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.

Another option might be they'll drop the gothic from the brand name and use it Battlefleet: box edition. so the first one which is just a bun cha ships is battlefleet heresy, followed by a BFG specific one that brings it to modern time s called battlefleet gothic. then maybe followed up with Battlefleet Indomatus etc. each bringing in new options, new ships and new factions

BrianDavion wrote:
Another option might be they'll drop the gothic from the brand name and use it Battlefleet: box edition. so the first one which is just a bun cha ships is battlefleet heresy, followed by a BFG specific one that brings it to modern time s called battlefleet gothic. then maybe followed up with Battlefleet Indomatus etc. each bringing in new options, new ships and new factions

I don't think that you guys understand just how much the BFG community HATES space marines,. When we wrote FAQ2010 we literally had proposals and ideas that were shot down not because they were bad or unbalanced but because someone started screaming feth SPACE MARINES in the internal testing boards. I mean, by fluff, space marines are supposed to be the ultimate in shittiest factions in the game. Anything that would make SM better is, supposedly, against canon. If GW made a 'BFH it would be the horrid flaming death of any further returning Specialist Games.

Oh, and Brian, if you don't think that we already produced a lot of different fleets, including Battlefleet Solar style ships, you may want to pick up Armada (the book, not the video game) or the 2010 FAQ

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Extremely unlikely, I'd say they've got hands full with BB and Necromunda launches and then there will be Adeptus Titanicus

Except these guys write none of those. A long time ago, GW set in place a specifically BFG team. All the guys on that used to be on that team are suddenly in 'Silent Running' mode.

And if those guys are writing it, the HH angle is well and truly sunk. It would be Battlefleet GOTHIC not Battlefleet HERESY.

... I'm not quite sure what you mean, but a group of 'civilians' would not be writing a new product for GW, they might get an invite to playtest after it's done, but they would not create the new incarnation.

The Game belongs to GW and would be one of the titles given to the Specialist Games division to recreate.







And I'm very willing to be they haven't done more that provisionally considered what to do with it, as they are a small team and are currently very involved with 2 other games.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

The Game belongs to GW and would be one of the titles given to the Specialist Games division to recreate.

I'd sooner believe that they'd just call in the remaining original creative staff who wrote Battlefleet Gothic. Who re, btw, hardly 'civilians' at GW. And were the major drivers behind the 2010 faq which was, after all, official GW material.

eaither way, GW'll do what they feel is best for them, a few highly vocal anti-marine players aren't going to stop them if they decide the HH is the best launch, especially as the HH, in the void at least was hardly marine vs marine. there where plenty of human crewed ships. I imagine they'd do much like what chaos had and make space marines an optional upgrade to boarding aprties

BrianDavion wrote:
a few highly vocal anti-marine players

To this day, I really wish it had been. This was the actual GW rules team for BFG. We were working on actual GW product for their site, before Specialist Games got shitcanned,

I made the horrible decision to support the idea of swaping the bombardment cannon for a str 2 lance at same price as a strike cruiser option. The shitstorm rolled on for 75 pages of rage and trolling, despite being able to prove it was in then current 40k fluff. The eventual compromise was that they could take it for +5 points, even though that was unbalanced, so that, as one poster pointed out, no one would take it and in the next edition it would be phased out.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
a few highly vocal anti-marine players

To this day, I really wish it had been. This was the actual GW rules team for BFG. We were working on actual GW product for their site, before Specialist Games got shitcanned,

I made the horrible decision to support the idea of swaping the bombardment cannon for a str 2 lance at same price as a strike cruiser option. The shitstorm rolled on for 75 pages of rage and trolling, despite being able to prove it was in then current 40k fluff. The eventual compromise was that they could take it for +5 points, even though that was unbalanced, so that, as one poster pointed out, no one would take it and in the next edition it would be phased out.

wait so the GW design team was anti-space marine? welp, guess we'll see,

BrianDavion wrote:

wait so the GW design team was anti-space marine?

Yes and no. I voted aye, every single other tester voted nay, and the massive argument started there. I think they were just tired of the controversy, myself, but I suspect that the Space Marine argument left a bad taste in everyone's mouths. I admit that according to fluff at the time, Space Marines were supposed to be weaker than even Rogue Traders when it came to space since, according to fluff, the Imperial Navy is what's supposed to check the power of the Space Marines. And the Navy and Inquisition were upset with the Dark Angels because the Nova class frigate was too powerful. (seriously, this is in fluff) and Rogal Dorn almost rejected the Codex Astartes over this issue, but ultimately gave in.


That and it brought back things like Seditio Opprimere and that insane RAAAAAAGGGGGEEE. (A battlebarge that caused fanboy rage like a space marine with boobs)

I think the entire problem there is the wrong emphasis being put on that fluff. Space Marines are not meant to be weaker in space than the Navy or even RTs, they are meant to be less capable of direct, ship-to-ship, battery-against-battery brute force engagements.

The issue was they didn't have a sufficiently unique playstyle, they were just Navy but worse in many ways, hence why some started clamoring to give them a more Navy-style armament. Instead, I'd argue they should have been doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on the aspects of space combat at which the Marines definitively excel - brutal hit & run assaults with an emphasis on boarding.

That said - none of the issues with Marines as a faction in BFG/40K-era space combat have any bearing on the Heresy or its likelihood as a setting, because there was no distinction then - Legions used all types and classes of vessels themselves, and were often in direct command of Armada Imperialis elements on top of that. Battlefleet Heresy wouldn't be divided into Marines and Navy and RTs and Chaos etc, it would just be "here are all the ships the Imperium used in this era, take your pick", so all they have to do is ensure the balance of the individual ships isn't wildly out of whack and it should play fine.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

wait so the GW design team was anti-space marine?

Yes and no. I voted aye, every single other tester voted nay, and the massive argument started there. I think they were just tired of the controversy, myself, but I suspect that the Space Marine argument left a bad taste in everyone's mouths. I admit that according to fluff at the time, Space Marines were supposed to be weaker than even Rogue Traders when it came to space since, according to fluff, the Imperial Navy is what's supposed to check the power of the Space Marines. And the Navy and Inquisition were upset with the Dark Angels because the Nova class frigate was too powerful. (seriously, this is in fluff) and Rogal Dorn almost rejected the Codex Astartes over this issue, but ultimately gave in.

the problem is in a table top that space marines being uber weak would mean low point costs as well. which means space marines would turn into a swarm army. IMHO space marines should NOT be a seperate faction in BFG but rather simply part of the IoM faction.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I think the entire problem there is the wrong emphasis being put on that fluff. Space Marines are not meant to be weaker in space than the Navy or even RTs, they are meant to be less capable of direct, ship-to-ship, battery-against-battery brute force engagements.

The issue was they didn't have a sufficiently unique playstyle, they were just Navy but worse in many ways, hence why some started clamoring to give them a more Navy-style armament. Instead, I'd argue they should have been doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on the aspects of space combat at which the Marines definitively excel - brutal hit & run assaults with an emphasis on boarding.

That said - none of the issues with Marines as a faction in BFG/40K-era space combat have any bearing on the Heresy or its likelihood as a setting, because there was no distinction then - Legions used all types and classes of vessels themselves, and were often in direct command of Armada Imperialis elements on top of that. Battlefleet Heresy wouldn't be divided into Marines and Navy and RTs and Chaos etc, it would just be "here are all the ships the Imperium used in this era, take your pick", so all they have to do is ensure the balance of the individual ships isn't wildly out of whack and it should play fine.

Oh, God, I can just see the RAGE on that one. "How DARE loyalists be allowed carriers!" "HOW DARE CHAOS BE ALLOW LIGHT CRUISERS!" [both] "HERESY!" God Emperor help us if they allow something like a Cardinal class with it's f/l/r torps. It's be Seditio Opprimere all over again with GW getting hate mail and people cancelling thier WD subs...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
the problem is in a table top that space marines being uber weak would mean low point costs as well. which means space marines would turn into a swarm army. IMHO space marines should NOT be a seperate faction in BFG but rather simply part of the IoM faction.

I liked them in combined battlefleet solar forces with Voss pattern ships.

But the point is there's no reason to rage, because there's no restriction. They can all use all the ships(specific named examples aside) because that's the fluff, it's the Heresy, so everyone has access to any style of ship they prefer, and everyone has adequate fluff justification to use them.

 Yodhrin wrote:
But the point is there's no reason to rage, because there's no restriction. They can all use all the ships(specific named examples aside) because that's the fluff, it's the Heresy, so everyone has access to any style of ship they prefer, and everyone has adequate fluff justification to use them.

And that would drive them into even greater rage. The only thing I can really compare it to is the female space marine debate. You will see people burn their minis over this. or try to, since most of the legit stuff is metal.

SMs can have Boarding bonus, Boarding Torps, and Thawks. No bombers or fighters. Weak ranged firepower.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


That and it brought back things like Seditio Opprimere and that insane RAAAAAAGGGGGEEE. (A battlebarge that caused fanboy rage like a space marine with boobs)

In my first BFG game at a club (which was also my first game at a club ever), my opponent took the Ultramarines' special battlebarge Seditio Opprimere... using a regular battlebarge model painted in Dark Angels colours. No wonder Rogal Dorn chucked a hissy fit about that Chapter. Sneaky gits.

(Other than that, it was an enjoyable game and he was a pleasant opponent.)

More generally--and speaking as someone who only started playing in 2012, not long before Specialist Games went under--one of the ongoing issues with BFG over the years appears to have been the question of fluff vs balanced gaming. Space Marines having limited ship-to-ship combat options but excelling at planetary assaults, Orks being underdogs in their initial incarnation 'cos it's space and dey ain't teknical, Necrons being uberpowerful because they came out in 3rd ed 40K when they were being built up as the ultimate ancient bad guys, Eldar being 'annoyingly gittish' as Andy C put it, etc.

You could also see it in the creeping tendency to give Imperial and Chaos fleets access to each other's ship types in the reserve fleet lists, gradually filling in the intentional weaknesses on both sides.

Still, compared to 40K and its ilk, I think BFG's done a decent job of keeping things both fluffy and balanced throughout its tenure, though admittedly I haven't played with or against all the fleets. This may partly be due to the importance of strategy and tactics on the tabletop (compared to many editions of 40K, when list-building is/was often the most important factor.)

I somewhat disagree with AndrewGPaul's statement about the book-keeping, though. You do need to jot down notes about damage, criticals, fires, crippling and so on. Compared to more realistic space games it might not be much, but compared to other GW games it's more involved than usual. If you don't have the old GW green order dice, you also need separate counters for all the different orders. And we like having visual reminders on the table, so we use a few extra counter types during a typical game to mark whether a ship hasn't yet reloaded its torps, ships that have permanently lost shields, etc. The old card counters from 2nd ed 40K / original Necromunda do nicely.

Regarding Battlefleet Heresy: I don't see why they can't expand the game to include xenos later. Battlefleet Gothic itself originally featured only the factions and ship types present in the Gothic Sector during the Gothic War (hence the name). Yet we eventually got Tau, Tyranids and all the rest.

The Heresy era really doesn't interest me, but I hope that the rules will be flexible enough that you can just ignore the background and play it in the 40K era.

 Crimson wrote:
The Heresy era really doesn't interest me, but I hope that the rules will be flexible enough that you can just ignore the background and play it in the 40K era.

as I said if they do heresy era my bet is that it'll be like adeptus titancus and it'll be heresy era at the start and later expand in 40k as more then 1 model line becoms avaliable. much like how they went from AT to epic

Zenithfleet wrote:


I somewhat disagree with AndrewGPaul's statement about the book-keeping, though. You do need to jot down notes about damage, criticals, fires, crippling and so on. Compared to more realistic space games it might not be much, but compared to other GW games it's more involved than usual. If you don't have the old GW green order dice, you also need separate counters for all the different orders. And we like having visual reminders on the table, so we use a few extra counter types during a typical game to mark whether a ship hasn't yet reloaded its torps, ships that have permanently lost shields, etc. The old card counters from 2nd ed 40K / original Necromunda do nicely.

I was answering the question about comparing BFG with Armada from FFG. The latter has a stack of two or three future order dials, multiple counters per ship showing which orders they’ve banked, four dials per ship to indicate shields on each facing, loads of cards showing ship upgrades, and a clunky movement tool. Compared to that, most of BFG’s note keeping is blast markers and ordnance tokens on the table and the odd note on a roster sheet.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Zenithfleet wrote:


I somewhat disagree with AndrewGPaul's statement about the book-keeping, though. You do need to jot down notes about damage, criticals, fires, crippling and so on. Compared to more realistic space games it might not be much, but compared to other GW games it's more involved than usual. If you don't have the old GW green order dice, you also need separate counters for all the different orders. And we like having visual reminders on the table, so we use a few extra counter types during a typical game to mark whether a ship hasn't yet reloaded its torps, ships that have permanently lost shields, etc. The old card counters from 2nd ed 40K / original Necromunda do nicely.

I was answering the question about comparing BFG with Armada from FFG. The latter has a stack of two or three future order dials, multiple counters per ship showing which orders they’ve banked, four dials per ship to indicate shields on each facing, loads of cards showing ship upgrades, and a clunky movement tool. Compared to that, most of BFG’s note keeping is blast markers and ordnance tokens on the table and the odd note on a roster sheet.

Ah, fair enough. I had assumed SW Armada had less book-keeping, or at least more organised book-keeping. I remember seeing photos of the capital ship bases and thinking "Gee, I wish BFG had included tracking dials and pre-drawn fire arcs and whatnot!"

I think of 'book-keeping' as anything that forces you to go searching for a notepad and a pencil in the middle of a game. If the game comes with a pre-made gadget or token for that purpose, it doesn't seem nearly as onerous to me. Although I might revise that opinion if I ever play Arkham Horror...

BFG's way of tracking shields is excellent, though. Touching a blast marker = one shield goes down; move off blast marker = shield comes back up. No book-keeping required. And yet people kept writing in to suggest adding it.