MustEatBrains
Mongoose
Every ship is only as big as it´s stem, everything else is - as others have said - eye candy.
Ship Base Size Chart
- Thread starter WereRogue
- Start date
LimeyDragon
Banded Mongoose
MustEatBrains said:
Well that makes life easy for rebuilding my fleet, but is gonna make Boresight more interesting..
MustEatBrains said:
Yeah, that's how it was in Battlefleet Gothic, though I can't recall what it was from Star Fleet Battles, and I was surprised when it wasn't the same in ACTA, but it didn't seemed clearly defined, so we interpreted.
Makes lining up the ol' boresight a bit tougher though.
-Ken
LimeyDragon
Banded Mongoose
darknight said:yea easy mistake to make, we all have made(and still do sometimes) play wrong or shall i say different until we find out later, no worries at least you were all playing the same way
Live and learn, and kill shadows...
LimeyDragon
Banded Mongoose
WereRogue said:
Oh wait a sec, i play early earth, so it should be Dilgar and Minbari...!
I dunno why people keep talking about something so simple. even in the old rules you measured from the stim to the target. so one would think common sence wise it would go to the targets stem considering it said the stem represents the ship and the base is just to stabilize the model and the model is just eye candy. The stem also gose to the center of the model which is where the ship is. the modle is just a expanded out otherwise we would have ships your would have to see and paint with magnifying glass. Heres a idea for people i use magnets to attach my ships then I paint a arrow on my base going from the stem out to a point so no matter where the ship is pointing I always know the arrow points to the direction my ship is pointing that way theres no problem guessing where the ship is pointing exactly.
LimeyDragon
Banded Mongoose
Drahazar said:
with regreat, my ships pre-date mongoose's rules. so some of my ships have 2 base's on them.. with not defineable middle.. I have since removed them and made them in line with single base models. but my mounting point is not always the same..
Drahazar said:
Well, Drahazar, it is unclear, as everyone in my playgroup (some of whom have been playing since AOG) assumed it was stem to base. No where in the 1e (revised, or non-revised) rules does it say that you measure "to" the stem of the target model - I know, I looked extensively - perhaps you're thinking of BFG where the things you mention above are clearly delienated out.
We had a perfectly valid reason for why the base sizes mattered and why it was stem to base, and to say that we're not using "common sense" or that the concept is "so simple" could be considered somewhat insulting.
-Ken
LaranosTZ
Mongoose
Generally, on any ship I use that has either a weird base, or a multiple base system, or any other system that does not use a nice, convenient ship stem, *coughaviokiagaincough* I paint a little dot either on the base, or on the 'centerpoint' of the model, then do all my measuring from that point.
See others are in the same boat. It makes it easy and simple going to the center of the model or the stem. and like what was stated up above if you had more than one stem nominate one and the center to be the point of measurement makes it simple easy and not hard at all. adding a arrow on the base makes it easier as well incase your ship gets knocked and your not sure what direction its pointing. doing this stuff takes the pain out of everything and makes it a smoother and better game one less thing to worry about now you just have to kill the victory or the WS carrier that has dodge before you die. carrier with dodge makes no sence at all.
LimeyDragon
Banded Mongoose
Drahazar said:
i can see both arguements.. but this was then now is now.. and if the new rules are more clear, it does not matter..
So time to change the topic.?
Well, I don't think "stem to stem" is any easier to manage than "stem to base", but to each his own. "Stem to stem" certainly makes lining up boresights much more difficult, especially at long ranges.
However, I'm certainly not debating the usefulness of marked bases. I've created some decals to put on the underside of clear bases that show F and A Boresight (and acts as a facing indicator), Fire Arcs, and has place to put the name of the ship on the base, as well. Very, very useful! Less so on bases that are not (or no longer) clear.
-Ken
However, I'm certainly not debating the usefulness of marked bases. I've created some decals to put on the underside of clear bases that show F and A Boresight (and acts as a facing indicator), Fire Arcs, and has place to put the name of the ship on the base, as well. Very, very useful! Less so on bases that are not (or no longer) clear.
-Ken
Chernobyl said:
You'd think, and that's how most of our playgroup plays. But some people are really anal. . . .
And, I was more talking about how we could draw boresight to a ship by going from the center of your model to any point that crossed the target's base. Far less restrictive targetting.
But, as LD mentioned above, we were doing it wrong, and now we'll be doing it right.
-Ken
LimeyDragon
Banded Mongoose
Chernobyl said:
regreatable, i have seen some games where the players want the boresight to be right no the money and will go to extreme lengths using odd math and strange tools to make sure it is a perfect line. The game players also have a chess style rule once you let go of the model you can't touch it again.. thus boresight becomes to much of a hassle to mess with...
LimeyDragon
Banded Mongoose
LaranosTZ said:
yea, needless to say they killed the game for several stores in the area.. And now they all play Starfleet Battles..
