BFG FAQ 2010 General Rules Questions

[Valhallan]

okay, i'd conciede to vaaish, ships can move over each other's bases, but cannot end their movement stacking/overlapping with anything, friend or foe, period. besides, the side arcs have 45* fire zone toward the back, you if you *just* pass over two enemy ships, you'll still get the shots - perhaps even at Away in place of Abeam.

-escorts vs a-boats are just fine - if you run them in b2b, massed turrets can usually make hit and running escorts a poor tactical choice.

-still on the edge about AC stacking. horizon has the point that if you have models for them as apposed to cut outs, stacking keeps you from fielding all your pretty minis.
- however, fighting two squadroned explorers launching a combined wave is ridiculous..... perhaps AC waves MUST be as square as possible?

[horizon]

Square is good, though what is the measuring point? Front or back? Gain some extra speed or lose some? What happens if front two reach base, last two not. Personally I'd say keep it easy on that.

However the long lines of bomber waves: what is wrong with that? They either go on 1 ship in 1 turn or move for several turns. That way they are easy to hit from a lot of angles. No, I do not think attack craft spread is a problem.

Torpedo spread can be cheesy with large waves angled in such ways to clip enemy bases on the edge. I see a solution where a str.4 marker size wise is the norm and a dice on top shows torp marker strength.

The assault boat discussion, ages old and I agree on the fact escort go down to easy vs aboats.

However: which races use assault boats:
Chaos
Tyranids
Space Marines
Craftworld Eldar (extra cost)

In the Marine fleet the assault boats are a needed thing. Same applies to Nids. Chaos has so many strengths they depend less on aboats to survive but make great use of it. Perhaps slower aboats for Chaos...

[Valhallan]

square waves would be launched and distance measured from the ships stem - no AC markers can move further than their movement value. generally measure front to front works well for this (as fast cav in WFB)
square waves as a standard just minimizes confusion/abuse. and lets you use WFB regiment trays (if ray's 20mm base idea goes through) to hold AC waves.

aboats totally destroy escorts. my comment was that escorts w/ massed turrets force the enemy to launch quite significant waves that imho are more effectively used against cap ships.

[russ_c]

Not allowing a ship to finish ontop of another, but allowing it to still fire, accomplishes both my concerns.  So i can definitely get behind the suggestions of admiral and co.

Russ

[fracas]

you can stack attack craft models by varying the number of models on the base.

[Vaaish]

Horizon, you left out IN with AB. The Empy and Oberon can take them. For marines, yes they are essential which makes things tricky.

[russ_c]

If stacking is going to be forbidden then this should be a core movement mechanic that applies to everything, including ordnance markers. The concept of stacking physical ac models by mixing ship types on a single base is cumbersome in my opinion and will only lead to people having to make special bases or carry a lot of ac models around.  Sorry fracas, can't agree this time!

Russ

[horizon]

Ah, correct, the IN has some some a-boats as well, thanks Vaaish.

[fracas]

but mixing models not that big of a deal
usual combos are:
1 fighter (more is unnecessary)
1 fighter + 3 bombers
2 fighters + 2 bombers
and an occasional 3 fighters + 1 bomber
same for assault boats instead of bombers.

[Valhallan]

its really nothing big, as ray's got it on the first page (of the ord faq thread) that we're moving to 20x20mm warhammer bases. 1 base=1 squadron of ac.

[RayB HA]

Allowing ships to overlap with enemy ships is a necessity, otherwise I can see some players forcing the movement of enemy ships with area denial and preventing boarding by having friendly ships close by (they don't need to be in base contact either).

AC will be using the warhammer bases, waves will not stack and will be formed in a similar way to 40k squads deep striking. Place one AC marker then place as many as possible in contact with it, side to side, not corner to side. (as these are square bases and not circular, careful wording will have to be used.   

Russ,

Stating that the Ork Hulk Grav well includes its base seems quite a reasonable inclusion.

I'm rewording the overlapping bases paragraph to make the second sentence clearer. 

Cheers,

RayB HA 

[horizon]

Oh frell, AC cannot stack and ships can overlap?


I dislike overlapping. I really really really dislike it. I dunno about my opponents so I'll adapt to them but for me I will forward a big NO to the issue since I see no problem with the current non-overlapping movement.

Your issues will not solve the problems you put forward to be honest.


Are the cardboard markers the same size as the warhammer bases?

[Vaaish]

I don't mind AC not stacking, I think it helps make things more plain and open with regard to AC. My only concern is interaction between large waves and enemy ships or ordnance that allows one marker touching a base to draw in all the other markers regardless of movement distance.

I don't mind overlaping of bases for ships, but I think that it makes things easier to position if movement stops in base contact if you don't have the remaining distance to make it past the stem of the base you would end movement on. Failing that, maybe just state that any ship ending movement in base contact with an enemy vessel allows the opposing player to initiate a boarding action. It would give consequences for ending in contact but no eliminate it.

[fracas]

i'll accept the HA ruling  even if i don't like it regarding stacking.


seems odd though that to ram does not require over lapping yet overlapping can occur without ramming

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Allowing ships to overlap with enemy ships is a necessity, otherwise I can see some players forcing the movement of enemy ships with area denial and preventing boarding by having friendly ships close by (they don't need to be in base contact either).

Cheers,

RayB HA 

I call this nonsense. Forcing the movement of enemy ships with area denial (what this exactly means is still questionable) should be a benefit given to the player who thought of it. If forcing movement of enemy ships is a problem, then we might as well remove torpedoes and AC from the game because it's obvious they deny a much larger piece of the table real estate than lowly bases will ever do. Even direct fire weapons by themselves can deny huge areas. You want to remove those too?

Why insist on something which is totally unneeded? Sorry, Ray, I say NO to stacking. There's nothing BENEFICIAL to be gained from it and can only result in weird situations with more problems than answers both in game and reality where the models can be damaged.