Squadron Rules BFG:R

[Taggerung]

Characters as in fleet admirals or warbosses? Not special ship characters I hope.

[RCgothic]

Secondary commanders: veteran captains, warbosses etc.

[Taggerung]

That would be a nice change. Give reason to take the secondary captains for sure.

[Phthisis]

Good idea.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Squadrons should be the norm of the game.  The discussions should not be centred around "should I form squadrons?" but rather, "how should I form my squadrons?".

The line is good & catchy though I have to ask (bold part): Why?

Under 1000pts. If I field 2-3 cruisers I find squadroning somewhat silly.

Squadroning should/could be considered from 1500pts and upwards.

Cruisers do form in minimum of 2 ships so I don't see a problem with 2-3 ships squadroning in below 1k point matches. And Sig is correct. Squadrons should be the norm rather than the exception.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Spill over for any type of squadron (Still dumb for capital ships but whatever)

Most definitely dumb esp if only done so to preserve the spillover on escorts. Bryantroy has provided good examples on how to solve the no spillover on escort problem. Am sure there are others.

[Sigoroth]

Squadrons should be the norm of the game.  The discussions should not be centred around "should I form squadrons?" but rather, "how should I form my squadrons?".

The line is good & catchy though I have to ask (bold part): Why?

Because that's what makes sense. It's how modern navies operate. Because the downside to forming squadrons is contrived and absurd.

I already said that you should be able to target any ship you wish as long as you pass a leadership test. This is how I have been playing the game the entire time anyways. Go back and read my proposed rules.

Le sigh. My point just flew right over your head. Being unable to target individual cap ships in a squadron was stupid and unrealistic. Spill over hits was stupid and abstract. Having to brace the entire squadron is stupid and unrealistic and contrived. Yet you only disagree with 2 of those 3. Why are the first 2 wrong and the last one not? Because that's simply how you've been playing it all along? You're willing to let go of those particular rules, removing a tactical layer from the game, but removing sympathetic bracing is too radical?

Why MUST there be a downside? Because that's how the game was intended and in any game there should be an upside and downside to ANY decision you make! When you are making your fleet, how you build it has it's inherit weaknesses and strengths, same with different fleets. As with upgrades for vessels, nothing should be "Oh well this is infinitely better so why shouldn't I take it!", NOTHING in this game should be a no brainer "Derp how am I going to make my squadrons up herp" decision. IN ANY GAME THAT WAS ANY GOOD there is always a consequence to your decisions, and depending on how you play them out will show if it's a good one.

OK, this ^ is retarded. You could bring in any form of arbitrary rule with a trade-off you want and justify it with this argument. It's a no-brainer that we spend points on buying ships. Want to throw in a trade-off for doing that? OK, your opponent automatically gets 50% VPs of any ship you field. Now there's an incentive to not spending your points on ships. Trade-off. Win.

This is a game about Space Fleets, not a game about Squadrons. Squadrons are a part of the game, and NOT the game.

Er, fleets are made up of squadrons. They aren't made up of a multitude of individual ships operating independently.

So, this is how I plan on playing the game...

SO affects everyone in the squadron

BFI only affects that ship, however rest of the squadron cannot go on other orders

Why can't they?

Spill over for any type of squadron (Still dumb for capital ships but whatever)

Leadership tests to target specific ships. None of this hiding good ships behind shitty ships (Doesn't make any sense anyways)

Ah, but it adds a tactical layer to the game. It's one of the trade-off abilities of squadrons. This is good isn't it? Why does sense come into it now?

I don't mind you or others objecting to my idea. There have been some decent alternatives put forward. But you have elected to respond with the 2 arguments that I raised and countered in the original post, while adding nothing new to it. I feel bound to point out the rather large inconsistency in your thinking.

[Phthisis]

If its not broke....

I think Tag and I are looking at this as a game with cool fluff.  Sig, you may be looking at this as more of a 40k spacefleet simulator in this respect.

I'm willing to sacrifice some realism and common sense for playability and ease, within reason.  So far tthe proposal strips the biggest advantaged and disadvantages of squadroning.  So why squadron?

Besides, in real life squadroning is done because its too hard to try and issue orders to every ship in a battle.  Your proposal mitigates the leadership advantage of squadroning, doesn't it?

[Taggerung]

Sigoroth,

Lol, you shouldn't have even posted. You never do anything but say "You're idea's are stupid". You're just a douchebag, but we all already knew that, so thanks for once again showing us all again.

I'm done even responding to you, you honestly never have anything good to contribute.

[horizon]

Oh, the fun is high again.

[Plaxor]

Hey, play nice.

As far as squadrons go, we already implimented a few changes from the original rules. Mainly that secondary commanders (chaos lords, warbosses etc.) can still make command checks after one is failed for their squadron.

BFI may be taken individually, but orders may not be performed next turn by the squadron.

Things I need to add

Squadron interactions with terrain.
Some coherency restrictions/definitions


Considering

It is LIKELY that I will be implementing individual targeting for all types of squadrons.

I am considering making it so you can only hit one vessel unless the ships are in BTB. However I worry how this will affect balance. It might be possible that the game would be dominated by smaller vessels, such as Iconoclast fleets.

Perhaps there could be some system where vessels made a leadership check to 'count' their overflow hits on the next-nearest vessel in the squadron.

On that note; squadron command checks. I know that the most common reason to squadron cruisers is as a boost to LD. I do like Sig's system, however I would like to see it as so;

Ships in a squadron always consider their leadership as at least the value of any primary/secondary commanders in the squadron.

[Taggerung]

I am considering making it so you can only hit one vessel unless the ships are in BTB. However I worry how this will affect balance. It might be possible that the game would be dominated by smaller vessels, such as Iconoclast fleets.

Nothing but Escort fleets...because they will be unstoppable by anything other than an escort fleet...

[afterimagedan]

I really do think there should be carry-over hits for escorts. This is one of those changes that, I believe, would really turn people away from BFG:R. It would be one of those talked about things like, "BFG:R has all sorts of new ships and great revisions except it has this one rule that really makes me not want to use it." "Do you use BFG:R rules?" "Nah, no spillover." "You mean, if I shoot my awesome new better rules Retribution at this Sword squad, I can only kill one? All that firepower for ONE?!"

[horizon]

IF BFG:R sees many fans? I am not sure. I think people will pick the parts they like.

"You mean, if I shoot my awesome new better rules Retribution at this Sword squad, I can only kill one? All that firepower for ONE?!"

SPLIT WEAPON FIRE!
So 3 shots on escort 1, next 3 on nr 2 etc etc

Tag/aid,
you can split fire, so you can simulate 'spill-over' you just have to think about it.
But in that light, as you can split, spill over would make only a very slight difference.
Why?

Because of blastmarkers in between. With spillover the 2nd escort has no protection from blastmarkers. Without spillover it has.

So, a very small increase in protection only!
But staggered dice rolls instead of one roll with many dice.

[Taggerung]

Or you space them out so blast markers don't hit more than 1...which is super easy to do.

Your example only affects escorts in B2B, which can be useful for non ork torp vessels, but unnecessary for gun ships.

I say it again...A ravager fleet...It will destroy EVERYTHING.