BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[Valhallan]

the stacking argument is one of the most ridiculous things ever.

stacking ships: offers practically zero bonus'.
1.) your shooting will be a few cm closer. 2.) enemy shooting will be a few cm further
with a major drawback
1.) if your hit, YOUR SHIELDS DROP ON EVERY SHIP
2.) a direct NC hit can wipe out an entire squadron.

stacking torp salvos:
1) violation of the rules imho, because torps that touch other torps (friendly or enemy) are both removed.

stacking AC:
the only worthwhile argument. stacking keeps those massive tau waves from taking up as much space as a planet. also decreases wave size/formation abuse.

with no stacking allowed, the only issue would be as russ said, with ships in close order preventing a double broadside between them.
three possible solutions:
1.) if not in b2b, ships must be 5cm apart (like fantasy and 40k style). this allows a cruiser to fly between two close ships, but not a big bulky BB.
2.) bit your lip, either torp the ships in close-by formation, or board them.
3.) no *friendly* stacking. a single enemy ship may fly between your two bases, and unload that double broadside. obviously, two enemy ships cannot stack and fly between as that is a violation of "no friendly stacking"

feel free to comment/complain, or expand on this.
however, if someone wants fluffily explain that escorts are smaller than cruisers and sqeeze more of them between two ships in close-by formation, they're gonna have to argue for smaller flying bases for escorts.

[Mazila]

1cm represents 1k km, base is 2cm you really think a ship needs that much distance not to collide? )

Nah, no need any fancy rules, you can always place ships closer or further away but just keep in mind actual position and then start to moove it from the actual point - no need complications.

[Zelnik]

I will make the point that some of these ships are over 5km long, so i fear your argument is somewhat invalid.

The base is a "zone of effect", an area in which 'stuff' can effect the ship, such as ordnance, astral phenomena, etc.  In regards to ramming and boarding, the declaration to do so is basically your ship using it's turn to move in contact with the enemy vessel. 

IF you want to stack your ships, do so, it means they all die faster to my weapons.

[Mazila]

I will make the point that some of these ships are over 5km long, so i fear your argument is somewhat invalid.

So a 5km ship needs 2000 Km to manuver?

[Valhallan]

My argument came from a game play standpoint, not a fluff standpoint. hence if you want to sqeeze between some ships, you need a small base.
rules are not made by fluff.

[russ_c]

with no stacking allowed, the only issue would be as russ said, with ships in close order preventing a double broadside between them.
three possible solutions:
1.) if not in b2b, ships must be 5cm apart (like fantasy and 40k style). this allows a cruiser to fly between two close ships, but not a big bulky BB.
2.) bit your lip, either torp the ships in close-by formation, or board them.
3.) no *friendly* stacking. a single enemy ship may fly between your two bases, and unload that double broadside. obviously, two enemy ships cannot stack and fly between as that is a violation of "no friendly stacking"

Solution 3 was what I had in my mind when I posed the problem...probably because that's how my group plays.  We never assumed friendly ships could stack, but if an enemy vessel needed to overlap to position its self, we allowed it.  BUT, when it's stated as a rule to follow it kind of left me feeling uncertain about how elegant the resolution was as an official rule.

Solution 2 isn't really a solution, you're just implying that any overlapping, enemy or friendly, is not allowed therefore you have to choose a different action.

Solution 1, doesn't seem like an option to me.  It just further complicates moving ships relative to each and will bring a whole host of exceptional situations with it.

With these thoughts, I would say that if Ray choses to go with no overlapping then the rule should be stated something like this:

"Overlapping with other friendly bases is not permitted unless otherwise unavoidable."

Russ

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Why would one ba able to overlap enemy ships but not overlap friendly ships? Really, just eliminate overlapping and borrow a rule from another game system where when there is no way to avoid overlapping, you can either end your ship's movement before the base if you don't have the distance or after the base if you have the available movement distance.  Then after movement but before shooting, declare that you're shooting both broadsides against both targets. Simple.

You can call it "Broadsides" if you want just to keep it simple.

[RayB HA]

How would people feel about the following:

Bases Overlapping and Stacking: At the end of the movement phase friendly bases may not overlap if possible. Keep in mind the movement of ships that can't turn before moving your ships. Intentionally overlapping with enemy bases is still possible.

Something that just occurred to me,

Ork Hulk Gravity Well: As an Ork Hulk is stem sized a ship may still use free turns from the Hulks gravity well even if its stem is over the Hulk's base, but not if their stems overlap!

Cheers,

RayB HA  

[Valhallan]

I love it.
keeps the eldar from hiding too much and also keeps more pretty models on the table.

confused on the hulk - an ork space hulk may make a free turn from its own gravity well, unless its stem doesn't overlap with ? its own stem?

[RayB HA]

Valhallan,

A 'ship' may benefit from grav well turns while on an ork hulks base (as in the rules it says 5cm from the base not the stem).

Cheers,

RayB HA

[russ_c]

How would people feel about the following:

Bases Overlapping and Stacking: Friendly bases may not overlap if possible. Consider the movement of ships that can't turn before moving your ships. Intentionally overlapping with enemy bases is still possible.

Something that just occurred to me,

Ork Hulk Gravity Well: As an Ork Hulk is stem sized a ship may still use the free turn from its gravity well even if its stem is over the Hulk's base, but not if their stems overlap!

Cheers,

RayB HA  

Of course I agree with this new rule consideration for Bases Overlapping and Stacking, especially since it's so close to my original wording.  I don't think the second sentence is necessary to say though because it might make some people believe they need to move ships that can't turn first.

@Valhallan and Ray

Concerning the Ork Gravity Rule.  As a means of clarification, I believe Ray is saying: "As an Ork Hulk is stem sized, another ship may still use the free turn from the Hulk's gravity well even if it's stem is over the Hulk's base, but not if their stems overlap!

Although, I find this rule inclusion curious.  Why bother with such detail in regards to this particular ship.  Aren't stems so small in the first place that the 5mm diameter isn't really a big deal to take a pass on in order to simplify the gravity well?

Russ

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I still don't get why friendly ships can't overlap but enemy ships can. It's just opening a can of worms. Either keep overlapping or remove it.

[fracas]

I agree. just simpler to prohibit ship stacking. models without enough movement end in base to base before, and those with enough end just after the other ship base.
easier also to allow broadsides in the latter circumstance.

I am in favor of ordnance, in particular attack crafts, stacking.

[horizon]

I am with the admiral and fracas. And I am for dissallowing stacking capital ships.

Attack craft: well, dunno, people with miniatures for them cannot stack. And torps will still make the wide spread.

[Vaaish]

I'd be in favor of making the ruling that ships can't end movement overlapping bases. I think that it just makes for smoother gameplay even if it causes dual broadsides to be more difficult to achieve.

I still do not like AC marker stacking.

Another thing worth mentioning that's seems to have stimulated some discussion is Escorts vs. AB and making escorts more resilient to AB.