BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[lastspartacus]

I love carriers in BFG.  At the same time I think its been shown they are too powerful, even with the more points that you tend to pay for them.
Id love a balancing act.  Carriers that are still useful but dont at all take away from line ships.

[Sigoroth]

Let's say you are playing against Tau. Tau have a lot of ordnance. Most likely outnumbering you. So you can't, using your ordnance, mop up everything he's got. Against your 2 turret ship under the current rules he'll send in 7 bombers and 1 fighter doing a total of 12.25 attacks on average. Under the proposed rules he'd use 5b/3f doing 16.25 attack runs on average. Right, ok, a flat increase in power against 2 turret targets for 8 AC.

Now, that presupposes you can do nothing to stop it. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe you've let his slow, ponderous, fragile carriers get into shotgun range. IF you have, well, then I don't really care that there's an increase in power, you deserve it as far as I'm concerned. A gunship squadron in the same position would bend you over just as bad. The problem here is one of tactics, and the extra 0.67 hits on average isn't going to make any difference.

On the other hand, let's assume that you have the ability to knock out a couple of markers before the wave impacts your ship, dropping it down to 6. In the current rules, it'll be 6 bombers against 2 turrets, average of 5 after defensive shooting, = 8.33 attack runs = 2.78 hits, 1.39 after brace. Proposed rules: 5b/1f against 2 turret target. 1 turret hit = 50% chance = same as above. 2 turret hits = 25% chance = 4 bombers = 6.67 attacks = 2.22 hits = 1.11 after brace. 0 turret hits = 25% chance = 5 bombers against 1 turret = 12.5 attack runs = 4.167 hits = 2.08 after brace. Total average = 50% of 2.78 + 25% of 1.11 + 25% of 2.08 = 2.99 hits = 1.49 hits after brace. So a difference of (1.49-1.39) 0.1 hits on average against a braced ship (0.2 non-braced).

In other words, if you can do something against the wave, reducing its numbers a mere fraction, then they're practically the same animal. The above calculations assume equal capability to reduce the wave, i.e., you had at least 1 fighter and 1 other ordnance marker (fighter, bomber, torp, a-boat) to send into the wave. If all your carriers are junked, or braced or busy mopping up other AC or are out of range for some reason and you can only bring torps to bare on the incoming AC, then you would do better under the proposed rule system, because his wave would consist of more fighters meaning you could strip it down more, essentially turning the situation into a straight 7 bomber vs 5 bomber comparison.

All in all there is sod all difference between the two systems for wave sizes of 8 or less on 2 turret targets. Yes it does increase the effectiveness of unmolested AC slightly. Given the bonuses that the change brings then I don't think that this is such a huge problem, given that there is disagreement over the effectiveness of AC to begin with. Don't forget, this is an incidental increase. It wasn't as if the increase against 2 turret targets was the point of the change.

I'll describe most of the impact of this rule change:

Positive Changes

• Conceptual - this change removes the conceptual oddity that 6 turret targets (BSF, AM Emp/Ober, 5 turret ships which have received a +1 turret refit) are completely immune to bombers. Sending in a single wave of 1 million bombers would not do any good.
• Elegant - this change is pretty much how people read the rule anyway until they look at it closer. Actually suppressing the turret is the assumed rule and is very easy to implement and conceptualise. It makes more sense and is a little less abstract.
• Parity - this rule brings back parity in offensive and defensive scaling. 1 turret can reduce the the attacks by the number of bombers (be it 1 or 1 million). Under this rule 1 fighter could increase the bombers attacks by the number of bombers (be it 1 or 1 million).
• Redundancy - the proposed change makes the targets actual turret fire useful again. The better they do the less turrets get suppressed. So this rule removes turret fire redundancy.
• Scaling - This rule scales the value of bombers to the size of the wave such that larger waves are more powerful than smaller waves against high turret targets. In the current rules, if you had the opportunity to form a wave of 18 AC (3 Styx) against an Emp/Ober/Explorer you wouldn't do it. You'd simply send in 3 waves of 6 against. Since forming larger waves is much much harder and comes with a slew of downsides you should get rewarded for doing so.
• Tactics - This change strongly rewards tactical thinking. The net changes to effectiveness are small at 8 AC or less but this change introduces the potential to do very good damage at higher wave sizes. This means that the ordnance heavy player will try harder to achieve this and the opponent will try harder to prevent it. As the stakes go up so to do the tactics as each player is forced to think more, rather than just coast. Some people (and I use that word loosely) don't get this. However, at present you know that your high turret ship is going to take only 2 damage on average from any one carrier. Hardly even worth bracing. Sure, you might brace if there's 3 such carriers about to pummel your BB, but it's not something you need to concern yourself with so much that you start thinking about CAP or massed turrets or anything. No, the only thing people worry about with bombers is their cruisers, and waves larger than 8 aren't really rewarded there so players have no real incentive to squadron their carriers and launch large waves. Smaller waves of 8 do just as well.
  
  However, since this rule would encourage forming large waves against high turret targets (less incentive against low turret targets) then that means that they have all the drawbacks of doing so. Which makes it easier for the opponent to take his carriers out of contention. If a player does manage to bring a large wave into base contact unmolested somehow then he should be rewarded for doing so. Risk/reward trade-off increases, therefore so does tactical play.
• One rule to rule them all ... - the proposed change brings fighter-bombers neatly into the fold. Absolutely no need to have special rules for automatic turret suppression of up to 3 blah blah. Simply have some on suppression duty, some on bomb duty, declared before turret fire. Sorted.
• Escorts - I feel that with the proposed rule escorts would become more valuable for 4 defensive reasons. 1) They'd be more attractive for small torpedo salvoes to knock out the fighter screen of large waves. 2) There direct fire would become more useful in knocking out large waves. 3) They will be able to easily provide extra turrets to larger ships. 4) As a last resort they will make excellent fodder to run into large waves.
  
  In essence I feel that escorts would increase in their escorting value. That is, they'll be used to protect larger ships. This is on top of their current role as flankers/opportunists.

Neutral Changes

• Effectiveness - typical AC waves of 8 or less receives a theoretical small, net, boost. The larger the wave the bigger the boost. The smaller the defenders turret values the bigger the boost. This is a neutral change because it hasn't been demonstrated that AC is so overpowered (there is a difference of opinion). I think that it has been demonstrated that, even with the theorised boost, AC merely comes in line with alternatives anyway (torps or WBe firepower). Lastly, in practical terms I'm sure that attrition will effect AC waves in the proposed ruleset more than in the current one.
  
  For example, say against a 3 turret target 5 bombers and 3 fighters have been launched (current rules) but 1 fighter is lost on the way in. The wave will lose 1 attack run from the lost fighter. If all 3 turrets hit the wave will lose another attack run from a destroyed bomber (total average of 1.125 attack runs lost) . In true turret suppression rules, a 4b/4f wave goes in, and loses 1f along the way. This will mean that an average of 3.08 attack runs will be lost. Over twice as much lost for 1 point of attrition. That makes it hard to say whether AC would actually get an increase in net power under true turret suppression. It would reward larger waves over smaller and it would reward optimum positioning (shotgun) over sitting back and launching from afar. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, since the things being rewarded are much harder to do.
• Randomness - true turret suppression will increase the randomness factor of bombers no doubt. Less so at low turret and low wave levels. This is partly due to the defenders turret fire actually mattering. However there is a good deal of randomness in bombers already, but with the current suppression rules this randomness gets artificially stamped out the more turrets the target has. So, while normally I would put increased randomness in the negative basket I see this as a fix to an artificial and lopsided removal of randomness. That's not to say that we couldn't do something to address the general randomness of bomber attacks but that should be done at a base level, rather than differentially depending on the number of turrets the ship has. For example, instead of each bomber doing 1d6 attacks, it might do 1d3+1 attacks. Rather than a range of 1 to 6 with an average of 3.5 this produces a more predictable range of 2-4 with a slightly weaker average of 3. Certainly a large enough nerf to negate any possible fears of overpowering bombers. Another possible way to increase certainty for the defender would be to allow him to decide whether to brace after seeing his turret fire.

Negative Changes

• Further change - maybe "fixing" the artificial constraint on natural bomber randomness might lead to a need for another change, either by toning down the randomness of bombers, allowing a player to wait till after turret fire to decide if he wants to brace or some other way.
• Balance - while I do not subscribe to the view that AC is overpowered the point is debatable. While I also do not think that this change would, overall, make AC more powerful it may do so to some degree.
• Moar carriers! - some people fear that the proposed rules would make people take more carriers either to exploit large wave power or to defend themselves against it. I don't hold to this view. I feel that the more eggs a player puts in one basket the more susceptible to a gun fleet they'll become, i.e., that the rule is essentially self balancing. Still, this would need to be tested and it might initially produce this sort of reaction.

Needless to say I think the positive changes of this rule far exceeds any negatives.

[Vaaish]

I've been gone the last day or so but at this point, our differences are irreconcilable. You want to see bombers increase in power and I want to see it decrease. You believe that bombers should be at least as powerful as gunnery while believe I that they shouldn't be.

I see this as evidenced by the designers comments and the effects of unrestricted ordnance on the game previous to the AC limits. I also think it makes for a rather boring game to spam AC.

You want to see bombers as forcing the same defensive action against all targets no matter how well defended they are while I want to see other tactics being necessary before bombers can be effective. To bring back the Oberon example. With them being much more difficult to tackle with bombers, you can send AB to neutralize them or torpedoes to cripple them or directly shoot at them. Once it's crippled, bombers become much more effective to finish them off (going from needing a 6 to attack to a 4+). That means you have to use a variety of tactics to crack high turret targets rather than swamp them with bombers which requires more planning and thought to achieve.

The only thing we agree on is removing the odd wave construction the current rules make the most effective.

[RCgothic]

Yes, bombers should be at least as powerful as gunnery. The whole point of games balance is that options are worth the price you pay for them.

You would nerf bombers into obscurity, whilst I want to see them having valid uses and counter-strategies, equally as valuable as a gun fleet, but ultimately as a matter of personal opinion.

Under the proposed rules, waves of 4 are no more effective vs cruisers, whilst suffering vs high turret targets, and waves of 8 do gain power vs cruisers, but again are not appreciably more powerful vs battleships. Wielding a wave of more than 8 requires either running a gauntlet of direct fire, or sharing shields at short range - both significant obstacles to their deployment.

And again, even against those targets that become more vulnerable, we would put in a provision to counter that increased vulnerability with a slightly modified massed turrets rule - again, making escorts more useful in an escorting role, rather than purely as glass hammers.

[Vaaish]

You would nerf bombers into obscurity, whilst I want to see them having valid uses and counter-strategies, equally as valuable as a gun fleet, but ultimately as a matter of personal opinion

This is untrue. I would have bombers return to their power levels before turret suppression came into effect and give them a slight boost to make escorting them with fighters useful. This is a far cry from nerfing to obscurity and promotes the valid use of all ordnance rather than a single type.

In other words, I would have bombers act appropriate to the points they were originally costed at under the BBB and Armada rules.

[Sigoroth]

You would nerf bombers into obscurity, whilst I want to see them having valid uses and counter-strategies, equally as valuable as a gun fleet, but ultimately as a matter of personal opinion

This is untrue. I would have bombers return to their power levels before turret suppression came into effect and give them a slight boost to make escorting them with fighters useful. This is a far cry from nerfing to obscurity and promotes the valid use of all ordnance rather than a single type.

In other words, I would have bombers act appropriate to the points they were originally costed at under the BBB and Armada rules.

Under the BBB costs there was no such thing as ordnance launch limits. The turret suppression rules were brought in specifically to address the tremendous nerfing that the launch limit rules brought to AC. You would have us return to that nerfing. You don't give any reason why bombers should be so weak while people have to pay a premium for them.

You also espouse the use of different AC, citing torpedoes and a-boats. Firstly, torpedoes are not AC. AC = Attack Craft. Torpedoes + AC = ordnance. Carriers cannot launch torpedoes from their launch bays. People can take torpedoes without taking carriers.

You say that when you have a large wave of AC (such as 16) going against high turret targets, people should be encouraged to use a-boats rather than "just spam bombers". Well the fact is that no one, and I mean no one, goes through all the downsides necessary to launch such a large wave to just launch a-boats. Secondly, not all races have such easy access to a-boats. IN can only do it with a BB squadron (not a cruiser carrier squadron) and Tau can't do it at all.

Under the proposed true turret suppression rules (TTS) people would actually be encouraged to launch a-boats against high turret targets when we're talking a wave of 8 or less (possibly even waves of 10 or less).

The TTS rules simply make it possible, by going to an awful lot of trouble, for bombers to hurt high turret targets. There is no justifiable reason why a large enough wave of bombers shouldn't be able to hurt such targets.

You also say you want to have more gunfleet oriented battles. To maintain game balance there is no way of doing this without making AC useless, as the choice to take AC is personal preference. However, since large waves suffer a great deal more from attrition under the TTS it does allow someone to take a predominantly gun oriented fleet when going against AC fleets. Therefore reducing carrier creep. You do not seem to realise this or care, locked in your crusade to nerf AC.

The TTS rules have been proposed out of a common sense approach. They have many positives already spelled out. I, for one, don't think AC as it stands is overpowered, but I find it very hard to see how these rules could be even construed as overpowering by someone who does. At most it brings the potential for a very well executed bomber strike against high turret targets up to around direct gunnery levels, while being much harder to attain. It makes AC waves that are unimpeded more powerful, but reduces the capabilities of AC when the defender is on the ball.

Now, I am receptive to counter-arguments, it's just you haven't made any. Nothing you have said has not been overwhelmingly disproved. Hell, you've even backflipped once in your arguments. Still, if you or someone else can come up with a hypothetical situation that has been overlooked, or present some analysis that shows a normative increase in expected bomber performance that is significantly greater than alternatives or what a cost/benefit analysis would expect, or playtests a few games against high AC fleets with the proposed rule while being cognizant of all the defensive options available and experientially find it to be too powerful then I will listen to concerns.

[horizon]

I gave my thoughts, they haven't been taken away. Seriously.
I still think ordnance will increase to be a major factor.  Orks will cry because of this rule. Already very weak to enemy ordnance and with this rule even weaker and thus we will even see more Terror Kroozers as this is the only way to Ork success.

Also this:
Under the BBB costs there was no such thing as ordnance launch limits. The turret suppression rules were brought in specifically to address the tremendous nerfing that the launch limit rules brought to AC. You would have us return to that nerfing. You don't give any reason why bombers should be so weak while people have to pay a premium for them.[/quote]
Turret suppression was written before Launch limits. It was written because people asked why they should include fighters in a bomber wave. As it made no sense, never.

It gathered strength after the limit inclusion.


But since... ehm... no one besides me and Vaaish are really opposing the "wanna be"   true turret suppression system I think I should let it slide. I mean, I cannot have everything in the game like I want it to be...

Hence, the best thing about the rule is that it is easy written and easy to understand.

If the HA doesn't want this ... ... then I advocate the FAQ2010 to be rewritten that only surviving fighters can add an additional attack. While it is not like some here think suppression works it does make for balance.

[Sigoroth]

I gave my thoughts, they haven't been taken away. Seriously.

Sorry, what? This one went over my head I think.

I still think ordnance will increase to be a major factor.  Orks will cry because of this rule. Already very weak to enemy ordnance and with this rule even weaker and thus we will even see more Terror Kroozers as this is the only way to Ork success.

Indeed, I did note that Orks would likely be the only fleet that might be impacted harshly by this. However I do believe that this is simply a case of ongoing balance problems with Orks. They're just too weak and need some love for their fleet list. Not really a reason to stop a sensible change to core mechanics. The TTS rule does neatly encompass FB rules though, so a small plus to Orks.

Turret suppression was written before Launch limits. It was written because people asked why they should include fighters in a bomber wave. As it made no sense, never.

It gathered strength after the limit inclusion.

EDIT: Apologies, for some reason I had the impression Warp Rift came out later than it did.

But since... ehm... no one besides me and Vaaish are really opposing the "wanna be"  true turret suppression system I think I should let it slide. I mean, I cannot have everything in the game like I want it to be...

Hence, the best thing about the rule is that it is easy written and easy to understand.

It is still possible that there are good reasons not to use the rule, but there has not been much presented so far to suggest this. The very best reasons so far have been "this will potentially increase power of AC against cruisers, which I'm not too fond of" and "Orks are gunna get shafted". I've provided some counter-points to these while acknowledging that, yes, there may be a difference. I don't really buy the "carrier creep" argument at all really given the givens. The "encourage bomber spam/take tactics out of the game/drastically overpower bombers/discourage diversity arguments/I want gunfleets" arguments just seem a load of rubbish from where I'm sitting. Maybe they'll get too powerful. There hasn't been a scenario put forward to demonstrably prove this yet. Perhaps someone will think of something I haven't, or do a more comprehensive analysis. Perhaps playtests disprove some of my assumptions. When something like that comes in I'll pay it due heed.

If the HA doesn't want this ... ... then I advocate the FAQ2010 to be rewritten that only surviving fighters can add an additional attack. While it is not like some here think suppression works it does make for balance.

If this was the only change then this would result in a massive nerf to bombers against high turret targets. Current scenario: 8 AC carrier sends 2 AC off to do CAP duty or clear away enemy CAP or whatever. Sends in 1b/5f against enemy Explorer, gets 5 attacks at 4+ armour. With this change as only change: sends in 1b/7f (luckily no CAP!), 3 fighters get shot down, he gets 4 attacks at 4+ armour. So he's sent in 2 more AC but received 1 less attack. Of course, there's no guarantee that the turrets will hit 3 times, but anything less merely equals the current number of attacks for the input of +25% AC. Whereas he could hit with 4 or even 5 turrets (particularly if he has a Custodian or Messenger with range) in which case the attacking wave gets even less attacks. So average attacks go down even with +25% AC.

It does allow defensive turret fire to be useful, but doesn't make sending in bombers useful.

[commander]

Suggestion by my brother who found me playtesting some rules.

Allow fighters to suppress/destroy turrets by shooting at them, each fighter once against the lowest armour value of target ship.
Limit number of fighters that can babysit bombers in a wave.
When in base contact, turrets open fire, reducing fighters first. Surviving fighters shoot at turrets.
Bombers and fighter-bombers get their number of attacks, reduced by the number of surviving turrets, against the lowest armour value of target ship.

Also each carrier has only so much AC which get shot down, damaged, have accidents and so on. Limit the number of fighters / bombers / fighter-bombers / torpedobombers that a carrier can throw out (resembles the pooling idea, I believe), up to its launch limit. No further limits on AC, so that one can have ALL of ones AC in play after several turns of launching.
Once your AC are all down, well, no more AC.

Fighters alone would also be allowed to attack ships in order to reduce the turret value.

Massed turrets: count all the turret values of the ships together, not just + for each additionalship.

I will be testing this tomorrow.

[fracas]

This is similar to the proposal that each surviving fighter suppresses one turret for each bombers making a run

[commander]

Yes similar; and my brother does not read this forum nor plays BFG. But suppressing is not automatically; just as the turrets have to hit to reduce the attackers, the attackers also have to hit to reduce the turret value.
But, I will try this out and post my findings within a couple of days.

[Vaaish]

You don't give any reason why bombers should be so weak while people have to pay a premium for them.

I'll try this one last time. BFG was originally meant as a gunnery simulation rather than a midway simulation. Because emphasis should be on gunnery, people should pay a premium to field AC. Second, bombers won't be "so weak" as you put it. They will be incredibly useful against low turret ships and crippled high turret ships. You will just have to use more varied tactics to make them pay off which rewards those who are able to use them effectively.

You also espouse the use of different AC, citing torpedoes and a-boats. Firstly, torpedoes are not AC. AC = Attack Craft. Torpedoes + AC = ordnance. Carriers cannot launch torpedoes from their launch bays. People can take torpedoes without taking carriers.

I'm sorry if I haven't made the distinction clear. I assumed you would be able to figure out that they are separate things when I was referring to alternative means of dealing with high defense targets and didn't see the need to split them. I did rewrite several paragrahs here and there to include torpedoes so there may be instances where AC is used grouping all ordnance.

You say that when you have a large wave of AC (such as 16) going against high turret targets, people should be encouraged to use a-boats rather than "just spam bombers". Well the fact is that no one, and I mean no one, goes through all the downsides necessary to launch such a large wave to just launch a-boats. Secondly, not all races have such easy access to a-boats. IN can only do it with a BB squadron (not a cruiser carrier squadron) and Tau can't do it at all.

Yes, I realize that. This is why I mentioned multiple other methods of approaching the problem including gunnery and torpedoes. Tau has excellent access to guided torpedoes and chaos has excellent gunnery capabilities. Do I really need to break down every single possibility by fleet?

The TTS rules simply make it possible, by going to an awful lot of trouble, for bombers to hurt high turret targets. There is no justifiable reason why a large enough wave of bombers shouldn't be able to hurt such targets.

It's the 41st century, turret defenses could just be that good or that closely packed. It's not like an emperor only has 5 turrets defending it. Even today we have advanced tracking systems capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously. It would seem to me, though, that in gameplay terms, the maximum attack runs a bomber can make and the max turrets on a single ship being the same aren't a coincidence. That would seem to me that in some situations, bombers just can't hack it for whatever reason and are neutralized by the ships defenses. Even today we don't send bombers up against certain targets because the defense grid is just too capable to give a reasonable success compared to the risks.

Now, I am receptive to counter-arguments, it's just you haven't made any. Nothing you have said has not been overwhelmingly disproved. Hell, you've even backflipped once in your arguments.

No, actually you aren't by your own statement here. Anything counter to your arguments you have decided are immediately invalid. You have yet to disprove that large waves aren't helped by this or prove that bombers even NEED the boost you want to give them. You keep citing making them equal to gunnery, but you haven't said WHY they even should be in light of the developers comments about the place of AC in the game.

I apologize, but I don't recall backflipping on any arguments. I believe examples have changed but I don't believe my arguments have reversed on the issue.

Now, finally, I'm going to leave you with this:
How are you creating a richer tactical experience by making bombers more powerful? Everything you have mentioned as promoting a richer tactical experience already exists and is already used defensively and everything you mentioned as rewarding the skilled use of AC already exists. You aren't adding anything new or deeper tactically; you are simply rewarding a player for building a list with more AC! You are in fact simplifying the tactical experience by increasing the capabilities of a single type of AC so as to be effective against any target. This removes the need for tactical complexity and variety in dealing with certain targets. Why shoot at it when you could send AC? Why send AB when you can send bombers? Why use torpedoes for anything other than clearing CAP?

If the HA doesn't want this ... ... then I advocate the FAQ2010 to be rewritten that only surviving fighters can add an additional attack. While it is not like some here think suppression works it does make for balance.

While not what I believe to be ideal, I could accept that. It at least gives you some benefit to shooting down stuff with the turrets.

[RCgothic]

You have yet to disprove that large waves aren't helped by this or prove that bombers even NEED the boost you want to give them. You keep citing making them equal to gunnery, but you haven't said WHY they even should be in light of the developers comments about the place of AC in the game.

We freely admit that waves larger than 8 will get a significant boost, however, this requires a squadron of ships in base contact in order to launch. This means either having your WAVE OF DOOM(TM) run a gauntlet of direct fire, where it will be a very high priority target, or have your fragile carriers within shotgun range, where they will almost certainly be picked on in the following turns and suppressed. More risk, more reward.

In addition, I would advocate changes that make it easier to defend against attack craft: allowing massed turrets as a true stat increase, and not just for shooting down incoming, and allowing fighters to form a cap around any ship, not just the one they were launched from. This will make it easier for low AC fleets to defend themselves, and will directly benefit escorts, which could use an additional role in game.

Regardless of the developers comments, they did include attack craft, and fleets already pay a premium to field them. Pure gunfleets should be a valid list, but pure carrier should also be one. Just playtest the proposal and see what you think. The rules are simple and elegant compared to what we currently have.

[horizon]

RcG:
Yes, bombers should be at least as powerful as gunnery. The whole point of games balance is that options are worth the price you pay for them.

You would nerf bombers into obscurity, whilst I want to see them having valid uses and counter-strategies, equally as valuable as a gun fleet, but ultimately as a matter of personal opinion.

Actually looking at tournaments bombers/ordnance are already stronger, eg more prevailant (sp?) compared to gunnery.

and allowing fighters to form a cap around any ship, not just the one they were launched from.

Is already allowed.

We freely admit that waves larger than 8 will get a significant boost

Versus 2 turret ships str8 waves will have a boost.
Versus 1 turret ships str4 waves will have a boost.

[Sigoroth]

I'll try this one last time. BFG was originally meant as a gunnery simulation rather than a midway simulation. Because emphasis should be on gunnery, people should pay a premium to field AC. Second, bombers won't be "so weak" as you put it. They will be incredibly useful against low turret ships and crippled high turret ships. You will just have to use more varied tactics to make them pay off which rewards those who are able to use them effectively.

The fact is that AC should be just as competitive as gunnery. The TTS does not make them better than gunnery. It gives them some utility against high turret targets. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why bombers should NOT be useable against high turret targets. NONE.

The ordnance launch limits were proposed because people were lurking out of reach with their carriers and gunships were unable to compete because by the time they got in there were just too many AC out. Any system whereby one can take a gunship, i.e., where AC does not automatically win achieves the WWI gunfleet option. In WWII things turned to carrier warfare because carriers were more effective than gunships. This is not the case under TTS.

The only way to make the game a complete gunnery simulation would be to remove AC from it altogether. Since it is a part of the game then the difference between choosing gunnery or AC fleets should be one of personal preference. So if someone wants to take nothing but carriers then that's his prerogative. Someone shouldn't be able to defeat his entire fleet simply by taking one Admech Oberon!

Get this clear. You are not trying to bring the rules back to the envisaged gunfleet possibility, you are trying to nerf AC. Gunfleets compete well under the ordnance limit rules. Given higher effects of attrition under TTS they would continue to do so, while requiring less defensive carriers.

I'm sorry if I haven't made the distinction clear. I assumed you would be able to figure out that they are separate things when I was referring to alternative means of dealing with high defense targets and didn't see the need to split them. I did rewrite several paragrahs here and there to include torpedoes so there may be instances where AC is used grouping all ordnance.

There is no need whatsoever to mention torpedoes. Carriers do not have the option of launching torpedoes. You may as well say WBs, or lances, or whatever. The ability of WBs or lances or torpedoes to, in sufficient numbers, damage any target is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the ability of bombers to do so.

Yes, I realize that. This is why I mentioned multiple other methods of approaching the problem including gunnery and torpedoes. Tau has excellent access to guided torpedoes and chaos has excellent gunnery capabilities. Do I really need to break down every single possibility by fleet?

This is totally irrelevant. If I have a billion WBs I will be able to overcome any defence in the game, whether it is Necron 6+ armour with a 4+ reactive hull save or if its a braced abeam SM BB at long range with BMs intervening. Give me a billion bombers however and that AdMech Emp or Oberon is immune. Fck you. This is plain wrong. Hence we have turret suppression. Current suppression rules are clunky, illogical, unclear, untactical and make turret fire redundant. This is what needs fixing.

It's the 41st century, turret defenses could just be that good or that closely packed. It's not like an emperor only has 5 turrets defending it. Even today we have advanced tracking systems capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously. It would seem to me, though, that in gameplay terms, the maximum attack runs a bomber can make and the max turrets on a single ship being the same aren't a coincidence. That would seem to me that in some situations, bombers just can't hack it for whatever reason and are neutralized by the ships defenses. Even today we don't send bombers up against certain targets because the defense grid is just too capable to give a reasonable success compared to the risks.

Well this is all just a bunch of crap. Well, why not just put 6 turrets on every damn ship and make your fleet immune to them. Then you don't even have to have any fighters or bombers of your own. Just depend on turrets because they're wonderful.

Even if I were to stipulate that the number of turrets has been figured specifically with bombers max attack runs in mind, which I'm sure they did, and say, yes, a bomber could be rendered useless by such defences, there is still no damn reason to suspect that a million bombers could be rendered so useless. Let's face it, the TTS is already a compromise. Turrets really should not scale in ability according to the amount of bombers they face. There is no reason why this should be the case. They should simply deduct 1 attack run each from the total. That might mean that, for balance reasons, the overall number of attack runs that an individual bomber makes has to come down (to say, 1d3), but eventually the turrets should be overrun.

No, actually you aren't by your own statement here. Anything counter to your arguments you have decided are immediately invalid. You have yet to disprove that large waves aren't helped by this or prove that bombers even NEED the boost you want to give them. You keep citing making them equal to gunnery, but you haven't said WHY they even should be in light of the developers comments about the place of AC in the game.

Absolute toss. I have quite dramatically demonstrated, time and time again, that in terms of overall expected returns the TTS does nothing to improve the relative power of AC. It improves the potential power. Let's have a look at Ork Heavy Gunz. They do 2 damage each. Now, if I were to change that 2 damage to 1d3 damage then I have increased their potential, but not their expected value. The same is true here. However, here the offensive potential is manipulable by the attacker and the defensive potential is manipulable by the defender (hence the increased use of tactics). A single large wave, if delivered intact, will do much more than at present, and more even than the current multiple smaller waves do. Much harder to achieve and much much more susceptible to defensive attrition.

The main reason for this rule is to remove a logical absurdity. To put back into the players hands to choice of how to use the resources that he paid the points for.

As for the "designers", 2 things. First, they never ever said that gunnery should be more powerful than AC. Never. They brought in the ordnance launch limits to prevent the game simply becoming a carrier battle. If gunships are viable then that's all they need to be to get that job done. If people are willing to take a Murder or Carnage in their fleet instead of all Devs then that goal has been achieved. No need to nerf AC. Secondly, even if the designers really wanted no one to have more than 1 carrier in their fleet maximum so damn what? Who gives a toss what a bunch of spindly pommy nerds wanted to do a decade ago? This is our game now. They've long since abandoned it to the fans. There is not even a GW employee on the HA any more.

So all of your (loosely and laughingly called) "arguments" have been addressed on a point by point basis. You have not addressed any of these counterpoints nor come up with a new, un-addressed argument (which may exist) against the proposal. Instead you say the same thing again and again.

"Oh, bombers shouldn't be boosted" - not boosted, altered. Any actual total overall boost is incidental, not designed. There's no proof that there is going to be any actual total overall boost (this is where you should be attempting to show, using example scenarios, statistics, typical best practice approaches, experience, etc that I'm wrong).

All your arguments have been terribad so far. However, let's assume that, despite your inability to actually argue your point you are borne out to be right. That is to say, with a experience and a fuller impact assessment on the game, bombers turn out to become more powerful/attractive/necessary such that we see a greater increase in carrier creep. Right. This is a balance issue, not a logic, clarity, rule elegance issue. This could then be addressed in a straight up nerf to the number of attacks bombers actually make (say 1d3). Or maybe there might be a negative impact of the extra variability of bomber attacks on peoples brace decisions. Then a solution might be to reduce the variability rather than overall strength (say 1d3+1) or to allow brace decisions to be made after seeing defensive turret fire.

So even if your argument about balance held water, this would not, in itself, be a reason not to implement the TTS rule. TTS solves so many more problems than it may create.

I apologize, but I don't recall backflipping on any arguments. I believe examples have changed but I don't believe my arguments have reversed on the issue.

You started off suggesting that people wouldn't have the torpedoes or CAP fighters or massed turrets or expendable escort to defend themselves against large waves. You also suggested that people couldn't or wouldn't want to "waste" direct firepower in shooting such a large wave. You then suggested that someone expending a single escort to remove would, in effect, be playing into the opponents hands because you've lost a ship and they've "lost nothing". They can just "relaunch again". All of which is, of course, absurd. If someone meets all the above then they deserve to be hit by the massive incoming waves.

No doubt your view on the above is why you think that carriers can just sit back and "spam" large waves to their hearts content and get full effectiveness out of them.

Anyway, you later go on to argue against the notion that this change will promote increased tactics by saying that people already do all the above anyway. So you first argued that people can't/won't/shouldn't have to do it, then argue that there's no difference because people actually do that as it stands. This is a backflip.

Quite obviously all of the above mentioned defences are not only valid but highly tactical, and would only get more rewarding the greater the size of the wave. In fact, one of the reasons to have smaller waves is to avoid some of these sorts of defences. The reason no one forms large waves against Eldar is because it is more survivable not to and they give up nothing by doing so.

Now, finally, I'm going to leave you with this:
How are you creating a richer tactical experience by making bombers more powerful? Everything you have mentioned as promoting a richer tactical experience already exists and is already used defensively and everything you mentioned as rewarding the skilled use of AC already exists. You aren't adding anything new or deeper tactically; you are simply rewarding a player for building a list with more AC! You are in fact simplifying the tactical experience by increasing the capabilities of a single type of AC so as to be effective against any target. This removes the need for tactical complexity and variety in dealing with certain targets. Why shoot at it when you could send AC? Why send AB when you can send bombers? Why use torpedoes for anything other than clearing CAP?

Mate, if you would only get your head out of your arse for just a few minutes you might be able to see more clearly.

Firstly, not an absolute increase in power, a potential increase in power. This can only be achieved via large waves. Large waves = increased difficulty and risk for the launching player and increased opportunity for the opponent. He squadrons his carriers - you are free to hammer them without brace saves OR your fire makes the entire squadron brace. Therefore you do more damage OR he gets no AC.  He goes to BtB contact to launch larger waves - you can drop shields on both ships at the same time, increasing firepower of your fleet (some will no doubt be closer to one, others closer to the other, this gives hull hits against both instead of wasting fire against a second lot of shields). He tries to get close to you so he can shotgun his AC - you get to fire your WBs at his soft nose.

So just in his attempt to form larger waves you get advantages. Just in his attempt to get close you get advantages.

Since this is an increase in risk/rewards then the person with the better tactics is going to come out ahead. Not the person with the higher AC.

If there's an increase in rewards for performing a risky tactic (squadrons of carriers) then there's a greater incentive to actually do it. Therefore more people will do it. If they manage to traverse the risks successfully they will be rewarded more for doing so. So their insight and ability translates into effectiveness. If someone faces greater punishment for not maximising their defensive capabilities then they will be rewarded more (ie, not getting hammered) for taking advantage of their tactical opportunities. Lesson: GREATER RISK = MORE TACTICS.

Larger torp waves are just as useful as always, escorts can still combine their torps where appropriate and a-boats would still be useful in the smaller waves against high turret targets. The only thing that really changes is the incentive to form large waves has increased.