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.

When I was at the gamestore today, I asked the owner-dude if anyone played BFG (because this is a game I want to get into.) He said that he does, but that a game called Firestorm Armada is much better. http://www.spartangames.co.uk/games/firestorm-armada

Does anyone know anything about this? What are your opinions? The pieces don't look nearly as nice, and I personally want to stick to 40k and build a fleet for whichever army I end up choosing.

I think Armada is a better game, and better supported at this point.

But BFG isn't bad, I think it could use a couple rules tweaks and I would prefer it more than Armada.

A lot of people have been using firestorms rules with BFG models. I'm not really sold on the differences being worth the switch but I also know quite a few people that play BFG and not many that play FSA so I haven't really played a lot of firestorm.

If you use the 2010 FAQ (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&sort=name&layout=list&num=50) BFG is a very well balanced game that really needs no tweaking(as long as you stay away from Necrons)

I havn't played Firestorm so IDK about its mechanics, but BFG is a really good game as it stands. No need for GW to mess with it further.

As a guy who has played a LOT of games (how long ago did I play starfire and star fleet battles?) IMHO BFG is a very good game.

However, I hear that firestorm is good, and I think some of the minis are cool.

I play bfg as a couple of the other guys in my 40k group play it, and we have even messed around with 40k campaigns that mildly incorporate the two. This is one big plus for BFG.

However, if there is a lack of BFG players in your area, and more FA players...this could be another consideration.

Don't get me wrong, clever players could tie FA and 40k, but hey, it all depends on what game might find you more players.

Best of luck!

Thanks for the input, everybody! And thanks for the link, Grey Templay. I'll have to go make an account to get into it now

Davethepak, unfortunately for me, that's how it is here. There is one guy (the store owner) who owns a BFG fleet. There are a few guys who play FA.

Perhaps I'll just see if they're okay with me doing as AndrewChristlieb says, and joining in on the FA games with BFG models. Because I really do feel that they blow FA models out of the water.

And Mattlov, AWESOME animated gif in your sig.

Battlefleet Gothic has Warp Rift.

I've not played BFG but play FA on a regular basis. Something for you to consider is that the core FA rulebook contains rules for creating your own race and fleet stats. With this in mind I'm looking to buy a load of the Battlestar Galactica models and use these rules to create my own stat cards for my fleet. You could buy your BFG fleet and use the FA rules to play them as FA or BFG.

Also consider that BFG is probably x2 to x4 the price of FA. BFG is not well supported by GW, but FA is well supported by Spartan Games with new models comming out every few months.

TheSecretSquig wrote:BFG is not well supported by GW, but FA is well supported by Spartan Games with new models comming out every few months.

?

For BFG you can buy 99% of the models. (Including Forgeworld).
Models are available for ALL races.

All rules are free available for download.

What's the problem? If GW started messing with BFG on a regular basis it would go downhill. har har.


Minor note: GW has not uploaded FAQ2010/compendium.

Yeah, the fact that GW isn't doing anything with BFG is not a bad thing. The rules are perfect as it is. Necrons could do witha tweak but I'm willing to let that slide for the balance there is elsewhere.

Just out of interest, when was the last BFG Race or new model released?

Adeptus Mechanicus in 2007.

5 years since anything new was released and this is 'Support'?

BFG is a better game IMO: torpedo markers actually moving, and the ability to do damage before very late game, Shields which take X hits before collapsing, different weapon types, better rules for ordnance.
But atm FSA is much better supported.

BTW I got my SM fleet (2005 pts) for £96 inc. shipping all form GW and FW

Bfg has ships for all of the major forces in 40k and a few minor ones. What purpose would be served by making new models?

TheSecretSquig wrote:5 years since anything new was released and this is 'Support'?

As we have said, it doesn't need support. A game only needs support if it needs changing.

BFG has a solid rules system, everything has a model or can easily be built by combining sets.


with the 2010 FAQ(linked in my earlier post) it is quite perfect as we could expect a game to be.

Combine that with free Rulebook PDFs it just becomes even more awsome.

Exactly.

In Battlefleet Gothic all races are available with rules + models.

Rules are even free available.


I call that 95% excellent support.
(missing faq makes those last 5%)

AndrewChristlieb wrote:Bfg has ships for all of the major forces in 40k and a few minor ones. What purpose would be served by making new models?

40k has had a Space Marine Force since the 1980's. How many times has the same army been updated?

I am not 'bashing' the GW Lovers, just stating that BFG is not supported by GW anymore, where FA is by Spartan Games.

GW 'lover' is a bit to much. I only want their BFG miniatures.


Well 40K marines need updates because of the updates of the 40k rulesystem. In essence, the 40k system needs updates (or not to some) because the rules are subpar (to me). If they had been perfect no need to update (some changes are changes to sell (2nd -> 3rd edition).

BFG has seen no GW updates because the rules are good. So why fix something that isn't broke?

No updates = Can be excellent

BFG is a good wargame. Firestorm is babby's first random space explosions.

It's true that BFG is not supported, but at their current rate it will take Spartan 15 years to catch up to the amount of material currently out there for BFG, never mind the fan-made stuff.

TheSecretSquig wrote:

AndrewChristlieb wrote:Bfg has ships for all of the major forces in 40k and a few minor ones. What purpose would be served by making new models?

40k has had a Space Marine Force since the 1980's. How many times has the same army been updated?

I am not 'bashing' the GW Lovers, just stating that BFG is not supported by GW anymore, where FA is by Spartan Games.

Why do they need updating?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Id sooner GW continue to not support or update BFG and leave it the hell alone. They have ruined 40k with they "support".

Having played both, I find FSA to be the better game.

Now, I love BFG, but even with the updates, it still has a lot of problems(balance between fleets being a big one).

FSA, in my experience, has fewer problems and much better balance.

Being curious:
which fleets are unbalanced in BFG

In the official rules Eldar are the cause of problems. That's why we have fan rules.

BFG has quite a few "issues" really mostly because the original rules were poorly written and the many revisions and additions have done little to help. The ordnance rules especially need to be scrapped and started over from scratch. As far as balance the real problem there is how easy it is to create a cheese list for one off games. What I have always believed is that BFG should have a much better layed out format for fleet creation, a good start would be requiring a certain amount of escorts per capitol ship.

I have fought against ever BFG fleet there is and the only balance issues I encountered were with Necrons. Everything else was fine more or less(with the 2010 update)

Eldar have a few cheesy tricks they can pull but they are hardly game breaking.

lord_blackfang wrote:BFG is a good wargame. Firestorm is babby's first random space explosions.

No, you are thinking of Battleship Galaxies .

Honestly, I think that the gameplay between BFG and FA (I've dropped FSA as an abbreviation for Firestorm to avoid confusion ever since Dystopian Wars came out) are different enough that they are not necessarily an either/or proposition. Some people, like me, do own and collect both systems . I think that those who argue that BFG is not "supported" because GW essentially has not released new models and updates have a point, to an extent. Without new official models, supplements, and the like it it can be hard to get new players interested in a game, and for those of us who mostly play at stores it is next to impossible to get stores to support a game they can't stock. Even FA has fallen prey to this in the past year or so; the game was largely set aside by Spartan while the company was expanding, in favor of more fully supporting DW. New and updated models are finally starting to hit, but I'm worried the game's player base has taken a permanent hit.

Not all is lost with BFG, though; there is something to be said for GW leaving BFG alone and letting the game fully mature. Certainly, I think the last round of community-derived updates have brought the game to a level of balance and refinement 40k can only dream of! Likewise, the excellent fan-made supplements and new models appearing on Shapeways go a good way towards alleviating the lack of official new releases from GW. It's just that in my experience it's hard to maintain an enthusiastic local community without the new releases associated with "supported" games. To wit; it has been months since I've played either FA or BFG, but I played DW just last night.

I hate when people start these threads. Sorry. People like what they like. Some will say the BFG models are better, some will beg to differ. Read the rules and pick the game you want to play.

PlagueJester, I realize you probably are just innocently asking for info and advice, but these often turn into gripe-fests. I can only comment of BFG and it is an amazing game. People will say it is unbalanced (Necrons) but most don't use the victory points rules and because of this, it IS unbalanced. The Necron unbalance gripe has become a talking point, in my opinion. The balance in BFG is remarkably balanced compared to the other games I play.

I love firestorm Armada.

Great mechanics with the dice, linking fire and each fleet has their own unique strength.

Game is simple to learn as well as easy to get into.


Complaints

the flyer rules (small crafts) need some re-tooling. They are not terrible but could be better.

Rule book could have been better organized.

Some of the races kind of suck, or at least to my limited/narrow experience.

Their is a lizard race called Sorylian. They are kind of lazy, intelligent, not really associated with being bad guys.

Kind of use to being exposed to Lizard men being warrior race, evil sadistic bastards. Will probably get the "at least they are being original" complaint, but I like familiarity.

Their some sort of "bird-like" race


description from SG

"their tall bodies and spindly limbs covered by a layer of fine feathers. Their large heads rest on long, low-slung necks with mouths that resemble hard beaks and three eyes close set in narrow, sharp faces. "

Having a tough time visualizing this. Other than just strange looking bird people.

Piston Honda wrote:

Complaints

the flyer rules (small crafts) need some re-tooling. They are not terrible but could be better.

Rule book could have been better organized.

I believe these two are being fixed by the new version of hte rulebook due to be released in July.