BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[Masque]

Hi Masque! Let me start by saying this was EXCELLENT work!

Thanks, I'll try and muddle my way through some more over the next couple days.  Here's some further explanation on some of the points I brought up where you didn't simply agree with me or point out something I had missed.  I did some significant quote editing to try and keep this conversation coherant.  I hope you appreciate it.

Ordnance is launched at the end of the shooting phase as opposed to the beginning of the ordnance phase. This means if a given carrier already has attack craft on the table at the beginning of the ordnance phase, it cannot launch any more attack craft that turn unless it recalls markers currently in play and launches new markers from the ship’s base, even if it has successfully reloaded. This prevents a carrier from attacking a target to expend its attack craft in play and then launching a new attack craft wave in a single turn. Ships and defenses that may launch up to twice the number of launch bays they have on the table are not restricted in this manner as long as they do not exceed the number of allowable attack craft markers in play.

This scenario implies that attack craft launched by a certain carrier prevent that specific carrier from launching again until they are removed.  I always thought only the total number of bays and attack craft on the board mattered.  The last sentence would seem to disallow a carrier from launching more craft if it had even a partial wave left on the table.  I would assume it could launch another partial wave as long as the total craft on the board was not more than it had bays.

You are absolutely right- you can launch another partial wave;  that is actually addressed separately in the same FAQ. The intent of the rule is specifically to prevent someone from moving ordnance already on the table to expend it in attacks, then launch a full strength of new ordnance, potentially getting two sets of attacks in a single ordnance phase. If you understood what I wrote here to mean you may not be able to do that, I have to re-smith it.

I'm more worried about the fact this rule seems to prevent the following scenario:  Let's say I have two Devastations and one launches CAP fighters and the other doesn't launch.  Then the next turn the first Dev reloads.  This ruling now prevents the Dev that launched fighters from launching again because it still has birds in the air even though the fleet has more launch bays than attack craft in play.

Opposing Resilient Attack Craft:  If two markers that both have a 4+ save attack each other and both remain in play, they stop movement and remain in contact until the next ordnance phase. However, if any marker that saves is attacked again in the same phase, it (along with the marker that  attacked it) is automatically removed. This save is used one fighter at a time. Following is an extreme example: 
1.  If two Thunderhawks are attacked by two Eldar fighters, and the first fighter attacks the first Thunderhawk and they both roll a 4+, both markers must immediately stop all movement and subsequent attacks but both remain in play. If the second Eldar fighter now attacks the first Thunderhawk, the first Thunderhawk is automatically removed.  If the second Eldar fighter now rolls a 4+ save, it may remain in play but the Eldar ordnance phase is now complete because both ordnance markers used their save and can no longer move or attack. 
2.  It is now the opponent’s ordnance phase. The sole remaining Thunderhawk may now elect to move away from the two Eldar fighters, or it may elect to attack them. If it does, both it and the Eldar player again roll their 4+ save because it is now a different ordnance phase. Regardless of the outcome, all ordnance markers still surviving after this exchange remain in place  until the next player turn because both ordnance phases have already taken place.

Overall I'm very happy with the resilient attack craft rules, but I think this example is incorrect.  Since the first Thunderhawk temporarily loses its fighter status after surviving against the first Eldar fighter shouldn't the second Eldar fighter be forced to fight the second Thunderhawk as fighters should always be attacked before other attack craft according to the main rulebook?

Thunderhawks don’t “lose” being fighters, what they lose is their 4+ save. They are ALWAYS assault boats that behave as fighters. However, they only get to use their save once per ordnance phase. For example, Ork fighta-bommas are bombers that are ALWAYS fighters (except that they don’t get a save), which is different from Tau Mantas, which are bombers that get a 4+ save against fighters but are NOT fighters in and of themselves, meaning they ignore torpedoes and assault boats like other bombers do. You are probably not the only person thinking this so I will add it to the FAQ.

The second section of Resilient Attack Craft would seem to disagree with you about Thunderhawks ceasing to be fighters.  "Resilient Attack Craft in Multiple Combats in a Single Ordnance Phase: If resilient attack craft make their save they lose their fighter rules for the rest of that ordnance phase (or movement phase if save is made while in CAP)."

Crippling a vessel constitutes a permanent change to its turret value and thus the maximum number of attacks that can be gained by supporting fighters. A crippled Lunar will only have 1 turret and so you can only gain a maximum of +1 attack due to fighter support.

With the current turret suppression this rule makes no sense at all.

I understand your question, but it makes perfect sense- here’s why. The obvious question is, “why are fighters less effective when there are less turrets to defend against?” There’s no harm in explaining this further in the FAQ- you’re probably not the only person thinking this. In game terms the point of fighter support is to defend against turrets (not attack the ship), and with less turrets, there’s less to defend against. In actual rule terms, fighter support is to counterbalance the number of attacks bombers lose to turrets. Because the number of turrets go down when a ship is crippled, the actual number of bomber attacks (regardless of fighter support) go up. For example, four bombers rolling D6-2 attacks against a ship with two turrets only roll D6-1 against the same ship when crippled. The fighters offer less support because they are physically doing less to protect the bombers, but the total number of attacks is still increased.

The first part of the rule, the part about crippling being permanent is fine, though it probably belongs in a different section of the FAQ.  The second sentence makes no sense now because turret suppession bonus attacks from fighters are now limited by the number of bombers not the number of turrets.

I won’t have the corrected FAQ posted until tomorrow. Everyone else, please keep in mind that except for the Errata and additions, the FAQ items themselves are intended to answer questions that have come up in unique and rare situations in game play. What may be obvious to some of us are not entirely so for others, and there’s no harm in making the FAQ as complete as possible, even if in the end this becomes a bit bigger than we intended.

Finally, someone suggested we break apart the FAQ items from the Errata items to make things easier to find and separate. That is a bit hard to do because the document is set up in the same format as the current rules in that all the Movement stuff is together, all the Shooting stuff is together, the individual fleets are in their own sections, etc. We would end up creating two separate documents if we tried to separate one from the other, each one similarly formatted and both of them functioning as addenda to the rules. As a compromise, I made a Table of Contents, and I included a few cross-reference line items in the rules. For example, for “Nova Cannons and Holofields,” we explained how Nova Cannon work against holofields in the Nova Cannon section, then left a quick note in the holofield section referencing the Nova Cannon section for how that weapon works against holofields. I don’t mind adding as much cross-referencing to this document as it needs to make it as easy to use as possible.

The one division I'd really, really like to see is to seperate the parts you don't need if you already have the .pdf version of the rulebook as opposed to the 1.0 or 1.5 printed book.  Actually, a better idea may be to simply leave everything organized as is but to color code things.  Red for things that are actual changes to the current .pdfs available from GW (blast markers).  Green for things that are simply updating the printed books to match the .pdfs (Nova Cannon scatter rather than guess).  Blue for things that are actually covered in the .pdfs but are clarified in the FAQ (splitting fire).  Black for all info that is simply not in the .pdfs (turret suppression).

[Sigoroth]

A really fun three-player scenario is to play Cruiser Clash between two equal-sized fleets, with Tyranids coming on one of the short table edges in D3 turns with a fleet 1.5 times as large as A or B (not both).  Player A and B win conditions are based on who has the most victory points in the end, provided they win more points than they lose. Tyranids only win if both fleets lose more than they win. The "win more than lose" clause is to prevent A & B from simply calling a truce and ganging up on C. Tyranids can only attack closest enemy ships, but otherwise the rules are unchanged.

When deciding victory points against Player C,  escort kills are one for one instead of going by squadron value. For capital ships, Player A and B ONLY get 100% kills on ships they do FULL damage to, meaning brought from no damage to zero hits without assistance from the other player. If the other player scores even one hit on the Player C capital ship, they have to share 50% VP's. This sounds like it wouldn't be fair, but try it- it makes for VERY interesting games!! The scenario also works well with "C" being Dark Eldar or Necrons. I imagine just about any fleet could be used as C, but 'Nids, DE and Necrons are the only fleets I have tried it with.

So, player A wipes out player B, losing more than half his fleet and then kills a single Nid escort before being annihilated in turn. Player A & B annihilated, Nids (player C) lose only a single escort. Player A gets more points than he loses, so he wins. Huh?

Also, how does the "win more than lose" clause prevent players A & B ganging up on player C? As far as I can see Player C wants to annihilate both other players, else he can't win. Players A and B could lose to each other or player C. So, if they gang up on player C, fetch as many VPs as they can and remove that threat they can then resume their battle. This would ensure they could only lose to each other.

[Sigoroth]

Also, the resilient AC rules are really too complicated. What exactly is the point of having resilient fighters? Isn't it to make fewer fighters do more work? So 4 Eldar fighters should be worth as much as 6 normal fighters, right? OK, so you launch your 4 fighters, intercept 4 enemy bombers, 2 of your fighters survive ... and now they sit and watch as the remaining bombers go past. Soooo, these 4 fighters are worth ... 4 fighters!

If there are still some targets in range in the following turn, after your opponent has moved his ordnance you can then remove some. Some might even survive after having done so. Yay.

This is just rubbish. Remove all the limitations on resilient ordnance except one: can only attempt to save once per turn. So if I send out 4 fighters and after interceptions 2 of them survive. Then I've got the choice of intercepting 2 more AC, losing my remaining fighters, or waiting till next turn for my 4+ save to regenerate. Much much simpler, not OP, I don't get the problem. I don't know why we have this silly "stops where it is" rule. I think it's just a hold over from when ordnance was unlimited.

[lastspartacus]

Like where you are going on the resilient AC thoughts, Sig.  It always confused me too.

[fracas]

I like it as well

[Masque]

I went through the 2.3 version of the FAQ starting where I left off on the 2.2 version and stopping just before the fleet specific sections.  I'll get to those another day.

Hits taken by an escort squadron are only distributed among the vessels that actually took fire (such as in range and fire arc), regardless of how many hits the squadron actually took, though it affects ALL escorts within range and fire arc. This also applies to hits taken by an escort squadron negotiating an asteroid field, as well as hits delivered by ordnance or Nova Cannon, as those hits (regardless of how many) affect only the vessels directly contacted by the ordnance markers or Nova Cannon blast template. For example, if an escort squadron takes a total of ten hits from gunnery fire but only three escorts were actually in range and fire arc, no more than three escorts can be destroyed.

Shouldn't most of this also apply to capital ship squadrons?  Particularly the part about only those ships in range/aspect being hit?

CAPITAL SHIP SQUADRONS: Capital ships in a squadron that are being  fired upon to the point that one of the capital ships is destroyed must roll for and apply all critical damage before counting as destroyed. For example, if a squadron of three Dauntless light cruisers is fired upon by a squadron of three Carnage cruisers and takes a total of 13 hits, all critical damage rolls  must  be made for the first Dauntless before declaring it destroyed. This means if the first Dauntless rolls a Thrusters Damaged (+1Hp) and Engine Room Damaged (+1Hp) criticals in the process of being  destroyed, there remains a total 9 remaining shots to be applied to the next closest Dauntless light cruiser, with shields, blast markers, etc. still taking effect normally. This rule in particular applies to squadrons of ships that do not count critical damage normally and instead take an additional 1Hp of damage, such as Ork Roks or Kroot Warspheres.

Unless my math is bad or we are supposed to assume a non-standard circumstance the example is wrong.  It would take 7 hits to destroy the first Dauntless (1 shield and 6HP).  That would leave 6 hits for the next one but if 2 were added from criticals then that should leave 8.  I would also make it very clear that damage only carries over for shooting, not ordnance attacks, boarding, ramming, and the like.

I would honestly do away with this entirely.  It just seems counter-intuitive.

Free turns provided by gravity wells can be used even when the ship cannot normally turn, such as when under All Ahead Full  or Lock On special orders. They can also be combined with Come To New Heading special orders. This does not change the fact that the free turn can only be used before the start of the move and again only at the end of the move. In either instance the ship must actually be in the gravity well to use it, and the free turn is only toward the center  of the planet‟s or moon‟s gravity well or toward a space hulk‟s stem.

Can the free turn be used to turn past the planet?  Say, for example, that the planet is only 10 degrees to port at the start of a ship's movement.  Can the free turn end such that the planet is now to the ship's starboard side or must it stop turning when it is facing the center of the planet?

Torpedoes on a Planetary Template: Torpedoes are only destroyed when they come into contact with the templates edge. So it is possible to launch torpedoes while on a planetary template but they will be removed when they touch its edge.

I would allow torpedoes to be fired off of a planetary template.  If this seemed too lopsided (which I don't think it would be) I would also allow torpedoes to hit ships on a template, but not to fire through a template.

Blast markers are not placed when asteroid impacts take shields down, however the ship will act as if it has moved through blast markers that turn.

I've always just placed the markers in contact with the ship at the end of it's move as close to the asteroids as possible.  It would seem strange that ships could effectively regenerate their shields faster from asteroid impacts than from other sources of damage.

Asteroids and All Ahead Full: When traversing an asteroid field on All Ahead Full you must pass a leadership check on 3D6 instead of 2D6 or suffer the usual D6 damage. Escort squadrons still get to re-roll this result for free, as they would normally.

Did this somehow get left out of the .pdf of the rulebook?  I can't find the bonus for escorts or penalty of AAF in asteroid fields anywhere and the rule about taking a leadership test at all is only alluded to.  I don't have my hardcopy here to check.  Assuming it's not in the .pdf you may want to write these rules out in full.

If a ship explodes inside an asteroid field, including when due to the D6 damage from failing a leadership test to safely navigate an asteroid field, the explosion will hit all ships and ordnance within the asteroid field  up to 3D6cm away  but none outside the field, regardless of distance. Blast markers from the explosion are scattered throughout the asteroid field, each player taking it in turns to place a blast marker.

Why make this rule?  Why not just have the ship explode in the normal manner and leave blast markers as close to the ship's location as possible?

Vessels used as planetary defenses such as Defense Monitors or system ships do not roll for leadership or have a leadership value just as other normal planetary defenses do not, with the exception that they reload ordnance (where applicable) on a nominal leadership of 7. This means that they cannot take on any special orders except Reload Ordnance. They can however attempt to Brace For Impact. Note that ships that can be fired on as defenses (such as Ork Roks or Kroot Warspheres) are otherwise ships in all other respects and roll for leadership as ships do.

The rule limiting planetary defenses to only using the reload ornance order is only supposed to apply to sattelite (immobile) defenses according to page 36 of the rulebook.  I would also mention whether or not sattelite defences can brace for impact.  I would suggest allowing them to do so.

Though Planetary  Defenses  cannot attempt other Special Orders, they automatically pass any leadership checks they are required to make, such as for navigating local celestial phenomena, etc., as they are intimately familiar with the local area of space they operate in.

Defense Monitors are terrifying opponents when there is a local warp rift, who knew?  I would just make them count as leadership 7 for all purposes and take all tests as normal.

Defences and Blast Marker Removal: You remove D6 blast markers from each defence with a speed of 0cm in each end phase after all  other actions in the end phase. This only applies to stationary defenses, not planetary defenses that behave as ships (such as monitors or system ships). This also does not apply to ships on standby or ships reduced to 0cm due to movement effects but otherwise capable of movement.

I would have ruled to the opposite here.  Ships regaining shields as they move away from blast markers is how shield regeneration is tracked mechanically.  Since sattelite defenses do not move a different method needed to be invented to keep their shields operational.  I would apply the same rule to ships that remain stationary for any reason because their shield generators should still function even if their engines are having a little trouble and they've already got enough problems.  I would probably only make stalled ships remove blast markers at the end of their own turns though.

Any fleet chosen from one of the fleet lists may also include reserves. This applies to fleets in the rulebook, Armada or any other official fleet list, such as those on the Games Workshop‟s Battlefleet Gothic Resources website. For every three battleships, cruisers or escorts chosen from the fleet list, you may also pick one ship of the same type from another fleet list belonging to the same race. For example, or every three cruisers picked from the Gothic Sector Fleet List on p.115 of the rulebook, you may pick one cruiser from the Segmentum Solar Fleet List on p.27 of Armada, from the Adeptus Mechanicus Fleet List or from any other published fleet list. Only ships of the same “type” (battleship, cruiser or escort) count for reserves purposes so you can‟t pick three escorts from one fleet list and use them to qualify for a battleship from another. Also, for these purposes light cruisers, cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers and grand cruisers all count as “cruisers,” so that three cruisers from one fleet list would qualify you to take a grand cruiser from another fleet list of the same race as a reserve.  Reserves are still subjected to restrictions on minimum and maximum numbers of certain types of vessels. For example, having three Chaos cruisers (such as a Murder, Carnage and Devastation) entitles a 12th Black Crusade Incursion Fleet to have a Repulsive grand cruiser. It also entitles the fleet to have one reserve cruiser such as the Executor grand cruiser, but that ship cannot be taken because you must have at least four cruisers to have two grand cruisers, not merely three.

The example at the end is wrong.  It should say "at least six cruisers" rather than "at least four cruisers".

Except where specifically allowed in a given fleet list, no fleet may use both allies and reserves at the same time. For example, a Gothic Sector fleet list cannot take both reserves from the Segmentum Solar fleet list and Deimurg Bastion commerce vessels at the same time, though it may use either one or the other. However, just as a fleet can take any number of reserves as long as restrictions are followed concerning the number taken compared to the core fleet list, the number of allied vessels the fleet takes is only limited by the rules applied to the allied fleet as long as all other restrictions concerning reserves are also followed.

Since Demiurg in a Tau fleet are mentioned a couple times previously as examples of allies does this mean that Tau fleets containing Demiurg, Kroot, or Nicassar cannot take reserves?  Does this mean an Armageddon fleet including Space Marines can't inclue reserves?  I don't think that is your intention but I'm unsure.

Concerning allies:  I'm prettymuch baffled by this entire section.  It seems to be a big list of cans and can'ts but doesn't really explain when or how this is important.  For example, Orks and Dark Eldar could be allies, but I don't really understand how or when this is possible.  Are you just saying that if there was a variant Ork list that allowed you to take Dark Eldar ships then that would be okay?  How is giving this list of who can ally with whom important?  If there was a Necron list that specifically said you could take Tyranid allies (even though that would be so completely wrong) that would just override this list anyway, wouldn't it?

I would be very tempted to do away with the section entirely and just put the specific limitations you are trying to achieve in the appropriate ship or fleet listings.  For example, add a rule to the Demiurg that fleets containing them may not include reserves unless the Demiurg ships are actually listed in the fleet list.

[lastspartacus]

Congrats for going through it.  I expected it to pass by unread like a health care bill

[horizon]

Hi Masque,
not being a HA member I still like to mention I appreciate your work.

Did this somehow get left out of the .pdf of the rulebook? I can't find the bonus for escorts or penalty of AAF in asteroid fields anywhere and the rule about taking a leadership test at all is only alluded to. I don't have my hardcopy here to check. Assuming it's not in the .pdf you may want to write these rules out in full.

Correct. This is an ommission on the v15 rulebook. Only discovered this year. Doh. But the rule from v1.0 is correct and still in place as I understood from Ray Bell. Thus with AAF penalty, escort re-roll, etc..

allies

I agree.
Some notes are odd (DE & CE will work together if needed!) so dropping the section seems okay to me.

[Zelnik]

I got an idea while working out this evening, a new command (not special order) for ships (some factions won't have access to it).

"Abandon Ship!": Due to the death of the commander, or a ship suffering major damage with no hope of survival, the commander of the vessel orders the ship be evacuated to preserve the talented officers and crew of the ship, even if the ship is lost. A vessel may only attempt to abandon ship if it is crippled. Use the same modifiers for disengaging a vessel, but add +1 to the leadership value (as it's not hard to convince a crew to get off a burning ship!).  If successful, the ship is immediately considered a drifting hulk, and the opponent gains 50% of it's victory points, not including crew or commanders (who safely escaped)

Tyranids cannot do this (as there is no crew to evacuate)
Necrons cannot do this (they can just phase out, the bony gits)

[lastspartacus]

Well, thats interesting.  An alternate to disengaging.

[Sigoroth]

I got an idea while working out this evening, a new command (not special order) for ships (some factions won't have access to it).

"Abandon Ship!": Due to the death of the commander, or a ship suffering major damage with no hope of survival, the commander of the vessel orders the ship be evacuated to preserve the talented officers and crew of the ship, even if the ship is lost. A vessel may only attempt to abandon ship if it is crippled. Use the same modifiers for disengaging a vessel, but add +1 to the leadership value (as it's not hard to convince a crew to get off a burning ship!).  If successful, the ship is immediately considered a drifting hulk, and the opponent gains 50% of it's victory points, not including crew or commanders (who safely escaped)

Tyranids cannot do this (as there is no crew to evacuate)
Necrons cannot do this (they can just phase out, the bony gits)

IN cannot do this, because they'd be executed by their own commanders.

[Plaxor]

IN cannot do this, because they'd be executed by their own commanders.

Sigoroth wins at arguing. Execution=Imperial solution for everything.

IMHO the only race who could do this order would be the tau, who would likely be effed anyways, as only their larger vessels have warp drives, and it takes them 7x as long to get to an area. Plenty of time for the opposing fleet to; murder, torture, eat, whatever them.

Eldar it's arguable, but the not getting home thing is another issue for them. Less risky to just ride it out and hope that you survive.

[Sigoroth]

Not to mention that they'd just try to disengage rather than abandon ship. 

[Zelnik]

If a normal crew member fled, they would be executed, a high ranking naval officer? not so much. 

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Actually, a high ranking office has a high probability that he would be executed. Execution Hour shows how concerned the captain was of how easily the onboard Kommissar could kill him easily if the latter thought he was justified in doing so. A book yes but one which flows in line with GW fluff and IG rules which make note of the Kommissar's judicial powers.