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.

Well, a friend of mine has recently gotten into Battefleet Gothic, and he's been talking to me about it. I must say, I really like the premise of the game. He gave me a rundown on the various armies, and Tyranids came up as a potential choice. Now, perhaps it's mere paranoia due to my 40k experiences with 'nids, but I was curious as to how, in general, army balance is in BFG (both in regards to Tyranids and others). Are there multiple viable builds? Can I expect to be simply 'outdone' in certain engagements? I'd really like to get into this game, and I'd probably start relatively quickly there is balance between the different armies.

On a second note, I'd also consider playing Chaos. If Tyranids aren't as viable, then how about them?

Tyranids are tricky and there's only really one way to play them, but they're balanced fine (though they suffer a bit against chaos)

Chaos is a great fleet with several solid build types and probably the widest range of tactical options in the game once you factor in marks etc.

The only real balance issue in BFG are necrons. Some people I know complain about SM ships (they are extremely good) but I've always found their points cost offsets their statistics and I never had a problem with them back when I was playing regularly.

Interesting. This is exactly what I need. Would you care to elaborate on the "only playable one way" thing?

I'll echo A Klvt Ghost.

Most of the fleets are pretty well balanced, assuming you use the whole range of additional stuff (i.e. not just the rulebook fleets). All of the fleets have a weakness that can be exploited either through gameplay or in list building.

In the Necron example, they have great armor, and can brace for a 2+ save. If you use lots of lances against them, and make them brace, then their firepower in diminished as is their overall maneuverability.

We've played several campaigns with people playing orks (using hulks), Necrons, Dark Eldar, and myself Imperials. I was getting trounced until I stepped outside the rulebook ships and started using a fleet list incuding newer ships and marine vessels.

Unfortunately I've never seen a tyranid list being played. I think he may mean that there are nid ships that are 'must have' in the fleet for it to work.

+ edited for spelling

'nid fleets have no real viable standoff engagement options, they have to get up close to dish out damage. they have a plethora of close-range builds and strategies but you'll always be looking to rush your opponent's fleet. Orks are the same way.

It's not a major problem for them, and there are a couple of different ways of dealing that close-range damage (tyranid ships are all customizable in ways other fleets can only dream of) but there's only one overall strategy.

A chaos fleet, by contrast, has a lot of long-range firepower on some of its ships, but they're all fast enough to close with the enemy quickly if they need to, and upgrades like the mark of khorne and CSM boarding parties open up the possibility of gearing your fleet to go head-to head with almost anything at close range.

Basically, the two main fleets (chaos and imperial navy) are the most versatile and have the most strategic options - all the xenos fleets have a set play style with a number of variations within it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My problem with necrons is that the only reliable way of defeating them is forcing them to phase out, which essentially overrides whatever scenario you might be playing and leads to necron games getting very, very samey. You'll always be trying to focus enough fire on their insanely resilient big ship(s) to force the phase-out before they wipe you off the board with their absurd weaponry and I find it gets a bit stale.

If you play against a good player, Tyranids are very hard to play. Once you lose a Hive Ship or two, YOU NO LONGER CONTROL YOUR FLEET. They have an "Instinctive Behavior" chart that tells you how to have to use your ships if they fail their Leadership tests. IIRC, the LD of most vessels is very poor when they can't use the Hive Ship Leadership.

They are fun, it is a good time to eat your opponent (IN SPACE!) but they can be countered easily as well. Eldar are almost impossible to beat with Tyranids because you cannot close with them.

I will agree with the other posters, only Necrons are really overpowered. Chaos ships are a little too cheap for their capabilities, but it isn't bad.

As the other posters have stated, the Imperial & Chaos fleets give you the widest and most versatile options. Balance wise, I think the game is rather fair. Some fleets, like necrons will ALWAYS seem overpowered till you figure them out. As was stated, its just a matter of accepting the damage you will take from them but once you start forcing them to brace for impact, the fleet is alot easier to manage and beat. In fact its the Key for Imperials imho.

Space Marines are high points but a right pain in the ass imho. However I think that was more because of my fleet then them being overpowered.

You also really dont have to worry about GW doing what they currently are doing to 40k. They arent servicing the rules anymore so the fleets arent changing. Its still a very fun game and with the right board and painted fleets it can be quite stunning visually.

If you do get into BFG, use the 2010 FAQ that came out with a bunch of updates. It fixed many issues(gave Space Marines a decent fleet list with options)

only thing it didn't change was the Necrons, but them's the breaks.

here is the link https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&sort=name&layout=list&num=50

Thanks again! I'm currently reading the rulebook, and deciding between Emperor's Children and the Tyranids. I appreciate all the help you guys provided.

I'd go with Emperor's Children fleet, a lot easier to get to grips with.

(although you can build a really cheap fleet by kitbashing tyranid bitz)

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:'nid fleets have no real viable standoff engagement options, they have to get up close to dish out damage. they have a plethora of close-range builds and strategies but you'll always be looking to rush your opponent's fleet. Orks are the same way.

It's not a major problem for them, and there are a couple of different ways of dealing that close-range damage (tyranid ships are all customizable in ways other fleets can only dream of) but there's only one overall strategy.

A chaos fleet, by contrast, has a lot of long-range firepower on some of its ships, but they're all fast enough to close with the enemy quickly if they need to, and upgrades like the mark of khorne and CSM boarding parties open up the possibility of gearing your fleet to go head-to head with almost anything at close range.

Basically, the two main fleets (chaos and imperial navy) are the most versatile and have the most strategic options - all the xenos fleets have a set play style with a number of variations within it.

+1, well said!

Much has been said. Wise things.

Balance is pretty good within Battlefleet Gothic.

And while Necrons are strong, it is one ship that it is the breaking point: the Tombship. But at 500pts I expect a death dealing behemoth.
The main problem for Necrons is not the regular 1:1 battle but scenarios. This due their rules relying on a special victory point table.

To me the most unbalanced race within the official rules are the Corsair and Craftworld Eldar.
This due their (in my opinion) badly designed rules.