BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions

[Kraken]

Hey

I'm all for new ships , always cool to have something to convert. If there is interest in a competition I am all for it !!

Matt

[horizon]

Fracas.
D6-5 will be 0 or 1.
When it is 0 then you have:
3x0 = 0

So only if you roll a 6 you will have 3 attacks.... otherwise 0.

In the ruling 3b + f or b + 3f it all depends which ship they are attacking. The higher the turret rating the better the fighter will work. Against two turret ships more bombers will do the job.

[russ_c]

with your interpretation against T6 ships the only component of the wave that causes damage is the fighter. thus a wave of 3F + B would cause 3 attacks, which is better than a wave of 3B+F! that seems odd that fighters does the damage regardless of what the bomber attack roll is

with my formulation a wave of 3B+F against T6 is 3x(D6 - 5) or 0-3 attacks at best
and a wave of 3F+B causes (D6-3) or 1-3 attacks
thus variability remains with the bomber roll.

Warning I'm about to talk fluff...I know, shocking, but enjoy it while you can:

I believe the logic of the fighters attacks is they are actually distracting the turrets to allow some more bomber attacks to be successful.  Thus, the attacks are still coming from the bombers.  But yes, from a mechanics perspective it does appear the fighters are the only thing attacking.

Russ

[fracas]

fighter turret suppression should be just that
the fighters distract the turrets from attacking the bombers
T-F such that it cannot be <0
then the remaining turrets degrade the bomber attacks
(D6-(T-F)) per B

[russ_c]

I'd just like to point out that the "fracas formula" provides a slightly higher number of possible attacks, but in return provides worse odds of doing damage against high turret value ships.  For example, 2B+2f against 6T would result in exactly 2 guaranteed attacks with the current rules, but would provide the possibility of 0-4 attacks in your formula, where ~66% of the time you'll be doing 0 attacks.

Just stating the facts to help compare the two,

Russ

[horizon]

Formula wise / rule wise the option by Fracas (D6 - (T-F)) is very elegant.

But indeed, the effectiveness should be tested out.

[RayB HA]

Roy,

Thanks for sharing your confusion! 

Fighta-Bommas are fighters that may attack as bombers with an inbuilt +3 turret suppression no matter the number in the wave. Note: If ALL the fighter bombers in a wave are destroyed no attack runs will be made because there are no longer any bombers to attack.

So we have 4 FB's versus an Emperor BB, The Ork player elects to have 2 FB's as pure turret suppression. The Emperor shoots down 3 of the FB's, leaving only one FB acting as a bomber as the ones acting as pure turret suppression get killed first automatically. The FB will have (D3-5, 0) +3 FB in built turret suppression and +2 pure turret suppression from the 2 FB's. So in total the FB's get 5 attack runs against the Emperor!

If the same formation went up against a Dictator with its 3 turrets, the maximum attack runs would be 3.

Ah FB turret suppresion, what a monkey! Hmm, to keep things even scaled we could dissallow FB's acting as normal turret suppression. That way the Ork player won't be rewarded for the enemy having more than 3 turrets.

Cheers,

RayB HA 

[RayB HA]

I would prefer turret suppression to be the following: each bomber may have a fighter gift a single unmodified attack run. FB's would have 1 inbuilt.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[fracas]

(D6-(T-F)) per B

a wave of 4 against 1 turret
4 bombers = 0-5 attacks per bomber x4 (10 mean)
3 bombers + 1 fighter = 1-6 attacks per bomber x3 (10.5 mean)
2 bombers + 2 fighters = 1-6 attacks per bomber x2 (7 mean)
2 bombers + 3 fighters = 1-6 attacks per bomber (3.5 mean)


a wave of 4 against 2 turrets
4 bombers = 0-4 attacks per bomber x4 (6.66 mean)
3 bombers + 1 fighter = 0-5 attacks per bomber x3 (7.5 mean)
2 bombers + 2 fighters = 1-6 attacks per bomber x2 (7 mean)
2 bombers + 3 fighters = 1-6 attacks per bomber (3.5 mean)


a wave of 4 against 3 turrets
4 bombers = 0-3 attacks per bomber (4 mean)
3 bombers + 1 fighter = 0-4 attacks per bomber x3 (5 mean)
2 bombers + 2 fighters = 0-5 attacks per bomber x2 (5 mean)
2 bombers + 3 fighters = 1-6 attacks per bomber (4.5 mean)


a wave of 4 against 4 turrets
4 bombers = 0-2 attacks per bomber (2 mean)
3 bombers + 1 fighter = 0-3 attacks per bomber x3 (3 mean)
2 bombers + 2 fighters = 0-4 attacks per bomber x2 (3.33 mean)
2 bombers + 3 fighters = 0-5 attacks per bomber (2.5 mean)


a wave of 4 against 5 turrets
4 bombers = 0-1 attacks per bomber (0.66 mean)
3 bombers + 1 fighter = 0-2 attacks per bomber x3 (1.5 mean)
2 bombers + 2 fighters = 0-3 attacks per bomber x2 (2 mean)
2 bombers + 3 fighters = 0-4 attacks per bomber (1.66 mean)


a wave of 4 against 6 turrets
4 bombers = 0 attacks per bomber
3 bombers + 1 fighter = 0-1 attacks per bomber x3 (0.5 mean)
2 bombers + 2 fighters = 0-2 attacks per bomber x2 (1 mean)
2 bombers + 3 fighters = 0-3 attacks per bomber (1 mean)


i think

[Caine-HoA]

This (fracas formular) is like we played it most of the time in our round. We misunderstood it when we first read the turret surpression rule.

So i guess we had a lot of playtesting :-) Ive to say we didnt have big problems with it, and now as i played with the correct rule for a while i like the "fracas" version more...

Maybe because im not very lucky in rolling dice and play Tau a lot ;-)

The effect is that mid range turrets are overwhelmed a bit better by bombers and thats ecactly what i think is needed. who attacks turret 5 or 6 ships with bombers... thats not their part of the work to do, but they should still be worth it vs turret 3 and 4 targets and thats ecactly where the official rule makes them worse than the "fracas" version.

[patghiggins]

JUST WONDERING IS THIS FAQ EVER GOING TO A DOCUMENT or is it just becoming a glorified rules forum.  Our group in Denver, CO is concerned that there is TO much lobbying by people for the rules to go the way they want //  Sorry we're just a little fustrated on how some of the discussions are getting side tracked 

[horizon]

Hi patghiggins,

which discussions. Discussions are good. If only one person commented we would be in big trouble. I see discussions as a good thing.

Read post #1 by Ray Bell. This will be a document and as far as I can see it'll be on the GW site. The subjects which have been marked 'needs HA ruling' can be subject to change before publication. The rest will be 1:1 in the document.

I just hope the HA selects a few people the final document before publication and lets them read it to see if the explanations are clear enough and without confusion.

[RayB HA]

Hi patghiggins,

There will be a final document incorporating old and new FAQ. This will be tested for clarity.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[fracas]

For balance sake could High Admiralty consider

1. Removing corsair holofield against attack crafts (not torpedoes)? given they attack at such close range anyway, visual targeting can be performed instead of relying on targeting sensors. this will make corsair eldars weaker against all fleets except necrons (ha!). i think the combination of current holofield and MSM makes them a bit too much.
With regard to craftworld eldar i would think they should change as well.
As dark eldar do not use shadowfield, i can envision their technology make the ship like a darker patch of dark space, thus making them hard to visually target, shadowfield should still get their save against attack crafts.

2. The necron hull armor is living metal, perhaps they should not get their saves against hits by torpedoes. Most space torpedoes are likely to be nuclear and while a thick armor can protect the crew inside from radiation, the hull would receive the full effect of the radiation. This simple change would provide just a chink in their armor and would make Necron a bit weaker against all fleets.

The net result would be for player to field a balance fleet of batteries and lance, torpedoes and attack crafts.


just food for thoughts

[Vaaish]

I think that removing the holofield save against AC sounds nice on paper, but your are really making them extremely weak against ordnance heavy races like tau. If I were exploring options to adjust the holofield I'd think about adjusting the save value before adding exceptions to special rules.

2. seems rather arbitrary and doesn't make a lot of sense. Surely bombers can carry high yield warheads too, so why not extend this to them? Living metal isn't alive in an organic sense anyway so I don't think it would be affected by radiation in the same manner. I don't think that this is really going to give balance. I think there would be better results in balancing the Necron fleet by adjusting the fleet compositions rather than the durability.