Re: Battlefleet ... but also some OT and a bit Showdown

Aaron wrote:

> ...we
> setteld down for a litle BSing about painting, ship design, Oerjan's
> comments about the Indy vs. Iceburg battle, just how you *pronounce* 
> Oerjan in the first place, 

Haven't I told both of you (OK, written) how it's pronounced?

OK, since I've gotten this question from just about every list member
who
has contacted me off-list, here it is again:

"Oe" (should be "Ö") as the "U" in "Uh" (but drop the "h"); another way
to explain it is "as in the 'i' in 'bird', but short"
"r" is rolling
"j" as "y" in "yellow"
"a" as "u" in "cut"
"n" as... well, as "n" :-)

The emphasis is on the "Ö".

There. All cleared up now? ;-)
 
> I blame Jerry Han, by the way; I think he's draining off the Teske
Field,
> since I didn't get anything more than a couple double rerolls, and
none
of
> the third rolls did damage.  

Speaking of Jerry, BTW - I noticed that the NSL Szent Istvan-class BC
Noam uses has a Screen-1 listed on Jerry's homepage. Is this a special
conversion, or...?

> Mark was also a bit more sensible in his fleet
> design than in our last battle, where he took a few pulse torps; he
didn't
> take any last night.	My pulse torps didn't do too much; hit 2 of 3
shots,
> but only did 3 points of damage. <sigh>

Aha! It seems that the Teske and Kochte fields have reversed polarity -
witness the latest Showdown results!

> BATTLEFLEET GOTHIC
> OVERVIEW: 

> If you look for an historical
> context, I'd try the "Age of Sail" (no, I don't know that much about
it)
> for the emphasis on broadsides armament -- even the Eldar have more >
of an
> emphasis on broadsides than they did in Space Fleet, 

That fits well with how they're depicted in the WD139-141 pictures,
though it doesn't agree with their SFleet stats.

> THE RULES:
> The rules work a lot like Epic 40K, and are the same as the rules 
> presented in White Dwarf #225 so I'm not going to go into too much >
detail here.

Damn. I really, really don't like the "I fire everything in my turn,
then
you fire everything in your turn" game sequence - Aaron has (probably)
seen the battle report I sent to AC, but basically one side managed to
wipe out 25% of the other before the other got a chance to respond. In
FT
(where the sides alternate to fire one ship each) that usually only
happens at very short ranges, if it happens at all.

I'd very much prefer to see an alternating fire game sequence like the
one used in E40K (even if it hurts the Eldar - it should be possible to
compensate them in other ways :-) ), or an alternating activation
sequence as in DSII.

Oh well <sigh>

> These have a firepower
> rating, which cross-references a table (like Epic 40K's) based on >
whether
> the target is a capital ship, an escort, or ordinace, and whether it
is
> closing (easiest target), moving away, or moving abeam (across the 
> ships' field of view -- the hardest target). 

This gives one rather strange result: It is harder to hit a ship which
moves parallell to your own, beside it, at the same speed (in reality,
the ships don't move relative to each other!), than it is to hit a ship
which comes towards your broadside (and therefore does move across your
sights at some speed) :-/

>  The torps that get through have to roll the target's
> armor or over to hit, as beams; oddly enough, that means escorts 
> (usually 4+ armor) are *easier* to hit with torpedoes than cap ships 
> (usually 5+/6+ armor), unless there's some rules I don't know about.

Not all that odd if the torps have even rudimentary targetting systems.
It is usually a lot easier to destroy an APC than it is to kill an MBT
if
you're using an LAW, even if the APC is smaller and faster (not that all
of them are, of course!). Similarly a WWII DD which got in the way of a
torpedo usually fared a lot worse than a battleship... the DD had a
greater ability to avoid the torp, but the BG torps aren't that fast, so
unless they were launched from within 30cm a nimble ship would be able
to
dodge them. I assume BG escorts are nimbler than the capitals :-/
 
> The miniatures... are very, very nice. ^_^  

Good. If they're plastic, they might be affordable, too :-/

> Okay, so many of you prolly
> know I like the Space Fleet minis to begin with, but even so.  The 
> cruisers we used were about the size of the Space Fleet Emperor 
> Capital Ship -- 4" or so -- while the battleships look to be giving
the

> Superior superdreads a run for their moeny, in volume of metal if not
>
actual size 

Hm. Well, yes - if they're anywhere close to the Righteous Endeavour in
size, they're *huge*. Judging from the bitz used to build her, she must
be about 6-8" long :-/

> These things are a drybrusher's wet dream.  

Isn't that self-contradictory? ;-)

>the Eldar still have "solar sails" but they aren't as
> emphasized, and extend both above and below the mini 

Good. Fits in with my Eldar-ish conversions :-)

>-- rather nice minis, actually, especially since I was afraid GW would 
> pattern the Eldar ships on the E40K flyers.  

Better :-) That they didn't, I mean.

> The Eldar have ships that emphasize speed, agility... and fragility.	

Good :-) Eldar ships should be like Phantom titans in E40K - hard
hitting, but explode stylishly if you breathe on 'em <g>

Thanks for the report! :-)

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry