Ordnance - Mixed Waves vs. Mixed Waves

[Blacksails]

Ran a larger demo game yesterday (1k points, Eldar vs. IN) to show most, if not all the rules, especially ordnance.  I'm not sure if what I did was correct at all times and I'm left a little confused.

From my Empy, I launched a wave of 3F 5B, while my opponent launched two waves each consisting of 2F 2B (he had a Void Stalker and an Eclipse).  When my wave met one of his waves, we removed two of my markers, and he rolled for resilient saves, of which he passed 1.  Next ordnance phase, we removed my last fighter, and he rolled again for resilient, failing it, leaving only the bombers.  We then disengaged the bombers and went on various attack runs.  Was this done correctly?

In a another furball, I had a wave built the same (3F 5B) that ran into two more of his fighters.  He rolled better and ended up with 1 fighter alive and all mine dead.  Now what happens?  Can I disengage my bombers?  Does he get to remove a single token every ordnance phase or does the one fighter remove the whole wave of bombers?

[Xca|iber]

So... this really gets gummed up by having resilient saves. Probably the single most deceptively complex rule in all of BFG (imho). Overall, let me state that however you managed to resolve it is fine, generally speaking. It's always better to let the game play through smoothly than get bogged down in an absurdly complicated ordnance fight. That said, I will try to answer your question in as much detail as possible 

As a note, this is based on my parsing of the 2010 FAQ rules with regards to resilient ordnance. The examples there are somewhat... contradictory, if you're not careful with how you read the interactions. I've found a way to make it all work out logically, but it takes a bit of mental gymnastics.

Okay, first off, I'm going to assume that "My wave met his wave" means that your ordnance moved into his ordnance. So it's your ordnance phase, you move all your ordnance first, and in this process your 3F5B encounters a 2RF2B wave of Eldar attack craft. You now need to resolve each squadron's attacks one at a time, in the order of your choosing, with the following caveats:

1. Your fighters must intercept, and his fighters must intercept (assuming they survive)
2. You both must remove fighters from intercept attacks before removing anything else.

Whew. Alright, so here's how I think this resolves (incidentally, the numbers make this a bit easier - it could be much more complicated depending on saves and squadron sizes, etc).

F1 attacks RF1, which passes its save (we're gonna assume this happens here). F1 is removed, RF1 remains and cannot move further this phase. Then, you have F2 attack RF1, and both are removed. Finally, you have F3 attack RF2, which fails its save (per your example), and both are removed. You are left with 5B fighting 2B, so that fight is over (and they won't interact when your opponent moves, since all the fighters are gone).

So it looks like you both kept 1 fighter 1 phase too long, but otherwise did it correctly.

For your second example, it sounds like he was the attacker? In which case, it goes like this...

RF1 attacks F1, removing it and passing its save. RF2 attacks F2, removing it and passing its save. Now F3 gets to attack, removing RF1 and leaving RF2 alone against the remaining 5B. Since all the fighters have attacked, it's now your turn to move ordnance in the same phase. You can move your 5B away, since they have no obligation to intercept ordnance. HOWEVER, if you do not do so, RF2 will intercept one of your bombers (then be removed itself), since staying in contact constitutes "encountering" the remaining fighter on YOUR move, meaning RF2 gets to attack again. (Yes, this is very confusing, but its the only way all the examples in FAQ 2010 are able to work out).

I'll do my best to clarify this later today if you have any questions... Ordnance w/ saves are such a headache...

[horizon]

Yeah. This is awesome.... 

Page 8 in FAQ 2010.

2 resilient fighter (attcker) meets 2 enemy fighters (defender)
* Attacker decides order *

Resilient fighter 1 attacks enemy fighter 1 and passes save
* Enemy fighter removed *

Then:
Attacker can decide to use resilient fighter 1 and attack enemy fighter 2 and both are removed. This means resilient fighter 2 can move any distance left.

Or attacker decides to use resilient fighter 2 and attack enemy fighter 2 and uses his save. If he makes it both resilient fighters remain in place.

Clear?
So the attacker decides the order and which battles take place between ordnance. As a defender you want both gone so will usually attack both markers and hope they miss their save.

Page 8 and 9 explain it pretty well in my opinion.

[Xca|iber]

Then:
Attacker can decide to use resilient fighter 1 and attack enemy fighter 2 and both are removed. This means resilient fighter 2 can move any distance left.

Technically, in this case it's actually using resilient fighter 1 to absorb enemy fighter 2's attack, since the resilient fighter 1 has already used its attack for this encounter. This is a necessary distinction because of the example on the page after that about the darkstars fighting the mantas (where each DS only gets one shot at a manta before the mantas can attempt to run, and only get their second shot if the manta's stay in place - thus triggering a second encounter where the darkstars get to attack again).


EDIT: Here's a wall of text that explains what I was talking about in my first post.

Fighters (and anything which functions like fighters) are obligated to "intercept" each time they "encounter" an enemy ordnance marker. For regular ordnance, this just means they instantly and automatically crash into any enemy ordnance they touch, destroying everybody at the same time (in game terms, anyway). So, the precise mechanics of intercepting/encountering ordnance doesn't really matter, because everything gets removed. This is the part that having Resilient Saves chucks out the window.

With saves, fighters might remain on the board for more than one encounter, so it suddenly matters how those encounters happen, and how "intercepting" resolves when an encounter does occur. So what is an encounter, exactly?

An encounter occurs whenever an ordnance marker moves and that move causes it to physically contact an enemy ordnance marker. However, unless the moving marker is a fighter itself, it may ignore markers in contact at the start of its move (but not at any other point, including if it stays in place - in which case it will interact with those same markers a second time). This is an important type of exception that the game uses in similar situations elsewhere in the rules, such as for ships "moving off" of torpedo markers that stopped on their base.

Each time an encounter occurs, ALL fighters (on both sides) must intercept one opposing marker (assuming they are not intercepted themselves before they attack). Normally, fighters just intercept each other and it doesn't matter who attacks who, but when some are resilient, they may remain on the board and continue to interact. Thus, it becomes important to recognize when a fighter can actually make its attacks (intercept) vs. be intercepted.

Combining our understanding of how encounters occur with the knowledge that a fighter only ever makes one "intercept" attack per encounter, we can see how resilient fighters are supposed to work. In short, a resilient fighter that passes its save will always have done one of the following in a given encounter:

• Intercepted an enemy and remained on the board.
• Intercepted an enemy then been intercepted itself (or vice versa), and removed.
• Been intercepted and remained on the board.
• Been intercepted twice and removed.

But this isn't the whole story, because in each ordnance phase, BOTH players get to move their ordnance, meaning that resilient markers can "encounter" the same enemy wave more than once in a single phase! This is where you get weird situations like:

1. Two resilient fighters (RF1&2) move into two other resilient fighters (RF3&4). RF1 intercepts RF3, and both pass their saves. RF2 intercepts RF4 and both pass their saves. Then RF3 and 4 make their attacks, removing everybody and ending the encounter.

2. Two resilient fighters (RF1&2) move into two other resilient non-fighters(RB1&2). RF1 intercepts RB1, and both pass their saves. RF2 intercepts RB2 and both pass their saves. The encounter now ends because RB1 and RB2 cannot make intercept attacks, since they are not fighters. When they get to move (in this same ordnance phase), they can move away from RF1 and 2 because they (a) are not obligated to intercept (in fact, they cannot) and thus (b) may ignore the marker in base contact at the start of their move.
...BUT! If they stay in contact by not moving, they will be intercepted a second time this phase, because the fighters will get another attack since it is a new encounter.

I hope that meandering gibberish I just wrote makes at least some kind of sense... Like I said, ordnance gets weird when saves are added to the mix.

Cheers!

[horizon]

Xca|iber

Horizon:
Then:
Attacker can decide to use resilient fighter 1 and attack enemy fighter 2 and both are removed. This means resilient fighter 2 can move any distance left.

Technically, in this case it's actually using resilient fighter 1 to absorb enemy fighter 2's attack, since the resilient fighter 1 has already used its attack for this encounter. This is a necessary distinction because of the example on the page after that about the darkstars fighting the mantas (where each DS only gets one shot at a manta before the mantas can attempt to run, and only get their second shot if the manta's stay in place - thus triggering a second encounter where the darkstars get to attack again).

Technically leave the resilient vs resilient out of this. Due the mechanics it is just way easier to treat these encounters as separate rules.
In my example it was a copy paste from the FAQ in different wording.

So with resilient vs non-resilient just follow that example.

With resilient vs resilient a new rule mechanic is being introduced and should be treated that way as a distinct different thing.

Perhaps a bit noodles but it makes things less cluttered.

So basically:
Ordnance has basic interaction rules, but if resilient ordnance enters the interaction new rules apply.


But!
Some archive searching on this forum:
Sigoroth came up with this idea regarding resilient ordnance:

My idea is to chuck out all the resilient rules and replace with: resilient ordnance receives a single 4+ save per turn against removal by ordnance interaction.

Think about that one, it is easy to apply and removes all walls of text.
It was discussed during FAQ2010 development, sadly they didn't adopt this.

[Xca|iber]

But what I'm talking about isn't a resilient vs resilient issue... It's an inconsistency when you have resilient fighters vs either (a) other fighters or (b) non-fighters only. For example (assuming saves are passed):

2RF vs 5F: We can agree that this basically resolves as RF1 kills F1 and F2, then gets removed. RF2 kills F3 and F4, then gets removed, leaving only F5.

2RF vs 5B: The Darkstar example in FAQ2010 implies that this would resolve with RF1 kills B1, RF2 kills B2, then the encounter ends and the other player gets to move his 3B away, and they only get intercepted again if they stay still. The example reasons that the RFs only get 1 attack each, and the bombers are not required to attack back, therefore only 2 are killed (this has nothing to do with the mantas in the example being resilient - simply think of them as a pair of bombers each).

Now, this is obviously non-intuitive, and TBH, I think it was probably an oversight from two different rulings when FAQ2010 got made. The way I worked it out was the idea that in the RF vs F example, the second kill from the RFs was the result of them absorbing an attack from the enemy fighter, rather than getting a second attack themselves. This way, it all works out logically (but requires a lot of explaining). Personally, I think it would be better to just say "if they pass their save, they stop moving, stay on the board, and continue to interact normally" meaning that resilient fighters would just continue to attack anything in contact until they are removed.

Regarding what Sigoroth suggested, I'm not following how that is different than what we have now? Is he suggesting that you simply roll at the end of the turn, and any resilient ordnance that passes is not removed?

[horizon]

I get the feeling you are reading a tad to much into the wordings & rulings.

In your RF2 vs B5 example the attacker could choose to do this:

RF1 attacks B1, makes save, RF2 then attacks B2. Both removed. RF2 then can attack B3 and with another 4+ roll B4. Leaving B5 alive.
As said, it is a new rule mechanic negating the basic knowledge of ordnance.

Anyhow,
on Sig's remark: currently it is that when a fighter attacks ordnance after 10cm and pass it save it would remain at 10cm and cannot move further.
With his idea they can keep flying the remaining 20cm and attack another marker (without a save ofcourse) in the same turn.
This way you can also negate all the wordings which make it difficult now. Because in the 2RF vs 5B the attacker could decided after the first save with RF1 that he moves RF1 towards B2 and attack that one.

It just would remove all cluttering.

[Xca|iber]

I get the feeling you are reading a tad to much into the wordings & rulings.

In your RF2 vs B5 example the attacker could choose to do this:

RF1 attacks B1, makes save, RF1 then attacks B2. Both removed. RF2 then can attack B3 and with another 4+ roll B4. Leaving B5 alive.
As said, it is a new rule mechanic negating the basic knowledge of ordnance.

(I'm assuming that the bolded part was just a typo). What you've stated here conflicts with the Darkstar vs. Manta example in FAQ2010. If we use this method, that example should go like this:

DS1 and 2 intercept MT1 and 2 one apiece. Everyone passes their saves. DS1 and 2 then intercept again, causing everyone to be removed.

But in the book, it shows: DS1 intercepts MT1, both pass saves. DS2 intercepts MT1, removing MT1 and leaving DS2 (which passed its save). It says the Eldar part of the ordnance phase ends now (with DS1 and 2 in contact with MT2), because the darkstars can no longer move or attack after using their save.

(Now that I'm re-reading it again though, in the second part of the example, MT2 stays where it is and removes DS1, passes its save, then remains in contact with DS2 for the rest of the phase... what a headache )

I see what you're saying about it following different rules, but if we try to follow what you're saying AND match all of the examples in the book, we end up with resilient attack craft being incredibly unintuitive... We end up with a situation where resilient bombers/ABs get double the bonus against resilient fighters (their save, plus denying the fighters a second attack for some reason).

Anyhow,
on Sig's remark: currently it is that when a fighter attacks ordnance after 10cm and pass it save it would remain at 10cm and cannot move further.
With his idea they can keep flying the remaining 20cm and attack another marker (without a save ofcourse) in the same turn.
This way you can also negate all the wordings which make it difficult now. Because in the 2RF vs 5B the attacker could decided after the first save with RF1 that he moves RF1 towards B2 and attack that one.

It just would remove all cluttering.

Okay I see what you mean.

Now that I've gotten all fired up on this  I will probably go and re-write the Resilient Ordnance rules in BFG:XR to be wayyy more simple. Probably along the lines of what Sig suggested.

[Thinking Stone]

I would interpret the rules as Xca|iber does, myself. It seems the hardest part is (as Xca|iber points out) actually defining what happens in ordnance encounters. Before going into that further, I think it's best to keep all attack craft interactions working under the same principles, rather than having a different set of principles for resilient ones. Makes things more consistent and more elegant (at least for me!).

So, Xca|iber's interpretation assumes these (correct me if I'm wrong!):
1. Fighters may only make one attack per encounter.
2. Fighters must distribute their attacks against enemy ordnance markers as evenly as possible.
3. The moving player's ordnance resolve their attacks first.

The FAQ2010 Darkstar-Manta example suggests another:
4. So long as 2 is observed, a player may distribute attacks in whichever order they choose.

For simplicity, I would consider changing that to
4. (a) So long as 2 is observed, players must distribute attacks to remove as many ordnance markers as possible.

And for moving:
5. If no ordnance markers can attack, the moving player may move their ordnance through other ordnance markers (including after all fighters have exhausted their attacks).
6. If ordnance markers begin the turn in base contact with other ordnance markers, they only encounter them if they remain in base contact.

Any ordnance encounter can be resolved with these 6 principles and with the rulebook principles about the different types, with resilient craft needing another attack to be allocated if they pass their save:
7.  Resilient attack craft get a save against the first interception they are involved in; if they are attacked and pass, the attack is discarded. If they attack and pass, they remain in play (and have expended their attack). Resolve resilient attack craft interceptions and saves first. If they survive, further attacks may be allocated to them like any other ordnance marker (follow 2 after saves have been passed).

The trickiest principle is probably giving saves to fighters that intercept or get intercepted, by the looks of things! Xca|iber's main point of difference with horizon seems to be principle 1 (one attack per fighter).

I'm not sure if Sigoroth's rule would actually make the resolution any simpler, though? (Speaking of Sigoroth, I miss seeing him around). It would mean you don't have to say two things in principle 7 at least.

I think I shall have to type up some Universal Ordnance Principles incorporating the type interactions, now! But silliness aside I think listing a strict set of principles is the most sensible and clear method: everything happens according to them and you can follow them like instructions.


Anyway, some food for thought,
Thinking Stone