A tactic I had never considered...

[Zhukov]

I was playing a game with a new gentleman to BFG, and wouldn't you know it, he came up with a fascinating query. We were playing a battle of Imperial vs Chaos and he (Imperial) wanted to fire his short range weapons batteries to create blast markers in the void. His idea was if the Chaos wanted to snipe him at long range, they would have to go through his little shield and at least take an extra column shift. However, I had no idea how to make this work, so we agreed for that game to make it count as an ordnance shot. If you can believe it, he rolled many 6's that night and really made my life as a corrupted human... difficult.

What say you, BFG community? Should a vessel be allowed to use his WB's to create a blast marker screen? And if so, how in the rules is the best way to do this?

-Zhukov

[horizon]

Wrong. The shells need to detonate.
Officially.
Blastmarkers are generated when a shield is hit or a vessel destroyed.
Hence Necrons do not generate blastmarkers when being hit.


Cute tactic though.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Well there are a lot of reasons to place a blast marker (shield hit, ship destroyed, holofield save, nova miss, firing on minefield *I also allow firing on asteroid fields, etc) the problem isnt creating a blast marker in my opinion its what is the target? Each weapons refers to a target (to determine los, range, fire arc) and you have nothing to actually target. Of course its up to you if you like the rule use it, i can see it being somewhat useful.

[horizon]

I'd allow the rule. Just because.

[fracas]

not at empty space

at asteroid or dust i'd be ok with
might be amusing that a dust blast could set off a chain reaction throughout the dust cloud

[ElectricPaladin]

not at empty space

at asteroid or dust i'd be ok with
might be amusing that a dust blast could set off a chain reaction throughout the dust cloud

I'm entirely new to this game, but I agree that this makes the most sense.

Don't forget - and now we're talking realism, which is usually silly in these games - but empty space is really... freaking... empty. There isn't a lot out there for weapons to interact with to create blasts, except for extremely small amounts of dust, gas, and tiny rocks.

[Sigoroth]

I was playing a game with a new gentleman to BFG, and wouldn't you know it, he came up with a fascinating query. We were playing a battle of Imperial vs Chaos and he (Imperial) wanted to fire his short range weapons batteries to create blast markers in the void. His idea was if the Chaos wanted to snipe him at long range, they would have to go through his little shield and at least take an extra column shift. However, I had no idea how to make this work, so we agreed for that game to make it count as an ordnance shot. If you can believe it, he rolled many 6's that night and really made my life as a corrupted human... difficult.

What say you, BFG community? Should a vessel be allowed to use his WB's to create a blast marker screen? And if so, how in the rules is the best way to do this?

-Zhukov

According to the rules you can't do this. If someone sprung this on me in a game I might not feel inclined to allow it  (petulance mainly). However, having the luxury of viewing it at my leisure, I think that it's quite a nifty idea and should be allowed. The way you implemented it seems about right too.

Historically speaking, warfare, like many other pursuits, has at times fallen into a 'rut', so to speak. That is, a rigid adherence to accepted doctrine. Rules of games systems mimic this rigidity very well, but don't do so well at reflecting the very occasional instance of lateral thinking that causes paradigm shifts.

The inevitable problem that arises with allowing this sort of thing is determining just what should and should not be allowed as an exception to the rules. I have no clear idea myself. By and large I'm usually against on-the-fly changes as I often find them ... meh. It's hard to describe. Sometimes it's feels as if people make suggestions that are too broad and sweeping in scope and not thought through, or that are hopelessly bogged down in some piece of minutia, or which is reasonable but unnecessary and breaks the character of the game (such as Chaos having full access to IN ships and vice versa). This idea seems all right though.

[Evil_and_Chaos]

Fire some torpedoes/launch some fighter craft from one of your ships, then shoot at the torpedoes with another ship?

Destroying the ordinance would leave a BM, right?

[AndrewChristlieb]

It would yes and although im not opposed to shooting at your own torpedoes i dont know about shooting at the attack craft. The meaty bits are expendable but those ships are not so much...

[horizon]

Shooting own attack craft sounds as scrupolous as the most heretic trick ever:

Eldar official msm rules:

Lock On with Hemlock squadron. Move them, shoot.
Have a torpdoe Eldar hit the squadron per accident.
Hemlocks go on BFI.
BFI is no longer on Lock On,
thus Hemlocks may turn in the ordnance phase! (with lock on they may not turn).

It was proved rule proof yet.... devilish exploitment and against fluff in a really grand way.
heh

[AndrewChristlieb]

Thats just cheating. Luckly it was addressed in the faq, any orders you were on before being braced must still be followed: aaf must still move full distance and cant turn, reload on ships are still reloaded, lock on cannot turn etc...

[fracas]

I didn't think destroyed ordnance from shooting leaves blast markers

[horizon]

I didn't think destroyed ordnance from shooting leaves blast markers

Correct. Ordnance being hit does not leave a blastmarker.


Andrew, at that time it wasn't cheating, it was really ' wrong'  though.

[Talos]

If I recall correctly, batteries are a large variety of different direct fire weapons; sword escorts, for instance use lasers, tyrant cruisers use plasma and retribution battleship use macroshells. Admittedly, it seems silly to argue that lasers or plasma blasts could be suspended in mid-air(void?), but macro cannon shells could be fired en masse at lower velocities to create mini flak clouds. Thus we can assume that a weapon's maximum range is a combination of velocity and accuracy. It could be said that a ship can with direct fire weapons could fire at maximum range only, creating a blast marker at that point only (no firing them closer). Instead of rolling dice to hit, I would humbly suggest a leadership test to represent trying to effectively coordinate the barrage; it is more of a matter of crew training and practice then actual accuracy.

Quote blue book p.24
"...Blast markers represent all kinds of events - huge explosions, expanding shockwaves, intense radiation clouds, tumbling debris, unexploded warheads, plasma bursts, etc." Could we not then assume that a massive cluster of plasma/high intensity energy/ exploding or undetonated shells could represent a blast marker? Everyone is entitled an opinion, but this seems a reasonable middle ground. Although it does seem more effective for shorter range fleets, who can use it to screen more effectively, long range fleets benefit from more aggressive placement, potentially limiting movement more drastically versus defensive cover. Number of blast markers could be fixed, or use a formula such as 1 blast marker per part of 4 strength (hypothetical number).
@Sigoroth Although I am fairly new to the game, this probably fits into your functional but unnecessary category, although I can see a problem that veteran players such as yourself could run into; it adds an additional element of unpredictability. In any scenario that involves competition, variability always benefits the underdog. This is not, I repeat not an insult or sly remark: just fact. PM if you would like to discuss this particular statement rather than my house ruling I would be happy to discuss it.
Thoughts?

[Sigoroth]

@Sigoroth Although I am fairly new to the game, this probably fits into your functional but unnecessary category, although I can see a problem that veteran players such as yourself could run into; it adds an additional element of unpredictability. In any scenario that involves competition, variability always benefits the underdog. This is not, I repeat not an insult or sly remark: just fact. PM if you would like to discuss this particular statement rather than my house ruling I would be happy to discuss it.
Thoughts?

Eh? My reputation striking again? I was in favour of the house rule the original poster suggested. You make it sound like I'm a grandpa bemoaning the goings on of you young whipper-snappers and dead set against all change.

I'm not sure about the notion that any form of variability favours the underdog though. Presumably they're underdogs for a reason, and maybe that reason is that they're not as good at utilising all the options they have at hand as their opponent. In which case adding options would seem to favour the favourite. I would suggest that this particular option would favour the short ranged fleets though, which some might construe as the underdog, though I certainly do not.

As for the method for enacting it, I think that if we're to buy into the premise that a ship can create a screen of interference by coordinating their gunnery then they can do it at any range, not just at their extreme effective range. This limitation seems harder to justify, requiring more assumptions, and seems needlessly restrictive.

Concerning a leadership test versus the shoot-as-if-at-ordnance idea, well I'm partial to the latter. I think it's simple and scales directly with the amount of firepower the ship has at hand. How many blast markers would a ship get to place if it passed its leadership test? One? Two? Seven? What about a single Cobra compared to a Retribution? Also, passing leadership tests is, in general, pretty easy, making for potentially a lot of blast markers. Lastly, is this something that should be scaled by skill rather than resources? For example, are we saying that Orks should have a really hard time of creating a wall of fire but that Eldar should have an easy time of it?