BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[Sigoroth]

argument for current gunnery table:

im sure its written somewhere that a lance strike is a precision attack, directed at a ship, and weapon batteries are more of a 'fill space with explosions' (like a shotgun) kind of weapon. assuming this is the case, then every time WB's fire then against an 'invisible target', they will still know the rough location, and by sheer weight of numnbers 1 or 2 will hit. conversely, against a short range defence, that element of 'scatter' will still cause 10% of hits to go astray.

Well, for the first part, if your target is practically invisible then you've got almost no chance of hitting it. Space is very big. Still, with enough firepower it's plausible. Hence the firepower reductions. As for always scattering, I don't think that's necessarily the case. Sure, as a way of compensating for movement a saturation effect is  fine, but when you don't have to compensate and don't have to saturate an area then it just comes down to being able to actually point the guns at the target properly. Easier at close range.

[Don Gusto]

I have always assumed that the additional rules for transports (-1 Leadership, +3d6 on AAF) also apply to all possible variants although this is nowhere mentioned.
Thus an Escort Carrier would have a Leadership value of 5-8, an additional -1 Leadership modifier to Reload Ordnance and only travel an additional 3d6 on AAF.

Is this correct? And regarding the Rogue Traders List does this also apply to "Transports" that are included as part of the fleet?

[Sigoroth]

By the way, the example in the reserves section of the FAQ is wrong. You say with 6 cruisers you can pull in a reserve CG from a Bastion list and a reserver battleship from the AdMech. You'd need 3 BBs to pull in a reserve BB.

[lastspartacus]

Does anyone find the 'add turrets' caveat to ships defending against boarding to be pretty steep?
In a game of mine, orks vs Admech, I actually fought a losing battle in my boarding actions, because even though I possessed so many bonuses, every vessel got at least a +3.  Forget about the 5 turret battleship!

[Zelnik]

Can I suggest a modification to the campaign rules regarding character vessels (now that they are popping up more often)

In a campaign, if you lose a character ship, it may not be replaced, instead, replace it with ships or squadrons equal to it's point value. (this way you are a little more careful throwing the Arc Mechanicus or the Conqueror into a battle)

[Sigoroth]

Does anyone find the 'add turrets' caveat to ships defending against boarding to be pretty steep?
In a game of mine, orks vs Admech, I actually fought a losing battle in my boarding actions, because even though I possessed so many bonuses, every vessel got at least a +3.  Forget about the 5 turret battleship!

You know that the turret value gets added to the BV, not the dice roll right? So if one 8 hit cruiser boards another 8 hit, 2 turret cruiser it will be BV 8 vs BV 10, meaning the defending ship has a higher BV, giving it +1 to its boarding roll. An 8 hit cruiser boarding an Emperor would normally be BV 8 vs BV 12, giving the Emp +1 to its dice, but since the Emp adds turrets it becomes BV 8 vs BV 17 meaning the Emp gets +2 instead. So even in this example it only gives +1 bonus. If we take the example of a SM SC (BV 6) going against an Emperor (BV 12) the Empy gets +2 to its dice due to doubling the SCs BV. If the Empy is the defender it gets to add turrets, which makes it BV 17 which means it still only gets +2. So in this example the turrets did nothing to help the Emperor, even though it was +5. In most circumstances you'll just get +1 for being the defender.

Can I suggest a modification to the campaign rules regarding character vessels (now that they are popping up more often)

In a campaign, if you lose a character ship, it may not be replaced, instead, replace it with ships or squadrons equal to it's point value. (this way you are a little more careful throwing the Arc Mechanicus or the Conqueror into a battle)

A good point, worth taking on board.

[lastspartacus]

No, didn't realize that -_-

[lastspartacus]

It has been brought to my attention that you may repair twice in a turn, in each end phase.

I have never played BFG this way.  If you knock out a weapon, you have to deal with it for a turn before you have time to repair it.

I dislike this idea of instant and worry free repairs, and vote that repairs should only take place in one's own end phase.

[lastspartacus]

Another random thought:  The high-end of the critical hits.  Can one well placed uber cannonball really take more than half the hits off a Battleship?

Also, what thoughts of 'cascading criticals'  through critical damage.

[Vaaish]

Can one well placed uber cannonball really take more than half the hits off a Battleship?

The Death Star says yes.

But yes, a hull breach could be the result of secondary explosions if a shot penetrates a power conduit or magazine. HMS Hood anyone?

[RCgothic]

I for one would not mind having cascading criticals...

[horizon]

Against.

[lastspartacus]

In BFG, a hit of damage represents a square city-block sized ruin of flame and destruction, and mass deaths.  I just don't see any one hit doing that kind of damage in BFG scale.  But its no biggy.

Why against cascading crits?

Edit: dont see any one hit doing SEVEN HITS worth of damage.

[Zhukov]

I, for one, have always played with cascading criticals and thoroughly enjoy it

-Zhukov

[Browncoat(USA)]

I am, with all due respect, also against cascading critical hits.  I'm not saying that domino effects don't happen in ship-to-ship combat.  But the idea of a "cascading critical" is, IMHO, already demonstrated by the 11(Hull Breach) and 12(Bulkhead Collapse) result on the critical chart (where a single hit causes a series of additional explosions - think of the H.M.S. Hood).