Squadron Rules BFG:R

[Plaxor]

@Pthisis,

You do have a really good point as far as bracing goes (which is why I like the idea of the other ships not going on SO).

The main reason for this, is that players could have a specific 'brace boat' to absorb hits for the squadron whilst the other ships are unaffected.

Actually this is a lot bigger deal than I initially thought, now that you've brought it up. As it would prevent the 'brace your opponent' strategy that is important to the game.

[Sigoroth]

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.

Uh, well, to me this set of statements is contradictory. You at first don't want 1 ship being braced to shut down the squadron and then want exactly that. There are 2 penalties associated with bracing and 1 bonus. The 2 penalties are halving firepower/ordnance for next turn and the inability to go on orders next turn. The bonus is getting a 4+ save. Now, as it stands, shooting at a squadron of Devastations until they brace shuts down the entire squadron. Because they can't reload next turn. As an afterthought they also get half firepower. Buuuut the entire squadron gets the 4+ save too, so it's not like you could redirect a bomber wave to attack a fresh Dev in the squadron and avoid giving away the save. Oh well.

Now, you want the opponent to be able to do the exact same thing only now the attempt to brace isn't as likely to succeed because it's at own Ld. Because if one of those Devs braces then the others can't reload, and therefore the squadron is shut down. They don't halve their firepower, but then again, you can now redirect both AC and direct fire to an unbraced ship in the squadron, since it hasn't got the 4+ save and will have to attempt to brace against the incoming fire, again at own Ld.

The main reason for this, is that players could have a specific 'brace boat' to absorb hits for the squadron whilst the other ships are unaffected.

Actually this is a lot bigger deal than I initially thought, now that you've brought it up. As it would prevent the 'brace your opponent' strategy that is important to the game.

Firstly, with the ability to target individual ships within a squadron, you couldn't have a "brace boat". At least, no more than you can have now by just running a non-squadron ship in front of the squadron.

Bracing the opponent would still be a viable stratagem. It's just as valid with Necrons under this rule as before. It's just as valid against BBs. It's just as valid with cruisers. What it is not as valid with is squadrons, which is the whole point. You shouldn't be able to brace an entire squadron by shooting at just the one ship.

I want to ask the community a question. Would you form so many squadrons if there was no such thing as the Chain of Command, assuming all other squadron rules are as per official rules? So if you failed one test you could simply go on to another ship. I suspect that the answer to that is "No way! Oh wait, hmm, maybe. There is the higher leadership, so I'd probably make small carrier squadrons, and in larger games I might even form some gunship squadrons to cut down on Ld tests and to make re-rolls more valuable ... meh, I'd form less squadrons."

Now I think that the CoC is a good idea, but affects the game too much. You should be able to reduce its effects. This is where squadrons come in. Currently the major downside to forming squadrons is illogical (brace one shut down all). However, one of the major upsides, using highest Ld, is very strong for carriers. There has been complaint in the past about AC being too strong and too prevalent in the game. That it's a must have. This is probably in part due to the fact that one of the major weaknesses of AC (having to reload) has been obviated to a degree by the fact that you can significantly bump your chances of reloading (reduced number of Ld tests, higher leadership, greater effectiveness of re-roll).

Hence the original suggestion, that you just check the roll against each ships Ld to see if it passed. Reduces the upside to squadrons, weakens AC and allows for individual bracing.

[horizon]

Write it as a written rule pleasy.

But I do follow the logic and do see the benefits.

[Plaxor]

Now I think that the CoC is a good idea, but affects the game too much. You should be able to reduce its effects. This is where squadrons come in. Currently the major downside to forming squadrons is illogical (brace one shut down all). However, one of the major upsides, using highest Ld, is very strong for carriers. There has been complaint in the past about AC being too strong and too prevalent in the game. That it's a must have. This is probably in part due to the fact that one of the major weaknesses of AC (having to reload) has been obviated to a degree by the fact that you can significantly bump your chances of reloading (reduced number of Ld tests, higher leadership, greater effectiveness of re-roll).

Hence the original suggestion, that you just check the roll against each ships Ld to see if it passed. Reduces the upside to squadrons, weakens AC and allows for individual bracing.

Sig, I intend to use this system that you've come up with. With one addendum, that ships consider their leadership to be at least as high as any characters in their squadron (such as chaos lords)

I do understand that individual targeting would deal with bracing quite nicely. Hmmmm... will need to write out as rules.

[RCgothic]

I agree with Sig on the one ship bracing doesn't shut down the squadron, but I'd prefer leadership checks to remain as they are, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I still need some more clarification. How would it lengthen the game and make it more dependent on luck when if one can LO the other ships even if one ship is on BFI, it means they can shoot at targets more efficiently possibly destroying a ship or two?

Or as another example, by having the rest of the carriers successfully re-roll and launch its AC against another target less the one ship is on BFI?

My questions stems from the confirmation of the idea by Pthisis that he is amenable to a ship going on BFI but the other ships cannot go on SO.

That's kinda quirky. Why would one ship in the squadron affect the performance of the entire squadron? Just because one ship BFIs my other ships cannot go on LO or worse my carriers cannot RO?

The idea of going on BFI for one ship and not allowing the other ships in its squadron to go on SOs actually lengthens the game more as well as makes things more dependent on luck since I now will have to be content with the results of my gunships instead of making them more efficient.

[Phthisis]

@Sig
Lock-down, not shut down.  Why is a ship not being fired at weakening its fire and sealing preassure doors? The mechanic I object to specifically is a squadron-mate going on BFI because another ship in their squadron is being fired at.  I don't think the whole squadron should panic.  But I don't think they should just go on their merry way either.

I realize that fluff-wise there is little to keep another ship in the squadron from going on another SO, but there is also little reason in fluff for them to have to stay within 15cm.  Same is true for taking a LD test to fire at a ship other than the closest.  Or not being able to issue orders after you failed a test.  Or for not being able to fire turrets against both torpedos and bombers in the same turn.  Or a hundred other little thingsin the game.  Some want BFG to become a naval combat simulator.  I want it to remain a well bslanced game.  I'm willing to suspend my disbelief to an extent to make the game function correctly.

If you want realism, squadrons are really just an administrative entity anyway.  Do away with them completely.  Youre doing away with the major benefit and drawback to squadroning anyway.  Why maintain the arbitrary unit coherency rules that also make no sense in fluff?

You could brace one and target another ship, but then you will have to knock shields down again, resulting in a net decrease in the effectiveness of your firepower.  And then that just braces too, so youve wasted 2 hits that could have damaged the first one for a second ship on brace.

@Admiral
The whole squadron ruleset is quirky both in the existing version and the proposed versions. Not my doing.

How often do you get to LO in a game?  LO is very situational, BFI is not.  Throughout the course of the game, BFI will absorb a lot more firepower than the LOs can put out.  Unless you LO every turn, BFI is far more effective.
Plus, the increase in damage output for WBs on LO is less than BFI's save.  As WBs are the most common weapon system in the game, and lances merely equal the damage resistance of BFI, there is still a net decrease in damage.

You do realize that these rules make Chaos a stronger fleet, don't you?

@Plaxor

There is no reason not to brace with these proposed rules.  Every ship you fire at will just brace if it might take damage.  Its an easy choice and has very little effect on the overall strategy of the fleet, so why not brace? It will be like squadrons don't exist at all. The game gets dumber and is more dependent on luck because its more dependent on failed LD tests to cause damage.  And since everyone is bracing all the time, the potential for damage is decreased and the damage resulting from recieving fire is further decreased.  Games will take a long time. 

[Sigoroth]

@Sig
Lock-down, not shut down.  Why is a ship not being fired at weakening its fire and sealing preassure doors? The mechanic I object to specifically is a squadron-mate going on BFI because another ship in their squadron is being fired at.  I don't think the whole squadron should panic.  But I don't think they should just go on their merry way either.

As far as a carrier is concerned, being unable to RO is practically identical. Most carriers have at least half their firepower tied up in their ordnance, meaning that if a squad mate braces they are, in effect, braced themselves. There might be reason to not use movement orders (ie, go on their merry way) but there'd be no reason to not use RO or LO.

I realize that fluff-wise there is little to keep another ship in the squadron from going on another SO, but there is also little reason in fluff for them to have to stay within 15cm.  Same is true for taking a LD test to fire at a ship other than the closest.  Or not being able to issue orders after you failed a test.  Or for not being able to fire turrets against both torpedos and bombers in the same turn.  Or a hundred other little thingsin the game.  Some want BFG to become a naval combat simulator.  I want it to remain a well bslanced game.  I'm willing to suspend my disbelief to an extent to make the game function correctly.

I don't think that staying in formation is unrealistic, though the distance may be arbitrary (not necessarily a bad thing). Chain of command isn't terrible either. If you're an admiral and you're plan of action depends upon a key formation being able to AAF, or a carrier battlegroup being able to provide cover, etc. With the failure of these orders then the admiral's plans have gone awry, throwing chaos and confusion into the fleet.

If you want realism, squadrons are really just an administrative entity anyway.  Do away with them completely.  Youre doing away with the major benefit and drawback to squadroning anyway.  Why maintain the arbitrary unit coherency rules that also make no sense in fluff?

I don't think that squadron coherency is senseless, nor do I think that squadrons should be done away with. I think that they should be the norm, and that they would be with these rules.

You could brace one and target another ship, but then you will have to knock shields down again, resulting in a net decrease in the effectiveness of your firepower.  And then that just braces too, so youve wasted 2 hits that could have damaged the first one for a second ship on brace.

My opponents and I loathed forming squadrons because of the onerous and senseless downsides. Let me tell you, forcing your opponent to brace individual ships is still powerful. Never have we just blindly braced because there was some firepower incoming. We would always carefully weigh up the options and strive to avoid bracing wherever possible. Allowing individual brace decision in squadrons will not change this.

@Admiral
The whole squadron ruleset is quirky both in the existing version and the proposed versions. Not my doing.

How often do you get to LO in a game?  LO is very situational, BFI is not.  Throughout the course of the game, BFI will absorb a lot more firepower than the LOs can put out.  Unless you LO every turn, BFI is far more effective.
Plus, the increase in damage output for WBs on LO is less than BFI's save.  As WBs are the most common weapon system in the game, and lances merely equal the damage resistance of BFI, there is still a net decrease in damage.

A locked on Carnage (15-30cm bracket) against a closing braced Carnage = 2 hull hits past shields and saves. A braced Carnage (15-30cm bracket) against a closing unbraced Carnage = 0 hull hits (shields down only).

So how does bracing beat LO?

@Plaxor

There is no reason not to brace with these proposed rules.  Every ship you fire at will just brace if it might take damage.  Its an easy choice and has very little effect on the overall strategy of the fleet, so why not brace? It will be like squadrons don't exist at all. The game gets dumber and is more dependent on luck because its more dependent on failed LD tests to cause damage.  And since everyone is bracing all the time, the potential for damage is decreased and the damage resulting from recieving fire is further decreased.  Games will take a long time. 

I think a reason not to brace is that you will get half firepower and be unable to use special orders next turn. This loss of firepower can result in a net decrease in performance (hits saved < hits lost). Usually bracing only becomes attractive when the hits saved > hits lost. Thresholds (crippled/destroyed) and positional considerations would alter the calculation.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

@Admiral
The whole squadron ruleset is quirky both in the existing version and the proposed versions. Not my doing.

How often do you get to LO in a game?  LO is very situational, BFI is not.  Throughout the course of the game, BFI will absorb a lot more firepower than the LOs can put out.  Unless you LO every turn, BFI is far more effective.
Plus, the increase in damage output for WBs on LO is less than BFI's save.  As WBs are the most common weapon system in the game, and lances merely equal the damage resistance of BFI, there is still a net decrease in damage.

You do realize that these rules make Chaos a stronger fleet, don't you?

The present rules are quirky which is why the BFG:R rules are changing them. I LO lots of times, if I can, not to mention RO.  Chaos might become stronger but so will the other races. Not like it singles out Chaos only.

[Taggerung]

The present rules aren't quirky...at all. All these changes do is make it retarded to not squadron.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The present official rules are quirky in that one ship can dictate what a squadron can do by going on one special order, BFI or disengaging. That's what's retarded.

Why would you not want to squadron? Why would it be retarded?

In real life it happens, it should be more advantageous and one ship should not just affect another ship in a squadron by going on BFI or even disengaging.

Ships which take incoming fire, numerous examples of which can be presented in Jutland, will take a beating but the rest of the squadron goes on fighting efficiently.

Squadroning should be promoted and it should make things better than having individual ships on the table doing their own thing. The downside is they cannot just move independently although that can be ameliorated somewhat by allowing them to choose their own targets, which again does happen in real life.

Lastly, while the rules being proposed make it favorable for squadroning, if you don't want to squadron, you are free not to do so.

[horizon]

Agreed, the present rules are just plain daft & quirky. There is a reason I never ever squadron!

[Taggerung]

By your logic Admiral, one ship shouldn't dictate if another ship goes on a special order....but yet in a squadron you benefit from higher leadership, from one ship.

Squadroning as it is in the base rules is still a very powerful thing, even with the brace for impact rules hurting the squadron.


Horizon...you never squadron because you play eldar and squadroning with eldar is something a bad player does. Orks, for example ALWAYS squadron because you need that precious leadership bonus. Imperial Navy should squadron their carriers or gun boats because they are very dependent on other ships to make them work better.


My entire point is that squadroning is already being used and people are, at least around here, using them quite well already. With this new system, there isn't even a tactical choice between taking squadrons and not. Every ship in the game from now on will be in a squadron, because there is NO REAL REASON NOT TOO! (Staying within 15cm isn't a downside, so don't play it off like one.)

Like I said, do whatever the fuck you want, but if this is how the Revised rule system is going, I just won't use it. Which is sad, because it has the potential to be great...not the POS it's starting to become.

[horizon]

Horizon...you never squadron because you play eldar and squadroning with eldar is something a bad player does.

How uninformed.

I play:
Renegades
Chaos
Adeptus Mechanicus
Corsair Eldar
Craftworld Eldar
Tau CPF

Soon to play
Imperial Navy
Rogue Traders


Last games have been with AdMech and Tau.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

By your logic Admiral, one ship shouldn't dictate if another ship goes on a special order....but yet in a squadron you benefit from higher leadership, from one ship.

Certainly not as worse than punishing a squadron by preventing them from actually going on other special orders or disengaging.

Squadroning as it is in the base rules is still a very powerful thing, even with the brace for impact rules hurting the squadron.

Not with the rules of one ship BFI/Disengage the whole squadron on BFI/Disengage. No one would want to squadron with such a harsh penalty.

My entire point is that squadroning is already being used and people are, at least around here, using them quite well already. With this new system, there isn't even a tactical choice between taking squadrons and not. Every ship in the game from now on will be in a squadron, because there is NO REAL REASON NOT TOO! (Staying within 15cm isn't a downside, so don't play it off like one.)

Sure there is: You don't want to. More importantly, you don't have to. Good enough reason. You sacrifice the SO Ld check efficiency yet rigid formation of squadrons for more flexible and maneuverable individual ships.

Like I said, do whatever the fuck you want, but if this is how the Revised rule system is going, I just won't use it. Which is sad, because it has the potential to be great...not the POS it's starting to become.

Funny. You haven't even tried their proposal and you already condemn it. Why not try it first before you decide if it is good or bad. Until then you're just theorizing it will be bad and not really have anything to back up that assertation.