BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[horizon]

Just drop the whole overlapping thing. My humble opinion.

[Mazila]

"Blast Markers and Multiple Bases: When a ship has multiple bases in contact and its shield goes down, the blast marker may be placed anywhere on this ships base potentially taking down other ships shields. This has no limitation to the number of ships shields the blast marker can take down"

TBH this will be a cause of arguments and a waste of time during the game since some beardy players will be placing blast markers in such way so that it is in front of ships next to it causing them -5cm movement even if fire came from the other side and the ships were not in base contact. Also it's unclear on who places the blast markers.

I suggest that blastmarker in contact with a ship, no matter from where it came, counts as being all around for the purpose of downing shields of other ships in base contact, but must be placed as close as possible to the direction the hit came from. This is fair and makes logical sence.

Also, this means that only 1 shield will ever be taken down from ships in base contact but from all ships at once, which i think is fair trade for mass turret.

So to be absolutely clear on what i mean:  If a ship has at least one blast marker in contact it's base counts as blast marker for all ships in btb contact.

[RayB HA]

Don Gusto,

Ships on a planetary template: This is up for review right now. I’m of the view that if you’re on the template turning towards it would mean going down/up so there would be no game effect, as it’s a very abstract world.

Fighting Sunward: Yep, with a very lose interpretation of the wording we’ve ‘clarified’ it so this only effects the first 3 zones to coincide with the flares and radiation bursts and also to give gamers less of a headache.

Boarding modifiers: Good point, you cannot get the same modifier twice, this will definitely be added.

Flying bases overlapping and stacking: This is just a clarification of the rules at present, this isn’t a change. You are right though it is open for a abuse, the nightshade thing not so much however.
Hiding ships inside a large base goes far beyond escorts hiding in on a BB’s base: cruisers can do it too! And for Necrons this is brutal!
Not to mention that if you wanted to you could use a Large flying base for a Dictator and protect a Dauntless inside its turret coverage completely stopping bombers from attacking it.
Although slightly risky you could also hide small defences on a Ramilies base.

Now there are 2 solutions to this I can see:
1.   Damage the already abstract 3d and make movement strangely awkward by banning overlapping.
2.   Allow AC to choose which ship to attack when bases completely overlap, as long as the AC can reach the target ships base with its remaining speed. (If the bases were the same size and they weren’t completely overlapping there is no problem). This will allow Aboats to attack an escort hiding on/in a large flying base.

I’m for number 2.


Mazila,

The attacking player places the BM, thanks for spotting that.

I think taking down every ships shields with one BM is a little harsh, unless you’re stacking!  

Cheers,

RayB HA

[horizon]

Please:
1.   Damage the already abstract 3d and make movement strangely awkward by banning overlapping.

Best option.

[RayB HA]

Roy,

The disadvantages are clear (except for Necrons), why are you against it?
Because less models will be used? You'll still need to be able to field all your ships if they weren't stacked.
Because it's annoying swaping a ship with a stemless flying base? It's annoying putting big ships with small bases next to each other as it is.
Because you're afraid of Necrons? 

Cheers RayB

[horizon]

Ray,
Never played vs Necrons.

Stacking/overlapping is uncool. You need to use markers to represent the ships (heading etc). It is a visual thing, yeah. What happens with a direct NC hit?
You will add a complex written rule with a lot of specialities and add-ons.

We have no problem with putting them next to each other. Sometimes you need to use a marker if it is really crowded but with stacking this problem will increase.

[trynerror]

I vote for banning.

But I play Orks and with Space Hulk and Rocks and their fixed movement I can´t avoid overlapping sometimes. Should a Rock go less than 10 cm in this case (given both units are Rocks) ?

As I supposed before, if overlapping will be kept bann overlapping of the stem and hiding of a smaller base in a large one is impossible

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Ray, your no. 2 rule would break the rule about AC attacking the first base it hits. Allowing something to break this rule when you can just remove the issue by declaring no stacking will just make things more problematic.

[RayB HA]

No overlapping if possible, is an okay solution. But I like the over/under element that gives the illusion of an extra dimension. Also it makes moving Eldar/Necron escorts alot easier  . This is still under consideration, please try to persuade me.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Mazila]

"making it 3d is just another range modifier" - isn't it what it was in the rulebook?  This game is about beautiful ships painted and assebeled into an army, not about 1 ship representing entire fleet.

Also you are complicating things that are meant to be simple. Stacking is against the core system of the game. I dont see any roblem to moove ships a couple of cm less or more to avoid stacking. I am surprised this topic even got here.

[horizon]

Good Call.

[RayB HA]

Mazila,

Why are you suprised to see this here? At current you are allowed to stack, I see this as being wide open for a abuse and wish to limit it. However I do like the abstract 3d that allows me to do so....

Cheers,

RayB HA

[Don Gusto]

if you’re on the template turning towards it would mean going down/up so there would be no game effect

My thoughts exactly.

you cannot get the same modifier twice

That simple sentence would clear it all up, including racial modifiers.

[russ_c]

On base stacking:  I agree with the rest of the BFG community who has spoken up.  No stacking allowed.  It provides a dangerous opportunity for far to many edge cases that will be debated in the future and will need a whole host of rule clarifications.  I would much rather see the placement of ships simplified in this case to make the game run more smooth.

Does this imply that I can deny my opponent from placing his own ships advantageously?  i.e. Will it deny him moving a ship between two of my own for a double broadside if there isn't space for his own base to sit on the table?  This is my only concern and would want the intention of the rule to properly address this.

Russ

[Mazila]

Mazila,

Why are you suprised to see this here? At current you are allowed to stack, I see this as being wide open for a abuse and wish to limit it. However I do like the abstract 3d that allows me to do so....

Cheers,

RayB HA

Ray, because not a single person i have played bfg has ever tried stacking anything )) It just never came into mind of any one i know. People dont stack 40k or FB but it also never says you can't stack ))

I think taking down every ships shields with one BM is a little harsh, unless you’re stacking!

 

Ray, it's not harsh. This means that only 1 shield ever will be taken down from a ship in btb. For escorts it will be harsher, but 4 turreted escort is a bit too much also, so i think it is a fair trade. This game is about tactical desigions.