BFG FAQ 2010 Ordnance Questions

[Eldanesh]

Under the new rules for Assault Boats attacking Escorts.

Do Tyranid Escorts
(a) force the enemy to roll 2D6/take the lowest, meaning both must show a 4+ to destroy a Escort
(b) are destroyed on a roll of 5+. the negative modifier overwrites the regular rules for h&r attacks

[lastspartacus]

Tested the +1 for boarding torps in a 2000 point game of RS Orks vs Admech yesterday.

I am leaning towards 'this is broken'.  I really liked the idea, and maybe I just had good dice, but I was able to launch chain of salvos from long range, steer them to hit targets that tried to move out of the way, and hit alot of 5 and 6 armor on 4s and 5s, knocking out weapon systems and nova cannons, which might as well have been a death knell.  It just left me feeling 'wrong'.

[Plaxor]

I was actually thinking retool against armor for boarding torps rather than +1 lately. You think it's broken? Remember they Are slower spd.20 and cant turn the turn that they are launched.

[lastspartacus]

Is a reroll or +1 more likely to hit?  Only thing about that is it would conflict with existing eldar torp rules.

Where do you see that boarding torps are spd20 and cant turn on the turn they are launched?

[Xyon]

for sake of argument, lets math out str 8 board torp wave,  against 4+/5+/6+ armor with both +1 and reroll.


With the +1 to hit
5.333 hits vs 4+ armor, 4 hits vs 5+ armor, 2.666 hits vs 6+ armor.

With reroll to hit.
6 hits vs 4+ armor, 4.4444 hits vs 5+ armor, 2.4444 hits vs 6+ armor

so reroll is generally better vs 4+ and 5+ armor,  but +1 to hit is generally better vs 6+ armor.

[Eldanesh]

Under the new rules for Assault Boats attacking Escorts.

Do Tyranid Escorts
(a) force the enemy to roll 2D6/take the lowest, meaning both must show a 4+ to destroy a Escort
(b) are destroyed on a roll of 5+. the negative modifier overwrites the regular rules for h&r attacks

Sorry if I am a bit penetrant, but can anyone give me an answer to this question?

Basically it is the question if the new rules for ABoats vs. Escorts overwrite all previous rules (in this case is (b) the answer) or if the prevous rules still apply.

Oh, an in both cases: please change the point cost of tyranid escorts: they are now way to cheap and powerfull.....

[fracas]

I know it is a bit late but I would like to suggest a tau merchant variant that has 3-4 hooks
Each model comes with 2 hooks and 2 weapon platforms
The current 2 variants are 2 hooks +2 weapons or 4 weapons
Thus if you buy 2 ships and build a 4 weapon variant you are left with bits for a 4 hooks variant . . . which doesn't exist!

[Sigoroth]

I know it is a bit late but I would like to suggest a tau merchant variant that has 3-4 hooks
Each model comes with 2 hooks and 2 weapon platforms
The current 2 variants are 2 hooks +2 weapons or 4 weapons
Thus if you buy 2 ships and build a 4 weapon variant you are left with bits for a 4 hooks variant . . . which doesn't exist!

Eh, well presumably you'd still be using the "hook" piece on the Merchant, but just clipping off the top and placing a turret on the newly flattened arm. So no left over pieces.

[horizon]

Hi,

can we already make Sigoroth's resilient ordnance idea official?

thanks

[fracas]

Which is what again?

[Sigoroth]

My idea is to chuck out all the resilient rules and replace with: resilient ordnance receives a single 4+ save per turn against removal by ordnance interaction.

[fracas]

Why one rather than till failed?
Less record keeping as to which has used it's save and which has nit

[horizon]

While easier to remember that could result in a bit too strong fighter result.

The only problem in remembering are the larger battles.

So far we have the following resilient ordnance:
Eldar fighters
Tau Manta's
Marine Thunderhawks

[Sigoroth]

Why one rather than till failed?
Less record keeping as to which has used it's save and which has nit

Limiting it to one save (without limiting movement or number of interactions) sets resilient ordnance at 1.5 times enemy ordnance. For fighters it means launching 4 fighters is the equivalent of 6 non-resilient fighters. Similarly it would take 6 fighters to remove 4 resilient bombers, rather than 4. Allowing a save against each and every interaction is pretty much doubling the value of the resilient AC compared to normal. I think that the intention behind resilience is to make them worth 1.5 times as much.

[fracas]

I know "till failed" would make them much better
Just don't want to keep track of which one has already saved
1.9 isn't much more than 1.5