Will it return? Almost certainly. Was a fine game, and not one particularly difficult or expensive to produce a range of brand new models for, thanks to long established “same basic hull but different shooty and worky bits” background.
If GW were returning to BFG there would have been a proper post like the Square Bases one for ToW. This is the generic "Art/Picture + Blurb then Show us your Stuff".
Will it return? Almost certainly. Was a fine game, and not one particularly difficult or expensive to produce a range of brand new models for, thanks to long established “same basic hull but different shooty and worky bits” background.
Is this a tease? Seems a bit of a stretch.
If you look at the stuff Droopflet Commander does with that basic concept and modular fuselages and hulls, you start to dream of a BFG remake with current technology. It's a 25 year old game with 20 year old models, they were great for their time, but i bet you could deliver absolutely stunning stuff today.
On the one hand, I would instantly jump into plastic BFG like Scrooge McDuck in a money bin. On the other hand, the prices are likely to be exce$$I’ve enough to keep me from ever buying any. On the gripping hand, DFC is a great game with fantastic minis and enjoyable fluff that scratches my spacebattle itch, while 3D printing has provided me with all the BFG ships I felt I needed for completeness.
I’ll follow this development with equal parts anticipation and dread.
It does seem somewhat odd that they'd randomly mention a game that hasn't been a thing for years when nothing they have at the moment is overly relevant to it. Have they done that before?
Mentlegen324 wrote: It does seem somewhat odd that they'd randomly mention a game that hasn't been a thing for years when nothing they have at the moment is overly relevant to it. Have they done that before?
Aeronautica, although...smug mode enabled...I had forseen that such a game would appear in 2019! And I didn't even know that such a game had even existed previously!
Gods I'd love GW to do BFG again. Esp if they actually went further than Imperials and Chaos and a smattering of others - I'd love to see the current studio do Tyranids (the original models were..... not GW's best); or even see fresh takes on Eldar and see them do Dark Eldar
Overread wrote: I'd love to see the current studio do Tyranids (the original models were..... not GW's best); or even see fresh takes on Eldar and see them do Dark Eldar
Just use the BFGAII designs. They already use them everywhere else.
If they do re-release, they'll likely just make it full of hard to acquire splash card decks and other nonsense that made it hard to keep up with HH Titanicus and kept me from jumping into Aeronautica. It'll go back to STLs and fan stuff in no time.
I'd be all over this, although I really don't need any more models for the rest of my life. I still have my BFG Chaos fleet (including a scratchbuilt battleship), but I'd be fine with revised models. I would want them to be slightly bigger, so that they were more detailed and the smaller ships were less lumpy looking.
Snord wrote: I'd be all over this, although I really don't need any more models for the rest of my life. I still have my BFG Chaos fleet (including a scratchbuilt battleship), but I'd be fine with revised models. I would want them to be slightly bigger, so that they were more detailed and the smaller ships were less lumpy looking.
I can kind of understand that, but I tried to make the jump from BFG to Firestorm Armada when that happened, and the larger ships did not make me a happy bunny. The jump to a larger size meant a jump in cost and honestly, a decline in the feel of the board. Can't explain it rationally, but definitely didn't enjoy the larger ship size (though some it probably had to do with the flight stands, and given GW's current take on 'good flight stands,' I'm filled with dread).
Well sure, Epic and BFG are about the only ones left that matter. Let's have them! Then we can finally do 40K themed Campaigns at the scales depicted in the lore, from Space ship fleet level battles to Boarding actions, From epic scale ground warfare with Titans to single operative level skirmishes..
I dunno how much I'd want this, like Epic, I'd be concerned they'll screw up the rules, and probably spread the rules across a bunch of expensive books, and generally make it unappealing to get new players into it.
I was so excited when they redid AI, they literally just had to reprint the existing rules, and yet they screwed it up.
Smaug wrote: IF this is coming I wonder if it will get a summer release spot and push 10th Ed into next year.
None of GW's side games are big enough to push 40k out of its expected release slot. The one that might come closest (Horus Heresy, because Space Marines) was still released in the summer slot of a free year so as not to get in the way of either 40k's or AoS's edition updates.
If BFG was released this year, it would probably be in the second half of the year as a spacer between the 40k edition poster boy codices and assorted model releases, or after the new 40k edition release is wrapped up.
Snord wrote: I'd be all over this, although I really don't need any more models for the rest of my life. I still have my BFG Chaos fleet (including a scratchbuilt battleship), but I'd be fine with revised models. I would want them to be slightly bigger, so that they were more detailed and the smaller ships were less lumpy looking.
If ranges are still measured base to base, and the base size remains consistent, or is at least just a case of a quick rebasing, the scale of the actual models may not matter that much?
Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
H.B.M.C. wrote: As long as they don't shift it and make it just HH only.
It probably would be. Especially after AI appeared to flop with everything but marines.
HH lets them make one line of models they can easily leave to gather dust if it flops. If it's a smashing success they can make xenos and more chaosified stuff and expand into 40k (along with different ships for 40k marines), or if it's a middling success they can just release exclusively 'Imperial' designs they know will sell.
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
The bigger ships were roughly 40k vehicle size. The battleships were about 5", cruisers about 4". Predators/Rhinos/Leman Russes/Chimeras are all about 4.5" long, but obviously the tanks are boxed shaped so they are more voluminous in spite of being shorter.
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
not a controversial opinion for me, but exactly that!
how awesome I've been waiting for a remake of BFG for ages, my first tabletop! I hope, if it comes, that a newer game system with new mechanics will come, also with a little micromanagement like AT... Maybe with fewer and bigger ships (after all, GW wants to sell new models!)
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
The bigger ships were roughly 40k vehicle size. The battleships were about 5", cruisers about 4". Predators/Rhinos/Leman Russes/Chimeras are all about 4.5" long, but obviously the tanks are boxed shaped so they are more voluminous in spite of being shorter.
How much bigger do you want them to be?
The larger ships are at a good scale, but the smaller escorts could do with a port to plastic and a slight increase in scale, so that they're not as 'blobby' anymore. Add in light and heavy cruisers, and something like superdreadnoughts above the typical battleship scale, and we're good to go. Superdreadnoughts would be stuff like the Gloriana or Abyss class, the highest echelon of orky contraptions, small hulks and such.
BFG making a return on the tabletop would be great. I hope they switch to Inches rather than Centimeters for consistency. It was the only game which measured in centimeters which was a little odd.
Cripple X wrote: BFG making a return on the tabletop would be great. I hope they switch to Inches rather than Centimeters for consistency. It was the only game which measured in centimeters which was a little odd.
Epic and Warmaster also measured in cm. Of course, there is no particular rhyme or reason to using one scale over the other, it's simple enough to convert the scales.
Not interested. Like Epic, I can't think of many things more detrimental to the current state of the game (in the hands of fans) than modern GW's involvement. Eight books per fleet, card decks, and FOMO limited-release expansions? No thanks.
Between old rules and STL models, BFG is doing just fine without GW. The only thing I'd trust GW to do with the game at this point is reprint the rulebook and Armada, that's it.
Tsagualsa wrote: Epic and Warmaster also measured in cm. Of course, there is no particular rhyme or reason to using one scale over the other, it's simple enough to convert the scales.
There is a reason. If you want to measure smaller ranges with the smaller models found in Battlefleet Gothic, Epic and Warmaster, then you use centimeters (unless you would rather measure in half inches).
Tsagualsa wrote: Epic and Warmaster also measured in cm. Of course, there is no particular rhyme or reason to using one scale over the other, it's simple enough to convert the scales.
There is a reason. If you want to measure smaller ranges with the smaller models found in Battlefleet Gothic, Epic and Warmaster, then you use centimeters (unless you would rather measure in half inches).
Makes sense. Also, for the typical mass battle games, you want 1-3 D6 to produce 'typical' ranges of e.g. movement, charges etc. for common units like infantry or cavalry, so you use inches for these.
tneva82 wrote: Or you would have serious issues with models bumping up each other with ridiculously small base compared to model.
Yeah, I have enough trouble positioning models in close formation or boarding actions, and often have to resort to removing the model from the table and inserting a proxy. It's a bigger issue in BFG than something like 40K because heading is vitally important, and ships already tend to overhang their 32mm bases somewhat.
I tend to think that keeping the scale as-is but using modern design and casting could produce significantly more detailed ship designs (especially for escorts) without needing to increase the scale. Some of the 3D-printable designs for escorts already out there look great and are still recognizable/distinguishable at a glance.
Tsagualsa wrote: Epic and Warmaster also measured in cm. Of course, there is no particular rhyme or reason to using one scale over the other, it's simple enough to convert the scales.
There is a reason. If you want to measure smaller ranges with the smaller models found in Battlefleet Gothic, Epic and Warmaster, then you use centimeters (unless you would rather measure in half inches).
You can take all ranges and distances in BFG and divide by 2.5 to get near-equivalent values in inches, and since most everything in BFG is increments of 5cm, it translates fine. Imperial cruisers move 8", Chaos ones 10-12", weapons batteries get a left shift under 6" and a right shift over 12", moving through blast markers reduces your speed by 2", gotta move a cruiser 4" before it can turn, and so on.
The difference is mostly relevant to distances based on dice, primarily All Ahead Full, Ork weapon strength, and Nova Cannon scatter, but reworking those to use inches instead wouldn't be terribly difficult.
As much as I adored Bf:G growing up, not sure how much interest I would have in a rules heavy naval game in space anymore.
The above mentioned likely limited run card packs, multiple books, and small run and quickly OOP required material to play are also something I generally don't enjoy but see with most newer GW games.
Tsagualsa wrote: Epic and Warmaster also measured in cm. Of course, there is no particular rhyme or reason to using one scale over the other, it's simple enough to convert the scales.
There is a reason. If you want to measure smaller ranges with the smaller models found in Battlefleet Gothic, Epic and Warmaster, then you use centimeters (unless you would rather measure in half inches).
You can take all ranges and distances in BFG and divide by 2.5 to get near-equivalent values in inches, and since most everything in BFG is increments of 5cm, it translates fine. Imperial cruisers move 8", Chaos ones 10-12", weapons batteries get a left shift under 6" and a right shift over 12", moving through blast markers reduces your speed by 2", gotta move a cruiser 4" before it can turn, and so on.
The difference is mostly relevant to distances based on dice, primarily All Ahead Full, Ork weapon strength, and Nova Cannon scatter, but reworking those to use inches instead wouldn't be terribly difficult.
Personally I'm not too fussed either way.
And the point I was making was WHY they went with centimeters instead of inches (i.e., they wanted the smaller range increments you can get with the smaller measurement unit of centimeters). It has nothing to do with converting from centimeters to inches.
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
At that scale, you’re looking at $50 for a single Cobra destroyer. There’s no way that game survives.
In the other hand, you can print BFG minis at any size, and there are some who sell STLs detailed for the size/scale you’re describing.
Smaug wrote: IF this is coming I wonder if it will get a summer release spot and push 10th Ed into next year.
None of GW's side games are big enough to push 40k out of its expected release slot. The one that might come closest (Horus Heresy, because Space Marines) was still released in the summer slot of a free year so as not to get in the way of either 40k's or AoS's edition updates.
If BFG was released this year, it would probably be in the second half of the year as a spacer between the 40k edition poster boy codices and assorted model releases, or after the new 40k edition release is wrapped up.
It was more of a wish to go back to a four year cycle. I don’t think there’s a lever big enough to move the 40K cash whale, even Covid couldn’t move it. What’s the other game in the three year cycle? IIRC the last few years where 40K 9th, AoS 3rd, HH. Was it contrast paint?
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
Large enough to fill a bottle perhaps...I'd probably pick up a couple of those.
I could also see something akin to Titanicus with a bit of a zoomed in scale that focuses more on a smaller number of ships but in more detail, Sword/Dauntless/Lunar as Warhound/Reaver/Warlord kind of deal. Boarding actions with a ton of smaller pinaces, tugs and boarding craft coming from one ship to the other perhaps.
Tannhauser42 wrote: As long as I can still use all of my old models, I'll be very happy. I'd still buy gobs of new stuff, but I'd love to still use all my old stuff, too.
You know it will be either a larger scale, for “our most detailed ship evar!!”, or entirely different designs and loadouts, because they hate old players.
Smaug wrote: IF this is coming I wonder if it will get a summer release spot and push 10th Ed into next year.
None of GW's side games are big enough to push 40k out of its expected release slot. The one that might come closest (Horus Heresy, because Space Marines) was still released in the summer slot of a free year so as not to get in the way of either 40k's or AoS's edition updates.
If BFG was released this year, it would probably be in the second half of the year as a spacer between the 40k edition poster boy codices and assorted model releases, or after the new 40k edition release is wrapped up.
It was more of a wish to go back to a four year cycle. I don’t think there’s a lever big enough to move the 40K cash whale, even Covid couldn’t move it. What’s the other game in the three year cycle? IIRC the last few years where 40K 9th, AoS 3rd, HH. Was it contrast paint?
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
They have to change the scale at least a bit, otherwise people would be able to reuse their old minis
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
They have to change the scale at least a bit, otherwise people would be able to reuse their old minis
How much do think GW needs to worry about mothballed fleets from a specialist game they haven’t made in years? Yes I know there are die hard fans still out there, and people can print/sculpt based off old designs. But if you are dedicated enough to keep the game alive, you are probably the kind of person who will hoover up the new shinies.
And by keeping a new version backwards compatible, they get to retain an experienced core of players who will grab the new edition and be playing it asap.
The loss of sales from people not replacing old fleets will be vastly made up but retaining and not alienating the existing player base.
Most people that stick with a game or army long term are more than eager to hoover up new models even if they are replacements for ones they already have.
Part of the hobby isn't just having an army, its building and painting and such. Having a chance at new designs, new ships, new game and all you'd see a lot of people buying into the new stuff.
You don't need to change scales to invalidate old games; heck keeping those old models viable is a hhuge draw to helping get oldies back into the game and playing and once they are playing they are providing players for new customers buying new fleets; the oldies are more likely to buy into newly released fleets and update their current ones or build a new fleet for a new faction etc...
Most people that stick with a game or army long term are more than eager to hoover up new models even if they are replacements for ones they already have.
Part of the hobby isn't just having an army, its building and painting and such. Having a chance at new designs, new ships, new game and all you'd see a lot of people buying into the new stuff.
You don't need to change scales to invalidate old games; heck keeping those old models viable is a hhuge draw to helping get oldies back into the game and playing and once they are playing they are providing players for new customers buying new fleets; the oldies are more likely to buy into newly released fleets and update their current ones or build a new fleet for a new faction etc...
Since all measurements in BFG are made from the stem and the base anyway, i don't really see a reason that any models would be invalidated - from the background side of things, imperial fleet and ship designs vary a lot anyway and are noted to follow wildly divergent patterns between sectors, forgeworlds and so on, so as long as you and your opponent are clear which models represent what you can pretty much use whatever you want really.
True about the stems being the only thing that really maters.
I think the issue is where the line between “scale creep” and “new scale” is. If modern ships are just a little bit bigger, it’s not jarring to see them along side the old. I field old RTB01 marines and RT rhinos next to newer kits, and it’s not immersion breaking. But if, for example, a new cobra destroyer is the same size as an old cruiser, that’s just going to look bad.
On a different note, I was just looking at my old fleets, and think contrast paints might suit BFG very well. The built in shade/highlight should make all the little nooks and grubbins pop with minimal effort.
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
They have to change the scale at least a bit, otherwise people would be able to reuse their old minis
'Warhammer: The Old World' has entered the discussion
Tsagualsa wrote: Epic and Warmaster also measured in cm. Of course, there is no particular rhyme or reason to using one scale over the other, it's simple enough to convert the scales.
There is a reason. If you want to measure smaller ranges with the smaller models found in Battlefleet Gothic, Epic and Warmaster, then you use centimeters (unless you would rather measure in half inches).
You can take all ranges and distances in BFG and divide by 2.5 to get near-equivalent values in inches, and since most everything in BFG is increments of 5cm, it translates fine. Imperial cruisers move 8", Chaos ones 10-12", weapons batteries get a left shift under 6" and a right shift over 12", moving through blast markers reduces your speed by 2", gotta move a cruiser 4" before it can turn, and so on.
The difference is mostly relevant to distances based on dice, primarily All Ahead Full, Ork weapon strength, and Nova Cannon scatter, but reworking those to use inches instead wouldn't be terribly difficult.
Personally I'm not too fussed either way.
And the point I was making was WHY they went with centimeters instead of inches (i.e., they wanted the smaller range increments you can get with the smaller measurement unit of centimeters). It has nothing to do with converting from centimeters to inches.
And the point I was making is that 'they wanted the smaller range increments' demonstrably isn't really true.
If anything, 40K makes greater use of granularity in its range scales, since it uses single-inch increments (eg 5" move versus 6" move) where BFG, Epic, and Warmaster almost exclusively use 5cm/2" increments. There aren't any ships in BFG with 13cm movement or 27cm range.
So aside from a couple of D6-cm based minor mechanics (I misspoke on Orks, actually- they don't roll for range) that could easily be reworked to inches at no detriment to gameplay, BFG could be played in inches with otherwise no change and no having to measure increments any lower than 2". It doesn't actually make use of that theoretically better granularity. Maybe they just preferred round increments of 5 over increments of 2 or something.
Either way, with GW using Imperial measurements for their new games, I think it's a safe bet that a new-BFG would be in inches.
I can dream the models will be smaller and not knock each other all the time. If I had time I would be printing them so a cruiser length matched the diameter of the base and go from there...
The_Real_Chris wrote: I can dream the models will be smaller and not knock each other all the time. If I had time I would be printing them so a cruiser length matched the diameter of the base and go from there...
You would be scaling them down a LOT for that. Like 1/3rd the size. I’d worry that with that scale the smaller escort ships would be unidentifiable.
The_Real_Chris wrote: I can dream the models will be smaller and not knock each other all the time. If I had time I would be printing them so a cruiser length matched the diameter of the base and go from there...
You would be scaling them down a LOT for that. Like 1/3rd the size. I’d worry that with that scale the smaller escort ships would be unidentifiable.
There’s a community already doing this. You can find their work on FB and Thingiverse. Minis sculpted for the smaller scale look good.
It will be Battle Fleet Gothic: Boarding Action. Set in the Hersey time period and revolve around the Imperial Navy boarding vessels of merchant nobility ships. It will have nothing to do with marines and everything to do with imperial navy units in 14mm scale fighting in the well lit hallways of merchant vessels. To conserve ammo and not cause hull breaches armies will use thrown weapons improvised from the cargo of the ships. This will be known as the great food fight in space, but if you want to still hope for BFG, it will probably be out April 1st.
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
They have to change the scale at least a bit, otherwise people would be able to reuse their old minis
Instead of ships being a dot in the center of the flying base (with the model just there for representation) they will instead be a slightly larger dot in the center of the flying base.
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
They have to change the scale at least a bit, otherwise people would be able to reuse their old minis
Instead of ships being a dot in the center of the flying base (with the model just there for representation) they will instead be a slightly larger dot in the center of the flying base.
You know, i'd play 'Battlefleet Gothic: Boarding Action' with boats, pinasses, assault rams, dreadclaws and all the other ordnance stuff, but i'm a weirdo and it would be BFG in name only
StraightSilver wrote: Controversial opinion: I'd absolutely love for BFG to return, but only if the ships were a larger scale. Like, much larger. 40K vehicle size..... I know i am probably alone but I think larger ships would be so much cooler.
They have to change the scale at least a bit, otherwise people would be able to reuse their old minis
Instead of ships being a dot in the center of the flying base (with the model just there for representation) they will instead be a slightly larger dot in the center of the flying base.
You know, i'd play 'Battlefleet Gothic: Boarding Action' with boats, pinasses, assault rams, dreadclaws and all the other ordnance stuff, but i'm a weirdo and it would be BFG in name only
That would work better as an Aeronautica Imperialis expansion I'd bet, and could be pretty cool. Basically X-Wing when they added the smaller capital ships, with a little extra crunchiness for torpedoes and boarders
Buf for spaceships, go smaller please. BFG is why I never ever ever use GW flying stands, learned the hard way from too many broken metal battleships on brittle clear bases to just glue a nail to the base and use that as a stem, which eventually became melt the nail into the base. Better to spend an extra couple minutes than regluing every model's base every game. Will be less of an issue if everything is plastic, but feth flying bases nonetheless
Overread wrote: AoS would be a fantastic setting for a Dystopian Wars style game -
AoS Warmaster/Man'o'War would work pretty well with the overall over-the-top-ness of the setting, there is a lot of stuff in the background that would work well with or would require 'epic scale' to really shine. Stuff like the mega-gargants, Karaknos and all that could easily stand in as a titan equivalent.
AnomanderRake wrote: My guess: They'll do an Aeronautica and release a reworked version on a grid that doesn't work properly.
Sure: due to the distances involved in space battles, there is no meaningful movement of ships once the shooting starts. To compensate for that, and to take various stealth systems and tactics into account, players set up their fleets in secret, and use a grid system for that. Player turns consist of using sensors and shooting ordnance at grid locations they expect enemy ships at. Battleship Gothic
And the point I was making is that 'they wanted the smaller range increments' demonstrably isn't really true.
If anything, 40K makes greater use of granularity in its range scales, since it uses single-inch increments (eg 5" move versus 6" move) where BFG, Epic, and Warmaster almost exclusively use 5cm/2" increments. There aren't any ships in BFG with 13cm movement or 27cm range.
So aside from a couple of D6-cm based minor mechanics (I misspoke on Orks, actually- they don't roll for range) that could easily be reworked to inches at no detriment to gameplay, BFG could be played in inches with otherwise no change and no having to measure increments any lower than 2". It doesn't actually make use of that theoretically better granularity. Maybe they just preferred round increments of 5 over increments of 2 or something.
Either way, with GW using Imperial measurements for their new games, I think it's a safe bet that a new-BFG would be in inches.
Re: why BFG used centimetres instead of inches - if I recall correctly, it was for two reasons:
1) Legacy - Epic 40,000 also used cm, and the BFG core rules were based on that game engine
2) Theme - metric measurements feel more scientific, futuristic and spacey than old-fashioned imperial measurements.
Whether either of these reasons would still hold these days, I have no idea.
For whatever reason, the main GW web and community presences rarely ever admit that stuff like this exists.
I had a flick through those books recently and they looked rather nice, as well as including a healthy bestiary of foes. I bang its drum a lot, almost as much as Pacific does for Epic, but I feel that Sam Pearson's solo-coop AoS campaigns, combined with Soulbound...there's something good there for GW and AoS customers.
Still, just remembered that this is a BFG thread and I have got carried away, so we had best return to the topic at hand.
I like BFG and would be great to see a new release & minis. Agree on the comments that upscaling will create a crappy looking space car park of a jumble of ships. I also fear that the rules writers will look at the gunnery charts of the game (which I will be honest, could be a bit laborious) and replace them with something crap that then removes all of the importance of manouever and facing from the game, and turn it into Dreadfleet in Space.
lord_blackfang wrote: I honestly think the gunnery chart makes it more immersive in this case.
Adeptus Titanicus has shown that they're not totally averse to have cardboard stuff like Command & Control panels and so on, if they can sell it they'll print a gunnery chart under a marketable name like Cogitator or sth. like that in a heartbeat. Or even C&C panels for individual capital ships, that would be an easy way to do special characters or ships of renown on the cheap.
The main problem is GW having no inhouse card printing machine and seeming to have the worlds most spotty reprinting policies.
Heck even in White Dwarf they can't stick to one kind of card insert policy. Sometimes its just a sheet of card you have to cut out manually; sometimes its got perforated edges on the spin connector at least; sometimes its got them around each object, sometimes its a sheet of card separate from the magazine.
Overread wrote: The main problem is GW having no inhouse card printing machine and seeming to have the worlds most spotty reprinting policies.
Heck even in White Dwarf they can't stick to one kind of card insert policy. Sometimes its just a sheet of card you have to cut out manually; sometimes its got perforated edges on the spin connector at least; sometimes its got them around each object, sometimes its a sheet of card separate from the magazine.
You never know which you're going to get.
I said it before: if you take all the boardgames and assorted random stuff they're slinging in account, and add the world-wide supply chain and now also the Brexit trouble on top of it, they have to be at least close to the point that in-housing some cardboard production resources would make long-term economic sense. It's not like they could not make up the difference with Warhammer-themed products like playing cards or even art prints. I guess distribution is the issue that prevents them from doing so.
Overread wrote: The main problem is GW having no inhouse card printing machine and seeming to have the worlds most spotty reprinting policies.
Heck even in White Dwarf they can't stick to one kind of card insert policy. Sometimes its just a sheet of card you have to cut out manually; sometimes its got perforated edges on the spin connector at least; sometimes its got them around each object, sometimes its a sheet of card separate from the magazine.
You never know which you're going to get.
I said it before: if you take all the boardgames and assorted random stuff they're slinging in account, and add the world-wide supply chain and now also the Brexit trouble on top of it, they have to be at least close to the point that in-housing some cardboard production resources would make long-term economic sense. It's not like they could not make up the difference with Warhammer-themed products like playing cards or even art prints. I guess distribution is the issue that prevents them from doing so.
I suspect key issues are even if they can afford the machine, where do they get the pulp and inks from to feed into it? Right now a lot of the printing happens in India/China so the UK doesn't have a huge pulp or ink industry. So they still have to source those materials and get them imported.
The next layer of issues is having skilled staff to operate the machines. If the industry isn't much in the UK that means skilled operators won't be in the UK to be had, which means finding specialists, training, dealing with startup issues and all and potentially having the operation running with inexperienced staff for a number of years.
I do agree that GW could make good use of a printing machine; heck if they could set it up its not just their card s tock; that's also their packaging as well. GW has steadily invested into owning more and more of their production cycle. They own the mould firm that makes the moulds for their casting machines; they own a paint factory (I believe this is much more recent). GW are steadily investing their profits into owning more of their infrastructure, which means having more of their operation in-house. So I could well see a time where they might get a card printer and setup their own system.
If you were with the Church of England, everyone would be turning in on Sundays!
Nah, seriously, keep up the good work. Its good eggs such as yourself that keep these games alive; Blood Bowl and Necromunda, for example. And more relevant, theres that fan magazine for BFG itself which is bloody good if you ask me.
Tsagualsa wrote: Adeptus Titanicus has shown that they're not totally averse to have cardboard stuff like Command & Control panels and so on, if they can sell it they'll print a gunnery chart under a marketable name like Cogitator or sth. like that in a heartbeat. Or even C&C panels for individual capital ships, that would be an easy way to do special characters or ships of renown on the cheap.
Having a command "bridge" card for each vessel (or small squadron) would be a sensible play aid for BFG.
Tsagualsa wrote: Adeptus Titanicus has shown that they're not totally averse to have cardboard stuff like Command & Control panels and so on, if they can sell it they'll print a gunnery chart under a marketable name like Cogitator or sth. like that in a heartbeat. Or even C&C panels for individual capital ships, that would be an easy way to do special characters or ships of renown on the cheap.
Having a command "bridge" card for each vessel (or small squadron) would be a sensible play aid for BFG.
You could probably turn the firepower chart into a cool-looking slide or circular rule, to go with the nautical theme:
Tack a sackfull of skulls and cherubs on it to imperialize it, and off you go.
SamusDrake wrote: Never seen them before, but those two items are beautiful! Like something out of Myst.
Stuff like that, in slightly more modern presentation, was state of the art in engineering up to the late 70s and early 80s, when scientific pocket calculators that could do logarithms, roots and so on reliably and fast became widely available and affordable. These mechanical devices use a couple of tricks to give good approximations of e.g. natural logarithms and stuff like that just by moving a couple of parts, it's really quite neat. There are other, similar devices that are in use to quickly calculate e.g. wind drag in airplanes that are still part of modern-day pilot training, mostly as a fallback measure if your computers go into total failure, but also for very small planes that do not have full onboard navigation.
SamusDrake wrote: Never seen them before, but those two items are beautiful! Like something out of Myst.
How could you. Now I am downloading Myst again.
I think if GW where to go back to BFG, I would like to see them do bigger oval bases. I think it could work out well with them, and cool modelling options.
And small ships on 32 bases, since my memory is fuzzy of the game. So I only half remember the basing.
But using the oval bases they could do the vectors from centre of ship to notch one base. Have a post in the base in the centre point.
And I think ships could be slightly bigger if they don’t make the board be too small, as long as they do focus on fleets and don’t push a you can build two big super ship and win. Coool right. Attitude.
And I think ships could be slightly bigger if they don’t make the board be too small, as long as they do focus on fleets and don’t push a you can build two big super ship and win. Coool right. Attitude.
What I disliked most about the game was having to have a series of spare bases with direction arrows on to sub for warships when everything got too close together and the ships would hit each other.
It's partly just the nature of the game that ships will get close together. As long as you have rams, boarding actions, and short range weapons, anyway. The only real fix would be to make the bases as big as, or larger, than the ships themselves.
And I think ships could be slightly bigger if they don’t make the board be too small, as long as they do focus on fleets and don’t push a you can build two big super ship and win. Coool right. Attitude.
What I disliked most about the game was having to have a series of spare bases with direction arrows on to sub for warships when everything got too close together and the ships would hit each other.
Solved elegantly by Spartan Games in their day by making the second range band optimal rather than the first.
Stuff like that, in slightly more modern presentation, was state of the art in engineering up to the late 70s and early 80s, when scientific pocket calculators that could do logarithms, roots and so on reliably and fast became widely available and affordable. These mechanical devices use a couple of tricks to give good approximations of e.g. natural logarithms and stuff like that just by moving a couple of parts, it's really quite neat. There are other, similar devices that are in use to quickly calculate e.g. wind drag in airplanes that are still part of modern-day pilot training, mostly as a fallback measure if your computers go into total failure, but also for very small planes that do not have full onboard navigation.
Easy E wrote: If it comes back, there will be a slight scale change to invalidate everything they have produced before and 3D party folks have made since.
This is the way of GW.
Not happening with Warhammer The Old World.
There are reasons something like that could happen that don't involve simply wanting to "invalidate everything" anyway.
And I think ships could be slightly bigger if they don’t make the board be too small, as long as they do focus on fleets and don’t push a you can build two big super ship and win. Coool right. Attitude.
What I disliked most about the game was having to have a series of spare bases with direction arrows on to sub for warships when everything got too close together and the ships would hit each other.
Solved elegantly by Spartan Games in their day by making the second range band optimal rather than the first.
In Star Trek attack Wing you just put the ships on longer and shorter pegs when they are too close to each other (you can even switch while playing). Works most of the time.
My hopes are not up for any potential BFG rerelease. If it happens, it will probably have greatly simplified rules "to make it more accessible", the new models will be stylewise greatly different to the old ones with much bigger scale, the game will introduce huge 'Space Titans', every race gets a class of new Death Star level battleships which completely unbalance the game and make old big ships obsolete and so on...
Easy E wrote: If it comes back, there will be a slight scale change to invalidate everything they have produced before and 3D party folks have made since.
This is the way of GW.
The thing about BFG is to get around the issue of ranges (either ships have to be the size grains of sand, or you have to play on a football field) they had a convention that the 'ship' was a dot in the center of the base, the base was a radius of a few 100 KM around the ship, and the model was just to represent it.
So if the new game has bigger or smaller models it should not affect fluff or gameplay at all.
Probably what we will see is a radical new look, either by setting it during the Heresy or by focusing on some Xenos or Chaos faction that is not fully colonized by 3rd parties.
Probably what we will see is a radical new look, either by setting it during the Heresy or by focusing on some Xenos or Chaos faction that is not fully colonized by 3rd parties.
Leagues of Voltron vs Raq Ghouls anyone?
We shall see.
Many 'current' BFG hulls are either straight up Heresy designs or retrofits based on Heresy-era hulls. The 'arrow' design chaos hulls are mostly Heresy-era, while the armoured-prow imperial designs are more recent. So a return to Heresy era would mostly mean that more stuff would look like Chaos does now. 40k ships are extremely old, the designs moreso than the individual ships, but finding hulls that predate the Great Crusade and are still in service is a thing that happened more often than you'd think.
I’d love to see the Gloriana class, and how those owned by different Legions have been adapted to their taste.
Plus rules for Ursus Claws. Everyone loves Ursus Claws.
Sample art found on Reddit. I think this is official, but apologies if it’s just really well done fan art. Not that there’s anything wrong with fan art, except as a specific reference of ship styles.
Note the Battle Barge hasn’t changed since the Heresy, and that the Tribune appears to demonstrate the intermediary design of the Grand Cruisers.
The grand cruiser is as always hideously ugly because GW and FW never seem to have figured out how to blend the two styles rather than just make things a mishmash of the two.
The Gloriana seems to have diverged into unique ships of their own depending on the Legion, so I am not sure how much of it can still be called a consistent class. The Iron Warriors one for example seems to be covered more in armor plating to the point where visually it seems under armed for its size.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I
Note the Battle Barge hasn’t changed since the Heresy, and that the Tribune appears to demonstrate the intermediary design of the Grand Cruisers.
The Vengeance class and their sister classes nicely show the step between 'Arrow'-style Heresy hulls and 'Hammer Prow' current-era imperial designs. Note the intermediate prow design and the Arrow-style stern:
We also have HH book mentions of the "newer" ship designs too, like Lunar class ships. It is possible the armoured prows were always around but the combat paradigm was less popular. It is also possible they were not so heavily armoured in the past but retained the same profile, like the Emperor class. The Armageddon class battleship at least dates back to the Scouring, so that gives the armoured prow a long history.
IIRC, each Segmentum has its own pattern of ships produced in the Segmentum Fortress, plus some other patterns from major forgeworlds, so it is easy to introduce new patterns. The classic Imperial armoured prow is either Jovian or Martian IIRC, the "Chaos" design is from Cypra Mundi, and there are designs for (I think) Bakka and Voss pattern ships and prows in the old model range. I may be mixing up Bakka and Kar Duniash for the Rogue Trader cruiser model.
Haighus wrote: We also have HH book mentions of the "newer" ship designs too, like Lunar class ships. It is possible the armoured prows were always around but the combat paradigm was less popular. It is also possible they were not so heavily armoured in the past but retained the same profile, like the Emperor class. The Armageddon class battleship at least dates back to the Scouring, so that gives the armoured prow a long history.
IIRC, each Segmentum has its own pattern of ships produced in the Segmentum Fortress, plus some other patterns from major forgeworlds, so it is easy to introduce new patterns. The classic Imperial armoured prow is either Jovian or Martian IIRC, the "Chaos" design is from Cypra Mundi, and there are designs for (I think) Bakka and Voss pattern ships and prows in the old model range. I may be mixing up Bakka and Kar Duniash for the Rogue Trader cruiser model.
The "newer" Imperial designs now favored by the 40K Imperium are a concession to loss of technology. The arrowhead designs seen now in the Chaos fleets had more powerful engines and more high powered energy weapons (lances), which over time it seems the Imperium found more and more difficult to produce and maintain. The Martian or Jovian school of design ("armored prow") seems to have become dominant as the simple expedient of slapping on slabs of armor over the front and using torpedo tubes was more doable than maintaining long range lances.
I think you were referring to the Apocalypse class battleship not the Armageddon class battlecruiser. The Apocalypse is a sign of the Imperium regressing. It has the armored prow, but its long range lances are dialled back to half their potential range due to trouble with the power relays. Actually firing the lances at full range as designed would blow relays and sap energy from the engines, a flaw that the older battleships like the Desolator did not have.
Haighus wrote: We also have HH book mentions of the "newer" ship designs too, like Lunar class ships. It is possible the armoured prows were always around but the combat paradigm was less popular. It is also possible they were not so heavily armoured in the past but retained the same profile, like the Emperor class. The Armageddon class battleship at least dates back to the Scouring, so that gives the armoured prow a long history.
IIRC, each Segmentum has its own pattern of ships produced in the Segmentum Fortress, plus some other patterns from major forgeworlds, so it is easy to introduce new patterns. The classic Imperial armoured prow is either Jovian or Martian IIRC, the "Chaos" design is from Cypra Mundi, and there are designs for (I think) Bakka and Voss pattern ships and prows in the old model range. I may be mixing up Bakka and Kar Duniash for the Rogue Trader cruiser model.
The "newer" Imperial designs now favored by the 40K Imperium are a concession to loss of technology. The arrowhead designs seen now in the Chaos fleets had more powerful engines and more high powered energy weapons (lances), which over time it seems the Imperium found more and more difficult to produce and maintain. The Martian or Jovian school of design ("armored prow") seems to have become dominant as the simple expedient of slapping on slabs of armor over the front and using torpedo tubes was more doable than maintaining long range lances.
I think you were referring to the Apocalypse class battleship not the Armageddon class battlecruiser. The Apocalypse is a sign of the Imperium regressing. It has the armored prow, but its long range lances are dialled back to half their potential range due to trouble with the power relays. Actually firing the lances at full range as designed would blow relays and sap energy from the engines, a flaw that the older battleships like the Desolator did not have.
I did mean the Apocalypse. I still think it is highly likely early Apocalypse class vessels did not suffer the relay issues, or they wouldn't have been very effective in their role as Desolator-hunters.
I agree the Imperium in 40k has lost much, but the point I was making is that the Imperium in 30k still used the "newer", simpler designs to some extent and in a form similar to their 40k counterparts. Clearly there was a variety of tactics and fleet types in use. For example, the grand cruisers are generally ancient vessels, yet most of them are slow brawlers rather than quick snipers like the Chaos vessels, which fits much more with the Mars/Jovian school. In addition, Mars and Jupiter are some of the earliest shipyards available to the Great Crusade, so it stands to reason many vessels were produced in that style.
I’ve often wondered if part of the Imperial shift in types of ship use was to counter Chaos’ comparative lack of ability to create new ship types.
That’s not so say Chaos can’t and don’t create new ships. Certainly one Escort Class was a stolen design which never saw Imperial Service - but lacking anything like Imperial Infrastructure, it’s not on the same scale.
If memory serves from BFG, Imperial ships make far wider use of torpedoes. Not only useful for drawing out and, theoretically, exhausting enemy fighter cover, but breaking up enemy formations as much as doing reliable damage, because a broken formation is easier prey, especially if you can maintain yours. They also offset Chaos’ typically longer range, as well drilled and equipped crews can launch a good wave or two or Torpedoes long before the enemy is in properly effective range.
So with that in mind, but also I’m yet to read later Heresy/Siege of Terra? Perhaps it was an attempt to be able to do unexpected tactics in the lead up?
Backfire wrote: My hopes are not up for any potential BFG rerelease. If it happens, it will probably have greatly simplified rules "to make it more accessible",
Which happened with exactly one out of all the specialist games they've re-released and the rest of what you said mostly didn't either.
If we do get BFG back, I hope we see GW vinyl mats, rather than card stock playing areas. The rules themselves are fine and dandy. They do (did?) a fine job of recreating 2d naval tactics without being overly finnickity.
I know Armada has come along since, and from what I understand it’s well thought of. But I don’t think GW need necessarily chase that design, because there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the basics of BFG.
Though if my understanding is correct, in Armada the larger the ship, the more in advance you need to commit to its manoeuvres. That’s a concept I do quite like - but given BFG fleets tend to have pretty much the same ship sizes between them, it may be less necessary?
Not sure I’ve explained that well. Star Wars. Imperials have larger, more individually powerful ships, made ponderous by greater planning needed. Rebellion has smaller ships which need to be used in concert, but are more reactive. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages. BFG lacks that fairly stark difference in ship types, if not classes across the fleets, so may not need it in the same way?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’ve often wondered if part of the Imperial shift in types of ship use was to counter Chaos’ comparative lack of ability to create new ship types.
That’s not so say Chaos can’t and don’t create new ships. Certainly one Escort Class was a stolen design which never saw Imperial Service - but lacking anything like Imperial Infrastructure, it’s not on the same scale.
If memory serves from BFG, Imperial ships make far wider use of torpedoes. Not only useful for drawing out and, theoretically, exhausting enemy fighter cover, but breaking up enemy formations as much as doing reliable damage, because a broken formation is easier prey, especially if you can maintain yours. They also offset Chaos’ typically longer range, as well drilled and equipped crews can launch a good wave or two or Torpedoes long before the enemy is in properly effective range.
So with that in mind, but also I’m yet to read later Heresy/Siege of Terra? Perhaps it was an attempt to be able to do unexpected tactics in the lead up?
Torpedoes ignore void shields so they are an effective means of plinking away at big ships that don't have enough fighter cover. The Planet Killer was taken out after the Gothic War by a squadron of Imperial cruisers firing volley after volley of torpedoes at stand off range.
Torpedoes require an extensive logistics service however. BFG the game does not require absolute accounting/tracking of ammunition, but each cruiser doesn't carry that many torpedoes. So replenishment at naval bases or with a fleet tender would be needed after awhile. By contrast, the lance based ships are effectively independent of this kind of ammunition supply line, which works out for many Chaos captains as most of the time they are essentially lone pirate ships or wolf pack pirate bands. They might not dock at a friendly port for a long time as there aren't that many for them outside the Eye of Terror.
That does make sense - and again I feel reflects that The Imperium, as much as it’s a bureaucratic mess, has pretty impressive logistics, including a great many places where a fleet can restock, making mass torpedoes a viable strategy for them. It also goes some way to explaining why Chaos forces didn’t refit.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: In Star Trek attack Wing you just put the ships on longer and shorter pegs when they are too close to each other (you can even switch while playing). Works most of the time.
In most starship miniature games I play, battleships get a longer base stem than cruiser class, which are in turn longer than escorts.
Not sure I’ve explained that well. Star Wars. Imperials have larger, more individually powerful ships, made ponderous by greater planning needed. Rebellion has smaller ships which need to be used in concert, but are more reactive. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages. BFG lacks that fairly stark difference in ship types, if not classes across the fleets, so may not need it in the same way?
Hmm don't really agree with that - smaller escorts and light cruisers are very maneuvorable compared to major capital ships and the various Xenos fleets do play very differently - especially Eldar.
Not sure I’ve explained that well. Star Wars. Imperials have larger, more individually powerful ships, made ponderous by greater planning needed. Rebellion has smaller ships which need to be used in concert, but are more reactive. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages. BFG lacks that fairly stark difference in ship types, if not classes across the fleets, so may not need it in the same way?
Hmm don't really agree with that - smaller escorts and light cruisers are very maneuvorable compared to major capital ships and the various Xenos fleets do play very differently - especially Eldar.
I always put BFG down in the 'deceptively simple base rules' pile - unless you have direct play experience with or against a particular fleet, they all look pretty same-ish on the face of it, a statblock, some lances some batteries some ordnance yadda yadda yadda, with nary a special rule in sight. That's very different from the current style of e.g. 40k, where there's a huge armoury of very different equipment, stacked with special rules on top.
Chaos typically had longer ranged weapons, which seems an advantage until you remember your opponent will be looking to close that range as quickly as possible, so simply standing back and shooting was rarely an option.
Eldar had fairly swingy weapons. Comparatively underpinned compared to others, but adept at directing the flow of the engagement.
Orks? Well you never really knew what an Ork ship was going to do, due to randomised firepower values. A decent Orky Admiral accounted for that, assuming lower rolls, whereas opponents might bank on those lower rolls.
Tau had turreted weapons, making them harder to properly outmanoeuvre.
Necrons were just super hard - but vomitted up loads of VPs when crippled or destroyed.
Chaos typically had longer ranged weapons, which seems an advantage until you remember your opponent will be looking to close that range as quickly as possible, so simply standing back and shooting was rarely an option.
Eldar had fairly swingy weapons. Comparatively underpinned compared to others, but adept at directing the flow of the engagement.
Orks? Well you never really knew what an Ork ship was going to do, due to randomised firepower values. A decent Orky Admiral accounted for that, assuming lower rolls, whereas opponents might bank on those lower rolls.
Tau had turreted weapons, making them harder to properly outmanoeuvre.
Necrons were just super hard - but vomitted up loads of VPs when crippled or destroyed.
It’s a truly great little game.
The Necrons didn't work in terms of balance. VPs alone are not a good way to balance. Sure, the opponent might "win" a battle by scratching the Necron flagship, but it sure doesn't feel like victory when the rest of their fleet is burning wreckage and space dust while the Necron fleet is still battle worthy. Imagine you get tabled/wiped out in a 40K game while the enemy army is almost intact, but you win on VPs. Technically you won but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth as it sure doesn't feel like victory. Sure, in universe that may be how the Imperium counts victories, but in terms of game design it's not a good experience for the player.
The BFG campaign system didn't have a good answer to this. A canny Necron player could "lose" the first few battles but utterly destroy the enemy fleet. As new ship replacements for destroyed ships had low Ld, this meant the replacement fleet had difficulty doing anything that required Ld tests, and was vulnerable. This led to a runaway advantage for the Necron player who could then sweep the later battles and win the campaign.
BFG's major weakness is not so much that but in the faction imbalance.
Orks really stood no chance against a competent Eldar player.
Eldar stood no chance against even a novice Necron player.
BFG had a clever balance between Imperial and Chaos fleets, Andy Chambers knew his trade, the fleets do not appear balanced but they are. Chambers knew how to factor in a soft criteria. The problem is the creep when adding other factions. The BBB was never properly balanced because Orks vs Eldar was included in the most elementary portion of th4 game, and the only mitigation against being picked apart by Eldar for the Orks, which are roks were not included in this iteration. Even Andy Chambers feths up on occassion, but in reality both Eldar and Orjks were Opfor to be played against the two mainstay factions that game was all about, so it could be forgiven.
Necrons on the other hand tipped the game over the edge. Yes Chaos and Imperial can beat them, Orks also had a reasonable chance because of the quirks of that fleet.
You had to play the psychology game with Necrons and force them to choose to brace or not brace and react accordingly. This reaction could not be via manoeuver but by target allocation.
For this reason the less scary Necron fleets are the most dangerous. There are plenty of mind games you can play with a Tombship, many of them can reduce it to a paperweight while you destroy his fleet. Yes you can out and out win against Necrons, but it is never easy, and if you don't see the meta then you are reliant on a whole lot of luck.
Eldar of all stripes simply don't have a chance. Necrons are the one fleet that can outmanoeuver them, and Necron weapons wipe Eldar from space bypassing all their normal defences. Frankly the Necron rules were due a top down rewrite before this matchup was even remotely playable.
Tyranids were somewhat different also, but handlable and not unfair. Tau, Space Marines, Admech etc were all 'the same' just stat flips on top of normal fleet dynamics. That isn't a criticism by the way, not every fleet has to behave radically differently.
Backfire wrote: My hopes are not up for any potential BFG rerelease. If it happens, it will probably have greatly simplified rules "to make it more accessible",
Which happened with exactly one out of all the specialist games they've re-released and the rest of what you said mostly didn't either.
Which game was that Lord Blackfang? I would say both Necromunda and Blood Bowl have been made more complicated with the new releases, certainly if you try to use all of the expansion material.
Adeptus Titanicus I can't comment on as I have not played either old or new versions, although I can hazard a guess looking at the number of rule and campaign books.
They literally as originally written had incredible durability with their brace ability (the armor reduction effect only came in later as an attempt to weaken the ability), weapons that had all the advantages of the Eldar ones in ignoring target aspect and holofields, and then also ignoring holofields and void shields on a 6 for the particle whip lance equivalent, and then also be the fastest fleet in terms of straight speed on AAF special orders. Basically the Necrons got given durability, firepower, and speed. They had no weaknesses in their first rules version. Then to top it off they had their sepulchre ability which caused permanent Ld reduction on a failed Ld test, and even on a successful Ld test, the enemy ship still took damage, which almost meant auto kill on any enemy escort in range. The star pulse ability which was an AoE that could wipe out small craft and most critically also detonate all Eldar escorts in the area since they ignored holofields. Some of the Necron rules were written seemingly as a hard counter to the Eldar.
It was frankly obscene how ridiculously overpowered their rules were. Then they tried to "balance" by using VPs, but as I wrote earlier, it's still no fun as a game for the opponent. Then they tried to weaken some abilities (and limit sepulchres to just 1 per fleet), but I would say it was still too little too late.
The Vengeance class and their sister classes nicely show the step between 'Arrow'-style Heresy hulls and 'Hammer Prow' current-era imperial designs. Note the intermediate prow design and the Arrow-style stern:
Vengeance is a very clumsy visual design, with Chaos and Imperial ships mashed together like by a beginner kitbasher. I admit the ship actually looks good if you only look the side profile, but on tabletop, it is an ugly ungainly duckbill.
IIRC, each Segmentum has its own pattern of ships produced in the Segmentum Fortress, plus some other patterns from major forgeworlds, so it is easy to introduce new patterns. The classic Imperial armoured prow is either Jovian or Martian IIRC, the "Chaos" design is from Cypra Mundi, and there are designs for (I think) Bakka and Voss pattern ships and prows in the old model range. I may be mixing up Bakka and Kar Duniash for the Rogue Trader cruiser model.
The "newer" Imperial designs now favored by the 40K Imperium are a concession to loss of technology. The arrowhead designs seen now in the Chaos fleets had more powerful engines and more high powered energy weapons (lances), which over time it seems the Imperium found more and more difficult to produce and maintain. The Martian or Jovian school of design ("armored prow") seems to have become dominant as the simple expedient of slapping on slabs of armor over the front and using torpedo tubes was more doable than maintaining long range lances.
Also, the "Chaos" designs, or "Cypra Mundi" pattern, proved to be more vulnerable to various Warp influences.
Supposedly, Vengeance was a sort of 'prototype' which attempted to correct perceived problems of the earlier patterns and subsesquent 'Mars pattern' ships were developed from that. However, all of these designs are extremely ancient, probably predating Horus Heresy.
Third pattern is the Voss type, but it is only used for cruiser sized vessels and smaller.
Any way, the "Patterns" are more akin to specification lists, rather than blueprints, so the ships of the same 'class' may look substantially different depending on where they were built.
There are Voss-pattern battleship prow designs as well- the Apocalypse/Oberon model has the Voss prow.
Are Cypra Mundi vessels more prone to warp corruption, or is that superstition and they merely make better raiding vessels and were therefore targeted by traitors before they unveiled their true colours? Speed and independence from logistical supply are important for pirate activity.
Haighus wrote: There are Voss-pattern battleship prow designs as well- the Apocalypse/Oberon model has the Voss prow.
Are Cypra Mundi vessels more prone to warp corruption, or is that superstition and they merely make better raiding vessels and were therefore targeted by traitors before they unveiled their true colours? Speed and independence from logistical supply are important for pirate activity.
The Apocalypse class had the option to have a torpedo prow instead of the nova cannon, and this prow would have looked like the Retribution style prow. There can be all sorts of variations to the original ships depending on where they are assigned, battle damage, etc... No nova cannon in the entire sector to replace the destroyed one? Let's put torpedoes on instead and get the ship back out there.
Some ship designs did seem more prone to corruption though a more thorough reading of the BFG background also suggests other more mundane reasons. The Warp Storm BFG supplement has a section on Styx class carriers and how some captains denounced the Imperium as they found their ships neglected in terms of refitting and rearming compared to the newer Martian style battlecruisers. The reasons may be political but perhaps also technical. Maybe the older ships were neglected because the Tech Priests couldn't maintain and refit them anymore but did not want to admit it.
Haighus wrote: There are Voss-pattern battleship prow designs as well- the Apocalypse/Oberon model has the Voss prow.
Are Cypra Mundi vessels more prone to warp corruption, or is that superstition and they merely make better raiding vessels and were therefore targeted by traitors before they unveiled their true colours? Speed and independence from logistical supply are important for pirate activity.
The Apocalypse class had the option to have a torpedo prow instead of the nova cannon, and this prow would have looked like the Retribution style prow. There can be all sorts of variations to the original ships depending on where they are assigned, battle damage, etc... No nova cannon in the entire sector to replace the destroyed one? Let's put torpedoes on instead and get the ship back out there.
Some ship designs did seem more prone to corruption though a more thorough reading of the BFG background also suggests other more mundane reasons. The Warp Storm BFG supplement has a section on Styx class carriers and how some captains denounced the Imperium as they found their ships neglected in terms of refitting and rearming compared to the newer Martian style battlecruisers. The reasons may be political but perhaps also technical. Maybe the older ships were neglected because the Tech Priests couldn't maintain and refit them anymore but did not want to admit it.
That is the kind of stuff I was thinking- factors not based in some warp flaw, but in reasons that favour the crew going rogue. I think there are a couple of classes that did seem to have an issue with warp contamination, but cannot remember which off the top of my head.
Neglect due to technical decline and political factors feels very likely.
Haighus wrote: There are Voss-pattern battleship prow designs as well- the Apocalypse/Oberon model has the Voss prow.
Are Cypra Mundi vessels more prone to warp corruption, or is that superstition and they merely make better raiding vessels and were therefore targeted by traitors before they unveiled their true colours? Speed and independence from logistical supply are important for pirate activity.
The Apocalypse class had the option to have a torpedo prow instead of the nova cannon, and this prow would have looked like the Retribution style prow. There can be all sorts of variations to the original ships depending on where they are assigned, battle damage, etc... No nova cannon in the entire sector to replace the destroyed one? Let's put torpedoes on instead and get the ship back out there.
Some ship designs did seem more prone to corruption though a more thorough reading of the BFG background also suggests other more mundane reasons. The Warp Storm BFG supplement has a section on Styx class carriers and how some captains denounced the Imperium as they found their ships neglected in terms of refitting and rearming compared to the newer Martian style battlecruisers. The reasons may be political but perhaps also technical. Maybe the older ships were neglected because the Tech Priests couldn't maintain and refit them anymore but did not want to admit it.
That is the kind of stuff I was thinking- factors not based in some warp flaw, but in reasons that favour the crew going rogue. I think there are a couple of classes that did seem to have an issue with warp contamination, but cannot remember which off the top of my head.
Neglect due to technical decline and political factors feels very likely.
The flaw was I think IIRC for the Despoiler class battleship and maybe Hades heavy cruiser. I think it was claimed that some hidden flaw in the hull design or the gellar field attracted corruption and daemonic attention. Maybe that was deliberate sabotage either in the design and/or construction stage. Alternatively maybe it was just a purely innocent technical error resulting in a leaky field letting in dark thoughts that over time wear away at a crew's mental fortitude and sanity.
What we do know is that the forces of Chaos have certainly built more of some ships like the Despoiler class battleship. Only 3 were ever built by the Imperium, and all their names are known. However in the various GW and BL stories, there are other Despoiler battleships with ship names given, which cannot be possible unless Chaos forces have been able to make more.
Are Cypra Mundi vessels more prone to warp corruption, or is that superstition and they merely make better raiding vessels and were therefore targeted by traitors before they unveiled their true colours?
Keep a bit of your sanity by remembering that often as not these days a LOT of trading happens on Facebook trade groups and what gets left on ebay of the rare stuff is often the stuff that's just way overpriced. Which is why its still there month after month.
Sure they can sell at those prices, but often not very quickly.
It's a lot of little things. Chaos ships have generally greater range than their Imperial counterparts, but also slightly higher speeds, and prow-mounted weapons- often with 270-degree arcs. While Imperial capital ships in addition to shorter range have the 6+ armored prow and prow-mounted torpedoes. You put those together and you get Imperial ships that want to present front to the enemy, close as quickly as possible, and launch torpedoes before settling in for a knife-fight broadside duel. Meanwhile, Chaos fleets want to stay at range and whittle the enemy down, raking them across the prow as they close.
It's elegant design in that the fleets are strongly differentiated through their weapon availability and basic statlines, and not through an avalanche of special rules or bespoke weapon profiles for each faction. Even when you bring in fleets other than the core two, most of their special rules and equipment work within the existing paradigm, rather than inventing totally new mechanics.
I have very little confidence that a GW remake would/will retain that elegance, but the community-maintained rules aren't going anywhere, and same for the 3D-printable ships.
FB groups are definitely the way to go. You get hobbyists selling to hobbyists and very reasonable prices for the most part. I wouldn't have been able to complete my Epic collection without them.
Ebay has become a joke, with a handful of accounts like Goldfish Blue buying up everything and then doing things like re-listing just Marneus Calgar's arm for £15
It's elegant design in that the fleets are strongly differentiated through their weapon availability and basic statlines, and not through an avalanche of special rules or bespoke weapon profiles for each faction. Even when you bring in fleets other than the core two, most of their special rules and equipment work within the existing paradigm, rather than inventing totally new mechanics.
Except for Eldar. One of the core 4 fleets that completely changes everything about the game, from movement to special weapons to swapping shields for holofields. It makes sense fluffwise that Eldar should be very different, but gameplaywise they were just not very fun, the holofields made lances worthless but barely protected you against weapons batteries. I bought a used Ork fleet from somebody back in the day and instantly had a lot more fun playing, even though the Orks were a much weaker fleet. Recently played BFG for the first time many many years using the Eldar and it really sealed how unfun the game design for them is. both playing with them and against them. Somewhere on my computer I have a fan list that completely revamps the fleet and brings them in line with the other 3 fleets, removes Holofields completely and gives them normal shields and also basic movement, just faster and with better turnrates than Imperials. I'd like to see the same thing happen for a BFG rerelease, but unfortunately I don't trust GW to get it right and it's probably better if they just the rules alone. Pull a Blood Bowl 2016 and release new pretty plastics with new pretty rulebooks but fundamentally unchanged rules
It's elegant design in that the fleets are strongly differentiated through their weapon availability and basic statlines, and not through an avalanche of special rules or bespoke weapon profiles for each faction. Even when you bring in fleets other than the core two, most of their special rules and equipment work within the existing paradigm, rather than inventing totally new mechanics.
I have very little confidence that a GW remake would/will retain that elegance, but the community-maintained rules aren't going anywhere, and same for the 3D-printable ships.
Yes it would be changed to a bluntly designed special rulesfest. The game has several design problems for modern GW. It requires card bits. It has a low model count. It takes a long time to play. No way it would survive in its old form.
Backfire wrote: My hopes are not up for any potential BFG rerelease. If it happens, it will probably have greatly simplified rules "to make it more accessible",
Which happened with exactly one out of all the specialist games they've re-released and the rest of what you said mostly didn't either.
Which game was that Lord Blackfang? I would say both Necromunda and Blood Bowl have been made more complicated with the new releases, certainly if you try to use all of the expansion material.
Adeptus Titanicus I can't comment on as I have not played either old or new versions, although I can hazard a guess looking at the number of rule and campaign books.
Necromunda if anything is less accessible rules-wise than it was in the 90s
Aeronautica is the only one that actually has dumbed down "accessible" rules. And it's also the only one that sells like gak, so GW got its feedback.
I really woulnd't worry about BFG on that account.
Aeronautica is an example of GW prying failure out of the jaws of success, and then kicking success in the kidneys a couple of times just to keep it from getting up.
Kalamadea wrote:Except for Eldar. One of the core 4 fleets that completely changes everything about the game, from movement to special weapons to swapping shields for holofields. It makes sense fluffwise that Eldar should be very different, but gameplaywise they were just not very fun, the holofields made lances worthless but barely protected you against weapons batteries. I bought a used Ork fleet from somebody back in the day and instantly had a lot more fun playing, even though the Orks were a much weaker fleet. Recently played BFG for the first time many many years using the Eldar and it really sealed how unfun the game design for them is. both playing with them and against them. Somewhere on my computer I have a fan list that completely revamps the fleet and brings them in line with the other 3 fleets, removes Holofields completely and gives them normal shields and also basic movement, just faster and with better turnrates than Imperials. I'd like to see the same thing happen for a BFG rerelease, but unfortunately I don't trust GW to get it right and it's probably better if they just the rules alone. Pull a Blood Bowl 2016 and release new pretty plastics with new pretty rulebooks but fundamentally unchanged rules
Yup, I didn't mention them but Eldar were the odd duck. I really like the fanmade MMS (move-move-shoot) ruleset. They still have the unique movement mode of turning and then moving in a straight line, but do it twice in a row in the movement phase rather than once in the movement phase and again in the ordnance phase. It also gives them conventional shields, and while they retain holofields, they're changed to a saving throw against certain weapon types that depends on distance and doesn't get better than 5+. And the crit chance is reduced from 4+ to 5+, so they still get critted more often than other races, but not excessively so. All in all it brings them more in line with the other factions while still keeping some distinct character.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Aeronautica is an example of GW prying failure out of the jaws of success, and then kicking success in the kidneys a couple of times just to keep it from getting up.
It could have been a nice, not overly demanding sidegame for 40k players that expanded on an aspect of the background that is by necessity rather underrepresented.
Instead it's two dozen imperial planes against what feels like a total of a dozen for all other factions combined, and extremely lame.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Aeronautica is an example of GW prying failure out of the jaws of success, and then kicking success in the kidneys a couple of times just to keep it from getting up.
It could have been a nice, not overly demanding sidegame for 40k players that expanded on an aspect of the background that is by necessity rather underrepresented.
Instead it's two dozen imperial planes against what feels like a total of a dozen for all other factions combined, and extremely lame.
Aeronautica suffered from the classic one-two punch of Games Workshop releasing way too many Imperial things and then not giving much of anything to any other faction.
The Imperium has 11 plastic kits and 4 resin ones.
Orks have 4 plastic kits and 1 resin one.
Eldar have 2 plastic ktis and 3 resin ones.
T'au have 2 plastic kits and 1 resin one.
And then Necrons have a glorious one singular resin kit.
Meaning that, in total, all other factions combined have less stuff total than the Imperials. And, I don't know about you, but playing a faction that has a grand total of a three things avalible to it doesn't exactly sound appealing to me.
I figure both AN and AT have suffered from the success of Necromunda. You can kinda see how as one game got a lions share of attention and marketing and funding the other two have fallen back a bit. AN a lot, AT somewhat though I still worry that AT really needs to push forward and get some Chaos titans out - get something other than Imperial
Overread wrote: I figure both AN and AT have suffered from the success of Necromunda. You can kinda see how as one game got a lions share of attention and marketing and funding the other two have fallen back a bit. AN a lot, AT somewhat though I still worry that AT really needs to push forward and get some Chaos titans out - get something other than Imperial
You can't really blame GW for supporting what sells, but you can blame them for bad ressoure allocation - at a certain point a game that is not supported or almost not supported withering on the vine is a self-fulfilling prophecy. AT at least gets a slow, painful, burning trickle of stuff...
Its a shame as some of the AI miniatures are lovely. The Ork range in particular, loved putting together the Grot bombers, they are a wonderfully characterful design.
Overread wrote: I figure both AN and AT have suffered from the success of Necromunda. You can kinda see how as one game got a lions share of attention and marketing and funding the other two have fallen back a bit. AN a lot, AT somewhat though I still worry that AT really needs to push forward and get some Chaos titans out - get something other than Imperial
You can't really blame GW for supporting what sells, but you can blame them for bad ressoure allocation - at a certain point a game that is not supported or almost not supported withering on the vine is a self-fulfilling prophecy. AT at least gets a slow, painful, burning trickle of stuff...
You can blame them for writing terrible rules (even though they had an existing set of rules that wasn't too bad).
As cool as the models are for AI, it isn't one of GW's typical games that can survive on cool models but crap rules. It needed to have good rules to build a solid community.
Does it really matter if GW never "supports" a terrible game? If you want a good 40k air combat game all you have to do is break free from the new content treadmill. AI 1.0 is one of the best games GW has ever published and is a complete game with no further need for expansions and as long as the AI 2.0 models remain available to buy that's all the support we need.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Does it really matter if GW never "supports" a terrible game? If you want a good 40k air combat game all you have to do is break free from the new content treadmill. AI 1.0 is one of the best games GW has ever published and is a complete game with no further need for expansions and as long as the AI 2.0 models remain available to buy that's all the support we need.
Well, they aren't doing a great job keeping the models available, I haven't been able to buy a Thunderhawk in Australia since soon after it first released.
But the problem is popularity and accessibility. It's never great to be trying to introduce a new player to a game and you have to say "sooo, the current version sucks, we'll play the version that was discontinued a decade ago and you can no longer buy the rulebooks". Some people like playing dead games, for many others it's a big negative.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Does it really matter if GW never "supports" a terrible game? If you want a good 40k air combat game all you have to do is break free from the new content treadmill. AI 1.0 is one of the best games GW has ever published and is a complete game with no further need for expansions and as long as the AI 2.0 models remain available to buy that's all the support we need.
Well, they aren't doing a great job keeping the models available, I haven't been able to buy a Thunderhawk in Australia since soon after it first released.
But the problem is popularity and accessibility. It's never great to be trying to introduce a new player to a game and you have to say "sooo, the current version sucks, we'll play the version that was discontinued a decade ago and you can no longer buy the rulebooks". Some people like playing dead games, for many others it's a big negative.
''If you are an expert in the setting an scrounge about on seven different unrelated auction plattforms, 3D-printing forums and websites you never heard of before for a couple of months you can acquire reasonable proxies for 4/5ths of the models that have rules in our favorite fanmade ruleset that was hosted on a defunct bulgarian soccer site's comment section for 15 minutes in 2008'' is not the compelling proposition to invest in yet another game that some people may think it is
Fan versions and community editions are all fine and dandy, and i greatly respect the labour and knowledge that usually go into them, but in some ways they're the equivalent of the grey-haired dude in a faded tie-died shirt hanging around in the back of the record store - they are an absolute delight if you want to talk about their hyper-specific niche of an already narrow genre, but they're not exactly non-intimidating for new people that you want to introduce to the hobby.
If it's playing a dead game with a local community it's better than not playing at all.
For some reason a lot of people in the GW bubble think if you're not playing the #1 smash hit record breaking top dog you might as well melt everything in your collection down and shred your rulebooks.
Arbitrator wrote: If it's playing a dead game with a local community it's better than not playing at all.
For some reason a lot of people in the GW bubble think if you're not playing the #1 smash hit record breaking top dog you might as well melt everything in your collection down and shred your rulebooks.
Alternately, they're using the same logic you just did: they're playing the one active game in the local community, rather than not playing at all.
Arbitrator wrote: If it's playing a dead game with a local community it's better than not playing at all.
For some reason a lot of people in the GW bubble think if you're not playing the #1 smash hit record breaking top dog you might as well melt everything in your collection down and shred your rulebooks.
These are 2 player (or occasionally more) games and unlike your typical board game they tend to require significant time and money investment.
It's much easier to find another player, or convince a new player to start, if it's an active community.
I'd say that's a pretty big potential negative for a game.
It's like playing a newer release video game with many active players in the servers versus some old game that might be better but the servers are dead. Sure, maybe you can find some dude on the other side of the world willing to play at 3am for a few hours, or some person who never stopped playing the game and is so freakishly good you lose instantly, but often the better game is simply the one you can find more people to play with.
I get that, but usually the reaction to that ends up being "well none is taking your rulebooks away, none is stopping you playing!!!" when GW take a game out to pasture.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: These are 2 player (or occasionally more) games and unlike your typical board game they tend to require significant time and money investment.
So why not provide the models for both players? It's a game with 5-10 models per side, that should be pretty easy to put together multiple forces so all a new player has to do is show up and start the game. And if they like the game GW sells all the miniatures they need.
Arbitrator nailed it 100% though. The only issue with AI is the weird attitude that if you aren't on the treadmill of new content every month regardless of whether or not it's good content it's not worth playing a game. Break free of that attitude and AI 1.0 is a complete game that doesn't need more content. The books are easy to find online and as long as GW keeps the AI 2.0 miniatures in production buying new armies is just as easy as buying stuff for any other GW game. The only thing AI 1.0 lacks is a new mandatory $50 book every few months and who wants that nonsense?
Arbitrator wrote: I get that, but usually the reaction to that ends up being "well none is taking your rulebooks away, none is stopping you playing!!!" when GW take a game out to pasture.
The problem isn't GW took *my* rulebooks away, it's that if I want to get other people in to the game they can't buy rulebooks for themselves. Even current AI has that problem of course because GW don't keep the rules in stock, the only option is digital rules and many people (me included) don't own an appropriate portable electronic gizmo for using digital rules. So it's a complaint that's valid for both playing old editions and also playing the current editions
And playing outdated editions of a game can in some ways be worse than if GW simply didn't release the game again at all, as it splinters an already small community.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: These are 2 player (or occasionally more) games and unlike your typical board game they tend to require significant time and money investment.
So why not provide the models for both players? It's a game with 5-10 models per side, that should be pretty easy to put together multiple forces so all a new player has to do is show up and start the game.
That's what I do, but it makes the game more expensive and isn't as fun to show up with the same 2 forces trying to find an opponent versus an opponent showing up with their own unique force to play against your own unique force.
And even though AI doesn't require many models, it's still fecking expensive, and I still spend a couple of hours painting each model. If you buy the starter sets as your starting point, you probably want 2x starter sets + 1 other box for each squadron you want.
It's just not an appealing prospect. Sure, you can buy two squadrons and treat it like a board game looking for opponents to play one of your squadrons against you... but it's a far cry from being able to find genuine opponents, maybe find a few people playing different squadrons, maybe be able to play a tournament or a campaign, etc etc.
Pacific wrote: Its a shame as some of the AI miniatures are lovely. The Ork range in particular, loved putting together the Grot bombers, they are a wonderfully characterful design.
You can still use the V1 rules. They were great!
Granted, I know doing so is problematic in the modern world.
