Squadron Rules BFG:R

[Taggerung]

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.

Neither have you, and you guys are making it out to be the greatest thing ever.

[afterimagedan]

@Taggerung
If you write your proposed rules in this thread, it may sway opinions. I would like to see what you would prefer and what rules you think are making BFG:R bad.

[horizon]

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.

Neither have you, and you guys are making it out to be the greatest thing ever.

Perhaps, but as said the current rules are crap in my opinion so a change which in theory sounds good is a good idea to me.
But still no 'all out squadron' rule to me. So, good.

[Plaxor]

All right, calm down everyone, we can come up with something fair and balanced. Taking a page out of RC's book we know:

A): Coherency is a must, and due to issues with defining coherency, 15cm is a must for special orders.
 1. Squadrons must attempt to move into coherency if they ever fall out of it, taking the shortest movement method possible to regain coherency. They may not make any attempt to use SO if out of coherency, and if they fall out of Coherency, they lose the benefit of being on any SO they were issued that turn.
Or
2. Squadrons out of coherency will not be able to make any SO checks, and will lose any benefits of SO they were issued that turn if they fall out of coherency. They MUST fire at the nearest enemy vessel (if they choose to fire at all), and may not make any leadership checks other than those to disengage.

B): Individual Targeting, this has its own issues, and solutions. Essentially with individual targeting you lose a lot of difference between not-squadroning and squadroning.
1. Capital ships may be targeted individually in squadrons as though they were individual vessels.
a) mixed hits (e.g. 5+ hits going on any chosen vessel with 5+ armour, and 6+ hits going on any with 6+ armour) still being a factor. Hits carry over just the same, to the nearest vessel.
Or
b) Ships are hit individually, and hits can in no way carry over onto the rest of the squadron.
or
2. Squadrons follow previous targeting/hit rules (as in you hit the nearest always, and hits carry/weaker armour hits carry as well)

C): Individual Bracing, this is coupled with individual targeting, as well as making squadrons not unique from not squadroning.
1. Capital ships may brace individually, and have no effect on the remainder of the squadron using special orders (other than the potential of losing LD advantages).
Or
2. Capital ships may brace individually, and do not allow the remainder of the squadron to use special orders.

D): Leadership rules: there are a few opinions on this, however this is often considered the biggest advantage of squadroning, I don't like the idea of squadroning being a huge pile of advantages, but I don't mind adding to the importance of secondary commanders.
1. Leadership workings function as previous rules, meaning all vessels pass/fail on highest LD.
Or
2. Leadership works as Sigoroth's system, where 1 leadership test is made, and each ship passes or fails based on its own leadership.
a). Primary/Secondary Commanders involved in squadrons will make any ship in the squadron count it's leadership as at least the commanders value.
b). The leadership test will be considered as 'failed' ending further command checks if one ship fails.

Everyone tell me (in short words) if you feel positively or negatively on each option/point.

[horizon]

A): Coherency is a must, and due to issues with defining coherency, 15cm is a must for special orders.
1. Squadrons must attempt to move into coherency if they ever fall out of it, taking the shortest movement method possible to regain coherency. They may not make any attempt to use SO (except Brace for Impact) if out of coherency, and if they fall out of Coherency, they lose the benefit of being on any SO they were issued that turn.
Or
2. Squadrons out of coherency will not be able to make any SO checks, and will lose any benefits of SO they were issued that turn if they fall out of coherency. They MUST fire at the nearest enemy vessel (if they choose to fire at all), and may not make any leadership checks other than those to disengage.

Added bold part.  Thus that option is my vote.

B): Individual Targeting, this has its own issues, and solutions. Essentially with individual targeting you lose a lot of difference between not-squadroning and squadroning.
1. Capital ships may be targeted individually in squadrons as though they were individual vessels.
a) mixed hits (e.g. 5+ hits going on any chosen vessel with 5+ armour, and 6+ hits going on any with 6+ armour) still being a factor. Hits carry over just the same, to the nearest vessel.
Or
b) Ships are hit (& targetted) individually (usual Leaderships needed to fire at further away targets), and hits can in no way carry over onto the rest of the squadron.
or
2. Squadrons follow previous targeting/hit rules (as in you hit the nearest always, and hits carry/weaker armour hits carry as well)

Bold has my vote. italic added

C): Individual Bracing, this is coupled with individual targeting, as well as making squadrons not unique from not squadroning.
1. Capital ships may brace individually, and have no effect on the remainder of the squadron using special orders (other than the potential of losing LD advantages).
Or
2. Capital ships may brace individually, and do not allow the remainder of the squadron to use special orders.

Bold one.

D): Leadership rules: there are a few opinions on this, however this is often considered the biggest advantage of squadroning, I don't like the idea of squadroning being a huge pile of advantages, but I don't mind adding to the importance of secondary commanders.
1. Leadership workings function as previous rules, meaning all vessels pass/fail on highest LD.
Or
2. Leadership works as Sigoroth's system, where 1 leadership test is made, and each ship passes or fails based on its own leadership.
a). Primary/Secondary Commanders involved in squadrons will make any ship in the squadron count it's leadership as at least the commanders value.
b). The leadership test will be considered as 'failed' ending further command checks if one ship fails.

2.a&b Thus per usual. Failed SO, all stop.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

Neither have you, and you guys are making it out to be the greatest thing ever.

Yes, I haven't but am willing to try it unlike you who has closed your mind to anything you don't find acceptable.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

All right, calm down everyone, we can come up with something fair and balanced. Taking a page out of RC's book we know:

A): Coherency is a must, and due to issues with defining coherency, 15cm is a must for special orders.
 1. Squadrons must attempt to move into coherency if they ever fall out of it, taking the shortest movement method possible to regain coherency. They may not make any attempt to use SO if out of coherency, and if they fall out of Coherency, they lose the benefit of being on any SO they were issued that turn.
Or
2. Squadrons out of coherency will not be able to make any SO checks, and will lose any benefits of SO they were issued that turn if they fall out of coherency. They MUST fire at the nearest enemy vessel (if they choose to fire at all), and may not make any leadership checks other than those to disengage.

Uh, what's the main difference? No. 1 can still make SOs which are issued by the Squadron Leader? Wouldn't this be better:

"Ship(s) part of a squadrons must attempt to move into coherency if it/they ever fall out of it, taking the shortest movement method possible to regain coherency. It/They may not make any attempt to use SO if out of coherency, and if it/they fall out of Coherency, they lose the benefit of being on any SO they were issued that turn. Ships out of coherency MUST fire at the nearest enemy vessel (if they choose to fire at all), and may not make any leadership checks other than to BFI or to disengage. Ships still in coherency can use the SO issued by the Squadron Leader"

B): Individual Targeting, this has its own issues, and solutions. Essentially with individual targeting you lose a lot of difference between not-squadroning and squadroning.
1. Capital ships may be targeted individually in squadrons as though they were individual vessels.
a) mixed hits (e.g. 5+ hits going on any chosen vessel with 5+ armour, and 6+ hits going on any with 6+ armour) still being a factor. Hits carry over just the same, to the nearest vessel.
Or
b) Ships are hit individually, and hits can in no way carry over onto the rest of the squadron.
or
2. Squadrons follow previous targeting/hit rules (as in you hit the nearest always, and hits carry/weaker armour hits carry as well)

I vote for 1.b

C): Individual Bracing, this is coupled with individual targeting, as well as making squadrons not unique from not squadroning.
1. Capital ships may brace individually, and have no effect on the remainder of the squadron using special orders (other than the potential of losing LD advantages).
Or
2. Capital ships may brace individually, and do not allow the remainder of the squadron to use special orders.

I vote for 1.

D): Leadership rules: there are a few opinions on this, however this is often considered the biggest advantage of squadroning, I don't like the idea of squadroning being a huge pile of advantages, but I don't mind adding to the importance of secondary commanders.
1. Leadership workings function as previous rules, meaning all vessels pass/fail on highest LD.
Or
2. Leadership works as Sigoroth's system, where 1 leadership test is made, and each ship passes or fails based on its own leadership.
a). Primary/Secondary Commanders involved in squadrons will make any ship in the squadron count it's leadership as at least the commanders value.
b). The leadership test will be considered as 'failed' ending further command checks if one ship fails.

Everyone tell me (in short words) if you feel positively or negatively on each option/point.

I am still not sure on D. I will abstain for now and try to understand Sigoroth's rules better. It's more on the execution which I have to understand further.

[Sigoroth]

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.

Er, this is backwards. I always felt fine forming squadrons with Eldar. That's because Eldar don't get shot. Therefore the downsides of bracing just don't apply.

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.)

Yeah, ok, so there will be squadrons formed. So what? Why should there be an incentive to not do so? Just to enforce some sort of arbitrary tactical choice? That's silly. There are any number of tactical choices which can be input into the game which don't make sense. Why keep this one?

Also, staying within 15cm is a real restriction. It's not terribly onerous or punitive, but it does reduce the number of elements available to the fleet, as they must move as a unit. So if you had a squadron of 4 you could not send 2 ships off one way and the other 2 off another to chase down diverse elements. So yes, there will be a lot more squadrons (which there should be) but the question will be "how large should I make my squadrons?" and "what should I put in squadron with ship X?", etc.

Sure the Ld bonus from forming squadrons is a little unbalancing and does flatline Ld values but if that's the extent of the bad of squadron rules then that's something I can live with.

[Sigoroth]

Oh, my votes are as per Horizon's, except part 2. b). If all ships fail then the check is considered failed, ending further command checks. If at least one ship passes then any failures are the squadron commander's problem and the fleet commander can continue enacting his plan of action.

[RCgothic]

Hits MUST still carry over on escorts. It's simply too unbalancing to do otherwise. Escort squadrons remain exactly as they are now.

For capital ships, I would do the following:

#1. Define a Squadron command  ship. This is the ship with the highest level character, else the ship with the most hits, else the ship with the highest leadership. The squadron uses this ship's leadership for command checks affecting the squadron. If the command ship is lost or suffers a Bridge Smashed critical, the next most eligible vessel becomes the squadron command ship.
This prevents a Ld9 Siluria buffing a Ld6 Retribution, reducing Ld buff shennanigans and helps to define what counts as 'the squadron' for coherency purposes in the next section.

#2. The squadron MUST move in such a way as to retain coherency. If this is impossible, it must move so as to be as close to coherency as possible, and move back into coherency at the earliest opportunity. A ship is out of coherency if it cannot link itself to the command ship either directly or through other ships without any link being more than 15cm.
A ship which moves out of coherency at the end of the movement phase immediately loses the benefits of Lock On special orders. Whilst out of coherency a ship may not combine fire with other ships in the squadron, gains no benefit from special orders executed by the rest of the squadron, and automatically fails any Leadership Test it is called upon to make. It may still make a Command Check to go on BFI orders using its own leadership if necessary.
I like this formulation because it emphasizes the role of the command ship, and defines the squadron in such a way that the entire squadron isn't penalised for a single straggler.

#3. The ships in a squadron act with a unified purpose, and as such the squadron takes just one Squadron Command Check to put the whole squadron on the same special order using the Command Ship's leadership value. Individual vessels within a squadron may not take command checks to go on their own special orders, with the exception of Brace For Impact which may be taken by individual vessels using their own leadership value as normal, replacing any previous orders.
If a squadron contains braced vessels when making a command check, then only the vessels which are not braced are put on the new special order. If the command ship is braced, then the squadron may not go on collective special orders at all!
This is sort of a compromise between BFI stops entire squadron going on SO, and the squadron operating just as well braced as with stragglers out of coherency (which should be vaguely equivalent.) it also bigs up the command ship idea, which i've decided I like.

#4. Capital ships within a squadron are treated exactly like individual ships when fired at, eg leadership check to shoot non-closest and hits don't carry over.
I think everyone agrees this bit.

[Phthisis]

Here's how I would revise it.


Squadron rules are as original with these changes.

Ships may BFI individually but use their own LD.  Squadron-mates are not braced but may not use SO.
Ships may be targeted individually if dersired, but no hit spillover.  Ships must test on own LD to target individual ships.  Otherwise, they may target the squadron as a whole with no LD test.  Damage goes to closest ship to the firing vessel and excess hits spill over to the next closest in that arc.
These rules should be applied equally to escorts and capital ships.

And a general change so that failing an SO test doesn't stop further orders that turn.  Just because one captain can't hold his crew together doesn't mean the whole fleet is panicing.

[RCgothic]

Squadron-mates are not braced but may not use SO.
Don't agree. The ship under fire could more than three times the diameter of earth away from the ship under fire. That isn't going to disrupt the squadron much. Now the command ship being udner fire, that's a different matter.

And a general change so that failing an SO test doesn't stop further orders that turn.  Just because one captain can't hold his crew together doesn't mean the whole fleet is panicing.
Changing this breaks the price, and even the point, of rerolls. This is already being negated to a large extent by the greater use of secondary commanders.

[Phthisis]

I'm looking at this purely as a game mechanic, RC.  I realize the fluff doesn't support it, but I'm ignoring it in favor of good gameplay.

Maybe rerolls need to be changed. 

[RCgothic]

We've already addressed re-rolls and the chain of command to an extent by making them cheaper and making secondary commanders more readily available.

In addition, what do you think of my compromise of no orders if the command ship braces? that's more realistic than either no orders if a straggler gets pummelled or orders in spite of the commander's ship going up in flames, and strikes a balance between them.

[Phthisis]

Its better, but I still feel icky about it.  Everyone will just target the leader's ship.  Something feels flawed.

So, what if the squadron leader's ship is destroyed?