BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[RCgothic]

I've already posted one possible system (D6-2, with modifiers NOT related to the turrets).

Other than that, I don't know? We'd need to come up with a system.

EG: Bombers do D3 attacks. These are halved/D3-1 if the number of turrets equals the number of surviving attack craft in the wave. Surviving fighters count as double their number.

The difference in attacks for a T2 target under this new system against a wave of 4 would be 5.5 compared to 5.0 at present. It's not a perfect exchange, but it's not too different. The main difference is that there's no possibility of rolling 16 attacks anymore, the maximum is 12

[horizon]

Why a random number for bomber runs?

[RCgothic]

Partly psychology. "A potential 16" which we have at the moment for 4 bombers vs T2 is scarier than "definitely 8". Rolling a dice for the value also feels less like we've just picked an arbitrary number.

But I'm perfectly happy to make it:

• Turrets fire once each at each incoming wave. Each 4+ reduces the wave strength by 1.
• Bombers normally roll 2 attacks each against the weakest armour value, however they will only roll 1 attack if the surviving AC in the wave do not outnumber the turrets. Fighters provide cover for the bombers by distracting and strafing the turrets, so count double for the purposes of determining outnumbering.

The beauty of this is: it's simple; it benefits having more turrets, but not overwhelmingly so; it benefits large wave sizes; it has built in fighter suppression that doesn't read like it's the fighters doing the damage. Also, because the effect of additional turrets isn't completely overpowering, it allows massed turrets to be used and actually count as additional turrets for all purposes.

If we really wanted to push the boat out, we could even add: "If the number of surviving AC in the wave outnumber the turrets by MORE than 2-1, the Bombers roll 3 attacks each." I know that last bit might prove unpopular, but even without it you've got nicely represented the effects of turrets, wave size, massed turrets and turret suppression.

But there could be a better system, I'm not especially tied to any particular one. I just know the one we have is pants, both in abstract and execution.

[Xyon]

How about this,  each surviving bomber rolls its D6,   each turret rolls D6,   subtract the turret total from the bomber total and thats how many attack dice you get, +1 per each fighter as now.

So... a wave of 3 bombers and 2 fighters attacks a battleship with 4 turrets.  The turrets roll to hit as now, lets say they take out 1 fighter.  Roll 3d6 for bombers, 4d6 for turrets.   And you end up with  (3d6) - (4d6) +2 for the total attack dice.


Hopefully edited before anyone read it:

Or just get rid of the whole "shooting bombers down" thing completely and just straight up roll the D6 from bombers and minus the D6 from turrets, and keep fighters out of it.  Keep fighters on the board intercepting torpedoes bombers and other ordinance instead of helping in bomber runs.

[RCgothic]

Too much variation.

Small wave sizes would get even worse against anything with moderate turrets than they are at the moment, whilst S8 waves are rolling a potential 48 attack dice.

A S4 Bomber wave is severely harmed against T2 targers, down to 3.5 from 5, and S2 waves such as the Defiant have pretty much no hope whatsoever.

[lastspartacus]

Bombers doing 2 or 1 is what i suggested.  However, thats a big undertaking, as it will likely effect carrier prices?

[RCgothic]

Why should it? Performance remains the much the same, a bit better against BBs, a little worse against T1 and T0.

[lastspartacus]

I'm all for less steps in the ordnance phase.  Most confusing part to learn.

[skatingtortoise]

idea from another thread:

remove suppression altogether, every bomber gets d6 attacks.
turrets hit incoming bombers on a 3+ instead of 4+? not sure on the maths, but the downside is the guarantee of at least 4d6 attacks.

in essence its putting all the work in the hands of the '4+ to shoot down ordnance' rule as this seems to be agreeable to most people, so why not buff it up a bit to compensate? needs work, but until theres a consensus on what needs to change and by how much, all we can do is chip in with ideas, try them out and see what feels best.

[Xyon]

I don't see the fuss about "too much variation" it would at least give you a better chance against battleships than now. They would either wiff hard with turrets, or completely nullify your bomber attacks. I thought I'd suggest something, I could probably come up with other ideas too, but seeing as how nobody likes anything, or at least there are a lot of vocal people about how some things should be or have their own agendas and dont think anything else could work, I think I'll just keep my eyes off of this discussion about how bombers should work,   I also think this should be bought into its own thread as this is no longer a question about how bombers should work.

[Plaxor]

I actually really like the idea of turrets subtracting D6 attacks each, rather than just a staple total turret subtraction.

Seems more sensible to me.

So it would look like this;  ND6-TD6

The advantage would go to any fleet that could form large waves. 

[RCgothic]

The reason not to use ND6-TD6:

#1. Ships like the Defiant would effectively not be able to hurt other ships, they're so unlikely to beat the turret roll.
#2. The standard 4B vs T2 gets significantly worse - Down to 3.5 attacks on average from 5, a reduction to 70%. This would neccessitate a rebalance of all carriers.
#3. 8B vs T2 gets significantly better - Up to 17.5 from 11.7, an increase to 150%
#4. Potential damage for a wave of 8 against T2 goes to 48 attacks from 32. This is far too dependant on luck - Defensively, you can do everything right, not brace because you don't expect a wave to penetrate your defences, fluff your turret roll and get annihilated.

This will require an extensive rebalancing - if it even can be balanced! The Emperor certainly doesn't need to get better, and the IN's other carriers certainly don't need to get worse. This is why number one on my ideal system is that the standard outcome for most waves isn't much changed.

[RCgothic]

Also, it requires addition/subtraction of a large number of dice - though you've reduced it to two dice rolls, it won't necessarily be faster than three quick rolls that don't require a lot of mental calculation.

Let's compare the mental overhead of the four systems currently proposed/in use:

D6-T/D6-2+Modifiers:
Roll normally not more than 4 D6, and spot values higher than 4(Easy/Quick). Roll normally not more than 8D6, calculate their actual values, then sum (Difficult/Moderate). Roll up to 32D6 and spot values that beat armour (Easy/Moderate).
Rating: 3 Rolls, Moderate Difficulty, Moderate Delay

2 Attacks:
Roll normally not more than 4 D6, and spot values higher than 4(Easy/Quick). Calculate wave size for outnumbering and compare to number of turrets (Easy/Quick). Roll up to 16 D6 and spot values that beat armour Easy/Quick).
Rating: 2 Rolls, Easy Difficulty, Quick Delay

ND6-NT:
Roll normally not more than 12D6, sum bombers, sum turrets, subtract. (Difficult/Long) Roll up to 48D6 and spot values that beat armour.(Easy/Long)
Rating: 2 Rolls, Moderate Difficulty, Long Delay

[Xyon]

The reason not to use ND6-TD6:

#1. Ships like the Defiant would effectively not be able to hurt other ships, they're so unlikely to beat the turret roll.

Defiant can launch 2 waves, not as bad as one wave.

#2. The standard 4B vs T2 gets significantly worse - Down to 3.5 attacks on average from 5, a reduction to 70%. This would neccessitate a rebalance of all carriers.

What exactly do you mean?   4d6 would be... 14 attacks average, minus 7 average from turrets, so 7 attacks. (this is if you take away shooting down bombers, which i did suggest).   While 4(d6-2)  is on average 6 attacks.

#3. 8B vs T2 gets significantly better - Up to 17.5 from 11.7, an increase to 150%

I'd expect 8 bombers to utterly destroy any ship with t2 in the first place, how often do you see a wave of 8 bombers anyways?  This is what fighters are for.
In my system 8d6 would be 28 average, minus 7 average from 2 turrets is 21.    Granted,  its much better than the average of 12 you'd get from 8(d6-2).

#4. Potential damage for a wave of 8 against T2 goes to 48 attacks from 32. This is far too dependant on luck - Defensively, you can do everything right, not brace because you don't expect a wave to penetrate your defences, fluff your turret roll and get annihilated.

This will require an extensive rebalancing - if it even can be balanced! The Emperor certainly doesn't need to get better, and the IN's other carriers certainly don't need to get worse. This is why number one on my ideal system is that the standard outcome for most waves isn't much changed.

46, not 48. I see your point. I do like my system in principal.  It does get wonky with big wave sizes like you point out.   Balancing it out would actually call for a different turret system,  which I'm sure some people would be happy with, one based on turret density.

Off the top of my head, you would see it in ship profiles something like...    1 turret per wave,  1 turret per 2 waves, 1 turret per 3 waves.  Something like that.  

1 turret per 2 waves would still be the standard t2 vs a wave of 4,  it would be bumped up to t4 vs a wave of 8.

Or of course a small table could be created showing how many turret dice to use vs a specific wave size, and have columns for the different turret density,  kind of like how there's the gunnery table for weapon batteries.   So you'd see a ship profile be like.. Turrets A, B, C, D, etc.  Look up the A column, or B column, etc. VS the size of the bomber wave, and thats how many d6 you'd roll vs the bomber wave.

[RCgothic]

The reason not to use ND6-TD6:

#1. Ships like the Defiant would effectively not be able to hurt other ships, they're so unlikely to beat the turret roll.

Defiant can launch 2 waves, not as bad as one wave.

2 waves of 1 are even worse than 1 wave of 2, as you'd subtract an average 14 attacks from a potential of just 12.

#2. The standard 4B vs T2 gets significantly worse - Down to 3.5 attacks on average from 5, a reduction to 70%. This would neccessitate a rebalance of all carriers.

What exactly do you mean?   4d6 would be... 14 attacks average, minus 7 average from turrets, so 7 attacks. (this is if you take away shooting down bombers, which i did suggest).   While 4(d6-2)  is on average 6 attacks.

My mistake - my calculation included casualties from turret shooting. 7 attacks is also a substantial increase from 5 though - 4x more of an increase than the 2 attacks/outnumbering system.

#3. 8B vs T2 gets significantly better - Up to 17.5 from 11.7, an increase to 150%

I'd expect 8 bombers to utterly destroy any ship with t2 in the first place, how often do you see a wave of 8 bombers anyways?  This is what fighters are for.
In my system 8d6 would be 28 average, minus 7 average from 2 turrets is 21.    Granted,  its much better than the average of 12 you'd get from 8(d6-2).

Explorer, Emperor, Despoiler, 2x any S4 carrier in the game... This is such a massive incentive to squadron that you'd see  S8 waves all the time. There's even the possibility for a S16 wave in 1500pts from 2x Emperors squadroned together. 16 bombers would on average destroy an unhurt T2 cruiser even AFTER brace saves.

Fighters are completely unable to intercept bombers if it isn't their ordnance phase and they don't get to move first.

#4. Potential damage for a wave of 8 against T2 goes to 48 attacks from 32. This is far too dependant on luck - Defensively, you can do everything right, not brace because you don't expect a wave to penetrate your defences, fluff your turret roll and get annihilated.

This will require an extensive rebalancing - if it even can be balanced! The Emperor certainly doesn't need to get better, and the IN's other carriers certainly don't need to get worse. This is why number one on my ideal system is that the standard outcome for most waves isn't much changed.

46, not 48. I see your point. I do like my system in principal.  It does get wonky with big wave sizes like you point out.   Balancing it out would actually call for a different turret system,  which I'm sure some people would be happy with, one based on turret density.

Off the top of my head, you would see it in ship profiles something like...    1 turret per wave,  1 turret per 2 waves, 1 turret per 3 waves.  Something like that.  

1 turret per 2 waves would still be the standard t2 vs a wave of 4,  it would be bumped up to t4 vs a wave of 8.

Or of course a small table could be created showing how many turret dice to use vs a specific wave size, and have columns for the different turret density,  kind of like how there's the gunnery table for weapon batteries.   So you'd see a ship profile be like.. Turrets A, B, C, D, etc.  Look up the A column, or B column, etc. VS the size of the bomber wave, and thats how many d6 you'd roll vs the bomber wave.

The fundamental problem with this is that changes to turrets require a rewrite of every ship profile in the game. It's no longer a quick fix to the core rules.
Anything that increases the power of AC also requires a points adjust on the ship profile. The AC also have to remain roughly equal to the WBs they replace, and if they don't, that's yet another profile re-write.

Meanwhile, the proposed system simultaneously boosts large waves and nerfs small ones. Escort carriers/Light Carriers become unviable.

The proposed system has taken a replacement of one single rules interaction (how bombers behave when intercepting ships) and turned it into an extensive rewrite that may not even be balanceable!

Now I'm not saying 2 attacks/outnumbering is the only way to go (one could say it turns bombers into not much more than maneuvrable torpedos that attack the weakest armour), but it does address a number of the problems with the current system - all ships are reasonably vulnerable to all wave sizes, it benefits having larger wave sizes without making them overpowered, and it's quick and easy to play - things Nd6-Td6 doesn't do.