Squadron Rules BFG:R

[Sigoroth]

As pointed out by RCG in the FS thread allowing free squadroning of different sized capital ships can obviate built in weaknesses such as 5+ prows. This causes a problem in that ships with 5+ prows are a good deal cheaper than those with 6+ prows, therefore you get a very large effectiveness bump.

I don't disagree with allowing these ships to form squadrons (or battle groups) but I do disagree with the way squadrons work. At the moment the rules for squadrons are:

• highest leadership used for all SO and leadership tests
• one SO used for entire squadron, including BFI and shared AAF rolls
• hits assigned to nearest ship that can be effected, with excess hits spilling over
• 15cm proximity rule (must maintain, stragglers can't use SO and have to reform)

These rule have caused a fair amount of confusion in the past with interaction with terrain and other elements. For example, asteroid field navigation. One Ld test for entire squadron or one per ship? Test using highest leadership or against ship's own Ld? One d6 damage for each ship upon failure or for the entire squadron? One ship disengages the whole squadron disengages? One ship hits a warp rift all effected?

Also there have been ways of getting around the targeting restrictions. For example, squadron targeting rules allow players presented with multiple target aspects to choose which they wish to select for calculating WB dice on the gunnery table. The caveat being that you can't hit ships with a more defensive aspect than the one you've chosen. So a ship further away can be selectively targeted if it is in a more favourable aspect than closer ships. I myself took advantage of this loophole in my last game (Tau CPF vs Chaos) by manoeuvring such that I was in the aft quadrant of the further ship and abeam of the closer one.

It seems silly that you can't target the capital ship you want to and it seems sillier that you can get around this restriction via a targeting quirk.

All this on top of the potential to obviate the weakness of 5+ prows.

I have suggested in the past a fundamental change to the way squadron rules work and I'll reiterate my suggestions here:

• For targeting, terrain and BFI all ships treated individually and use own Ld
• Use one SO for each squadron (BFI excepted), rolling once for entire squadron
• Compare roll to each ships Ld to see if that ship passes the test, if at least 1 passes Chain of Command satisfied
• Coherency rules as before, those outside 15cm auto-fail SO tests (BFI excepted).

The biggest effect of this change would be the trade-off. Currently the major trade-offs are extra protection, easier SOs and combined fire for squadron wide BFI. Minor trade-offs are Chain of Command (CoC) improvement vs movement and SO restrictions (can't RO with one ship and LO with another, etc). This change dumps a lot of the major trade-offs. Capital ships should be able to be targeted individually, poor leadership shouldn't be so easily circumvented and ships should not be forced to BFI in "sympathy" with a ship being pounded by bombers.

This leaves combined fire and CoC enhancement ( ) vs movement and SO restrictions.

From past experience there are 2 main arguments against this change. They are:

• With such light downsides, why wouldn't you always squadron?
• Without the ability to protect ships in squadron you lose some tactics from the game

To the first argument my counter is that the most typical situation should be that cap ships form squadrons. They do in modern navies and I can't see why this isn't the norm. As far as I'm concerned lone wolf squadrons should be the exception.

To the second argument my counter is twofold. Firstly, tactical elements that do not make sense should not be added simply for the sake of it. We could say that only half your fleet could fire in any given turn and this would add a tactical element and alter our fleet selection criteria. It's just arbitrary and senseless. Secondly, by easily circumventing the weaknesses of some ships we actually remove some tactical depth from the game. Things become a bit more uniform and bland.

That about wraps it up, I'd like to hear what people think either positive or negative (particularly if there are other arguments against the idea I've not covered here). I know that some of the problems with the current squadron rules that I pointed out have been resolved (such as individual disengagement) but I included them anyway, because of the confusion that these rules have caused in the past and to highlight the problems inherent with the ruleset. One last note is that I would leave the old rules in place for escort squadrons. I think the original squadron rules were created with them in mind and suits them better, treating them pretty much as a single capital ship.

[horizon]

Hey,

the BFI per ship is a given. Without a doubt.

The Ld roll order you describe and consequences make sense. But doesn't this mean, it is still the highest Ld wins and in effect?

Targetting a ship in a squadron? That's good.

[afterimagedan]

So, in your changes, squadroning would really just demand coherency with the benefit of using the highest ship's leadership for all orders besides BFI, which becomes an individual SO for each ship?

[RCgothic]

Hold on a sec. Because of the confusing way squadrons are written, in the latest version the entire section has been reworded, taking the newer rules into account. These are the proposed rules currently going through the editorial process for the next update of the rules:

Squadrons may be formed from any mix of capital ships, or Light Cruisers and Escorts.

Leadership is rolled for each capital ship, then squadrons are formed, then leadership is rolled for all the escorts in the squadron. The highest leadership is used for taking orders affecting the entire squadron.

All ships must stay in formation. If not in formation, none of the ships may take any special orders (not even BFI), and if not in formation at the end of the movement phase, any Lock On orders are cancelled. This is a heavy penalty for dropping out of formation. It also eliminates the assumption that just one ship will be out of formation in the official rules.

Capital ships may go on special orders individually, subject to the penalties of not remaining in formation. The squadron may take a command check using the highest leadership in the squadron (escorts ignored if cap ships present) to go on special orders as long as no vessel in the squadron is on special orders already, and this is the only way escorts can go on orders.

The shooting at/by squadrons remains largely the same, but reworded in places.

[Plaxor]

Iirc. in BFG:R I currently have that ships may BFI individually, however if one does so then the entire squadron cannot use special orders the next turn.

Also that squadrons not in coherency simply cannot use SO. Rather than just the stragglers.

Thanks for the post Sig! These are some good things to adress. Just a note, but Characters in squadrons should force you to use their leadership rating instead of the highest rating (I.e. fleet admiral LD8 in squadron with ld9 ships).

Terrain should be individual. So each ship would take an LD test on its own to go through asteroids, and take damage. They can still use comander re-rolls as normal. Similarly with navigating warp-storms.

radiation bursts should force squadrons to not use special orders.

hmmm.... that's all I can think of.

[Sigoroth]

So, in your changes, squadroning would really just demand coherency with the benefit of using the highest ship's leadership for all orders besides BFI, which becomes an individual SO for each ship?

Not quite. I didn't provide an example, which I should have, because the post was already quite long. I'll provide an example now to clarify what I mean.

Suppose you have a squadron of 3 Devastations. You rolled 6, 3 and 1 for leadership, giving one with Ld 9, one with Ld 7 and the last with Ld 6. At the start of your turn you put the squadron on RO, rolling an 8. The ship with Ld 9 passes and so is reloaded (on RO orders), the other two ships fail, and so are not reloaded (and are not on orders). Since at least 1 ship from the squadron passed the test you may now choose another ship or squadron to issue orders to.

Using the above example, if there was an enemy ship on special orders then the Ld 7 ship would have passed its test also due to the +1 bonus and so would have also reloaded. Blast marker or gas/dust cloud penalties are issued to those ships actually in contact with them. If the squadron enters an asteroid field each ship rolls against its own leadership.

Using the same ships as in the above example, let's say the Ld 9 vessel comes under fire and elects to brace and passes its test. It alone is braced, and the other ships are not. On the following turn the Chaos player can elect to attempt to reload again. Let's say he does and rolls a 9 this time. The Ld 7 and Ld 6 vessels again fail their test. Normally the Ld 9 vessel would pass, but this time it's braced and so can't go on RO this turn. Thus no vessels pass the test and so the chain of command breaks down and the player can no longer issue orders.

[fracas]

Wouldn't it be easier to say squadron leadership is the highest leadership -1? To represent the problems of the weakest link as well as chain of command among "equals"

Should a capital ship in squadron have the option to leave the squadron? With say a leadership test? But once apart can never rejoin.

[Sigoroth]

Wouldn't it be easier to say squadron leadership is the highest leadership -1? To represent the problems of the weakest link as well as chain of command among "equals"

Possibly easier, maybe. But not as good.

Should a capital ship in squadron have the option to leave the squadron? With say a leadership test? But once apart can never rejoin.

I've thought about this. My musings have been, "yes, but can't rejoin", "yes, but only if led by a purchased character", "yes, but only via the expenditure of a FC re-roll" and "no". I'm undecided between these myself.

[Phthisis]

I'm for targeting capital ships individually and BFI independently.

But the proposal for the way the leadership rolls will work is a problem.  Squadroning is a way to mitigate bad Ld rolls.  These new rules make it harder to RO, which is a big nerf to ordnance.
Also, what if only one cruiser passes one of the manouvering SO?  Thats problematic.

Is using squadroning as a way to mitigate bad LD rolls a problem now?  If its an issue, then I'd rather give every fleet a flat Ld rating.

[horizon]

All ships must stay in formation. If not in formation, none of the ships may take any special orders (not even BFI), and if not in formation at the end of the movement phase, any Lock On orders are cancelled. This is a heavy penalty for dropping out of formation. It also eliminates the assumption that just one ship will be out of formation in the official rules.

BFI should always be possible. It is dumb to not have this option for an out of formation ship.




In essence I think RcG version makes squadrons (aside of BFI) stronger.

I like Sig's idea more.

[Taggerung]

Hmmm...

This is how we have been playing...

Capital Ship Squadrons must be within 15cm of each other.

All orders go off the highest leadership in the squadron, and effects every ship in the squadron. (Including BFI)

You may shoot at any ship in a squadron, as long as you pass a leadership test to shoot at not the closest target

Shots do NOT carry over to other capital ships in the squadron.

When firing ships, you may combine fire from a squadron to shoot at the same target without having blast markers get in the way



So...This is how I was taught how to play the game, so is this wrong? It works pretty well to be honest as there are obvious down sides and obvious up sides to squadroning. If you make it so BFI only affects one ship, then there is basically NO downside to squadroning and that seems wrong. Squadroning must be a tactical decision, not something you do with every single capital ship you have just because there is no reason not to, so I am opposed to making BFI only affect one ship, and not the entire squadron. If you do that, just remove squadroning all together (Which would also be stupid)

[Phthisis]

I thought you couldn't target further ships if they are squadroned.  And that hits do move on to the next closest in the squadron as long as theyre in range and arc.
Not that I remember those situations ever coming up in a game.

 Tag has a point.  If each ship can brace individually, then what is the point of not bracing?  Usually only one or two ships take hits anyway.  Just brace with them and fight back with the rest.

[Taggerung]

It has come up a couple of times recently, but I didn't think much of it and just assumed all the other shots went straight into that cruiser but since it was destroyed already they just blew up upon it's hull. It doesn't really make much sense that if you fire at one capital ship in a squadron, and it's destroyed the others automatically hit another does it? These ships are an absurd amount of distance apart, even at 15cm...so lining up a shot like that just seems impossible to me...

Does that make any sense?

[Sigoroth]

@Tag

Yeah, they're not the official rules. In official rules hits spill over and you can't target individual ships within a squadron.

As for the argument that the entire squadron bracing = good because it provides a downside to forming squadrons I must say that I've encountered this argument before and found it extremely unconvincing. I don't think that people should be discouraged from forming squadrons. I don't buy the "downside must equal upside" argument. To me running lone wolf squadrons should be the exception. The tactical element should be in constructing your squadrons; their size and composition. The larger your squadrons the greater their hitting power but the less effective number of units you'll have and so less versatility.

However, the biggest problem with bracing the entire squadron isn't that it overly discourages forming squadrons (which it does) but rather that it's just stupid. So a wing of 8 bomber squadrons attacks your sister ship some 100,000 kms away, what do you do? Do you:

A) Do nothing, because there's nothing you can do but hope they come out of it alive

OR

B) Brace your ship, reducing your combat effectiveness, in a show of solidarity and sympathy.

Well?

@Phthisis

I, at least, think that there is a problem with the way leadership is currently handled. As it stands you can give a ship +3 leadership for free simply by forming up a Ld 6 ship with a Ld 9 ship. I don't think that this makes any sense. A poorly drilled/commanded ship should perform worse than a well drilled/commanded ship.

However, having said that, there has been some justification for allowing this in the past. That justification is the Chain of Command. To a degree the CoC idea makes sense. However, it should be split up. In other words, command responsibility should be delegated, at least in part, to subordinate officers. As it stands the fleet commander is relegated to micromanaging, making the penalty for failing a single leadership test too severe.

With this proposal the FC's plans only go awry if a squadron's commander reports catastrophic failure. Anything less than that is the squadron commander's problem to deal with.

All ships must stay in formation. If not in formation, none of the ships may take any special orders (not even BFI), and if not in formation at the end of the movement phase, any Lock On orders are cancelled. This is a heavy penalty for dropping out of formation. It also eliminates the assumption that just one ship will be out of formation in the official rules.

Being in squadron implies a ship's captain subverting his own judgement to that of his commanding officer, at least to a degree, hence the one SO for the entire squadron. However, if a captain is cut off from his squadron, I think he can be trusted to know when his ship is in for a pounding. Particularly if he's allowed to make that decision even when in formation.

Capital ships may go on special orders individually, subject to the penalties of not remaining in formation. The squadron may take a command check using the highest leadership in the squadron (escorts ignored if cap ships present) to go on special orders as long as no vessel in the squadron is on special orders already, and this is the only way escorts can go on orders.

Hang on, you say that cap ships may go on special orders individually but then say that you can't go on orders if there's another ship in the squadron on orders already? So if, for example, you had a squadron of 3 ships you would have the option of going on LO with them all or just one, but could not LO with one and RO another?

The shooting at/by squadrons remains largely the same, but reworded in places.

So you still have spill over hits and protected targets. Bad methinks.

[Taggerung]

Why not use the rules I have been playing with anyways that I thought were the regular rules lol...

There are tactical consequences to however you play it, and that's how I think it should be done.

Also...Spilling over shots and protecting ships is stupid, and that should get changed lol.

@Sigoroth

No offense, but the idea of making there no bad sides to squadroning up, dumbs down the game play way too much. This is a game of tactics, and removing another layer of those tactics just doesn't sit well with me. If you want to reap the benefits of being in a squadron (IE Orders, Leadership, and Combining firepower) you better be prepared to accept the fact that you may need to brace the squadron to save a ship.

As for if that makes sense...I can see it making sense. If your a captain and you know a salvo is coming in your vicinity and there are 2 other ships in your squadron...you won't know exactly who's about to get hit, so all ships may brace just in case that salvo is coming at your ship and not Captain Retard next to you. (IE...1000km away)