BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[Sigoroth]

Actually, the "firepower" column is not part of the gunnery chart, it is merely a label. So the furthest left you could go is the "defences" column. Tables have label columns and rows which do not make up part of the sample space and are not relevant, since it's an abstraction. For example, suppose that instead of being firepower 6, 12, 20, etc, it was 60, 120 and 200 but that the number of dice you actually got to roll stayed the same. So 60 WBs would give 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 attack dice, depending on aspect and modifiers, just like 6 WB does now. Now suppose you were firing from close range at a defence. Would you get a left column shift and go from 5 dice to 60? No, of course not. The amount of firepower is an abstraction and not a valid part of the table. This can be confirmed by the bold line separating the firepower column from the defences column.

However, having said all that, I do believe that it's "doable". The abstraction used is linear to the firepower, so instead of increasing by a factor of 10 as given in my example, it flows on quite neatly (6 WB could give 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 dice normally, so the next logical step up would be 6). Also, this takes some of the abstraction out of the number of WBs a given ship has since it would mean that at maximum potential you actually get 1 attack per point of firepower. This makes more sense (thematically) than always getting some attenuation. I also believe that the extra column gives greater depth to the game, because it makes it more rewarding when you manage it.

So, in principle and desire I think that we should use that column. I just don't think we do, given the way the table is set out.

[lastspartacus]

Got it, so you cant hit defences easier from being close to them?  Should we?  Thats the question, as Sig said.

[Sigoroth]

Got it, so you cant hit defences easier from being close to them?  Should we?  Thats the question, as Sig said.

As I said I think we should, but it should be noted that it's not just close range against defences that this is relevant. When you're battling in the inner 4 combat zones of a system (ie, not outer reaches or deep space) and firing into the sun your range shifts are doubled (close and long). So if you're close range, shooting into the sun, in one of the first 4 zones and firing at a closing cap ship you'll also get this column. Also, some weapon systems get a left shift on their gunnery, so they just need to be close range against closing cap ship. So it's a slightly more common occurrence than just point blank against defences. Something to keep in mind.

[RCgothic]

I'd like to officially propose the critical hit rolls for port/starboard weapons offline be changed.

As is:

4: Starboard Weapons Offline. On rolls of: 1+3, 3+1, 2+2, for 3/36.
5: Port Weapons Offline. On rolls of 1+4, 4+1, 2+3, 3+2, for 4/46.

It's a bit ridiculous that the right side of the ship is apparently better warded by the Omnisiah than the left.

So changed to:

4/5: Roll a D6, on 1-3 Starboard Weapons Offline, on 4-6, Port Weapons offline.

[Sigoroth]

Yeah, this disparity has been known for a long time, which is why good commanders always keep the enemy to their right! 

Seriously though, I'd be down with a 50/50 split on results of 4/5. You'd have to roll each time as well, since you can get multiple crits to the one location (so if starboard go offline the first time you don't automatically offline port weapons on the second crit).

[RCgothic]

Not sure if this has been asked before, but given the scale and complexity of this FAQ/tweak, wouldn't it be a lot easier and less confusing to just re-write the rulebook?

[Don Gusto]

I'd like to officially propose the critical hit rolls for port/starboard weapons offline be changed.

As is:

4: Starboard Weapons Offline. On rolls of: 1+3, 3+1, 2+2, for 3/36.
5: Port Weapons Offline. On rolls of 1+4, 4+1, 2+3, 3+2, for 4/46.

It's a bit ridiculous that the right side of the ship is apparently better warded by the Omnisiah than the left.

Well for starters you've got the wrong numbers.
Starboard weapons is crit result 3, thus 2/36.
Port weapons is crit result 4, 3/36.

Personally I'd rather have this small disparity than another die roll but there is more to consider.
Ships without dorsal weapons (all cruisers) will also receive a starboard crit on a result of 2 (1/36). In this case the odds are an even 3/36.
Also all criticals dealt by H&R are generated by a single die, resulting in equal odds of 1/6 unless that ship has no dorsal weapons.
Oh boy.
Please just leave it as it is.

[RCgothic]

I'd like to officially propose the critical hit rolls for port/starboard weapons offline be changed.

As is:

4: Starboard Weapons Offline. On rolls of: 1+3, 3+1, 2+2, for 3/36.
5: Port Weapons Offline. On rolls of 1+4, 4+1, 2+3, 3+2, for 4/46.

It's a bit ridiculous that the right side of the ship is apparently better warded by the Omnisiah than the left.

Well for starters you've got the wrong numbers.
Starboard weapons is crit result 3, thus 2/36.
Port weapons is crit result 4, 3/36.

Personally I'd rather have this small disparity than another die roll but there is more to consider.
Ships without dorsal weapons (all cruisers) will also receive a starboard crit on a result of 2 (1/36). In this case the odds are an even 3/36.
Also all criticals dealt by H&R are generated by a single die, resulting in equal odds of 1/6 unless that ship has no dorsal weapons.
Oh boy.
Please just leave it as it is.

Sorry for recalling the numbers incorrectly, and it's a good point that for cruisers the difference cancels out, but what you've just said is that hit and run attacks agaisnt cruisers are 50% more likely to hurt Starboard than Port (hadly a rare occurence!), and anything with dorsal weapons is also afflicted. I'd much rather have an extra dice roll than live with a 50% disparity!

The new system would not be biased by any of those considerations, IIRC:

2: Dorsal Weapons
3/4 Port 1-3 SB 4-6
5 Prow
6 Engine Room

Dorsal weapons criticals would be spread evenly between Port/SB.

[flybywire-E2C]

I'd like to officially propose the critical hit rolls for port/starboard weapons offline be changed.

As is:

4: Starboard Weapons Offline. On rolls of: 1+3, 3+1, 2+2, for 3/36.
5: Port Weapons Offline. On rolls of 1+4, 4+1, 2+3, 3+2, for 4/46.

It's a bit ridiculous that the right side of the ship is apparently better warded by the Omnisiah than the left.

Well for starters you've got the wrong numbers.
Starboard weapons is crit result 3, thus 2/36.
Port weapons is crit result 4, 3/36.

Personally I'd rather have this small disparity than another die roll but there is more to consider.
Ships without dorsal weapons (all cruisers) will also receive a starboard crit on a result of 2 (1/36). In this case the odds are an even 3/36.
Also all criticals dealt by H&R are generated by a single die, resulting in equal odds of 1/6 unless that ship has no dorsal weapons.
Oh boy.
Please just leave it as it is.

Sorry for recalling the numbers incorrectly, and it's a good point that for cruisers the difference cancels out, but what you've just said is that hit and run attacks agaisnt cruisers are 50% more likely to hurt Starboard than Port (hadly a rare occurence!), and anything with dorsal weapons is also afflicted. I'd much rather have an extra dice roll than live with a 50% disparity!

The new system would not be biased by any of those considerations, IIRC:

2: Dorsal Weapons
3/4 Port 1-3 SB 4-6
5 Prow
6 Engine Room

Dorsal weapons criticals would be spread evenly between Port/SB.

For teh record, the HA's are not entertaining any changes to the critical damage table.

- Nate

[RCgothic]

Shame.

Just have to continue using it as a house rule.

[Plaxor]

Just read through the Faq and here are my questions;

Pre-measurement: The wording doesn’t show any limitations on when players can pre-measure, or what they can pre-measure. Could a player say measure from his ship on the other side of the table to an enemy ship, or to celestial phenomena? Could a player in the movement phase measure his weapon ranges from ‘where he will be’? Are players limited to their weapon/movement distances when measuring

Blast markers: So what I’m getting out of this is that if two ships are in BTB then blast markers can be placed to affect both ships. Blast markers must be placed around the ships base but not on top of a base, so if there are no other options then these markers are stacked. What if the ship doesn’t have enough space around it to place a blast marker at all (say it is surrounded completely by ships?). I also understand that blast markers should be placed so that they only affect the ship targeted if it has no ships in btb, but has some near it. Again what if there  isn’t enough space?

Exterminatus weapons: You say that a ship loses its prow weapon, but what about ships with multiple prow weapons, such as ork Kroozers? Does the player pick which weapon he loses, or does he lose both?

Ordinance and when its launched: at the end of the shooting phase. Why not say at the beginning of the ordinance phase before any attack craft are moved? Also there is no reference as to when attack craft are recalled to the ship.

Splitting torp salvoes, you say that any ship with 6 or more torpedo tubes can split their torps into two groups with each having no less than four torpedos. This would mean that a ship would need 8 torpedo tubes not six, did you mean 3?

The whole thing about how to place torpedo salvoes is kind of confusing. I would say instead that at the torpedoes must be completely within the firing arc of the ship that launched them at the end of their movement, and properly angled accordingly. (or potential movement in the case of hitting a ship extremely close)

Multiple ships and boarding: you say that each ship can roll separately for it’s boarding result. Is this one at a time or simultaneous? I.E. 2 ork ships are boarding an imperial cruiser, the ork player elects to roll separately, The orks, simply have a current +1 racial modifier. So the first ship rolls, doing two points of damage to the imperial cruiser, would the second ship now have an additional +1 for outnumbering the enemy ship? Or would he stay the same as before the damage occurred?

“asteroids are treated as minefields” shouldn’t this be removed? Or stated as asteroids are treated like minefields.

Defences and blast marker removal, is the d6 in addition to the normal  d6 of the end phases blast marker removal or is it “d6 of your allowed blast marker removal may be from defences”?

Allies; you say that demiurg and kroot will never fire upon each other, I assume that this means that kroot will never shoot at kroot, and demiurg will never fire at demiurg either?

[horizon]

My bets:

Just read through the Faq and here are my questions

Heh, about time...

Pre-measurement: The wording doesn’t show any limitations on when players can pre-measure, or what they can pre-measure. Could a player say measure from his ship on the other side of the table to an enemy ship, or to celestial phenomena? Could a player in the movement phase measure his weapon ranges from ‘where he will be’? Are players limited to their weapon/movement distances when measuring

Pre-Measuring to me is pre-measuring all and everything.

Ordinance and when its launched: at the end of the shooting phase. Why not say at the beginning of the ordinance phase before any attack craft are moved? Also there is no reference as to when attack craft are recalled to the ship.

iirc correcly ordnance is recalled at beginning of movement phase (rulebook). Shooting phase is easier = launch bay 'shoots' ordnance.

Splitting torp salvoes, you say that any ship with 6 or more torpedo tubes can split their torps into two groups with each having no less than four torpedos. This would mean that a ship would need 8 torpedo tubes not six, did you mean 3?

Good catch, I missed the '4' part somehow.

Defences and blast marker removal, is the d6 in addition to the normal d6 of the end phases blast marker removal or is it “d6 of your allowed blast marker removal may be from defences”?

per rulebook an additional D6 to normal D6 for BM removal.

[Sigoroth]

I immensely dislike the way ordnance is measured, btw. As it stands you simply measure out from your stem 20cm or 30cm or whatever and place the ordnance there and torps have to be completely within its firing arc. I much prefer the place in base contact, centre of marker can straddle the arc line, move in ordnance phase full distance.

I really dislike the argument that they get more range in the turn that they're launched because of base size, or BBs get longer range torps because of their increased base size, etc. It's not as if the torpedoes were live as soon as they came out of the ship ... if they were they'd hit the launching ship! Torps are a fire and forget type of armament, that have their own set of stats. Hate that people bitched about torps acting differently to direct fire weaponry. Of course they do, they're bloody different!

[Plaxor]

oh, and every single time in the faq you say 12th black crusade, shouldn't this be 13th?

And sigoroth, I feel for you, I liked the other way better and I'm surprised that the HA's decided to go with such a small template size for torps (3) I probably would've done 5 or six, as nearly every vessel that launches torps can launch 6.

I feel that it's weird to nerf the size or torpedo salvoes but not alter the size of waves of craft. It seems weird to me that they would do that but not make you use 1 bomber to represent  a whole wave, with a d6 next to it. The argument is still valid, the same as torps, that it doesn't make sense that if the one on the end hits you they all magically do, but if a single torp barely passes you then it can't hit you. But for waves? all you have to do is have one corner of your block of six be in range and then the whole thing hits.

Just an oddity that I don't exactly understand.

[Mazila]

Came up from our SM post:

How to count turrets if the previous round of boarding combat was drawn?

1) Do you take turns in taking them into account depending who's turn it is?
2) Do you just ignore it since the ships are clamped together?

I personally think that 2 variant should be fairer.

BM in contact - as per FAQ atm a blastmerker counts as being all around. If 2 ships are boarding each other and thuss are in base contact, do they count as both being in touch with bm or not - clarification is needed.