What's missing from BFG modelwise?

[fracas]

these work for the Endeavour series CL:

http://www.twolandscreative.com/wip/bfg/zeusupdate.jpg

Where can these be ordered?

Zac Soden

[Evil_and_Chaos]

Oh yeah, does any company make torpedos with the correct size bases?

[Comrade-K-Rad]

FW at one point I think did make torpedoes.  However the best way I found was to use the fancy ended toothpicks to make them.   Cheap and easy.

[Spectrar Ghost]

I thought someone did Torpedo markers on shapeways with slots for dice. All I could find were the old style markers ferom Grimdarkbits.

[Evil_and_Chaos]

Could anyone measure a torpedo marker for me? I seem to have lost my tin of markers. :-/

[Vaaish]

They are the same size as the old square epic bases. Or, if you are using the 6 wide ones, the same as the current epic strips.

I made some that are available on shapeways with dice holders, but they are prohibitively expensive in any of the materials that look acceptable.

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/vaaish

[fracas]

http://www.litko.net/products/Gothic-Space-Missiles.html

http://www.litko.net/products/Gothic-Space-Blast-Markers.html

[Evil_and_Chaos]

Litko are nice, but I prefer E&C's patented Modular-snap Torpedo Strips; Thanks Vaaish!

[Vaaish]

NP, but do realize that torpedo strength is supposed to be marked with dice these days rather than individual torpedo blocks since they are limited to the size of a square epic base.

[Evil_and_Chaos]

Since when?

[AndrewChristlieb]

Faq2010 requires torps to be represented by a 3 strong salvo. This is to alleviate concerns over large salvos having an unfair advantage when turning, however large attack craft waves have the same problem and yet they remain largely untouched with exception to a blurb about how they must be formed up.

[Sigoroth]

Faq2010 requires torps to be represented by a 3 strong salvo. This is to alleviate concerns over large salvos having an unfair advantage when turning, however large attack craft waves have the same problem and yet they remain largely untouched with exception to a blurb about how they must be formed up.

Actually, this isn't true. The salvo size was cut to 3 because it didn't make sense for torpedoes from a few ships to take up such a wide area. A squadron of 4 cruisers, or worse, 3 battleships, could put out a 24+ strength salvo. This in essence makes the further edges of the salvo travel some 10cm+ from the launching ship even when the salvo is placed in base contact.

When turning torpedoes turn they pivot from 1 edge and the travel distance is measured from the other edge, thus no extra distance is gained. In fact, travel distance is lost from the pivoting edge.

AC on the other hand has to be formed up in as close to square formation as possible, thus limiting its frontage. This also makes it harder for the wave to negotiate a safe path through celestial phenomena and blast markers. Therefore there is no problem with AC.

[Evil_and_Chaos]

That's the FAQ (really largely an Errata from my reading of it*) that GW recently turned down and refused to make official.

Has something changed that means GW is going to upload it?


*A FAQ clarifies rules, an Errata changes rules. "FAQ2010" seems to do a lot of the latter.

[AndrewChristlieb]

So why not form up torpedo salvos in as close to a square as possible if they are only worried about the length. I see no reason for torps to have been nerfed. To say that it's ok for an attack craft wave to take up a larger area because they might run into terrain is flawed because torps suffer the same (actually worse because most torps cannot avoid even a close graze). Just more reasons IMO that ordnance needs to be scrapped and started from scratch. I have also never seen nor heard anyone that turns ordnance differently from the way ships turn (pivot from the center) this is interesting.

[Sigoroth]

So why not form up torpedo salvos in as close to a square as possible if they are only worried about the length. I see no reason for torps to have been nerfed. To say that it's ok for an attack craft wave to take up a larger area because they might run into terrain is flawed because torps suffer the same (actually worse because most torps cannot avoid even a close graze). Just more reasons IMO that ordnance needs to be scrapped and started from scratch. I have also never seen nor heard anyone that turns ordnance differently from the way ships turn (pivot from the center) this is interesting.

What would be gained by making torpedoes square? Even a battleship salvo will only be 3 wide. Being 3 deep gives no advantage and simply makes it easier to destroy them with fighters or NC rounds or somesuch. Similarly it is no great benefit for attack craft to take up the area that they do. You can't string all 8 out in a single line and trying to use area denial tactics with them isn't all that helpful. Typically they don't need to be placed such that the enemy will run into them because they can manoeuvre to intercept even if they don't.

If attack craft were simply stacked one atop the other, so that no matter how large the wave they'd only occupy 1 square, this would, for the most part, be a benefit. Having a smaller profile helps them avoid hazards. Therefore it is disingenuous to argue that torpedoes shouldn't be 'nerfed' to occupy a smaller area simply because AC were not similarly 'nerfed'.

The area occupied by torpedoes (advantage) was too large. It didn't make sense. This is much more noticeable in large combined salvoes where the outer edges are placed a long way away from the firing ships (thus getting free movement).  The area occupied by attack craft (disadvantage) is not too large. It doesn't make sense, but since they form up in a square formation with the leading elements placed in base contact and the trailing elements forming up as they squadron moves away then almost no extra distance is gained. They do occupy a space far greater than is logical, but this does not act to their benefit.