BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[RCgothic]

I completely agree with horizon and Sig that blast markers should go back to the way they were in v1.0

[Mazila]

This is not an IMPORTANT tactical element - if you can pull that off it simply means that oponent will be shooting you from 2 broadsides which doubles his firepower. And in most cases you will be shooting through your own BM anyway.

Oh yeah, you just nerfed light cruisers because they have 1 shield and it can't obscure all as good as 2 shielded CR

[horizon]

This is not an IMPORTANT tactical element - if you can pull that off it simply means that oponent will be shooting you from 2 broadsides which doubles his firepower. And in most cases you will be shooting through your own BM anyway.

Tactical:
I move my 1st murder to the port of your lunar and fire --> Blastmarker placed/shields downed.
I move my 2nd murder to the starboard of your lunar and fire at a ship with shields down but no intervening blastmarkers.

Thus tactical play enhanced, thus batteries more valuable (lances negate BM anyway).

Oh yeah, you just nerfed light cruisers because they have 1 shield and it can't obscure all as good as 2 shielded CR

Not really. Nerve is across the whole range.

[Mazila]

And then Lunar and the rest of the Imperial fleet fire from 2 broadsides.

You could achieve the same result by squardroning those murders together.

What did you achieve? Got +1 dice roll for shooting from non-bm side?

It's not a nerf for the entire range since 2 bm, as Sig pointed block 90% of LOF, but 1 bm can't do that

The point is - it CAN provide you with tactical move at some point, but it does more bad than good and i still prefer a more general solution

[Sigoroth]

And then Lunar and the rest of the Imperial fleet fire from 2 broadsides.

You could achieve the same result by squardroning those murders together.

What did you achieve? Got +1 dice roll for shooting from non-bm side?

It's not a nerf for the entire range since 2 bm, as Sig pointed block 90% of LOF, but 1 bm can't do that

The point is - it CAN provide you with tactical move at some point, but it does more bad than good and i still prefer a more general solution

Hmm, or I move a couple of escorts behind him, drop his shields and then blow him away with the rest of my entire fleet. Not tactical now? And why the hell should a ship get to automatically hide behind shield impacts anyway? The shields end up preventing more damage by being down than by being up. But either which way, you are assuming that without the original rule your enemy will never get to break your lines and fire both broadsides ... Also, since 1 shield overloading produces less interference than 2 shields overloading then why should 1 shield ships have as much "protection" from the interference as 2 shield ships?

And how is your "general solution" a solution at all? What does it solve? The minuscule bit of beardiness that the shared shield rule brought in? That wasn't even broken. It was simply illogical. The all-round BM is even less logical! So this solution exacerbates the problem that it was meant to solve in the first place.

[Mazila]

Sig, please read more carefully. I am saying we treat base of a ship with BM as a BM so all in contact with it count as being in contact with a single BM.

The rest with tactics etc is just your metagame against our one.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I'm late coming in but I myself saw no real reason for the change in the original rules in the BBB. They should go back. More intuitive.

[Sigoroth]

Sig, please read more carefully. I am saying we treat base of a ship with BM as a BM so all in contact with it count as being in contact with a single BM.

The rest with tactics etc is just your metagame against our one.

Yeeeees, and your metagame is weaker, what's your point? Counting the BM as all round simply limits tactical options and reduces the comparative value of WBs to other weaponry. That's all it does. It solves no problems. It makes no sense. There was no imperative for the change. It isn't easier or better or simpler.

I know that you count the ships base as a BM when it's in contact with a BM, which is completely ridiculous btw (not to mention not the rule), since that could mean that a BM that takes up roughly 2cm² could potentially spread to occupy many hundreds of square cm by spreading from base to base.

[Mazila]

Sig, please read more carefully. I am saying we treat base of a ship with BM as a BM so all in contact with it count as being in contact with a single BM.

The rest with tactics etc is just your metagame against our one.

Yeeeees, and your metagame is weaker, what's your point? Counting the BM as all round simply limits tactical options and reduces the comparative value of WBs to other weaponry. That's all it does. It solves no problems. It makes no sense. There was no imperative for the change. It isn't easier or better or simpler.

I know that you count the ships base as a BM when it's in contact with a BM, which is completely ridiculous btw (not to mention not the rule), since that could mean that a BM that takes up roughly 2cm² could potentially spread to occupy many hundreds of square cm by spreading from base to base.

Not really SIg, It's just different. And you really have to understand that if it has been working well for others for ceveral years it does not mean it is bad. To me some things you guys do makes no sence but it's just the way you play it. And no, it does not spread for 100500m km by making a train of ships - you are first to think of making it more like a virus. And to us making rules universal is more important than making tons of small fixes to every bug you find and then to the bug that fix caused etc...

[Sigoroth]

Not really SIg, It's just different. And you really have to understand that if it has been working well for others for ceveral years it does not mean it is bad. To me some things you guys do makes no sence but it's just the way you play it. And no, it does not spread for 100500m km by making a train of ships - you are first to think of making it more like a virus

I don't know how you could possibly think that the all-round BM doesn't make for dumbed down tactics. It's like satirising a lion to an audience of hyenas. They laugh but don't get it.

As for the spreading BM, I'd like to know how it doesn't spread. According to your rules when a BM is placed in contact with a base, that base is treated as a BM. If that base is touching another base then that base would also be treated as a BM (since the first base is treated exactly like a BM). Repeat ad nauseum.

[Mazila]

Because it does not really make any difference. Normally you would not sacrifice escorts or enable enemy to fire from 2 broadsides just to get rid of a modyfier. You could do this in some minor instance and in dogfight style fighting on a small table. Unless you are covering 90% of the LOF with 1 salvo and using those 10% with the rest of ya fleet, but thats a cunning manuver, not an exploit, right? )

So if you do this i will deffinately have a point about dumbed down tactics.

Sig i got ya point about spreading but no-one here EVER thought of it this way, and probably during the last FAQ either so stop making that crazy statement - no-one plays it like that.

[Trasvi]

The shields end up preventing more damage by being down than by being up

I think that is the crux of the problem.

[RCgothic]

Firmly on the side of the people wanting this rule changed back to v1.0

It's illogical and confusing the way it is.

[Sigoroth]

Because it does not really make any difference. Normally you would not sacrifice escorts or enable enemy to fire from 2 broadsides just to get rid of a modyfier. You could do this in some minor instance and in dogfight style fighting on a small table. Unless you are covering 90% of the LOF with 1 salvo and using those 10% with the rest of ya fleet, but thats a cunning manuver, not an exploit, right? )

So if you do this i will deffinately have a point about dumbed down tactics.

Actually, given how severe the penalties for forming squadrons are this is a staple tactic in our group. Besides, working escorts to the rear of the enemy is a long margin from "sacrificing". Not only do they knock down shields to dramatically increase the effectiveness of the rest of the fleet (you underestimate the value of this "modifier"), but they also force the opponent to either divert AC or ships from the attack to handle them. Also it is almost impossible to stop a fleet like the IN from breaking your line at some point and using both broadsides. They're built to do it. So if you take a little extra fire from one or two ships (against which you will brace) so as to ensure your target is vaporised then this is a worthwhile pursuit. Certainly you have the option of not doing it, if that's what you'd prefer.

Sig i got ya point about spreading but no-one here EVER thought of it this way, and probably during the last FAQ either so stop making that crazy statement - no-one plays it like that.

OK, so your own group did not follow your rule to its logical conclusion. Having had the issue pointed out how do you now feel about the idea of the base becoming a BM just because it touches a BM?

[Mazila]

Sig it has no affect, since it just does not work the way you say. I was using it so that i am clear on the mechanic.

Better example: Say - you have 2 ships:

Half of the base of ship 1 is in the dust cloud. Ship 1 is in btb with ship 1. The dust cloud has no effect on ship 2 but has is on ship 1.

Same thing here Ship with bm is treated as  "a dust cloud" for purpose of understanding which ships it affects.