Squadron Rules BFG:R

[Plaxor]

K, here in a bit (once I get to the squadron section in RC's edit) I will CnP the squadron rules with the changes appropriate here for review.

[RCgothic]

I think it'll need to be slightly more than a cut and paste to what I've written previously Plaxor. I've been holding out on updating it because doing so would be time consuming, particularly if it were all just going to change again. But I think I now have enough to go on to put something together now. There's just one final thing:

I'd drop escorts squadroning with light cruisers. I know I've been a big proponent of this up until now, but I've changed my mind, and here's why:

Ideally, I'd have liked escorts to be able to squadron with any type of capital ship. There were a number of objections to this, and so with LCs was the compromise. In the original idea, the number of rules required for squadrons wuold be reduced because if all squadrons worked the same you wouldn't have to point out the differences between escorts and capital ships. It would allow capital ships and escorts to work more closely together in what I think is a cool way.
However, it's not quite as simple as that. The way escorts roll leadership and can't go on special orders individually (even just BFI) marks them out as different, so you don't get the ideal complete merging of rules. In addition, preventing hits from carrying over on capital ships, and allowing the part of a squadron that isn't out of formation to continue using special orders marks them out as more different still. Also, the restriction to Light Cruisers seems arbitrary, as there's less difference between Light Cruisers and Cruisers than there is between Light Cruisers and escorts. There isn't even an easy way to define 'light cruiser'. For example, a space marine strike cruiser should probably count, but tau and eldar cruisers shouldn't. You can't define it by hits, because that includes the Eldar/Tau ships, but you also can't define it by 'Says Light Cruiser In Profile', because that excludes the SMSC.

So all in all, I think it's more trouble than it's worth, and i could write simpler, more concise rules if we just forgot that idea.

[Taggerung]

That's fine, do whatever you guys want, but this dumbs down the game and makes taking squadrons the ONLY choice when deciding how to setup your fleet.


You say you won't play squadrons without this method, well with this setup there is NO reason to not play with everything squadroned.

It's just dumb is all, but like I said, my group will quite honestly just ignore all the rules you guys are doing anyways.

[horizon]

RcG,
good reasoning.

Taggerung,
not at all not at all.

I still won't squadron all of my fleet. Perhaps a ship or two. But I like the lone wolf approach better. I dunno why. I need to see someone levelling me with squadrons first.

If a ship is on BFI, this means the others are still restricted in some orders and such. Plus individual targetting is allowed. Right? Right?


And people need to think past cruiser clashes. Think escalating engagements, small scenarios, fleet engagements. No longer perfecrt deployments.

[RCgothic]

As about to be written, there are at least two significant downsides.

The first is that ships have to remain in formation, or they get no special orders at all (I'm tempted to make this not even BFI - the ship is not where it's supposed to be and has been pounced on by the enemy after all), nor any benefits from being in a squadron at all.

The second is that not all orders are universally useful, such as Reload Ordnance, or an ideal situation to use Lock On or Come To New Heading for some ships would leave other ships out of position or lacking in firepower.

@Horizon: One ship being on special orders won't affect the rest of the squadron, but the ship on BFI won't be able to participate.

[horizon]

As about to be written, there are at least two significant downsides.

The first is that ships have to remain in formation, or they get no special orders at all (I'm tempted to make this not even BFI - the ship is not where it's supposed to be and has been pounced on by the enemy after all), nor any benefits from being in a squadron at all.

The second is that not all orders are universally useful, such as Reload Ordnance, or an ideal situation to use Lock On or Come To New Heading for some ships would leave other ships out of position or lacking in firepower.

@Horizon: One ship being on special orders won't affect the rest of the squadron, but the ship on BFI won't be able to participate.

I know.

[Taggerung]

As about to be written, there are at least two significant downsides.

The first is that ships have to remain in formation, or they get no special orders at all (I'm tempted to make this not even BFI - the ship is not where it's supposed to be and has been pounced on by the enemy after all), nor any benefits from being in a squadron at all.

The second is that not all orders are universally useful, such as Reload Ordnance, or an ideal situation to use Lock On or Come To New Heading for some ships would leave other ships out of position or lacking in firepower.

@Horizon: One ship being on special orders won't affect the rest of the squadron, but the ship on BFI won't be able to participate.

Staying in formation and not all orders being universally useful? Really? Those are NOT downsides, it's nearly impossible to break formation with your ships if you know what you are doing, and if you don't have ships of similar types (IE carriers with carries or gun boats with gun boats) you are playing the game wrong.

The ONLY fleet that will have issues with staying in formation are Eldar, and that's just because they like to fly around a lot, but in reality it's still super easy to stay within 15cm.

Also...changing the game types won't change anything I have been talking about so mentioning that really doesn't do anything.

[Plaxor]

@Tag,

The hope is to get squadroning close to even-footing with not. Falling out of formation is a big deal when you have some bracing and some not, as well as some being crippled.

Also the disadvantage of only ever being on one SO has it's merits. The LD bonus, and fewer command checks are really the bonus. (plus a little play with simultaneous fire)

Now, since nerfing the LD bonus is coming into play (using Sig's system, with my compromise), there are quite comparable

Also, the restriction to Light Cruisers seems arbitrary, as there's less difference between Light Cruisers and Cruisers than there is between Light Cruisers and escorts. There isn't even an easy way to define 'light cruiser'. For example, a space marine strike cruiser should probably count, but tau and eldar cruisers shouldn't.

RC, I have arduously worked to define Light Cruisers and cruisers in every fleet list. In space marines for example, Vanguard cruisers are light cruisers, but strike cruisers are not. In Tau, Merchants are always light cruisers.

It is really just defined in a name. However I can see your point of writing in the exceptions (i.e. can the CL bfi without the rest of the squadron?)

Also, Escorts should be subject to the same coherency restrictions of capital ships, but they shouldn't gain the benefit of individual bracing. (That and their leadership should be the only difference)

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Just out of curiosity, granting that the rules favor squadroning (which really does happen in real life), why would that dumb down the game?

[Plaxor]

I think he has issues with only having a few pieces on the table, rather than a bunch of individuals.

Like I said, neither should be better than the other (other than by a very small amount) preferably each would have its own advantages/disadvantages.

A lot of this work was to make larger games more playable, (every 3000 point game I played took forever) and a huge part of that is squadrons being viable.

We already have tiered bm removal, to help with large games, and secondary commanders helping with the LD endings. Squadrons are part of larger games. Smaller ones, I doubt that there would be squadrons still.

[Phthisis]

Once again, our play style here is very different from all of you.  Squadroning is the norm with us. We all like the benefit of taking fewer LD tests and grouping our WB fire.  So far its been working rather well with the rules as is.
The greatest downside to squadroning is that if one ship braces, the whole squadron is screwed.  That is something we think is stupid and want rectified.  Other ships shouldn't go on lockdown because their squadron-mate is recieving fire.

The issue Tag and I have with these rules changes is allowing other ships in a squadron with a ship on BFI to go on SO.  This would dumb our games down because there is no downside to bracing for the fleet.  Even if the other ships can act as normal, there is a decision to be made if you want to go on SO next turn.  Now its a no-brainer to brace with any ship that isn't a carrier or has an NC.

Since ships have to concentrate fire to overcome shields, allowing ships to brace in squadrons will mean ships die slower and the game takes longer.  It makes our games less dependent on strategy and more dependent on luck.  We don't like making games drag on or more dependent on luck.

We are looking at this from the opposite direction you are.  To you, youre making squadroning more viable.  To us, youre eliminating an important strategic decision from the game entirely and making it easy.

[afterimagedan]

With these new rules, there IS a downside to bracing still; halving the firepower of that ship. It's not a no-brainer.

[Phthisis]

There is a downside, but the benefits of bracing easily outweigh the costs in most situations.  Strategically, its a no-brainer. 

[afterimagedan]

So, you would have it where individual ships in a squadron can brace and have the penalties of bracing but the other ships can't use special orders but do NOT suffer the penalties of bracing unless they brace themselves? I can dig that. I think it is less realistic but is probably the best game-wise.

[Phthisis]

Exactly.