BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[Mazila]

No it is not - it's universal! If friendly ships are effected then friendly+enemy in b2b is also effected.

[horizon]

But to me friendly vessels in base-2-base contact should not be affected.

Back to v1.0!!

[Sigoroth]

Mazila, I'm having some confusion with what you're saying. Are you saying that the rule as written does or should affect both attacking and defending ships?

Nate, I believe your clarification about BMs and boarding modifiers is confusing. Either you're misinterpreting the current rule (probably due to Mazila's input) or you've changed the current rule, which I don't think is necessary.

The rule as written plays that if a ship has a BM in contact, the enemy ship gets +1 to their dice roll. This does not need to be changed to affect only the defending ship. If the attacker has a BM in contact then the defender should get the bonus.

However, there is no rule that says that a ship touching another ship with a BM in contact itself counts as having a BM in contact. This little bit of absurdity is Mazila's input. So, if you don't physically have a BM touching your ships base, you don't give the enemy +1 to their boarding roll. If you do, you do. It's that simple.

[Plaxor]

Yes, Sig is right, I was confused when you said that as well, as BMs dont chain throughout ships in contact.

As it is said that a BM can be placed in contact with ships in contact affecting both vessels, but if it isn't then it will only affect one (but all around)

Ah.. how the new BM rule breeds confusion...

[Mazila]

Mazila, I'm having some confusion with what you're saying. Are you saying that the rule as written does or should affect both attacking and defending ships?

Nate, I believe your clarification about BMs and boarding modifiers is confusing. Either you're misinterpreting the current rule (probably due to Mazila's input) or you've changed the current rule, which I don't think is necessary.

The rule as written plays that if a ship has a BM in contact, the enemy ship gets +1 to their dice roll. This does not need to be changed to affect only the defending ship. If the attacker has a BM in contact then the defender should get the bonus.

However, there is no rule that says that a ship touching another ship with a BM in contact itself counts as having a BM in contact. This little bit of absurdity is Mazila's input. So, if you don't physically have a BM touching your ships base, you don't give the enemy +1 to their boarding roll. If you do, you do. It's that simple.

OK lets dig the history:

At the time when the book was created (Before armada) BMs counted exactly like you  play it Sig. The part about boarding did exist as well. And then Armada came with mass turrets, shared shields etc. And the devs decided to make BM in contact count as being all around. In my opinion they simply forgot that it immediately contradicts with this rule for boarding because if BM counts as all around then it is same as if the attacking ship was physically touching the BM marker.

My point is that this needs either BM rule change to be fixed (like you guys suggest 1.0) OR it needs some wording changed about the boarding modefier or some kind of clarification in the FAQ. Because right now if you build a logical chain based on the fact that bm's count as all around for ships touching a ship with bm you will see that this modefier applies to both.

And no Sig, it does not mean you can chain a BM from 1 ship to others like a train since it was clearly explained how it works:

you have ships in B2B   A B C       If ship A has a BM in contact then ships A and B have -1 shield and C is not affected. If C gets now BM in contact as well then B will have -2 shields, while A and C will have only -1 shield.

[Sigoroth]

OK lets dig the history:

At the time when the book was created (Before armada) BMs counted exactly like you  play it Sig. The part about boarding did exist as well. And then Armada came with mass turrets, shared shields etc. And the devs decided to make BM in contact count as being all around. In my opinion they simply forgot that it immediately contradicts with this rule for boarding because if BM counts as all around then it is same as if the attacking ship was physically touching the BM marker.

No, you've merely misinterpreted it. Not so hard I suppose, given it's a rubbish rule. The "counts as having a BM in contact all round" does mean to say that the ships base becomes an extension of the BM. This rule specifically regards shooting and ordnance only. For all other intents and purpose the BM only counts as where it is.

My point is that this needs either BM rule change to be fixed (like you guys suggest 1.0) OR it needs some wording changed about the boarding modefier or some kind of clarification in the FAQ. Because right now if you build a logical chain based on the fact that bm's count as all around for ships touching a ship with bm you will see that this modefier applies to both.

Well, having a clarification or, better yet, a reversion to the old rule can't hurt. However, I disagree on your chain of logic.

And no Sig, it does not mean you can chain a BM from 1 ship to others like a train since it was clearly explained how it works:

you have ships in B2B   A B C       If ship A has a BM in contact then ships A and B have -1 shield and C is not affected. If C gets now BM in contact as well then B will have -2 shields, while A and C will have only -1 shield.

Given how you expect the rule to function I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. However, the shared shields rule allows the BM to be moved so as to be in base contact with secondary vessels, thus dropping their shields. It is the BM being in contact with those ships that drops their shields, not merely the fact that they're in base contact.

[flybywire-E2C]

This ended up getting discussed it in detail. Here's what I should have said (sorry about the confusion):

Blast markers in base contact with vessels engaged in a boarding action only provide a negative modifier to the ship or ships actually in base contact with the blast marker. Both vessels are affected only if both are actually in base contact with blast markers.

However...

Tyranids ignore ALL blast marker effects when boarding. They do however lose a measure of their spore protection for being in contact with blast markers due to placing one on the target vessel when boarding; place the blast marker between it and the Tyranid vessel. While they ignore all blast marker effects when boarding, the target vessel does not. As such, Tyranids get a +1 for the enemy being in contact with blast markers.

- Nate

[horizon]

Blast markers in base contact with vessels engaged in a boarding action only provide a negative modifier to the ship or ships actually in base contact with the blast marker. Both vessels are affected only if both are actually in base contact with blast markers.

Still confusing as heck. This considering the fact blastmarkers count as all around (blech) :
just word it like this: the attacking ship is not affected by a blastmarker on the defending ship as long as it does not physically touch the blastmarker.

Also Nate: can we get BFG v1.0 blastmarkers back in the game?

[BlueDagger]

+1 for having blast markers only effect the direct they are touching. Having them count all around the ship really just dumbs down the game tactically. If you position yourself well enough to pincher attack a ship with gun batteries then you should gain the tactical benefit of doing so.

[horizon]

Sense!

[RCgothic]

I'll chime in as well with v1.0 Blast Markers.

Place them as close as possible to the line of fire without touching another ship that isn't in BtB. Only Gunnery crossing the actual BM is affected, only the ship actually in contact with the marker feels any effects.

[commander]

The most logical thing to do. We used those 'new' rules a couple of times and returned to 'old' rules.

[flybywire-E2C]

Hi everyone!! There’s a big set of updates today!  If you want to get to it, click the link below.

http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*

Biggie: The updated 2010 FAQ/Errata is FINALLY on the street! We listened, and there are a LOT of small detail changes and additions here. Most of it will make lots of people happy, some of it may not. PLEASE take some time to pick this thing apart. If there’s something important we missed, please let us know!

- Nate

[horizon]

New FAQ, Quick Scan

Avenger: why is 200 not the correct prize. It isn't worth more then 180 either.

AdMech: the Magos/Ld description is still mistaken. You do always roll Ld for a vessel, then afterwards place the Magos/Admiral whatever. In the example the Ld roll is waived when you place the Magos. This is wrong.

Craftworld Eldar: The Flame still has the daft LFR pulsar. Keep it F only.

Blastmarkers: missed oppurtunity. We want v1.0 back (does not count as all around).

Voss CL: You announced it but still a pity to see they lose turn rate due prow armour. Still not swayed by this. Everyone wants and and.

Fighter Bombers: much better, but the following paragraph where fb nust decide what it will be must be scrapped.

[lastspartacus]

I'd like to ask the pro bm-mark 1 crowd a question.  Would you be opposed to, if going back to the original rules, a caveat that said 'Targeting ships whose base is in contact with a blast marker causes a right shift'?
That is the only issue I have with it, going back to mk1 being a boost to AC and batteries.

Agreed on the light cruisers.  Mainly because I have asked, in so many posts, simply for the LOGIC as to WHY the chassis would be unbalanced with 90 degree turns and have NEVER received anything resembling a reply.
At least some kind of reasoning would go a long way in making me feel better about it.
0.o