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.

This seems to have flown under everyone else's radar, but spikey bits, in their coverage of the recent weekender mentions that an upcoming BFG (re?)release is confirmed.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/02/latest-pics-of-gws-new-mechanicum-knight.html

(down under the Mole and Termite)

Anyone got anything else on this? I hate to say it, but i think they buried the lead here.

Well I'm pretty sure I read a few times that it will be set during the heresy like the new titan game but I doubt we will hear any real news for a good year or two.

Assuming Titanicus is a hit though there should be a nice selection of plastic ships with some resin bits nixed in!

For people who have played both, how does it compare to current space combat game like FFG's star wars ones?

In an interview at the end if last year on warhammer live, GW said that the specialist studios is on a yearly release schedule.
So we can expect BFG to come out in Autumn 2019 after adeptus Titanicus this year, unless they decide that a major Necromunda supplement is worth it own slot in the yearly schedule.

My only worry is they will spread themselves too thin on supporting multiple games. And in ten years time it'll be like deja vu with them culling stuff from other ranges that aren't selling. I feel very confident in saying that in 5-10 years you might start seeing those resin blood bowl star players go bye bye little by little.

For people who have played both, how does it compare to current space combat game like FFG's star wars ones?

Star Wars Armada has a LOT more 'moving parts' with FFG's penchant for dials, templates, upgrade cards, and tokens, which I tend to think makes it more complicated than BFG.

On the flipside, Battlefleet Gothic there is some chart referencing when shooting with some weapons, but BFG has fun unique things like torpedoes and fighter craft being fired and then having tokens moving across the table to interact with other ships. Also, assume about twice to three times the ships on the table for each fleet in BFG vs Armada.

One thing I think is a bummer is that Star Wars ships pretty much operate on their own (aside from Hammerheads having a special card mechanic), whereas with BFG usually that's only seen with Battleships, while all the lesser ships usually being grouped into cruiser, escort, etc. squadrons that move and fire as "units" (Battleships can too, but they are really expensive to take more than one or two of in a fleet). Whereas in Armada, the squadron bases of fighter craft kind of take the place of Escort ship squadrons in Battlefleet Gothic.

While range and facing (for shields, weapons effectiveness) is taken into account in Armada when firing weapons, Battlefleet Gothic ships usually just have a forward arc that might have higher armor than the rest of the ship, but there is a neat mechanic which makes gunnery more or less effective depending on the orientation of the attacker to the defender, making old fashioned sailing moves like "crossing the T" very deadly (where the attacker comes around to fire a broadside into the defender's rear).

There's quite a lot of differences, though I actually think each game has many positive qualities that are unique to each game when you are directly comparing them.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Star Wars Armada has a LOT more 'moving parts' with FFG's penchant for dials, templates, upgrade cards, and tokens, which I tend to think makes it more complicated than BFG.

On the flipside, Battlefleet Gothic there is some chart referencing when shooting with some weapons, but BFG has fun unique things like torpedoes and fighter craft being fired and then having tokens moving across the table to interact with other ships. Also, assume about twice to three times the ships on the table for each fleet in BFG vs Armada.

One thing I think is a bummer is that Star Wars ships pretty much operate on their own (aside from Hammerheads having a special card mechanic), whereas with BFG usually that's only seen with Battleships, while all the lesser ships usually being grouped into cruiser, escort, etc. squadrons that move and fire as "units" (Battleships can too, but they are really expensive to take more than one or two of in a fleet). Whereas in Armada, the squadron bases of fighter craft kind of take the place of Escort ship squadrons in Battlefleet Gothic.

While range and facing (for shields, weapons effectiveness) is taken into account in Armada when firing weapons, Battlefleet Gothic ships usually just have a forward arc that might have higher armor than the rest of the ship, but there is a neat mechanic which makes gunnery more or less effective depending on the orientation of the attacker to the defender, making old fashioned sailing moves like "crossing the T" very deadly (where the attacker comes around to fire a broadside into the defender's rear).

There's quite a lot of differences, though I actually think each game has many positive qualities that are unique to each game when you are directly comparing them.

I think all of FFGs dials and tokens actually make it simpler, cause there's visual indicators for everything on the table. I've pretty much already got SW legion figured out with what FFG has given us in terms of info. As for 40k...I still don't know how to play it. FFG relies on symbols and the most basic math. With GW games it's all number stat driven, and if you're like me and you hate numbers but like and can remember symbols....FFG is better. Thats why I found Shadespire to be the easiest and most fun game GW has done, the dice all have easy to understand symbols. It's quicker than rolling a ton of d6 dice and counting numbers and then rolling again and again. With BFG you either have to memorize it or flip through the book and then there's the darn tables. I've been able to play FFG games without constantly referencing the book, not the case with 90% of GW games. I can already tell I prefer the movement and unit coherency rules from Legion over 40k as well...it doesn't get much easier than that.

Armada does seem more complex than Legion or X wing though but not by too much. I will say I don't think BFG will survive unless they modernize a bit (or a lot) or it'll end up exactly where it is now..discontinued..

 Thargrim wrote:
My only worry is they will spread themselves too thin on supporting multiple games. And in ten years time it'll be like deja vu with them culling stuff from other ranges that aren't selling. I feel very confident in saying that in 5-10 years you might start seeing those resin blood bowl star players go bye bye little by little.

Well this is honestly why the releases for existing products have been slow. They are already working on Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, and then the current forgeworld staff + 30K. But they did a bit of hiring last year across the board (if I remember correctly, Atia had a breakdown on this) so they're managing with the expectation of;
1 game a year.
1 release a month per game (roughly).

Bloodbowl's sales are what really pushed GW to invest into the specialist games category; they knew there was interest, but couldn't justify it financially on paper. Then Bloodbowl sold like hotcakes, and there was rampant demand for additional product.

So in short, they should be fine - they've already planned around the workload/are halfway through it for most games. The massive dump of planned features for necromunda also serves to show (in my opinion) just how committed and capable these departments are.
VERY hyped for Adeptus Titanicus. SO HYPED.

Neronoxx wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
My only worry is they will spread themselves too thin on supporting multiple games. And in ten years time it'll be like deja vu with them culling stuff from other ranges that aren't selling. I feel very confident in saying that in 5-10 years you might start seeing those resin blood bowl star players go bye bye little by little.

Well this is honestly why the releases for existing products have been slow. They are already working on Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, and then the current forgeworld staff + 30K. But they did a bit of hiring last year across the board (if I remember correctly, Atia had a breakdown on this) so they're managing with the expectation of;
1 game a year.
1 release a month per game (roughly).

Bloodbowl's sales are what really pushed GW to invest into the specialist games category; they knew there was interest, but couldn't justify it financially on paper. Then Bloodbowl sold like hotcakes, and there was rampant demand for additional product.

So in short, they should be fine - they've already planned around the workload/are halfway through it for most games. The massive dump of planned features for necromunda also serves to show (in my opinion) just how committed and capable these departments are.
VERY hyped for Adeptus Titanicus. SO HYPED.

I don't think the elven union team sold too great, and that came out before christmas. We are now in Feb and there are no indications of another BB team releasing within the next several months. BB releases have slowed down significantly IMO. We literally have no clue what they are releasing next. At least last year we had plenty of rumors and news about what to expect. And I think sales and thus support for it is already tapering off. Nostalgia can only carry a game so far. I think a lot of people bought into it at first making it look like a success but I don't feel like it has a real strong presence it's a dead game in the entirety of los angeles, at least as far as I know.

we've known BFG is on the way for a bit

 Thargrim wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
My only worry is they will spread themselves too thin on supporting multiple games. And in ten years time it'll be like deja vu with them culling stuff from other ranges that aren't selling. I feel very confident in saying that in 5-10 years you might start seeing those resin blood bowl star players go bye bye little by little.

Well this is honestly why the releases for existing products have been slow. They are already working on Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, and then the current forgeworld staff + 30K. But they did a bit of hiring last year across the board (if I remember correctly, Atia had a breakdown on this) so they're managing with the expectation of;
1 game a year.
1 release a month per game (roughly).

Bloodbowl's sales are what really pushed GW to invest into the specialist games category; they knew there was interest, but couldn't justify it financially on paper. Then Bloodbowl sold like hotcakes, and there was rampant demand for additional product.

So in short, they should be fine - they've already planned around the workload/are halfway through it for most games. The massive dump of planned features for necromunda also serves to show (in my opinion) just how committed and capable these departments are.
VERY hyped for Adeptus Titanicus. SO HYPED.

I don't think the elven union team sold too great, and that came out before christmas. We are now in Feb and there are no indications of another BB team releasing within the next several months. BB releases have slowed down significantly IMO. We literally have no clue what they are releasing next. At least last year we had plenty of rumors and news about what to expect. And I think sales and thus support for it is already tapering off. Nostalgia can only carry a game so far. I think a lot of people bought into it at first making it look like a success but I don't feel like it has a real strong presence it's a dead game in the entirety of los angeles, at least as far as I know.

I think Guild Ball, Dreadball and Chaos Ball all came in and stole much of GW's thunder while they weren't looking. They may have garnered some interest from vets when GW dropped BB, but my guess is that a lot of the crowd tried it, and then went back to whatever other game they'd been playing.

As for BFG, I'd love to see it come back out (in plastic, maybe resin) - but I do have my old copy and really have enjoyed the computer version far more than the actual board game (Board Game plays: 1; Computer Plays: So many, I can't count).

 Thargrim wrote:
I don't think the elven union team sold too great, and that came out before christmas. We are now in Feb and there are no indications of another BB team releasing within the next several months. BB releases have slowed down significantly IMO. We literally have no clue what they are releasing next. At least last year we had plenty of rumors and news about what to expect. And I think sales and thus support for it is already tapering off. Nostalgia can only carry a game so far. I think a lot of people bought into it at first making it look like a success but I don't feel like it has a real strong presence it's a dead game in the entirety of los angeles, at least as far as I know.

Games Workshop have stated (and it has been repeated at length on forums like Dakka) that BB releases are settling into a more rigid quarterly schedule since around autumn last year. That means one plastic team per quarter. Elves came out Q1 2018, so the next team isn't due until Q2, at the very least the end of April, most likely March at a push.

This doesn't indicate a slowdown or a dip in popularity. The popularity of BB took GW and Specialist Games by surprise, with kits and supplements frequently going out of print and having to have major restocks. That GW and FW are formalising the release schedule the way they are indicates that they have support pencilled in until at least early 2019. Development takes time, and that level of support is what you'd expect from even prolific games companies who have fewer games to focus on.

 Stormonu wrote:
I think Guild Ball, Dreadball and Chaos Ball all came in and stole much of GW's thunder while they weren't looking. They may have garnered some interest from vets when GW dropped BB, but my guess is that a lot of the crowd tried it, and then went back to whatever other game they'd been playing.

As for BFG, I'd love to see it come back out (in plastic, maybe resin) - but I do have my old copy and really have enjoyed the computer version far more than the actual board game (Board Game plays: 1; Computer Plays: So many, I can't count).

BB 2016 was released with a minor revision of the exact same rules it has had for more than a decade, that have proven so popular that the game survived without support for all that time. I've not seen any indication of a rejection of BB by either the vets nor newer players who have been brought in.

If it stopped being profitable, GW would drop it like a hot rock. And yet their internal release schedule, according to their own indications and reliable rumours extends for at least another 12 months.

Speculation can be fun, of course, but please base it on harder evidence.

Isn't this for now a wishlist thread? I mean, the only rumour we currently have on BFG is that it might be set in the Heresy and that it will be released after Adeptus Titanicus.

 Malika2 wrote:
Isn't this for now a wishlist thread? I mean, the only rumour we currently have on BFG is that it might be set in the Heresy and that it will be released after Adeptus Titanicus.

Pretty much. BFG was mentioned during the Titan seminar during the weekender as a single comment. It was also mentioned during the last forgeworld open day as a future project

Doh ! wrong thread!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zedmeister wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:
Isn't this for now a wishlist thread? I mean, the only rumour we currently have on BFG is that it might be set in the Heresy and that it will be released after Adeptus Titanicus.

Pretty much. BFG was mentioned during the Titan seminar during the weekender as a single comment. It was also mentioned during the last forgeworld open day as a future project

They were toying with "battlefleet Heresy" right?

I dunno. Most of my own sources on this subject have been 'mysteriously silent' on the subject, which I take to mean they're busy writing the rules.

Heresy makes sense, means they only need to make one line of models for now.

BFG was an awesome game. With the development of 12 proper factions for the new PC game version of BFG all they really need to do turn those digital designs into proper plastic models.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them adhere to the release model of Necromunda.

A box set with Imperial and Chaos fleets and then a new race/fleet with a rules supplement released every 3 months. With 12 fleets that would be a 3 year release schedule and 10 supplements.

 ekwatts wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
I don't think the elven union team sold too great, and that came out before christmas. We are now in Feb and there are no indications of another BB team releasing within the next several months. BB releases have slowed down significantly IMO. We literally have no clue what they are releasing next. At least last year we had plenty of rumors and news about what to expect. And I think sales and thus support for it is already tapering off. Nostalgia can only carry a game so far. I think a lot of people bought into it at first making it look like a success but I don't feel like it has a real strong presence it's a dead game in the entirety of los angeles, at least as far as I know.

Games Workshop have stated (and it has been repeated at length on forums like Dakka) that BB releases are settling into a more rigid quarterly schedule since around autumn last year. That means one plastic team per quarter. Elves came out Q1 2018, so the next team isn't due until Q2, at the very least the end of April, most likely March at a push.

This doesn't indicate a slowdown or a dip in popularity. The popularity of BB took GW and Specialist Games by surprise, with kits and supplements frequently going out of print and having to have major restocks. That GW and FW are formalising the release schedule the way they are indicates that they have support pencilled in until at least early 2019. Development takes time, and that level of support is what you'd expect from even prolific games companies who have fewer games to focus on.

 Stormonu wrote:
I think Guild Ball, Dreadball and Chaos Ball all came in and stole much of GW's thunder while they weren't looking. They may have garnered some interest from vets when GW dropped BB, but my guess is that a lot of the crowd tried it, and then went back to whatever other game they'd been playing.

As for BFG, I'd love to see it come back out (in plastic, maybe resin) - but I do have my old copy and really have enjoyed the computer version far more than the actual board game (Board Game plays: 1; Computer Plays: So many, I can't count).

BB 2016 was released with a minor revision of the exact same rules it has had for more than a decade, that have proven so popular that the game survived without support for all that time. I've not seen any indication of a rejection of BB by either the vets nor newer players who have been brought in.

If it stopped being profitable, GW would drop it like a hot rock. And yet their internal release schedule, according to their own indications and reliable rumours extends for at least another 12 months.

Speculation can be fun, of course, but please base it on harder evidence.

All I know is for BB is that locally, it bombed. Initial box set sold out, but attempts at a league failed - only six signed up, by week 3 only two players will still playing. The league had a $15 buy-in to boot. Now, the remaining teams at the local FLGS are on 60% discount, and no one has bought them. There's a fair number of local BB players, but they split their football time between Guild Ball and BB - in the latter, still using their old minis (not sure which version of the game they're playing, but it's definitely with old minis). Beyond that, my brother is the one who keeps up with Blood Bowl as I haven't played since the '80s (and only one season at that). His take has been that the new game failed to take off - he still plays the community release and the occasional league on the XBox system.

In other areas, I bought into Shadow War, but didn't pick up the new Necromunda game. No one beside me & my son are playing it locally, to my knowledge, unfortunately. I'm looking forward to a rerelease of BFG (and would like to see Aeronautic Imperialis) - I love space combat and have been collecting both X-Wing & Armada, but I'm just not sure I'll pick it up.

I think BFG will sell well - probably better than GW expects, but I don't expect it to have staying power to remain as a supported line for years. I think they'd do best if they did a handful of releases and stopped attempting to support the line with constant new releases. More of a Space Hulk "one and done" than a continued line.

But one location isn't everything. Here locally blood bowl is still kicking fairly strong with regular league. One place trend makes not.

The problem with a one and done BFG is a serious lack of ship variants. Sure, the modular bays are great for cruisers and battleships, but additional releases are a better way of having a good selection of things like escorts and grand cruisers, which during the Heresy both sides would have had, where in BFG they are a (mainly) Chaos ship.

I will be very happy to own both Titanicus (barring insane prices) and a BFG reboot.

 Stormonu wrote:

 ekwatts wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
I don't think the elven union team sold too great, and that came out before christmas. We are now in Feb and there are no indications of another BB team releasing within the next several months. BB releases have slowed down significantly IMO. We literally have no clue what they are releasing next. At least last year we had plenty of rumors and news about what to expect. And I think sales and thus support for it is already tapering off. Nostalgia can only carry a game so far. I think a lot of people bought into it at first making it look like a success but I don't feel like it has a real strong presence it's a dead game in the entirety of los angeles, at least as far as I know.

Games Workshop have stated (and it has been repeated at length on forums like Dakka) that BB releases are settling into a more rigid quarterly schedule since around autumn last year. That means one plastic team per quarter. Elves came out Q1 2018, so the next team isn't due until Q2, at the very least the end of April, most likely March at a push.

This doesn't indicate a slowdown or a dip in popularity. The popularity of BB took GW and Specialist Games by surprise, with kits and supplements frequently going out of print and having to have major restocks. That GW and FW are formalising the release schedule the way they are indicates that they have support pencilled in until at least early 2019. Development takes time, and that level of support is what you'd expect from even prolific games companies who have fewer games to focus on.

 Stormonu wrote:
I think Guild Ball, Dreadball and Chaos Ball all came in and stole much of GW's thunder while they weren't looking. They may have garnered some interest from vets when GW dropped BB, but my guess is that a lot of the crowd tried it, and then went back to whatever other game they'd been playing.

As for BFG, I'd love to see it come back out (in plastic, maybe resin) - but I do have my old copy and really have enjoyed the computer version far more than the actual board game (Board Game plays: 1; Computer Plays: So many, I can't count).

BB 2016 was released with a minor revision of the exact same rules it has had for more than a decade, that have proven so popular that the game survived without support for all that time. I've not seen any indication of a rejection of BB by either the vets nor newer players who have been brought in.

If it stopped being profitable, GW would drop it like a hot rock. And yet their internal release schedule, according to their own indications and reliable rumours extends for at least another 12 months.

Speculation can be fun, of course, but please base it on harder evidence.

All I know is for BB is that locally, it bombed. Initial box set sold out, but attempts at a league failed - only six signed up, by week 3 only two players will still playing. The league had a $15 buy-in to boot. Now, the remaining teams at the local FLGS are on 60% discount, and no one has bought them. There's a fair number of local BB players, but they split their football time between Guild Ball and BB - in the latter, still using their old minis (not sure which version of the game they're playing, but it's definitely with old minis). Beyond that, my brother is the one who keeps up with Blood Bowl as I haven't played since the '80s (and only one season at that). His take has been that the new game failed to take off - he still plays the community release and the occasional league on the XBox system.

In other areas, I bought into Shadow War, but didn't pick up the new Necromunda game. No one beside me & my son are playing it locally, to my knowledge, unfortunately. I'm looking forward to a rerelease of BFG (and would like to see Aeronautic Imperialis) - I love space combat and have been collecting both X-Wing & Armada, but I'm just not sure I'll pick it up.

I think BFG will sell well - probably better than GW expects, but I don't expect it to have staying power to remain as a supported line for years. I think they'd do best if they did a handful of releases and stopped attempting to support the line with constant new releases. More of a Space Hulk "one and done" than a continued line.

I'm not disputing any of that at all. But that doesn't suggest for a second that BB has been a failure nationally or internationally. It would seem to be quite the opposite.

As for rules, miniatures can't be used as a yardstick for which version of the rules are being used. The "current" rules can be split into two categories: The CRP rules maintained by the community when GW dropped support in the mid-2000s and the "new" rules GW released between November 2016 through 2017. Thing is, they're both based almost entirely on the last Living Rulebook (LRB) issued around 2012 or so, with minor tweaks and changes to each that amount to a handful of sentences' difference at best (though can have a huge impact on rules, of course). Even further back, the LRB iterations are all based upon the last Blood Bowl boxed edition from 1994, the period in which the previous metal miniature line was released (there are also many compatible figures from the 1986 ranges from 1st/2nd edition, too).

30 years of miniatures to choose from, but the same core ruleset (with revisions) for the last twenty years.

Blood Bowl is doing absolutely fine.

As for Battlefleet Gothic, a "one and done" set would be a poor substitute for the old game. Judging it based on the previous BB and Necromunda releases, I'd expect some form of completely self-contained core box with the option of expanding it later, should you wish, though unless Battlefleet Gothic was caught up by the wave of popularity that BB was (forcing GW to move several in-development resin models and teams into plastic) then any further expansions/ships would be in resin.

then we will finally find out what ships look like in 30k and have a better consistent lore regarding them

Given the BFG:A 2 game coming out next year is supposed to be set during the gathering storm events. seems an odd choice if a BFG table top game coming out the same year is set in the heresy. I served on the test team for the original BFG:A game. and the devs apparently kept a pretty open line of communication with GW.

Well a) HH is major money maker for FW b) reduces number of models they need to produce. You basically need half the ships. Even less if current age would have more than Imperium and Chaos

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
For people who have played both, how does it compare to current space combat game like FFG's star wars ones?

In my opinion, Battlefleet Gothic is what I wanted Armada to be - you actually get to field a good-sized fleet, rather than a small squadron or flotilla. The rules are designed to reduce the amount of record-keeping (no need to record a ship's previous speed, for example - all you need to know is that a ship can move between half and all of it's speed stat in normal circumstances, reduced by damage, amended by special orders). The rules of the game would actually suit pre-WW1 ironclad naval combat better than "realistic" space warfare, but that again fits the tone of the setting. I like the fact that there's minimal table clutter (other than ships, the only tokens on the table are ordnance - fighters, bombers and torpedoes - and blast markers - the remains of explosions and weapons hits). Straight out the box, the Imperial and Chaos fleets are well-distinguished (Chaos ships are faster with more flexible weapon fire arcs, but are slightly less resilient, while Imperial ships are a little more ponderous, but have heavier prow armour. an Imperial fleet would want to close the range while keeping the enemy in its front arc, to present their armoured prow to the enemy and to break up their formations with torpedo salvoes and nova cannon fire, then heel over and open fire with close- range broadsides - or dive between enemy ships and utilise those broadsides - while Chaos wants to keep the range a little more open, and pick off the flanks and edges of the Imperial formation. Orks and Eldar are interesting additions to that basic split.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
For people who have played both, how does it compare to current space combat game like FFG's star wars ones?

In my opinion, Battlefleet Gothic is what I wanted Armada to be - you actually get to field a good-sized fleet, rather than a small squadron or flotilla. The rules are designed to reduce the amount of record-keeping (no need to record a ship's previous speed, for example - all you need to know is that a ship can move between half and all of it's speed stat in normal circumstances, reduced by damage, amended by special orders). The rules of the game would actually suit pre-WW1 ironclad naval combat better than "realistic" space warfare, but that again fits the tone of the setting. I like the fact that there's minimal table clutter (other than ships, the only tokens on the table are ordnance - fighters, bombers and torpedoes - and blast markers - the remains of explosions and weapons hits). Straight out the box, the Imperial and Chaos fleets are well-distinguished (Chaos ships are faster with more flexible weapon fire arcs, but are slightly less resilient, while Imperial ships are a little more ponderous, but have heavier prow armour. an Imperial fleet would want to close the range while keeping the enemy in its front arc, to present their armoured prow to the enemy and to break up their formations with torpedo salvoes and nova cannon fire, then heel over and open fire with close- range broadsides - or dive between enemy ships and utilise those broadsides - while Chaos wants to keep the range a little more open, and pick off the flanks and edges of the Imperial formation. Orks and Eldar are interesting additions to that basic split.

I would agree with that general summary. The original balance between Chaos and the Imperium was a nice, using the existing rules framework. The only problem near the end of BFG's lifespan was special rules bloating with the newer faction releases, and balancing issues with some ship choices within fleets being clearly the superior choice, reducing overall fleet variety.

BrianDavion wrote:
Given the BFG:A 2 game coming out next year is supposed to be set during the gathering storm events. seems an odd choice if a BFG table top game coming out the same year is set in the heresy. I served on the test team for the original BFG:A game. and the devs apparently kept a pretty open line of communication with GW.

actually, bfg armada2 is coming out this year and i do suspect that the tabletop game will also take place during the gathering storm m42, just so they can sell more fleets. in horus heresy, there really is only 2 faction, both using the same ships. but it's only a suspicion

shadowsfm wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Given the BFG:A 2 game coming out next year is supposed to be set during the gathering storm events. seems an odd choice if a BFG table top game coming out the same year is set in the heresy. I served on the test team for the original BFG:A game. and the devs apparently kept a pretty open line of communication with GW.

actually, bfg armada2 is coming out this year and i do suspect that the tabletop game will also take place during the gathering storm m42, just so they can sell more fleets. in horus heresy, there really is only 2 faction, both using the same ships. but it's only a suspicion

And a suspiscian that doesn't match with what, admitedly little, has been said by FW themselves at seminars.

tneva82 wrote:
Well a) HH is major money maker for FW b) reduces number of models they need to produce. You basically need half the ships. Even less if current age would have more than Imperium and Chaos

The HH is a big moneymaker for FW because the miniatures cross over with 40K. Battlefleet lacks that synergy with another game. Having to manufacture fewer different ships may make for production benefits, but what effect will it have on acceptance of the game. How much complaining was there about too few choices when BB and NEC were released? I'd expect the same of Battle Fleet releases with marines vs marines.

To me, the HH seems a much less interesting period to game Battle Fleet. Only two factions. Both fielding the same ships. Boooooooooooring.

Personally, I'll be taking a pass if we get Battle Fleet Heresy, just like I will take a pass on Titan Legions/Epic if its limited to the HH era.