Advanced optional rules for turrets in BFG

[barras1511]

Turrets. Their role in BFG is what I would confused. The rules are quite clear and consise as to what they do but I have some differing thoughts on their use in BFG.

Battle ships.
At the moment an Emperor class battleship is almost immune to bombers. Bombers should be the thing that the battle ship is most scared of. The current suppression rules are overpowered versus bombers.
The role of escorts.
These vessels were created for three main purposes. They are cheap to produce in comparison to a battleship which is represented in the game. They become a viable target for enemy vessels and bombers to engage in large numbers which they also do. Finally to support the main line with turret supression fire and direct fire to make a capital ship look less presentable to enemy bombers. They do not do this at all in game terms.
Cruisers and battleships need escort cover to put enough turret fire up into the air to gain this supression.

I prepose the following optional advaced rules.
-All ships that have at least one turret gets +1 turret to its profile.

-Turrets may fire at what ever comes at the ship. (lessens torpedos over all)

-Bomber suppression is only caused by killing AC.

-Supporting turret fire from ships can cause suppression.

-Each fighter on cap acts as a turret for the ship it is placed in base with and are not removed. (they are not burning fuel darting away on after burners but they do not have time to blow everything away as they are on the last line of defense.)

-Bombers with fighter escort do not get any bonuses apart from clearing the cap and offering an extra hit to the wave. These still cause suppression.

So an Emperor on its own under these rules would only have an average of 3 (6 possible) suppression. If supported with 3 escorts and 3 fighters on cap it would average 6 suppresion and 6 bombers shot down.
An enemy wave of 5 bombers and 3 fighters comes at the above Emperor in the ordinance phase. The 3 fighters seperate to take out the cap. The remaining bombers make their runs. The defender rolls 9 turret dice (3 from escorts and 6 from the Emperor) and rolls average getting 5. This would give it the same invulnerablity it currently has. A poor roll of 3 hits could see her in a lot of trouble and a disasterous roll of no hits would have her renamed the Bismark.
A unit of 8 bombers attacks the Emperor she would average her six dice hits due to the cap.
If she was attacked by 8 bombers on her own. She should shoot down three (slightly lucky) and have 5 attack runs against her at D6-3. 2 at 0 runs (1,2or 3) and total of 4 runs make it to armour rolls (one 4,5, and a 6).

This is much better than the current 8 bombers *yawn* that we have at the moment.

[Dark Depths]

I can see where you are coming from with this idea, but I personally feel that the system as it is is ok.  It should be really difficult to get through to bomb such a heavily dfended carrier as an Emperor.  So just because 8 squadrons has difficulty, it doesn't mean the system is broken, merely that you need to chuck more wings of bombers at the ship.  Plus, if we do what you say, much weaker ships with only 1-3 turrets will be almost helpless against bombers. 

The game is not meant to be all about ordanance, so we shouldn't make it more effective.

[fracas]

But you are right as to how escorts are used now in real life to provide anti ordnance screen for the flotilla

[Dark Depths]

Which is why we should make the Firedagger rules from BoN official, then we'd have a dedicated flak escort, which seems more in tune with fluff than having an escort that can be a gunship, and a flak ship.

[commander]

Which is why we should make the Firedagger rules from BoN official, then we'd have a dedicated flak escort, which seems more in tune with fluff than having an escort that can be a gunship, and a flak ship.

It's one of those ships I'm very happy with. In my gaming group it's widely accepted.

[Dark Depths]

I use it myself.  But 'technically' its not official, so i'd like to get it added to the official fleet list.

[fracas]

Which is why we should make the Firedagger rules from BoN official, then we'd have a dedicated flak escort, which seems more in tune with fluff than having an escort that can be a gunship, and a flak ship.

Not familiar with firedagger rule or BoN

[Dark Depths]

www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/

The link above will take you to the site where you can find a link for the Book of Nemesis (BoN), where the firedagger rules are located.  Issue 96.  Enjoy.

[RCgothic]

Another possible turret suppression rule:

Turrets shoot down incoming Ordnance normally.

Then roll a D6 for every turret and pick the highest.
Roll a D6 for every surviving fighter in the wave and pick the highest.
If the turrets win, that's the amount the bombers are suppressed by.

[Dark Depths]

That sounds a bit odd to me.  Surely that means an escort with one turret can roll a 6, and an Battleship can roll a 1 on 4 turrets.  Just seems to be a tad random.   

[BaronIveagh]

Doesn't the firedagger use the old fleet defense turret?

[Dark Depths]

I think there was a fan made stat on the Port Maw site that was similiar to the firedagger, but it been a few years since I looked.  I'd check now if I could, but its still broke.

[barras1511]

I can see where you are coming from with this idea, but I personally feel that the system as it is is ok.  It should be really difficult to get through to bomb such a heavily dfended carrier as an Emperor.  So just because 8 squadrons has difficulty, it doesn't mean the system is broken, merely that you need to chuck more wings of bombers at the ship.  Plus, if we do what you say, much weaker ships with only 1-3 turrets will be almost helpless against bombers. 

The game is not meant to be all about ordanance, so we shouldn't make it more effective.

The problem with the current system is that bombers should be the bane of unsupported ships especially cruisers and battle ships. Ships that have support should be almost immune from bombers. Escorts from a Chaos point of view are currently a complete waste of points and are only really seen as gun ships in the rest of the fleets. Cruisers would be at 3 or 4 turrets depending on the ship, with escorts other cap ships and the cap you could get them higher than the current 2-3 suppression you see at the moment versus bomber heavy fleets.

Also note there would not be any ships with 1 turret.
2 (1 in old) turrets on average would be equal to their current mark
3 (2 in old) and higher would be weaker.
to make up for individual weakness against bombers all ships have slightly higher survivability against torpedoes.

However supported cruisers have advantages. Cruiser with one ship in base contact would get suppression equal to the current system on average. Any more ships in contact would be at a higher average than the current system.

This is not about making ordinance stronger. It is actually making it weaker over the whole whilst allowing players to maximize there fleet against it.

The only issue I have is Eldar ordinance. How do we fix them?

[BaronIveagh]

I can see where you are coming from with this idea, but I personally feel that the system as it is is ok.  It should be really difficult to get through to bomb such a heavily dfended carrier as an Emperor.  So just because 8 squadrons has difficulty, it doesn't mean the system is broken, merely that you need to chuck more wings of bombers at the ship.  Plus, if we do what you say, much weaker ships with only 1-3 turrets will be almost helpless against bombers. 

The game is not meant to be all about ordanance, so we shouldn't make it more effective.

The problem with the current system is that bombers should be the bane of unsupported ships especially cruisers and battle ships. Ships that have support should be almost immune from bombers. Escorts from a Chaos point of view are currently a complete waste of points and are only really seen as gun ships in the rest of the fleets. Cruisers would be at 3 or 4 turrets depending on the ship, with escorts other cap ships and the cap you could get them higher than the current 2-3 suppression you see at the moment versus bomber heavy fleets.

Also note there would not be any ships with 1 turret.
2 (1 in old) turrets on average would be equal to their current mark
3 (2 in old) and higher would be weaker.
to make up for individual weakness against bombers all ships have slightly higher survivability against torpedoes.

However supported cruisers have advantages. Cruiser with one ship in base contact would get suppression equal to the current system on average. Any more ships in contact would be at a higher average than the current system.

This is not about making ordinance stronger. It is actually making it weaker over the whole whilst allowing players to maximize there fleet against it.

The only issue I have is Eldar ordinance. How do we fix them?

I strenuously object to th idea that my beloved iconoclasts are a waste of points.  They are quite useful at intercepting ord and running down other escorts.

[commander]

I think there was a fan made stat on the Port Maw site that was similiar to the firedagger, but it been a few years since I looked.  I'd check now if I could, but its still broke.

I know that there was a modified escort (Sword): permanently half range on the weapon batteries and capable of firing on ordnance like turrets do.

EDIT: that was before masses turrets and it allowed the supporting escorts of a cap ship to actively seek out ordnance. Two of them could effectively block a sizable amount of ordnance.