Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am in the process of rebuilding my BFG collection, and I'm in need of some advice.

Since it has been a long time, what would you fine people recommend to build with the four cruisers in the base box? I need four Imperial and four Chaos. I would /like/ to have a Battlecruiser and three cruisers in each fleet, but I'm open to suggestions.

Presume I'm building to 1000 points, and presenting a fair and level playing field, because I believe that you shouldn't abuse the people you're trying to get into the game.

Thoughts?

--Brian

BFG P&M thread link is in my .sig

Mars, Dictator and 2 Lunars for Imp navy

vs

Hades, 2 Devastation and a Slaughter

Since Chaos is an easier fleet to learn and win with, the less optimal choices should make for a more level game, till you increase the fleets.

I think MGS is on to something...I started the game the same way, by splitting a starter box with a friend. I took the IN fleet, and I had a hard time beating him! I had a Mars, Gothic, and two Lunars against his Styx, Slaughter, and 2 Murders. Because of this experience, I'm a firm believer that the Chaos fleet just tends to to better in smaller games.

So, I would say less than optimal choices for the Chaos side would be in order; while the Devastation is a nice ship, the Hades is a bit expensive and the Slaughter will be a little more difficult to integrate into the fleet since it is faster than the others.

Ruckdog wrote:I think MGS is on to something...I started the game the same way, by splitting a starter box with a friend. I took the IN fleet, and I had a hard time beating him! I had a Mars, Gothic, and two Lunars against his Styx, Slaughter, and 2 Murders. Because of this experience, I'm a firm believer that the Chaos fleet just tends to to better in smaller games.

So, I would say less than optimal choices for the Chaos side would be in order; while the Devastation is a nice ship, the Hades is a bit expensive and the Slaughter will be a little more difficult to integrate into the fleet since it is faster than the others.

My suggestions also actually give the Imperial Navy the 'carrier' superiority, whilst the chaos fleet retains the speed and range of the lances.

Blech, drop down the carriers. If you want to make the game interesting for new comers the flow of the game should be swift.

So at most 1 carrier per side:
Dictator vs Devastation.

Chaos, 2 gunnery cruisers with the name of Murder (easy stats to ammend).

Imperial Navy two Lunars as opposing.

Then free choices in both fleets just no carrier. Ideally you add some escorts to both sides (Swords/Infidels)

No escorts available, currently, just the contents of the magic box.

I do like the suggestions, please keep them coming.

Thoughts on torpedoes and nova cannons?

Briancj wrote:Thoughts on torpedoes and nova cannons?

I tend to make theme armies & fleets. In the Imperial fleet I'm currently working on every ship has the 6+ prow and torpedoes.

In general, Nova Cannons can be nasty if you are lucky with the scatter die, and useless if you aren't. I have destroyed SM Strike Cruisers in one shot with them in some games, but I've had others where they did nothing. They are useful for suppressing certain ships (like the Tau Explorer), and the range can be a good psychological weapon, but from what I've seen people don't like you to take too many of them . I wrote an article a while back about them here:

http://www.andysrandomstuff.com/bfg/articles/nova.htm

Torpedoes, on the other hand, are a less spectacular, if more consistent, weapon (although every so often you will get lucky and cripple a cruiser with a salvo ). They will not cause all that much damage against fleets with a lot of fighter cover (Tau) or heavy armor (SM), but they do have the advantage of forcing the enemy to stay on the defensive. If you are using bombers, they also have the nice ability to swamp turrets, which can be useful. Also, since torps bypass shields they can be a good way to get at heavily shielded targets like battleships. One thing to note, the new FAQ looks set to reduce the size of all torp salvos down the current Str. 3 salvo marker size, with one or more D6 being used to indicate the actual strength of the salvo. That will tend to nerf the larger salvos fired by cruisers and battleships, but will boost the 1-2 torp salvos fired by escorts. On the whole, I think it is a positive change, since it means there will be no more making change with markers! That was one of the things I liked about BFG the least.

Where are the 'new' Nova Cannon Rules?

Heck, what are the current "Official" rules?

The "new" Nova Cannon rules can be found in the PDF rulebook currently available from the GW website; it is no longer a guess-range weapon, but a scatter weapon.

The PDF rules from GW's site are the current official rules. There is a new FAQ in the works that will become official once it is finally approved, but it is currently under review. The version linked to by Horizon in the thread below is the draft version, but as I understand it, it isn't expected to change much before it becomes official:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/328702.page

You guys are the bestest.

I'll take a look at the update draft, but can someone summarize them by circling one: Minor Changes | Lots of Changes | Oh. Em. Gee.

--Brian

Well, I was a little leery of the concept of a new 'FAQ', but whomever is behind it (Horizon?), y'all did an outstanding job.

However, I has a question: What's the benefit of 'stacking' ship bases? Heck, we didn't even consider it legal, back when I played. Base-to-base contact only.

Hi,
heh, if it was for me there would be none of this overlapping nonsense.

I tried persuading them and all but to no avail.

My name is in the FAQ though. I managed some small things. Nothing major.

So, what's the benefit to stacking?

ehm.............
ehm..............

ehm...............
ehm................

Well I dunno....

perhaps that ships who must move half speed or something don't end up moving less then half speed because you couldn't overlap (eg moved only 9cm)?

Or that ships will be put in there "real" position not an altered one?

I dunno. I won't use the rule.

I just see a LOT of verbage in the FAQ that talks about stacking, which could be utterly removed if there was no stacking allowed.

Thus, there must be an in-game benefit to stacking that the powergamers see, and I do not.

Ah well. I just won't allow it!