Squadron Rules BFG:R

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Having re-read Sigoroth's proposal and understasnding it better, I think it works. Simple too since it's one SO check compared to each ship's individual Ld. It also balances things out, not making squadroning too strong because a low Ld ship can still not make the SO check and so there is still a downside. Makes re-rolls also valuable.

How would this affect low Ld factions like Orks though? Though I do think the Orks would lean more towards individual ships rather than forming squadrons.

Also, another question. Would this be unbalanced towards the ships not squadroned in terms of failed SO checks? Individual ships failing would mean SO checks would stop and would be a painful occurrence if it happened early on unlike squadroned ships which can still issue orders as long as one ship passed the SO check. Of course, a squadron can fail its SO check early on but the chances go down the more ships there are in a squadron. However, I do understand it is a mechanism meant to encourage squadroning.

[Plaxor]

Sig likes orders continuing if only one ship passes. I think that for balance sake it's better that it would end if even one failed.

I would think that Orks would still remain fairly individualized. Only one of their commander options has improved LD, and is 0-1 in Waagh! fleets. Although, there is the Hammer 'tank' possibility, which would mean taking a Big Mek on a Hammer with extra powerfields, then swapping the best leadershipped cruiser with his. About the best that you can do, but still relatively sub-par compared to other fleets.

All I can say is that with Horizon's option, it will make list building a much bigger deal than it is currently.

Oh, as a side note, Orks have the most mixed role ships, which make them strange for squadroning (unless you are using ones from the same class), a Hammer has equal argument for squadroning with shooting vessels as not.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Sig likes orders continuing if only one ship passes. I think that for balance sake it's better that it would end if even one failed.

Would be too harsh and discourage squadroning tho. There is a chance for many ships getting low Ld. How about this? If half the ships in a squadron passes, then the SOs can continue?

[Plaxor]

Would be too harsh and discourage squadroning tho. There is a chance for many ships getting low Ld. How about this? If half the ships in a squadron passes, then the SOs can continue?

It promotes the use of commanders, as these 'improve' the leadership of their squadmates. Otherwise, they would fail regardless. Chances are most 1500 lists would have only 1 squadron of capital ships, so this would only occur once.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Some could and would make multiple squadrons or even combinations of squadron and individual ships. Certainly a battleship would not squadron with cruisers and it is a common sight to have 1 battleship at that level points level. No, too harsh if SO ends with just 1 ship failing.

[Sigoroth]

It promotes the use of commanders, as these 'improve' the leadership of their squadmates. Otherwise, they would fail regardless. Chances are most 1500 lists would have only 1 squadron of capital ships, so this would only occur once.

Needless to say, I agree with Admiral d'Artagnan. The point of forming squadrons from my point of view is to ameliorate the CoC problem, not to emphasise them.

However you may have noticed that I haven't said much about your idea for secondary commanders. This is because these rules allow secondary commanders to be able to do so many things, including your suggestion, and I was reticent to form blanket rules for them in the squadrons section. Rather I imagine them to be list specific rules.

These rules could be many things. You've noted raising minimum Ld to that of the commander (fairly powerful so I imagine a fairly low Ld commander). Another special rule could be to allow 2 or more different (non-brace) special orders to be used throughout the squadron (so some CTNH while others RO, etc). Another could be a lone wolf rule, ie, when not in squadron with other ships the character's ship can attempt special orders even if there's been a chain of command breakdown. Another possibility could be to allow re-rolls of secondary commanders to only affect ships that failed initially (so ships which passed couldn't fail as a result of the re-roll). Another rule might be +1 squadron Ld (race dependent cap), so a squadron with 6, 7 and 9 becomes 7, 8 and 9. There's a lot that can be done with secondary commanders with these rules.

[Phthisis]

@Horizon
You really need to read posts more carefully.  We were discussing the effect of BFI not effecting the rest of the squadron, not leadership.  And we didn't say it would make everyone always squadron.  We said it dumbed down the game by making the decision to BFI an obvious one.
Then a rule was proposed and I'm now pointing out why this rule is broken.  

@Sig
You need to work out with Plaxor whether one ship failing in a squadron counts as a failure or not.  I was targeting the proposed rule specifically although the major part of my critique applies to your proposal as well.
Ive pointed out that you'll be breaking coherency with manouvering SO and that this system makes rerolls less useful.  I expected you to say that it was a good thing. If you really think that players will look at this and say 'cool, now I can fail SO with part of my squadron and break coherency in a way that I won't be able to regain for multiple turns.  That's just what the game needed!'  Then go ahead and publish these rules.  Take my name off the cover page.  I don't want to be associated with it.  Not one of my ideas has been considered or warnings heeded anyway, so there is none of me in this.

If BFG was written this way I wouldn't squadron.  I primarily use squadroning to get portions of my fleet to perform the same action in unison.  This means that won't happen and then I'm screwed for SO for a couple of turns afterward.  It takes away the primary purpose of squadroning.

Look up groupthink on wikipedia if you care to.  

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Is there really a problem with the scenario you posted? So one ship fails. So what? 2 ships still succeeded and they can perform the SO you want to perform. It's up to that ship to get back into coherency next turn. The current rules are actually the dumbed down rules since the squadron tests using the highest leadership and the low LD ship can get away with it.

The point of Horizon is that first yOu're claiming the proposed rules are dumbing the game down which in effect you're saying it's making things too simple and that you're saying it's making squadroning the norm but now you are claiming it's problematic and people will not want to squadron. It doesn't matter whether the SO is BFI or AAF or LO or whatever.

So which is it really?

[Phthisis]

You need to read better too Admiral.

BFI not effecting the rest of the squadron for LO and RO dumbs down the game.  Allowing ships to pass movement SO independently makes them break coherency.  There are 2 problems with this ruleset.

Were ships allowed to go on LO or RO when another squadron-mate was on BFI, and that were the only change, there's no reason not to squadron.  Now that youve introduced these screwy leadership rules, youre better off not squadroning.  If you can't see that, then you shouldn't be playing at games designer.

[Plaxor]

he's saying that squadroning isn't different enough from not.

I don't think it really should be. It should be more a different way of issuing orders than anything else. LD represents crew skill level, and just because the ship has friends doesn't mean it should be more likely to succeed at a task.

[Phthisis]

Actually I'm saying its worse.  There is no difference between squadroning or not except that if I fail a movement SO with a lone ship, I can attempt a SO the next turn.

Lets say one ship fails AAF and the other ships are far ahead.  It could catch up to the formation if it could AAF the following turn, but since its out of coherency it can't go on SO.  So the ship cant go on SO but is required to move in such a way to bring it into coherency, a SO would bring it into coherency, but it can't because its out of coherency and therefore can't go on SO.

[afterimagedan]

So why not force it to try AAH if it will bring it bring it into coherency. If it fails then it just moves as close as it can to coherency as it can. Of, if a ship is out of coherency, it must try to use a special order that will bring it back into coherency.

[Phthisis]

Because for this to happen the ship will have to have low Ld.  And what if the rest of the squadron goes on AAF again?

Why doesn't the whole squardon just go on SO at the same time?

The complaint everyone had against squadroning was that BFI forced all the ships to BFI.  Allowing ships to BFI individually eliminates that.  Nothing else was broken or needed changing.  Keep the same squadroning rules but ships BFI individually and the rest of the squadron can't SO.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

You need to read better too Admiral.

And you need to understand the question better.

BFI not effecting the rest of the squadron for LO and RO dumbs down the game.  Allowing ships to pass movement SO independently makes them break coherency.  There are 2 problems with this ruleset.

Were ships allowed to go on LO or RO when another squadron-mate was on BFI, and that were the only change, there's no reason not to squadron.  Now that youve introduced these screwy leadership rules, youre better off not squadroning.  If you can't see that, then you shouldn't be playing at games designer.

Weren't the two of you the ones who wanted a downside for every upside? Well there you have it. You have an upside in BFI being independent of other SOs but a downside in the Problem or coherency which you actually think is bad. You complain about the squadron rules being dumbed down and now complain the rules are bad which is absurd any way you look at it.

 Now since obviously the both of you can't hold back the rhetoric and just have to, HAVE TO, insert snide and snippy remarks instead of having a debate about the topic and have given up on said topic, why don't you get the hell out of the topic and maybe the forum if you can't hold a civil conversation.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Actually I'm saying its worse.  There is no difference between squadroning or not except that if I fail a movement SO with a lone ship, I can attempt a SO the next turn.

Lets say one ship fails AAF and the other ships are far ahead.  It could catch up to the formation if it could AAF the following turn, but since its out of coherency it can't go on SO.  So the ship cant go on SO but is required to move in such a way to bring it into coherency, a SO would bring it into coherency, but it can't because its out of coherency and therefore can't go on SO.

Now it's worse but there is no difference. Just keeps getting better and better.

As for your example, you don't have to go to an SO which will further take the ship further away to get all the ships back into coherency but if the situation is such that such a maneuver will be advantageous to you, then do it. Better the remaining squadron do what is best for it than have to wait forthe straggler.

Again, have either of you tested this out? Because until you have, it's all anecdotes. Better the actual game results rather than pure theory. And not just a game but multiple games.

I'm just waiting for my friend to have the time available to play. Then we'll try the rules out.