Fighter Rules - BFG:R

[horizon]

D3 is better then D6-turrets (but suppression allowed)

RcG
Pretty weird you can say 4+save has little effect...

[Plaxor]

I think I will save all further ordnance matters (including the resilient fighter save) for another edition of BFG:R. Let's get 1.0 done first, then we can get the Bomber/fighter situation resolved after things cool down.

Just as a note, in case my wording was problematic, fighters will not have an auto-res save.

[afterimagedan]

So, no resilience but still turret supression? Just would like to know so I can give it a go in the upcoming games.

[Phthisis]

Good.  A save to fighters like that would ruin AC ordnance.

[Plaxor]

So, no resilience but still turret supression? Just would like to know so I can give it a go in the upcoming games.

Yes. Still turret suppression.

[RCgothic]

RcG
Pretty weird you can say 4+save has little effect...

8 bombers fly into a CAP of 4 fighters. 4 bombers survive.

Give the fighters a 4+ save, and perhaps 2 fighters survive, but the same amount of bombers are killed.  Any additional damage must be done in subsequent ordnance phases, but it's too late because the bombers have effectively shotgunned.

Now under current rules 6 bombers and 2 fighters fly into a CAP of 4 fighters. all the fighters and 2 bombers die, leaving 4 bombers. You might as well have taken more bombers. However, give the fighters a 4+ save, and there's a 25% chance 2 bombers die, 50% chance 1 bomber dies, and 25% chance 0 bombers die. On average, 5 bombers are left, an improvement for the bombers over at present.

[Sigoroth]

8 bombers fly into a CAP of 4 fighters. 4 bombers survive.

Give the fighters a 4+ save, and perhaps 2 fighters survive, but the same amount of bombers are killed.  Any additional damage must be done in subsequent ordnance phases, but it's too late because the bombers have effectively shotgunned.

Now under current rules 6 bombers and 2 fighters fly into a CAP of 4 fighters. all the fighters and 2 bombers die, leaving 4 bombers. You might as well have taken more bombers. However, give the fighters a 4+ save, and there's a 25% chance 2 bombers die, 50% chance 1 bomber dies, and 25% chance 0 bombers die. On average, 5 bombers are left, an improvement for the bombers over at present.

I disagree with this idea because I disagree with the current rules for resilience that only allows one interception and halted movement for resilient fighters. Eldar have much fewer AC than other races and it's supposed to be roughly 50% better to make up for the lack (quality over quantity). This means that 4 Eldar fighters should take out 6 enemy AC on average. This would happen if they were allowed to continue movement and removal each turn. So a fighter could remove and enemy fighter, take its save and, if passed, remove another enemy ordnance marker before itself being removed too. This is a fix to balance Eldar against other races.

If all fighters were resilient and could continue on they would essentially become (fixed) Eldar fighters. This is unbalanced between races and would devalue AC offensively. So it has to be one or the other and I prefer a fixed Eldar.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Yes, Eldar/Dark Eldar and SM will be the ones directly impacted by All-Fighters-Have-4+-Saves.

[horizon]

Yes, Eldar/Dark Eldar and SM will be the ones directly impacted by All-Fighters-Have-4+-Saves.

Tau a bit as well, their resilient Manta's drop some in worth.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

How about doing it another way? Instead of fighters getting a 4+ save, ABs and bombers have to do a check if half of their (as in their type, ABs or bombers) number are destroyed? This at least now gives a 50-50 chance of ABs/Bombers staying on the table or being removed and would I think encourage fighter escorts.

Examples:

a. 8 bombers in a wave are attacked by 4 fighters. 4 counters removes and they now have to roll a 4+ in order to stay on the board. Failure means they were shaken by the fighter attack and the bombers are dispersed and go back to their ships.

b. 6 bombers and 2 normal fighters are attacked by 4 normal fighter counters. 2 fighters are removes as well as 2 bombers. 6 bomber counter remains. The remaining 4 don't need to make the 4+ check to stay on the table since they are still more than 50% of their original number of 6.

Of course the 4+ is just an example. Eldar might improve to 3+ while Orks and maybe Nids need 5+ though being Fighta Bommas they might need a different rule. Tau bombers, I do not have much experience so Horizon, what would you think about them? SM already have a 4+ save for the vanilla TH so not sure if they need additional saves.

Also this would encourage number crunching of sorts to get the optimum conditions to minimize checks but then again, what game doesn't have it?

Thoughts?

[RCgothic]

Anyway, the Ordnance rules will be staying mostly as they are currently in BFG:R.

Later, I may do an optional swap-out of the following:

Fighters have a 4+ save.
Bombers do D3 attacks. Fighterbommers 1.
Turrets hit on a 3+.
Turret Suppression Binned.

But that would be another project, without any implied obligation for anyone to use it.

[afterimagedan]

I don't know that would need to say it either way though, as it is implied that BFG:R as a whole is not mandatory.

[horizon]

But so BFG:R is RcG's vision where as it started as a democratic voting system for the ships.

[RCgothic]

That's not a fair representation, given that I'm in no way forcing my ideas for ordnance into BFG:R against popular opinion.

[horizon]

heh, you made that post sound like you would just do it in a follow up edition.