BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[Sigoroth]

I also have no concerns with massed turrets having no downfall. The upshot is that just about any possible solution, whether it was leave it as it was, only allow manipulation of BMs beyond the first, dropping shield sharing rule, dropping massed turret rule, placement of extra BMs or whatever, it would have been better than the route they took.

[RCgothic]

Agreed. Blast Markers should have remained on the line of fire. This "Counts as All Round" rubbish has caused more confusion than it's worth 10 times over.

[Mazila]

Please give an example of how it caused confusion to you. There has never been a confusion in our games with regards to this.

[horizon]

Because it is FAQ'ed.
v1.0 needed no FAQ.

[Sigoroth]

Completely FAQ'd. Totally FAQ'd up I'd say.

[RCgothic]

[Mazila]

You know what, I've had another idea that could work. The first BM has to be placed as per original rules, subsequent BMs can be moved to bring down shields of ships in base contact. Bingo bango bongo and Bob's your aunty. Means escorts could freely mass turrets with each other, but otherwise it's still dangerous. Allow a-boats to keep their rofl-stomp rules against escorts; massed turrets should be all the defence they need. Also gives a reason to take large squad sizes. Sorted.

Another Idea which does not work - escorts have 1 shield

Horison:

Because it is FAQ'ed. Wink
v1.0 needed no FAQ.

Then clarify to me:

a cruiser has 2 shields - you have just scored 2 hits
you place 1 BM EXACTLY on the line of fire. How do you place another BM?

[horizon]

However, as Horizon says, the 1.0 BM rules were manipulation free. You placed the BM in base contact with the target ship only, on a direct line from the firing ship, and subsequent BMs were placed fanned out around the first. No abuse possible.

[Sigoroth]

You know what, I've had another idea that could work. The first BM has to be placed as per original rules, subsequent BMs can be moved to bring down shields of ships in base contact. Bingo bango bongo and Bob's your aunty. Means escorts could freely mass turrets with each other, but otherwise it's still dangerous. Allow a-boats to keep their rofl-stomp rules against escorts; massed turrets should be all the defence they need. Also gives a reason to take large squad sizes. Sorted.

Another Idea which does not work - escorts have 1 shield

Er, I just said that. Look at what you've quoted. I say "means escorts could freely mass turrets with each other, but otherwise it's still dangerous". What doesn't work about this? Works perfectly fine.

Horison:

Because it is FAQ'ed. Wink
v1.0 needed no FAQ.

Then clarify to me:

a cruiser has 2 shields - you have just scored 2 hits
you place 1 BM EXACTLY on the line of fire. How do you place another BM?

Next to it. What's the problem here? What don't you get? There is no manipulation that could beardily boost your firepower here. The BM can't be placed in contact with a nearby ship. You've already blocked your own LoF with the first one. There's no problem here.

[Sigoroth]

BMs were placed fanned out around the first.

Does that mean to the left or to the right of it? Who decides is it to the left or is it to the right?

Yes, it means to the left or right. The attacking player decides. What's your point? There's no manipulation here that illogically boosts your firepower. Your opponent does the same to you, so there's no balance issue. What exactly is your point?

[Mazila]

Sry, deleted

Does that mean to the left or to the right of it? Who decides is it to the left or is it to the right?

because I wanted to post it again.

My point is that if opponent decides then there is manipulation to it. And if this is the case then I can manipulate the BM to be placed so that another ship shooting from the same arc may fire without modifier and this is what "all around" tried to fix.

[horizon]

What? There is no manipulation. Left or Right; attacker decides. If that leads to no intervening marker -> good with it.
Try to pull it off though.

[Sigoroth]

My point is that if opponent decides then there is manipulation to it. And if this is the case then I can manipulate the BM to be placed so that another ship shooting from the same arc may fire without modifier and this is what "all around" tried to fix.

There is no manipulation. In fact, in our group we centralised the BMs as much as possible. So the two BMs would naturally fall to the left and right of the line, but would touch so they covered the entire area. But it doesn't matter either way. With the first BM placed in the LoF then there's interference against 90% of your fleets fire. This was NOT the reason the rule was changed. The rule was changed simply because of the shared shield rule.

[Mazila]

But in our gaming comunity we don't even bother about it, we just treat at as bein all around for all purposes, basically we treat a a base of a ship with BM as a big BM itself - pure and simple. And we try to place the physical bm's as close to LOF as possible.

I hope HA finds the best solution this time again.

[horizon]

So, your group is fine with the loss of an important tactical element. Plus making lances more valuable then batteries.