BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[Trasvi]

20mm torps IMO, if changing anything. Keep them the same size as other attack craft. However I do really like the current large waves of torps - as others have said it feels more epic.
GW sells bags of 20mm bases -Alternatively you can purchase them from eBay, and Litko/ GaleForce 9 do markers also.

Heck, someone should contact Litko can get a full complement of BFG tokens into production.

As for Resilient attack craft, I'd like to see some clarification about how to resolve attacks vs multiple markers of resilient attack craft (assuming the rules don't change)

Ie, 2 fighters attack 3 resilient bombers. Can both the fighters attack one bomber (thus guaranteed to destroy it) or do they both have to make attacks against separate craft (giving the bombers 2 rolls and potentially saving both).
If the former, do the other bombers get to continue moving, seeing as they didn't make a save?
If 4 fighters attack 3 bombers, what happens? Can the bombers attempt 3 saves, and the remaining fighter attacks one that passed? Or do the fighters need to allocate hits, such that the 'extra' fighter may only attack one selected bomber, and if that bomber fails its save then the extra fighter is effectively wasted?

Also... what does HA stand for?
 

[horizon]

HA = High Admirality = BFG rules committee.

[fracas]

Still think attack crafts should use the epic bases it come with
Ok with torps on same epic base as well
Even better if the number of model on each base represents the strength of the wave or salvo

[RCgothic]

TURRET SUPPRESSION RULES:  Each fighter in a wave of bombers attacking a ship will add +1 attack to the total attack runs of the wave, regardless of whether they are shot down or not. The maximum number of bonus attacks that can be added in this way is equal to the number of turrets the target ship has on its profile (so not including bonuses from other ships in base contact using the massed turret fire rule). There must be at least one surviving bomber in the wave after turret fire to gain these bonus attacks and fighters are removed before any other type of ordnance.
Note: the number of attacks that each individual bomber makes is not altered by the addition of fighters. So if two bombers are attacking a two turret target they will each make 1D6-2 (minimum zero) attacks regardless of whether there are accompanying fighters or not. If one fighter accompanies the bombers, +1 attack is added to the total. If two or more fighters are accompanying the bombers then +2 attacks are added to the total (since it has two turrets).
Also note that crippling a vessel constitutes a permanent change to its turret value and thus the maximum number of attacks that can be gained by supporting fighters. A crippled Lunar will only have 1 turret and so you can only gain a maximum of +1 attack due to fighter support.

I've registered to post my strongest possible objection to the way this rule has been formulated.

#1. It's never worth sending less than the maximum number of fighters against a ship with 3 or more turrets. This alone should tell you that this rule is broken, when you only send a few token bombers because the fighters are doing more damage.

#2. Fighta-bommerz get completely gimped. Against most line cruisers they'll never roll more than one hit (and that only 1/3 of the time), and against anything with 3+ turrets they'll only ever get the up to 3 supression runs for the wave. In fact, it's specifically noted that fighta-bommerz are better off attacking individually so that their bonuses stack! I mean come on!

#3. Similiarly to #2, you're better off attacking 3+ turret targets with multiple small waves of mostly fighters and only token bombers. This is just exploitable. High turret targets won't find even large waves overwhelming.

It just doesn't feel right. It's counter-intuitive (fighters doing more damage than bombers), and exploitable (when have small waves ever been better than big ones?)

Far better would be to make each fighter in the wave negate a -1 from a turret. Fighta-bommerz negate the first 3. This means it's the bombers that do the damage, and makes the role of the fighter turret supression, not strike-fighter. Please, please consider this ammendment.

[lastspartacus]

Man, I just noticed this.  I have always played 'surviving fighters deduct 1 from the ship's bombing dice reduction, up to the total of the turret value'
aka, if 2 fighters and 2 bombers in a wave assault a Lunar, and one fighter gets shot down, then the remaining fighter causes the bombers to roll d6-1 rather than d6-2.  Was that the old rules, or did i just pull that out of the ether somewhere?

Anyway, I like it better.  And it doesnt gimp the way current fighta bommaz work as much.

Edit:  Also, is it really ok that escort size vessels can set out boarding torps?  Thats alot of crewmen from a widdle escort.

[horizon]

Escorts are still 1km in length LastSpartacus.

RCG,
I dunno I think the rule changed. It got better then before.
In the previous surpession rules you could do 3 bomber, then 5 fighters in a wave to attack an Emperor. This way you had (3*(D6-5)) + 5 attacks from fighters.

Now it is capped at fighters not exceeding bombers, thus a 4+4 wave leading to:
 (4*(D6-5)) + 4 attacks from fighters.

So large waves are still better then small waves but the odness of having more fighters is neutered.



Fighter Bombers is another story :/

[fracas]

I've prefer the way lastspartacus described fighter suppression as this was how I originally interpreted the rule.
And as horizon stated this uses the bombers as the determinant of the number of attacks rather the fighters. Against a turret 5 ship the fighters do all the attacks rather than the bombers with the new interpretation. That would not make any sense

[horizon]

Not so, under old suppression (FAQ2007) they did more then under new (FAQ2010).

I think the turret reduction as LS or RcGothic described create to much high ends. I am not for it.

FAQ2010 is to be advocated to me, at least compared to that idea.

[Sigoroth]

Not so, under old suppression (FAQ2007) they did more then under new (FAQ2010).

I think the turret reduction as LS or RcGothic described create to much high ends. I am not for it.

FAQ2010 is to be advocated to me, at least compared to that idea.

Actually I remember proposing some years ago that turret suppression should work exactly as lastspartacus said; surviving fighters deduct 1 from the ships turrets as far as determining bombers number of attack runs is concerned. This way they had to survive to be effective, meaning that the ships turret fire mattered. When sending AC against an Emperor from a couple of carriers (or one big one) I'd always send 1 bomber and 5 fighters and the other 2 AC I'd either send against smaller targets or use as fighters to mop up other ordnance. The IN player would never even attempt to fire, even if there were no torpedoes to come. This is because even if he hit with all 5 turrets it wouldn't change the outcome at al.

One of the problems with the current turret suppression rules is that just about everyone that isn't used to them misinterprets them. People think that they actually "suppress" the turret making the bombers attacks stronger. Since this is the most common misinterpretation, the most intuitive ruleset and doesn't invalidate turret fire (if we're talking surviving fighters only) or even add any level of complexity then this is how it should be.

Now, in the case of 2 regular or 1 large carrier/s against an Emperor sending out 3 bombers and 5 fighters (no "left overs") we see a maximum of 3x 1D6 attacks. However, for every fighter shot down by the Emperor's turrets we subtract 1 from each d6 (minimum zero of course). For the attacking player to completely obviate the Emperor's turret fire he would need to send 10 fighters. Doing so would mean that no matter how many times the Emperor hit, each bomber would do 1d6 attacks. However, this isn't so bad because 1) it takes so damn many fighters to guarantee this and 2) each turret that didn't hit means that the attacking player could've sent in another bomber instead, meaning another d6 attacks. So it's a trade-off at all times.

As for fighter-bombers I'd make them the same as regular bombers with the exception of 1d3 attacks instead of 1d6. Declare number suppressing turrets before turret attacks rolled.

Basically, this version of turret suppression makes the number of turrets on high turret targets useful. A 4 turret BB against 6 AC (2 bombers & 4 fighters) gave away (1d6-4) + (1d6-4) + 4 attacks which averages 5 attacks total. A 5 turret BB against 6 AC (1 bomber & 5 fighters) gave away (1d6-5) + 5 attacks, which averages 5.16 attacks. This is pretty silly. I know, the extra turret really is a bonus when comparing larger wave sizes, and also for soaking that extra AC (people would normally just send 1 bomber & 4 fighters against a 4 turret target) but it's still silly that a higher turret ship gives up more average attacks at any given number of attackers than a 4 turret ship.

So, it's more intuitive, more credible, simple and adds much greater tactical depth to the game I don't see why this shouldn't be changed. Hell, I don't know why it wasn't this way in the first place.

Turret Suppression Rule

Fighters can accompany bombers on their attack runs to distract and suppress enemy turrets, clearing the way for the bombers attack runs. For each surviving fighter accompanying a wave of bombers attacking a ship the target ship counts as having 1 less turret when determining each bombers number of attacks. In the case of fighter-bombers the number assigned to suppress turrets must be declared before turret attacks are rolled.

This is how the rule should've been written, with maybe an example thrown in too. I dare say that there'd have been far less confusion and far fewer questions arising over turret suppression if this was how the rule was written in the first place.

[lastspartacus]

Wierd, thats the way ive always played it.  Where did I get that?! @.@

Horizon, why the dislike?

[horizon]

High ends. LS, more high ends on the dice
Sigoroth: new supresseron rules say that fighter attacks cannot exceed remaining bombers. So 3-5 as you say in excess. 4-4 is the trick now.

I think your approach makes cruisers with low turret numbers defenceless vs large waves. And generally seen toast.

Lets see:
wave of 8: your approach. Being cautious you send in 4 fighters and 4 bombers.
The Lunar rolls good and destroys two fighters by turrets.
That means I would have : 4*(D6-0) attacks = ranging between 4 and 24 attacks.
Going by average one sends in 3 fighters and 5 bombers as 2 turrets would shoot down on average 1 marker. In that case you would get:
5*(D6-0) attacks = ranging between 5 and 30 attacks....hemmm


Under FAQ 2010 sending in 4 fighters is ludicrous as they don't need to survive. So the wave is 2f-6b.
That means: (6*(D6-2)) + 2 attacks = ranging between 2 and 26 attacks,

lol, so vs small rated cruisers it changes which system has the low and/or high end. When comparing number of dice it is not of a big change too effectiveness. It is easier to roll 4 sixes then 6 sixes. Thus...


I think your (& LS & RcG) approach makes ordnance stronger. A tidbit I do not like to see in the game to be honest.

edit again: if the concept of FAQ2010 isn't liked add in that fighters must survive to give the bonus. Quite a neuter to it as well.
Heck, I like that idea.

[RCgothic]

Yeah, I like the fact fighters must survive. Gives trade off of risk (all your fighters get shot down) vs damage (none of your fighters get shot down and you have more bombers).

I think the rule should be exactly as Sigoroth posted. And let's keep in focus that even a full 36 attacks (the absolute maximum a wave of 8 could possibly do to a cruiser) against armour 5 probably won't do more than cripple a braced healthy cruiser. The average number of attacks from a wave of 3f 5b against the same cruiser won't even cripple it. A wave of 8 assault boats will certainly cripple the same cruiser, if not in terms of hit points, they'll render it useless through lack of armament and inability to turn.

[lastspartacus]

I definitly dont want to increase the power of ordnance in any way, shape, or form.  Whatever option gives fighters something to do but at the same time makes ordnance weakest.  Seriously, they are pretty awesome

[fracas]

I agree with sigoroth as well on this rule

[Don Gusto]

I also like that rule much better than what is currently in the FAQ2010.
It will however make large waves a lot more effective against high-turret targets and turn Eldar bombing runs into a real hammer.

On the other hand I've never been a fan of the whole turret suppression idea.
I've always wondered why turrets are calculated twice against bombers whereas they only roll to hit against torpedoes. My best explanation is that in the original design it was just d6 per surviving bomber and since this was found to be overpowered the reduction was added.
I would have simply reduced the number of attacks from each surviving bomber to a fixed number: e.g. Each surviving bomber attacks with 2 dice against the targets lowest armor value. Much simpler.