Hello everyone,

I've checked the forums here and haven't found an answer to a real head-scratcher of a question, so here goes... Look at the Rogue Trader rulebook, page 219. The rules as written are thus: "If there is any question between whether a target is in a ship's fore or aft arcs or in its side arcs, (...) the target is considered to be in the side arc." However, diagrams 8.2 and 8.3 on the same page appear to contradict this. Which is correct?

Here's why it matters; take a look at this example: Suppose you have a Lunar cruiser, The Pompous Name , heading Galactic East. One VU immediately behind The Pompous Name is a Hazeroth raider, The Scrappy . The Scrappy has just taken its turn, and has fired a lance shot up the The Pompous Name's tailpipes. On it's turn, The Pompous Name takes a default manoeuvre of a half speed move with a 45 degree turn at the end, leaving it facing South-East with The Scrappy due West at short range. (Incidentally, half speed equals 2 or 3 for a Lunar?) If the text is correct, then The Scrappy is in The Pompous Name's side arc, and is about to eat a full broadside plus the prow guns for its impertinence. However, if the diagrams are correct, then the raider is in the cruiser's aft arc... and the cruiser is doomed in a few more turns. There is no way for the much less manoeuverable Lunar to get a raider off its tail, or even to bring the raider into a valid firing arc. (Because of the minimum move requirement, not even come to new heading will work.)

Your thoughts? If the diagrams are correct, I'm going to have to write another house rule... it's too cheesy otherwise.

Cheers,

- V.

It has been noted on several occasions that FFG's examples are not always accurate portrayals to the rules as written. Go with the rules as they are written. If that is not a satisfactory answer, then I recommend using the |Rules Questions| link at the bottom of the page. Do note, that you'll likely not get an answer until Monday or Tuesday once Ross, Sam and Mack are back in the offices from the holiday weekend.

-=Brother Praetus=-

It seemed to me that the rulebook gives you the option of using a grid or not to fight your starship battles on. If you don't use a grid, then the rule applies as written; if in doubt, a ship falls into the side arc. If you're using a grid, then there will never be any doubt about which arc a ship is in, because it's always in a defined square and so will fall one side or the other. The grid does favour the fore and aft quite significantly, which is strange, so I elected to ignore the grid and use one of the templates from BattleFleet Gothic to determine arc. According to the rules, if I am ever unsure which arc the target is in, then the side arc is used.

If you're using a grid, you don't have ambiguous situations; the grid shown IS the firing arc. Yes, it makes the sides a bit narrower.

If you are using counters or minis on the table, however, you can wind up with things exactly on the line... in which case, it would be side.

No contradiction at all, just misapplication of a rule for gridless play.

aramis said:

So your interpretation is that the nature of the game universe changes depending upon whether or not the combat is played on a grid or not.?

Personally, I find the possibility that the artsy graphic design crew didn't read the rules carefully far more likely than the possibility that it was authorial intent to have a sort of Schrodinger's firing arc that isn't defined until you put it on a graph or a blank table.

Vandegraffe said:

That is why most capital ships, such as cruisers and battleships really *need* escorts of destroyers and frigates. Because they *aren't* very maneuverable and it is difficult to shake a more maneuverable ship once one gets behind them.

Assuming a good pilot, don't forget that you can do things such as Adjust Speed / Adjust Bearing or Both. Using Adjust speed, assuming a good roll (or good pilot) you can go 0 VUs and then turn. While this won't immediately get the smaller ship off your tail, it does make it problematic for them to remain on your tail the following turn (if they are staying too close). Yes, it is difficult. It should be.

Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, that was not the answer I was looking for... it feels far too cheesy / rules mechanic-esque for my tastes. I put in a rules question to FFG a week ago, but no response.

I don't have a problem with a smaller ship having an advantage in maneuverability. However, a raider should not be able to trivially and consistently take out a cruiser. That's just broken.

Cheers,

- V.

That's a big part of why I changed the firing arcs for cruisers in my game. Short version - half (round up) of the side weapon mounts can fire fore while the other half can fire aft. Weapons designated as Broadside cannot benefit from these expanded fire arcs.

This makes Cruisers choose between mounting Broadsides for greater firepower or non-Broadsides for greater coverage. Often the deciding factor is whether the cruiser is operating independently or in a small flotilla (like most RT's ships will be) or as part of a fleet (like the Imperial Navy's cruisers).

Vandegraffe said:

Don't forget, life is full of instances where a small, heavily armed combatant can easily mop the floor with a hulking behemoth (that cost a lot more to build). You don't have to look any further than an infantryman armed with an anti-tank weapon. If a tank is mounted with anti-personnel weaponry, it often comes down to who sees/outmaneuvers whom. In the field, tanks use infantry as protection just as much as they use the tank.

Rogue Trader has a similar rock/paper/scissors mechanic. Destroyers (the Navy name for raiders) are rigged up with a big gun (lance) that is normally only carried on capital ships (cruisers). You're supposed to take out cruisers with that gun. If you weren't, you would just be given another dorsal slot to mount another battery on, reclassify yourself as a frigate and call it a day. Frigates are supposed to hunt down destroyers and clean their clocks, a pair of dorsal-mounted batteries, combining fire of course, pretty much ruins a destroyer's day. It isn't dependent on maneuvering, and when you get all the accuracy bonuses rolling, potentially does much more damage. In the field, the cruisers rely on their escorts for protection just as much as they rely on the cruisers. (And in case you're wondering why even build cruisers, the answer is simple: fleet engagements. They are ships of the line and all.) My only complaint is that they gave cruisers about the same armor as frigates. I would have given them 2-3 more points, but I haven't really done the math, and I suppose that's why they get the double-shielding.

As for the firing arc question, you have to remember: it's all abstract. The reason they did it that way was to accommodate a lot of different groups. They knew they were going to have players who came from D&D and loved their grids as well as people who came from 40k and loved their ruler. Ruler-players are used to finagling weird LoS and firing-arc issues. Grid-players are using the grid for an easy and clear representation by using even more abstraction. The side arc must be reduced slightly in order to have a clear delineating line in the same way that a player can't move half a square. If you want to complain about lack of fidelity, go look at D&D, Pythagoras was stillborn in that universe. But you know what? Every week I'm glad I don't have to count "1, 3, 4, 6" when moving diagonally anymore. Just like the transition from hexes to squares made walking in a straight line easier, but still lost just a little bit of fidelity in other ways.

On the other hand, if you were to make the ruler-wielders use an arc closer to what the grid-dancers have, you'd have to sell them a widget in order for them to easily play. Sounds like something that would be done by some game companies I'd rather not mention here, but I'm glad FF decided not to go that direction.

Either way you go, you still have the question of what minis you use. If you were to use, say, BFG minis, then your ships would be of varying, interesting sizes. You might even be tempted to make them have different footprints on the grid, like large monsters from D&D. However, since each VU is 10,000 klicks, you'd have to realize that even the largest vessel or fleet would quite easily fit in a single square. In spite of that fact, if I used a grid, I'd still probably give them the large footprint to add an interesting complication to the game, realizing that the realism was thrown out the moment they removed the z-axis.

To sum: FF did a "Your mileage may vary, but this is what we found works for us, and as long as you use it consistently, will probably work for you," by suggesting those two different ways of handling firing arcs.

And if I misunderstood your original question. I'm sorry.

p.s. I hate how chrome catches my spelling mistakes, but this text editor won't let me right-click-to-correct it.

p.p.s. been lurking for a few weeks, and thought it was time to join in the community. Hi!

p.p.p.s. And another thing: HappyDaze, doesn't that mean if your cruisers don't mount broadsides, they can have 3 weapons fire fore, and not even have a blind spot? Or even a weak arc, as they still have 2 weapons aft? Sounds a bit heavy-handed. What role do escort-class ships play in your 40k universe?

Etheric said:

I looked back at what I put above and compared it to my notes. In my notes I allow half (round up) to be Fore Port/Fore Starboard. I decided not to make the change to allow Aft coverage. This means that I do still have the aft blind spot on almost all ships.

Yes, my house rule does mean that many cruisers and light cruisers can cover their fore arc with 3 weapon mounts. The grand cruiser can cover its fore arc with 4 weapon mounts. Here's the breakdown that shows a fairly even progression of arc coverage using this rule (it assumes that allowable fore port/fore starboard mounts do not use broadside weapons):

Lunar/Tyrant: Fore 3, Port 3, Starboard 3, Aft 0

Dauntless/Lathe: Fore 3, Port 2, Starboard 2, Aft 0

Secutor: Fore 4, Port 4, Starboard 4, Aft 0 (This ship has its own issues with power and space that keep it from being as overwhelming.)

Sword/Tempest: Fore 2, Port 2, Starboard 2, Aft 0

Firestorm/most raiders: Fore 2, Port 1, Starboard 1, Aft 0

In my 40K universe escorts are just that - escorts. They are not the main show (and I do not run RT games where an escort is the primary ship of a RT), and they do not engage cruisers (including light cruisers) one-on-one and expect to win. They are easier and cheaper to build and they require far less crew. Their role depends upon this since it typically takes 2-3 to threaten a cruiser. In this I still hold some of the feel for escorts as seen in BFG (although not to that degree).

Etheric said:

The side arc does not need to be reduced. The front and aft arcs need to be reduced, this way you have the rules as printed match the illustrations with no lack of clarity.

If you read that paragraph it says, with a bit of interpretation: You can use the grids as we showed them or you can use the visual method on grids. In the first case side arcs are smaller, in the second case side arcs are larger. Pick whichever you like.

Why exactly they have the two different methods, I have no idea, but they do. Personally I think you should just go with the later and assume that the example is an error by an artist who didn't quite read the rules properly (Or heck, may have just been told to make a graphic of XXX and never saw the rules and simply did his job as he was told).

Karoline said:

One table is for strict binary grid-square play, the kind where a grid corresponds to 1 VU and you can move either straight or diagonally along them. The other is for abstract narrative-style combat.

The problems with the capital ships vs the escorts are many but maneuverability is not a huge one. Unless by GM fiat it would be exceedingly difficult for a raider to get into that position. Worry more about why the huge massive capital ships are so squishy and lack comparative firepower.

Fortinbras said:

No, that's not what it says. Because it says 'if for example you are using the first method on a grid'. So it isn't grid vs abstract or miniratures vs abstract. It is 'bigger side arc' vs 'smaller side arc'.