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 know that a lot of people bought the game for the miniatures first and foremost, however I am wondering if the game is any good?

I am growing a bit jaded with the way 40k is going, starting to prefer board games with miniatures (I enjoy painting), and more importantly my free time is limited. The 40k setting was something that I grew up with during my teenage years, so is something I have fond feelings towards.

With that in mind, is the game worth purchasing?

I have played the game several times (mostly first scenario) and i have to say the game is very good.

This is the review that convinced me to play it:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1477862/hazards-being-boardgame-blogger-review

The only problems i have with the game is few rules that could use a better wording or some pictures to clear the inconsistencies. Mostly due to line of sight and hexes as i had to find the answer on various forums how people solve them.

However that aside the game is indeed very nice. Its a little luck based but your tactic and strategy can make a huge difference. Its very good to play with people who normally wouldnt be involved in tabletop gaming because of its core boardgame nature.

Mechanically it's awesome. A couple of oddities, but generally a really strong game. Thematically it's also really good, the first mission for example is a genuine masterpiece. There is a shortage of what you might describe as a Standard mission, with each scenario describing a specific event. But there are many many people who lament the fact that the second HH boardgame didn't use and expand on the same game engine.

Thanks for the reviews and link, all very positive and helpful on making back choice.

We'll I caved and ordered it, now to track down the White Dwarf bonus mission.

I love it so much I had hopes that GW would release several match-ups boxes using the game engine. It's really a cool game and the thematic cards look to have been adapted for Necromunda as a mechanic.

We played through the entire campaign and had a lot of fun. I highly recommend the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Glumy wrote:
I have played the game several times (mostly first scenario) and i have to say the game is very good.

This is the review that convinced me to play it:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1477862/hazards-being-boardgame-blogger-review

....

Yeah, RedMonkeyBoy/Kevin Outlaw is an amazing reviewer for GW stuff.
His experiences and tastes mirror mine so well that I will put something on the to-buy list if he likes it.

BaC is amazing, hands down. I have nothing but respect for James Hewitt.

I say this as someone who owns a couple of sets, has played the game dozens and dozens of times, owns all the relevant WD's and frequently demoes the game. Having a similar affection for Space Hulk, this is a cherished part of my gaming library. It saddens me that Burning of Prospero took the worse turn and tried out less interesting directions instead of building on the strong base that was Calth:



- Small squad action. The game scales well up and down as the basic atomic unit of a three-man squad retains its value.

- Ease of set up, even for those of us who don't want to pour countless hours into preparing battlefields (and yes, I did make 3D terrain for this game https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page#9842360).

- Hex based moves. Simple and elegant. And what sorcery is this talk of unclear LoS? From middle to middle, clear. From middle to somewhere else, obscured. Something in the way, obscured. Clear and concise, he said with hex graph paper and drawn maps with firing lanes to prove a point while swinging a laser liner

- Alternating activations. Yeah, they're not a new innovation, but it's refreshing to see proper 40k games using 'em. Work especially well to bring up that desperate feeling of only having bad decisions to make when everything you do could get counterplayed by your opponent very quickly.

- Said actions. Bunch of differing maneuvering options and offensive moves allow for easily grasped yet tactically rewarding game play.

- Tactics, carrying on from the previous points. Alternating activation and small squads allow for interesting tactical decisions that go pretty deep when you also stir the pot with objectives that usually require haste. The players are constantly faced with properly hard priorization questions of who to activate. Yes, you can activate on that flank and rake the enemy hard, but then you allow for them to do the same at this other place. Yes, you could shoot now but you risk getting stuck as your other squads can't squeeze past the shooters who run out of points when you're required to advance. Yes, you could sit still and be safe but the clock is mercilessly ticking away and you MUST at some point stick your head out to where the rockets fly. And so does your opponent.

- Weapons of war. All the things are different yet useful, a rare joy. Sure, there are brutal combinations, like Chainsword Sergeants with Vexillas and cards of dooooom that positively murder whatever you need them to, but those take maneuvering and daring to pull off, are foreseeable and counterable and more often than not just soddin' cool. I mean, what is wrong with you as a person if you don't squeal at least a bit when your Terminator Sergeant with murderclaws and grenades busts through to throw 9 dice + 4 rerolls at someone's face? Rip and tear? RIP AND TEAR!

- Cards. The basic game is solid: both players do moves, shoot and whack each other in similar fashion and in the end someone wins. This is cool by itself, but the cards add just a smidge of flavour in there to differentiate the sides and give both players interesting tools to work with. Would I have liked to see more of them? Yes, but these are fine too. There is a tad too much variation between singular cards' power which I'd like to see fixed, but the best fix in this framework I feel is to allow for more draws as the effects aren't game breaking. In scenarios where you'd normally draw only one card, I'd personally double the amount of cards used so as to reduce the possibility of drawing duds. Having more situational cards sitting in your hand is good, so you can slowly build a killer combo out of those and then four turns later go for broke.


If you don't have the WD missions, here:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/10/31/betrayal-at-calth-at-any-cost/
The large double box slugfest. Haven't tried yet, but totally want to. I feel this game is the better more troops you have on the field, as one of the big draws of it is bashing it out here and eating bullets there, with no purely good decisions to be seen. Sweat, commander, for on your words hang their lives!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/10/31/betrayal-at-calth-scenario-vii-rise/
Continues the main campaign, demons on the rise. A bit meh, but fun with good crew as the random demons bounce all over the place.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/06/betrayal-at-calth-spoils-of-war/
The quick and dumb one. The premise is cool, yet this mission as laid out is unplayable: the Ultramarines win every time without question unless the Dark Gods somehow interfere as there are too many ammo boxes easily obtainable close to the teleporters. It becomes cool with minor modifications, like simply taking one box down a pip and forcing the loyalists to fight through the betrayers to get the final parts they need before the dreadnought bears down on them.

Other things: there's a conversion of the rules to tabletop. http://thisveryblog.blogspot.fi/2016/03/betrayal-at-badab-betrayal-at-calth.html

Side notes, one of these days when I have the time from other creative projects I'll write a random mission / skirmish generator for this engine and try to incorporate other forces there too.

Thanks Sherrypie, that is a lot of really useful information. The terrain you have made looks wonderful and really helps build upon the underground fighting theme.

My copy arrived yesterday, not had chance to assemble the models as yet, but I have had time to digest the rules. They seem very elegant while retaining a good level of tactical freedom and themetic experience.

All being well I should have enough models assembled to do the first mission on Friday.

The only real criticism I can level at the game is that the models aren't snap/push fit models and didn't come on coloured plastic. Which I understand is a very small gripe, it would have just made the game a lot easier to assess for boardgames.

Still, aside from those small points it seems like it is everything I wanted.

You're welcome, Stonehorse. Regarding the rules, there's also a FAQ out there that might clarify the few typos left in: click here.

The first mission is very fun, but keep in mind that the game can steamroll very badly if the players don't operate at a similar level of tactical acumen. My personal favourite would be the fourth, where both players are simultaneously attacking and defending on different tables.

The way I've been describing BaC is an attempt by Games Workshop at a We-Go game system, like Infinity.

I enjoy it quite a bit, but it's hard to switch mindsets from 40k to BaC.

Managed to get two games in today, both the first mission. My opponents were new to gaming, and they didn't have any issues getting to grips with the system. It played very quickly, and also very bloody. Combat is very short and to the point in this system, sometimes the sheer volume of hits means that no one can survive the brutal attacks. Which make sense in a game based on a civil war between space knights.

I equipped the the units as follows;

Ultramarines.
Sergeant with Power Sword, Plasma Pistol. 1 Missile Launcher, 1 Meltagun, 1 standard (can't recall correctly name), 6 boltguns.

Word Bearers.
Sergeant with Lightning Claw, Bolt Pistol. 1 Heavy Bolter, 1 Flamer, 1 standard (can't recall correctly name), 6 boltguns.

Ultramarines won both times, I think this is due to some very bad rolls and not based upon unit loadouts.

Not sure how to equip the next tactical squad. Once I have the set assembled, and painted I may have to pick up a second set, just for exploring the different unit options and for custom missions.

So while i proposed the game already i have played recently the last sixth mission. Its actually the first time i played this last one. Damn... i forgot just how much a good game this game actually is! And with everything painted even if its 2D it looks good also.

I played Word Bearers (my opponent chose Ultras). I won pretty convincingly. However i am a little more experienced in the game but we both played together before several times. My experience aside i think its mostly due to Terminators actually underperforming. I have glued them with combibolter+powerfist combo with a heavy flamer on one and a power sword on seargent. 3 dice on the assault with powerfist is... poor. Very luck depending as you have to score at least 2 hits to have a chance killing something. A 3 person Word Bearers unit has 6 dice at least (yeah a terminator is tougher but still). Also 4 shots on combibolter is also quite bad.

I have to test a double lightning claws on them. You can have 6 dice with rerolls on them which gives you just enough to kill something. Also from what i can see terminators being poor at shooting could be better used to block enemy units with heavier weaponry by pinning them and trying to force them into close combat where they can be decimated. You only have to fear seargents, dreadnought and a special character in close combat (and perhaps certain tactics cards).

What are you experience with terminators in this game? With what weaponry do you equip them?

Glumy wrote:
So while i proposed the game already i have played recently the last sixth mission. Its actually the first time i played this last one. Damn... i forgot just how much a good game this game actually is! And with everything painted even if its 2D it looks good also.

I played Word Bearers (my opponent chose Ultras). I won pretty convincingly. However i am a little more experienced in the game but we both played together before several times. My experience aside i think its mostly due to Terminators actually underperforming. I have glued them with combibolter+powerfist combo with a heavy flamer on one and a power sword on seargent. 3 dice on the assault with powerfist is... poor. Very luck depending as you have to score at least 2 hits to have a chance killing something. A 3 person Word Bearers unit has 6 dice at least (yeah a terminator is tougher but still). Also 4 shots on combibolter is also quite bad.

I have to test a double lightning claws on them. You can have 6 dice with rerolls on them which gives you just enough to kill something. Also from what i can see terminators being poor at shooting could be better used to block enemy units with heavier weaponry by pinning them and trying to force them into close combat where they can be decimated. You only have to fear seargents, dreadnought and a special character in close combat (and perhaps certain tactics cards).

What are you experience with terminators in this game? With what weaponry do you equip them?

Basic terminators are not too amazing, but they do match pretty well against double their number in tacticals. Scenario 4 is a very interesting example of that in action, I've found.

Regarding equipment: terminators with powerfists are not very good on their own. Chainfists are better as they brutalize the enemy to Stamina 1 and lightning claws are even better against tacticals, since their rerolls give you more bang for your buck. Especially brutal is a double claw terminator sergeant with a grenade harness, as he can charge a full squad with 9 dice, rerolling 4. Pair that with a Vexilla bearer for all the rerolls or a tac sergeant with exploding hits from a chainsword. Fun times, pretty much anything that isn't a Dreadnought gets liquified when that pain train hits home. Heavy flamer is also pretty nifty and should be used when possible, as it often kills at least one man while walking. It also makes the game sharper, since you can immediately punish your opponent HARSH if they make a misplay and position their squads in the open and see them go down in flames.

Not had chance to play any mission other than the first one yet, hopefully I'll get to play with the Terminators on Friday.

The benefit of the Terminator is their staggering staying power, armour 5 and stamina 3 is going to take some serious firepower to shift, add in the free shoot when they advance and they look brilliant on paper. Having said that, I have personally opted to field mine with more twin Lightning Class than combi bolter and powerfist.

Sherrypie, any tips on making terrain for this? Yours look brilliant!

 stonehorse wrote:

The benefit of the Terminator is their staggering staying power, armour 5 and stamina 3 is going to take some serious firepower to shift, add in the free shoot when they advance and they look brilliant on paper. Having said that, I have personally opted to field mine with more twin Lightning Class than combi bolter and powerfist.

Indeed they look very good on paper as you said. However i am quite sceptical about them after fielding mostly combibolter+powerfist combo. They are indeed tough but when you are shot by 2 bolters + heavy bolter that is 10 dice and half of it should hit you. Now if you want to save this you need 3 shields at least on 5 armour dice and suddenly this precious Terminator crumble like a foil of paper. On top of this Word Bearers usually have much better and universal cards to play from hand. Ultramarines have no cards that help you survive a turn of shooting unlike Word Bearers (which have like 4 i think).

Yes you can add a power armoured marine to a Terminator farming a group of 2 models but in the last scenario those Terminators arrive by teleport and you dont have time to waste action points to form units.

Also if you equip them with powerfists like i did you only have 3 dice in close combat and you need at least 2 of those to be hits in order to kill something. Also it would be best to not only have 2 hits but one of this should be a critical hit. Compare this to a unit of 2 marines and a seargent. You should have 7 dice in close combat which is enough to get 3-4 hits where one of this is a critical. So in this situation one Terminator struggle to kill at least 1 marine (lets remember that Seargent dies usually last) where 2 marines + seargent marines kill such a Terminator without breaking a sweat.

In my experience unit of 3 marines is generally much more universal than a Terminator.

Now i have tested recently Terminators with Lightning Claws and they fare much better. They lose shooting but they do make a punch in close combat.

-----

Several days ago i also played a game with a friend and his girlfriend using 3 teams of 10 marines and a hero. We played on 6 board tiles with free for all rules of engagement where someone was supposed to control a certain square in the middle at the end of the game. I have to say while we had a good time hexes make the game a bit tedious in bigger matches. While the hexes may work in a 1v1 game on 3-4 board tiles and a small cramped space they tend to be very unreadable in bigger matches. Especially for newer players.

If you want to play this system in some bigger games i suppose it has to be converted for a tabletop variant where you dont use hexes but inches like this Betrayal at Badab. I have to try it now.

 stonehorse wrote:

Sherrypie, any tips on making terrain for this? Yours look brilliant!

I'd advocate looking for some 3-6 mm plywood. Cut a bunch of hexes from that and then wonder what you might stuff them with. I personally use my partner's diabetes waste, which just so happens to fit snugly in those 6-7 cm hexes. Other scrap works fine too: plastic food containers, small home depot packages, different sorts of caps and lids, old film jars, paint cans, glue bottles, glass cylinders, varying sizes of plastic piping, Kinder egg toys... whatever strikes your fancy. Fiddle around with dry parts until you hit a composition that feels fun, drown it in PVA glue and then detail the result with appropriately 40k bits like lights, eagles, skulls or cables. Give 'em a lick of paint and voila, you're done. I made them mostly higher than the models themselves for that added claustrophobic feeling, but that's up to taste.

Glumy wrote: I have to say while we had a good time hexes make the game a bit tedious in bigger matches. While the hexes may work in a 1v1 game on 3-4 board tiles and a small cramped space they tend to be very unreadable in bigger matches. Especially for newer players.

Eh, guess that might be for some. Personally I find that newer people find that easier to work with than fully open war game, as it requires less trained eyesight (says a man who can still measure everything accurately in 6-12" increments from the other side of the room after enough WHFB ). Also, if contentions arise, there are laser liners available for a few euros that might help:

I have to say it again - game is very good and my friend who only had a contact with wargames by painting some Moria Goblins like a decade or more ago also really likes it. It doesnt mean it has no flaws or couldnt be improved.

I am making some plans to make a dedicated board for this like:
http://thisveryblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/horus-heresy-project-betrayal-at-calth.html

or maybe buy a playmat with hexes already on it so i would just have to make some terrain to represent impassibles.

If i ever would play some tabletop conversion i would like to stick to the core, original rules as much as possible but i think the game needs some more modifications. Not only those presented in Betrayal at Badab rules. Modifications like possibility to make a unit of 2 Terminators for example.

Using those rules you can play for, small scenarios of boarding vessels or other narrative missions where even people not very into wargaming can have fun.

Finally got around to using the Terminators and Dreadnought. Both very brutal and require different tactics, which is nice. They are also not unstoppable, I was worried that they would dominate the games where they were used.

I have now played the first mission 4 times, and lost 4 times, glad that Betrayal at Calth is a game where I can continue my long tradition at losing games!

Only had chance to get to mission 3, hoping to get the 3 remaining missions completed on Friday.

I have amassed a collection of random bits and bobs to use to build terrain, I want them to be about the height of the Dreadnought, will help with the claustrophobic environment.

Taking the game beyond missions I think a points system would work, what I have been playing around with in my head is to use the stat line.

So a Veteran Marine is 7pts. Armour 2, Stamina 2, Assault 2, Bulk 1. A squad of 10 is 70pts.

A Terminator is 13pts. Armour 5, Stamina 3, Assault 3, Bulk 2. A squad of 5 is 65pts.

For the characters, I am thinking of adding up all the stats from both sides. As for a Dreadnought add up all the stats as the points.

This is how I made cheap (really cheap) "terrain" for the boardgame. Very quickly, with almost no effort involved:
https://boardgamegeek.com/article/29035732#29035732

Nice terrain, cheap, effective, and easy to store. May have to borrow that idea.

So far I have managed to play up to mission 5. Really enjoying the system, and have demoed the first mission 5 times (and lost every time), everyone who has played it has enjoyed it and some have said that they will buy a copy for themselves. So that is a great sign!

I have encountered a few rules issues that I may have got wrong, I was wondering if anyone could help with them.

1.
Do defense dice bonuses stack? Rubble with an obscured shot gaining 3 extra dice. The rules don't stipulate of they do or don't, so I imagine that they do.

2.
Do Melta and Multi-Melta ignore all defence dice on a crit. My thinking is that defense dice add to the armour so get ignored on a crit as the armour is treated as zero for the first model.

3.
In a few of the missions it seems a bit too harsh on the Ultramarines, as Captain Aethon is limited to just running in order to have enough rounds to make it to the objective. At the start of the very first round do players draw a command card? If they don't I think this extra round will help Captain Aethon have more options.

4.
In mission 5 where players form their models into units, can these units be made up of models from different squads? So the Word Bearers player could have 2 special or heavy weapons in a unit?

Thanks in advance.

 stonehorse wrote:
Nice terrain, cheap, effective, and easy to store. May have to borrow that idea.

So far I have managed to play up to mission 5. Really enjoying the system, and have demoed the first mission 5 times (and lost every time), everyone who has played it has enjoyed it and some have said that they will buy a copy for themselves. So that is a great sign!

I have encountered a few rules issues that I may have got wrong, I was wondering if anyone could help with them.

1.
Do defense dice bonuses stack? Rubble with an obscured shot gaining 3 extra dice. The rules don't stipulate of they do or don't, so I imagine that they do.

2.
Do Melta and Multi-Melta ignore all defence dice on a crit. My thinking is that defense dice add to the armour so get ignored on a crit as the armour is treated as zero for the first model.

3.
In a few of the missions it seems a bit too harsh on the Ultramarines, as Captain Aethon is limited to just running in order to have enough rounds to make it to the objective. At the start of the very first round do players draw a command card? If they don't I think this extra round will help Captain Aethon have more options.

4.
In mission 5 where players form their models into units, can these units be made up of models from different squads? So the Word Bearers player could have 2 special or heavy weapons in a unit?

Thanks in advance.

Read the FAQ, it answers a few of these. You can just google it.

To recap from the top of my head:

1) Defence does stack, yes. That is intended.
2) Meltas ignore Armour. Defence is usually just Armour, but also Obscure, Barricades and stuff, so you DO get the other dice but not your Armour. Mostly relevant vs. Terminators.
3) Yes, you do draw a card in the first turn. The ending trigger for a few missions is wrong, though: the game ends after the turn the last card was drawn, so there is actually an extra turn in the problematic ones. Check the FAQ.
4) Yes, you can have mixed units however you like.

Cheers, I have read the FAQ, so spotted the mistake about the mission end condition. I was hoping that not drawing a card in the first round and the FAQ would really help the Ultramarines player. As is they seem to struggle with mission 2. Poor Aethon can't afford to be distracted or lose too many tactical points.

I may have been doing Melta criticals wrong, as I thought defense dice counted as armour dice. That is my fault, and will help Terminators survive against Melta weapons a bit more. Having said that I have so far found that Heavy Bolters are the bane of terminators!

My instinct with stacking defence and mixing units were correct at least.

Game rules arent perfectly written. Most things are quite clear but devil is in the details. For example there is a Word Bearers card that lets you move 1 hex of up to two units without activating them - but does it count as a move (activation) or you can still activate a unit after playing this card (sorry dont remember the name)? There are some small details that could use a more clearer approach. I play it that you can still activate a unit.

Perhaps a community FAQ?

I also didnt distinct beetwen defence dice and armour dice when shooting melta. I would probably come to this after rereading the rules several times and taking into account the words "defence" and "armour" but its not so obvious. Thanks for pointing this out.

Glumy wrote:
Game rules arent perfectly written. Most things are quite clear but devil is in the details. For example there is a Word Bearers card that lets you move 1 hex of up to two units without activating them - but does it count as a move (activation) or you can still activate a unit after playing this card (sorry dont remember the name)? There are some small details that could use a more clearer approach. I play it that you can still activate a unit.

Perhaps a community FAQ?

I also didnt distinct beetwen defence dice and armour dice when shooting melta. I would probably come to this after rereading the rules several times and taking into account the words "defence" and "armour" but its not so obvious. Thanks for pointing this out.

There is no need for FAQ on that card (Diabolical Swiftness, if memory serves). It is indeed meant to be played so that you can make a surprising move from one hex farther than your opponent anticipates, so when a card says "without activating it" that is precisely what it means: you can play the card, do its thing and then activate. Not at home now so cannot check it out, but I think the loyalists had a similar "without activating it" card that allows them to make a free action when one of their units is destroyed? So yeah, they come as a bonus.

I do love the game - indeed the best game GW fans will never play

I have yet to play Prospero - it isn't as good?

If they came to do another run I would hope they make the Ultramarines MK3 armour (blue plastic - actually MK2 would be even better!) and the word bearers MK4 armour (red plastic) to tie into the background of the traitors getting the newer mark of armour sent out to them.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

I have yet to play Prospero - it isn't as good?

Sadly, it isn't. I get that Hewitt wanted to design a second game with different mechanics, but in my mind it just fell a bit flat.

The game works in kind of alternating phases (where BaC alternates actions), except one side can crunch a massive advantage from that. The resolution system uses paired dice (eq. my highest vs. your highest, then the next and so on), which massively favors the side with more dice to throw and on top of that the Wolves get a bonus for ties, which turns most matches to foregone conclusions before first turn is over. The mission balance is much worse than it is in BaC. Given that the psychic powers are pretty interesting and fun to use, it is a shame the whole is a bit of a let down. It would have been amazing if this had carried on and expanded upon the core game fron BaC.

I wrote more details here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/713493.page

I didn't design the Burning of Prospero, actually! Mostly, it was done while I was off on paternity leave. But regardless of that, it was intentionally given to someone else to see what they'd do with it. At one point the plan had been for me to do it, and I had a few ideas - it wouldn't have been as claustrophobic as Calth, as it was more about wide-open plazas than narrow, windy tunnels, so the rules would have changed to reflect that, but I would have aimed to keep the main game engine similar. Probably would have kept a similar dice mechanic, for example. And I was planning to integrate psychic powers throughout the game, and make them the main focus - after all, a big core part of Prospero was the asymmetry, with one side incredibly psychically powerful but the other side having a small number of warriors that utterly nullify psykers.

I keep wanting to go back and tidy up the Calth rules. It was the first game I designed completely from scratch in a professional environment, and I feel like I've learned a lot of lessons since then.

Still fond of it though, and glad people are still enjoying it

So youre responsible for this?
https://www.needycatgames.com/
??

Too bad Burning of Prospero wasnt designed on the same template then.

The game wins for me for one more thing - its not a skirmish system and its not a wargame. Its middle ground with small squads of guys.

What i would like to see is some kind of semi-tabletop system based on this design. It can even be played on the board with hexes but with the ability to make you own forces and play against your friends.

If GW ever comes back to the Horus Heresy big boxes and they come to you try to be even more ambitious with the project. Design something that can be expanded or played differently as a tabletop (such additional rules can be put in White Dwarf).

Eyy, lagoon83's here again

While you were designing Calth, did you ever at least in your head picture how it could be expanded? The system seems flexible enough to support that, as is evident by some fanmade products over at BGG and other places, but I'm curious as to how the main designer himself thought about it. New missions, weapons, units, psychic powers, boards, terrain types, cards, a freewheeling points system of a sorts for pure skirmish? Or do you think it would be difficult to keep from sprawling out of control, as happened with Space Hulk in days of yore (very simple system that got burdened by bazillion things later on)?

Glumy: you can always take rough estimates of 10 tac = 5 termies = 1 dread and go from there.

Glumy wrote:So youre responsible for this?
https://www.needycatgames.com/
??

That's me! (On the left...)

Glumy wrote:If GW ever comes back to the Horus Heresy big boxes and they come to you try to be even more ambitious with the project. Design something that can be expanded or played differently as a tabletop (such additional rules can be put in White Dwarf).

I very much doubt they'd come to me - they've got a very capable team in-house! If they ever did I'd be more than happy to figure something out. (That said, I doubt they'd wanna pay my rates when they've got people doing the same thing on salary...)

Sherrypie wrote:Eyy, lagoon83's here again

I come and I go! Being entirely honest, I don't come to these kinds of forums (or facebook groups, or anything else) very often because the discussion can be pretty low-quality - lots of squabbling over stuff that doesn't really matter. But I do enjoy checking out the smaller sub-sections, like the Specialist Games one, from time to time - and I couldn't resist jumping in on this one

Regarding the other questions, really enjoyed the challenge of designing Calth - the brief was "here's a set of minis and a setting, you've got roughly X amount of cardboard and other components, go and make a game". Everything about the design was grounded in that - it's set in the tunnels because that's an interesting part of the Calth story that would feel markedly different to 40k. Also it lets you play full, interesting games with relatively small forces, which you couldn't achieve with a full wargame. The range of critical effects, where everything has a use, is because the brief also specified that people should be able to build the models however they want for use in 40k / Age of Darkness games, but still be able to play BaC. And if you're playing Age of Darkness, you might want to equip all your guys with boltguns, because that's then a Legion Tactical Squad. So bolters had to be just as useful as other things. (I think this falls down a little bit with heavy weapons, the heavy bolter especially - I think it would have been good to introduce some kind of penalty for heavy weapons to offset how awesome they are, maybe an Assault penalty like you used to get in the old days of 40k...)

But yeah, my point is: the game is like it is because of the specific theme and setting. I've seen people use it for larger games (I think one site was linked in this thread) and that's awesome, but that was never my intention going in. In fact, I wasn't designing it with expansion in mind at all - I was luxuriating in the certain knowledge that it wasn't getting any expansion content (which I was very clearly told at the time), because everything else I was writing for GW had to be incredibly open-ended. When you design a unit in 40k you have to take into consideration the fact that it has to work with all the rules that already exist, and all the rules that haven't been written yet. When there's a new codex or expansion coming out every month, that can be a hell of a challenge! So for Calth I revelled in writing something small and self-contained. But that said, it's great to see people taking the core mechanics and expanding them!

One interesting point - the WWII board game Memoir '44 (and other games in the Command & Colours series) has some surprising similarities to BaC. I played it for the first time about a month after Calth was released and I had a sudden sinking feeling and felt like a complete unoriginal hack. I'd been so excited about my fresh ideas, and it turned out they'd been around for ages! Thankfully it's different enough that I don't think anyone's ever accused me of nicking ideas... But anyway, for anyone wanting to expand Calth, I might recommend checking out Memoir '44 or Battlelore (same thing but with fantasy armies), as they might have some interesting ideas you could borrow.

Its sad to hear you might never be involved in the Horus Heresy project like this again.

I have on my part helped in the balance of several original Dawn of War mods (mostly Steel Legion mod for original pre Winter Assault, Grey Knights Inquisition for Winter Assault and from this moment on Dawn of War Pro for several years). Also being involved in some Blizzard games i tried to write my thoughts about the balance (mostly Starcraft 2).

I wrote several posts up what my concerns with the balance of you game are (as small as they can be). Mostly its Terminators (maybe more attacks) and as you pointed out heavy weapons (maybe less shots) could use a rethinking.

Think about making such a system that is heavily designed around Betrayal at Calth, patenting it and maybe you could sell the idea to someone (you could call it NeedyKittyLore). Maybe even GW could be interested as they seem quite open minded these days.