BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[horizon]

Ok,
1) Sigoroth/RcGothic:
a survived fighter marker reduces turret modifier by 1.
Thus is 1 fighter marker survived along 2 bombers against a Lunar they will roll:
(D6-1) + (D6-1) = number of attacks

2) Vaaish his idea
a surviving fighter marker allows bomber markers to re-roll a failed attack run dice.
Thus 1 fighter / 2 bombers survive after turret fire vs Lunar, then:
(D6-2) + (D6-2) per normal
But if the result of the D6 is 1 or 2 (thus no attack runs) that dice may be re-rolled.

One might argue if 1 fighter markers allows 1 bomber marker to re-roll or all bomber markers

[Vaaish]

My proposal was this:
After turrets fire on an attacking AC wave check to see if any fighters remain. If fighters are still present, you may reroll any dice that failed to give attack runs by rolling higher than the targets turret value.

For example, if a wave of 4 bombers and 4 fighters attack a lunar. The lunar rolls 2d6 for turrets destroying one fighter leaving 4 bombers and 3 fighters. The bombers then roll 1,2,3,4 for attack runs. Since there are surviving fighters, you reroll the dice for the two bombers who rolled the 1 and 2 since they didn't roll higher that the lunar's 2 turrets. This time they roll a 3, and 5 giving you 7d6 to roll against the targets lowest armor.

RCGothics propsal:
Any surviving fighters subtract 1 from the turret value of the target when calculating attack runs.

IIRC the in the example above, you have at least two fighters remaining so each bomber would have d6 attack runs rather than d6-2.


EDIT: Horizon, I did think about allowing the reroll on a 1:1 basis but it added more math and created a situation where you'd want more fighters than bombers to ensure you got the re-roll and didn't seem to do enough to affect the outcome. Plus it would be pretty easy to snipe the fighters on the way in so I went with even a single surviving fighter grants all the bombers who failed a reroll.

[horizon]

Ok. less do this / Max-Min

1)
In all example a wave of 8 / 4 bomber - 4 fighters is attacking an Emperor Class Battleship with 5 turrets

FAQ2010
Turrets shoot down, per average 2-3 markers. Under FAQ2010 no effect on wave. Downed fighters appy attacks as well.

Result: (D6-5) + (D6-5) + (D6-5) + (D6-5) + 4 = max @ 8 // Min @ 4

Sigoroth/RcGothic
Turrets shoot down 2 or 3 fighters. Wave remaining = 4 bombers + 1 or 2 fighters.
With 1 f => (D6-4) + (D6-4) + (D6-4) + (D6-4) = maxed @ 8 / Min @ 0
With 2 f => (D6-3) + (D6-3) + (D6-3) + (D6-3) = maxed @ 12 / Min @ 0

for reference:
With 3 f => (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) = maxed @ 16 / Min @ 0
With 4 f => (D6-1) + (D6-1) + (D6-1) + (D6-1) = maxed @ 20 / Min @ 0

Vaaish
Turrets shoot down 2 or 3 fighters. Wave remaining = 4 bombers + 1 or 2 fighters. 1 surviving fighter is enough to secure re-roll.
Result: (D6-5) + (D6-5) + (D6-5) + (D6-5) = maxed @ 4 / Min @ 0

Conclusion vs Battleship
FAQ2010 is strongest on average. The 4/4 wave to be advised at all times. Possible balance change: only surviving fighters add attacks.
Sig/RcG is strongest on maxed dice. Adviced to sent in fighters at high rate.
Vaaish: neuters AC vs battleships, maxed very low, average on par with lowest expectation of Sig/RcG.


2)
In all example a wave of 8 / 5 bomber - 3 fighters is attacking a Lunar Class Cruiser with 2 turrets

FAQ2010
Turrets shoot down, per average 1 markers. Under FAQ2010 no effect on wave. Downed fighters apply attacks as well.

Result: (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + 2 = max @ 22 // Min @ 2

Sigoroth/RcGothic
Turrets shoot down 1 fighter. Wave remaining = 5 bombers + 2 fighters.
With 2 f => (D6) + (D6) + (D6) + (D6) + (D6) = maxed 30 / Min @ 5

Vaaish
Turrets shoot down 1 fighter. Wave remaining = 5 bombers +  2 fighters. 1 surviving fighter is enough to secure re-roll.
Result: (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) = maxed @  20 / Min @ 0

conclusion vs Lunar
That the Sig/RcG option is totally skewed & overpowered.

I should do an average thing but that is better left to other people since I might skew it up.

[Sigoroth]

Well Sigoroth,
thank you for showing why that rules just means no good to the game.

Because AC increases, the gunnery player needs more cap, thus adds a carrier.
Because there is more defensive AC the ordnance player adds another carrier, "just to make sure.".

The Downward Spiral.
(Or Upward if you like to see an ordnance dominated game ).

Or they both decide to go gun heavy given how hard it would be to bring such large AC waves to bare. Needless to say, I don't see the problem like you do. The proposed rule seems to only reward players when they happen to be able to bring such a large wave to bare on the target, which is quite a rare occurence and, as I showed, comparable to doing the same with gunnery. Really don't see the problem.

[Sigoroth]

I think we have differing ideas of what richly rewards tactics.

So you don't think that being able to successfully manoeuvre a reloaded base-contacting squadron containing 16 launch bays to within 23cm (furthest one out) of an unguarded battleship is very hard to do? This sort of thing shouldn't be rewarded?

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.

Woah, you don't think that you should have to put any effort at all into deflecting 16 AC? So to you AC should be completely worthless? If your opponent simply "spams" AC then that gives you the opportunity to intercept. The onus should be on you to do something about it. If you let your opponents wave hit you unmolested then that is your fault! "Spamming" a 16 strong AC wave would be akin to firing your WBs at long range into braced, abeam 6+ armour escorts with BMs between! In other words, it's not terribly efficient.

Think about it. 16 AC is worth 48 WBs. If you only lose 1 escort in absorbing that wave of AC then that's tantamount to saying you only lost 1 escort to 48 WBs of fire! Without even bracing the squadron! If you think that a player shouldn't have to make that sort of sacrifice just to negate that awful naughty AC spamming opponent then you're high on crack or something. If you think that redirecting some fire, average it would take is 6 lances (18WBe) to negate 48WBe of your opponents shooting is so onerous then you've no idea of how to add.

As far as being forced to take more carriers, I don't believe this to be the case at all! If he has a squadron of carriers like that then take more guns and make him brace! Hell, take some incidental torps (Falchions!) and blow away his turret suppressing fighters! Then those bombers that do get through will have to deal with turrets as normal! Against a 5 turret target that means he'll get a little over 1 attack! Same deal with a defensive carrier too. Hell, you could also mass turrets to shoot down some of the fighter screen making his bombers terrible. There are so many defensive options that you can do and the penalty for doing none of them becomes so severe for the defender and rewarding for the attacker that it does make both players think more. 

High turret ships create situations where the attacking player has to put more thought into their actions as there isn't a one size fits all solution. Bombers should be less effective against high defense ships. This makes you think about launching AB at it instead, or perhaps using torpedoes on the ship rather than always launching X bombers to Y fighters and hoping for the best. By making bombers better at attacking than any other ordnance option, you remove tactical options and thought as the game devolves into who can get the most bombers out.

Um, currently most people just send in 1b and 5f against a 5 turret target. You get nearly 2 hits in, which the defender doesn't bother to brace against. I can see the merits in sending in 8 a-boats. But when you have 16 AC why shouldn't sending a massive bomber based wave be a good idea?

I'm going to make another plug for my idea here You want fighters to boost a bombers capabilities and get away from adding extra attacks themselves, just look at what survives the turret fire and see if there are any fighters left. If there are, reroll any dice that failed to get any attack runs.

Ok, I don't much like this idea. For Eldar it does nothing, since you can't re-roll a re-roll. For non-Eldar it basically turns their bombers into Eldar bombers. It also doesn't scale to the number of surviving fighters and makes bombers crap against high turret targets. You'd only get 0.3 attack runs each, giving an average of 1.2 attack runs for a wave of 4f/4b. Current rules give 5.16 attack runs. Also, it doesn't actually suppress the turrets.

That gives a small boost against high turret ships, helps make fighters useful and is extremely simple to use while requiring no additional math which is far more intuitive IMO. Finally, why are y'all holding to the 16 LB idea? I arbitrarily picked 16 LB for my example since it was an even number of LB and broke nicely into 10 bombers and 6 fighters.

Actually, not that intuitive to me, as well as being a nerf to the current state of play.

As for the magic number of 16, well it's because performance dips against a 5 turret target with only 8 AC, but after you get over the suppression hurdle it increases both linearly and strongly. Since it's possible to get a squadron of a couple of Explorers or Emperors or 4 standard carrier cruisers then this is the magic number under consideration. However, since the maths is linear, once you get over the 8 fighter hump then any number from 12 (3 standard carriers) up to 25 (TE + 2 Despoilers) could be used.

[Sigoroth]

FAQ2010
Turrets shoot down, per average 1 markers. Under FAQ2010 no effect on wave. Downed fighters apply attacks as well.

Result: (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + (D6-2) + 2 = max @ 22 // Min @ 2

Sigoroth/RcGothic
Turrets shoot down 1 fighter. Wave remaining = 5 bombers + 2 fighters.
With 2 f => (D6) + (D6) + (D6) + (D6) + (D6) = maxed 30 / Min @ 5

Gah! Disingenuous example! Under the 2010 FAQ you'd send in 6 bombers and 2 fighters. This adds another d6-2 to the result, giving 2-26 attacks!

Secondly, while under my and RCG's proposal you would send in 5b/3f you haven't accounted for the possibility of getting 2 hits with the turrets! Getting zero hits is the same as getting 1 hit, which is the average, so they'd be completely suppressed. Getting zero or 1 hit happens 75% of the time. The other 25% of the time they'd hit twice. In which case it drops from 5-30 to 0-25, making the average 3.75-28.75 attacks. The difference between this and the current ruleset is between 1.75 and 2.75 attack runs, or 0.3-0.46 hits after bracing, which comes to 0.047 hits per AC! To be quite blunt this is fck all difference!

[horizon]

Well, 26 is still lower then 30.

Plus the average may be only slight, the max end is important as wel.

Plus I like Vaaish his idea over FAQ2010.


But I like to see that someone with time&knowledge would do a full spreadsheet on all three variants.

[Mazila]

The way I see it is:

Lunar VS 4 ordnance markers:

Pure 4 bombers -> 1 shot down, 3 remain - each does 3-2 hits on average -> 3 hits

2 bombers 2 fighters
FAQ 2010  ->   1 fighter shot down, 1 fighter, 2 bombers remain - bombers do 3-2 hits each +2 hit for fighter -> 4 hits

Sigoroth/RcGothic -> 1 fighter shot down, 1 fighter, 2 bombers remain - bombers do 3-1 hits each -> 4 hits

I see only a minor boost to maximum possible bombers attacks, which may actually put them in line with assault boats. The thing is that it just makes more logical sence to send equal or just a little bit more fighters than bombers with this and i kinda like it.

But you will brace in every single of those cases anyway because u are afraid that they will be lucky and score more than average hits on you.

[fracas]

I do not think ACs are too powerful and a wave 16 requires two battle carriers to be in base to base contact at launch. Such a large wave is unlikely to survive long on the table top with a far launch while a near strike launch make the 2 carriers in btb to vulnerable to shared blast markers.

[Don Gusto]

Lunar VS 4 ordnance markers:

Pure 4 bombers -> 1 shot down, 3 remain - each does 3-2 hits on average -> 3 hits

2 bombers 2 fighters
FAQ 2010  ->   1 fighter shot down, 1 fighter, 2 bombers remain - bombers do 3-2 hits each +2 hit for fighter -> 4 hits

Sigoroth/RcGothic -> 1 fighter shot down, 1 fighter, 2 bombers remain - bombers do 3-1 hits each -> 4 hits

Your numbers are a good deal off.

If you roll d6-2 for the number of attacks the average is 10/6 = 1.67
If you roll d6-1 for the number of attacks the average is 15/6 = 2.5

Thus ...
Pure 4 bombers -> 3 after turret fire: 10/6*3 = 5 attacks.

2 bombers 2 fighters
FAQ2010 -> 1 fighter shot down (doesn't matter), 1 fighter, 2 bomber remain: 10/6*2+2 = 5,33 attacks.

Sig/Gothic -> 1 fighter shot down, 1 fighter, 2 bomber remain: 15/6*2 = 5 attacks.

If I was given the choice between the proposed FAQ2010 turret suppression rules, Vaaish's variant and Sig/Goth's variant (which I think was proposed in this thread by lastspartacus) I would be 100% in favour of Sigoroth's/RCGothic/whatever - I will simply call them 'True turret suppression rules'.

[Sigoroth]

If I was given the choice between the proposed FAQ2010 turret suppression rules, Vaaish's variant and Sig/Goth's variant (which I think was proposed in this thread by lastspartacus) I would be 100% in favour of Sigoroth's/RCGothic/whatever - I will simply call them 'True turret suppression rules'.

Don Gusto indeed raises a good point. Why we can't determine true authorship of the idea? Was it Last that said it first? Or did Gothic give it its full due or did I propose it some years ago or something? Well the honest fact of the matter is that there is no true author of the rule because so many people all over the world all thought that this was how the rule was in the first place. I had to read it several times to reassure myself that it wasn't, in fact, the way it ought to be.

I did "officially" propose this change a long long time ago, but I doubt I was the first to do so (given that I don't really check a whole heap of back threads). While Someone other than Gothic might have even proposed these earlier in this thread, maybe he came up with the idea independently (ie, before reading this thread, or maybe he didn't read earlier posts like me). So that's some 3 people that might have proposed the same thing independently of each other.

The very fact that Don Gusto calls them [/i]True[/i] turret suppression rules is testament that that's how they ought to work. It seems obvious to everyone that reads them, and I would include people against the idea in that group. Most people that are against the idea are so from balance reasons which I have tried to address.

[Vaaish]

So you don't think that being able to successfully manoeuvre a reloaded base-contacting squadron containing 16 launch bays to within 23cm (furthest one out) of an unguarded battleship is very hard to do? This sort of thing shouldn't be rewarded?

you assume that is what would be required. And in my experience, no it wouldn't be hard to do especially with two battleships. They already get a reward for doing this anyway since they can shotgun ordnance into a target with little intercept odds outside of fighters on cap. Isn't that enough? Why should they also get to drastically reduce his defensive capabilities?

Woah, you don't think that you should have to put any effort at all into deflecting 16 AC? So to you AC should be completely worthless? If your opponent simply "spams" AC then that gives you the opportunity to intercept. The onus should be on you to do something about it. If you let your opponents wave hit you unmolested then that is your fault! "Spamming" a 16 strong AC wave would be akin to firing your WBs at long range into braced, abeam 6+ armour escorts with BMs between! In other words, it's not terribly efficient.

Think about it. 16 AC is worth 48 WBs. If you only lose 1 escort in absorbing that wave of AC then that's tantamount to saying you only lost 1 escort to 48 WBs of fire! Without even bracing the squadron! If you think that a player shouldn't have to make that sort of sacrifice just to negate that awful naughty AC spamming opponent then you're high on crack or something. If you think that redirecting some fire, average it would take is 6 lances (18WBe) to negate 48WBe of your opponents shooting is so onerous then you've no idea of how to add.

Not completely worthless, there is a difference between bombers and AB and torpedoes. I think that each should have their own uses so that one option isn't optimal in every situation. So, in that sense, yes, bombers shouldn't be effective against an extremely well defended target and so if a person wants to waste a wave of them on a high turret target, it won't work so well. On the other hand, perhaps using a waves of 16 AB instead of bombers would be a better choice or targeting the same ship with torpedoes. My point is, pick the right type of AC for the job, don't make it all one type for everything. Making different targets respond differently promotes MORE tactical thought on the part of both players than letting bombers always be effective. Don't you think high AC fleets should put any effort into anything outside of reloading and launching ordnance?

As far as being forced to take more carriers, I don't believe this to be the case at all! If he has a squadron of carriers like that then take more guns and make him brace! Hell, take some incidental torps (Falchions!) and blow away his turret suppressing fighters! Then those bombers that do get through will have to deal with turrets as normal! Against a 5 turret target that means he'll get a little over 1 attack! Same deal with a defensive carrier too. Hell, you could also mass turrets to shoot down some of the fighter screen making his bombers terrible. There are so many defensive options that you can do and the penalty for doing none of them becomes so severe for the defender and rewarding for the attacker that it does make both players think more.  Shocked

That is far easier said than done. Hiding them behind other ships makes you take target priority checks which may not succeed, you may not have the option to snipe fighters with low torpedo salvos and making them necessary forces list composition which is a very bad thing. Placing fighters on CAP just allows him to redirect to other, easier targets. The thing is, all the defensive options you mention can already be done which begs the question, why are you wanting to make AC better? You aren't suddenly creating new options or tactically diverse problems to work out for either player.

Ok, I don't much like this idea. For Eldar it does nothing, since you can't re-roll a re-roll. For non-Eldar it basically turns their bombers into Eldar bombers. It also doesn't scale to the number of surviving fighters and makes bombers crap against high turret targets. You'd only get 0.3 attack runs each, giving an average of 1.2 attack runs for a wave of 4f/4b. Current rules give 5.16 attack runs. Also, it doesn't actually suppress the turrets.

So what? it's not a guaranteed reroll for everyone else. Eldar are already quite different in other respects in that you only hit eldar bombers on a 6 and eldar can reroll ALL results not just ones that don't cause attacks. The whole point is to make the attack run mechanic unchanging so, yes, bombers are crap against high turret targets.... as they should be. There is no reason they should be good against low turret targets AND high turret targets as that effectively negates the purpose of having a high turret value. And yes, it does suppress the turrets, but not in the magic we have less now or grants free attacks ways. It simulates the suppression by giving bombers the rerolls which show the effect of the fighters distracting the turrets and providing the bombers more time to penetrate the ships defensive fire.

what you haven't answered is why you think bombers need a boost in any respect and how increasing their capabilities adds anything at all tactically that isn't already present in the game or focuses the game back to gunnery as was the original intent.


EDIT: Really sig? Everybody's doing it so it must be right? Everybody believed the sun orbited the earth too and that didn't make it right!

[Mazila]

I think the reroll idea is a nonsence. It complicates things more than it solves, also, will Eldar bombers get 3 rerolls now?

[Vaaish]

I think the reroll idea is a nonsence. It complicates things more than it solves, also, will Eldar bombers get 3 rerolls now?

That's fine, but you need to explain HOW it complicates things more than it solves. Eldar couldn't get three rerolls. you can't reroll a reroll so they would be unaffected since they have the reroll by default.

[horizon]

Heya,

well Vaaish, what is the bonus for Eldar fighters doing a support run?

On who created the "bomber-lovin' ordnance rule:
At Warseer RcGothic started it. Last Spartacus stated it was how he played it and Sigoroth acted like the answer-mod he once was and properly written it down.
At least this is what happened in october.

The thing with that rule is that it is, I admit, easily written, easy to apply. But, heck, official Eldar holofield rules are also clearly written yet that doesn't make them balanced.

My main worry is not the battleship under attack, but the regular cruiser.
I also disagree with RcGothic's reason and his assault boats comparision.
I also think Tau Armada will love it.
Chaos will see an increase of the ever popular Devestation. Hmm, as an oddball the Despoiler may become worthwhile...har har

Vaaish his re-roll isn't complicated. It also makes sense as form of true turret suppression.

And, I am going to think of something.
I can think. Cool huh?


edit
Say Sigoroth and others, this 'true turret' thing:

1) adds more random results to the game since low end and high end are further apart.

2) makes ordnance-bombers stronger

3) makes cruisers victims of the rule

4) empowers high end Tau fleet even more

Do you agree with that?