BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[Vaaish]

I'd also put in for the 1.0 BMs.

As to the Endeavor and its ilk, 6+ prow and 90` turns can't be overpowered simply because the same effect of closing and then turning 90` to unload broadsides is already possible while retaining the benefits of a 6+ prow by squadroning with any of the IN line cruisers. This prevents most enemy fire from even touching the endeavours until they swing around to fire doing the very thing that was mentioned as being too much.

I'd still like to see the NC blast auto hit the eldar. It's not like IN has much going for them against eldar anyhow with a typical balanced list.

[Sigoroth]

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.

Yes, I would be opposed.

[fracas]

I like the current blast marker rule as being more consistent and straight forward to play with

[RCgothic]

In what possible universe is that the case?

[fracas]

The updated v1.5 BFG universe. And now apparently the 2010 BFG FAQ universe as well

[RCgothic]

It's neither more consistent nor more straightforward to play with, and being official doesn't change that.

[Vaaish]

This:

A torpedo salvo (regardless of strength) is now
represented with a Strength 3 marker with one or
more D6 indicating the actual salvo strength.

is VERY BAD.

I have no problems with a single s3 marker with a d6 being used to represent torpedo strength, despite the reduction in salvo size. Two or more d6 on a single marker is extremely problematic because normal d6 (who wants to buy special dice for this) will effectively cover the entire marker which sort of defeats the purpose. Furthermore a squadron of three dauntless launching a torpedo salvo is s18 which now means that there are 3d6  on the same marker making more dice than marker on the table which complicates the movement of the marker because you now have three things to balance instead of one. Secondly, you are reducing the effectiveness of torpedo salvos considerably, so much so that it no longer makes sense to fire the salvo as a single entity. For instance, with your new rule it becomes better to fire three separate salvos of 6 torpedoes rather than one salvo of 18. This is because you have reduced the the marker size to 1/6 the original torpedo spread and complicated the use of it.

Please change this back to 1d6 per maker with an additional marker placed for every s6 above the original. That way s18 would be represented by three markers with a single d6 on top of each. (you are still reducing the salvo to half the size of the original rules).

[horizon]

I agree with Vaaish. If someone overlooked my one-liner.

[Mazila]

Great job, I won't even comment on the numerous lapses that this eddition has, but i have only one thing to say:

Please don't delete the old FAQ from GW website - people who want to play normal BFG will probably prefer to have it there.

[horizon]

Well... the old FAQ has never been uploaded to the GW site. bwhuahahaha.

Very constructive by the way. lol

[lastspartacus]

Doesnt the new FAQ include all the edits in the old faq?  it damn well should!

As to the torps, I like the way they are now, and I like the new bm version.  Because as much as i like the strategy of the old, it gives too much a boost to batteries and AC.  All that needs to happen is a clarification that, while the bm is considered all around, the base of the ship isnt itself a bm in relation to other ships.  Ive never even thought to play it that way, and just just needs a wording fixed.

[Vaaish]

wot? you like going from massive and somewhat gamey torpedo spreads to effectively useless combined salvos? A single s3 marker is far too small to represent the spread and far too impractical to balance more than one d6 on top, one marker per s6 torpedoes is logical and practical while neatly eliminating the gaminess by halving the space the salvo takes up. Should I upload a shot of my three dauntless firing to show how laughable it is to balance that many d6 on the marker? Perhaps I should just go all out and instead do a full squadron of 6 and show the marker stacked with two layers of dice making it hard to tell what the numbers are?

No, a single marker no matter the salvo size for torpedoes that stacks up dice is completely unworkable and is a totally unneeded nerf to the one fleet that relies on area denial torpedo spreads to break up formations or funnel ship.

[horizon]

Yeah, I mean advocate the torpedo marker change but not as rigid as this. And I also feel it was never the intention.

Thus: one str3 marker (or 2x2cm base) for max 6 torps.

[lastspartacus]

Well, If you remember I was initially against any change at all.

But it was explained to me the change was for 2 reasons.

1.  Ease of play, messing with the torp markers mid-move was very troublesom.

2.  Fluff and realism.  str3 marker is 3000km of space, and why would torps ever spread further than that?

[RCgothic]

On this general subject, why are the rows for FP6 and FP5 the same?

Turns out Splitting FP10 nets you more firepower than firing all together!

15 and 16 are all but the same as well.