with something like...
"A player may move any of his fighters before normal ship moves provided the fighters move into Contact with an enemy ordnance marker and are removed from the board after the interaction, even if they would normally remain in play."
"During the ordnance phase the player who did not move his ships this turn may move any number of fighters before any non-fighter ordnance are moved provided all fighters moved in this way interact with an enemy ordnance marker."

Wot?

[meyst]

So........... you never d/l our bought BFG 1.5? It has blastmarkers allround in it.
So you did have that FAQ. Wink Scatter Nova Cannon was also great.

And yes, Attack Craft (not torps!) was an addition that Andy Chambers would've ditched if he could. Alas with all Star Wars/Wing Commander fans it was bound to happen.

I didn't even know GW published a new BFG book.  It would however seem the rule about limited attack crafts was read and brought to me by someone who did though.  Before reading it in the current FAQ I thought it was just a 'house rule' we had been playing with.  Either way it is a good idea and we used it.

I think the change to FAQ2010 should be that only surviving fighters add +1 to the attack run.

Also: without turret suppression : what is the use of fighters in a bomber wave then?

Even if you want them to be used when attacking ships, making them allow turret damage rolls to be effectively ignored is a poor way to go. 
If your desperate to increase the damage they do I think the fairest way to do it would be something like.
1.  Have the turrets attack the bombers that have the weapons to damage the ship (instead of doing Nothing useful).
2.  Have the number of fighters included be a modifier to the D6-Turrets attacks the bombers kick out, instead of 'bonus auto attacks even if they die'
ie 4 fighters and 4 bombers in a wave attack a 4 Turret ship.  The Turrets shoot down 2 bombers, and roll a D6 attacks for each bomber (D6-4(Turrets)+4(Fighters bothering the turrets).
That way the Fighters contribute and the Turrets get to do something.
In any case I think anything that makes attack craft better is a Bad idea.  Esp. without a general points increase to the launch bays to reflect  increased capability.

Wot?

Move fighters first.

[RCgothic]

We are currently having a massive argument in Flawed Ships about what to do with AC.

No-one wants to make AC better, but the current rules are bad.

Turret Suppression is a symptom of 3 things:

#1. Fighters are not good enough at killing bombers, which makes escorting them with other fighters pointless.
#2. The rules specifically point out the option for mixed waves, but other than turret suppression there's no point to them.
#3. Turrets get exponentially better the more of them you have.

Basically, if Turrets didn't have any effect on bomber attack runs besides the initial obliteration of casualties, and if fighters were a little better at their job, there's be no need for turret suppression whatsoever.

[horizon]

The current rules are okay (with one addition needed).

[meyst]

Basically, if Turrets didn't have any effect on bomber attack runs besides the initial obliteration of casualties, and if fighters were a little better at their job, there's be no need for turret suppression whatsoever.

So why is that not what is being put in with the FAQ?
Instead we are getting turrets don't cause casualties to bombers and when fighters attack ships...
With no balance on the other side with either something lost or an increase in points cost for the increased capability.  A corresponding decrease in points for ships that have turrets that now do less would work too.

The current rules are okay (with one addition needed).

Wot???

[horizon]

Massed turrets is a counter increase. Eg ships in base to base contact lend eachother a turret when under attack.


What I mean in regards to your wot ( heh heh):
I like all rules as are written but would add one bit: fighters only give +1 attack to the run if they are not shot down.
(eg per current the +1 is allowed even if fighter is shot down).

[meyst]

the +1 is allowed even if fighter is shot down

I also agree that sucks.

I still think it would be better if the Turret using player at least had the option of using his turrets on the bombers though.

I posted in another thread the idea of fighters being able to break up attack waves that have no fighters.  Any thoughts?