Ok metric ton of salt for this one as I saw it on a facebook group and then decided to check my own sources and they confirmed that yes, there is going to be a new release of BFG this year at Warhammer Fest, normally I do not share such things but I am as ever hopeful that this is true.

Sorry it is not much to go on but hey, this is the rumour forum, this is a rumour.

Only $300 USD (£12) for an 8 ship starter.

I would be surprised if this true. The specialist studio has a lot going on right now with the Horus Heresy and the Old World. A lot of the games they do have been lacking in support recently, especially Titanicus. Would they be able to support another game?

Thank you for sharing. Depending on price I could get into it. Battle fleet is pretty sweet.

Chikout wrote:
I would be surprised if this true. The specialist studio has a lot going on right now with the Horus Heresy and the Old World. A lot of the games they do have been lacking in support recently, especially Titanicus. Would they be able to support another game?

Old World is handled by FW team which iirc is separate from specialist games.

But hey, all the teams kinda shuffle around and work with each other. It's a lot more fluid than it used to be.

Aeronautica is dead
Warcry and Kill Team are going strong
Titanicus is a big ? in the grand scheme of things.

Battlefleet Gothic is something people have been asking for for a long time, but we'll see if GW actually delivers. It's a game already heavily dominated by 3d printing and people still use the old rules.

I don't expect to see BFG anytime soon, but I hope it's true - would love to see the game return with new models.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
I don't expect to see BFG anytime soon, but I hope it's true - would love to see the game return with new models.

I'm in the same camp as you. A new edition with updated models would be awesome but I really don't expect it to happen this year given the gearing up for 10th.

drbored wrote:
Old World is handled by FW team which iirc is separate from specialist games.

Forgeworld and Specialist Games are the same team. The HH1 book Malevolence even had Specialist Games Design Team listed as its designers(not sure on Crusade).

 Platuan4th wrote:

drbored wrote:
Old World is handled by FW team which iirc is separate from specialist games.

Forgeworld and Specialist Games are the same team. The HH1 book Malevolence even had Specialist Games Design Team listed as its designers(not sure on Crusade).

Yeah. The person who designed most of the Titanicus titans was a forgeworld designer who probably got pulled back to work on the Heresy reboot. Andy Hoare is in charge of Necromunda and the Old World. Keith Robertson was a middle earth sculptor but he's now also working on the old world. I'm pretty sure that's why the old world or s taking so long. Adding Battlefleet would be a big ask without hiring some new staff.

How could they support this at current pace? Maybe its a dreadfleet style release, intent on making some cash on the boxed starter set and not that many following releases, which might anyway be undermined by 3d printing.

Would really like to see a bfg release though. Recentlt got into the game.

drbored wrote:
Battlefleet Gothic is something people have been asking for for a long time, but we'll see if GW actually delivers. It's a game already heavily dominated by 3d printing and people still use the old rules.

A lot of people were saying similar things when they brought back Blood Bowl, but it didn’t stop them (and they were pretty damn successful with it too).

Guys, GW Instagram has been teasing BFG every 14 days on the dot for a while now.

They’ve been teasing plastic Thunderhawks for more than a decade as well. So I’m doubtful for now.

Would love to hope though!

 Malika2 wrote:
They’ve been teasing plastic Thunderhawks for more than a decade as well. So I’m doubtful for now.

And there's been a plastic Thunderhawk around for about a year now - possibly longer, but I can't remember exactly when it was released.

There have been a lot of hints recently. I still feel like the release schedule is pretty crowded at the moment but you never know.

Updated Tyranids ships could get me playing this.

There's been an awful lot of BFG on their social media so it seems like it's possible.

I wont speculate on the likelyhood of a BFG reboot, but considering we have AoO now and seeing as the lastest Heresy Thursday reveal model had a Space Hulk themed base, BFG could make a lot of sense in terms of game synergy with KT21/40K/30K

A single "one and done" style of box with rules and two playable forces to gauge reactions doesn't seem an impossible ask..

But just speculating, YMMV

They'd probably milk it to death like Necromunda with all the rulebooks, but at least the models would be good. It seems impossible to mess them up.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:
They’ve been teasing plastic Thunderhawks for more than a decade as well. So I’m doubtful for now.

And there's been a plastic Thunderhawk around for about a year now - possibly longer, but I can't remember exactly when it was released.

My point exactly, the fact that GW is teasing stuff now doesn't mean a release is imminent. You can still have to wait a decade before it is actually released and even then it is not the product fans were expecting.

 The Phazer wrote:
There have been a lot of hints recently. I still feel like the release schedule is pretty crowded at the moment but you never know.

I remember they shared an image of BFG art and mentioned it in a post, but what has there been other than that?

I wouldn't hold my breath... There's a lot on the plate for releases ahead, The Old World for example is going to be a huge project. I don't doubt BFG will be revisited, but not for a fair few years yet.

i'd say it was unlikely as they've got too much on the boil which mean aeronautica looks to be done for now, and Titanicus seems to be proceding slower than was originally intended (rumours seem to suggest some or all of the team involved are now doing 30K stuff)

but i guess there is an outside chance that its jumped ahead if some of the staff have been working on it on their own time in the same way that the Solar Auxilla went from a sculptors pet project to a released faction (and then died when they left)

 privateer4hire wrote:
Only $300 USD (£12) for an 8 ship starter.

Is it that same as the old starter?

Not sure if that means it's a new range, or just a limited re-release of the old box like they do with Space Hulk every so often to maintain copyrights.

 Asmodai wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Only $300 USD (£12) for an 8 ship starter.

Is it that same as the old starter?

Yes. The original box was 4 Imperial Cruisers vs 4 Chaos Cruisers.

I’m hopeful. I always did enjoy BFG, and of course Man ‘O’ War. Whilst not exactly Lord Nelson, naval tactics do seem to be something I’ve always just Got My Head Around.

Plus the ships are easy to quick paint and not look like they were quick jobs, whilst also being detailed enough for those so inclined to do utterly stunning work.

Question is will it be Heresy or 40k?

 privateer4hire wrote:
Only $300 USD (£12) for an 8 ship starter.

Brits: I don’t see why you always have to whine about the price.

My humor is recognized at last

Personally I'd rather GW focused its efforts on Epic (both is great too of course). BFG is a much smaller undertaking in terms of resources though, especially if the initial box is set during the Horus Heresy.

I never got into BFG when it was first released, too busy playing other GW games. If it expands to 40K and not just the Heresy I would check it out though.

 Arbitrator wrote:
Question is will it be Heresy or 40k?

Whichever you feel upsets you the most. Or indeed, on that count, either.

I've seen this on FB too...

For whatever that's worth.

 Malika2 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:
They’ve been teasing plastic Thunderhawks for more than a decade as well. So I’m doubtful for now.

And there's been a plastic Thunderhawk around for about a year now - possibly longer, but I can't remember exactly when it was released.

My point exactly, the fact that GW is teasing stuff now doesn't mean a release is imminent. You can still have to wait a decade before it is actually released and even then it is not the product fans were expecting.

You seem to have missed that a plastic Thunderhawk has been released, Malika. It exists, if a store can get stock in for you (which, given GW's recent challenges in that area, may be quite the hurdle to overcome). GW even claim it to be in stock on their website, at least for the UK.

interesting .. never played it but it could be fun. Could they do it like necromunda and release a simple faction fleet box every couple of months and expand from there? It doesn't necessarily have a large model range even across multiple factions initially.

.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 silverstu wrote:
interesting .. never played it but it could be fun. Could they do it like necromunda and release a simple faction fleet box every couple of months and expand from there? It doesn't necessarily have a large model range even across multiple factions initially.

For GW I think that would be the smart way to go. Do it like a Blackstone Fortress style with expansion and each expansion introduce new ships.

If BFG happens, good lord I hope they stick to the original rules. Obviously make necessary changes. The battery (fire power) chart was always silly. My broadside has 12 shots... and nope... down to 2... and they hardly ate your shields.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:
They’ve been teasing plastic Thunderhawks for more than a decade as well. So I’m doubtful for now.

And there's been a plastic Thunderhawk around for about a year now - possibly longer, but I can't remember exactly when it was released.

My point exactly, the fact that GW is teasing stuff now doesn't mean a release is imminent. You can still have to wait a decade before it is actually released and even then it is not the product fans were expecting.

You seem to have missed that a plastic Thunderhawk has been released, Malika. It exists, if a store can get stock in for you (which, given GW's recent challenges in that area, may be quite the hurdle to overcome). GW even claim it to be in stock on their website, at least for the UK.

GW teased a plastic Thunderhawk for a decade, the community expected a 40k scaled one, GW finally releases an Aeronautica scaled one. So yah…they did finally release model but not in the scale expected by the community. It’s also a running gag when GW released said model.

I look forward to packs of:

2 Escorts for $70
1 Cruiser for $60
1 Barge for $125
1 Battleship for $150

Then of course endless weapons frames for $30 or more.

 TalonZahn wrote:
I look forward to packs of:

2 Escorts for $70
1 Cruiser for $60
1 Barge for $125
1 Battleship for $150

Then of course endless weapons frames for $30 or more.

As a more serious guess we might take a clue from aeronautica, where it looks like almost all the boxes are $47, with the number of planes in the box varying.

So same price point would get you
One battleship
2 cruisers
4-8 escorts.

Of course, all speculation at this point.

 TalonZahn wrote:
I look forward to packs of:

2 Escorts for $70
1 Cruiser for $60
1 Barge for $125
1 Battleship for $150

Then of course endless weapons frames for $30 or more.

And escorts will be fielded in groups of 5

If you think you're going to get all that for @$47, I have an ocean beachfront property to sell you in South Dakota.

Also, there's NO WAY it would even @$47 for each line you listed.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Only $300 USD (£12) for an 8 ship starter.

If the exchange rate is this good, got to get me some Khador.

Warcradle has already shown how to evolve the original BFG sprues.

El Torro wrote:
Personally I'd rather GW focused its efforts on Epic (both is great too of course). BFG is a much smaller undertaking in terms of resources though, especially if the initial box is set during the Horus Heresy.

I never got into BFG when it was first released, too busy playing other GW games. If it expands to 40K and not just the Heresy I would check it out though.

At this time and age, I'd rather they simply left those games alone. The only things I can expect from GW rereleasing them are split playerbases and insane prices. Oh, and dozens and dozens of books with bites of the actual rules all over them, but rewritten and full of errata on each new one.

With all that we've seen so far with the current narrative of 40K, and the teases, GW would be silly to not have Battlefleet Gothic and Space Hulk due for release this year. There just isn't a better time to reintroduce them...

GW seems to have abandoned their Epic-scale plans due to the world crisies over the last three years, while BSF has been on the go since late 2018. On all three accounts its a time for a change.

SamusDrake wrote:
With all that we've seen so far with the current narrative of 40K, and the teases, GW would be silly to not have Battlefleet Gothic and Space Hulk due for release this year. There just isn't a better time to reintroduce them...

GW seems to have abandoned their Epic-scale plans due to the world crisies over the last three years, while BSF has been on the go since late 2018. On all three accounts its a time for a change.

Emphasis in quoted post mine ; especially if the rumoured new Indomitus Terminators in the 10th Ed. starter come true..

Am I the only one who thinks that they don't need to do much for BFG other than reissue the rules, add in a fleet or two for play, and then make some model sets?

 TalonZahn wrote:
If you think you're going to get all that for @$47, I have an ocean beachfront property to sell you in South Dakota.

Also, there's NO WAY it would even @$47 for each line you listed.

Maybe I’m mistaken about the scale of aeronotica. Never seen it played in person. But GW is selling forces for one of their specialist games right now at that price point.

I’ll give you that GW will never sell BFG forces for that price, it’s not released yet, and the example prices from another game are older. So it might be $50, or whatever the equivalent at time of release is.

But I didn’t pull those number out of nowhere. Go check out the webstore. This is active GW pricing for a live product.

Unless they shift the scale up to something like the AoS Kahradron overlord ships, I suspect my guess is going to be better than yours.

 Just Tony wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that they don't need to do much for BFG other than reissue the rules, add in a fleet or two for play, and then make some model sets?

I think you just restated their general business model

I imagine that a decent business case for releasing BFG versus some other kind of release and the ROI is probably a bit more involved. Depending on one’s opinion of GWs capabilities.

The pricing will be more along the lines of Titanicus than Aeronautica.

BFG is the easiest game to get right

Goose LeChance wrote:
BFG is the easiest game to get right

Which makes it so very easy for GW to get it wrong.

First Horus Heresy, now rumors of BFG and Epic coming out in the future, GW may end up doing a lot for 3D printing. I really don't think any game lends itself to the advantages of resin 3D printing more than Battlefleet Gothic, great cost savings per model, looks great on the intricate ship details, and you only need a handful of models to field a full force.

 frankelee wrote:
First Horus Heresy, now rumors of BFG and Epic coming out in the future, GW may end up doing a lot for 3D printing. I really don't think any game lends itself to the advantages of resin 3D printing more than Battlefleet Gothic, great cost savings per model, looks great on the intricate ship details, and you only need a handful of models to field a full force.

I'm sure that's a major incentive for GW right there.

 Just Tony wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that they don't need to do much for BFG other than reissue the rules, add in a fleet or two for play, and then make some model sets?

oh man I hope GW gives it a little more effort.

BFG was my first tabletop and I really enjoyed playing it. In my opinion, the rules are now outdated and need a general overhaul.

I still hope that the rules of AT are some kind of template for the coming rebirth of BFG *fingers crossed*, I think the rules could be transferred quite well.

habedekrai37 wrote:
In my opinion, the rules are now outdated and need a general overhaul.

What would you like them to overhaul, while keeping the feel of a naval game in spaaaace?

 Dysartes wrote:

habedekrai37 wrote:
In my opinion, the rules are now outdated and need a general overhaul.

What would you like them to overhaul, while keeping the feel of a naval game in spaaaace?

in any case:
- Sheets / Terminals for the ships
- no more tables
- alternating activation
- micromanagement
- some innovative and elegant mechanics

:-)

Terminals? Ugh fun with big battles with big pile of terminals...

Okay here's 12 escorts. How do I fit all those terminals?

 privateer4hire wrote:
Only $300 USD (£12) for an 8 ship starter.

It's ok it's worked that way in reverse for warmahordes for ages. A full squad/army used to be cheaper for W/H or the same price as 40k in the US back at it's peak, where as it was often more expensive in the UK by a decent chunk.

tneva82 wrote:
Terminals? Ugh fun with big battles with big pile of terminals...

Okay here's 12 escorts. How do I fit all those terminals?

or smaller battles with only a few ships...

@Escorts: maybe 1 Terminal / squadron?

habedekrai37 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

habedekrai37 wrote:
In my opinion, the rules are now outdated and need a general overhaul.

What would you like them to overhaul, while keeping the feel of a naval game in spaaaace?

in any case:
- Sheets / Terminals for the ships
- no more tables
- alternating activation
- micromanagement
- some innovative and elegant mechanics

:-)

Sheets/Terminals is probably a thing they'd do, it's basically just an alternative way of bookkeeping, it fundamentally does not really matter
Tables: the firepower table is the core of the BFG 'engine' and is actually an elegant mechanic, getting rid of it would probably be a bad move
Alternate activation is another thing that's not good/bad per se, depends on the implementation
Micromanagement: You could probably streamline some of the ordnance stuff and special orders, but other than that there's not really much micromanagement compared to other games

All BFG needs is a general cleanup of wording and such as it's from the era where GW wrote rules like they were prose.

AI is really the only specialist game that GW dumbed down to worthlessness and I bet sales numbers made it clear that's not the right approach, so I wouldn't worry too much.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
All BFG needs is a general cleanup of wording and such as it's from the era where GW wrote rules like they were prose.

AI is really the only specialist game that GW dumbed down to worthlessness and I bet sales numbers made it clear that's not the right approach, so I wouldn't worry too much.

Yeah, the rules for BFG are mostly on a rock-solid foundation that works and only need a touch-up on wording and some rebalancing for the Xenos races at most, other than that it's mostly 'want' and not 'need' - you can always add more ship classes, expand on additional fleets or give us spiffy new models, but none of that is a necessity.

habedekrai37 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Terminals? Ugh fun with big battles with big pile of terminals...

Okay here's 12 escorts. How do I fit all those terminals?

or smaller battles with only a few ships...

@Escorts: maybe 1 Terminal / squadron?

Thing is BFG worked just fine in bigger fleets and indeed was more of problem in smaller games...

The rules weren't issue. Availability of them and models is.

Why break what works? Being forced to play smaller games is hardly improvement.

tneva82 wrote:
Terminals? Ugh fun with big battles with big pile of terminals...

Okay here's 12 escorts. How do I fit all those terminals?

Probably in the same way they lumped 2-6 Knights together in a single terminal, and such smaller ships turn out to be a last minute thought because "its supposed to be about the larger starships! Why would you play with anything less than a fleet of Blackstone Fortresses?".

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that we should have saved ourselves the hassle, and bought a copy of A Billion Suns instead...

A Billion Suns isn't a naval game tho. If you're happy using any mechanic to push ships around a table, you're better off with One Page Rules FTL instead.

They would have the design requirement of more ships faster game. You actually didn't use much and the game lasted quite a while.

I would hope the ships get smaller to make them easier to use on the table top, but what will happen is they get bigger, probably to firestorm size.

Hmm, or maybe bigger cruisers / battleships and smaller escorts? Think Battlefleet Galaxy here.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A Billion Suns isn't a naval game tho. If you're happy using any mechanic to push ships around a table, you're better off with One Page Rules FTL instead.

Even better, although the point is that I've learned to stand on the side of caution when it comes to anticipating a new edition or game from GW...

Don't really need alternating activation if they just make the damage applied at the end of each phase or turn like in Battletech or even the last version of Apocalypse.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Don't really need alternating activation if they just make the damage applied at the end of each phase or turn like in Battletech or even the last version of Apocalypse.

Oooh that's a nice idea. It would even be super easy to implement, blast markers are already a game mechanic, jkust pile them on for each "penetrating" hit and resolve them all at the end.

BFG was a great game, but (much like WH40k at the time) was too easily broken by fielding loads of cheap units. The focus should always be on the capital ships duking it out, not trying to avoid being overwhelmed by loads of little support ships.

I'm kind-of excited to see the return of BFG. In the pre-pandemic era a friend of mine and I were trying to home-brew our own game borrowing heavily from the BFG rules.

Basically it involved a generic ship creator so you could make anything (and use any miniature) from Star Trek to Star Wars, to Battlestar Galactica, to a generic sci-fi. Smaller scale encounters with 1 large ship or a handful of smaller ones.

A reboot of BFG might inspire me to get back to this.

 Snord wrote:
BFG was a great game, but (much like WH40k at the time) was too easily broken by fielding loads of cheap units. The focus should always be on the capital ships duking it out, not trying to avoid being overwhelmed by loads of little support ships.

Trick to that might be introducing an FOC-alike, where you build by Squadron?

 Snord wrote:
BFG was a great game, but (much like WH40k at the time) was too easily broken by fielding loads of cheap units. The focus should always be on the capital ships duking it out, not trying to avoid being overwhelmed by loads of little support ships.

Well that's your opinion. For others deathstars isn't appeal in any game

I'd love a new BFG, but controversially, I'd like to see it in a much bigger scale - I would like the ships to be bigger, and plastic....

Imagine each ship costing as much as a tank.

Snord wrote:BFG was a great game, but (much like WH40k at the time) was too easily broken by fielding loads of cheap units. The focus should always be on the capital ships duking it out, not trying to avoid being overwhelmed by loads of little support ships.

This is odd to me because it was a long-recognized issue that escorts were too vulnerable, particularly to strike craft. The massed turret rule was introduced specifically to stop assault boats from making escorts an endangered species.

Even in the most recent version of the rules, a fleet that spams escorts either goes hard into MSU and suffers for lack of special orders, or gets penalized by the unwieldiness of large formations, and won't have any strike craft of its own. I don't think I've ever seen an escort fleet dominate the table.

StraightSilver wrote:I'd love a new BFG, but controversially, I'd like to see it in a much bigger scale - I would like the ships to be bigger, and plastic....

I've heard a lot of people say the same, but I dunno how you're supposed to make that work on the table in a game where facing is important but ships physically colliding with another is a problem as it stands. Much larger bases, I guess? But then you start approaching parking lot battlefields, which is really no good for the sort of game BFG is.

StraightSilver wrote:
I'd love a new BFG, but controversially, I'd like to see it in a much bigger scale - I would like the ships to be bigger, and plastic....

BFG is one of the few GW games where the tables are not overladen with units and things and actual, meaningful manoeuvering and positioning can take place, if you'd enlarged the ships much that would probably suffer. Also, changing scales always has the potential to anger owners of existing collections. A version where you control maybe one capital ship, a couple of escorts and more defined and diversified ordnance could be cool as well, but that would be a new game, a bit like Titanicus in space, and not reall BFG redux.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Snord wrote:
BFG was a great game, but (much like WH40k at the time) was too easily broken by fielding loads of cheap units. The focus should always be on the capital ships duking it out, not trying to avoid being overwhelmed by loads of little support ships.

Trick to that might be introducing an FOC-alike, where you build by Squadron?

Dystopian Wars solves it by battleships unlocking cruisers, rather than BFG's cruisers unlocking battleships. In any case it doesn't matter as long as units are balanced.

The issue of models bumping into each other was already solved neatly bySpartan Games by making the second range band, rather than the first, the optimal shooting distance.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A Billion Suns isn't a naval game tho. If you're happy using any mechanic to push ships around a table, you're better off with One Page Rules FTL instead.

If you want a game for this sort of thing, a space based Castles in the Sky seems like a better option to me than A Billion Suns.

Also solves some of the "escort" issues folks are talking about above.

 Dysartes wrote:

habedekrai37 wrote:
In my opinion, the rules are now outdated and need a general overhaul.

What would you like them to overhaul, while keeping the feel of a naval game in spaaaace?

Dropfleet Commander, also written by Andy Chambers, feels more modern and streamlined to me. Well, the space battle rules do. The “drop” part of the game just gets in the way, but that was the brand.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

The issue of models bumping into each other was already solved neatly bySpartan Games by making the second range band, rather than the first, the optimal shooting distance.

That would be interesting.

Tsagualsa wrote:

StraightSilver wrote:
I'd love a new BFG, but controversially, I'd like to see it in a much bigger scale - I would like the ships to be bigger, and plastic....

. A version where you control maybe one capital ship, a couple of escorts and more defined and diversified ordnance could be cool as well, but that would be a new game, a bit like Titanicus in space, and not reall BFG redux.

That does sound pretty cool - a much larger scale version of the Expanse battles in some ways

If this is a) true and b) not intended to be a one box only splash release, then please not the Aeronautica release model. Everything about the way they "supported" AI, killed that game.

Otherwise, bring it on. I doubt they can do multiple races, so guessing Heresy style Imperial vs Chaos. I'd be fine with that if there was a steady release of ships (Necromunda pace is about right).

interesting how the wishes and hopes diverge, hopefully we will soon know in which direction BFG will go

I just think bigger models are more realistic:

- more details
- old ships not usable
- harder to print yourself

something else:

There is always talk that the remake could be Horus Heresy only. Will we then change style? The iconic imperial ships from the old BFG are more from the post-HH era?

I'm not sure why people think they can't do a full range. Certainly they have recently often chosen to be stingy with sprue allocation, but it's defnitely not a matter of ability when they can casually tool half a dozen or more new sprues of Warcry whenever they feel like, multiple times per year.

"Can" and "will" are definitely very different things, in relation with GW.

How much shelf space and SKUs they want to dedicate to it is probably more relevant then production/design capacity. It was a game sold in the days of blister packs. Which was great, as one blister was a flotilla of escorts. The primary way GW displayed products matched the way the game was sold/marketed/structured. These days GW is mostly boxes, with only a small section for clampacks

They could easily put 4 destroyers on a character sized sprue. But do they want to dedicate the shelf space to have every unit broken down like that? Would they rather have a normal units sized box with a “fleet support section” with 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and a light cruiser. All sharing a medium sized sprue. If they make them multi-build, you could have one box cover a lot of ground for a faction. I know the imperial and chaos cruisers did an excellent job of this in the prior edition, where one set of hulls made a LOT of options. Not sure how well this would scale down to smaller ships, or other factions.

Or they could hand out destroyers like tyranids get ripper swarms. Just toss an escort onto every ship of the line sprue, so you get the little guys hand in hand with the big ones! (this is a horrible idea)

habedekrai37 wrote:
interesting how the wishes and hopes diverge, hopefully we will soon know in which direction BFG will go

I just think bigger models are more realistic:

- more details
- old ships not usable
- harder to print yourself

something else:

There is always talk that the remake could be Horus Heresy only. Will we then change style? The iconic imperial ships from the old BFG are more from the post-HH era?

Bigger models are also terrible game pieces. Arguably the current models are too large to the extent we have to keep a supply of empty stands on hand to replace the ships with when they get too close. My 3D printer dream is printing my own fleets where the cruisers are the length of the base diameter so I don't get that problem...

 Nevelon wrote:
How much shelf space and SKUs they want to dedicate to it is probably more relevant then production/design capacity. It was a game sold in the days of blister packs. Which was great, as one blister was a flotilla of escorts. The primary way GW displayed products matched the way the game was sold/marketed/structured. These days GW is mostly boxes, with only a small section for clampacks

They could easily put 4 destroyers on a character sized sprue. But do they want to dedicate the shelf space to have every unit broken down like that? Would they rather have a normal units sized box with a “fleet support section” with 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and a light cruiser. All sharing a medium sized sprue. If they make them multi-build, you could have one box cover a lot of ground for a faction. I know the imperial and chaos cruisers did an excellent job of this in the prior edition, where one set of hulls made a LOT of options. Not sure how well this would scale down to smaller ships, or other factions.

Or they could hand out destroyers like tyranids get ripper swarms. Just toss an escort onto every ship of the line sprue, so you get the little guys hand in hand with the big ones! (this is a horrible idea)

Again the Dystopian Wars reboot is a good guide here. The typical box is a resin battleship and 2-6 sprues. There are currently about 3-4 sprues per faction. The most common sprue builds a cruiser (in any of 4-8 different classes and that's only counting hull stats and weapon layouts, not weapon choices of which each hardpoint has 2-4 , or can be replaced with a module that buffs something else) and about 2 smaller, usually monobuild support models (either a pair of frigates, destroyers, submarines...). The ratio of SKUs to different game elements is incredible. And these are sprues the size of a regular Specialist Games sprue with a 4x8" footprint, like Necromunda gangs.

remember the ship itself is just a representative of the model, not the scale of the model, the flying stem and base are the "ship", so if there is a scale change then a change of base is all that is required.

Since I have started playing Battletech I have stopped worrying so much about things like scale and have gotten more into the fact that all these games are abstract.

 catbarf wrote:

This is odd to me because it was a long-recognized issue that escorts were too vulnerable, particularly to strike craft. The massed turret rule was introduced specifically to stop assault boats from making escorts an endangered species.
[...]
Much larger bases, I guess? But then you start approaching parking lot battlefields, which is really no good for the sort of game BFG is.

You must have been blessed to never be on the receiving side of Eldar Hemlock Spam. Those 40pts f*****s were a menace ( and also filled a whole quarter of the board).

My theory is that most of us remember BFG so fondly because Imperium vs Chaos was really well designed and due to the cost of (Forgeworld!) metal and the lack of internet lists the abusive stuff rarely seen.

Just fyi i remember:
- Eldar Escort Spam
- Imp Nova Spam (fixed?)
- Imp Torpedo Spam ( fixed)
- Chaos Dreadclaw (boarding) Spam ( fixed)
- Necrons just being better at everything

I honestly cannot remember an open ( fair ) game of BFG without it only being Imp/Chaos. (That is: between competent admirals)

Just give me a plastic Repulsive class grand cruiser, and I'm in.

Formosa wrote:remember the ship itself is just a representative of the model, not the scale of the model, the flying stem and base are the "ship", so if there is a scale change then a change of base is all that is required.

Since I have started playing Battletech I have stopped worrying so much about things like scale and have gotten more into the fact that all these games are abstract.

Change of base has a significant impact on mechanics, though. You can have bases overlap, but then you lose multiple shields to blast markers. In a game that is so maneuver-heavy, you really need space to breathe.

Abstract scale is fine. The game already tells you that 1cm = 1000 miles and the models are just representative. But when you start changing gameplay elements to accommodate larger models, of course there will be gameplay consequences.

CoALabaer wrote:You must have been blessed to never be on the receiving side of Eldar Hemlock Spam. Those 40pts f*****s were a menace ( and also filled a whole quarter of the board).

My theory is that most of us remember BFG so fondly because Imperium vs Chaos was really well designed and due to the cost of (Forgeworld!) metal and the lack of internet lists the abusive stuff rarely seen.

Just fyi i remember:
- Eldar Escort Spam
- Imp Nova Spam (fixed?)
- Imp Torpedo Spam ( fixed)
- Chaos Dreadclaw (boarding) Spam ( fixed)
- Necrons just being better at everything

I honestly cannot remember an open ( fair ) game of BFG without it only being Imp/Chaos. (That is: between competent admirals)

My locals and I play BFG fairly regularly, so it's not really a rose-tinted glasses thing. Yeah, Eldar can spam escorts- they're an escort fleet, though, so that's not really exploitative so much as how they're designed to be played. Though I do feel that the way Eldar were designed is incongruous with the rest of the game and creates balance issues, so I much prefer the fan-made MMS ruleset.

Nova spam was addressed with the elimination of guessing (good riddance) and then a further tweak to scatter in I believe the 2010 update, torpedoes were fixed by the 2010 update changing all torps to use the strength-3 marker, assault boat spam was fixed by changes to attack craft, the addition of massed turrets, and the revision to killing escorts on 4+ rather than 2+. Some of those came later than others, but by the time GW dropped support they had patched the game into a pretty good state.

Necrons, eh, YMMV. They're deliberately overpowered, but come with such harsh VP conditions that if you can concentrate fire to take out one Necron cruiser you pretty much win right then and there. I thought they captured the Lovecraftian horror theme of oldcrons pretty darn well, and fighting them always has that sense of desperately hanging on against a superior foe, but I completely understand the criticism. I wouldn't mind a revision just to align them to the modern fluff if nothing else.

All that said, in the early days it was apparent that the game was balanced around Imperials vs Chaos, and the xenos factions were designed to face off against one of those core two, rather than each other. But that did improve as time went on. By the end of active rules support while there were still some bad matchups (Tyranids vs Eldar and Orks vs Eldar in particular) and some of the races were under-developed (Dark Eldar), for the most part BFG hit a pretty solid point of balance and the final version of the ruleset as encapsulated by BFG Remastered is very playable. There's still a pretty active community keeping the game alive with 3D printed models and not a lot of tweaks to the rules.

Playing a minor fleet (Orks, Marines, Eldar) you really had to control the scenario. They were optimised for certain things, broadly not full scale fleet engagements.

- Eldar Escort Spam - That was their fleet. As for effectiveness they beat other escorts, but died to cruisers. They needed pretty god admiraling and use of LOS blocking terrain like asteroid fields or they died to the first massed battery they encountered.

- Imp Nova Spam (fixed?) - Sort of. The revision meant they hit 1/3+ of the time. We instituted a separate fix of
Short range - Hit, hit, Miss, 1D6 scatter
Medium Range - Hit, 1D6 scatter, Miss, 2D6 scatter
Long Range - Hit, 2D6 scatter, Miss, 3D6 scatter

So they became an anti fleet weapon not a massed sniper weapon.

- Imp Torpedo Spam ( fixed) - Well We never thought it was a problem? The use of fighters on CAP negated torps pretty hard.

- Chaos Dreadclaw (boarding) Spam ( fixed) - Against escorts? Massed turrets and bracing against hit and runs seem to fix it for us, I hadn't encountered the 4+ rule above, where was that?

- Necrons just being better at everything - In general their VP conditions meant they were very hard to win with. However it wasn't fun being wiped by them, even if you do win. It was though true to their background at the time.

Nids - Would add these guys. Very odd fleet, easy to screw on scenarios we found.

 Formosa wrote:
remember the ship itself is just a representative of the model, not the scale of the model, the flying stem and base are the "ship", so if there is a scale change then a change of base is all that is required.

Since I have started playing Battletech I have stopped worrying so much about things like scale and have gotten more into the fact that all these games are abstract.

Sue. But how much bigger models can be made without upping size of base?

And if bases are increased board becomes more crowded and manouvering importance matters less. Much like what happened in 40k.

And more overlap of bases makes playing less convenientt as models bump into each other.

Yeah, I played Eldar. I would say that my overall experience is that they'd do well against a balanced force, but if someone geared up specifically for my fleet (i.e. battery spam)...it could get pretty ugly for me.

 Formosa wrote:

Since I have started playing Battletech I have stopped worrying so much about things like scale and have gotten more into the fact that all these games are abstract.

But battletech has a very rigid scale. The ground scale. The hexes car not for the scale of the model in them. Indeed they could be counters and are in many wargames.

Play battlefleet with hexes and I wouldn't care about model size. But currently the critical thing is the base, and the model on top getting in the way of putting things close to each other.

tneva82 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
remember the ship itself is just a representative of the model, not the scale of the model, the flying stem and base are the "ship", so if there is a scale change then a change of base is all that is required.

Since I have started playing Battletech I have stopped worrying so much about things like scale and have gotten more into the fact that all these games are abstract.

Sue. But how much bigger models can be made without upping size of base?

And if bases are increased board becomes more crowded and manouvering importance matters less. Much like what happened in 40k.

And more overlap of bases makes playing less convenientt as models bump into each other.

Going the other way, though, I don't think there'd be anything stopping The_Real_Chris printing a fleet where the ships fit within the base size, so long as the bases remained the same size as in the rules (and, for now, assuming he isn't just replicating the existing designs at a smaller scale, but using new/different designs for the ships, to avoid the questionable legality of such a move).

The_Real_Chris wrote:

habedekrai37 wrote:
interesting how the wishes and hopes diverge, hopefully we will soon know in which direction BFG will go

I just think bigger models are more realistic:

- more details
- old ships not usable
- harder to print yourself

something else:

There is always talk that the remake could be Horus Heresy only. Will we then change style? The iconic imperial ships from the old BFG are more from the post-HH era?

Bigger models are also terrible game pieces. Arguably the current models are too large to the extent we have to keep a supply of empty stands on hand to replace the ships with when they get too close. My 3D printer dream is printing my own fleets where the cruisers are the length of the base diameter so I don't get that problem...

Why? With Star Wars Armada, it works great with the large bases and models. It doesn't mean that the flying stem is so important in the remake of BFG. With larger models, the base may be more relevant than the stem

Hard disagree on that. Optimal firing range being shorter than the length of the ship looks dumb and plays dumb and nothing about having to get my sausage fingers to the dials in the base when every model on the table invariably clumps up in one solid ball in the middle works well.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
How much shelf space and SKUs they want to dedicate to it is probably more relevant then production/design capacity. It was a game sold in the days of blister packs. Which was great, as one blister was a flotilla of escorts. The primary way GW displayed products matched the way the game was sold/marketed/structured. These days GW is mostly boxes, with only a small section for clampacks

They could easily put 4 destroyers on a character sized sprue. But do they want to dedicate the shelf space to have every unit broken down like that? Would they rather have a normal units sized box with a “fleet support section” with 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and a light cruiser. All sharing a medium sized sprue. If they make them multi-build, you could have one box cover a lot of ground for a faction. I know the imperial and chaos cruisers did an excellent job of this in the prior edition, where one set of hulls made a LOT of options. Not sure how well this would scale down to smaller ships, or other factions.

Or they could hand out destroyers like tyranids get ripper swarms. Just toss an escort onto every ship of the line sprue, so you get the little guys hand in hand with the big ones! (this is a horrible idea)

Again the Dystopian Wars reboot is a good guide here. The typical box is a resin battleship and 2-6 sprues. There are currently about 3-4 sprues per faction. The most common sprue builds a cruiser (in any of 4-8 different classes and that's only counting hull stats and weapon layouts, not weapon choices of which each hardpoint has 2-4 , or can be replaced with a module that buffs something else) and about 2 smaller, usually monobuild support models (either a pair of frigates, destroyers, submarines...). The ratio of SKUs to different game elements is incredible. And these are sprues the size of a regular Specialist Games sprue with a 4x8" footprint, like Necromunda gangs.

This does seem the natural answer for any game where you need variety, but don’t want to commit a huge amount of resources.

The Imperial and Chaos BFG cruisers, and similar kits I’m passingly familiar with embraced this. And it worked. Same hull shape for easy visual recognition. Different gubbins to define different Classes (is that the right word?) and greeblies to personalise to some extent.

But BFG also got it a bit wrong. Show me to this very day the different Ork and Eldar Cruisers, and if I get it’s Class right, that’s luck more than judgement. Though I suspect someone still playing probably could fairly handily.

The imperial and Chaos ones were great though. Yes it took some learning to say exactly which was which. But visually, one could easily tell Lunar, Dictator and Mars for instance, were distinct classes. And those differences were Lances/Batteries/Launch Bays. So even if I didn’t know the ship’s exact Class? I got a key visual indicator as to what that/those ship(s) could do. Same with the Ram and Nova Cannon, not to mention dorsal Lance Batteries. All very simple but visually distinct touches which added a lot to the game experience. Provided nobody was proxying.

But you have to admit, the armada coffee table bases for big ships really adds to the visual appeal.

 privateer4hire wrote:
But you have to admit, the armada coffee table bases for big ships really adds to the visual appeal.

Eh. Let’s just say the Jury is out on that one, as it’s my second least favourite thing about Armada.

Actually. Third.

First is the price per ship (sweet Googly Moogly!)

Second is the pathetic first impression I got at a crappy SciFi convention (where the only guest anyone cared about cancelled, and they kept quiet about). The starter set being used seemingly had Factory Second ships. Wonky engines. Sloppy pre-paints. At that point I was playing X-Wing and had a decent collection, so knew FFG normally did decent models. But man. That’s the copy they demo’s with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Expanding on the price because I think it might make an interesting discussion point?

I love SciFi starships. Blame Star Wars for that. And I’d be happy to buy the odd X-Wing model purely for display purposes, because they are Bloody Nice Models, and accurate.

If I could go back in time, I’d have kept some of my BFG models for that very reason. Well, the plastic ones metal BFG was trauma.

But Armada? Yikes. As you might know, my cash cannon is bored for GW’s prices. But the SSD is £215. After discount. £215!!! That is an Eff Off Price, through and through.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
How much shelf space and SKUs they want to dedicate to it is probably more relevant then production/design capacity. It was a game sold in the days of blister packs. Which was great, as one blister was a flotilla of escorts. The primary way GW displayed products matched the way the game was sold/marketed/structured. These days GW is mostly boxes, with only a small section for clampacks

They could easily put 4 destroyers on a character sized sprue. But do they want to dedicate the shelf space to have every unit broken down like that? Would they rather have a normal units sized box with a “fleet support section” with 4 destroyers, 3 frigates and a light cruiser. All sharing a medium sized sprue. If they make them multi-build, you could have one box cover a lot of ground for a faction. I know the imperial and chaos cruisers did an excellent job of this in the prior edition, where one set of hulls made a LOT of options. Not sure how well this would scale down to smaller ships, or other factions.

Or they could hand out destroyers like tyranids get ripper swarms. Just toss an escort onto every ship of the line sprue, so you get the little guys hand in hand with the big ones! (this is a horrible idea)

Again the Dystopian Wars reboot is a good guide here. The typical box is a resin battleship and 2-6 sprues. There are currently about 3-4 sprues per faction. The most common sprue builds a cruiser (in any of 4-8 different classes and that's only counting hull stats and weapon layouts, not weapon choices of which each hardpoint has 2-4 , or can be replaced with a module that buffs something else) and about 2 smaller, usually monobuild support models (either a pair of frigates, destroyers, submarines...). The ratio of SKUs to different game elements is incredible. And these are sprues the size of a regular Specialist Games sprue with a 4x8" footprint, like Necromunda gangs.

This does seem the natural answer for any game where you need variety, but don’t want to commit a huge amount of resources.

The Imperial and Chaos BFG cruisers, and similar kits I’m passingly familiar with embraced this. And it worked. Same hull shape for easy visual recognition. Different gubbins to define different Classes (is that the right word?) and greeblies to personalise to some extent.

But BFG also got it a bit wrong. Show me to this very day the different Ork and Eldar Cruisers, and if I get it’s Class right, that’s luck more than judgement. Though I suspect someone still playing probably could fairly handily.

The imperial and Chaos ones were great though. Yes it took some learning to say exactly which was which. But visually, one could easily tell Lunar, Dictator and Mars for instance, were distinct classes. And those differences were Lances/Batteries/Launch Bays. So even if I didn’t know the ship’s exact Class? I got a key visual indicator as to what that/those ship(s) could do. Same with the Ram and Nova Cannon, not to mention dorsal Lance Batteries. All very simple but visually distinct touches which added a lot to the game experience. Provided nobody was proxying.

Add another one to the pile of tragedies that is early-00s GW: they got that modular ship thing right, and years before the competition arose, but they just stuck to their 'pump and dump' scheme of letting non-mainline games starve with minimal to no support after the initial release. To this day, i'm kind of in awe that we don't have an 'official' Warhammer 40k space game - it's so prominent a part of the setting, has so much appeal both for existing and new players, and could deliver so many cool models, visuals and stories, but for some reason it just doesn't exist. It really boggles the mind.

And in a day before magnetising had become a thing.

Been years since I bought, let alone built a BFG ship so forgive me if the core hull wasn’t solid enough for days magnestisation.

Should have been fairly easy to magnetize. Or at least blu tack. I still have all my stuff - in fact think I have 3 peoples' old collections. A bit embarassed by the terrible kitbashes I did back then.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Should have been fairly easy to magnetize. Or at least blu tack. I still have all my stuff - in fact think I have 3 peoples' old collections. A bit embarassed by the terrible kitbashes I did back then.

I don’t have any unbuilt, but the hulls on the cruisers would be trivial if memory serves.

Prow guns and dorsal turrets might be a little harder. Very fiddly bits.

I’m actually pretty happy with my kitbashes of the day. But it was just Nurgle marking a few ships with GS and some nurglings, so not exactly precision work.

 Nevelon wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Should have been fairly easy to magnetize. Or at least blu tack. I still have all my stuff - in fact think I have 3 peoples' old collections. A bit embarassed by the terrible kitbashes I did back then.

I don’t have any unbuilt, but the hulls on the cruisers would be trivial if memory serves.

Prow guns and dorsal turrets might be a little harder. Very fiddly bits.

I’m actually pretty happy with my kitbashes of the day. But it was just Nurgle marking a few ships with GS and some nurglings, so not exactly precision work.

Spoiler:

Dorsal turrets you'd just pin, not magnetize.

The_Real_Chris wrote:- Chaos Dreadclaw (boarding) Spam ( fixed) - Against escorts? Massed turrets and bracing against hit and runs seem to fix it for us, I hadn't encountered the 4+ rule above, where was that?

- Necrons just being better at everything - In general their VP conditions meant they were very hard to win with. However it wasn't fun being wiped by them, even if you do win. It was though true to their background at the time.

Nids - Would add these guys. Very odd fleet, easy to screw on scenarios we found.

The 2010 FAQ is what changed escorts to being destroyed on 4+. It made a number of other gameplay changes to address long-standing problems, so is worth checking out.

Necrons and Tyranids are the two fleets that IMO could use some redesign. Necrons to play a little more normally, since a lot of people don't like winning on VP, and Tyranids to codify/revise the instinctive behavior system, which is a little 'fuzzy' and can be hard to fairly resolve.

(The fanmade XR ruleset makes some pretty big changes, but there are enough of them I don't like that I'm not super keen on it as a whole)

Dysartes wrote:Going the other way, though, I don't think there'd be anything stopping The_Real_Chris printing a fleet where the ships fit within the base size, so long as the bases remained the same size as in the rules (and, for now, assuming he isn't just replicating the existing designs at a smaller scale, but using new/different designs for the ships, to avoid the questionable legality of such a move).

Yup, smaller models on the same base sizes has no impact on gameplay. There's already a set of fanmade 3D files called Microfleet Gothic that basically reproduce the ships at half scale, so put those on standard bases and you're good to go. Though they're intended to be used with smaller bases (20mm for cruisers, 30mm for battleships, and multiple escorts on a single base) and all distances halved to play much larger battles.

 catbarf wrote:

Yup, smaller models on the same base sizes has no impact on gameplay. There's already a set of fanmade 3D files called Microfleet Gothic that basically reproduce the ships at half scale, so put those on standard bases and you're good to go. Though they're intended to be used with smaller bases (20mm for cruisers, 30mm for battleships, and multiple escorts on a single base) and all distances halved to play much larger battles.

That sounds right up my alley - i think most GW 'battle' games would be much better if you increased the table sizes by a factor of 2-4, or shrunk the models accordingly. It feels a bit ridiculous to talk about 'tactical manoeuvering' or even have transports when turn one charges are a thing and a lot of units can cross the table in a couple of turns. There's just literally no room to have skirmishes between infiltrators and scouts before the main armies meet, or do meaningful flank moves and so on.

Change of base has a significant impact on mechanics, though. You can have bases overlap, but then you lose multiple shields to blast markers. In a game that is so maneuver-heavy, you really need space to breathe.

Abstract scale is fine. The game already tells you that 1cm = 1000 miles and the models are just representative. But when you start changing gameplay elements to accommodate larger models, of course there will be gameplay consequences.

Yeah you are completely correct, a base swap would solve that issue though from old to new if they do indeed change the base size, if they just change the size of the models then its not a problem

just a guess but I do think the bases will change from the flimsy flying stand to likely use the new one.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

habedekrai37 wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

habedekrai37 wrote:
interesting how the wishes and hopes diverge, hopefully we will soon know in which direction BFG will go

I just think bigger models are more realistic:

- more details
- old ships not usable
- harder to print yourself

something else:

There is always talk that the remake could be Horus Heresy only. Will we then change style? The iconic imperial ships from the old BFG are more from the post-HH era?

Bigger models are also terrible game pieces. Arguably the current models are too large to the extent we have to keep a supply of empty stands on hand to replace the ships with when they get too close. My 3D printer dream is printing my own fleets where the cruisers are the length of the base diameter so I don't get that problem...

I would very much like Armada scale for fighters, cruisers etc. but I do not believe that will happen.

Why? With Star Wars Armada, it works great with the large bases and models. It doesn't mean that the flying stem is so important in the remake of BFG. With larger models, the base may be more relevant than the stem

For reference, last week's blatant teaser

 lord_blackfang wrote:
For reference, last week's blatant teaser

There certainly has been a lot of quite detailled starship art around Arks of Omen, but that may still be coincidence. I hope not, but it may. Then of course, with that whole storyline, about now would be an excellent time to release a BFG boxed set themed around Imperium vs. Chaos, possibly with a gnarly Ark of Omen as centerpiece model.

I hope they don't change the model size

Goose LeChance wrote:
I hope they don't change the model size

I would hope not but why would they release it otherwise - they want people to buy models.

On the other hand both Necromunda and Aeronautica can be played with old models....

As someone with large-ish fleets of all the BFG factions, I'm hoping, if they re-do it, for smaller ships without flight stands. I can't tell you how many ships remain in dry dock because those stupid thin flying stems broke off inside the ships (both metal and plastic), and had to be drilled out, etc. And the flight stand is fairly useless. They had you measure to the "stem", rather than the base, but there is no actual mechanical reason it couldn't be to the base.

But, this being GW, the ships will get larger, the prices will be real high, and the starter will be $250-$300 for two battleships and 8 escorts, for a fleet battle game. Cruisers to come a year later... oh, and played on the cardboard game boards, so it'll look like a parking lot... alright, I admit I'm just a little bitter...

 lord_blackfang wrote:
For reference, last week's blatant teaser

How is this a "blatant" BFG teaser? It doesn't even slightly hint at the game, just having spaceships isn't an indication of BFG being teased.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
How is this a "blatant" BFG teaser? It doesn't even slightly hint at the game, just having spaceships isn't an indication of BFG being teased.

You think it's normal to depict 40k units riding on the outside of spaceships? That feel like normal 40k marketing to you? Feel free to point out other examples. Meanwhile GW has been putting out pictures of Navy and Chaos ships in various contexts for the past few months after a decade of nothing. One of the recent posts was asking "how many ships do you think you would need to assault the Rock?" which interestingly introduces the concept of owning a fleet of ships to the reader.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
How is this a "blatant" BFG teaser? It doesn't even slightly hint at the game, just having spaceships isn't an indication of BFG being teased.

You think it's normal to depict 40k units riding on the outside of spaceships? That feel like normal 40k marketing to you? Feel free to point out other examples. Meanwhile GW has been putting out pictures of Navy and Chaos ships in various contexts for the past few months after a decade of nothing.

....When it's what happens in the arks of omen book that features Angron, that released very recently and is presumably where the art is from, yes, that's not something unusual.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Yes, that one is clearly BFG related.

But that doesn't make a difference to the other one you said was "blatantly" BFG.

Maybe they're hinting that a new PC game or Warhammer+ show is on the way.

SamusDrake wrote:
Maybe they're hinting that a new PC game or Warhammer+ show is on the way.

That seems more likely... I've been hoping for a BFG reboot for forever, but somehow GW has never decided to pull the trigger. Feels like it's inevitable eventually, though... right?

Tsagualsa wrote:

That sounds right up my alley - i think most GW 'battle' games would be much better if you increased the table sizes by a factor of 2-4, or shrunk the models accordingly. It feels a bit ridiculous to talk about 'tactical manoeuvering' or even have transports when turn one charges are a thing and a lot of units can cross the table in a couple of turns. There's just literally no room to have skirmishes between infiltrators and scouts before the main armies meet, or do meaningful flank moves and so on.

You are just making me sad I don't get to play Epic every week anymore :( Using scouts to occupy forward areas, teleporting in terminators, assaulting, extracting them by thunderhawk off the board only to swoop back the next turn and air assault into some luckless unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Maybe they're hinting that a new PC game or Warhammer+ show is on the way.

That seems more likely... I've been hoping for a BFG reboot for forever, but somehow GW has never decided to pull the trigger. Feels like it's inevitable eventually, though... right?

I still play my BFG game on my old tablet at night to put myself to sleep...

 RiTides wrote:

That seems more likely... I've been hoping for a BFG reboot for forever, but somehow GW has never decided to pull the trigger. Feels like it's inevitable eventually, though... right?

Who knows my friend...listen, my shoes could do with a bit of spit and polish...I'll be right back...

Excellent police squad reference

Tsagualsa wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Yup, smaller models on the same base sizes has no impact on gameplay. There's already a set of fanmade 3D files called Microfleet Gothic that basically reproduce the ships at half scale, so put those on standard bases and you're good to go. Though they're intended to be used with smaller bases (20mm for cruisers, 30mm for battleships, and multiple escorts on a single base) and all distances halved to play much larger battles.

That sounds right up my alley - i think most GW 'battle' games would be much better if you increased the table sizes by a factor of 2-4, or shrunk the models accordingly. It feels a bit ridiculous to talk about 'tactical manoeuvering' or even have transports when turn one charges are a thing and a lot of units can cross the table in a couple of turns. There's just literally no room to have skirmishes between infiltrators and scouts before the main armies meet, or do meaningful flank moves and so on.

I absolutely share your criticism about a lot of GW games, but standard BFG definitely has space on a standard table to pull off actual maneuver. Most ships move 20-30cm per turn and weapon ranges are typically 30-45cm, with standard guns having penalties over 30cm, so you're not crossing the table or firing all guns turn 1. Much like Epic, it's very much not a game of 'line up and turn 1 charge' despite being a GW game on a 6x4 table. It's a far cry from 40K in a lot of ways.

Point being, I'd suggest giving the game a try as-is before you go all-in on shrinking the scale. Microfleet was designed to facilitate very large battles, rather than to simulate a much larger board.