Boarding was adapted from the close combat rules from Epic 3rd ed. You may be right though, it might need a total re-write.

Here's the reason why for my brace suggestion.

Again, learning from EA. Assaults are critical. If you lose your'e broken even if you're not destroyed. Being broken means you're pretty much useless until you rally.

You must apply a bunch of tactics to win an assault. If you just move you're lot against their lot it's just down to the dice, which is boring. You need

Units that are better at assault than your opponents units (obviously)
More blast markers on the enemy.
No blast markers on your formation.
More units.
Supporting Fire from nearby formations.
A broken enemy formation always counts as having more BM's than you do. Additionally it is automatically wiped out if it loses.

Of course much of this is in BFG already.

Anyway the more of this you have, the greater your chances and the more decisive the outcome will be. So you set carefully and cunningly set yourself up first.
And you'll note that being broken is really serious.

I chose brace as a BFG analogue to being broken, i.e. you're forced on the backfoot. But I did consider that maybe it didn't fit for my assault res mod, for the reasons you gave. Then again, if you're on 'brace' for the purposes of receiving long range fire, are you then in a good position to fight off boarders?

Anyway The idea is: if you can first put your target onto the backfoot by forcing him to brace, then hammer him in a boarding action, this seems like really cool fun and neat tactics. Your target has the nail-biting decision to make? If I brace against this incoming weapons battery and lance fire now, will I be in a frightful position to defend against a potential boarding action from that nasty cruiser nearby? Or do I hope the firing is sufficiently ineffective and my shields etc holds?

And even if you didn't have this mod, being forced on brace for losing a boarding action is still a cool idea, especially enough damage is done to cripple and cause criticals.

All of this is all the more nailbiting with alternate activations and 'retain the initiative'

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

So...what do people think about Assault Boats. A little less core mechanic. But 1 marker can destroy a complete escort.

Is that okay? Can a boarding team render a 800-1200 metres ship that useless in one strike? Is it too abstract?

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

I think it is, I guess it's possible since even todays vessels can be damaged severely by much smaller craft and being boarded could wreck all manner of havoc. From a game play perspective though, I think it's much too damaging because it makes folks less likely to field escorts. It also doesn't make sense since AB are very unlikely to do any actual damage to the ship and any shooting that reaches the crit tables has already done enough damage to kill the escort.

Perhaps that line that escorts are destroyed from critical results should be removed. AB's that do roll a result with damage will already kill the escort and anything else that scores a crit hit has already killed it as well. it would make more paperwork to track what crit has happened to what escort though.

_________________
-Vaaish

what?

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

which part is "what" for?

_________________
-Vaaish

Like everything. I couldn't make out wether you would like to see a change or not....  

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

I would like to see it discussed. The first part was basically saying that while it's possible for a group of borders to destroy a vessel, the current AB roll off only has a single option that can actually take hits away from the target most of the time. On an escort I understand not rolling on the crit table when shot because the hit that causes you to roll is enough to kill the ship regardless of the crit roll; however, with AB I don't think the escort should die just because they rolled a 2 or better. Instead it should only die if the AB rolls a result that does actual damage the ship. Unfortunatrly with squadron mechanics in view that might be too simplistic of an answer.

_________________
-Vaaish

Ah,
A while ago I made a crit hit table for escorts when attacked by a-boats.

Dig it up later...

It is paper work and thus fiddly.

In one of the old SG pdf's they had one on Privateers. Where they gave escorts a longer life. Not only to a-boats but everything.

In essence when an escort is hit, after failed BFI, roll a D6:

1 = escort destroyed
2-5 = repair phase. Escort moves in straight line. Nothing else.
6 = repaired, escort as normal

following turns:
1 = escort destroyed
2-4 = repair phase. Escort moves in straight line. Nothing else.
5-6 = repaired, escort as normal

Could this be an idea for succesfull assault boats attacks?

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

Does ordnance have a too big impact on the game?

In the last adepticon the winner was
a powergamed Tau SG fleet, second an Ork heavy on Terror kroozer fleet.
The manifestation of many Devastations in Chaos fleets. Nightshades being so immense
popular.


Here a mail from Reg Steiner (Galactic Fringe):


BFG - - - -
I see I have missed something in our games here. We never had uncountable torpedoes to deal with.
So I need to expand on my proposed solutions, from some ordinance, to all ordinance.
Nothing easier.
A friend and I did some "brain-storming" on a recent phone-call.

I have never been happy with inconsistencies in any rule, or even story. The one I refer to is the Weapons Batteries.
These are supposed to be area effect weapons. Hence the Eldar holo-fields are not proof against weapons batteries, like against lances. A whole area of space explodes, and the Eldar vessel is in that space.

I propose to allow Weapons Batteries a greater effect on all kinds of ordinance.
The current chart narrows 10 batteries to 2 die to roll a six - and then a hit zaps the whole 'wave' of a dozen markers.

Let us change our mind-set. A marker is not a nebulous or vague representation of warcraft, no, it is an actual 'flight' of ordinance. (Torpedoes, assault boats, bombers, etc, is still one flight per marker.) Now that we have something physical to deal with:

I have an initial proposal.
If a ship has 8 Weapons Batteries, then let it roll 8 dice (!), with any "6" rolled equaling an ordinance marker removed from a wave. So I rolled two sixes, two markers are gone. In mixed waves, the casualties must be equal numbers of those in the mix. Bombers and fighters? One of each is gone.
My first idea was to make the die roll needed to hit ordinance a "4-5-6" all hit. But I decided to ease up a little, while I 'ran the numbers' as I typed this. I had actually proposed this very idea during the brain-storm session I mentioned. Instead of a possible two or three hits with eight or ten weapons batteries firing, I like the 50-50 result better. It fits my idea of giant explosions filling vast areas of space, and woe to any caught in that firestorm. Also, five less ordinance markers in that wave (10 firing) hurts ordinance more.

A third twist would be to use the weapons batteries charts just the way they are, but make the hits on ordinance a 4-5-6, and still wipes out the whole wave. Use the comparison of shooting pigeons with a high powered rifle. Several shots might get you one or two. (Think lances). Now the shot-gun. Each shot has a potential to bring down several birds, so that several shots thins out a flock quick. (Like weapons batteries should!) In real life, the most birds I ever took with one shot was nine, from birds in flight. Birds sitting equaled twenty-three down with one shot. These were pests that eat large amounts of our grain, that travel in huge flocks of hundreds. Making them feel unwelcome spared a lot of grain. Back on topic:

Now if you think this through, you will see that making ordinance more vulnerable lessens their impact on the game. Instead of waves, the players will have the markers scattered, in an effort to negate the whole 'wave eliminated' idea, and get more ordinance to the target. That is why I thought of the number of guns and number of markers hit idea. As long as the ordinance is in the fire-zone of the weapons batteries, they can be hit, until a number of markers removed equals the number of hits. Unless you run out of target markers - oh! what a shame!

Also, if players divide up 'waves' into individual markers making attack runs, then the turret values of ships really matters! Each marker is targeted by the whole turret value, as each marker tries to attack, and with a 4-5-6 hit value, ordinance will get through a lot less.

So, instead of making a rule that prohibits, or eliminates ordinance altogether, make rules that make ordinance more vulnerable. I like the 'shotgun' idea. I never liked the idea that those little ships and torpedoes were that hard to hit, not if one hundred cubic kilometers of fire results from one weapon blast. You don't even need to get very close, and you still vaporize the little buggers. (Blast markers cover considerably more volume, in this scale, even though it only results from shield hits.)
I decided to write a note as if it were in answer to a debate, rather than like my other works, with the calculations, and charts, or whatever. Since I do not think that the issue is settled, yet.

Well then, tell me how you like the idea of making weapons batteries more lethal against ordinance. We can make it a lot more, or a little more difficult on ordinance. We can even expand on which ordinance is more vulnerable. Like unmanned torpedoes can withstand "G" forces that would kill humans. So torpedoes would be harder to hit. That kind of thing.
Workable?

You did not outline any of your ideas (that I remember). But I remember a lot of other "input" from other discontented players. Often saying that the stuff should be eliminated entirely. I never had anyone succeed in filling the table with torpedoes, but I have heard of it before. I remember thinking that the 'reload ordinance' rules were being flaunted, somehow. Having to reload, and having rotten leadership values, usually limited ordinance enough that most of us 'hoarded' ours, until close enough to be deadly. Like firing torpedoes from less than 30 centimeters away, so no intercept, or 'big guns', removing the torpedoes before they hit. Don't have to worry about reloads much, either. I started doing this with Orks, and soon everyone was doing the same thing. Made for a lot of 'hurt' all at once, when added to gun damages. Fun!

Well, I carried on a one-sided conversation long enough, I think. After you mull this over a little, maybe try a solo game where my recommendations are used.
Like you, I want a big ship, big gun, duel. Not another exercise in fly-swatting. If ordinance just becomes another tool in the box, and not a dominant part, I will be able to adapt. ( Evil Grin )
Later for sure, Cheers!
Reg.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

Hey folks,

This is basically a quick reply for the sake of distracting me from my project report and an essay due on Friday:
- Firstly, an imperative aspect of BFG2 would be the inclusion of a standard mission. BH is correct, I raised this a while back, but didn't get terribly far.
- Secondly, it has to be a distinct game from Epic. Alanasa's proposal still feels somewhat...Epic.
- Thirdly, I'm not too fussed by the IgoUgo approach, but find an activations-based system intriguing.
- Fourthly, a new 'Xisor Plan'.  

Xisor's Initial Plan

Consolidate teleporter attacks. Ships then have a teleport attack 'weapon', which itself has a range, strength etc too. Consider: Orks actually have decent teleporter technology, as would Necrons. Whilst Space Marines might not have long-ranged tech attacks, their ships would benefit from the ability to conduct more than most (i.e. they have a very strong TP attack), in contrast to the Navy and Tau who'd have little-to-no teleport ability. Chaos would be again a middle ground.

Examples might be:

That's really just an off-the-cuff example.

Consolidate/improve/make-sensible Daemonship mechanics to give the races some more 'things' to play with in terms of tricks. Whilst the DE mimic engines might work one way, the Astartes are known to (indeed Hellebrecht is famous for pioneering) 'Silent Running' attacks during the Armadgeddon3. I can imagine Tau making use of a similar mechanic too. That is:
- Some races can use the rules 'very freely', e.g. Chaos Daemonships, they can even use it more than once (i.e. disappear and reapper elsewhere)
- Some races might be able to improv-use it (e.g. Astartes could use it as a one-off to get a BB into position very early on)
- Some races might only be able to make limited use of it (e.g. Tau might be able to use it, but to do so they have to do their 'meticulous planning' and pick the point and turn of entry in advance of the game beginning).

Also, I'd reiterate the need for a distinctive, enjoyable and balanced objectives-based scoring scenario to standardise the basic games. Space Marines would be good at taking certain objectives (e.g. planetary or terrain based), some fleets would be good at the old 'beat em up' style objectives (take out a certain ship, deal an amount of damage etc) like the Chaos, Imperial, Orks, Tau and Tyranids whilst other fleets again should be able to turnt their hand to any particular objectives, but simply don't have enough numbers or durability to try to do it in a lazy manner (e.g. Necrons and Eldar). The balance would stem from ensuring that fleets are capable of scoring or achieving these objectives, and that their fleet lists aren't utterly obvious build-themselves (i.e. viable options for doing different things, with odd focuses).

Ultimately, I have high hopes for it all. Most crucial to the BFG2 remains a standardised scenario.

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"

Hi Xisor

I know my proposals simply rip off ideas from Epic A. This is because those epic ideas make for an awsome game. Awsome for virually any wargame.

This is not a problem.

The current BFG is Epic third edition. Yet it is still different.

In general terms, the crucial difference between BFG and Epic is the way stuff moves.

In epic, the only restriction to movement is the speed of a unit. BFG has turning in addition, and forced movement. Regardless of the minutiae of the other rules, this is what makes the difference. Without this, it would be basically identical to any land based sci-fi wargame.

I've always considered Epic A to be amazing and often compare it to, and sometimes play it like, chess.
Goals and alternate activations give this sense. BFG would be even more so because of the restrictions to movement. In a sense, cruisers and escorts move more like knights, to the kings and queens of epic. Normal Torpedos like a kind of fast pawn and Fighters and Bombers like Queens.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

This may be an...odd question. Would it be possible to...bolt-on the extra rules of BFG onto and somewhat modify the E:A frameset? Would there be any merit in Epic: Gothic War?

Anyway, the dynamics of the Epic GT scenario likely could do with a tweak to be more ameanable to the BFG game. 'Holding' an objective, for instance, is difficult when one has to deal with minimum moves etc. Still, in principle I agree.

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"

I dunno if I'd radically change the shooting system for BFG. It didn't really work for Epic but it works fine for this game. The movement rules distinguish the game from Epic as mentioned, so leave them as is.

This leaves alternate activations, goals, 'improved close-quater-fighting', possibly crossfire and overwatch as the key things that separate EA for E40K that one might consider, as I mentioned previously. Also in epic there are stuff that can appear anywhere on the board in flash, either via teleportation or flyer transports, which really increase the tension.

As agreed, goals are the toughest thing to adapt, especially capture/defend the flag.

I'm not convinced personally that a standard generic scenario ala Epic A is the best approach for BFG. It works brilliantly for EA yes but I dunno about BFG. Rather a set of standard scenarios, each with a number of goals for the opponents to try and achieve (rather than vps) would be my favoured approach. I'm not even sure that these scenarios and goals have to be symmetrical.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Oh yeah, I forgot about fire-arcs. This is another crucial difference between epic and BFG.
When we had fire arcs in epic 1st and 2nd addition, they where an irrelevant pain in the arse that added nothing to the game. Quite rightly, there are now largely non-existent.

Fire-arcs in BFG though, of course, are game defining and well worth it. Probably because they combine beautifully with the movement system.

As I said, firing in BFG doesn't need any radical changes.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Fair enough regarding the system itself.

On the scenario, however, my belief (supported by thinking, but ultimately an evidence-less choice) is that a core scenario is the best way to standardise and balance the fleets (e.g. points wise). If each differing scenario had (possibly non-symmetric) objectives, I find it difficult to see wherein a stricter balance would arise. The problem is, as always, that the dispersion of strengths/weaknesses isn't uniform. You don't get speed at the expense of durability because you can have speed and durability. You don't go slower with tougher weapons and better armour, because orks are terrible. Hoho!

Without being too tongue in cheek about it all, I still hold to my (more) original thoughts from the old SG forums, something along the lines of:
- Special Targets (like BTS in epic, but perhaps more open/flexible)
- Special Strike (perform a certain action against a certain target)
- Capture the flag (but in a manner that the flag is moveable a la FPS games?)
- Damage dealt (if the bonuses gained from wrecking/crippling/etc are not linearly related to the point-value of a ship?)
- Convoy & Supplies (if each fleet has a set ratio/allowance of 'noncom' ships which can themselves be targetted?)

This approach would 'roll up' all the scenarios into a single scenario in which each player is essentially able to elect 'what their objectives will be'. Though they'll perhaps all be available, it probably won't be feasible to go after all of them.

With that in mind a fleet could be designed which is quite capable of scoring a few goals in CTF and C&S, say, yet another fleet of the same list could be constructed purely for damage dealt and be highly resistant to other strikes?

It's a nebulous concept at the moment, but I think the vision itself is an endearing one. Requires a bit more thinking, as usual.

On a standardised scenario

We have to have, I'd say, a benchmark for normalising and comparing fleets. Without this basis the revamps of all the different fleets would have to conform to a pretty wide format. Unfortunately, the trick is ensuring that whatever system chosen (GT scenario like epic, three like modern 40k, umpteen with no standard for BFG etc) is one which leaves options open and is fun to play.

I'm not strictly opposed to a multi-scenario game, but my intuition leads me to believe that a core GT (like Epic) would be the logical, most feasible starting point.

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"