How do!

Now this comes from a Rumour Engine, which is always something I take with a pinch of salt. But….

Rumour Engine 28 October 2025 wrote: Unless this is a Warhammer Age of Sigmar miniature, which it might be. Oooh, maybe it’s Necromunda – House Cawdor loves this stuff. Less likely to be Blood Bowl, but you never know.
Wait! Maybe it’s Battlefl–
[[CONNECTION LOST]]
…
[[LOADING CALL TO ACTION]]
…
++CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM++

Now I’m not gonna pretend GW isn’t beyond just winding us up. But it is a “missing” game system, and one pretty well regarded. I really hope it is a genuine tease and that BFG is set to make a return.

Being into my Heresy stuff I’d be happy with a Heresy version. But of course, a 40K set one would have the wider appeal. So…yeah. What do we reckon?

If it sticks to the same scale, I’m sure there’s plenty of folk who’ll embrace a mass plasticification of their fleet. The original Chaos and Imperial Crusisers still hold up today in terms of relative detailing and modularity. But the bigger one’s and Escorts? I’d be all over those in plastic.

I was around when Battlefleet Gothic was first released. Never got into it in the 90s but if it comes back they definitely have my attention.

A 40K Battlefleet Gothic would be great, though my money's on a Horus Heresy setting, if it gets released at all. If it is set in the Horus Heresy then I won't be buying into the game, Imperium vs Imperium just doesn't float my boat.

I also think it's a bit of an odd way to tease the release of the game. The rumour image looks like a 28mm scale mace, not very starship like.

Doubtful. First time I heard "Battlefleet is coming back" was back when Betrayal at Calth got released from the Edinburgh store manager, and it's been in the water every time another specialist game gets new stuff.

They've done a few "blatant" BFG teases in the past few years that all turned out to be nothing :(

Might be the stinger at the end of the forthcoming preview show? Like they did with Legions Imperialis what feels like forever ago.

A heresy era BFG would get dull quickly, hopefully they don't go down that path.

"Wait - you play Battlefleet Gothic?"

"No, I just like to read Warprift. If you have Warprift - you don't Battlefleet Gothic!"

Seriously, the fanzine is wonderful to read but I wouldn't buy into BFG as I much prefer other games. Therefore, BFG is happening and will be well supported and remain in the 40K era, just to spite my wish for Space Hulk or a new 40K Quest.

Man-O-War...on the other hand...IS something I would buy into. Therefore...it won't happen.

Maybe Boarding Actions gets an update?

HH: Boarding Actions?

Yeah, this would be the big jump back in game for me. Absolutely loved it back in the day. Had a gorgeous Eldar fleet along with Chaos, Imperials and a wacky Ork fleet. Im sure it will return one day Im just not sure its anytime soon The only games prolly farther out would be Gorkamorka and Inquisitor.

How often have previous rumour engine texts hinted at future releases? I've always thought of them more as in-jokes than actual hints. Maybe I'm wrong about that?

If it's real I think a third (fourth?) Heresy game would be to much. 40k version would be a lot more interesting.

I’m trying not to be too credulous, but it seems an oddly specific tease/leg pull. The message would’ve been funny in the rumour engine way without being quite so unambiguous.

I have 0 interest in speciality games when gw insists on locking them into heresy and therefore just a marine/imperial wankfest.

With the rumours of a plastic warhound coming to heresy, it further locks away things that other factions could have. We won't see revenants or Gargants in plastic if warhounds are HH only.


Gothic was my favourite gw game, my screen name comes from it (it was historically the worst Eldar corsair escort...}. But unless they give HH more freedom than just marine on marine, BFG will stay dead to me.

I think a HH setting might have been the original intent, however after the less than stellar sales of Legion Imperialis, much of the complaints being the HH exclusive setting, and the generally unfavorable reception to HH 3rd edition, I feel like they'd push it forward, at least into the scouring since it's the new thing they're going to be focusing on and/or up to the war of the beast to get at least a few Xenos factions in on it for wider appeal.

 Hellebore wrote:
I have 0 interest in speciality games when gw insists on locking them into heresy and therefore just a marine/imperial wankfest.

With the rumours of a plastic warhound coming to heresy, it further locks away things that other factions could have. We won't see revenants or Gargants in plastic if warhounds are HH only.


Gothic was my favourite gw game, my screen name comes from it (it was historically the worst Eldar corsair escort...}. But unless they give HH more freedom than just marine on marine, BFG will stay dead to me.

Have to say, excellent use of wankfest. But I agree.

https://spikeybits.com/battlefleet-gothic-rumors/


Great summary of BFG rumors starting in 2023, into 2024, and July 2025.

 Hellebore wrote:
warhounds are HH only.

They aren't.

 Hellebore wrote:
Gothic was my favourite gw game, my screen name comes from it (it was historically the worst Eldar corsair escort...}. But unless they give HH more freedom than just marine on marine, BFG will stay dead to me.

I play HH. And not Marines.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
warhounds are HH only.

They aren't.

 Hellebore wrote:
Gothic was my favourite gw game, my screen name comes from it (it was historically the worst Eldar corsair escort...}. But unless they give HH more freedom than just marine on marine, BFG will stay dead to me.

I play HH. And not Marines.

You play imperium. Imperium vs imperium..marines vs marines. There's even less of a difference in HH than there is on 40k.

I'd love an Ork game called waaagh where it's just Ork klans on klans with bespoke aesthetic model designs for you to collect. But Orks aren't imperium so screw them I guess.

The rumour for a plastic warhound is that it will be HH locked. I hope it isn't but that's the rumour. They've already locked epic to HH so I am not 100% confident they won't do the same to BFG or the warhound.

 Tawnis wrote:
I think a HH setting might have been the original intent, however after the less than stellar sales of Legion Imperialis, much of the complaints being the HH exclusive setting, and the generally unfavorable reception to HH 3rd edition, I feel like they'd push it forward, at least into the scouring since it's the new thing they're going to be focusing on and/or up to the war of the beast to get at least a few Xenos factions in on it for wider appeal.

I certainly like to moan about Epic’s Horus Heresy setting any chance I get. Is that concern widespread though? Has Legion Imperialis really had disappointing sales? A genuine question, I have no idea whether it has or hasn’t.

Unfortunately I think if LI is selling badly GW are more likely to can the whole endeavour than move the setting to 40K.

Setting Battlefleet Gothic a few thousand years further than Horus Heresy would certainly be a step in the right direction. It wouldn’t help my dream of a Tyranid fleet much though.

El Torro wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
I think a HH setting might have been the original intent, however after the less than stellar sales of Legion Imperialis, much of the complaints being the HH exclusive setting, and the generally unfavorable reception to HH 3rd edition, I feel like they'd push it forward, at least into the scouring since it's the new thing they're going to be focusing on and/or up to the war of the beast to get at least a few Xenos factions in on it for wider appeal.

I certainly like to moan about Epic’s Horus Heresy setting any chance I get. Is that concern widespread though? Has Legion Imperialis really had disappointing sales? A genuine question, I have no idea whether it has or hasn’t.

Unfortunately I think if LI is selling badly GW are more likely to can the whole endeavour than move the setting to 40K.

Setting Battlefleet Gothic a few thousand years further than Horus Heresy would certainly be a step in the right direction. It wouldn’t help my dream of a Tyranid fleet much though.

I think it's less well received than expected from my anecdotal observations. Only GW and high up sales people will have a clear answer.

BFG has fewer SKUs than LI would have so I think they could support a starter set plus a box of ships or two for each faction.

There are 101 different LI products sold right now, and while some of them are bases that's a LOT.

A Heresy-era spacecraft boardgame might work, but that's as far as they could go with it - a prelude to BFG.

The downside would be new giant sized ships that didn’t work on the tabletop…

My fear is that if they release BFG, they'll repeat their mistake and set it in the Heresy era, once more excluding the most interesting factions in the game.

My wallet's fear is that they'll get it right and I'll need an Eldar Fleet, a Tyranid Fleet, a Votann Fleet and enough Imperial NPC ships for the cool kids to smash.

If a heresy game I will just ignore it, I just can’t care much for that setting at all.

But otherwise I would go nuts and buy too much! Please GW sell to me a few eldar tau and ork fleets !

 Apple fox wrote:
If a heresy game I will just ignore it, I just can’t care much for that setting at all.

But otherwise I would go nuts and buy too much! Please GW sell to me a few eldar tau and ork fleets !

Which Tau?

Beautiful Forgeworld Tau ships or horrible looking GW Tau?

Kroot Warsphere!

I really doubt it. I can't recall even once that the text in these rumour engine photos actually meant anything, it's just whatever silly comment they come up with. In this case it just seems to be a joke where that's one of the most absurd suggestions for what this could be for.

I really would like a new BFG game, but unfortunately I expect they'd set it during the Horus Heresy which would be just such a shame.

As a note of hope, to make the stock price continuously go up they do have to expand their product offerings to cause more spending from existing customers, and create spending from low or no frequency tabletop gamers currently uninvested in their main offerings.

Though they definitely would just make a joke to get people riled up. Then again, it's quite a non-sequitir as a joke.

Getting preemptively upset over what is at best a rumor seems a waste of energy. For efficiency's sake wait until they actually announce that it is actually BFG coming out and that it is in fact the HH setting, then expend yourself at your leisure.

Every time this or Mordheim comes up I find myself baffled and confused. You don't need to wait, or speculate, or fantasize: they're right there. The rules are free, there are endless 3rd party and printable minis, there are online communities to help you find games - if you like them then just go and play them, you don't need GW's permission.

They waited too long. Everyone who’s interested in BFG is swimming in 3D printed minis by now. And the designs are so good there’s not much GW could do to impress anymore.

While I dearly love BFG and really wish it were coming back, I don't think this little tease hints that it's coming back.

Seems more like an in joke about the power mace picture.

I'm not sure that GW acknowledging an old product really equates to a suggestion of its return...

Given the recurring rumours of BFG it's certainly plausible that there are plans to bring it back, and that something is in the pipeline.

However I very much doubt that we'll see anything in the near future. A (presumably HH setting) BFG boxed game would directly compete with the Darkwater / HH / LI preview reveals.

More likely it's something coming in 2026 or later, once the obvious gaps in the LI range have been completed.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
They waited too long. Everyone who’s interested in BFG is swimming in 3D printed minis by now. And the designs are so good there’s not much GW could do to impress anymore.

Kinda?

I’d love me some BFG models. Like Epic, they’re the natural recipient of Contrast, once you’ve done some drybrushing to pre-shade.

But, I typically want BFG. Not BFG-a-like. Some I would go 3rd Party, where I just want it to try something clever painting wise, which the second hand market prices makes prohibitive.

And I’m pretty confident I’m not the only one with this approach. Not to mention the appeal to new players, Spesh since Armada was canned.

Not a criticism of those who go with 3rd Party stuff like,

They've done this sort of thing before. I remember there was a video with a whiteboard that had notes all over it mentioning Mordheim, Gorkamorka and more.

And then there was the whole debacle with the plastic wheelie bin and the mention of plastic sisters (long before they ever became a thing).

Tbh, if they want some separation from main 40k, it wouldn’t be the worst thing if they released it the same way the did originally:

Start with a limited game covering specifically the Gothic War and the factions involved, then expand out from there if it’s popular.

They mentioned Codex Zoats twice in christmas videos
They've mentioned Exodites in lore articles multiple times (more so in recent years it feels like)


Meanwhile we have 1 zoat model produced in recent times which was a short term product and zero Exodites models - barring one brightlance for an old version of Epic.



So GW are not above name-dropping without ever producing anything. Sometimes its a hint of the future sometimes not.

Personally only only worry is that if they did BFG and if the specialist studio did it and if they are mostly barred from 40K stuff internally then it means it will be more "mirror match Imperial VS Imperial with a chance of Mechanicum models in a few years maybe if you're really lucky".

Which is fine - they will be amazingly awesome spaceships; but darn it it just feels so creatively limited when you limit the design pool to 1 asthetic esp when GW has Aliens, Chaos, Demons and so many other things already there

What I worry about with BFG 2.0 is how they force a different scale to make old models unusable improve detail and, of course, the price. BFG was obscenely cheap even compared to its contemporaries (2 cruisers same cost as the smallest possible 40k box of 5 monopose marines - a laughable cost considering the portion of your fleet they represented) while now a fleet would likely be in the same price range as a LI army. We'll be very, very lucky if a regular Specialist Games sized 40€ box has two cruisers and not one.

Isn't the joke simply that the image is clearly nothing to do with Battlefleet Gothic, and the text is having some fun with the idea that people can still convince themselves it might be?

El Torro wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
I think a HH setting might have been the original intent, however after the less than stellar sales of Legion Imperialis, much of the complaints being the HH exclusive setting, and the generally unfavorable reception to HH 3rd edition, I feel like they'd push it forward, at least into the scouring since it's the new thing they're going to be focusing on and/or up to the war of the beast to get at least a few Xenos factions in on it for wider appeal.

I certainly like to moan about Epic’s Horus Heresy setting any chance I get. Is that concern widespread though? Has Legion Imperialis really had disappointing sales? A genuine question, I have no idea whether it has or hasn’t.

Unfortunately I think if LI is selling badly GW are more likely to can the whole endeavour than move the setting to 40K.

Setting Battlefleet Gothic a few thousand years further than Horus Heresy would certainly be a step in the right direction. It wouldn’t help my dream of a Tyranid fleet much though.

It's from a combination of things I've read online and what I've heard from retailers in what they've been able to move. Obviously that latter part is only in my area and it may be selling well elsewhere, but I don't think it's really catching on. For another thing on that front, I don't think I've seen a single batrep cross my feed for it since LI launched. Looking it up, there's a couple here and there on really small channels, but the big names like MWG and Play On haven't touched it in ages.

Kill Team is still doing quite well though, so they do know that adjacent games systems can be successful, they just have to do it right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PenitentJake wrote:
Kroot Warsphere!

I will build a fleet of these if given the chance.

I love Epic. I have crates of epic models. I have the core game for LI and after trying it, zero interest compounded by the scale change.

 YodhrinsForge wrote:
Every time this or Mordheim comes up I find myself baffled and confused. You don't need to wait, or speculate, or fantasize: they're right there. The rules are free, there are endless 3rd party and printable minis, there are online communities to help you find games - if you like them then just go and play them, you don't need GW's permission.

You are correct to a point, but having a currently supported game brings more people to play it. Yeah, I could get myself a third party fleet, and I still have my old rulebook, but unless I'm building everyone else's fleet for them, I still have to convince other people to get into the game and invest time to build / paint a fleet as well, it's not an easy sell when most people are behind in the systems they already play and if I were to randomly stop playing, they'd have done all that work for nothing.

It's much easier to have even a minimally maintained game so you can get in with the people currently playing it.

Greenfield wrote:
Isn't the joke simply that the image is clearly nothing to do with Battlefleet Gothic, and the text is having some fun with the idea that people can still convince themselves it might be?

Watch that end up being the prow ram for a Space Skaven battleship...

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
They waited too long. Everyone who’s interested in BFG is swimming in 3D printed minis by now. And the designs are so good there’s not much GW could do to impress anymore.

I'm sure that some are, but I think the reaction on this post alone disproves your point. There are a lot of people here not playing BFG that would get into it if it re-released.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I'm not sure that GW acknowledging an old product really equates to a suggestion of its return...

While it could still be considered grasping at straws, what I heard was that a year or two ago Warcom had an article about your favourite BFG memory (I'm going by what I heard, I never saw this article myself). Apparently it was one of their most engaged with articles of all time which turned some heads at GW and got them thinking about BFG seriously again. It's very much an unsubstantiated rumor so take it with a mountain of salt, but if it is true, it would line up with them starting to slowly garner interest again in prep for a reveal next year or something.

Is it that important for games to be about the warhammer 40k setting? I ask because if you're serious about BFG, Dropfleet Commander exists and by all accounts is updated BFG minus the theme.

Considering the vast majority of us got into the games for the setting? Yes, it absolutely is important.

Whilst I'm sure they'd bring BFG back, I'd suspect they'd only bring it back as HH only. And if its not HH only, its likely to have a short shelf life like aeronautica imperialis did.

Meaning its either a game I'm only vaguely interested in for a handful of kits (HH only) and then forced to go elsewhere anyway to get the rest of the fleets (Old models, alternatives etc) making it an expensive endeavour (as I sadly no longer own any of my original BFG as it was all stolen). Or they bring back a large amount of 40k fleets in a short time and knowing how much I had to rush to buy up missing aeronautica imperialis kits at the end of its life span when they canned it, I either have to buy everything on release or face the same FOMO chase when they can this game. Making it another expensive endeavour. (Yes- I don't have to collect ALL the things, but I do have almost every army in Epic other than Tau, and would love to have BFG back for campaigns)

I'm not sure I'm ready for another High energy FOMO chase, High cost, low time frame relationship/game with GW when there are a lot cheaper alternatives out there right now. Loads of space ships games about these days.

I might buy a few 'starter' plastics if they show up cheap in a FLGS or 2nd hand later down the line as their plastics are always nice, but I don't think a 'modern' BFG would be around long term enough to be worth dropping the money I can see this one costing. It would have to be something REALLY special and self contained as a set to get my attention, as much as I love small scale 40k gaming.

Billicus wrote:
Is it that important for games to be about the warhammer 40k setting? I ask because if you're serious about BFG, Dropfleet Commander exists and by all accounts is updated BFG minus the theme.

I for one don’t so much want to play an Epic scale game, or a space fleet battle game with Capital ships. I want to play GW ones. It’s the background and the stories I can tell that are a chunk of the appeal.

Also for me? GW has a real knack for making different ship classes visually distinct, despite often sharing a common hull. Could I instantly tell you what’s a Lunar, Dominator or Tyrant? No. My knowledge is rusty. But to look upon their models, and see different gun decks, batteries of big lasers and flight decks, I think most could tell you they’re different classes.

Dropfleet? Kinda. Likely more me having little knowledge, but the Scourge in particularly all look samey. Nice models, don’t get me wrong. But not as immediately visually distinct to my eyes.

What would be the new name tho? It obviously can't be Battlefleet Gothic, unless it again takes place entirely in the Gothic Sector?

What fun timing...

https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/prepare-for-your-voyage-beyond-the-black-ocean

 lord_blackfang wrote:
What would be the new name tho? It obviously can't be Battlefleet Gothic, unless it again takes place entirely in the Gothic Sector?

Maybe Battlefleet Terra?

The whole thing can be the culmination of the Heresy?

I mean, wouldn't you want the Phalanx to play with?

 YodhrinsForge wrote:
Every time this or Mordheim comes up I find myself baffled and confused. You don't need to wait, or speculate, or fantasize: they're right there. The rules are free, there are endless 3rd party and printable minis, there are online communities to help you find games - if you like them then just go and play them, you don't need GW's permission.

Like I used to.

then I realised the GW-heads would only buy/play a game that is not discontinued, and fully available from GW. Because that way it is not "dead".

Battlefleet Imperialis.

One thing I would say against a Heresy era one? How would they have the two fleets distinct?

In BFG, the Imperials were noted for strong frontal armour and a reliance on Torpedoes. Lots and lots and lots of Torpedoes, and close up brawling. Chaos/Traitor however relied on longer ranges and arranging neat broadsides using said range.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Battlefleet Imperialis.

One thing I would say against a Heresy era one? How would they have the two fleets distinct?

In BFG, the Imperials were noted for strong frontal armour and a reliance on Torpedoes. Lots and lots and lots of Torpedoes, and close up brawling. Chaos/Traitor however relied on longer ranges and arranging neat broadsides using said range.

And Nova Cannons... remember guessing ranges and using the scatter die?

I remember one legendary shot. First of the game, blootered a Battle Barge. Sent its Warp Engine critical and gutted a good part of his fleet straight off the bat.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not to mention the appeal to new players, Spesh since Armada was canned.

While I was more into X-Wing, Star Wars Armada was a pretty glorious ruleset that I greatly enjoyed playing at the time, doing such an excellent job of capturing the right feel for epic scale space battles combined with engaging strategic gameplay. Imagine those rules but with the diversity and flavour of 40k factions and ships. Won't ever happen. But it would be amazing. I wouldn't be surprised if some fan has designed a full ruleset for it already, but hesitate to check as I really don't need a reason to start a new game and collection...

 YodhrinsForge wrote:
Every time this or Mordheim comes up I find myself baffled and confused. You don't need to wait, or speculate, or fantasize: they're right there. The rules are free, there are endless 3rd party and printable minis, there are online communities to help you find games - if you like them then just go and play them, you don't need GW's permission.

You’re baffled that people would like new official GW models to paint and play with?

Billicus wrote:
Is it that important for games to be about the warhammer 40k setting? I ask because if you're serious about BFG, Dropfleet Commander exists and by all accounts is updated BFG minus the theme.

The first edition mechanics were very much a modernized BFG as envisioned by Andy. Chambers. 2nd edition is still shaking out and I don’t have a feel for it yet.

The minis are fantastic, with plenty of options in plastic. The background is great, although it’s newer and this less developed than 40k.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
What fun timing...

https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/prepare-for-your-voyage-beyond-the-black-ocean

Oh, hey Cruddace.

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Tbh, if they want some separation from main 40k, it wouldn’t be the worst thing if they released it the same way the did originally:

Start with a limited game covering specifically the Gothic War and the factions involved, then expand out from there if it’s popular.

Like you said, it wouldn't be the worst thing... But there is a risk.

I absolutely will not buy Legions Imperialis, for example, UNTIL it includes Xenos. So if you release it without them, you may ASSUME I'm not interested. It would be a big mistake, because if Xenos come, I might end up being a whale... But the company will never know unitl they actually do it.

I want to play Xenos fleets in BFG. If you release a version that does not include Xenos fleets, you'll never know that I want them.

 Platuan4th wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
What fun timing...

https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/prepare-for-your-voyage-beyond-the-black-ocean

Oh, hey Cruddace.

Saw that and any interest I had died a grisly death.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
What fun timing...

https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/prepare-for-your-voyage-beyond-the-black-ocean

Oh, hey Cruddace.

Saw that and any interest I had died a grisly death.

For those of us who don't know who everyone and everything is could you elaborate on the problem?

 PenitentJake wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Tbh, if they want some separation from main 40k, it wouldn’t be the worst thing if they released it the same way the did originally:

Start with a limited game covering specifically the Gothic War and the factions involved, then expand out from there if it’s popular.

Like you said, it wouldn't be the worst thing... But there is a risk.

I absolutely will not buy Legions Imperialis, for example, UNTIL it includes Xenos. So if you release it without them, you may ASSUME I'm not interested. It would be a big mistake, because if Xenos come, I might end up being a whale... But the company will never know unitl they actually do it.

I want to play Xenos fleets in BFG. If you release a version that does not include Xenos fleets, you'll never know that I want them.

Gothic War had Eldar Corsairs and Orks, with the former especially playing a major role in the big battle. If they went Gothic War vs HH I’d expect to see at least those.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
What fun timing...

https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/prepare-for-your-voyage-beyond-the-black-ocean

Oh, hey Cruddace.

Saw that and any interest I had died a grisly death.

For those of us who don't know who everyone and everything is could you elaborate on the problem?

Cruddace was in charge of a lot of Warhammer and/or 40k stuff during a period where the game was doing not great and people were dissatisfied, is what I remember to a vague degree.

And yet, for the hate he gets thrown his way, he wrote the 5th edition Imperial Guard codex, and it was the best one we ever had.

I do hope it is eventually a BFG bring back, that would be awesome. A lot of people talking about it being HH but why? That seems like kicking yourself directly in the voonerables before you even get going.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Tbh, if they want some separation from main 40k, it wouldn’t be the worst thing if they released it the same way the did originally:

Start with a limited game covering specifically the Gothic War and the factions involved, then expand out from there if it’s popular.

Like you said, it wouldn't be the worst thing... But there is a risk.

I absolutely will not buy Legions Imperialis, for example, UNTIL it includes Xenos. So if you release it without them, you may ASSUME I'm not interested. It would be a big mistake, because if Xenos come, I might end up being a whale... But the company will never know unitl they actually do it.

I want to play Xenos fleets in BFG. If you release a version that does not include Xenos fleets, you'll never know that I want them.

I am the same. Initially I had some interest but when I found out it was not going to include Xenos and was just going to be effectively HH (near) mirror matches, my wallet shut and has remained closed ever since. The same would happen for any BFG remake.
The same kind of thing occurred during that spell when Black Library had its now defunct "No non-Imperial POV or Xenos POV" policy. There are so many factions and potential perspectives to explore. Deliberately pigeonholing yourself into a tiny repetitive POV was illogically throwing away opportunities and alienating segments of the customer base.

 Snrub wrote:
And yet, for the hate he gets thrown his way, he wrote the 5th edition Imperial Guard codex, and it was the best one we ever had.

I thought the same exact thing; I love that book.

 Snrub wrote:
And yet, for the hate he gets thrown his way, he wrote the 5th edition Imperial Guard codex, and it was the best one we ever had.

It was one of the strongest but I wouldn't say best ever.

But overall he was, if I remember correctly, in charge of the actual 40k studio for rules during the dark times. Nothing he touched, outside of that one guard book, were any good. It's a 50/50 bet if it was him or Ward that got authors names removed from codexes (I'd bet on Cruddace cause for all the silly Ward stuff he wasn't truly actively hated at the time).

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Snrub wrote:
And yet, for the hate he gets thrown his way, he wrote the 5th edition Imperial Guard codex, and it was the best one we ever had.

It was one of the strongest but I wouldn't say best ever.

But overall he was, if I remember correctly, in charge of the actual 40k studio for rules during the dark times. Nothing he touched, outside of that one guard book, were any good. It's a 50/50 bet if it was him or Ward that got authors names removed from codexes (I'd bet on Cruddace cause for all the silly Ward stuff he wasn't truly actively hated at the time).

They removed the writing credits because Ward reportedly received death threats(which also led to him taking a sabbatical from GW at the same time).

So far only Aeronautica has made the Heresy-era switch, which could be a temporary measure until GW can relaunch the game at a later date.

The plan might have been for Titanicus to be the prelude to Epic-30K, and Aeronautica the prelude to Epic-40K released a year later, but the covid crisis probably saw set backs to GW's plans on certain projects.

So maybe BFG isn't on the way, but Aeronautica-40K followed by Epic 40K. Just a thought.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Snrub wrote:
And yet, for the hate he gets thrown his way, he wrote the 5th edition Imperial Guard codex, and it was the best one we ever had.

It was one of the strongest but I wouldn't say best ever.

But overall he was, if I remember correctly, in charge of the actual 40k studio for rules during the dark times. Nothing he touched, outside of that one guard book, were any good. It's a 50/50 bet if it was him or Ward that got authors names removed from codexes (I'd bet on Cruddace cause for all the silly Ward stuff he wasn't truly actively hated at the time).

They removed the writing credits because Ward reportedly received death threats(which also led to him taking a sabbatical from GW at the same time).

Sadly I think this is possibly one factor that led to the Warhammer Kids books not being updated as often/as loudly - cause apparently some of those authors also got some really horrible messages too.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
What would be the new name tho? It obviously can't be Battlefleet Gothic, unless it again takes place entirely in the Gothic Sector?

Maybe Battlefleet Terra?

The whole thing can be the culmination of the Heresy?

I mean, wouldn't you want the Phalanx to play with?

Not if it meant that those wanting to play Eldar/Orks/Tau/Necrons/etc couldn't join in the fun.

as silly as it was, I also think one of the things that made it popular was the age of sail style of play. The game gave everything a real sense of weight, ponderously coming to new headings etc.

Which allowed the more agile factions to stand out and give you a large range of play styles to use. Those big movement differences between factions allowed a pretty limited set of rules to give a big difference in play for each one.

It doesn't have to be Gothic, it could be Nachmund or something more relevant. But it really needs those alien factions to make the game fun.

If it's not modern 40k, you lose nids, necrons and tau. Only orks and the various eldar fleets are around the entire time.

The votann are around, and it would be cool to see their fleets updated. But their tech is still just human tech.

BFG is also in a unique position to introduce more aliens than normal 40k, because the investment is so low in comparison. We had the fra'al raider released by SG what 18 years ago? Plenty of opportunities to see new and interesting aliens, rather than 16 different symbols sculpted on imperial ships...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
They waited too long. Everyone who’s interested in BFG is swimming in 3D printed minis by now. And the designs are so good there’s not much GW could do to impress anymore.

Kinda?

I’d love me some BFG models. Like Epic, they’re the natural recipient of Contrast, once you’ve done some drybrushing to pre-shade.

But, I typically want BFG. Not BFG-a-like. Some I would go 3rd Party, where I just want it to try something clever painting wise, which the second hand market prices makes prohibitive.

And I’m pretty confident I’m not the only one with this approach. Not to mention the appeal to new players, Spesh since Armada was canned.

Not a criticism of those who go with 3rd Party stuff like,

Can you explain where you're coming from a bit more? Because if you're printing there are everything from literal scans of the models to 1:1 from scratch-modelled recreations to "HD remake" versions that are basically what we might expect from modern GW's kit quality out there. You can even find stuff like the FW transport ships that were available for about five minutes or random people's conversions that showed up in White Dwarf or whatever. And for new players, eh, honestly I think people place too much emphasis on that - these niche games are never going to be store-staple products you can just drop in and play without notice like 40K or AoS, so effort to find games and players will be a factor regardless, why not just get going now and by the time GW get around to it you'll already have a group.

Honestly I've found it *harder* to find people to play SGs with since GW released updated versions, not easier, because the release model of book after book after book generates so much Content you need to be pretty dedicated to sift it all and create a bespoke experience for your group/wrangle amongst yourselves what to use so a lot of the people I've know who were super enthused by eg Necromunda '17 have long since burned out. At the same time the mere existence of an Official Supported Product means a lot of people won't even look at the classic versions now.

 Tawnis wrote:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:
Every time this or Mordheim comes up I find myself baffled and confused. You don't need to wait, or speculate, or fantasize: they're right there. The rules are free, there are endless 3rd party and printable minis, there are online communities to help you find games - if you like them then just go and play them, you don't need GW's permission.

You are correct to a point, but having a currently supported game brings more people to play it. Yeah, I could get myself a third party fleet, and I still have my old rulebook, but unless I'm building everyone else's fleet for them, I still have to convince other people to get into the game and invest time to build / paint a fleet as well, it's not an easy sell when most people are behind in the systems they already play and if I were to randomly stop playing, they'd have done all that work for nothing.

It's much easier to have even a minimally maintained game so you can get in with the people currently playing it.

See above, I firmly disagree. I have never found it easier to find games for the SGs than in the period where GW completely forgot they exist. And putting together a second or even third faction for these small model count systems is hardly some monumental task, you can knock out a fleet of BFG ships in an evening with coloured primer>drybrush>wash>metallics.

Like I say it just feels like people are waiting for *permission* to do something rather than just doing it.

 Snrub wrote:
And yet, for the hate he gets thrown his way, he wrote the 5th edition Imperial Guard codex, and it was the best one we ever had.

Certainly the *strongest*, but that was rather the issue. As for *best*, GW have yet to top 3.5 and I doubt they ever will.

IIRC Cruddace had 1 bad codex and 2 excellent ones and died in infamy for it.

On 30k vs 40K? I guess it depends on the investment risk.

30k? Let’s face it, it probably has the lowest investment risk. Three base factions. Loyalist, Traitor, Mechanicum. The Expeditionary Fleets are described as a mix of elements. So you’ve what would eventually become Imperial Navy Ships, Battle Barges and Mechanicum ships etc.

40K? Much greater variety in terms of forces. That requires additional rules writing to ensure differences in how they operate on the board. Much of that already exists from the original BFG and the Armada expansion.

Both would probably have the same count of individual ship classes. And so I don’t think either setting necessarily represents a larger investment in sculpts and moulds.

But which audience is most likely to buy? I honestly don’t know. The Heresy games have a reputation of being predominantly older gamers, with deeper pockets. But 40K is presumably a much larger audience overall.

So the way I see it, there’s swings and roundabouts for each. I think on balance, just for variety of challenges, I’d prefer a 40K set one. But with 28mm and Epic Dark Angels, I’m not gonna be even slightly miffed if it’s

A) Actually coming
B) Heresy set.

And it’s A) I need to behave myself with. I want it to be true. Boy do I. So much so I’m having a hard time tempering my excitement over such a throwaway “entirely possibly just a joke” line.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Tbh, if they want some separation from main 40k, it wouldn’t be the worst thing if they released it the same way the did originally:

Start with a limited game covering specifically the Gothic War and the factions involved, then expand out from there if it’s popular.

Like you said, it wouldn't be the worst thing... But there is a risk.

I absolutely will not buy Legions Imperialis, for example, UNTIL it includes Xenos. So if you release it without them, you may ASSUME I'm not interested. It would be a big mistake, because if Xenos come, I might end up being a whale... But the company will never know unitl they actually do it.

I want to play Xenos fleets in BFG. If you release a version that does not include Xenos fleets, you'll never know that I want them.

Same; for me, no Eldar no buy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And it’s A) I need to behave myself with. I want it to be true. Boy do I. So much so I’m having a hard time tempering my excitement over such a throwaway “entirely possibly just a joke” line.

Remember we've had far more solid BFG hints in the recent past... pictures of space battles and even a community question along the lines of "which was your favourite fleet engagement"

And it ended up being a lead up to Vashtorr's assault on the Rock in 40k, or something like that.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Billicus wrote:
Is it that important for games to be about the warhammer 40k setting? I ask because if you're serious about BFG, Dropfleet Commander exists and by all accounts is updated BFG minus the theme.

The first edition mechanics were very much a modernized BFG as envisioned by Andy. Chambers. 2nd edition is still shaking out and I don’t have a feel for it yet.

The minis are fantastic, with plenty of options in plastic. The background is great, although it’s newer and this less developed than 40k.

Yeah, nobody's really gonna compete with GW on sheer amount of and depth of background even if these days it's getting a little bit retcon-y and the satire is long gone.

And Doc, fair shout, I've thought the same about Dropfleet ships - they're pretty samey (some might say uniform? But I think that might be a bit generous)

Billicus wrote:
And Doc, fair shout, I've thought the same about Dropfleet ships - they're pretty samey (some might say uniform? But I think that might be a bit generous)

I mean... the entire BFG range was 1 cruiser sculpt per faction with combinations of 3 weapons modules...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But behold, a bone

Heck for the Imperials the amount of cruiser combinations for their single cruiser design was nuts. It was very much a lot of "Jack of all trades" ship core designs.


Dropfleet actually achieves way more variation in their core ship designs for most fleets. I think the only one you could say its really samey is Bioficers and that's mostly because their whole thing is "this ship is a gun with engines" approach to space warfare.

Not to mention right now you've got plastic core and resin alternatives for many ships as they've been steadily moving toward GW level good plastics across their range (not all there yet but fleets like Bioficer and UCM are almost entirely all new plastics now)

That seems pretty definitive. If we do get redone BFG sounds like it will be in the 5-10 years away range still

Can someone describe the pic? It’s region locked in the Uk :(

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Can someone describe the pic? It’s region locked in the Uk :(

I take it you what you mean to say is that you can't prove to Imgur that you're an adult.

It's an unknown user posting that Battlefleet Heresy is done, with a single faction model range ala Titanicus

Also says all HH Custards are about to be replaced

Interesting.

And yeah. No imgur in the UK.

Yeah Imgur just flat out refused to put age verification systems in place so they just turned the UK off

 Overread wrote:
Yeah Imgur just flat out refused to put age verification systems in place so they just turned the UK off

Is there another image hosting you folks can access?

Erm…I’ve no idea!

This is the one I've started using now https://imgbb.com

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Interesting.

More specifically, they compare the new Custodes change to the change from 1st generation Stormcast to Stormstrike armor complete with gendered armor.

I really wish they would bring BFG back. I always found it far more interesting than Epic/LI, which is mostly just the same 40K/HH stuff we already have in a different scale. But ships are something completely different.

And yeah, there are a lot third party suppliers, but it would be nice to have ships in modern GW plastic and the game to be actually supported.

But like a lot of people have said, it has to be 40K. HH is a boring setting with mirror matches and no room for personalisation. I want Eldar corsairs, and I want marine fleet for my homebrew 40K chapter, and not to be forced to choose one of the legions. And hell, even chaos in 40K is more different from the Imperium than the sides in HH are from each other.

I really do not understand why they keep focusing on HH. I get that the primarch soap opera has for some bizarre reason appeal for some people, but the setting simply lacks variety to make good background for a wargame.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

I mean... the entire BFG range was 1 cruiser sculpt per faction with combinations of 3 weapons modules...

Yeah, but it gets a pass because it was a bajillion years ago I think.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah Imgur just flat out refused to put age verification systems in place so they just turned the UK off

Is there another image hosting you folks can access?

Problem is we can’t even view it. So unless everyone else on the internet can agree to use a different service, it doesn’t help.

In terms of GW actually re-releasing (well, redoing) BFG? I just can’t see many arguments against it.

The base rules remain well regarded. As someone touched on earlier? It’s age of sail in spaaaaaace, where you really need to think about where your ships can and can’t be in turns to come, and of those where it could end up, where you think your opponent is going to be as well.

Even weapon application has strategic considerations above smashing things up. Torpedoes can force your opponent to break their own line, disrupting their forces. Gun Decks over lances can drown a ship in Blast Markers, impeding its effectiveness in turns to come even if you don’t break it that badly.

There are of course now well established competitors on the market. But, with Armada shutdown, there’s no Big Name Competitors. Which means there is a gap in the market to be exploited.

Firestorm Armada was announced yesterday (a bit sus on the timing) for release in 2027 for a Big Name competitor with an existing following on standby.

And it will probably beat whatever GW does in terms of value and model accessibility (their dieselpunk game comes on sprues that typically build any of 4-8 classes of cruiser, plus some escorts, fighter tokens, etc.)

So GW would do well to launch before Firestorm.

If it does end up being Horus Heresy, I really don't understand why they're seemingly so eager to push for that setting. Surely they realize 40k with its variety of factions is something with more potential and would appeal to more customers? It was disappointing enough with them doing Legionnes Imperialis rather than Epic 40k, but to have BFG do the same and miss out on all those awesome 40k ships would be such a huge shame and come across as just strange.

May be to do with their knowledge of sales figures.

They don’t report by system, and never have done. But they do collect that data just by monitoring sales.

It could simply be that they’ve found Heresy set specialist games sell better than 40K ones. Purely speculation of course.

If it was set into 40K, people could still easily play it in HH as well. Reverse is not true.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
May be to do with their knowledge of sales figures.

They don’t report by system, and never have done. But they do collect that data just by monitoring sales.

It could simply be that they’ve found Heresy set specialist games sell better than 40K ones. Purely speculation of course.

We do know that Adeptus titanicus (heresy) sold much better than GW expected.

Then for Aeronautica the most popular kits were space marine, imperial, and some ork aircraft. Meanwhile there's evidence that the other xenos factions did not perform well at all, with Eldar & Tau aircraft appearing in several retailer stock clearance sales. Even GW themselves sold some Aeronautica products discounted on their own site, something they almost never do.

I can definitely see why they'd go the heresy route. If they invest in another 40k setting there is a big risk that (for example) Imperial & Orks are popular, but Eldar, Tau, or Necron ranges don't make enough money.

 xttz wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
May be to do with their knowledge of sales figures.

They don’t report by system, and never have done. But they do collect that data just by monitoring sales.

It could simply be that they’ve found Heresy set specialist games sell better than 40K ones. Purely speculation of course.

We do know that Adeptus titanicus (heresy) sold much better than GW expected.

Then for Aeronautica the most popular kits were space marine, imperial, and some ork aircraft. Meanwhile there's evidence that the other xenos factions did not perform well at all, with Eldar & Tau aircraft appearing in several retailer stock clearance sales. Even GW themselves sold some Aeronautica products discounted on their own site, something they almost never do.

I can definitely see why they'd go the heresy route. If they invest in another 40k setting there is a big risk that (for example) Imperial & Orks are popular, but Eldar, Tau, or Necron ranges don't make enough money.

That's just how those are with popularity even in 40k, of course not every faction sells equally as well. It doesn't mean they sold badly and weren't worth doing.

I can't remember them discounting anything themselves though and i'm quite surprised if they did, what were they?

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

That's just how those are with popularity even in 40k, of course not every faction sells equally as well. It doesn't mean they sold badly and weren't worth doing.

The thing is though that selling to a small percentage of 40k customers can still be a lot of people.

However selling to a small percentage of customers for a brand new game system might just be a few hundred, and not enough to recoup the cost of the plastic injection molds that are paid for upfront.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:


I can't remember them discounting anything themselves though and i'm quite surprised if they did, what were they?

Some of the AI starter boxes were sold at around 40-50% discount direct from GW in late 2021. I got Wings of Vengeance then, and IIRC they also offered the Tau one too.

 Crimson wrote:

If it was set into 40K, people could still easily play it in HH as well. Reverse is not true.

BFG fluffed that the Chaos ships were mostly M36-M39 designs, while the Imperial ones were M39-M41 and represented a paradigm shift in Imperial tactics. The Vengeance-class Grand Cruiser was designed as a transitional model to show the progression. If GW brings back BFG in any form I'm sure there'll be some retconning, but the whole reason the Chaos and Imperial fleets are visually and functionally different is because they come from different eras. Would Heresy players really be excited to play Chaos v Chaos games, skip daemons and marks of Chaos, and have to homebrew/houserule their own Legion-specific rules? I kinda doubt it. As much as I prefer the setting of 40K, selling a single set of minis to all the Heresy players does seem like the safer option.

I'd be cautiously interested in a BFG reimagining but I imagine it'll be like Legions Imperialis as compared to Epic- bigger models (that don't fit as well on the board), astronomical prices, fiddlier and less elegant rules, and then limited to HH. YMMV but that doesn't particularly excite me, particularly when BFG is currently more accessible and better-supported than even before GW pulled the plug on it.

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

If it was set into 40K, people could still easily play it in HH as well. Reverse is not true.

BFG fluffed that the Chaos ships were mostly M36-M39 designs, while the Imperial ones were M39-M41 and represented a paradigm shift in Imperial tactics. The Vengeance-class Grand Cruiser was designed as a transitional model to show the progression. If GW brings back BFG in any form I'm sure there'll be some retconning, but the whole reason the Chaos and Imperial fleets are visually and functionally different is because they come from different eras. Would Heresy players really be excited to play Chaos v Chaos games, skip daemons and marks of Chaos, and have to homebrew/houserule their own Legion-specific rules? I kinda doubt it. As much as I prefer the setting of 40K, selling a single set of minis to all the Heresy players does seem like the safer option.

I'd be cautiously interested in a BFG reimagining but I imagine it'll be like Legions Imperialis as compared to Epic- bigger models (that don't fit as well on the board), astronomical prices, fiddlier and less elegant rules, and then limited to HH. YMMV.

And then forgotten about after a few years (See AT and AI).

 xttz wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

That's just how those are with popularity even in 40k, of course not every faction sells equally as well. It doesn't mean they sold badly and weren't worth doing.

The thing is though that selling to a small percentage of 40k customers can still be a lot of people.

However selling to a small percentage of customers for a brand new game system might just be a few hundred, and not enough to recoup the cost of the plastic injection molds that are paid for upfront.

I'm fairly sure having a small playerbase is something they'd have considered when making it in the first place though, they aren't going to be making things they expect won't sell.

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

If it was set into 40K, people could still easily play it in HH as well. Reverse is not true.

BFG fluffed that the Chaos ships were mostly M36-M39 designs, while the Imperial ones were M39-M41 and represented a paradigm shift in Imperial tactics. The Vengeance-class Grand Cruiser was designed as a transitional model to show the progression. If GW brings back BFG in any form I'm sure there'll be some retconning, but the whole reason the Chaos and Imperial fleets are visually and functionally different is because they come from different eras. Would Heresy players really be excited to play Chaos v Chaos games, skip daemons and marks of Chaos, and have to homebrew/houserule their own Legion-specific rules? I kinda doubt it. As much as I prefer the setting of 40K, selling a single set of minis to all the Heresy players does seem like the safer option.

I mean you basically outline here why HH fleet game would be boring. Aside from having legion rules, this is exactly what it would be. Boring mirror matches with very limited selection of ships.

 Crimson wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

If it was set into 40K, people could still easily play it in HH as well. Reverse is not true.

BFG fluffed that the Chaos ships were mostly M36-M39 designs, while the Imperial ones were M39-M41 and represented a paradigm shift in Imperial tactics. The Vengeance-class Grand Cruiser was designed as a transitional model to show the progression. If GW brings back BFG in any form I'm sure there'll be some retconning, but the whole reason the Chaos and Imperial fleets are visually and functionally different is because they come from different eras. Would Heresy players really be excited to play Chaos v Chaos games, skip daemons and marks of Chaos, and have to homebrew/houserule their own Legion-specific rules? I kinda doubt it. As much as I prefer the setting of 40K, selling a single set of minis to all the Heresy players does seem like the safer option.

I mean you basically outline here why HH fleet game would be boring. Aside from having legion rules, this is exactly what it would be. Boring mirror matches with very limited selection of ships.

Boring Mirror matches are perfect for Tournament play!

 Crimson wrote:

I mean you basically outline here why HH fleet game would be boring. Aside from having legion rules, this is exactly what it would be. Boring mirror matches with very limited selection of ships.

Apart from being able to explore the gamut of custom designs of 18 legions, dozens of forge worlds and other imperial subfactions, compliance worlds, and DAOT relics, in a time of technological recovery and innovation, before fleet assets were codified and standardized into what is the Imperial Navy of "present day", obviously.

 Crimson wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

If it was set into 40K, people could still easily play it in HH as well. Reverse is not true.

BFG fluffed that the Chaos ships were mostly M36-M39 designs, while the Imperial ones were M39-M41 and represented a paradigm shift in Imperial tactics. The Vengeance-class Grand Cruiser was designed as a transitional model to show the progression. If GW brings back BFG in any form I'm sure there'll be some retconning, but the whole reason the Chaos and Imperial fleets are visually and functionally different is because they come from different eras. Would Heresy players really be excited to play Chaos v Chaos games, skip daemons and marks of Chaos, and have to homebrew/houserule their own Legion-specific rules? I kinda doubt it. As much as I prefer the setting of 40K, selling a single set of minis to all the Heresy players does seem like the safer option.

I mean you basically outline here why HH fleet game would be boring. Aside from having legion rules, this is exactly what it would be. Boring mirror matches with very limited selection of ships.

Well, no, in the same way that HH (28mm) and LI are not equivalent to just playing Marine mirror matches in 40K or Epic while avoiding all the post-Heresy units. Having a larger era-appropriate Imperial roster and setting-specific rules would make it appealing to Heresy fans, while still representing less of an investment than putting all the 40K factions on the tabletop. It's a more limited scope than 40K, but it's still greater scope than just telling Heresy players to use part of a single faction as you're suggesting.

Like I said I'm not particularly excited by the prospect, but considering BFG was originally designed as just Imperials vs Chaos (with Eldar and Orks as limited side factions, both balanced against the core two, not each other), it's not an unreasonable approach.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I mean you basically outline here why HH fleet game would be boring. Aside from having legion rules, this is exactly what it would be. Boring mirror matches with very limited selection of ships.

Apart from being able to explore the gamut of custom designs of 18 legions, dozens of forge worlds and other imperial subfactions, compliance worlds, and DAOT relics, in a time of technological recovery and innovation, before fleet assets were codified and standardized into what is the Imperial Navy of "present day", obviously.

I seriously doubt they'd go out of their way to do that much of a dive into the niche parts of the setting and come up with all those brand new previously unseen ships.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I mean you basically outline here why HH fleet game would be boring. Aside from having legion rules, this is exactly what it would be. Boring mirror matches with very limited selection of ships.

Apart from being able to explore the gamut of custom designs of 18 legions, dozens of forge worlds and other imperial subfactions, compliance worlds, and DAOT relics, in a time of technological recovery and innovation, before fleet assets were codified and standardized into what is the Imperial Navy of "present day", obviously.

I seriously doubt they'd go out of their way to do that much of a dive into the niche parts of the setting and come up with all those brand new previously unseen ships.

We just got Saturnine armour for Horus Heresy, so if a fleet-based game does well enough to get to a second starter box, you can bet a new 'was always there all along' battleship will be packed in it.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I mean you basically outline here why HH fleet game would be boring. Aside from having legion rules, this is exactly what it would be. Boring mirror matches with very limited selection of ships.

Apart from being able to explore the gamut of custom designs of 18 legions, dozens of forge worlds and other imperial subfactions, compliance worlds, and DAOT relics, in a time of technological recovery and innovation, before fleet assets were codified and standardized into what is the Imperial Navy of "present day", obviously.

I seriously doubt they'd go out of their way to do that much of a dive into the niche parts of the setting and come up with all those brand new previously unseen ships.

We just got Saturnine armour for Horus Heresy, so if a fleet-based game does well enough to get to a second starter box, you can bet a new 'was always there all along' battleship will be packed in it.

Of course there would probably be something eventually. They've did a few with Adeptus Titanicus and Legionnes Imperialis already.

But those wouldn't be to any significant extent and certainly wouldn't change that the core of the game would revolve around both sides having similar or the same ships.

In fairness to people mentioning that BFG is healthier being run by the community like Mordheim, Mordheim is made for being run without official GW support, that hobby is utterly based around kitbashing your own warbands and creativity as is it's spiritual successor, Trench Crusade. Official model support and rules from modern GW (Each model has a choice of two heads! But the heads aren't all interchangeable and the arms aren't interchangeable and the legs and torso are fused...) would actually do a lot of harm to that game and lead to fewer people enjoying it and fracture the community.

BFG on the other hand has no real means to kitbash (And at it's scale it's doubtful there'd be much fun to be had anyway) but is instead (Like Epic 40k prior to LI) focused on 3d printing. But that is only good for certain kinds of grognards who wouldn't be bothering with 3d printing their own fleets if they hadn't been inspired by the original BFG product in the first place. It doesn't get many new people into the hobby, whereas Mordheim is more popular than ever. Maybe the video games have got some new people in through even printing the game models but it's pretty niche. So I don't think Mordheim and BFG are comparable in terms of much being lost if GW started to support BFG again, whereas GW supporting Mordheim again would probably wreck the beautiful thing that has grown in the shadow of GW's sun.

And as for the name needing to change unless it's focused on the Gothic sector and black crusades otherwise it couldn't have any Xenos, the setting wasn't a problem for adding Xenos or other settings before, the name is too iconic, you can't change it. Hell, 40k's "present" is now in the 42nd millennium.

I'm also amused that people think only people who miss the Xenos are put off by the HH setting for LI. Some of us Chaos and Imperial players also don't like the new HH aesthetic or setting and Chaos players miss actual Chaos armies. The HH as a setting was destroyed by that terrible novel series and it's become a plot tumour that has done a lot of damage to 40k too by cultivating an audience of people who see the setting as a narrative which GW eventually tried to satisfy before realising exactly why the narrative of 40k can't advance because you'd break it in doing so or else have to cop out and have a resolution that returns things back to how they were more or less. It's a setting!

I do think LI could do with some cool Ork stuff, Ork superheavies and Gargants are cool and characterful at that scale and have some scope for creativity both with painting and modelling. The Ork planes from AI had modular cosmetic bitz. You could extend the HH setting back or forward a little to involve Orks in the Great Crusade or wars after the HH. That goes for the HH 28mm game too. The War of The Beast could be a great expansion to the game, give Ork players some cool new models to kisbash with the 40k line.

If GW want to be conservative with restarting BFG why not set it during the Great Crusade, you could justify Imperial and Ork ships only or maybe some Eldar. But then you'd have to either ditch the iconic gothic cathedral/train/battleship aesthetic (The Chaos ships in BFG are supposedly the way pre-Heresy Imperial ships looked) or explain why the Imperial ships already looked like cathedrals before the Emperor worship cults became the state religion. Albeit the more we see of how GW envisage the HH era these days the more it just looks like 40k anyway so maybe they wouldn't be bothered. Or maybe set it during any one of the many Ork wars the Imperium has had since it went full gothic.

Ultimately I think BFG and Space Hulk returning have more credence to them now than ever before simply because GW's insane release schedule over the last few years has more or less exhausted much of their new release fodder. The Primaris, for example, are more or less done. Unless they pull a New Coke and start deleting the Primaris to replace with them new first born, the 11th starter will apparently have a new tactical squad. When I think of what new releases GW could have to keep up their schedule I just keep thinking about that song from the Simpsons "They'll never stop the Simpsons! Have no fears we've got stories for years! Like, Marge becomes a robot! Maybe Moe gets a cell phone..." It's feeling a lot like 2009-2013 when GW were pumping out Space Marine units for their own sake whether they had a good idea for a new unit or not, hence was birthed the Centurions among others. The new releases must flow... Or maybe they could make model kits that invite modelling and kitbashing to give their lines longevity and greater appeal for bitz resellers to buy kits...

And that new audience of people who they've sold all that 28mm 40k plastic to since 2020 and the 2024 release of SM2 are groaning under their pile of shame, but a new BFG game isn't 28mm, it's nearly complete and not really adding the pile, not really! The key issue will be the price. GW are competing with themselves, with 40k, these games need to be cheaper and make the 40k hobbyist feel like he is getting a bargain to make them jump into it. But LI really doesn't do that, it feels even worse paying those prices than for 40k stuff. (The sad part is they'd sell a ton of those little models to painters if they'd just package them in smaller amounts for cheaper or sold single sprues. It's actually crazy they don't given how easy it is to lose those models) And I don't know why GW can't just accept a little less ludicrous profit in order to make the likes of LI or BFG succeed. It's not like the models could be used as proxies in 40k. They also overestimated the degree people cared about HH as a setting for a wargame compared to 40k, the hardcore audience for those books aren't hobbyists or prefer 40k.

 Crimson wrote:

If it was set into 40K, people could still easily play it in HH as well. Reverse is not true.

Not quite the same thing I’m afraid.

Heresy is peak Imperium. Gloriana Class Battle Cruisers for one (I think there’s only 4 know in the 40K Universe). Potentially massive fleets.

I still stand by my earlier comment that I do fear for effective variety.

In the original BFG, each fleet felt like a very different challenge to fight, and to use. Orks were brawlers, and had potentially devastating, potentially laughable firepower turn to turn. Eldar needed you to really lean into the movement, and one on one had nothing like the raw firepower of their adversaries. Tau were tricky to catch off guard as their dorsal weapons could be turned to augment either broadside. Imperial Fleets were more brutal than Chaos, relying on early torpedo volleys to control enemy manoeuvres, whilst you closed in for short ranged firefights and even ramming. Necrons were simply filth.

And I genuinely worry that a Heresy set BFG may be hobbling itself from the get go in that regard.

Also with the Badab War ships (and first draft of the Tau ones from Taros), the FW design team just didn't seem to get how BFG worked.

They made their even "bigger than battleships" big ships way too tough in a way that just didn't work with how things like Ordnance or the balance of firepower to shields.

The bigger issue with HH locking their games is its less obvious knock on effects for the non imperial products.

The more gw make it clear that anything not imperial is a second class product, by clear divisions of support across their products from novels to novelty items, the more it affects player choice.

Existing players may get disillusioned with their army choice, or swap armies. New players may see the clear favoritism and plethora of options and opportunities and decide not to spend their money on dead end factions.

All this does is chip away at the perceived value of non imperial factions, which chips away at consumer confidence about those factions.

Maybe gw is happy that their actions don't sell more non imperial factions. Maybe they want to just sell imperial. If I was running a range of product lines and they were all supposedly integral to the business plan of successfully selling an IP setting, the deliberately not using the same methods that sell marines for other factions would certainly be the way I'd do it.

Normal business would see less popular products and see how the strategies of bolter porn, games and mini saturation have worked for marines and use those to boost other lines. Or they'd cut their losses and drop it entirely.

Gw are sitting in the middle because they know that non imperials are vital for the health of the game ecosystem but they also would rather short term profit from selling another marine box then an concerted effort to bring other factions up to the same or similar level.

Sometime around 2007-2008 my FLGS had a bunch of guys get into BFG. Also around that time I was REALLY into the Battlestar Galactica TV series (reboot).

I scrounged up a fleet of BSG ships in the BFG scale. Never got the chance to play though, as life happens and I started to have to work on game nights. Might be funny to have some BFG/ Star Wars Armada/ Star Trek Fleet Acton crossover games.

As an aside, I think folks are slightly misremembering (or oversimplifying) the BFG lore. The fluff on the differences between Imperium and Chaos designs overlaps and contradicts itself in places - the Grand Cruiser fluff is where it implies the 40k chaos ships were the original imperial designs but that is contradicted in a number of other places.

The blue book is explicit that the Emperor class battleship design (for instance) predates the great crusade. Similarly the chaos destroyer is stated to be a later version to the Imperial Cobra.

Considering the way the Imperium and technology usually works, it wouldn't be much of a retcon to say even the "new" (in BFG fluff) imperial designs were actually around during the great crusade / Heresy and subsequently lost then later "rediscovered ", etc...

Which is to say, a game set in the Heresy could very easily consist of a blend of ship designs including both the traditional BFG Imperial designs and Chaos mixed in together in the same fleet in theory.

Yeah The info implied that it was mostly the aesthetic that changed, the underlying technology didn't.

The ramming prows were added to the ship designs later. The emperor battleship chassis was older than the great crusade, but the gubbins the imperium stick on later was new.

They often talk about advanced plasma guns, or drives, but from the outside you can't tell.

So the concept of a hard line between the HH era and modern imperial ship is a lot less obvious than it appears

I must be the only 40k nutter who doesn't find BFG appealing. I mean, the miniatures are fine and that, but I just cannot justify a tabletop game mechanic for space fights where the game is played ON A 2D PLANE!

Man O war on the other hand, now that I could manage, since naval battles are pretty much a 2D affair

Billicus wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

I mean... the entire BFG range was 1 cruiser sculpt per faction with combinations of 3 weapons modules...

Yeah, but it gets a pass because it was a bajillion years ago I think.

The entire PLASTIC line was 2 sprues, but there was a huge metal and resin line as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for that the Battlefleet Heresy ships might looked like, the BFG predecessor Space Fleet had a nice looking family of ships that were basically Star Wars Super Star Destroyers by way of 40k. A sword-like hull with a city build on it.





They don't look like any other line of ships and have a history GW can use to launch their new line.

 Crimson wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

If it was set into 40K, people could still easily play it in HH as well. Reverse is not true.

BFG fluffed that the Chaos ships were mostly M36-M39 designs, while the Imperial ones were M39-M41 and represented a paradigm shift in Imperial tactics. The Vengeance-class Grand Cruiser was designed as a transitional model to show the progression. If GW brings back BFG in any form I'm sure there'll be some retconning, but the whole reason the Chaos and Imperial fleets are visually and functionally different is because they come from different eras. Would Heresy players really be excited to play Chaos v Chaos games, skip daemons and marks of Chaos, and have to homebrew/houserule their own Legion-specific rules? I kinda doubt it. As much as I prefer the setting of 40K, selling a single set of minis to all the Heresy players does seem like the safer option.

I mean you basically outline here why HH fleet game would be boring. Aside from having legion rules, this is exactly what it would be. Boring mirror matches with very limited selection of ships.

Adeptus Titanicus also has "boring mirror matches" - both sides have almost the same options, and there's about five different Titans to choose from, depending on how you count. Despite that, it is still an absolute joy to play. There is enough flexibility in army selection and faction-specific rules that different armies can still feel quite different. While having more choices is always better, and a diverse Battlefleet 41k would likely be more fun than Battlefleet Heresy, I don't think the latter would necessarily be boring, and could even be pretty good. I am cautiously optimistic, although I still have far too much Epic to paint, so I'd be perfectly happy if they don't release a fleet game for another couple of years...

 Hellebore wrote:
Yeah The info implied that it was mostly the aesthetic that changed, the underlying technology didn't.

The ramming prows were added to the ship designs later. The emperor battleship chassis was older than the great crusade, but the gubbins the imperium stick on later was new.

They often talk about advanced plasma guns, or drives, but from the outside you can't tell.

So the concept of a hard line between the HH era and modern imperial ship is a lot less obvious than it appears

The ship stats tell the difference between the Martian shipyard style (the armored prow and multiple engine tubes as seen in ships like the Emperor class) and the dagger prow shaped ships that have since fallen out of favor but are still used by Chaos renegades. Basically there seemed to have been several schools of ship design. The dagger shaped ones were higher tech but more difficult to build and maintain.

The Chaos ships fell out of favor because Imperial technology declined. That is why the Chaos ships are a little faster and use long range lance weapons and have longer range weapon batteries. The armored prow Imperial ships have torpedo tubes in the prow and generally shorter ranged weapon batteries. Even when the BFG rulebook talks about rediscovering superfired plasma weapons for the Tyrant class cruiser, the Tyrant's superfired weapon batteries just have a slightly longer range compared to the Lunar class and still not comparable in either firepower or range to some of the equivalent Chaos cruisers.

As Imperial technology declined, it was easier to build ships where it is just putting on slabs of armor in front instead of putting in long range lance weapons. The Repulsive grand cruiser fell out of production because the secret of making compact yet powerful engines was lost, with later inferior engines being unable to get that hull up to a useful combat speed.

So the Martian school of reilable armored prow ships won out over the more exacting but difficult to build and maintain dagger blade hull designs as the Imperium regresses and falls back on reliable understood technology.

Iracundus wrote:


The ship stats tell the difference between the Martian shipyard style (the armored prow and multiple engine tubes as seen in ships like the Emperor class) and the dagger prow shaped ships that have since fallen out of favor but are still used by Chaos renegades. Basically there seemed to have been several schools of ship design. The dagger shaped ones were higher tech but more difficult to build and maintain.

The Chaos ships fell out of favor because Imperial technology declined. That is why the Chaos ships are a little faster and use long range lance weapons and have longer range weapon batteries. The armored prow Imperial ships have torpedo tubes in the prow and generally shorter ranged weapon batteries. Even when the BFG rulebook talks about rediscovering superfired plasma weapons for the Tyrant class cruiser, the Tyrant's superfired weapon batteries just have a slightly longer range compared to the Lunar class and still not comparable in either firepower or range to some of the equivalent Chaos cruisers.

As Imperial technology declined, it was easier to build ships where it is just putting on slabs of armor in front instead of putting in long range lance weapons. The Repulsive grand cruiser fell out of production because the secret of making compact yet powerful engines was lost, with later inferior engines being unable to get that hull up to a useful combat speed.

So the Martian school of reilable armored prow ships won out over the more exacting but difficult to build and maintain dagger blade hull designs as the Imperium regresses and falls back on reliable understood technology.

Very good analysis.

Supply lines were also an issue, Chaos favored lances (energy weapons) and batteries over torpedoes and launch bays because they did not have forge worlds churning out torpedoes, fighters and bombers for them.

Iracundus wrote:
The ship stats tell the difference between the Martian shipyard style (the armored prow and multiple engine tubes as seen in ships like the Emperor class) and the dagger prow shaped ships that have since fallen out of favor but are still used by Chaos renegades. Basically there seemed to have been several schools of ship design. The dagger shaped ones were higher tech but more difficult to build and maintain.

The Chaos ships fell out of favor because Imperial technology declined. That is why the Chaos ships are a little faster and use long range lance weapons and have longer range weapon batteries. The armored prow Imperial ships have torpedo tubes in the prow and generally shorter ranged weapon batteries. Even when the BFG rulebook talks about rediscovering superfired plasma weapons for the Tyrant class cruiser, the Tyrant's superfired weapon batteries just have a slightly longer range compared to the Lunar class and still not comparable in either firepower or range to some of the equivalent Chaos cruisers.

As Imperial technology declined, it was easier to build ships where it is just putting on slabs of armor in front instead of putting in long range lance weapons. The Repulsive grand cruiser fell out of production because the secret of making compact yet powerful engines was lost, with later inferior engines being unable to get that hull up to a useful combat speed.

So the Martian school of reilable armored prow ships won out over the more exacting but difficult to build and maintain dagger blade hull designs as the Imperium regresses and falls back on reliable understood technology.

Besides all that, there were also hints throughout the blue book that the dagger classes were inherently more corruptible because of the geometries of their design, their machine spirits, etc. and thus the aesthetic divide in the fleet lists was "statistically representative" - the majority of dagger ships fell to Chaos and the majority of prow ships didn't.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
The ship stats tell the difference between the Martian shipyard style (the armored prow and multiple engine tubes as seen in ships like the Emperor class) and the dagger prow shaped ships that have since fallen out of favor but are still used by Chaos renegades. Basically there seemed to have been several schools of ship design. The dagger shaped ones were higher tech but more difficult to build and maintain.

The Chaos ships fell out of favor because Imperial technology declined. That is why the Chaos ships are a little faster and use long range lance weapons and have longer range weapon batteries. The armored prow Imperial ships have torpedo tubes in the prow and generally shorter ranged weapon batteries. Even when the BFG rulebook talks about rediscovering superfired plasma weapons for the Tyrant class cruiser, the Tyrant's superfired weapon batteries just have a slightly longer range compared to the Lunar class and still not comparable in either firepower or range to some of the equivalent Chaos cruisers.

As Imperial technology declined, it was easier to build ships where it is just putting on slabs of armor in front instead of putting in long range lance weapons. The Repulsive grand cruiser fell out of production because the secret of making compact yet powerful engines was lost, with later inferior engines being unable to get that hull up to a useful combat speed.

So the Martian school of reilable armored prow ships won out over the more exacting but difficult to build and maintain dagger blade hull designs as the Imperium regresses and falls back on reliable understood technology.

Besides all that, there were also hints throughout the blue book that the dagger classes were inherently more corruptible because of the geometries of their design, their machine spirits, etc. and thus the aesthetic divide in the fleet lists was "statistically representative" - the majority of dagger ships fell to Chaos and the majority of prow ships didn't.

That is one possibility. There is another though that was referenced in the BFG magazines I believe (don't have them handy to check the reference). As the Imperium's technology declined, the dagger ships were increasingly sidelined and not given priority for maintenance or repairs (probably because the Imperium could no longer do so easily), leading to their neglected captains denouncing the Imperium and turning renegade. So rather than the ships being inherently corruptible, the Imperium's neglect of the ships and their captains and crews caused mutiny.

BFG Chaos ships also used plasma drives, with 25 cm movement over the imperium’s 20cm movement, which were stated to no longer be able to be easily or at all produced.

The same was said to be true of the Chaos ships’ longer range plasma macro-batteries being lost technology.

Lance weaponry was also commonplace among Chaos cruiser, grand cruisers, and battleships, and these lances had greatly superior range than Imperial lance batteries.

I have been waiting for the return of BFG for years. I went a bit crazy back when they shut down Specialist Games and bought a lot from the US, UK, and AUS webstores to fill out my collection. Still have my Ramilies Star Fort somewhere. And as long as they don't completely screw it up, I'll buy lots of new stuff, too.

This is just an example of GW trying to make a meme like they did with Sisters of Battle and Squats. Will it turn into something? Very possibly, they've probably got launches like this in their back pocket to prop up any slightly poor performing year.

 ph34r wrote:
BFG Chaos ships also used plasma drives, with 25 cm movement over the imperium’s 20cm movement, which were stated to no longer be able to be easily or at all produced.

The same was said to be true of the Chaos ships’ longer range plasma macro-batteries being lost technology.

Lance weaponry was also commonplace among Chaos cruiser, grand cruisers, and battleships, and these lances had greatly superior range than Imperial lance batteries.

I think what's more important is that these are all rules based differences, not aesthetic ones.There were named imperial.shipsnthst were retrofitted with captured chaos equipment to improve their guns or speed. But the models themselves were indistinguishable from the normal imperial ships.

The only aesthetic that had a rule was the armoured prow, because it was thicker armour. But the greater external aesthetic of the two lines of ship are pretty independent of the mechanics underneath. So there's no issue with having both variants around in the HH, or having modern imperial classes with different aesthetics - the aforementioned battleship could exist without an armoured prow but otherwise the same




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iracundus wrote:

Snip
.

Yeah exactly. The interchangeability of the technology without external aesthetic change allows for HH to have. Wide range of designs. The emperor having the knife shell with the same underneath would be an interesting design choice.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Interesting.

More specifically, they compare the new Custodes change to the change from 1st generation Stormcast to Stormstrike armor complete with gendered armor.

*sigh*

I really hope that's just ragebaiting.

I'm probably in the minority but I would love the models to be slightly larger, I know the gamers will hate this. Just want a plastic Apocalypse class battleship (the only true battleship) for display

 Rolsheen wrote:
I'm probably in the minority but I would love the models to be slightly larger, I know the gamers will hate this. Just want a plastic Apocalypse class battleship (the only true battleship) for display

Who knows, if they bring back BFG we might see something like the JoyToy line, or one of the other large scale display options. There has got to be a market for people who want a foot long imperial/heretic warship sitting on a desk or mantel. Is building ships in bottles still a thing?

Wonder how many parts a Cobra might come in?

Because whilst I love the new epic scale kits? There’s definitely a question of should over could in terms of the fiddly.

 Rolsheen wrote:
I'm probably in the minority but I would love the models to be slightly larger, I know the gamers will hate this. Just want a plastic Apocalypse class battleship (the only true battleship) for display

It is preferable to many people if the game remained compatible with old models, but ignoring that slightly larger scale might be good idea. The smallest escorts are pretty tiny, and in the fluff there exists even smaller corvettes and it would be nice to have those in the game. And in plastic you obviously can make the largest ships much larger than they were when the models were metal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Interesting.

More specifically, they compare the new Custodes change to the change from 1st generation Stormcast to Stormstrike armor complete with gendered armor.

*sigh*

I really hope that's just ragebaiting.

What's wrong with it?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wonder how many parts a Cobra might come in?

Because whilst I love the new epic scale kits? There’s definitely a question of should over could in terms of the fiddly.

Well, luckily at least we don't already have 40k scaled ships that GW would feel obliged to 100% match. So theoretically they could design models from scratch with construction in BFG scale in mind.

True, but the do like to show off how much noodly detailing they can get in these days.

Consider the humble Deimos Pattern Rhino (or RH1NO for particularly old folks).

The Epic kits have the exhausts as separate parts, four per tank. When, at that scale? Sure moulding them onto the side might cost some fine detail, but not to a noticable degree for most paint jobs.

 winnertakesall wrote:

This is just an example of GW trying to make a meme like they did with Sisters of Battle and Squats. Will it turn into something? Very possibly, they've probably got launches like this in their back pocket to prop up any slightly poor performing year.

That's not how GW works - they have a lead time of anything between 18 months and 3 years on the things they release, dependent upon the scale and complexity. They don't just 'hold things in their back pocket to prop up any slightly poor performing year'.

 tauist wrote:
I must be the only 40k nutter who doesn't find BFG appealing. I mean, the miniatures are fine and that, but I just cannot justify a tabletop game mechanic for space fights where the game is played ON A 2D PLANE!

Man O war on the other hand, now that I could manage, since naval battles are pretty much a 2D affair

BFG is one of the better representations of space fights on a tabletop precisely because it accepts that space is big and doesn't worry about the third dimension that would basically amount to a range modifier in most cases. Ships can't collide unless explicitly ordered to, all measurements are taken from the mathematical midpoint at the stem while the models themselves are just purely there for eye candy and so on. I have much more problems with similar games that try to model atmospheric dogfighting with aircraft and forget to account for energy-altitude-velocity trades, or the worst of them all, games about dogfighting in space where your pitifully small fighters can stop larger craft in their tracks by moving in front of them (looking at you, X-Wing)

 Crimson wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
I'm probably in the minority but I would love the models to be slightly larger, I know the gamers will hate this. Just want a plastic Apocalypse class battleship (the only true battleship) for display

is preferable to many people if the game remained compatible with old models, but ignoring that slightly larger scale might be good idea. The smallest escorts are pretty tiny, and in the fluff there exists even smaller corvettes and it would be nice to have those in the game. And in plastic you obviously can make the largest ships much larger than they were when the models were metal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Interesting.

More specifically, they compare the new Custodes change to the change from 1st generation Stormcast to Stormstrike armor complete with gendered armor.

*sigh*

I really hope that's just ragebaiting.

What's wrong with it?

Femstodes all over again I think.

Finally they are coming out with BattleFlotsum. The sequel to Dreadfleet. Where you are the captain of a damaged frigate from your army and you have to collect pieces of flotsum to get seaworthy again. So, you'll have shoreline fights with other crews to collect driftwood to patch holes. So, it will be a skirmish game building to a whole armada range.Product will come as blind draws of sprues as you never know what the tides will wash ashore.

Dudeface wrote:
Femstodes all over again I think.

It does seem a bit left field to bring it up during a discussion on space naval battles, unless the point is to derail or distract.

 Theophony wrote:
Finally they are coming out with BattleFlotsum. The sequel to Dreadfleet. Where you are the captain of a damaged frigate from your army and you have to collect pieces of flotsum to get seaworthy again. So, you'll have shoreline fights with other crews to collect driftwood to patch holes. So, it will be a skirmish game building to a whole armada range.Product will come as blind draws of sprues as you never know what the tides will wash ashore.

That just sounds like red hot Skaven on Goblin action, and I’d love that.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 tauist wrote:
I must be the only 40k nutter who doesn't find BFG appealing. I mean, the miniatures are fine and that, but I just cannot justify a tabletop game mechanic for space fights where the game is played ON A 2D PLANE!

Man O war on the other hand, now that I could manage, since naval battles are pretty much a 2D affair

BFG is one of the better representations of space fights on a tabletop precisely because it accepts that space is big and doesn't worry about the third dimension that would basically amount to a range modifier in most cases. Ships can't collide unless explicitly ordered to, all measurements are taken from the mathematical midpoint at the stem while the models themselves are just purely there for eye candy and so on. I have much more problems with similar games that try to model atmospheric dogfighting with aircraft and forget to account for energy-altitude-velocity trades, or the worst of them all, games about dogfighting in space where your pitifully small fighters can stop larger craft in their tracks by moving in front of them (looking at you, X-Wing)

Yeah, not that people aren't free to not like things because they're lacking in their eyes, but when you think about it from a game design perspective what would a 3rd dimension really add to space battles? A longer distance measurement from ship to ship and not much else. Which would cause designers to increase weapons' ranges to compensate. You could add top and bottom damage zones in addition to front/back/right/left, but as you're filling in damage bubbles to the bottom zone of your ship you'd really have to ask yourself, "Is this making the game better in any tangible way?" I've seen this discussion several times online over the years, and it just doesn't seem like we're really missing out on anything just because we have flat tables to play on.

Dropfleet used to have three height zones, but I think in 2nd edition they dropped it down to two.

 Crimson wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
I'm probably in the minority but I would love the models to be slightly larger, I know the gamers will hate this. Just want a plastic Apocalypse class battleship (the only true battleship) for display

is preferable to many people if the game remained compatible with old models, but ignoring that slightly larger scale might be good idea. The smallest escorts are pretty tiny, and in the fluff there exists even smaller corvettes and it would be nice to have those in the game. And in plastic you obviously can make the largest ships much larger than they were when the models were metal.

Yeah. Also, the game is pretty much the only gw one that uses an abstract point to represent the model that's perfectly balanced across all models, so the size of the model doesn't actually matter.

It might be the only time I wouldn't mind scale creep to add something to the game. Plus it helps thaf the buy in was low.


It could be cool if they took the route of treating battleships as 40k equiv titanic units, with cruisers as vehicles and escorts as infantry, in terms of the amount that appears on the table. You could then add smaller escorts like Corvettes as more regular units. It also opens up the light cruiser scale for expansion.

Maybe GW dropped that one to see what the reaction was. Considering how thoroughly they are exploiting their past IP, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are planning to bring back BFG.

I played BFG quite a lot - I liked the idea of Battle of Jutland style engagements in space. The metal models weren’t very practical, and looked pretty crude, so I tried to stick to plastic. Unfortunately, one of the players worked out that spamming small ships with torpedoes was very hard to counter, and everyone lost interest. I would quite like slightly larger ships, but not overloaded with small parts - LI models are just too labour-intensive for what they are.

If they kept to the original scale, maybe I’d be able to use the Chaos battlecruiser I converted. I never finished painting it. Here it is with some smaller ships I also converted.

Superb work on those ships.

 Snord wrote:
Maybe GW dropped that one to see what the reaction was. Considering how thoroughly they are exploiting their past IP, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are planning to bring back BFG.

I played BFG quite a lot - I liked the idea of Battle of Jutland style engagements in space. The metal models weren’t very practical, and looked pretty crude, so I tried to stick to plastic. Unfortunately, one of the players worked out that spamming small ships with torpedoes was very hard to counter, and everyone lost interest. I would quite like slightly larger ships, but not overloaded with small parts - LI models are just too labour-intensive for what they are.

That's what fighter screens were for, to sweep aside torpedo salvoes. If they try to counter by having lots of little salvoes, remember that ship point defense turrets got to fire against every salvo that attacked, so little salvoes are unlikely to get through the turret fire of big ships. Smaller ships can also base to base against larger ships to support their turret fire.

The scale of BFG is something that needs to be either adjusted or reflected in the background. As originally depicted, according to Andy Chambers, each cm = about 1000 km, and each ship is in the stem of the base. Yet in the Black Library books, we have captains and admirals looking over the hulls of other ships in detail out the window with the naked eye. That would be point blank collision range, or if they were a decent distance away then they should be little more than a dot (if that) and not really visible to the naked eye.

I mean nothing about the ships makes sense as written, especially if you take the ridiculous ship sizes from the RPGs seriously. Having the ships be kilometers long with millions of crew means boarding actions of squads as depicted in many novels would be meaningless and you'd nevet fight your way to the bridge in any meaningful amount of time. I headcanon the ships to a much more reasonable size and crew.

 Da Boss wrote:
I mean nothing about the ships makes sense as written, especially if you take the ridiculous ship sizes from the RPGs seriously. Having the ships be kilometers long with millions of crew means boarding actions of squads as depicted in many novels would be meaningless and you'd nevet fight your way to the bridge in any meaningful amount of time. I headcanon the ships to a much more reasonable size and crew.

Yes, before the RPGs inflated things, Black Library fiction was actually remarkably consistent (within a certain give or take range) with the scale of ships and crew sizes.

It also makes no sense if transports have crew sizes greater than their cargo hold content. That has never been the case AFAIK for any kind of transport ship or vehicle in history.

Iirc there were some notes published for BFG somewhere that had notional numbers with 3.5km long cruisers and roughly 1000 crew per hit point, at least for the imperial and chaos ships.

 Hellebore wrote:
Iirc there were some notes published for BFG somewhere that had notional numbers with 3.5km long cruisers and roughly 1000 crew per hit point, at least for the imperial and chaos ships.

That was Andy Chambers, designer of BFG, from the old mailing list:

My two pennyworth on crew sizes was around 1500-2000 per damage point for Imperial and Chaos capital ships (adjust down a bit for Eldar and up a bit for Orks), but only around 2-500 total for escorts. Space Marine ships, as had been mooted, I would imagine to benefit from a lot of automated systems and wired in servitors to reduce their crew requirements to a minimum and increase their state of readiness in comparison with Navy ships. I would imagine that most Imperial and Chaos capital ships could find transport capacity for troops equal to about 1/3 to 1/2 their crew compliment. Tanks, artillery, Titans etc would need specialist transports to carry in any significant numbers.A far more interesting way of looking at crew numbers is summed up in this excerpt from a short story I've been writing for my own amusement.

Nathan woke to the sound of screaming.
He lurched up with a half-strangled yelp, almost braining himself on the bottom of Kron's bunk. He stared wildly about him, gulping for breath. The oppressive redlight of the bunkroom still surrounded him, the cloying odour of sour sweat and grease still fought the sharp tang of coolant in the air down here. The room was quiet save for the drip of the condensers and the sussurance of night noises made by forty sleeping men.

Nathan wiped a shaky hand across across his eyes and peered over towards Hendriks. If anyone had screamed it would have been Hendriks, he had nightmares nearly every sleep-shift. They all did, but Hendriks just couldn't take it. Perhaps he had a guilty conscience, or perhaps he was just some dumb farmer who was completely terrified by being shut up in one of the Emperor's warships.The scream came again, but it was tinny and distant, carried along by the conduits from another bunkroom. Pity the poor devils in there, thought Nathan, every one of them wide awake and praying the screamer didn't go berserk and start clawing and biting at them. Didn't turn into a wild beast like Fetchin had.

Nathan lay back in the narrow bunk and tried to recapture sleep. He tried to imagine all the other shipmen doing the same. Start with this gundeck. Forty guns with forty(ish) crews each, thats sixteen hundred, another gundeck on the port side for three thousand two hundred. Then there were the lance turrets, port and starboard, nobody seemed to know just how big the crews for those beasts were, call it another sixteen hundred a piece. This was working well, his eyelids were drooping. That was six and a half thousand souls (give or take). The torps probably had a crew bigger than a single gun but less than a whole deck - maybe a thousand. That made seven and a half... engines must be at least two or three thousand more...


https://web.archive.org/web/20041225011114/http://www.wolfedengames.com/battlefleetgothic/crew.htm

 Da Boss wrote:
I mean nothing about the ships makes sense as written, especially if you take the ridiculous ship sizes from the RPGs seriously

What is it, some kind of a magic xylophone? I hope somebody got fired for that blunder


As for the game itself, without knowing the rules I don't really know what to be excited about. Cool models are cool, but there's a lot of miniature wargames with cool models now. Those with really well written, engaging, smart rules are in short supply though. Knowing GW, I do not hold my breath, but I don't factor out any surprises (KT is a pretty smart game as far as GW standards are concerned).

It being a Heresy game would immediately kill any interest of mine, though, just like LI did. I remember for most of the editions I've played (3-8) the prevalence of Space Marines made any battles involving marines a rather generic, unexciting affair and the marine on marine matchup the epitome of flat and boring. It kind of blew my mind that GW decided to base a game exactly on that

the numbers have always been ridiculous and all over the place in general

the designers also thought about "less" automatism on 40k ships compared to like WW1 or WW2 ships, given some stories and artwork, without knowing how many people those ships needed for their guns

like the WW2 Iowa class had ~100 crew for the 16" turrets, makes ~30 per gun, ~2000 crew total with a ratio of ~1:2 for tooth to tail

so use the 7k gun crew mentioned in the story and you are ~21.000 people on a single ship
now you would add that the ratio to logistics and supply is ~1:5 and you need a 100.000 people per ship to keep that going

and now add that supply needs to be stored for decades given how they operate and this is way beyond anything

40k is meant ti be ridiculously big and unrealistic, the same as Star Wars, so even if you just use what is written in the original rulebook it is beyond what would make sense

On Boarding Actions? Boarding Torpedoes and in Heresy era Dreadclaws are fairly adept at hitting the enemy ship right where they don’t want to be hit. Don’t have to fight your way to the Bridge if you can be delivered right to it,

Also short range teleportation. Orks and all flavours of Astartes could do that, tech wise.

Torpedoes could indeed be countered by launching Fighters. But that still forcing your opponent to react. All the time they’re launching Fighters, they’re reducing their Bomber and Assault Boat options. Meanwhile, with enemy Fighters trying to negate Torpedo volleys, your own launch decks can be farting out said Bombers and Assault Boats.

They’re kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t threat.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On Boarding Actions? Boarding Torpedoes and in Heresy era Dreadclaws are fairly adept at hitting the enemy ship right where they don’t want to be hit. Don’t have to fight your way to the Bridge if you can be delivered right to it,

Also short range teleportation. Orks and all flavours of Astartes could do that, tech wise.

Torpedoes could indeed be countered by launching Fighters. But that still forcing your opponent to react. All the time they’re launching Fighters, they’re reducing their Bomber and Assault Boat options. Meanwhile, with enemy Fighters trying to negate Torpedo volleys, your own launch decks can be farting out said Bombers and Assault Boats.

They’re kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t threat.

If the person was loading up on small escorts firing torpedoes then they would not have as many points for ships with launch bays. They would also have a fleet with far less durability since by BFG rules, escorts only had 1 Hit with their hull whereas a cruiser would have 8 (for Imperials and Chaos), while cruisers were not 8x as costly as escorts. Admittedly I think Andy Chambers said the fragility of escorts was one mistake he would have liked to do over as there was such a huge gap between escorts and capital ships in terms of durability.

On the issue of changing model scale, I'm not too worried about it. As long as they stick to the original concept where measurements are from the base stem and not the model, you can use any size models you like. Just be prepared to pull them off their bases if several ships get bunched up.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On Boarding Actions? Boarding Torpedoes and in Heresy era Dreadclaws are fairly adept at hitting the enemy ship right where they don’t want to be hit. Don’t have to fight your way to the Bridge if you can be delivered right to it,

Also short range teleportation. Orks and all flavours of Astartes could do that, tech wise.

I'm thinking of sequences in novels where the Astartes are at the bridge and have to get somewhere else to be picked up before the ship falls apart. When the ship is so incredibly enormous it just doesn't make sense that they could traverse it in the timeframes given.

I just think the ship sizes are too big, and the idea of essentially "lost tribes" down in the crew decks is from another genre of sci fi entirely. A cool concept, but it doesn't fit with the sort of warships 40k is about, it's more for massive generation ships where there is no FTL.

Iracundus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On Boarding Actions? Boarding Torpedoes and in Heresy era Dreadclaws are fairly adept at hitting the enemy ship right where they don’t want to be hit. Don’t have to fight your way to the Bridge if you can be delivered right to it,

Also short range teleportation. Orks and all flavours of Astartes could do that, tech wise.

Torpedoes could indeed be countered by launching Fighters. But that still forcing your opponent to react. All the time they’re launching Fighters, they’re reducing their Bomber and Assault Boat options. Meanwhile, with enemy Fighters trying to negate Torpedo volleys, your own launch decks can be farting out said Bombers and Assault Boats.

They’re kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t threat.

If the person was loading up on small escorts firing torpedoes then they would not have as many points for ships with launch bays. They would also have a fleet with far less durability since by BFG rules, escorts only had 1 Hit with their hull whereas a cruiser would have 8 (for Imperials and Chaos), while cruisers were not 8x as costly as escorts. Admittedly I think Andy Chambers said the fragility of escorts was one mistake he would have liked to do over as there was such a huge gap between escorts and capital ships in terms of durability.

True, but Imperial Fleets could pack in a fair number of Light Cruisers and Cruisers with reasonable amount of Torpedoes. If you really specced in, you would be sacrificing Lances (Dauntless Light Cruisers) and Nova Cannon.

But even a couple of squadrons of Cobras could spit out a decent number of Torpedoes early game in an attempt to force your opponent into action.

God I miss that game.

40k ships has always been insanely big, 40k writers never had a sense of scale.

No one is every changing that because absurdly big ships is part of the power fantasy.

Just remember, some of those boarding torpedoes are filled with Space Marine Bike Squads.

They can cover a lot of distance, very quickly.

Boarding is also less about taking control of the ship but rather crippling it.

If you end in the ass if the ship, you don't go for the bridge, you go for the engines.

I thought the ships would be able to transport huge armies complete with loads of warmachines and tanks + crew to run the ship, and supplies to support them for months in transit.
Ad to that the over the top 40k style that would include a cathedral, huge halls to display banners and statues, and other important stuff.

How would these ships not be huge space cities?

Disclaimer, I have avoided this thread because i dont acknowledge it as news and rumours, and dont have any interest in the game. But now Im here for the general discussion that is apparently not a problem.

 Fayric wrote:
I thought the ships would be able to transport huge armies complete with loads of warmachines and tanks + crew to run the ship, and supplies to support them for months in transit.

While that's true for some ships(Marines, Orks, Eldar, Tyranids, probably Tau), the Guard, Mechanicum, and Titan Legions use purpose built mass conveyance ships(with the Titan ones specifically designed for both drop pod and lander launches).

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
I thought the ships would be able to transport huge armies complete with loads of warmachines and tanks + crew to run the ship, and supplies to support them for months in transit.

While that's true for some ships(Marines, Orks, Eldar, Tyranids, probably Tau), the Guard, Mechanicum, and Titan Legions use purpose built mass conveyance ships(with the Titan ones specifically designed for both drop pod and lander launches).

Then you have House Faustus that likes to use its Teleportariums to beam Knights onto other ships and directly into battlefields.

The Imperial Guard will hitch a ride on whichever ship they can between Warzones.

Whist the Imperial Fleet of course has dedicated carriers, all ships by necessity have some orbit to ground lander capability. Not necessarily in the numbers to be useful to a Guard Regiment, but they still have to take whatever they can get.

Examples I’m most familiar with are of course from the Ciaphas Cain novels. On occasion, they’re travelling aboard a Navy vessel. Other times, it’s a dedicated troop ship. On others it’s a hastily requisitioned/hired Private Ships.

Provided a given ship can physically house the Regiment and its necessities? It’s fair game, regardless of how efficient the offloading might be.

So I'm well in to the Siege of Terra arc in the HH novels but I was utterly absorbed by the Solar Wars arc - the fleet battles really fired up my imagination and were not nearly as boring as I thought they'd be. I would be very happy to see BFG return but saying that, there's a new 2.0(?) set for Drop Fleet Commander that is just void war based, and Wayland just announced a new Firestorm Armada, so we may soon end up with a raft of games supported with cool plastic ships.

 Hellebore wrote:
Iirc there were some notes published for BFG somewhere that had notional numbers with 3.5km long cruisers and roughly 1000 crew per hit point, at least for the imperial and chaos ships.

IIRC it also mentioned Orks and Eldar briefly, just saying approximately double the numbers for Orks and half for Eldar.

If they do to BFG what they did to Aeronautica.... well...... I won't be purchasing.

Honestly I would likely still buy into it; but not at launch and not as much if they don't do 40K.

Also I feel like AI and BFG are really weak offerings in the 30K setting. You can't just create a dozen marines in different styles for different factions.

Yes its easy on GW because one set of sprue and they've got both sides and starter sets are valid for single and double player purchases. But yeah no Xenos really limits the creative pool.

 Easy E wrote:
If they do to BFG what they did to Aeronautica.... well...... I won't be purchasing.

Make cool toys and not support it at all?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
If they do to BFG what they did to Aeronautica.... well...... I won't be purchasing.

Make cool toys and not support it at all?

Change the scale, make the rules worse, add a grid, and then abandon it half-way through the re-lauch.

It is weird that they just quietly dropped AI as if they'd never restarted it in the first place.

I won't go into a lecture on it, but I'm now convinced that Aeronautica 40K is going to return soon as the prelude to Epic 40K - postponed due to the difficulties of the covid situation.

I can't see Epic 40K happening

LI is doing "ok" right now. It's a good seller it seems and is getting solid support but I don't see it getting support for a game that's selling like wildfire enough to justify two competing lines. Esp in 8mm scale which is notoriously hard to get a market for (outside of historicals).

Sure the titans and aircraft don't have to be remade; but basically all the infantry and tanks do have to be remade to work in 40K

if Epic 40k comes back it would be done by the 40k studio and in direct competition to LI, not even GW is stupid enough to allow that

for the same reason if BFG returns it is either by the 30k studio or 40k studio and given the current gaming situation, 40k is unlikely

The scale change from Epic and the rule system were the killer for me. Could have handled one or the other, but both was too much.

SamusDrake wrote:
I won't go into a lecture on it, but I'm now convinced that Aeronautica 40K is going to return soon as the prelude to Epic 40K - postponed due to the difficulties of the covid situation.

I really have absolutely no idea what could possibly have convinced you that Aeronautica or Epic is going to return. Why would you think that? They tried a new aeronautica already, and they have an epic equivalent with Legionnes Imperialis.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:


I really have absolutely no idea what could possibly have convinced you that Aeronautica or Epic is going to return. Why would you think that? They tried a new aeronautica already, and they have an epic equivalent with Legionnes Imperialis.

Okay, lets do this; convince me to get into Warhammer: The Horus Heresy - Aeronautica Imperialis

Why should I buy into the game. I'm serious about this...convince me.



EDIT: For the record I mean no ill will towards you. This is not to instigate an argument, but to shed light on why Aeronautica is still on sale. Please do not take this personally.

 kodos wrote:
if Epic 40k comes back it would be done by the 40k studio and in direct competition to LI, not even GW is stupid enough to allow that

for the same reason if BFG returns it is either by the 30k studio or 40k studio and given the current gaming situation, 40k is unlikely

Yet we’ve 30k and 40K in 28mm. So I have to ask, what’s the difference here?

Legions Imperialis lets me muck around with canonically huge Space Marine armies, with all sorts of funky toys to support the infantry.

40K in Epic Scale would allow me to field the Imperial Guard army of my dreams, or the Orky horde of someone’s nightmare. To better represent the sheer numbers of a Hive Fleet assaulting a world and so on and so forth.

I think the difference is simple - sales

30K has Space Marines and heck the majority of releases for 30K are Space Marines. Space Marines are an enigma that "just sells".

LI isn't Space Marines in the same way; its a different target market. I can't see GW risking what's basically a niche market with two competing games. Esp since honestly I'd wager 40K would end up the more popular very quickly since you can use all the titans and aircraft; and you can use most of the marine models at that scale too as a counts'as with little problem.

You mostly just need the tanks reworking and even there its small things. Heck a chunk of the SA tanks are only "30K only" very recently because GW chose to draw a line between the products and a bunch of GW tanks wound up on the 30K instead of 40K side.



If LI were flying off the shelves; generating LOADS of buzz and hype then I'd expect them to have a faster roll out of new models and factions alongside the potential for GW to consider having two competing lines.
But its not. It's doing good but its not a wonder-seller of game.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:


I really have absolutely no idea what could possibly have convinced you that Aeronautica or Epic is going to return. Why would you think that? They tried a new aeronautica already, and they have an epic equivalent with Legionnes Imperialis.

Okay, lets do this; convince me to get into Warhammer: The Horus Heresy - Aeronautica Imperialis

Why should I buy into the game. I'm serious about this...convince me.



EDIT: For the record I mean no ill will towards you. This is not to instigate an argument, but to shed light on why Aeronautica is still on sale. Please do not take this personally.

Horus Heresy aeronautica is still available because of Legiones Imperialis. That's it. If it weren't for that game making use of the aircraft, they would have been discontinued along with the rest. It doesn't even have its own category on the webstore, let alone a starter set or anything - it's just the last remnants of a no-longer supported product.

How does that have anything to do with you being convinced that Epic 40k or Aeronautica 40k is returning, though? Are you just going "I don't like the Horus Heresy, so that means 40k is coming back"? You made out you had some reason to actually think so, not just a hope.

I'm trying to heavily condense my reply, and might be very disjointed here and there....

I think if Epic 40K was nuked - gone for good - then Aeronautica would not still be on sale. It would just be written off like Dreadfleet. Because right now there is no Heresy boxed game for Aeronautica. They have only a rule book. A rule book, on page 10 - if the image I am looking at is correct - states the following...

Games of Aeronautica Imperialis are played on a grid of hexes overlaid onto an aerial map depicting a war-torn world of the 31st Millennium. Fold-out Areas of Engagement are available from Games Workshop.

...but this has been incorrect for three years now. This book should no longer be on sale if Games Workshop can no longer supply this essential component to play the game. Legacy or not, I can easily walk into a GW store and order this book, then return and ask to purchase the board to play on. And then when they say "we longer sell them"...well, I could then say I'd like a refund for the rule book I cannot use. An annoyed customer would might even ask "why are you selling this book then?".

Truth is, I like Epic being restricted to the Heresy era. I was looking forward to that AI-30K boxed game that never showed up. But we have the Horizon Wars rules set for aircraft and its an ideal substitute for Heresy-era dog fighting.

But its hard to over look the effect that covid has had on many projects across the board. Films and TV shows were cancelled and GW has clearly had many problems with a few of their games, making cutbacks - even the expansions for Cursed City didn't have any models!

Aeronautica was released in late 2019 - August If I remember correctly - and basically just before the covid situation kicked off. And it simply wasn't able to enjoy enough time at the clubs - players were having a difficult time playing 40K itself, let alone anything else that was new. So with that in mind, Games Workshop had no choice but to cut back on certain projects until a later time to return to them.

A return to Aeronautica 40K can be favourably revised; no more expensive cardboard hexmaps - just an "open table", inexpensive slim journals instead of hardbacks repeating the same core rules. And this time...no covid. And to kick it all off - players are only too happy to dust off their Ork, Eldar, Tau and Necron models...maybe even take a leaf out of Underworlds - instead of season boxes, have just a core boxed game to expand from...

Legions Imperialis launched with the scathing criticism that it wasn't 40K. I felt this was a bit unfair as it was just taking Adeptus Titanicus to the next level of infantry and tanks, but GW has been living with this criticism since AT returned in 2018. No matter what they release for Legions Imperialis, players and reviewers will still make that criticism until GW releases an Epic 40K game. If Epic 40K is years away, then Aeronautica 40K would still be the economical stepping stone to it.

But returning to this topic; Battlefleet Gothic is as far as I know a 40K era game. I don't think GW are going to bring back a game that would burn through it's unique model scale range, limited to Imperium ships only. A prelude "tactics" board game maybe is as far as I see that happening.

Sorry for the long reply.

Things changed a lot since 2019 with some adjustments to sales strategies from GW in the last 3 years.
GW keeping things around instead of just removing them is usually hinting at something, but they are also much more strict on keeping their IPs destinct. So I would not rate anything left from Covid as hint that something is coming back soon.
Like the only reason for Epic 40k to come back would be that 40k guys see how much sales the 30k guys get from it and wanting to have a part from that cake and the managment not getting in saying "no" early on.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Yet we’ve 30k and 40K in 28mm. So I have to ask, what’s the difference here?.

that HH in 28mm started as a supplement to 40k, using the same rules and it was pure coincidence that it became its own game rather staying a supplement with/after 8th Edition (and stayed 28mm while 40k moved to 32mm)
For the same reason AI was 40k game that got changed to be a 30k game later, or why GW now remove shared IPs (or armies).

Don't expect HH to ever get a version of Kill Team or 40k getting a version of Epic (or see certain armies in TOW) as long this strategy is in place
So for BFG it would come down to who is going to make it, be it the 40k department than also expect a 40k/KT style release and rules, or 40k department and expect it to be 30k only

SamusDrake wrote:
I'm trying to heavily condense my reply, and might be very disjointed here and there....

I think if Epic 40K was nuked - gone for good - then Aeronautica would not still be on sale. It would just be written off like Dreadfleet. Because right now there is no Heresy boxed game for Aeronautica. They have only a rule book. A rule book, on page 10 - if the image I am looking at is correct - states the following...

Games of Aeronautica Imperialis are played on a grid of hexes overlaid onto an aerial map depicting a war-torn world of the 31st Millennium. Fold-out Areas of Engagement are available from Games Workshop.

this is why I don't see the connection.
if AI is written with the 30k tag, there is no link to Epic 40k and it being on sale while everything else being gone not unusual for the company that will sell you a 9th Edition rulebook the day before 10th Edition is released with "this is the current version of the game"

 kodos wrote:
this is why I don't see the connection.
if AI is written with the 30k tag, there is no link to Epic 40k and it being on sale while everything else being gone not unusual for the company that will sell you a 9th Edition rulebook the day before 10th Edition is released with "this is the current version of the game"

That is an example - a bit extreme, mind - of a game being supported right up until it's last day. In that case, the game is still playable because GW are selling the models and the D6s and tape measure that are only required to function. With the event of 10th edition competitive play, well GW provided both free core rules and indices for every faction.

But in the case of this rule book for Aeronautica, it MUST have a hex-map to function which GW has not provided for the last THREE years. Who's been buying that book in these last three years? Those Legions players who had previously invested in Aeronautica, that already had a hex-map to play on, would have purchased it three years ago when the book was relevant.

In hindsight Titanicus was the prelude to Epic 30K, and Aeronautica the prelude to Epic 40K. Covid came along and plans for Epic 40K were put on hold and so Aeronautica was then "touching down....for now" on the Heresy airfield.

Being honest, I guessed previously that GW was using AT to get the titan models up to speed for Epic 40K, and AI was introducing the aircraft, but the eras just weren't the same and AT would have needed to introduce xenos and chaos titans and knights - or equivalents - to match what they were doing with AI, to pave the way for Epic 40K. I personally think it should have been all Heresy from the start - more managable - but GW's ambitions are quite scary sometimes...

Right now, Aeronautica is in a very strange state of limbo, and GW can easily be rid of it and put the effort into more important things...maybe Battle Fleet Gothic? Legions still has Titanicus if that's as far as GW's plans for Epic will go, after all.

I just can't get excited about any more 30k setting games. I feel it's fully milked at this point and every further 30k game is just shooting a potential winner in the foot imo.

I'm still hurt that AT is in limbo.

We got dashboards for some new units when they were released for Li, but not even a mention any where or any time.

I feel like AT was ghosted by GW. That's why I haven't really invested in any other 30k products.

(That and upon reading Li, it sucks for Titan play.)

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I'm still hurt that AT is in limbo.

We got dashboards for some new units when they were released for Li, but not even a mention any where or any time.

I feel like AT was ghosted by GW. That's why I haven't really invested in any other 30k products.

AT hasn't been dropped though. Many of the resin kits are being transferred into (slightly) more affordable plastic, and the admech stalkers got new AT rules too.

Obviously for the last 2 years the focus has been on LI infantry/tank kits to fill out most of the core faction options from HH, but we're likely getting towards the end of that cycle now.

They're keeping printed datacards in product boxes for a reason, and I'm sure it's because the future plan is to release more Titanicus-compatible models.

Could we keep this thread about the possibility of a BFG re-release and not the success or otherwise of other games?

 Snord wrote:
Could we keep this thread about the possibility of a BFG re-release and not the success or otherwise of other games?

It leads to the problem of a possible BFG game.

If it is a HH version, a lot of us fear that it will come out, and be forgotten within a few months.

While AT and AI are still in print, GW never talks about them or their future. Right now, you can use their models in Li.

A HH BFG could quickly go the same route.

And that makes a lot of people not interested in the game.

Not really, there are vast amounts of people primarily interested for the models.

robbienw wrote:
Not really, there are vast amounts of people primarily interested for the models.

The models, yes, but the actual physical game, I can't imagine why they wouldn't use the older rules, which are awesome.