WARP RIFT 33 - It is Back!

[horizon]

Issue Thirty Three: EDITORIAL - Navis Nobilite - High Admiralty +++ LEXICANUM - Tactical Command: Tactical Manoeuvers - Ships Database: Eldar Ships in Battlefleet Gothic - Encyclopedia Gothica: Advanced Ordnance Rules +++ THE FORGE - Showcase: GothiComp2011 Finalists

Download it here:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/bfgmag/


Thank you Vaaish!

[AndrewChristlieb]

TACTICAL MANOEUVERS by DAN LEE and ADVANCED ORDNANCE RULES by GRAHAM WILSON both sound intersting. Has anyone play tested with these yet? As a side note why the change up in editors? Is the mag going for a new feel or you just ready to pass it on? All in all good work guys.

[Sigoroth]

I am just reading WR 33 and have hit upon the advanced ordnance rules and quite like them, but I have a tonne of questions. Does Graham Wilson frequent these boards at all? Well I'll throw out my queries for everyone to consider anyway.

• Being able to move off after interactions brings up some issues. For example, a fighter intercepts some bombers, makes its attacks and manages to survive the return fire. It then moves off. It has already interacted this phase so can't intercept other ordnance. However, it can now move into contact with enemy fighters which will be forced to engage it. Does it get to return fire? If so, is there any limit to this? Can fighters that survive continue to intercept enemy fighters that haven't engaged this turn? If so, then it would seem that the best way to protect your own AC would be to neutralise enemy fighters by making them engage your surviving fighters before they can act (on your turn of course). Note: I don't disagree with allowing movement after engagement.
  
  
• Fighters in a wave: say a fighter attacks a wave of 1 fighter and 2 bombers. The attacking fighters rolls come up 4, 4, 4. Normally this would be enough to kill two of the bombers but the fighter has to be engaged first. Since none of the rolls can kill the fighter does this mean that the bombers are safe? If the roll was 4, 5, 4, would that mean that the entire wave is destroyed or just the fighter, and that another fighter would be needed to engage the remaining bombers?
  
  
• It would seem that putting an armour 6 fighter to protect armour 3 torpedo bombers would allow for some strange all-or-nothing results. Eg, 2 fighters attack a wave of 4 torpedo bombers, rolling 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, scoring 4 hits and destroying the entire wave. Repeating the scenario against 1F (@6+) & 3TB we would see zero casualties, assuming the fighter must be destroyed first.
  
  
• Table errors: there seem to be a few errors in the table. The Fury interceptor has both firepower and turrets; the Dreadfire assault boat has 0 turrets; the Eldar Darkstar fighter has only 5+ armour (should be 6+) and the notes of the DE section should refer to DE vessels, not Eldar vessels.
  
  
• Some table values appear to be a judgement call. Not to say I disagree with the values shown, but some might. For example, if we're going to be giving AC these sorts of values then an argument could be made to increase Eldar and Dark Eldar armour values by 1 to represent their superior quality (so bombers at 5+, torp bombers at 4+, etc). In the current rules an Ork FB is no more difficult to destroy than a normal fighter, but its armour has been reduced in this rule set. This seems to be the point of these rules after all, to allow for finer racial and class differentials.

As I type this then it seems even more obvious that Eldar armour should be +1 over normal. As a small AC fleet Eldar have to rely upon quality rather than quantity. With 3 attack dice per fighter and 2 defence dice per Eldar bomber then even with 5+ armour for the bomber we're seeing a decrease in performance compared to current rules as it would only cost 0.67 fighters to remove an Eldar bomber and the mon-keigh fighters would still remove 1 Eldar bomber per ordance phase on average. So same removal qualities but greater survivability. Leaving Eldar armour at 4+ this would allow an average value of 2 normal fighters for 3 Eldar (or normal) bombers, which is the equivalent of current Eldar fighters against normal bombers. A fairly large nerf to a fleet that can ill afford such a reduction in effectiveness.

[Plaxor]

I was wondering when this would happen!

[AndrewChristlieb]

Good questions. I would think when attacking a wave of a fighter and 3 bombers  with 2 fighters you would attack one fighter squad with one fighter and one bomber squad with one fighter, I haven't had a chance to play with this tho (darn work )

[Vaaish]

Sorry, it took me quite a while longer this time around because I ran into some work issues that took priority back in October. I'd homed for a december release but an article I was waiting for didn't make it so I ended up releaseing last week.

[horizon]

I dunno if Graham Wilson visits the boards but Vaaish could point him to this thread.

And why change of editor? Well Vaaish is running it since issue 30. I resigned from the editorial job  because my time was running short on creating a good ezine. And since Vaaish gave a lot of feedback on WR at one point on how to improve it and because he is much more a professional in the layout department then me it was a logical choice for me to ask him to take over world domination.. I mean Warp Rift.

[Dan_Lee]

Great to see warp rift is back. I was sure it had been hulked! I'll have to get writing more articles.

I like the ordnance rules. I don't have a problem with (for example) orks and eldar having the same armour values. The eldar craft may be better individually but perhaps the ork squadron is so much bigger it is just as difficult to eradicate.

[Thinking Stone]

Hooray! Warp Rift! I'm also glad to see another quality issue. Good work, Vaaish, on defeating your adversaries and getting it out; I know just how you feel. I also like the pictures on the pages! I shall continue reading at a more feasible juncture.

Sigoroth (et al.), have you seen my alternative ideas for ordnance versus ordnance interactions? I had pondered using this type of system but I preferred the Horizon-inspired rules in this thread, Reply #9: http://sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=3238.0 . This way, it is rather easier to work out the racial stats of attack craft without having to worry about information that isn't included in BFG already (e.g. armour of Imperial fighters versus Ork or Eldar fighters). My system can be further modified also (e.g. removing limited ordnance caveats).

I have been thinking, perhaps if there is a shortage of articles for Warp Rift, we should include some of the good discussions happening here? That way, people not involved with this forum but who still procure Warp Rift would be able to get some insight into the current thinking of others in the BFG community. My thoughts, anyway .

Stone of Thoughts: Thinking Stone

[Sigoroth]

Great to see warp rift is back. I was sure it had been hulked! I'll have to get writing more articles.

I like the ordnance rules. I don't have a problem with (for example) orks and eldar having the same armour values. The eldar craft may be better individually but perhaps the ork squadron is so much bigger it is just as difficult to eradicate.

This doesn't fly. Eldar already suffer the downsides of the 'elite few' mentality and Orks already enjoy the benefits of the 'endless horde' mentality, albeit faultily. You can't use these things to justify the differences in AC numbers and then go on to use the difference in numbers to justify why Eldar don't get to be elite. Besides, the point of this sort of level of detail is so that you can represent differences in craft. And Eldar craft would be a lot different to Ork craft.

[Dan_Lee]

I can see your point. I forgot that the Eldar are already represented as being elite by launching less squadrons.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I'm kind of hesitant about the armor value system on certain ships being higher rather than just having the 4+ save, especially  the Thunderhawks and Mantas. In the current version if you send one fighter to remove one manta the manta gets a 4+, If it succeeds then the fighter is removed manta stays (50% chance to destroy). The thing tho is you can now send another fighter and be assured that both will be removed(100% chance to destroy). In this version tho instead of having a guaranteed shot at removing them you get 42.13% to destroy twice when you send in 1 fighter after another. If we can assume that it would be ok to combine the 2 fighters dice our odds only go up to 66.51% chance to destroy either way no where near 100%.

[Sigoroth]

I'm kind of hesitant about the armor value system on certain ships being higher rather than just having the 4+ save, especially  the Thunderhawks and Mantas. In the current version if you send one fighter to remove one manta the manta gets a 4+, If it succeeds then the fighter is removed manta stays (50% chance to destroy). The thing tho is you can now send another fighter and be assured that both will be removed(100% chance to destroy). In this version tho instead of having a guaranteed shot at removing them you get 42.13% to destroy twice when you send in 1 fighter after another. If we can assume that it would be ok to combine the 2 fighters dice our odds only go up to 66.51% chance to destroy either way no where near 100%.

However, you have a 100% chance of losing 1 fighter and a 50% chance of losing 2 fighters against that single Manta under the current rules. In this ruleset you have only a 70% chance of losing one fighter and only a 26% chance of losing both (if sent in as a wave). You are right of course, in that it will now take an average of 2 fighters per Manta, rather than 1.5 and it will still cost an average of 1 fighter per Manta. On the other hand, fighters are now typically more survivable against normal bombers, costing only 0.67 per bomber and shooting down 1.5 bombers per fighter. One significant issue will be ceiling effects. For example, 2 fighters will have a 26% chance of taking out 2 or more Mantas under this ruleset but if there's only 1 Manta in a wave then excess rolls are lost and this will bring the actual averages down. Under the current rules those 2 fighters have a 25% chance of destroying 2 Mantas, regardless of whether they're in a wave or alone. No ceiling effect, averages easily calculated.

Possibly the biggest issue is that small fighter units will no longer do the job. For example, a single fighter engaging a wave of 3 bombers will have 3 attack dice, possibly killing all 3 bombers or none, but will give up 6 defence dice. This will most likely result in a destroyed fighter. Sending in another fighter to take out survivors only gives them another chance to shoot. Sending in 2 fighters at once will maximise chances of destroying all bombers and also maximise the chance that one of the fighters will survive.

In short, these changes will effect gameplay significantly and possibly balance a little. A thorough playtest is in order.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Yes waves of fighters make sense again with this . I'm still kind of stuck on what you brought up earlier about fighters protecting waves. what I've been thinking is along the lines of: FBBB vs FF. would this be 6 fp for the 2 fighters vs 9 fp from the defenders with hits allocated as per squadron rules? Or would one fighter attack one fighter while the other fighter attacks one bomber? Or would one fighter attack one fighter while the other fighter attacks all the bombers? I think the 2nd or 3rd option would work out the best, this allows fighters to actually protect the bombers as they do now. Option 1 seems a bit over powered as stated earlier a single fighter could roll all 4's taking out all 3 bombers but not the defending fighter on the other hand this could be pilots going on a "suicide mission" ignoring the fighters all together and would lead to larger waves with more fighters to defend.

[Vaaish]

Great to see warp rift is back. I was sure it had been hulked! I'll have to get writing more articles.

Nope not hulked, just a difficult last half of 2011. Warp rift will still be here, even if it slips to biannual rather than bi-monthly.