Fighter Rules - BFG:R

[horizon]

BFG: Revised : Fighter Rules Topic


Hi,

throughout various posts I expressed my dislike for the BFG:R proposed fighter rules.

I'll tell you why.

It adds a layer of extra rolls and luck to the game.

It increases the amount of AC in the game.

It increases the strength of AC in the game.

Since the more the merrier is applying.

In the official rules one fighter marker would remove one opposing marker. Straightforward, simplistic, easy to play. Balanced to both parties.

I could see a wave of 8 (6 bombers + 2 fighters per example) coming to me, send two fighters and now it'll be 6. Turret fire shooting vs 6 incoming. And no +2 fighter attacks.

Under the proposed rules of BFG:R I could sent in 2 fighters, roll bad, lose both, yet opponent rolls good, keeps both. Opponent goes on to attack with all 8 markers.

Thus more AC = more dice rolls = more chance on good rolls (aka more chance your markers survive).

I think it is a layer of luck added to the game with no tactical improvement to the game. Only downsides to the complete package.

Now, try to convince me it has a good tactical merrit to the game.

[RCgothic]

It adds a layer of extra rolls and luck to the game.
True.

It increases the amount of AC in the game.
False. Fighters will remove AC faster, therefore there will be less.

It increases the strength of AC in the game.
False. It increases the strength of Fighters. Everything else stays the same or requires escort, an effective decrease.

In the official rules one fighter marker would remove one opposing marker. Straightforward, simplistic, easy to play. Balanced to both parties.

But makes fighter escorts pointless, except by an additional bad mechanic that favours only bombers.

I could see a wave of 8 (6 bombers + 2 fighters per example) coming to me, send two fighters and now it'll be 6. Turret fire shooting vs 6 incoming. And no +2 fighter attacks.

Under the proposed rules of BFG:R I could sent in 2 fighters, roll bad, lose both, yet opponent rolls good, keeps both. Opponent goes on to attack with all 8 markers.

Or you could roll really well and the fighters will not only eliminate the bombers, but go on to attack a different wave as well. On average each fighter will remove 2 other AC unless they're escorted.

So the plus is that the fighters get better at being fighters, reducing the need for stupid mechanics like turret suppression. There's also more thought involved in the composition of a wave - you can't just send an unescorted wave into contested space. Encounters may have more dice rolling, but I feel this is more interactive and the risks involved make it more like a battle rather than a forgone conclusion.

[horizon]

So roll dependant. Not tactical improvement.

This:

It increases the amount of AC in the game.
False. Fighters will remove AC faster, therefore there will be less.

No, more AC will be added to have more fighters.

Why? Because you are making bombers better as well.


Turret Suppression is abstract.
It is balanced.

[RCgothic]

Who's making bombers better? They're remaining exactly as is except fighters will kill more of them.

We discussed changes to bombers (and also the dropping of turret suppression - it may be abstract, but it's a bad abstract based off a flawed D6-T system) but agreed not to make any changes for now.

The additional thought required for wave composition is tactical improvement. The risk involved means you have to be aware of and plan for alternate outcomes - both tactical improvements.

In addition, an increased sense that this is actually a battle going on, not just a forgone conclusion, and additional involvement in the ordnance phase is an end in itself.

[horizon]

?

No, the bomber rules have remained the same; combined with turret suppression bombers can still hurt battleships. If we were to change the rules, it would be to make bombers more effective against battleships.

I am preparing for the future.

Your turret suppression makes bombers better.

[RCgothic]

I wouldn't have turret suppression at all. But either way, changes to bombers/turret suppression are off the cards.

[horizon]

Odd. I would (ref : Wing Commander (per Plaxor and Star Wars).

If you add layers why not a modifier for outnumbering?

[RCgothic]

Because that reduces the effect of token fighter escorts, and the whole point of the rules are that fighter escorts are worthwhile. Also more complicated.

[horizon]

I think outnumbering should have more effect then resilience for every fighter.

More complicated, yes, perhaps. But this resilience: nah. Not like this.

[zaxqua]

Horizon's right, the current rules are to luck based. A 4+ save for ALL fighters is just ridiculous. but outnumbering is good enough as is. I would suggest reducing the save to a 5+ or 6+ which would make the ord. phase less luck based while retaning the effectiveness of token fighter escorts. If you want fighters to be more complicated, then allow some ships to purchase upgrades to the resilient save and create rules for how fighter combat is affected by celestial phenomena. Dogfighting in a asteroid belt would be a lot diffent than in open space, it would be a lot harder to find and shoot down enemy craft. this would make sending wings through phenomena less of a no-brainer and more of a calculated risk. thats my 2 cents.

[Zhukov]

In the official rules one fighter marker would remove one opposing marker. Straightforward, simplistic, easy to play. Balanced to both parties.

I could see a wave of 8 (6 bombers + 2 fighters per example) coming to me, send two fighters and now it'll be 6. Turret fire shooting vs 6 incoming. And no +2 fighter attacks.

Under the proposed rules of BFG:R I could sent in 2 fighters, roll bad, lose both, yet opponent rolls good, keeps both. Opponent goes on to attack with all 8 markers.

Now, try to convince me it has a good tactical merrit to the game.

Without reading the proposed rules you are asking about, I will say this to the post you wrote,

1. Combat in this game is already luck of the dice. So adding the die rolls to the attack craft is not harming the game any.

2. Combat is never a forgone conclusion. History has repeated itself over and over of the most remarkable things happening in combat. To resist the idea of adding a bit of randomness to the fighter combat is actually an insult to the game, IMO.

3. I have yet to play the Warp Rift article about enhanced fighter coverage, but thought that was pretty well written out. I guess this idea is just a simpler version of that?

-Zhukov

[Taggerung]

I don't like the idea of fighters all being resilient. The only thing I think makes sense in terms of all being resilient is getting a save against bombers. That would kind of force people to escort bombers with their own fighters.

[Phthisis]

I brought this up in another thread, but as long as we are talking about fighters getting a save....

How about fighters only get a save when used as an escort for bombers & assault boats?  If theyre in the wave they get a 4+, but otherwise 1 for 1.  Fighters take out torpedos 1 wave for 1 counter and unescorted AC 1 for 1.

[RCgothic]

Because then, for example, 3 fighters and 1 bomber are a more effective fighter force than 4 fighters.

[Bryantroy2003]

instead of making it an auto universal rule, why not make people pay a premium for it and the costs increase as the number of LB's increase in the fleet? And if taken for one it must be taken for all across that fleet, reflecting the crafstmanship/piloting skills of the ordinance in question.

2lb's = 15pts
4lb's = 25pts
6lb's = 35pts
8lb's = 50pts
10lb's + = 80 pts

Tweek scale as you prefer. And to make it clear, I didnt think of this involving bombers or AB's to be included in this resliancy price chart. If you want that the cost is likely to go up even more and less depending on the race specific AC. Imperial vessels for example dont get AB's except on the BB's and Orks/Choas/DE get them on any LB.

As for Tyranid Ord, make it 5cm slower then the contemperary counterpart in the Navy/Choas lists and apply above chart.

Feel free to disagree and point out the weakness's with this proposed solution, but if you do please offer counter points that would work instead. No system is perfect or satisfy's every one in question, the objective is to find something close enough to satisfy the majority and add's something to the game.