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.

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?

To facebook!

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.

They have one of those "we got spam one time and it was really bad so I panicked and enabled the "signup by moderator approval only" button and then forgot about it" issues. Which is why most forums never use it, because even a 24 hour wait for signup means people drift away and forget. Esp since most people sign up to a forum to ask questions or interact right in that very moment so a delayed signup is often a major pain. It certainly doesn't help the fact when forums in general are dwindling in popularity and Facebook is taking over.

That said I think both the Drop games are in a bit of a lull as the new book and rules are developed and coming out this year - after hwich I'd hope and expect a big marketing push.

Kind of the same as how the Dystopian Wars forums are pretty dead because everyone is waiting for new Dystopian Wars to actually come on sale.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 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?

acording to net wiki, AT88/epic was 6mm scale.
AT18 is confirmed to be 8mm.

however how true to 6mm AT88 was is hard for me to say. i have seen img of the 88 reaver and it is slightly smaller then current warhound, yet the epic infantry and tanks could be used as they are even in AT18, so in the grand picture, the scale of AT88/epic is all over the place.

but like i have said, if GW keept the orginal rule that the stem represent the models place on the table, not the model or the base, BFG wont have any scale issues.

Stem measuring was annoying - they should switch to measuring from bases which still means that model size is irrelevant.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 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?

acording to net wiki, AT88/epic was 6mm scale.
AT18 is confirmed to be 8mm.

however how true to 6mm AT88 was is hard for me to say. i have seen img of the 88 reaver and it is slightly smaller then current warhound, yet the epic infantry and tanks could be used as they are even in AT18, so in the grand picture, the scale of AT88/epic is all over the place.

but like i have said, if GW keept the orginal rule that the stem represent the models place on the table, not the model or the base, BFG wont have any scale issues.

AT18 is confirmed to be all over the place. They based it on 8mm Marines, and the Titans are consistent with a 7' Marine being 8mm tall, but the Russ and Xiphon on the FW boards are just straight up 1/4 the size of the 40K models. AT18 will be more consistent than Epic, but only because Epic used Titans from AT88, which were more like 3mm scale, and never bothered to really adhere to the 6mm thing with tanks and infantry anyway, varying over the years.

And as to BFG - there are two reasons to oppose a scale change. Firstly since as you say the stem is the point of reference it's not necessary, and so it would be invalidating existing models for no reason that should matter to us as customers. Secondly because despite the stem being the point of reference, increasing the size of the models to any significant degree(and if they change the scale, it will be to make the models bigger have no doubt) will mean less models able to physically fit on the table at once, which is a pretty huge downside for what is supposed to be a game of fleet command. The original model scale was a good balance of detail and size, allowing for the game to have a big impressive "scope", and since modern GW tech could render the same size of model with even more detail, there's zero reason to change the scale except commercially-motivated spite.

How would changing the scale invalidate anyone's old ships? I can still use a twenty year old terminator in 40k even though he looks more like a tac marine with neck problems than his "walking fridge" modern counterparts.

They could invent entirely new classes of ships, I suppose, but you could always just run the old ones as whatever their closest equivalent is. If the models are hugely different in scale it might be awkward to mix old with new and have classic battleships the size of cruisers, but that's really just an aesthetics issue.

I've no doubt the new ships would look markedly better than the old, and that many people will upgrade to the shiny new models, but that's hardly a reason to complain.

 Trimarius wrote:
How would changing the scale invalidate anyone's old ships?

According to some people (you'll find them in the necromunda and blood bowl threads as well) if the new models don't perfectly match the old ones so that they can add new things seamlessly to their existing collection then the entire exercise is a horrible money grabbing endeavour purely to make them dispose of all of their old models.

When they get around to releasing the new SoB you'll see this in spades...

Ah good, we've just dropped the discussion part entirely and leapt right to "everyone I disagree with is an overly emotional caricature"

Some people have classic models, and would like to add more to them without it looking silly. And yes, if models are in different scales, that looks silly to some people. Some people think the game's original scale struck a good balance between detail and the scope of the game, and don't want the models to be smaller and thus less detailed(unlikely) or bigger resulting in a game with less ships on the table(the probable outcome if they do change the scale). Neither of those is an unreasonable position to take, they're just not the position you take.

Given the size of the ships compared to the size of the table in BFG though, they would have to increase the scale like utterly massively before it would impact in the number of models on the table. I'm also not.convinced that the scale between different ships was even particularly consistent. And furthermore anyway, the ship classes were supposed to be only an indicator of an individual.ships.armament and capabilities. Actually having ships of slightly different sizes corralled under the same class.would actually be totally true to the background.

And furth.... Actually, I'm done

Joke's on them, I scratchbuilt my Tyranids to be reasonably whatever in scale to begin with

(even if they really are quite similar if tad larger than their imperial equivalents... mumble mumble...)

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Trimarius wrote:
How would changing the scale invalidate anyone's old ships?

According to some people (you'll find them in the necromunda and blood bowl threads as well) if the new models don't perfectly match the old ones so that they can add new things seamlessly to their existing collection then the entire exercise is a horrible money grabbing endeavour purely to make them dispose of all of their old models.

When they get around to releasing the new SoB you'll see this in spades...

Problem will be, that if they keep the perfectly same scale, corporate will calculate all the existing models with 3D Printing on top as lost sales. And GW doesnt make money due to selling rules.

They will settle for a scale that allows awesome models which would probably include futureproofing for xenos races. But which will try to be large enough to discourage mass 3D printing.

At the ned of the day, I believe that scale in BFG is only a small issue (unlike AT18 which would futureproof for a new epic), but scale will probably be more dictated by sculpting (how many statues can we put on a flying cathedral) and by fincancial calculations.

 Trimarius wrote:
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.

If it's explicitely badged as Battlefleet Gothic, no. They might well use the name anyway, or call it Battlefleet Solar, or something.

Thing is, the heresy novels have a lot of naval action, as well as the 'superships' that would likely attract the assorted legion fans as modelling projects even if not interested in the game. And, as noted, producing a single line of ships to start is a far smaller draw on a small specialist games team.

But it won't be a single line of ships?

What line will you choose? The cruiser hull used for the Chaos cruisers? The hull used for the Imperial cruisers? Or the strike cruiser hull?

All three of those are currently canonically used during the Heresy, and Heresy most likely means Marines vs Marines (in charge at least). Therefore all three are valid options!

The same is true of battleships- Desolator hulls, Emperor hulls and Battlebarges are all present. Which do you choose? Only the escorts are likely to be simpler.

I don't think it really simplifies it to be honest. Eitherway, there is likely to be more than one line IMO

 Yodhrin wrote:

Some people have classic models, and would like to add more to them without it looking silly. And yes, if models are in different scales, that looks silly to some people.

Here we get to the real reason. (the less ships on the table argument really doesn't pan out. 10-15% bigger would be plenty big enough to make them not match without affecting the number of ships on the table at all. Even 50% bigger wouldn't really change the number of ships on the table, especially since range vs. model size is an entirely arbitrary relationship and therefore the size of the area could easily change also.)

Given the time that's passed do you really think it's likely that the new ships are going to be either a perfect size or asthetic match for the old ones? Apart from anything else, the old metals are pretty rough - the new models are going to stand out just for being nicer, even if they were scale consistent. Personally, I have absolutely zero issue with a scale change if it means we get new, better models and ~25% bigger would let the new models be excellent.

I've got my SoB mug in hand. I guess I'll need to order a BFG one when that time comes as well.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Ah good, we've just dropped the discussion part entirely and leapt right to "everyone I disagree with is an overly emotional caricature"

"Overly emotional caricature" was a pretty good description of what was happening when you said that a scale change would invalidate existing models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:
Given the size of the ships compared to the size of the table in BFG though, they would have to increase the scale like utterly massively before it would impact in the number of models on the table. I'm also not.convinced that the scale between different ships was even particularly consistent. And furthermore anyway, the ship classes were supposed to be only an indicator of an individual.ships.armament and capabilities. Actually having ships of slightly different sizes corralled under the same class.would actually be totally true to the background.

And furth.... Actually, I'm done

You know - we could have the ship models in several sizes and use that to represent three dimensional positioning. Add 6" to range if the models are one size band apart, 12" to range if the models are two size bands apart.

Now you see Dougal, the ones in here are small. The ones out there are far away. Do you get it now?

it will be heresy when it happens. All things FW are heresy related. They feel that is their brand.

It's a bummer to me unless they retcon in the classic looking Imperial ship with armored prow for multiple classes.

stratigo wrote:
it will be heresy when it happens. All things FW are heresy related. They feel that is their brand.

It's a bummer to me unless they retcon in the classic looking Imperial ship with armored prow for multiple classes.

Already been done- for a start, Emperor-class and Apocalypse-class battleships have always been extant pre-Heresy. But the Lunar-class cruiser has been mentioned in multiple HH books.

If I remember correctly, there is some stuff about the typical prow seen in the BFG models being a specific FW pattern of prow (I want to say Mars, but I think there are at least two patterns of prow originating within the Sol system), with other prow patterns being older and found during the HH (some armoured). For example, the typical "Chaos" prow is the Cypra Mundi pattern (IIRC), but the Apocalypse battleship model had an armoured prow of a different pattern (...Voss? I'm not sure) that is very old. I've never really seen much evidence for this though, I think it all came from commentary from BFG designers, with a bit of speculation to fill in the gaps. Apparently there should be multiple major prow designs, I think something like... 5 have been shown across the old BFG model range? (Cypra Mundi, Bakka, Mars, Voss, Hydraphur come to mind)

Theoretically, this could square the circle of Lunar-class cruisers being mentioned in HH books- they are Lunar-pattern ships using a pattern of prow that is older than the preferred pattern in the Gothic sector by the time of the Gothic war. Of course, it is more likely we just see a total retcon I feel. I'd love to see more characterisation of the patterns of ship components though. A new plastic duel kit of cruisers could also contain alternate prow options for variety (similar to the different head options we see for Warlord titans in AT).

So hat is the consensus? Will we see BFG in some incarnation in 2019?

phydaux wrote:
So hat is the consensus? Will we see BFG in some incarnation in 2019?

No. It is not currently worked on as Specialist Games have lots of things on their platter. Next decade, maybe, but not this.

I'm gonna make my own space combat game. With blackjack. And hookers....

BFG is something they plan to do, but not something they have done anything serious for, and it does take a couple years to create CADs, write rules, and build a stockpile for release

I would be shocked if BFG comes out this year. GW has been a lot more proactive about teasing things ahead of time and FW barely seems able to handle it's current line of specialists games and generally seem to be in a bit of a state of disorganization. Ever since the passing of Alan Bligh there has been a noticeable drop in output.

Really? Remember, they're also responsible for Blood Bowl, Middle Earth, Necromunda and Adeptus Titanicus. The output of models for 40k / Horus Heresy might have declined, but overall?

phydaux wrote:
So hat is the consensus? Will we see BFG in some incarnation in 2019?

No way.
Necromunda, bloodbowl and now AT, and they have ALOT of AT stuff to do. heck they in reality dont even have time for AT.
It takes a good 2-3 years if not longer to properly remake a game system and we dont even know if GW has even considered that they want to do a remake of BFG.

I would be suprised if we see BFG remake BEFORE 2023.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
I would be suprised if we see BFG remake BEFORE 2023.

So basically 20+ years from the last re-release, and 18+ years from when they last stopped supporting it.

Why do we keep giving this company our money again?

phydaux wrote:

So basically 20+ years from the last re-release

BFG hasn't existed for 20 years so try again.

phydaux wrote:
Why do we keep giving this company our money again?

Because other companies never discontinue games?

Things come and go, life is temporary. Get used to it.

phydaux wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
I would be suprised if we see BFG remake BEFORE 2023.

So basically 20+ years from the last re-release, and 18+ years from when they last stopped supporting it.

Why do we keep giving this company our money again?

BFG along with the other main specialist games was taken out of production 6 years ago......