BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[RayB HA]

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. Because Tau torps have a varying speed they can be placed to exploit this. But in the interests of fairness (and the fact that each 6 torpedoes look to be represented by a warhammer base), you should talk to your opponent and ask if this is in the spirit of the rules. It's not!   

Another exploit Tau torps can get away with is using their turn is to skim bases, meaning technically they can hit the side of a ship even if coming head on (this is also doable with boarding torps). Once again this is an unintended exploit and should be disallowed.

Cheers,

RayB HA

[flybywire-E2C]

Reducing the torpedo strength can't get you an extra attack. If a ship ends its movement on torpedoes those torpedoes don't get to attack that ship again in the ordnance phase (unless they left its base and came back).

The only way you can hit the same ship twice is if you shoot in its direction of travel. E.g. so cobras fly past an enemy ship head on and then CTNH facing its aft, they then fire their torpedoes hitting it in the aft, the ship then moves into them again in its movement phase, they will hit against its prow armour.

As a side note, torpedo markers look to be replaced by small warhammer bases.

Cheers,

RayB

This isn't in the FAQ, but it will be. Assuming torps hit twice in a single player turn is wong,  cheating and boo!

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

Thanks for your quick answer.

However, the situation we were arguing about was a bit more specific: if I hit a ship with a torpedo marker put the way I showed in the above picture (on the prow facing), then reducing in size the marker after turrets and hits, will the ship be hit again in its movement phase, because of its compulsory move? Or should the torpedo marker be put beyond the ship, after resolving its to hit rolls? I forgot to draw the facings of the ship, sorry. For example: I place 8 tau torpedoes in base contact with a Lunar: after hits and turrets, only 4 remain. The marker is now smaller in size, and no more in base contact (as the center of the marker must remain the same): if it stays where it is, the Lunar will get hit again in its movement phase, unless a Burn Retros order is issued.

The same situation could happen with all kind of non-tau torpedo, of course, provided you can get a good fire solution and the 'perfect' distance from the ship: quite difficult for non-tau cruisers, but not so much for Eldar or escorts, I think.

Thanks again.

This exact problem is one of the reasons Andy Chambers wanted us to resort to str-2 torp markers with a D6 for strength way back in 2003 when there wre still plans to release an actual 2nd Edition of the game. Thus teh marker never changes physical size, and the problem is avoided. This is why we are fixing it in the FAQ, so this can't be done.

The way it works with a str-2 marker (worst case) is like this: A defending player's Lunar stops its movement just in base contact with a str-8 torp marker, which then gets solved immediately. Turrets reduce this to 6, and torps score 2 hits to reduce the marker to str-4. Now at the end of the defending player's ordnance phase, the torps move on behind and away from the Lunar, not conducting any more attacks on the Lunar.

- Nate

[Don Gusto]

Imho the current rules for torpedo salvos are a solid abstraction that plays well.
They remind me of the common WWII tactic of firing torpedoes in spreads to increase the likelihood of a hit against distant targets. Firing more torpedoes not only increases potential damage but also covers more area.

Reducing torpedo salvos to a fixed size will completely remove this advantage and weaken torpedoes in general in BFG. Just look at the discussion over the CWE Dragonships weapon options:
6 torpedo tubes is nothing compared to 4 launch bays and with this 'fix' the torpedo option will become even less appealing, despite its increase to 8.

Also I did some experimenting with 3D torpedo markers but gave up on it as its not practical. Torpedoes unlike other ordnance ist not removed on first contact and often has to be placed in a space which is already occupied.
The fact that torpedo markers are flat makes this a lot easier.
Think of a group of bunched up ships where you have to place a torpedo marker in the middle. And now you have to put a die on top of it?

Nah, I don't like it at all.

Edit:
I totally forgot to mention that size does matter.
One of BFG's perks is the fact that even innocent bystanders can get a quick grasp of what's going on. Blast markers show were the action is and the threat of a salvo is plain obvious.

[horizon]

I like it a lot. And I play Tau. And CWE Eldar!

[Vaaish]

I like it as well, and I play IN. Ok, I'm not 100% behind it because I'm not sure how much of an effect it will have on torpedo effectiveness. I'm wagering not much since close in salvos won't change and long range I think can be adjusted for.

[horizon]

Heck, even with mighty torp spread at long range wide waves aren't uber. Most people dodge them or use fighters. I do not see great changes in game play personally.

[russ_c]

I like having a uniform size, but think the standard size should be larger than str2 to not sacrifice some of the current feeling.  Thus, str4 torps.  Oh, and I don't play Tau, Imperial, or CWE!  I mostly receive the torps instead of giving them.  I don't like mircomanaging the size of torp markers.  It's tedious, with few benefits to the game.

Russ

[russ_c]

Also I did some experimenting with 3D torpedo markers but gave up on it as its not practical. Torpedoes unlike other ordnance ist not removed on first contact and often has to be placed in a space which is already occupied.
The fact that torpedo markers are flat makes this a lot easier.
Think of a group of bunched up ships where you have to place a torpedo marker in the middle. And now you have to put a die on top of it?

Good point!  But hardly a reason not to standardize the size.

Russ

[fracas]

would the current torpedo markers fit vertically into the slot of a 2cmx2cm square slota base?

[russ_c]

would the current torpedo markers fit vertically into the slot of a 2cmx2cm square slota base?

What an odd question...I can't wait to see where you are going with this!  

I would presume yes for the str2 marker, because the marker is only 1.5cm wide.

Russ


[A few minutes later..]

OH, I get what you want to do.  You want to stand them up vertically to use as strength indicators!?  I'm betting they won't fit because the length of the torp is 2cm.  Wouldn't that look rather silly as well!?  A leaning tower of cardboard torps!

[silashand]

Heck, even with mighty torp spread at long range wide waves aren't uber. Most people dodge them or use fighters. I do not see great changes in game play personally.

I do. In fact, IMO it does more to detract from the feel of the game than anything else really. The whole "hit a single target more than once" issue could be solved a lot more simply and elegantly than this kludge. JMO though.

Besides, as much as the HA are saying they aren't trying to rewrite the game, in some ways it appears they are doing just that. Are wholesale rule rewrites within the charter of the HA? I didn't think so, but I don't know that for certain.

Cheers, Gary

[horizon]

Hi Gary,

as said, the marker fix is not about hitting targets twice. It is about awkward angles, strechted out torps. With large markers it is easy to hit targets out of the front arc. In the first turn of fire. Essentially torps are Front Arc plus port/starboard to a degree.

Also, most torps are fired at 30cm range as shotguns. With all countermeasures long range salvo's are a waste most of the time. Only with plenty of AC support it can work. Thus only Tau/Imperial Navy strength, with Tau having an edge.
The 2marker won't change shotgun tactics at close range.

The HA does answer questions, they propose all rulesets to Andy Hall at GW. Mostly Andy does add nothing and the rules are placed online. Latest was the Ships of Mars pdf. No one at GW worked on it. And it is official.

[RayB HA]

Hi Guys,

The 2cm Torp bases work. So do 2.5cm bases (when I tested them). 2cm seems more attractive as it matches AC but how would you feel about the slightly bigger bases?

My orginal intention was to have 2cm base represent each full 6 torps and the remainder. So a str 8 salvo would have 2 bases side by side.

The 2.5cm base actually has enough room on top to fit 2 D6 (or even 4D6!!!). So if only one marker/base is going to be used for every size salvo I vote for the 2.5cm base!

Cheers,

RayB HA

[flybywire-E2C]

Hi Guys,

The 2cm Torp bases work. So do 2.5cm bases (when I tested them). 2cm seems more attractive as it matches AC but how would you feel about the slightly bigger bases?

My orginal intention was to have 2cm base represent each full 6 torps and the remainder. So a str 8 salvo would have 2 bases side by side.

The 2.5cm base actually has enough room on top to fit 2 D6 (or even 4D6!!!). So if only one marker/base is going to be used for every size salvo I vote for the 2.5cm base!

Cheers,

RayB HA

I second that, but I only worry is where do we send players that DON’T have 2.5cm bases to get some? What do they use in the meantime? I’m NOT saying I don’t like the idea because I do and call it good. I just want to make sure we are thinking about all the players.