BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[Sigoroth]

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

Yep, str 8 is better against 3 turrets or less. However, under TTS rules that wave decreases more in effectiveness as it loses its fighter screens down to equal effectiveness when just down to bombers.

Note though, that against 1 turret ships under current rules a wave of 4 bombers would get an average of 8.75 attack runs. Under TTS rules a wave of 3b/1f would get an average of 9. Minuscule upgrade. Particularly as there's only a handful of ships in the entire game with 1 turret that're worth sending 4 AC against. Three of which are Orks, 1 IN and 1 Necron. Orks need reworking anyway, Dauntless won't be harmed by the minor difference and Necrons are very strong against bombers anyway.

[horizon]

Sigoroth:
Carriers do not have the option of launching torpedoes.

What? Despoiler variant, Protector, variant Strike Cruiser, Dictator. Custodian, Hero. Anything else.

Totally obnoxious quote from a large post.


   
4b + 0f vs daun   4*(d6-1) = 0 - 20
3b + 1f vs daun   3*(d6-0) = 3 - 18
   
4b + 0f vs lunar   4*(d6-2) = 0 - 16
3b + 1f vs lunar   3*(d6-1) = 0 - 15
2b + 2f vs lunar   2*(d6-0) = 2 - 12
   
   
8b + 0f vs daun   8*(d6-1) = 0 - 40
7b + 1f vs daun   7*(d6-0) = 7 - 42
   
8b + 0f vs lunar   8*(d6-2) = 0 - 32
7b + 1f vs lunar   7*(d6-1) = 0 - 35
6b + 2f vs lunar   6*(d6-0) = 6 - 36

turret shot down a marker:   
7b + 0f vs lunar   7*(d6-2) = 0 - 28
6b + 1f vs lunar   6*(d6-1) = 0 - 30
5b + 2f vs lunar   5*(d6-0) = 5 - 30


/////
hmmsels...Kinda kinky on the max ends. I must retract a previous comment: str4 waves would be better with soley bombers on the max end.

Larger waves with fighters will gain. Most funny is Lunar 6b/1f vs 5b/2f.

From this I gain that when facing a 2 turret vessel the most effective wave will be 5 bombers and 3 fighters in the long run.
Which under FAQ2010 would lead to overkill on fighters... under FAQ2010 6 bombers and 2 fighters would do the trick for (6*(D6-2)) + 2 for a range between 2 and 24.

[RCgothic]

The torpedos are incidental. It doesn't matter if a carrier has them or not as far as this discussion goes.

In fact, torpedos are another example of ordnance that, along with assault boats, can overwhelm turrets in large numbers. They take their casualties, and after that it doesn't matter how many turrets the target has. Even with TTS, the bombers still have to jump through more hoops than that. There's no good reason T6 targets should be invulnerable to them, nor that T6 should be a hard cap on the number of turrets something can have.

>>Note though, that against 1 turret ships under current rules a wave of 4 bombers would get an average of 8.75 attack runs. Under TTS rules a wave of 3b/1f would get an average of 9. Minuscule upgrade.

Less than 3% in fact.

Note also that bombers decrease in effectiveness for Wave4 vs T2. Average attack runs is 5, compared to 5.3 under FAQ2010.

Yes, a Wave of 8 vs T2 is up to 16.25 attacks, compared to 11.7 under FAQ 2010 (39% increase).
However, add just one massed escort, and the two systems are within 2% of each other at 11.8 (FAQ2010) and 11.58 (TTS)
Adding one fighter on CAP as well drops TTS to 8.7, and FAQ 2010 to 10.14, making FAQ2010 14% more powerful against a moderately defended cruiser.

So, TTS will make large, unmolested AC waves more powerful, but it will also vastly reduce their effectiveness if you put a little effort into defending against them. The best case scenario gets better, and the worst case scenario gets worse, and which one you get is dependant on player skill.

[horizon]

So, TTS will make large, unmolested AC waves more powerful, but it will also vastly reduce their effectiveness if you put a little effort into defending against them. The best case scenario gets better, and the worst case scenario gets worse, and which one you get is dependant on player skill.

And thus you'll see a growth in carriers taken in any allround / tournament fleets.
The gunnery player needs more cap.

[RCgothic]

With the changes, (Massed turrets = +1T for each ship in contact, &TTS Rules as discussed), 1 ship in contact to mass turrets is more effective than 1 fighter on CAP, which will allow gun fleets to be competitive against pure carrier fleets. You can get protection either by CAP, or by massing turrets, or a mixture of both. I honestly believe these changes will make guns more competitive with carriers.

It will see a new dawn for the escort.

[Vaaish]

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.

Seriously... you are picking at straws. Whether or not people should have to do something has no bearing on if they can. I don't believe I argued they COULDN'T or WON'T do it, that's a complete fabrication on your part of a failure to communicate on mine. Second this is two separate arguments. One argument is that those shouldn't be the normal means of dealing with a resource that simply reloads and reappears on the table at full strength after it's intercepted. The second argument is against the notion you posted that your chosen rules set somehow adds more tactical richness to the game by pointing out that all of your examples are already possible with the current rules.

GREATER RISK = MORE TACTICS.

Ok, that's just complete bunk. So the more risks I take equals out to the more tactics I have? That makes a tactical genius if I launch myself at a brick wall from a cannon because it has far greater risk than jumping into the same wall on foot! In a game sense, it's far riskier to take all gothics against eldar but that doesn't equal out to more tactics. Taking your own example, squadrons of carriers are risky so boosting bomber power makes it more worthwhile because they can damage all targets efficiently. So I squadron my carriers to boost wave size. Now what? I still send AC out in waves to hit targets. I still screen my carriers. I still try to use phenomena to block LOF to the carriers. My tactics remain unchanged for the application of the AC I have, what changes is my desire to bring more AC to increase my benefits which in turn reduces the risk involved because I have greater access to AC to account for poor dice or interception. The net effect is that I find it more desirable to bring more carriers at the cost of gunnery.

In any event, there isn't much point in continuing this discussion since you seem to have taken things rather personally and there's no reason to exacerbate the situation by restating what I've already said.

The torpedos are incidental. It doesn't matter if a carrier has them or not as far as this discussion goes. In fact, torpedos are another example of ordnance that, along with assault boats, can overwhelm turrets in large numbers. They take their casualties, and after that it doesn't matter how many turrets the target has. Even with TTS, the bombers still have to jump through more hoops than that. There's no good reason T6 targets should be invulnerable to them, nor that T6 should be a hard cap on the number of turrets something can have.

This is true, but I pointed out torpedoes not because they are bound to carriers, but because they are a way of attacking ships with high turrets. The same goes for assault boats. I think the key difference here why AB and torpedoes "overwhelm" turrets is that, unlike bombers, they aren't just swooping around again and a gain making attack runs. They are just running right at the target once and trying to impact the hull.
 

[RCgothic]

By more risk = more tactics, what is actually meant is "This is more difficult, but it does reward the skillfull application of force."

[Sigoroth]

Seriously... you are picking at straws. Whether or not people should have to do something has no bearing on if they can. I don't believe I argued they COULDN'T or WON'T do it, that's a complete fabrication on your part of a failure to communicate on mine. Second this is two separate arguments. One argument is that those shouldn't be the normal means of dealing with a resource that simply reloads and reappears on the table at full strength after it's intercepted. The second argument is against the notion you posted that your chosen rules set somehow adds more tactical richness to the game by pointing out that all of your examples are already possible with the current rules.

Jeez. This is not "picking at straws". You first said that the defences against large waves I mentioned were not applicable because of the difficulties associated with it or the value in doing it. Things like having the torps to sacrifice, "wasting" an escort or directed fire, etc. This line of reasoning suggests that there is no value in doing these things, therefore people won't/don't/shouldn't have to do these things, therefore there is no defence against large AC wave spam from the back of the battlefield. This IS how you started out your counter-argument. You don't believe me then just scroll back and read it again.

After your "logic" was soundly defeated you then shifted your point away from people being able to spam large AC waves from afar and instead attacked the notion that the changes would increase tactical play. You did this by suggesting that since all the above mentioned defences against ordnance are currently possible that this adds no tactical ability whatsoever. This is, of course, inane as well as directly contradictory to the argument you used suggesting they would become too powerful.

If the Voss cruiser becomes balanced, even if just by reducing its cost with no other change, then wouldn't this increase tactical options? Even though people could have bought it before, it now becomes attractive which increases its tactical use. Soooooo, if all these defences against AC which have been hitherto only partially explored become much more attractive due to the GREATER RISK that the enemy's larger wave of AC represents then they will result in MORE TACTICS being used by the player. At the moment, it's not necessary to explore all your defensive options in detail. So people don't.

Oh, and btw, every damn resource except ordnance simply "reloads". Ordnance requires taking and passing a command check! Weapon batteries are a resource that simply reloads and comes at you again next turn. So are lance batteries. And Bombardment Cannon. And Heavy Gunz. When someone shoots at you the expend a resource. The same is true when they launch ordnance. Ordnance has some downsides in that it can be intercepted before it reaches the target. Direct fire can't. So the advantage goes to direct fire, not ordnance.

GREATER RISK = MORE TACTICS.

Ok, that's just complete bunk. So the more risks I take equals out to the more tactics I have? That makes a tactical genius if I launch myself at a brick wall from a cannon because it has far greater risk than jumping into the same wall on foot! In a game sense, it's far riskier to take all gothics against eldar but that doesn't equal out to more tactics. Taking your own example, squadrons of carriers are risky so boosting bomber power makes it more worthwhile because they can damage all targets efficiently. So I squadron my carriers to boost wave size. Now what? I still send AC out in waves to hit targets. I still screen my carriers. I still try to use phenomena to block LOF to the carriers. My tactics remain unchanged for the application of the AC I have, what changes is my desire to bring more AC to increase my benefits which in turn reduces the risk involved because I have greater access to AC to account for poor dice or interception. The net effect is that I find it more desirable to bring more carriers at the cost of gunnery.

You don't follow context too well. I never said GREATER STUPIDITY = MORE TACTICS. The risk in this context, obviously, is the risk of that large wave of AC getting to your ships intact. Therefore you're forced to more fully explore your defensive options to prevent that from happening. Since bombers have low expected yield against high turret targets there has been very little reason to even bother trying to defend them at all in the past.

As for your premise that you'll just be encouraged to bring more AC, well that might be the case for a fleet that depends heavily on AC to win the day. The only one I know of to depend so heavily on AC is Tau. So this would mean that they'd be encouraged to, what, take more Heroes? Oh wait, they take maximum possible anyway. Umm, so how about take more Explorers at the expense of Heroes and Orcas? Well if you can't beat an all Explorer fleet then you really should try another game. Maybe checkers is for you.

But apart from Tau, let's run with your premise for, say, Chaos. They don't have to go ordnance heavy, but they can. Ok, so you take more carriers because you want to be able to strip away defensive CAP or make sure that you'll be able to form larger waves. So what? If you want to play a carrier fleet, go ahead. Why shouldn't you? Hell, if you want to try to win by sitting behind terrain and sending out large waves then go ahead. I could guarantee you that with an equally pointed gunfleet I could sit back on the other side of that terrain you're hiding behind and never get hit by a single bomber. At 1500 points you could have 6 Explorers for a total of 48 AC and if you split that into just 3 waves of 16 and spammed from afar then not a single one would get into contact with any of my ships. Sorry to bust your bubble. You would have to split into smaller waves to have a chance. You'd have to figure out a way to get close enough to get through my defences in order to make those large waves effective.

[Sigoroth]

I'll give you a scenario and demonstrate what gunships would do in the circumstances compared to carriers.

So, let's say you're an IN player and have managed to break the enemy line. You haven't crossed his T, but you have abeam targets on each side of you at close range (5+ armour, 2/2 shields/turrets).

In the gunship scenario you have a squadron of 4 Dominators on LO. Since the target is abeam and close ranged (cap ship) then you're only using the middle column of the gunnery table. You get 24 dice at each target. On average 8 of those will hit, giving you 16 re-rolls, from which we get another 5.33 hits for a total of 13.33 each side. Subtract 2 for shields gives 11.33 and then halve for brace gives 5.67 hits. Total of 11 hull hits, both targets crippled/braced.

In the carrier scenario you have a squadron of 4 Dictators on RO and in btb contact. Your 24 WBs net you 12 dice each side, which is 4 hits, 2 past shields, 1 after brace. Now your 13b/3f wave attacks one ship. It has 2 turrets so you will net an average of 42.25 attack runs (only 42 if you went 12b/4f). This translates as 14.08 hits, 7.04 after brace saves. However, you had to run through a BM, so have a 1 in 6 chance of the entire wave detonating prematurely giving 5.87 hits on average, plus the 1 from the fire = 6.87. Turns out it would be more beneficial to not even bother shooting at that target. In which case you'll get 7.04 hits on 1 target (crippled/braced) and 1 hit on the other (braced) for a total of 8 hull hits and 1 crippled ship.

Which would you rather? Before you answer that, take into account that the Doms were only using the middle of the gunnery chart, the Dictators are in base contact (so easily damaged), and the gunnery ships are 120 points cheaper than their AC counterparts. I don't see how this is so unbalancing.

[horizon]

Well, aside of that it is 4 Dominators who could break a carrier force early on due Nova Cannons the key factor for gunnery cruisers is to break that enemy line in the first place. Isn't it?

The Dictators could decide to move in contact in the turn they think it is most essential to deploy the largest possible wave. They do not need to be in contact/close contact all the way in.
Also, the Dictator can break the line but do no need to do.

But I think the problem being in the discussion is the tactical approach one might have, or not have. Not everyone acts the same.
There are so many examples around the game, most actually in IN and Chaos were tactics are different.

So, what I want to say is that comparing these rules and ordnance vs gunnery is almost impossible to do in regards to tactics,

So that's frigged.

In no way I am denouncing your calculations Sigoroth but you need to keep in mind the whole history before such a situation can be created.

[Vaaish]

...After your "logic" was soundly defeated you then shifted your point away from people being able to spam large AC waves from afar and instead attacked the notion that the changes would increase tactical play. You did this by suggesting that since all the above mentioned defences against ordnance are currently possible that this adds no tactical ability whatsoever. This is, of course, inane as well as directly contradictory to the argument you used suggesting they would become too powerful.

Lets go back over that, shall we?

I think we have differing ideas of what richly rewards tactics. For the high LB player, you reward him simply for having more AC to throw at the problem (read spamming) which I don't see as any great tactical depth that warrants a reward. For the other end, you penalize the lack of AC by forcing the player to counter his opponents AC by squeezing in another carrier, sacrificing ships as ablative wounds, redirecting firepower, or placing himself in a tactically weak position simply because his fleet can't bring as much AC or because his fleet is more gunnery focused. None of those things makes you THINK any more that you would already in a given situation.

Did I say not applicable? Nope... not seeing it. I'm saying here your proposed idea doesn't make the game more tactically rich and penalizes a player simply based on his choice of race... which, incidentally was a response to this:

more richly rewards tactics, forces your opponent to actually think,

Continuing....

If the Voss cruiser becomes balanced, even if just by reducing its cost with no other change, then wouldn't this increase tactical options?

Can you not see the logic behind, if X exists and X=Y then Y already exists? No it wouldn't increase tactical options. Those options already exist and are accessible and usable because the voss cruisers exist. Making them more attractive or more effective does nothing to increase tactical options.

Ok, to sum this whole thing up. One. I'm not being contradictory. I begin by saying your idea is overpowered with large waves and, as the discussion moves to tactical depth, that it doesn't give any added tactical depth to the game. Two. I supported this as evidenced by your stated examples of expanded depth already being possible in the current game. Finally. Stop restating my posts as you want them to read instead of how they actually read.

Oh, and btw, every damn resource except ordnance simply "reloads". Ordnance requires taking and passing a command check!

Sigh.... none of those lets you sit 170cm off and maneuver at 50cm per turn to hit at full strength with skillful use. Gunnery degrades based on facing and range, most SO further reduce it. It has a limited maximum range and it requires you to put the shooting vessel in close proximity for retaliation much less hiding out of LOF. Apples to Oranges here.

Maybe checkers is for you.

Ok, I understand you get off on belittling people who disagree with your viewpoint. But really, you know very little about me or my skill and know absolutely nothing of my opponents so please, stop assuming things.

[RCgothic]

Note also that the carrier's targets in Sigoroth's example were complete undefended, in that they had no CAP or massing of turrets. With a CAP or an escort in contact, the 16 strong wave would have been severely neutered. It doesn't take too much prescience to anticipate the wave of doom, and even if the escort is shot up first, now your wave is flying through blastmarkers, which is almost as bad.

This wouldn't make ordnance overpowering, and in any case, any adjustment in power up or down is incidental. The reasons for making the change are:

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.

And again, for recap, the proposed changes are:

(True)Turret Suppression:
For each surviving fighter in a wave, one turret is negated for the purposes of each bomber's number of attacks.

Turret Massing:
For each ship in base contact, a ship counts its turret value as +1. (for all purposes)

And as I was very nearly ninja'd:

Sigh.... none of those lets you sit 170cm off and maneuver at 50cm per turn to hit at full strength with skillful use. Gunnery degrades based on facing and range, most SO further reduce it. It has a limited maximum range and it requires you to put the shooting vessel in close proximity for retaliation much less hiding out of LOF. Apples to Oranges here.

I find myself agreeing with Sigoroth. If you want to stay at 170cm, then even if I have nothing but 30cm range weapons, you're going to be exposed to at least one course of fire, and even if you survive that gauntlet I'll easily be able to castle up enough to render the AC next to useless, and with fleet launch limits, you'll be launching one wave every 6-7 turns.

[horizon]

So with this rule I would deploy like 8 Iconoclasts around my Desolator. Giving it 12 turrets for all purposes. Making every attack craft wave with or without fighters operating at a -12 modifier to begin with. So I need to have a wave of ... ehm at least 7 surviving fighters to do something?

I mean that is what you are telling, right?

Yes, gunnery could finish some escorts before but that'll little the area. I could even deploy some heavier escorts (better armour) in front of a capital ship, touching the base making sure AC needs to fly around some extra.... centimetres. Or even impossible to touch ship at all.

Well, then we can start rewriting squadron rules as well : escorts & capital ships may form a group.

This leads to BFG: Apocalypse

I think Massing Turrets is fine for adding additional fire, but not in the suppression area. Really, makes for more +/- as well etc..


(ps I am exaggarating but do not forget these anomalies.)

[Vaaish]

RC:
What about Tau tossing in missile salvos to intercept cap?

I find myself agreeing with Sigoroth. If you want to stay at 170cm, then even if I have nothing but 30cm range weapons, you're going to be exposed to at least one course of fire, and even if you survive that gauntlet I'll easily be able to castle up enough to render the AC next to useless, and with fleet launch limits, you'll be launching one wave every 6-7 turns.

This was meant as an example of why direct fire and AC aren't a good comparison for stuff reloading rather than actual tactical use. The fact remains you can't snake WB or NC around or through an asteroid field to hit a target on the other side but you can do that with AC.

[RCgothic]

So with this rule I would deploy like 8 Iconoclasts around my Desolator. Giving it 12 turrets for all purposes. Making every attack craft wave with or without fighters operating at a -12 modifier to begin with. So I need to have a wave of ... ehm at least 7 surviving fighters to do something?

I mean that is what you are telling, right?

Yes, gunnery could finish some escorts before but that'll little the area. I could even deploy some heavier escorts (better armour) in front of a capital ship, touching the base making sure AC needs to fly around some extra.... centimetres. Or even impossible to touch ship at all.

Well, then we can start rewriting squadron rules as well : escorts & capital ships may form a group.

This leads to BFG: Apocalypse

I think Massing Turrets is fine for adding additional fire, but not in the suppression area. Really, makes for more +/- as well etc..


(ps I am exaggarating but do not forget these anomalies.)

The escorts themselves would be vulnerable in that case. The Desolator may have 8 ships in contact, but the iconoclasts will probably only have 2 or 3, so AC could eventually wear a fleet down that way. The escort squadron would also be twice as vulnerable against direct fire. In the case of a fleet trying to operate solely at range, yes, a fleet could be next to invulnerable against that. Trying to attack an ordered formation with attack craft would be suicide. But ships with ships that become separated from the fleet, or that under the pressure of direct fire weaponry can't come to each other's mutual aid, will be left vulnerable.

What about Tau tossing in missile salvos to intercept cap?

And those missiles themselves have to run a gauntlet of fire, counter-barrages and fighter screens. Just play test it, try and break it, and see what you think. I think it works very nicely.