Page 3MovementFlying Bases Overlapping: As ships can overlap by flying over/under one another it is possible to stack ships. When ships overlap it is common practice to remove the models from their flying bases. To keep things clear, it is usually best to have a few stemless flying bases around with a straight line draw from the central hole to the bases edge to indicate direction. If desired, numbered contact markers can be used for this as well. The drastic weakening of their shield strength usually discourages this as described in the section on blast markers, but it is completely legal.
Oh boy, okay...
If the rule does not change, then I would complete your thought by making the last sentence the third sentence prior to giving suggestions on how to physically resolve the problem. Also, I would clarify that we are indeed talking about ending movement overlapping. Something like this:
Flying Bases Overlapping: Since ships can overlap by flying over/under one another it is possible for a ship's base to overlap another base at the end of movement. The potential drastic weakening of shield strength due to blast markers (described later) usually discourages this, but it is completely legal. When ships overlap it is common practice to remove the models from their flying bases. To keep things clear, it is usually best to have a few stemless flying bases around with a straight line draw from the central hole to the bases edge to indicate direction. If desired, numbered contact markers can be used for this as well.
BUT, although I'm trying to strictly stick to being neutral with my critique of the draft FAQ, I'm going to make a final attempt to list why this rule should not exist and should be replaced with
"A ship may end it's movement overlapping with an enemy, but not a friendly base unless completely unavoidable. This does not restrict any ship overlapping during it's movement."1.) As Nate has stated to me, "Bases stacking on each other is supposed to result from an unhappy accident when trying to move your ships maximum distance and optimum firing arc." Unfortunately, as stated, the above rule (along with the following FAQ paragraph) fully permits ship bases to stack not only in an unhappy accident, but even as a suggested tactic.
The critical point is that when friendly ships are being moved in relation to one another, they can all be moved in an informed manor with the player having the ability to consider each ships placement to provide them with maximum distance and optimum firing arc while taking into account how other friendly ships will be placed during that game turn. This means the player has ample ability in nearly every case to place them advantageously without the need of stacking if just a little forethought is used. But that player did not have this luxury when his enemy placed his ships, so to avoid situations where an enemy base would deny the player an advantageous position we must allow a ship to be placed overlapping an enemy if necessary.
2.) The rule is creating additional paragraphs in the FAQ to address, clarify, and support this ruling. A perfect example is the entry on "Blast Markers and Multiple Bases". This entry has become confusing as it attempts to both explain scenarios with bases touching and overlapping. Torpedoes now require more explanation on how to deal with launching and resolving attacks. AC now has contradictory exceptions to the conventional rules (see point 3 below). We should be thinking about how the rules can be clarified to keep the essences of the game but help remove the need to excessively "provide solutions to problems that are not addressed in the current rules because in most cases, frankly they don't often come up in normal game play". This is a challenge yes, but it should be in the forethought of every rules decision. Essentially, allowing friendly bases to overlap is creating exceptions to current rules and requiring new rules to be drafted. Allowing enemy overlapping does not conflict with any of the current rule set and thus requires little to no explanation for how to deal with AC attacks, torpedo launch and hits, etc.
3.) In an attempt to clarify bases "hiding" inside another base and to not allow this to be abused there is a new rule / clarification stating
"attack craft can select to target vessels with bases hiding inside the large base in this manner". This new ruling is contradictory to the core mechanic of what constitutes AC engaging a ship (i.e the moment it touches a base). This contradiction is clear seen in the FAQ on page 6 where it's stated
"Ordnance markers must always attack the first ordnance or vessels the come in contact with" and
"they [attack craft] are assumed to be able to avoid or ignore closer targets or obstructions unless the course of their movement unavoidably brings them in contact". This situation creates a rules paradox were the rule exception is trying to be shoe-horned in to make friendly overlapping function within the theory of the original rule, while not tangibly working with the core mechanic.
4.) In regard to point 2, in my opinion it's best to create clarifications that enhance the game by making rule scenarios simpler to understand and minimize the edge cases that cause confusion, disputes, or vagary. Any rule that creates the need for more rules to justify or clarify is a classic indicator that something is mechanically wrong. A good example of a simplified rule in action is the choice for blast markers affecting all around a base. Sure it makes some tactical decisions moot, but it does a grand job of simplifying situations, avoiding vagary, and thus keeping the game moving while retaining the essence of the original rules. The shortest path to achieving the same results with overlapping bases is of course to not allow any overlapping at all, but this might provide to much compromise to the essence of the game. Instead I offer a shorter path to simplicity at less of a sacrifice: allow non-friendly overlapping.
5.) My last point is a bit abstract and ill-informed, but worth throwing out for some thought I think… I would encourage everyone to think about how the average BFG gaming session goes within your game group and how tournament play has occurred for the last 10 years. How common is it really for friendly ships to necessitate overlapping? How many past tournaments would have been affected by people "stacking" ships? Now, how many times have you needed to overlap your ship with an enemy to gain the position you intended? I don't want to sacrifice the essence of BFG or the intent of the original designer, but I would say that how the game has been "traditionally" played by the community at large for the last 10 years, has some weight in what's right for the game.
Granted I'm certainly biased here because I only have my gaming group's experience to reflect on. In my group we just assumed for whatever reason (probably because of the models) that when moving our own ships we should not overlap them if not necessary (it's never been). But, when my opponent moves his ships I sportingly allow him to place his ship in any legal place, even if it overlaps with my ship, to give him the advantage he deserves due to good commanding. So I am genuinely curious if other people's gaming groups have found these scenarios common or not.
Okay, back to the FAQ text critique!
![Cheesy :D](http://www.specialist-arms.com/forum/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
Stacking Ships and Escort Squadrons: Cruisers and escorts can be stacked to follow the movement of battleships and other models that use a large base. However, attack craft can select to target vessels with bases “hiding†inside the large base in this manner as long as the attack craft actually have the range to reach the smaller base. Torpedoes still behave normally and cannot select smaller targets in this manner. Ships with bases stacked in this manner may mass turrets against ordnance as described in the relevant section.
Well this paragraph is part of my above critique and questioning of ruling. I also has the primary contradiction that needs some amount of work to remove anyone confusion of precedence.
When a ship is forced to stand still, it counts as being targeted as Defenses. People have taken this to mean, “If I stand still in high orbit I count as defenses, but if I move 0.5cm, I don‟t.†Minimum move distance to not count as defenses must be at least 5cm.
This is a redundant statement written verbatim from the rules on page 16 of the BB. A given rule should only exist in a single place, unless being restated to be clarified. I believe Nate has suggested that HA is attempting to make the FAQ backwards compatible with people still using rules 1.0, but I'd like everyone to consider that anyone who has the ability to d/l a copy of the FAQ has an equal ability to get the PDF of the updated rules. Additionally, this particular FAQ has so many clarifications that I find it hard to imagine that some one can successfully use the FAQ with rules 1.0. Just a thought…
Page 4ShootingFor escort squadrons in particular, total all combined strengths (rounding up) before halving or splitting firepower. For example, if a squadron of five or six Eldar Hemlocks are braced, they have a total of three pulsar lances.
What is the "(round up)" referring to in this sentence. When you combine weapon strength prior to dividing you never get a fraction of strength. I believe it can just be removed form the sentence unless I'm misunderstanding.
Multiple Gunnery Weapons: If a ship or squadron has multiple types of gunnery weapons, like Bombardment Cannons, Heavy Gunz or Standard Weapons Batteries, they may be fired simultaneously. Calculate the dice on the gunnery table separately for each type of gunnery weapon. This means you do not suffer gunnery shifts due to blast markers caused by other members of the same squadron in the same shooting phase. The order in which these weapons hit is up to shooting player, so Bombardment Cannons can hit after weapons batteries have taken down shields for instance, or vice versa if desired.
Can be streamlined into:
Multiple Gunnery Weapons: If a ship or squadron has multiple type of gunnery weapons, like Bombardment Cannons, Heavy Gunz, or Standard Weapons Batteries, the my be resolved simultaneously to avoid gunnery shifts from blast markers caused by the same squadron or ship. Calculate the dice on the gunnery table separately for each type, roll and apply the hits. The order in which these gunnery weapons hit is up to the shooting player.
Splitting Weapons Fire Against a Single Ship: You cannot split weapons batter or lance fire of any type at a single target!
I truly don't understand what this clarification means or is about. The term splitting fire is typically used to mean you divide weapon attacks between multiple ships, so if you fire at a single vessel how could you "split weapons fire"? Does this rule conflict with the FAQ entry below on "Ships with multiple lances in a given fierce arc…"?
On The Line Shooting (firing arcs): When shooting and the arcs are on the line in-between arcs, the shooting player chooses which arcs to use, whether it is the attacking or defending ship.
It took me a few times to realize what was trying to be conveyed by the last part ", whether it is the attacking or defending ship". Please re-word this:
On The Line Shooting (firing arcs): When shooting, if the arcs are on the line in-between arcs of either the defending or attacking ship, the shooting player chooses which arcs to use in either case.
target aspect or modifier can adjust shooting beyond the far left or right columns on the gunnery table.
Surely you mean: "Target aspect or a modifier can
never adjust shooting beyond the far left or right columns on the gunnery table."
Ships with multiple lances in a given fire arc may split their weapon strength between two or more targets but must still make a leadership check to fire on any target besides the closest.
Does this conflict with the above FAQ entry of "Splitting Weapons Fire Against a Sinlge Ship"?
If a combination of ships in a squadron has a firepower value greater than 20, look up 20 and the remaining firepower values separately and add them together. For example, a squadron of two Carnages can have up to firepower 32 in one broadside, or firepower (20+12).
This is in the rulebook verbatim. Can it please be removed due to said opinions prior?
Blast MarkersIf a ship is in base contact with a ship with a blast marker but the blast maker does not touch its own base it does not count as having a blast marker in contact as well.
This was the single most vexing sentence in the previous FAQ for me. It boggles my mind everytime I read it. Are you attempting to say this:
A ship only counts as contacting a blast marker if its own base physically touches the blast marker and not if the ship's base touches another base in contact with a blast marker.
Also, this is in complete conflict with the below FAQ statement
"Blast markers placed in base contact with a ship that took fire do not affect ships near to but not in base contact with that ship."When in base contact before the movement phase, blast markers affect leadership, movement, shooting and ordnance in contact, as well as in every other respect where blast markers have an effect. A vessel is considered to be moving through blast markers even if it is moving away from blast markers it is in contact with at the beginning of the movement phase, such as blast markers in contact due to a previous round of shooting.
A ship that starts or ends its movement in contact with a blast marker for any reason counts as being in contact with a blast marker in every arc for purposes of movement, shooting or ordnance attacks.
The first sentence and last sentence in the quote are pretty similar statements whose thoughts could be merged. I think it's important to say "movement phase" instead of just movement since the previous is the term to encompass the steps prior to actually moving your ship's (i.e. assigning SO with leadership rolls). These changes look like this:
A ship that starts or ends its movement phase in contact with a blast marker for any reason counts as being in contact with a blast marker in every arc for purposes of leadership, movement, shooting or ordnance in contact, as well as in every other respect where blast markers have an effect. A vessel is considered to be moving through blast markers even if it is moving away from blast markers it is in contact with at the beginning of the movement phase, such as blast markers in contact due to a previous round of shooting.
Page 5Blast Markers continued...A ship in base contact with a blast marker counts as being in contact all around it. This includes whether or not other ships are in base contact with it or for purposes of ordnance attacks. Ships firing battery (firepower) weapons at such a vessel suffer a right column shift. Ordnance attacking it must first roll a D6, removing the entire wave or salvo on a roll of 6.
The first sentence in this paragraph is a verbatim repeat of the first sentence in the opening paragraph of the Blast Marker FAQ section. Also, what does "This includes whether or not other ships are in base contact with it or for purposes of ordnance attacks" mean!?
When a ship has multiple bases in contact and its shield goes down, the blast marker may be placed anywhere on the targeted ship‟s base, potentially taking down other ships shields.
This contradicts the BB on page 24 far right column, second paragraph under "Placing Blast Markers": "Blast markers that are caused by shield impacts are placed touching a ships base, facing as much as possible towards the direction the attack came from".
Was the change intentional, if so I think you should state such in the FAQ to clear up any question of precedence. Also, if intentional…I disagree with chaining it!
![Cheesy :D](http://www.specialist-arms.com/forum/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
Blast markers cannot affect the bases of ships it is not covering, but it will affect as many bases as it actually can cover, regardless of how many ships are stacked in the space of a single ship's base.
Oh boy, I think this stems from the stacking friendly ruling. What does "covering" mean? You mean touching? If so, please change all references of cover to touch.
Blast markers placed in base contact with a ship that took fire do not affect ships near to but not in base contact with that ship. Place blast markers so they do not touch the bases of ships nearby but not in base contact.
This is a direct contradiction to two statements prior in the Blast Markers section stating that a BM must physically touch a ship base to affect it.
Ships with shields overloaded by taking fire but are otherwise functional do not risk taking damage on a D6 roll of 6.
It's important to keep a consistent lexicon when describing rules so I would replace "shields overloaded by" with "who's shield are down from"
Movement through blast markers reduces speed by a total of 5cm, regardless of how many are moved through in each movement phase.
I would clarify this sentence with a few minor changes:
Movement through blast markers reduces speed by a total of 5cm, regardless of how many
blast markers are moved through in
a single movement phase.
Russ