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.

Aren't Battlecruisers and Grand Cruisers the same thing in practice, just categorised differently (Battlecruisers are newer)?

 Blacksails wrote:
The only official rules for larger warships are Hulks and the Planet Killer, and only one of those got a model.

The fluff can have all of its absurdity, but the rules should end at Hulks and the Planet Killer.

The beauty of BFG is that GW already has a winner on its hands. Between the 2010 FAQ and the community driven BFG:R, all GW would have to do is grab those changes, re-publish them in a nice book, and release everything in multipart plastic. No further changes needed.

Err there are official rules for the Raptorus Rex - a 20 damage Star Fortress/Battleship at 575 pts (Imperial Armour Vol 10), plus of course awakened Blackstone Fortress's, Ramalies class Starforts....

To be honest a relaunch might work best with a Horus Heresy version - that means all new ships for us and we can still use our old ones

I am fine with new big ships - 40k and BFG is all about glorious absurdity.

Aren't Battlecruisers and Grand Cruisers the same thing in practice, just categorised differently (Battlecruisers are newer)?

sort of but Grand Cruisers tend to be a bit bigger (2pts more damage) as battlecruisers tend to be just upgraded cruisers rather than distinct builds.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Aren't Battlecruisers and Grand Cruisers the same thing in practice, just categorised differently (Battlecruisers are newer)?

Battlecruisers (and Heavy cruisers) are standard cruiser hulls packed up with extra turrets and more advanced armament. Grand Cruisers are analogous to historical battlecruisers, very large cruisers with unique hulls.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The only official rules for larger warships are Hulks and the Planet Killer, and only one of those got a model.

The fluff can have all of its absurdity, but the rules should end at Hulks and the Planet Killer.

The beauty of BFG is that GW already has a winner on its hands. Between the 2010 FAQ and the community driven BFG:R, all GW would have to do is grab those changes, re-publish them in a nice book, and release everything in multipart plastic. No further changes needed.

Err there are official rules for the Raptorus Rex - a 20 damage Star Fortress/Battleship at 575 pts (Imperial Armour Vol 10), plus of course awakened Blackstone Fortress's, Ramalies class Starforts....

IA has some silly things concerning BFG as most writers knew next to nothing about it.
Immobile bases are fine and of course there are thing like Craftworld, Space Hulks, The Rock etc, however they are more like semi-mobile bases. Having Mega-Battleships as line vessels just messes up the balance like it has done in every game these mega-models have been tried. Also it devalues the uniqueness of Planet Killer.

Keep the scale as is. Larger ships would mean smaller fleets.

I love the current scale, I feel if they got much bigger they would be cumbersome and as an owner of a rather large BFG fleet currently I would not look forward to the prospect of buying a whole new fleet or 3

Backfire wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The only official rules for larger warships are Hulks and the Planet Killer, and only one of those got a model.

The fluff can have all of its absurdity, but the rules should end at Hulks and the Planet Killer.

The beauty of BFG is that GW already has a winner on its hands. Between the 2010 FAQ and the community driven BFG:R, all GW would have to do is grab those changes, re-publish them in a nice book, and release everything in multipart plastic. No further changes needed.

Err there are official rules for the Raptorus Rex - a 20 damage Star Fortress/Battleship at 575 pts (Imperial Armour Vol 10), plus of course awakened Blackstone Fortress's, Ramalies class Starforts....

IA has some silly things concerning BFG as most writers knew next to nothing about it.
Immobile bases are fine and of course there are thing like Craftworld, Space Hulks, The Rock etc, however they are more like semi-mobile bases. Having Mega-Battleships as line vessels just messes up the balance like it has done in every game these mega-models have been tried. Also it devalues the uniqueness of Planet Killer.

Craftworld - I have the stats for it in a official BFG mag but I don't think that this should be represented on the table myself.

However I still feel a Horus Heresy version would allow the next level of battleships - the Crusade Gloriana class etc and still be a good fleet game compatible with the old version.

I suppose I should have been more clear; BFG doesn't need more line ships like the Planet Killer for every faction. Battleships are perfect as the de facto largest unit you'll encounter in a pick up or tourney match. The odd space station or fortress monastery is fine so long as we don't have unit creep along the lines of what we're seeing in 40k.

Plus, the usage of these incredibly large mobile bases is pretty limited in the game for a number of reasons, which is perfect.

Yeah. Having few unique big asset is fine. Size creep where everyone has 'Titan' ships is lame and demeans the game.
Take Tau in 40k - they were much cooler when they DIDN'T have big-ass Titan stompy thingies. They didn't need them, they had better way of doing things, like Manta. Now they do, making them like everyone else, boring.

Backfire wrote:


Yes they had soft detail, though that might be because of the molds were worn out.
Metal is pretty awful material for BFG ships. They have so many sharp edges and points that paint chips off all the time, and particularly larger ships are pain to assemble. So even Finecast would be big improvement.

I'm.with you there, I don't want them in metal but I don't want the existing models in finecast either - all the old models they've tried to convert have sucked.

We need new sculpts suitable for whatever production medium they're going with.

From the title I thought you meant like making the game simpler allowing players to field more ships for less points. No to either.

 the_Armyman wrote:

JamesY wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
If you don't think GW will take this opportunity to mess with the scale, you are sadly mistaken. GW doesn't want players using old miniatures to play their "new" game. There will be a scale change whether people want one or not. Bai moar nao!

It's a good point, and will probably prove to be true. I wouldn't blame them for it if they did though, got to make them profits.

Oh, I don't begrudge them making a buck. I just chuckle a bit when people who don't understand how GW functions think that any remake or reboot isn't going to have some surprises.

Same way everything after the new tactical marine kit was in 'truescale' and you weren't allowed to field the old versions of those models anymore. Right?

Sarcasm aside while GW does want to emphasize the money making potential of a potential new BFG, locking out older ships would needlessly antagonize that existing player base (who are not going to follow that restriction anyway) as well as rob them of the free advertising that having players with fully painted lovingly preserved old models on day one.

The modularity of ships in BFG is an advantage that GW should lean on. Selling a cruiser hull with the parts to build a tyrant or dominator, but then selling clam-pack upgrade sprues to build it as the other cruisers or battlecruisers that share the same hull. They could even go a mile further by having enough space between the hull and the upgrade parts to fit official Citadel 'ard pull magnets!

Better to include a couple of the new ship hulls in the package with the rule book so the vets are forcibly exposed to the new product and start thinking about upgrading.

I am fine with the current sizes, but I would prefer they were slightly bigger. Not Land Raider size though.

Hh ships.wpuld be a bad idea I think, we already have gloriana class ship in bfg, the conqueror, vengeful spirit etc. All have rules, and are gloriana class, near enough the entire chaos fleet are Hh throwbacks, with a few exceptions, now as to scale, if I could buy a battle barge the same size as the ffg isd, I'd buy it, but only battleships at that scale, and then scale down to cruiser, escorts etc.

I agree that bigger scale models in space battles rarely equal better.
I can understand the rabid need to have bigger models to detail but think about the quantity rather than quality!
Space battles are to be over insane distances, nothing kills that feeling more than a 12" model on a 3' X 3' table at the FLGS.

BTW: Playing Battlefleet Gothic Armada on the PC now... fun game.
Reminds me a bit of Starfleet Command.

I think the current scale of BFG is perfect. If GW is smart,they won't monkey with the prices too much either. BFG could be their inexpensive way to get people hooked on the 41rst millenium, and be the gateway game for 40K.

What I'd like to see them do instead is clean up some of the balance issues - Chaos ships are absurdly cheap compared to their IN counterparts. I'd also like to see them simplify the missions - they currently have a lot too many fiddly extra rules for my liking.

And, I'd like to see the do away with the gunnery table. It's really annoying to have to consult a table every time you want to use your ship's guns. Instead of the table, I'd have ships have weapon battery strength in multiples of 4 instead of multiples of 6. Full strength fire for a target closing or withdrawing, half strength for abeam, conditional rerolls as appropriate. Its intuitive, and the math works out almost the same, and getting rid of the table would speed gameplay.

If anything I would say the models should be smaller (is that scaled further up or down?)
I think the ships would fight from greater distances than they currently do in all but the most extreme circumstances. That being said I view the models as location markers rather than the actual ships themselves as they used to do in old war films (boats shown on those big map/tables like in the Battle of Midway etc)
Heck I'd even like one of those funny stick things you see them push them around with : ))

Its important to note that the models do not represent their actual size relative to the distances they operate at. The distances/scale is represented by the ships being the size of the tip of the flight stand, whereas the model is just something pretty to look at.

Heck no, keep the scale the same. Perfect size for this game. Easy to transport, and not too difficult to paint.

Also like above, it's all to the flightstand

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:

JamesY wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
If you don't think GW will take this opportunity to mess with the scale, you are sadly mistaken. GW doesn't want players using old miniatures to play their "new" game. There will be a scale change whether people want one or not. Bai moar nao!

It's a good point, and will probably prove to be true. I wouldn't blame them for it if they did though, got to make them profits.

Oh, I don't begrudge them making a buck. I just chuckle a bit when people who don't understand how GW functions think that any remake or reboot isn't going to have some surprises.

Same way everything after the new tactical marine kit was in 'truescale' and you weren't allowed to field the old versions of those models anymore. Right?

A slightly smaller space marine on a 25mm base does not create a game imbalance when a slightly larger space marine on a 25mm base is then created at some later point. However, a ship that's significantly larger/smaller on a different base created for a completely new ruleset will not make your current fleet backwards compatible. If my current cruiser is 4" long and designed to work with the current rules, you're not going to be allowed to play with your 2 1/2 inch cruiser in the new game.

 Blacksails wrote:
The only official rules for larger warships are Hulks and the Planet Killer, and only one of those got a model.

The fluff can have all of its absurdity, but the rules should end at Hulks and the Planet Killer.

The beauty of BFG is that GW already has a winner on its hands. Between the 2010 FAQ and the community driven BFG:R, all GW would have to do is grab those changes, re-publish them in a nice book, and release everything in multipart plastic. No further changes needed.

thing is those aren;t offical stuff and thus GW would proably be unable to even look at it (offically) at the risk of legal issues.

As far as I'm aware, the 2010FAQ was pseudo official, in that it was made by the BFG rules committee which did work on official GW BFG material. Its about as close to official as official without having a giant GW stamp on it. GW could easily use it, its for their own game! Plus, I can't imagine a single player of this or any game pursuing legal action for using a community approved FAQ to clear up and enhance a game.

*Edit* Horizon on the matter: Link

Not completely true.
It was made by the bfg rule committee, who have been responsible for rulebook 1.5 and the ships of mars rules on the gw websiTe.
The community was involved and consulted, which is good.

Gw is just crap for not using it. I mean they are selling models and have no rules for them!

The current BFG scale would be great. I hope all the old ships come back! I want a Chaos fleet sooooooo badly!

 Ashiraya wrote:
The current BFG scale would be great. I hope all the old ships come back! I want a Chaos fleet sooooooo badly!

Plastic modular Eldar has me drooling. And a plastic modular IN Battleship kit (need ALL the prows!). Chaos need a plastic battleship because that thing in metal is absurd to have on just one flying stand. I intentionally put mine on a base so short the back 'wings' of the model that stick straight down touch the table as an extra support. Poor thing.

Battlefleet Gothic: Armada has really pushed me over the edge here.

When they release it, I will buy it.

How are the models so expensive.
Size wise they look smaller than a jetbike in 40k yet some are priced at $80? Granted I just did a quick search on eBay, so prices may vary, but still.

Ashiraya wrote:Battlefleet Gothic: Armada has really pushed me over the edge here.

When they release it, I will buy it.

Oh totally. BFG:A is my quick fix in between getting some real table top games in.

Meatloafwarrior wrote:How are the models so expensive.
Size wise they look smaller than a jetbike in 40k yet some are priced at $80? Granted I just did a quick search on eBay, so prices may vary, but still.

Supply and demand. No way to get new models, and some of the fleets were rare to begin with (Necrons, Tau) that people are selling fleets of ~6 capital ships plus escorts for upwards of $500. If I remember correctly, a plastic IN cruiser sprue was in the $30-42CAD range, and a metal battleship was ~$60CAD. Factor in limited supply, growing demand, and a hint of nostalgia, and you get Tau Explorers selling for $100+CAD. Fun times.

 Blacksails wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the 2010FAQ was pseudo official, in that it was made by the BFG rules committee which did work on official GW BFG material. Its about as close to official as official without having a giant GW stamp on it. GW could easily use it, its for their own game! Plus, I can't imagine a single player of this or any game pursuing legal action for using a community approved FAQ to clear up and enhance a game.

*Edit* Horizon on the matter: Link

Not completely true.
It was made by the bfg rule committee, who have been responsible for rulebook 1.5 and the ships of mars rules on the gw websiTe.
The community was involved and consulted, which is good.

Gw is just crap for not using it. I mean they are selling models and have no rules for them!

who did it isn't relevent. I'm talking legalities here, who owns the work etc. jut because it was done by the same people who also did published stuff that doesn't nesscarily mean much., if GW doesn't clearly own it, they're not gonna use it. otherwise there is a risk of them getting hit by a lawsuit because someone on the rules comittee decided he wants some back pay for his work.

Because someone is seriously going to sue GW if they use that FAQ.

Come on man. These people worked on official GW material at some point, which means they were likely paid for said work, and then embarked on this project. If GW were to use it, they'd likely be paying GW to buy the new rulebook.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

What I'd like to see them do instead is clean up some of the balance issues - Chaos ships are absurdly cheap compared to their IN counterparts. I'd also like to see them simplify the missions - they currently have a lot too many fiddly extra rules for my liking.

Chaos cruisers look better at first, but lack of 6+ prow makes them quite fragile. IN also has better escorts and IMO, battleships. I think IN and Chaos are pretty well matched.
However, Chaos has big advantage in assault boats and boarding torpedoes. They are really much superior to conventional bombers and torpedoes. IMO Hit & Run attacks are much too powerful and should be toned down.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

And, I'd like to see the do away with the gunnery table. It's really annoying to have to consult a table every time you want to use your ship's guns. Instead of the table, I'd have ships have weapon battery strength in multiples of 4 instead of multiples of 6. Full strength fire for a target closing or withdrawing, half strength for abeam, conditional rerolls as appropriate. Its intuitive, and the math works out almost the same, and getting rid of the table would speed gameplay.

The plan for next version of BFG was to dispense the gunnery table and make Weapons batteries just to hit 4+. However GW discontinued the development.
Personally I like the gunnery table. Escorts would be way too easy to hit with batteries with straight-up roll-to-hit (though this of course could be mitigated by for example, giving all escorts 2 hits). Also it encourages maneuvering like in real life fleet tactics, "crossing the T" and so on. I like BFG because maneuvering and positioning really matter, instead of just "lets roll bunch of dice and blow some crap up, it's simple and fun!".

Backfire wrote:


The plan for next version of BFG was to dispense the gunnery table and make Weapons batteries just to hit 4+. However GW discontinued the development.
Personally I like the gunnery table. Escorts would be way too easy to hit with batteries with straight-up roll-to-hit (though this of course could be mitigated by for example, giving all escorts 2 hits). Also it encourages maneuvering like in real life fleet tactics, "crossing the T" and so on. I like BFG because maneuvering and positioning really matter, instead of just "lets roll bunch of dice and blow some crap up, it's simple and fun!".

So...turn batteries into lances? Or would you also roll your armour value as a save against them? Either way, ugh. Thankfully they didn't do that.

Yeah, I don't mind the chart at all. I need to make it bigger and cleaner, but its straightforward and promotes good maneuvering. Where in 40k there's constant discussion about how much terrain is required to maintain balance, BFG works shockingly well without even a single asteroid. Its all about positioning and timing.

 Blacksails wrote:

Backfire wrote:


The plan for next version of BFG was to dispense the gunnery table and make Weapons batteries just to hit 4+. However GW discontinued the development.
Personally I like the gunnery table. Escorts would be way too easy to hit with batteries with straight-up roll-to-hit (though this of course could be mitigated by for example, giving all escorts 2 hits). Also it encourages maneuvering like in real life fleet tactics, "crossing the T" and so on. I like BFG because maneuvering and positioning really matter, instead of just "lets roll bunch of dice and blow some crap up, it's simple and fun!".

So...turn batteries into lances? Or would you also roll your armour value as a save against them? Either way, ugh. Thankfully they didn't do that.

Latter, I think. Possibly something similar we now see in Spartan Games fleet games, I dunno. I wasn't too excited about that prospect either.