Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:
That is not how the original wording of turret suppression works, and why it was odd not to have been included/clarified/modified in the FAQ. Turret supression is normally played to mean a fighter neutralises a turret as you assume here, but in the RAW its +1 per fighter added to the total, and has no limit and is not linked to the number of bombers used. So essentially so long as at least one bomber is present in the wave a turret supressing fighter counts as bomber with 1 attack that cannot be reduced further by turrets (though it can be shot down as normal).

Yes, I know how you mean. This was done away with so that people would not go "One bomber, Ten fighters to get 10+d6 bombing attacks on a target." I think it was changed in the Annual...which is sometimes hard to find.

Four fighta-bommas under this crap wording means 4d3+12 with turrets counting against each d3 roll reduced to a minimum of 0 each.

A four strong wave wave of fighters and bombers yields either 4d6 , 3d6+1, 2d6+2, 1d6+3 with turrets counting against each d6 roll reduced to a minimum of 0 each.

Our group uses the normal house rule common to many players: turret supression neutralises one turret for the duration of the attack per fighter. Fighta-bombers count as bombing or turret supressing in any combination (which is a powerful compensation as and of itself, though not excessive).

This is the way they work.

EXAMPLE:

Wave of 4 bombers attacks a ship with 2 turrets.
Turrets fire at bombers...getting two shots at the wave.
Remaining bombers get d6-2 attack runs each. The -2 is due to the two turrets.

Now, for every fighter you add to the wave, you give each bomber a +1 against the turret suppression. So add two fighters into the mix and each bomber will have d6+2 attack runs resulting in (effectively) d6 attacks even, you -2 for the turrets, but add +2 for the two fighters in escort.

Now you COULD add a third fighter to the mix, but the +1 that it would add would be ignored. Each bomber has d6+3 attacks in a wave with three fighter escorts but the ship being attacked only has two turrets for a -2 modifier. You see, fighter escort is used ONLY to battle against turret suppression. Each fighter DOES NOT become a bomber with 1 attack. Their attacks they grant never do damage, they are simply to help bombers get past the negative shots that turrets impose on them.

It's also NOT cumulative in the case of fighta-bommas, so the wave of 4 you mentioned would only have 4d3+3 attacks once again. The +3 is good only against the negative shots that the turrets impose.

Deadshane1 wrote:
....again, part of the reason that Orks dont need escorts...their ordinance is so broken if you're confused on how ordinace works.

Fixed.

Fixed again. If Ork ordinance was broken...many more people would be playing Orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You TOOK broken rules, and exploit them. No glory in that. This needs fixing fast, its interesting that this FAQ is not to be found on the GW site, perhaps they pulled it for some reason. The rules for all the other specialist games are upto date and FAQ'ed I think because this FAQ has been withdrawn it can be safely ignored as the brainfart it is. Therefore you took nothing, show this document to me under the current canon rules from the GW specialist games site or its apocryphal.

Thee fact you have been following this FAQ is not your fault, but I wont be joining you.

Hmmmm...

"This list has been cleared by Andy Hall and can be considered “in effect” until replaced by a published update"

C'mon Orlanth. You're just not as up on the rules as you think you are which is understandable being that this game is with total lack of REAL rules support at this time. Like I said, I've played with the designers. I've also got every rule that's ever been "in print" and online.

The way GW does business now, especially considering the "specialist" line, you'll never see another update for gothic in the current incarnation. If the game CAN be played...they're happy. Surely you're not endorsing the wave of one bomber 10 fighters...for 10+d6 attacks. It sounds to me like you are. Regardless, you're still confused about what this FAQ does for Ork Ordinance.

"they get a
+3 modifier when reducing the number of
attacks each squadron marker makes against a
target’s turret value."

I fail to see how you get a wave of 4 getting 4d3+12 attacks under this wording. Read the WHOLE rule. Something tells me you're interpreting the online resources incorrectly as well. Each fighta bomma makes a bombing run at d3+3. It doesnt say anything about a fighta-bomma running IN ESCORT to add an ADD"L +3 on top. It doesnt say anything about the +3's being cumulative either.

Deadshane1 wrote:
This is the way they work.

EXAMPLE:

Wave of 4 bombers attacks a ship with 2 turrets.
Turrets fire at bombers...getting two shots at the wave.
Remaining bombers get d6-2 attack runs each. The -2 is due to the two turrets.

Now, for every fighter you add to the wave, you give each bomber a +1 against the turret suppression. So add two fighters into the mix and each bomber will have d6+2 attack runs resulting in (effectively) d6 attacks even, you -2 for the turrets, but add +2 for the two fighters in escort.

Now you COULD add a third fighter to the mix, but the +1 that it would add would be ignored. Each bomber has d6+3 attacks in a wave with three fighter escorts but the ship being attacked only has two turrets for a -2 modifier. You see, fighter escort is used ONLY to battle against turret suppression. Each fighter DOES NOT become a bomber with 1 attack. Their attacks they grant never do damage, they are simply to help bombers get past the negative shots that turrets impose on them.

I agree with that, its how everyone plays, we just word it more simply as -1 turret per fighter rather than +1 attack per bomber per fighter. The thing is I dont know if that is yet official, the onlty turret suppression rules publisherd are in Warp Storm and reprinted in the 2002 Annual this is NOT how they are worded.
In the orginal Turret supression rules fighters add +1 modifier which translates as an extra attack, one per fighter up to the strength of the turrets. Noone plays it that way but that is how it actually is worded. The FAQ sticks to this wording and trebles the modifier. Thus +3 attacks per fighta-bomma.
Now the orignal wording did say that fighter bommas act as fighters or bombers not both, but this appears to be superceded accumulating both rules.
You see the problem now. I think the FAQ writers are working onther unofficial rules commonly used, but writing them up to coincide with the official rules from 2002.

Deadshane1 wrote:
It's also NOT cumulative in the case of fighta-bommas, so the wave of 4 you mentioned would only have 4d3+3 attacks once again. The +3 is good only against the negative shots that the turrets impose.

Sadly thats not what the FAQ says, the bonus is for each fighta-bomma.

Deadshane1 wrote:
It doesnt say anything about a fighta-bomma running IN ESCORT to add an ADD"L +3 on top.

It doesnt specifically negate the common rules for ordance waves, so they get the full bonus of waves.

Deadshane1 wrote:
It doesnt say anything about the +3's being cumulative either.

+3 modifier when reducing the number of
attacks each squadron marker makes against a
target’s turret value.

Each gets +3. Why +3 anyway, fighters, even elite race ones only get +1. +3 is broken.

Deadshane1 wrote:
If Ork ordinance was broken...many more people would be playing Orks.

Ork ordnance is broken only if you apply the broken FAQ which is ominously missing from the current published canon.

Deadshane1 wrote:
"This list has been cleared by Andy Hall and can be considered “in effect” until replaced by a published update"

It can say what it likes, its dated 2007, the current BFG online canon is dated 2008, the FAQ aint there. Therefore it is defunct.

Deadshane1 wrote:
I fail to see how you get a wave of 4 getting 4d3+12 attacks under this wording. Read the WHOLE rule.

According to the turret supression rules for fightas the +3 modifier to the attack strength are extra attacks, this hasnt been changed. No vessel has twelve turrets, but by the RAW the +3 is added to each fighta-bomma attack so its ends up as up to +12 by accumulation.



It doesnt matter this is a dead FAQ, it has ceased to be. You noticed this:


Ordnance no longer runs out when rolling a
double when attempting Reload Ordnance
special orders. Any reference to running out of
ordnance can be ignored.

Do you play that for ordnance in general, we do for attack craft as per the updated canon rules, but I dont know anyone who does for torpedoes. Ther tournaments you went to how long ago were they and did torps run out on a double in them?

Ran through topic, so excuse for random shoutings and thoughts.


Generally seen Escorts are underrated by many. I never leave without and once 3 Iconoclasts cripple an Emperor
battleship (with 2 shields down) you'll know why. ha!


What?
Eldar escorts are much much much better then their cruiser counterparts.
A fleet with Nightshades & Hemlocks is best the Eldar can do!
Void Stalker (or Flame), Aurora are good choices.
Eclipse once Void Stalker drops from list (smaller games).


Imperials should have escorts (Swords), they cannot protect everything with ordnance only. IN Cannot do
a true carrier fleet like others do.

Tau can do good with escorts. They do not need to fear assault boats!

Chaos is perhaps fleet with least need of escorts. Though I like Infidels for torp surprises.


FAQ2007 is indeed not on GW site, ommission on their part. But it was on the former SG site under Official.


FAQ 2010 is coming up.
Check Specialist Games forum:
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?board=8.0

thread with link to pdf form:
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1612.0

word changes to FAQ 2010:
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1636.0
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1637.0

So, either way, that is gonna be it.
Be wary on overlapping and torpedo.....


ps. Orlanth you should follow FAQ 2007 as it is and was official. But you can do FAQ2010 already as that will be the one GW is going to host.

Fantastic discussion, BTW. I think it's a matter of combat style.

Escorts over cruisers give you added firepower, speed, and maneuverability but at the cost of survivability.

I just bought two SM Battle Barges and was debating whether to flesh out my fleet with cruisers or escorts. For 10 points less than the cost of 1 SM Strike Cruiser I could get a squadron of 3 Gladius class escorts and get better firepower, better speed, maneuverability, and more turrets but I would lose survivability (in terms of armour value and hit points) and 2 Thunderhawk squadrons.

Some SM escorts, like the Nova and the Hunter, have a speed of 35 which can even chase down the pesky Eldar if the sun-facing is right. If you can strike fast and hit hard, survivability might not be too much of an issue, but if the enemy catches these fragile ships first, the result could be disasterous.

It's a gamble, but in some circumstances the risk might pay off big dividends - not many Imperial ships can actually chase down the Eldar! I know some people who prefer the gamble and hit fast and hard and, then again, I know more cautious players, like myself, who prefer the cruiser option.

I think that, with dice rolls and battle circumstances, a fight between a cruiser and its equivelent points-worth of escorts could go either way.

For me, I'm choosing Strike Cruisers over escorts because they just seem to fit better in a fleet with two Battle Barges, but I'm still going to treat escort opponents from whatever race with a healthy respect.

Again, however, great discussion.

Well, the good thing you have going for you as a SM player is that the T-hawk is one of the best anti-escort weapons out there (except against Eldar, as they still get their holofield save from the hit and run).

Also, bombardment cannons are often overlooked, but they are great all-around weapons and pretty lethal in their own right. At times, I find they can be even MORE effective than their equivalent firepower in lances, because they cause critical hits on a 4+ rather than the usual roll of 6. This, coupled with the T-hawks and teleport hit-and-run attacks, can easily destroy a much larger vessel by defaulting on the critical hit table to a higher number. The trick is surviving long enough to make it to that kind of knife-fighting range. Against eldar.... not so much. Against other loyalist IN fleets though... SM can rip it up.

But 3 bombardment cannons is not 3 dice like lances are. Plus you need to decide: first bombardment cannons but then shields are still up, or after regular batteries but then you have to shoot through blastmarkers.

Ripping the IN with Marines is tricky. Can be done, but generally the IN will outshoot you if you don't board them.

True that the bombards don't always throw 3 dice like comparative lances, but I'd rather take 2 dice that crit on 4+ than 3 that don't, because you are increasing your chances to score a crit from approx 30 percent to 50 percent.

Most of the time, its an easy choice for me. I'd rather strike with the batts first and drop the shields, since the low number of dice to start with the bombards makes them less affected by the columnar shift caused by BMs, and for the afore-mentioned bonuses to critical hit chances.

As I said before, its all about getting within knife-fighting distances. The cumulative affect of multiple criticals is what takes its toll, more than the simple hits scored.