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.

Hi all,

Just wondering if there is any news on the re-release of BFG and if not, any idea as to what it will be like?

With the original creator Andy C having moved on to hawk/tt and created Drop Fleet Commander, which seems to use many BFG esq elements I would think that the new BFG would be markedly different because of this... perhaps made a bit simpler for faster paced gameplay? Also I imagine that the new minis would be made in a different scale so old minis could not be used.

The Specialist Team has commented that there is currently no BFG in the pipeline, so don't expect anything on that front for years.

Also, why would Andy moving on affect the game, necessarily? New Blood Bowl is nearly the same it was previously because that form was well liked by the people who kept it alive for decades. Newcromunda borrows heavily both from its predecessors and the current edition of 40k, like it previously did. The latest Adeptus Titanicus took inspiration both from the previous incarnations as well as from BFG, as the main designer attested. What has been seen in these games, though, is the accumulated effect of evolcing game design: for an example, modern skirmish games tend to go with alternating actions, so too do pretty much all new games GW produces beyond their main behemoths.

Also, what is this paranoid nonsense over scales? Even the new Titanicus models are in scale with the old Epic infantry, whereas the old titans were more in 3mm scale to begin with. In BFG the models are purely abstract eye candy with no effect on the game what so ever, if they for some reason decide to go and make a smidge bigger models it won't have any effect. Why couldn't you use old models alongside the new ones? 40k models for Rogue Trader are still very much usable to this day, if a bit stunty.

Sad to hear, Sherrypie, I am really itching for some, non PC, BFG in my life.

If it bothers you that much, you can get 3d printed versions of most old BFG ships, and the rules aren't hard to find.

I'd love to see an updated version, but I would expect a few tweaks - if redone, it might well be horus heresy, which means boarding needs more looking at - every naval battle i can think of in the books culminates in a boarding action, which was the weakest bit of the original rules.

Plus, modern flying bases and FW resin would let you produce stuff like the phalanx or vengeful spirit to scale...

Tweaking will assuredly happen, I'd expect them to shift towards alternating actions at the least. Been doing that at home, we've really liked the change in feel and tactics when unloading everything at someone actually requires you to first bait them out of position and pouncing on your opponent's mistakes.

On boarding, I think it worked quite well with the represented scale of the game. It could be very deadly if you waited and went in at an opportune moment (or played Tyranids), whereas between untouched warships it was often just desperate flailing. That felt appropriate.

I would imagine larger models to counter 3D printing. Currently the BFG scene is awash with alternate models and do it yourself ships. A big plastic model is no different in cost for GW but pushes 3D printed copies cost and fragility up.

Personally I would love (and if I ever get my 3d printer working well) tiny BFG ships with a cruiser no longer than its base's diameter, to give a better sense of scale and stop the models catching each other on the tabletop...

 Sherrypie wrote:


Also, what is this paranoid nonsense over scales? .

prolly cuz people dont know/have forgotten that it is the stem of the base that counts for the position on the table, not the actual base or model, and that the original AT was 6mm while new AT is 8mm.
new AT titans is bigger then old whit just a very few exeptions.

I would recommend that the people clamoring for BFG voice their desires in the upcoming community survey. The more GW knows about how many want a remastered BFG the more chance we are to get one.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:


Also, what is this paranoid nonsense over scales? .

prolly cuz people dont know/have forgotten that it is the stem of the base that counts for the position on the table, not the actual base or model, and that the original AT was 6mm while new AT is 8mm.
new AT titans is bigger then old whit just a very few exeptions.

Original AT was never in scale with anything besides itself, the engines were more akin to 3 mm scale when 6 mm Epic came out. New AT is measured to be 1:267, with measured models and stated heights in the fluff, which corresponds to roughly a bit over 6 mm scale for normal humans. It has never been 8 mm, see Yodhrin's excellent scale resource thread here for details. Thus the titans are AT LAST in scale with the age-old infantry models and there is no GW conspiracy to push older models out. This will probably be the case when nu-BFG eventually comes out, too. GW makes things in sizes they think look cool.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I would recommend that the people clamoring for BFG voice their desires in the upcoming community survey. The more GW knows about how many want a remastered BFG the more chance we are to get one.

There is another upcoming survey?

I would love new BFG. I think the Imperial and Chaos designs hold up very well today, but basically all of the xenos designs could really use a refresh. Games Workshop and Specialist Games have generally been knocking it out of the park with such things, so I have high hopes that they could really do the redesigns justice.

 Colonel Cross wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I would recommend that the people clamoring for BFG voice their desires in the upcoming community survey. The more GW knows about how many want a remastered BFG the more chance we are to get one.

There is another upcoming survey?

Your voice made a difference, and very soon, you’ll again have your chance to have a say with the 2019 Big Community Survey. Together, we’ll usher in even more great initiatives and continue to make the Warhammer hobby the most awesome-est.

From Warhammer Community

The real shame is that Drop Fleet Commander seems to have stalled. Their forums are a ghost town. I can't even join them to try to stir up talk.

phydaux wrote:
The real shame is that Drop Fleet Commander seems to have stalled. Their forums are a ghost town. I can't even join them to try to stir up talk.

The Facebook group is lively though. I guess it's just a sign of the times?

Onto BFG, wasn't the rumor that they're dropping it for the moment due to needing work on other games and a seeming lack of interest in the game?

Arcanis161 wrote:

phydaux wrote:
The real shame is that Drop Fleet Commander seems to have stalled. Their forums are a ghost town. I can't even join them to try to stir up talk.

The Facebook group is lively though. I guess it's just a sign of the times?

Onto BFG, wasn't the rumor that they're dropping it for the moment due to needing work on other games and a seeming lack of interest in the game?

They said at one of the open days that they looked at BFG and what it would require. Essentially it would've taken the entire team of sculptors, rules writers, playtesters, and artists 1 year if not 2 years to redo BFG. That would've meant no releases at all for Necromunda, Blood Bowl, or AT for 1-2 years. They weren't willing to sacrifice 3 games to remake 1. They also said they're working on getting a bigger team together so they may have the manpower to do a project like that without sacrificing all the other specialist games in the near future. They want to do it, it's just a matter of finding the time and manpower to do it without having to abandon all the other stuff they're working on.

Well, at least they have considered it though.

I can see what they mean. Lets compare it to Titanicus, which basically had 4 kits plus terrain to start with. For BFG you would want battleship hull, cruiser hull, frigate hull and destroyer hull for at least two factions (Imperial and Chaos), which is 8 kits to start with. There isn't really a need for terrain at least, but plastic objectives/defense platforms/space stations would also be a good initial release alongside a boxset too.

Add to that that they would likely need ~4 kits for every race afterwards- Eldar, Orks, Tau, Necrons- and you can see why GW/Specialist Games was reticent to delve into BFG to begin with.

I really hope they decide to do it at some point though- I love the idea of 40k space combat, but got into GW too late for BFG really.

The ships would be smaller than a AT titan, though, so you could split one "full-sized" sprue into multiple half or quarter sized sprues that held the individual ship types. Splitting them up manually would incur a slight cost on a per box basis, of course, but it'd be cheaper than tooling individual moulds. Though, with how many primaris lieutenants they're knocking out these days, they might have finally gotten a hand on producing such tiny sprues at a reasonable price.

Do we know how many people are on the specialist games design and modeling teams? I can't imagine it's a huge number, but I also don't think it'd take a ton of people to re-up the game, especially as they have what amounts to all the free QA they want and multiple existing products to base it on. You'd need some design time dedicated to keeping the game going, too, which might be the real crux of the issue if they're stretched thin as it is.

Still, specialist games have been booming (here, at least), so hopefully the return on their investment allows them to expand that division a bit more. I know I'd be all over a new BFG.

 Haighus wrote:
Well, at least they have considered it though.

I can see what they mean. Lets compare it to Titanicus, which basically had 4 kits plus terrain to start with. For BFG you would want battleship hull, cruiser hull, frigate hull and destroyer hull for at least two factions (Imperial and Chaos), which is 8 kits to start with. There isn't really a need for terrain at least, but plastic objectives/defense platforms/space stations would also be a good initial release alongside a boxset too.

Add to that that they would likely need ~4 kits for every race afterwards- Eldar, Orks, Tau, Necrons- and you can see why GW/Specialist Games was reticent to delve into BFG to begin with.

I really hope they decide to do it at some point though- I love the idea of 40k space combat, but got into GW too late for BFG really.

Ummm BFG wouldn't likely come back first as BFG of old but as BFG: Horus Heresy. So basically AT in space. One line of ships for both sides. Other races would wait for "if it sells enough".

While that's certainly possible (as an excuse to only produce one line of models), the original AT was also set during the HH. They were getting back to the "roots" of AT with this most recent release, but BFG has always been set in 40k so there isn't that historical setting to fall back on from a story point of view.

tneva82 wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Well, at least they have considered it though.

I can see what they mean. Lets compare it to Titanicus, which basically had 4 kits plus terrain to start with. For BFG you would want battleship hull, cruiser hull, frigate hull and destroyer hull for at least two factions (Imperial and Chaos), which is 8 kits to start with. There isn't really a need for terrain at least, but plastic objectives/defense platforms/space stations would also be a good initial release alongside a boxset too.

Add to that that they would likely need ~4 kits for every race afterwards- Eldar, Orks, Tau, Necrons- and you can see why GW/Specialist Games was reticent to delve into BFG to begin with.

I really hope they decide to do it at some point though- I love the idea of 40k space combat, but got into GW too late for BFG really.

Ummm BFG wouldn't likely come back first as BFG of old but as BFG: Horus Heresy. So basically AT in space. One line of ships for both sides. Other races would wait for "if it sells enough".

But hh has also big spacehip battles. Indeed bigger scope than original bfg fluff. And why at is in hh is same it was originally.cheaper to produce 1 line for 2 factions. Sg starting with multiple factions is pipe dream. Hh is economically muchmore viable and totallly expandable to 40k with zero wasted kits, just like at

If set in the HH, both sides could use the same ships, like with AT. The first line of models could be similar to AT as well: a huge battleship, a big battlecruiser, a box of two cruisers, a small box of three escorts (like Warlord/Reaver/Warhounds/Knights). Add a box for modular space stations (i.e. terrain), and you are more or less done.

I love what FW did and does with AT, and would love to see a redone BFG!

 Darnok wrote:
If set in the HH, both sides could use the same ships, like with AT. The first line of models could be similar to AT as well: a huge battleship, a big battlecruiser, a box of two cruisers, a small box of three escorts (like Warlord/Reaver/Warhounds/Knights). Add a box for modular space stations (i.e. terrain), and you are more or less done.

I love what FW did and does with AT, and would love to see a redone BFG!

Part of me wonders that even though AT has done really well, BFG might not do as well copying the same pattern. At least if AT hasn't, by that stage, at least got several unique chaos models out if not Xenos as well. Whilst Imperials are a big seller I think having too many specialist games which are "Imperial models only" might start to make even Imperial players get a little dulled with their interest. See its not just them buying the models but they want someone to play against and squaring off against the same opponent can get dull.

Granted its worked for AT, but I don't know if it would work twice. GW has a window now though; Firestorm Armada is dead in the water and will likely be so for at least another year or more (the last Warcradle update sounds like Dystopian Wars is a mid year release at best and closer to a Q3 release so that means Firestorm is even further off); whilst Dropfleet Commander has suffered a major stall and has yet to really regain its footing after TTC bought them and resolved the Kickstarter Issues - though they are working on a single combined rules set (two games one book with likely options to combine campaigns and battles) out this year. So that plus some major marketing could push that game back into the focal point (And they do have some great ships and a very verstaile station kit).

Thing is it sounds like BFG just isn't ready either which means it could land at the same time into a game market that has two other games with good potential and good models and a high level of visual diversity

Why would they need to redo BFG? The plastic kits already exist. They can scan the masters and have the retooled for plastic. The original rules are fine as-is.

The real answer is that they didn't want to, which is a different issue.

Eh, it'd be harder to scan and then convert/clean the old models than it would just to make new ones. Hard surface modeling is relatively fast and new sculpts would take the current plastic tech into account right off the bat. You could even use the models from the BFG computer games as a starting point, if needed (I haven't played them, so can't speak as to their actual usefulness here, but I have seen 3d prints using ripped files floating around).

And I doubt they don't want to (they're warhammer nerds, too), it's just not a high priority right now and/or they just aren't seeing the market for a good return on their investment. We can potentially affect the later of those two via the survey (if there are actually that many people who'd be interested, anyway), but what specific aspects of the hobby the designers are nostalgic for is a bit out of reach.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Why would they need to redo BFG? The plastic kits already exist. They can scan the masters and have the retooled for plastic. The original rules are fine as-is.

The real answer is that they didn't want to, which is a different issue.

 Trimarius wrote:
what specific aspects of the hobby the designers are nostalgic for is a bit out of reach.

Yeah, we obviously all wanted to spend huge money on Epic Titans...

It might even be that GW can see a viable market but feels that launching too many new games all at once will flood their own market. They've already got AT soaking up die-hard imperial fans. It would be much easier to launch BFG a few years down the line, when something like AT won't see its entire fanbase suddenly jump ship to another game in one go.

GW has a lot of new stuff on the table right now, I'd like to see a lot of it get a bit of maturity behind it before they flood too much more out (noting that things like Killteam are support products rather than separate)

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Trimarius wrote:
what specific aspects of the hobby the designers are nostalgic for is a bit out of reach.

Yeah, we obviously all wanted to spend huge money on Epic Titans...

Some people obviously did, though, and I imagine several of them work on the design team. It's not like your average 40k player is out there daydreaming about an "age of sail in space" game, either, that just happens to be our pet project. Theirs was AT.

Overread wrote:It might even be that GW can see a viable market but feels that launching too many new games all at once will flood their own market. They've already got AT soaking up die-hard imperial fans. It would be much easier to launch BFG a few years down the line, when something like AT won't see its entire fanbase suddenly jump ship to another game in one go.

GW has a lot of new stuff on the table right now, I'd like to see a lot of it get a bit of maturity behind it before they flood too much more out (noting that things like Killteam are support products rather than separate)

I don't imagine BFG would cannibalize sales of Kill Team, Necromunda (though I can see those two working counter to each other a bit), or Shadespire, as "small model count skirmish" and "fleet action" are pretty dramatically different genres of games. They might be worried about it impacting/being impacted by AT, though, you're right. There are similarities to be drawn between the two and there's going to be some overlap in fans of titans vs ships (it still falls onto that big/bigger/biggest armor spectrum, after all).

They overlap in the sense that there are 40k fans with limited budget who will only choose to collect their preferred game. I'd like to try AT, but my limited funds are much more likely to be spent on Kill team or Necromunda first. BFG probably would top both of those.

It is the setting that draws me in, but I only have so much money to throw at games across the board.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:


Also, what is this paranoid nonsense over scales? .

prolly cuz people dont know/have forgotten that it is the stem of the base that counts for the position on the table, not the actual base or model, and that the original AT was 6mm while new AT is 8mm.
new AT titans is bigger then old whit just a very few exeptions.

You mean original Adeptus Titanicus was 3mm, Epic was all over the place and new Adeptus titanicus is 6mm (ish), don't you?

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

You mean original Adeptus Titanicus was 3mm, Epic was all over the place and new Adeptus titanicus is 6mm (ish), don't you?

Bit bigger than 6mm - I have enough historical 6mm to say that with some confidence...

Re a release, GW 'back int he day' did a soft relaunch of BFG in the US. Whilst total sales went up slightly, costs increase a fair bit more as what they saw was 40k sales drop almost as much as BFG sales went up. That was a stick used to beat the other game lines for a long time. Wonder if the AT and similar releases are having the same effect?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

You mean original Adeptus Titanicus was 3mm, Epic was all over the place and new Adeptus titanicus is 6mm (ish), don't you?

Bit bigger than 6mm - I have enough historical 6mm to say that with some confidence...

Re a release, GW 'back int he day' did a soft relaunch of BFG in the US. Whilst total sales went up slightly, costs increase a fair bit more as what they saw was 40k sales drop almost as much as BFG sales went up. That was a stick used to beat the other game lines for a long time. Wonder if the AT and similar releases are having the same effect?