Flawed Faq/Ruleset

[Plaxor]

So this is my thread that I'm starting for my pdf workthrough of the rules. These are things that should be changed about how the rules work. I think this might be opening up a can of worms..... but please, feel free to list your ideas.

All right... voting started....

Overlapping not allowed [Horizon, Plaxor, RCgothic, Commander]
MMS (official) [Horizon, Sigoroth, Plaxor]
Blasmarkers v1 (marker spec) [Horizon, RCgothic, Commander Plaxor (should still maintain some stuff from faq 2010)]
Torps 1 marker per d6 [Horizon, Plaxor, Commander]
Base size according to class [Plaxor]
Unrestricting Teleport attacks [Plaxor, Commander]
Tiered BM removal [Plaxor (per 1000), Gron (per750), Commander RCgothic, Horizon (?)]

[horizon]

From FAQ2010
* delete everything concerning overlapping --> Overlapping is not allowed.
* 1-6 str per torp marker (eg 1 dice).


Rulebook/FAQ
* Blastmarker rules v1 re-installed (no change to massing turrets etc in regards to this).
* Eldar rules to be replaced by Eldar MMS rules

[Plaxor]

I'm a little confused on what you mean by the blast marker rules. You added in turret suppression?

Eldar MMS  I never really followed (I was one of the 'pretend eldar don't exist' people). Although from what I can tell the more and more you edit the PDF the more and more eldar look like a normal fleet.

I totally agree on overlapping. It should not be allowed unless it can't possibly be avoided.

The multiple torpedo thing I don't really agree with. It seems like the only reason for it is that multiple dice are annoying.



Also I think that fighter/bomber waves could be only one marker with a dice next to them.
And that the whole base size complexity should be changed. Ships should have a mandatory base size according to class.  Grand cruisers and battleships have large bases, all others have small.

[horizon]

I'm a little confused on what you mean by the blast marker rules. You added in turret suppression?

No, is was just stating. aka some people think the new BM rules are a counter to the benefits of massing turrets. I disagee. So old BM rules. yaki.

Eldar MMS I never really followed (I was one of the 'pretend eldar don't exist' people). Although from what I can tell the more and more you edit the PDF the more and more eldar look like a normal fleet.

It is still faster, more manoeuvrable and has special weapons.

The multiple torpedo thing I don't really agree with. It seems like the only reason for it is that multiple dice are annoying.

Not really. A lot of people complained the whole IN torpspread was "crippled", bij keeping it str1-6 it'll still retain some of the "old" feel.

Plus the dice.


What do you mean with the bases?

[Plaxor]

I'm still confused about the BMs, could you tell me exactly what you mean? That you can't place BMs in contact with multiple ships?

I thought it was just the thing where BMs didn't surround the vessel, so you could get firing bonuses.



According to the FAQ any ship with more than 10 hits must have a large base, any ship with 10 hits or less can choose to have a large base. I think that this system is too complicated, and the 'choose to have a large base thing' just happened because of a packing error. My idea is that ships just have different size bases according to fluff.

Their reasoning 'tractor beams' is dumb, as it only really pulls in ordinance. My assumption on why large ships have large bases was that they just had a larger energy signature (with bigger engines, weapons output etc.) so that ordinance could more easily find them.

However there is somewhat of a large difference in the area that a large base can board compared to a small base. (which is why deadshanes reasoning makes sense in his warp rift article).

[RCgothic]

Agreed on overlapping.

Agreed 1-6 torps per marker.
I don't really see the need to change from the current marker templates, but if it has to change then it should at least be 1-6 torps per marker. In very large games, there's a potential for S36 torpedo barrages from a squadron of 4 Retributions, and the absurdity of one tiny marker with 6D6 trying to balance on it is just ridiculous. A more likely Scenario is 4 Dauntlesses and S24 with 4D6. I'd prefer a minimum of 1 marker per launching ship, but 1-6 per marker is simpler.

Blastmarkers v1: agreed.
This is the blast marker only counting as being where it actually is. Lines of fire that do not directly pass over the BM do not suffer a column shift, and ordnance that circumvents it isn't at risk of the entire wave being destroyed. Only ships actually in contact with the blast marker lose shields.
This avoids all sorts of headaches that have been caused by changing it.

I'd also revamp turret supression and the way fighters work, but exactly how is under discussion in another thread.

[Plaxor]

RC, apparently you're alive! I was starting to wonder.

The idea behind keeping the marker size the same would prevent such absurd situations from happening. It makes it less appealing anyways. The same issue as before happens when you start adding up markers. That it doesn't make sense that torps from far away can hit whatever they run into.

[tinfish]

you don't need to use lots of dice - buy some with numbers on them - two colours and you have tens and units. Don't want that - you can buy dice with more than 6 faces on them

[Gron]

Just noticed that the official FAQ 2010 (FINAL 20101231) is gone from the google docs page (for the moment). Didn't see it on the SG/BFG resource page either. Anyone know something on this?

[horizon]

Deliberate. HA did some small corrections (eg Dragonship batteries str14 was per accident deleted). And now it is off to GW iirc.

[RCgothic]

you don't need to use lots of dice - buy some with numbers on them - two colours and you have tens and units. Don't want that - you can buy dice with more than 6 faces on them

Even counting in base 6, 2 dice per marker is more than ideal. I object to even one dice - I like to keep my battlefield as free from unthemed markers as possible because it hurts my immersion to see dice littered about.

[Xyon]

Continuing on the torp tangent,  why not print off Torp tokens that are the 3 torp wide,  and have a printed number on it to reprisent the strength?

  In my alternative torp rules you woulden't need to keep track of reduced torp strength as all the torps are assumed to chain react and detonate for maximum blast effect, leaving nothing left after the first attack.

[horizon]

That would hamper cool torp tactics. Pity. Not hitting is fly on.

[Plaxor]

Oh, another thought (while I was building the necron pdf) Teleport attacks should lose their limitations. Meaning that you won't be forced to have more hits than your opponent (you have to be a capital ship of course)

Teleport attacks are rare enough that this shouldn't matter, and it means that SMs will actually be able to do them.

Edit: Blast marker removal should be a tiered system. It doesn't make sense that blast markers take longer to disappear in larger battles, and It's dumb to play 2000 points and have the battle littered with BMs.

So I think that for every 1000 points (or part) played, players should roll a d6 for BM removal.

[ATGSNAT]

Nova cannons. From the several huge threads on this forum, it seems no one is particularly happy about their current state.