Squadron Rules BFG:R

[Phthisis]

Sorry if I hurt your feelings Admiral.

I didn't say that there needed to be a downside for an upside.  That was Plaxor saying he wanted a downside to the upside of the leadership bonus squadroning gives.  I am also not responsable for defending Tag's arguments from several days ago.  Lets talk about the rule and drop the rhetorical tactics.  Instead of attempting to discredit me again, defend the rule on its merits.

Squadrons go on SO, but they can't go on multiple SO simultaneously with the exception of BFI.   I don't like ships being able to BFI without effecting their squadton because it's an obvious choice and dumbs down the strategic elements of squadroning and should drag the game on.  I don't like the leadership rules because the can force ships to break coherency on movement SOs if some fail and it will be hard for them to get back into coherency.  A broken rule isn't a downside, its just broken.

I am thinking of creating a competing alternate ruleset because I think this one is going bad and I don't think  my opinion is respected enough by the loudest members of this group to be considered.  Its like if I say it, it must be wrong. I don't deserve the personal attacks.  I may not have been playing for a decade but I play well and have good ideas.  I have done or said nothing to deserve having my character assassinated.  Im just trying to help the project.  If you don't want my perspective or just plain dislike me for some reason, I don't need to be here. Tell me you don't want my input and I'll go.

[afterimagedan]

I don't understand why a compromise can't be reached: one can BFI but the rest can't use SO but don't have to also BFI. Why won't this work? It's closer to realistic than the old way when they all had to BFI but not so far to have ships able to go on SO even when others in the squad BFI.

[Sigoroth]

I don't understand why a compromise can't be reached: one can BFI but the rest can't use SO but don't have to also BFI. Why won't this work? It's closer to realistic than the old way when they all had to BFI but not so far to have ships able to go on SO even when others in the squad BFI.

A few reasons. One, it doesn't make sense. Two, because it unfairly punishes carriers which rely on RO.

Squadrons go on SO, but they can't go on multiple SO simultaneously with the exception of BFI.   I don't like ships being able to BFI without effecting their squadron because it's an obvious choice and dumbs down the strategic elements of squadroning and should drag the game on.  I don't like the leadership rules because the can force ships to break coherency on movement SOs if some fail and it will be hard for them to get back into coherency.  A broken rule isn't a downside, its just broken.

I find myself in complete disagreement with you. I'll tackle this point by point so you can see the nature of the disagreement.

• obvious choice - well the choice is obvious either way. You either brace or you don't. Very obvious. What I think you mean is it becomes an easy choice, such that you will always brace. This is not true. I can tell you categorically that, sans squadrons, it is always a bonus to force the opponent to brace and always something to be avoided if you can. Therefore it only becomes an "obvious choice" if the incoming fire is overwhelming. In which case the attacker has over committed himself and the defender deserves the easy brace.
• strategic elements - this does not dumb down strategic elements. It does remove a strategic element, but it does not dumb it down. Being able to brace an entire squadron by shooting at one ship is a pretty dumbed down situation already. If anything this change to the BFI rule would require a lift in people's tactical performance.
• automatic squadroning - not a specific point you raised here, but has been raised before by others. This does not dumb down squadroning, though yes you should see more squadrons (not a bad thing). It is still something the player has to think about, but now it's about composition rather than just "should I?"
• dragging game on - I can't agree here. If you have less ships braced then you have more firepower, which means more hits, even if the opponent is braced. So you may find more braced targets, but you'll also find more firepower to use against them. Besides, what if your opponent has no squadrons? Are you going to berate him for dragging the game on because you can't force him to brace multiple ships by shooting at one?
• Coherency issues - yes, coherency would be harder to maintain. Why is this a bad thing? When you form a squadron of ships the benefits are seen in those ships working together. Combining fire, acting as a single unit, etc. However this should be harder to coordinate than a single ship. If all Ld are the same then it won't be harder (so the group works well together). This adds a tactical dimension to the game. It is hard to accept an argument of "dumbing down" with the removal of a bad (nonsensical) tactical element when you also object to the input of a good (ie, sensible) tactical element.
  
  Also, I want to run an example by you. Let's say you have a mixed Ld Lunar squadron. They are all lined up perfectly evenly right next to each other (so the low Ld vessel isn't in front like you'd expect). You go on AAF and the low Ld vessel fails while the rest pass. Rolling your AAF roll you get 24(!), leaving the low Ld vessel some 25cm away from the next closest ship, putting it out of coherency. So next turn it can't go on orders, therefore can't AAF to try to catch up. You can still regain coherency. The rest of the squadron can go on BR to allow it to catch up. Or, if you don't want to do that, you can have 1 ship in the squadron move minimum distance (now 35cm away from straggler) while the straggler moves maximum distance (now 15cm away) regaining coherency.

I am thinking of creating a competing alternate ruleset because I think this one is going bad and I don't think  my opinion is respected enough by the loudest members of this group to be considered.  Its like if I say it, it must be wrong. I don't deserve the personal attacks.  I may not have been playing for a decade but I play well and have good ideas.  I have done or said nothing to deserve having my character assassinated.  Im just trying to help the project.  If you don't want my perspective or just plain dislike me for some reason, I don't need to be here. Tell me you don't want my input and I'll go.

Eh, I don't think I've done this. As for whether or not you're welcome here, the answer is of course yes. Hell, even Baron Iveigh is welcome, and he's completely insane. My god, I even allow Nate to air his views! 

Opposition to your opinion stems mostly, I think, from simple disagreement. This comes in two parts, one is disagreement with the current state of play (you have an interpretation somewhat different to the norm) and the other is disagreement with the impact that the proposed rule would have. You seem to think it would mean doom to the game.

The impression that I get from you is that your group regularly forms squadrons and so expects to either brace multiple ships or get a lot of unbraced hits through. This might also go some way to explain why you're so enamoured with line carriers, since using squadrons is the norm for you.

I rarely form squadrons and I usually do so only to reap the maximum benefits for minimum risk. This usually comes in the form of carrier squadrons, particularly support carriers that can hang back and sometimes also gunship squadrons that can hang back (Carnages specifically). Most of the time the rest of my ships are individual. Sometimes a squadron of 2 ships here or there. Therefore in my games there are very few "free" hits. If overwhelming fire comes in; brace. If not, don't brace till shields are down and it looks like 2-3 hull hits incoming at least.

So for me these changes would allow me to squadron more. For you it'd mean rethinking the way you play (given my assumptions about your groups' game style is correct). I believe the liberal use of squadrons in the current system to be a disadvantage, particularly in low points games. I'm surprised that you haven't run into this problem yourselves (again, see assumptions). Therefore shifting your game from current rules to proposed rules should be less of a shock to the system than coming up against an opponent that plays predominantly single ships.

TL;DR - I'm right and you're wrong, but in a considerate way, not at all condescending. 

[afterimagedan]

I am starting to think that each cruiser, regardless of squadron, functioning independently, wouldnt be a bad thing. Mainly because it wont penalize gun boats or carrier specifically. To help balance it, a leadership test to target a further vessel in the squad would be a nurf to the old squadron rules and my earlier thoughts would buff it. Also, to balance this a bit, there would need to be some way to make sure a person couldn't squadron 6 cruisers, be able to use the highest leadership for all SO, and use whichever SO they want individually. I can see 4 lunar and 2 dictator squads doing this. How could this be regulated against?

[horizon]

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.

No, the proposed ruling was made by Sigoroth in his very first post, in the same post he said individual BFI should be. So these two things have been in effect the whole discussion from page 1 on.
You make it as if it was added. This isn't the case.


edit: I think no one is doing personal attacks. Merely giving disagreement on point of views. Personal attacks would be something like, you're sh*te, we do not listen to you. And/or simply ignore every post from you. Ignoring is the worst form.

[Plaxor]

Hell, even Baron Iveigh is welcome, and he's completely insane.

\

Lol, this made my night.

RC, I know you disagree, but you've been rather quiet.

Regarding loss of coherency,

I don't think this is as likely as it is being put out to be, assuming that the low ld ship isn't dragging behind, then you would have to roll at least 14cm, which is already above average. As well, there are re-rolls, and planning ahead.

Additionally, this assumes that you would be forming squadrons out of linebreakers, which is an obvious disadvantage. Note, that orks do not suffer from this (which is kind-of cool).

Squadrons shouldn't work seamlessly together, and can work fine with proper planning and precaution. This mechanic doesn't simplify or dumb things down, if anything it adds a tactical element to the game, and forces players to plan ahead if they intend to squadron.

[Phthisis]

I play with squadrons, so I know how they work pretty well.    Were not running them in b2b.  Theyre spread out a bit.  I believe falling out of coherency will happen alot more than you think. And I think it will be harder for a straggler to regain coherency than you think.  I do think this is a bad thing because the ship that failed their Ld will lose the opportunity to go on SO for at least 2 turns and the rest of the squadron is almost forced to attempt to regain coherency, aren't they?

Sig, in your example, what would happen if they started 10cm apart?  Or if the ship that failed was the center link? Or if the ships that used the SO didn't cancel the advantage gained bt the SO to let the straggler catch up.  I dont believe the game needs this dimension of difficulty. 

This needs to be playtested.

How do you guys kill ships?  Do you whittle them down point by point over the course of the game or smash them to bits in a couple turns of concentrated fire?

[Plaxor]

How do you guys kill ships?  Do you whittle them down point by point over the course of the game or smash them to bits in a couple turns of concentrated fire?

Boarding actions w/orks. And desperate ramming attempts.

With other fleets (demiurg, IN, Chaos) usually it is a forced brace tactic. Shoot someone until they brace, or if they choose not to/fail an attempt take advantage of the situation and murder!

[RCgothic]

I've been quite busy. Things are rough at work, and it's the GF's birthday coming up so I've been occupied.

I know I said I wasn't likely to come around, but then Sigoroth made a decent argument for making it harder to stick in coherency (damn him! , so I don't object to these Ld rules, even though i'd still prefer the previous.

However, if we're going to create stragglers much easier, it means we MUST define the squadron in such a way that the stragglers don't gimp the entire squadron. This means a squadron command ship. Also, given that large formations become increasingly unwieldy with this method, is there really a necessity for a 4 ship restriction on Cap Ship size?

Ok, so based on what's been discussed, I'd formulate the rules something like this:

Squadron Command Checks:
A single command check is rolled for every ship in the squadron, and every ship whose leadership equals or beats that roll has passed the special order. This is called a Squadron Command Check. If a re-roll is used, this only affects ships which did not pass the first time, so that ships which have passed remain on special orders even if the re-rolled value is lower. As long as at least one ship in the squadron passes, the squadron is considered to have passed for the purposes of issuing orders to other ships or squadrons.
Individual ships within a squadron may Brace For Impact using their own leadership, but otherwise may not check to go on Special Orders. Braced ships are unaffected by special orders attempted by the squadron.

Squadron Command Ship:
This ship is determined first by which has the highest level character on board (if any), then by the ship with the most hitpoints, and finally by the ship with the highest leadership (including any modifier for Improved Auspex Arrays, as these ships make ideal command vessels).
If the Command Ship is destroyed or suffers a Bridge Smashed critical, the next most eligible ship becomes the Command Ship.

Squadron Formation:
A ship must be able to link itself back to the command ship either directly or through other ships in the squadron without any individual link between ships being more than 15cm. A ship which cannot link itself back to the Command Ship in this manner is out of formation.
Ships which are out of formation at the end of the movement phase lose the benefit of Lock On orders. In addition, whilst out of formation they may not combine fire with other members of the squadron, are unaffected by squadron command checks, and automatically fail any leadership tests they are called upon to make. Ships which are out of formation MUST attempt to move back into formation at the earliest opportunity.

Targeting Capital Ship Squadrons:
Capital ships within a squadron may be targeted in the same manner as individual ships. As usual, a leadership test must be passed in order to target any ship which is not the closest. Unlike escort squadrons, hits do not carry over onto other capital ships.

Commanders:
Fleet Admirals confer their leadership to the ship they are on even if it would normally be higher. Their re-rolls may be used for any command check taken by any vessel or squadron within the fleet.
Veteran Captains allow their ship or squadron to attempt a command check even if a command check has been failed previously. Their re-rolls may only be used for command checks affecting the vessel they are on, or for Squadron Command Checks if they are part of a squadron.

[Plaxor]

Squadron Command Ship:
This ship is determined first by which has the highest level character on board (if any), then by the ship with the most hitpoints, and finally by the ship with the highest leadership (including any modifier for Improved Auspex Arrays, as these ships make ideal command vessels).
If the Command Ship is destroyed or suffers a Bridge Smashed critical, the next most eligible ship becomes the Command Ship.

I'm confused about your hit point statement. Do you mean the ship with the highest current hit points or highest maximum?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Phthisis, put down your proposals. I will read them and will not just react negatively even if it sounds bad. I will read it and understand it. No one has a monopoly on good ideas here. I have ideas which I think are good and same with the others and ideas which others may think are bad. Case in point is the recent Escort and spillovers. While I still think it can be feasible (though most probably a major change to escorts which may or may not be bad), majority think it is not but at the very least I put the idea on the table to be discussed. It is also my responsibility to put any ideas I have on on paper so if you have your own ideas, voice it out and let it be discussed.

[RCgothic]

Squadron Command Ship:
This ship is determined first by which has the highest level character on board (if any), then by the ship with the most hitpoints, and finally by the ship with the highest leadership (including any modifier for Improved Auspex Arrays, as these ships make ideal command vessels).
If the Command Ship is destroyed or suffers a Bridge Smashed critical, the next most eligible ship becomes the Command Ship.

I'm confused about your hit point statement. Do you mean the ship with the highest current hit points or highest maximum?

Base hitpoints. I certainly wouldn't want the command ship swapping about just because it took one point of damage over the untouched ships in the squadron! EG a ship with a commander aboard will be command ship in preference to anything else, a Retribution will be command ship in preference to a Mars, and a Ld9 Lunar will be command ship in preference to a Ld8 Overlord. If you have a commander on a Ld7 Retribution with another commander on a ld8 Mars, the Retribution has priority. Possibly another step for Fleet Admiral is necessary.

[Sigoroth]

I play with squadrons, so I know how they work pretty well.    Were not running them in b2b.  Theyre spread out a bit.  I believe falling out of coherency will happen alot more than you think. And I think it will be harder for a straggler to regain coherency than you think.  I do think this is a bad thing because the ship that failed their Ld will lose the opportunity to go on SO for at least 2 turns and the rest of the squadron is almost forced to attempt to regain coherency, aren't they?

Yarp, mishandled squadrons would result in lost opportunities by the stragglers. I don't think that's a bad thing. As for regaining coherency, only stragglers are forced to attempt to regain coherency. The rest of the squadron is not obligated to attempt to regain coherency, though the controlling player may choose to do so.

Sig, in your example, what would happen if they started 10cm apart?  Or if the ship that failed was the center link? Or if the ships that used the SO didn't cancel the advantage gained bt the SO to let the straggler catch up.  I dont believe the game needs this dimension of difficulty. 

Well, if they were already 10 cm apart with the low Ld ship the furthest back and it was the only one that failed the AAF and the rest of the squadron rolled 24 on their 4d6 then the player could still BR for the rest of the squadron to regain coherency (note, the straggler would not have halved firepower). Let's assume the same situation again but there was only a 14 rolled for the AAF, then the player could regain coherency by moving one ship at minimum and the straggler at maximum, as per my previous example.

Also, I'd like to point out that you, as the player, have some control here. You can place the lower Ld ship forward. Means that any AAF would be unlikely to cause a coherency failure. Similarly, you can place a low Ld ship on a wing, so that it is not the lynchpin.

This needs to be playtested.

Yarp.

How do you guys kill ships?  Do you whittle them down point by point over the course of the game or smash them to bits in a couple turns of concentrated fire?

Typically I commit only enough firepower in one shot to make it a difficult decision to brace. If they do not I put a bit more in. Then more, until they're braced or crippled/destroyed or I have no more to put in. I also try to position my ships such that they have more than one target each so that I can switch when my primary has braced. I also like to ensure that the primary hits come from a direction away from my main deployment of force, so that there is no interference. This method serves until I have manoeuvred into a position where I can bring overwhelming force to bare.

Against squadrons or closing cap ships with 5+ armour where hits come fast and easy I like to put as much firepower as I can into them, since the former aren't likely to brace (or if they do I get a lot out of it anyway) and the latter take enough damage that even if they brace a significant amount of hull hits gets through.

[horizon]

I agree with Sigoroth, shutting down the enemy fleet is a good strategy. Making sure return fire is as minimal as possible.

It may give you less victory points as the enemy can disengage but it also ensure your opponent gets less victory points.

This is also why it can be tricky to use Elite fleets with few ships. These are easy to surpress.

[Sigoroth]

It just occurred to me that your example Phthisis was 10cm abeam, not astern. This makes it even easier to regain coherency. You would be able to regain coherency without recourse to using BR for the rest of the squadron if the AAF roll was 23cm or less (on 4d6). If you were to roll four sixes (1 in 1296) then you would fall short of regaining coherency next turn by 1.2 millimetres. This can be easily worked out by some simple trig (h² = a² + b² = 44² + 10² = 2036, so h = 45.12 cm. Movement (30cm) + coherency (15cm) = 45cm = 0.12 cm short).

So regaining coherency in that sort of situation won't be too hard (1295/1296 chance to be doable without recourse to SO). In fact, you can even calculate how much you have to slow down a ship to regain coherency based on how your AAF roll went. Since we know the  hypotenuse can be a maximum of 45cm and the width was 10cm then any combined movement totalling 53.87 cm across the 2 turns will be satisfactory (this includes the 10cm movement before the straggler is able to turn). So if you rolled 19 on your AAF then you can slow the nearest ship to the straggler down to 14.87 cm and still retain coherency (which is nearly full speed if you made contact with a BM).