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.

Are there any BFG rumors out there? Is there any chance we will see this awesome game again?

It seems like GW is doing everything they can to roll out games nobody asked for, and ignoring one of the best games they ever made that still has a loyal fan base.

Adeptus Titanicus and Bloodbowl are hardly games no-one asked for.

However, I agree BFG is awesome and would love to see it redone. I heard some rumours a year or two back, talking about the Sea of Fire as a Horus Heresy thing.

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Battle_of_Beta-Garmon

This is - like it or not - Probably the most likely if we get anything because it means they can get away with only producing one set of ships.
There are persistent rumours but never anything solid.

I think it'd be a good idea (especially with BFG 2 Armada), but I don't know the specialist games team's capacity, especially now.

Last rumor, from last year, was that its at least 5 years away and will likely end up being limited to Horus Heresy era stuff.

Which I'm fine with because honestly it was a terrible game.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Last rumor, from last year, was that its at least 5 years away and will likely end up being limited to Horus Heresy era stuff.

Pretty much this - the Specialist Games team is trying to expand so it can keep the existing games alive, take over 30k (unless it gets dropped completely) and still release new games.

locarno24 wrote:
Adeptus Titanicus and Bloodbowl are hardly games no-one asked for.

Agreed. Both are legendary, and even Necromunda was around before BFG.

No solid rumours or indication that it would be coming soon, since the SG studio guys have already said they were surprised by the massive success of the games currently pushed which required new staff and resources, especially time which is away from redoing BFG in a manner they'd like. I recall something like 2-3 years of development time being thrown around, which they'd have to take to get it done and it wasn't currently in the pipelines.

Rules are available for free and models can be bought from second hand or alternative firms as well as printed. Many fleets are also trivial to scratchbuild, so it's not like there's much keeping you from playing about right now.

If you really want to play BFG theres always DropFleet Commander which is basically a modernized version of the same game.

Regarding the loyal fanbase, I would throw my lot in for Epic first if that were the case given that demographic is larger, the game is older and the integration with AT and AI lines is a powerful tool in supporting GW's other ventures. But even that is many, many years in the future still with lots of expansions for the current games coming out first.

phydaux wrote:
Are there any BFG rumors out there? Is there any chance we will see this awesome game again?

Yes, I'm sure its on their to-do list. You have to remember that they have reintroduced three favourites in the last 3-4 years so they are doing pretty well.

Looking to the future, and going with gut feeling (the "magic" as they say in Blade Runner) BFG or Man-O-War could be up next. If not, it'll be another game - possibly a new one - that is on a road map towards the reintroduction of Epic 40K.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you really want to play BFG theres always DropFleet Commander which is basically a modernized version of the same game.

It's another iteration by mister Chambers on the subject, sure, but not exactly the same. One does not need to overtake the other.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you really want to play BFG theres always DropFleet Commander which is basically a modernized version of the same game.

I've looked into it. Near as I can tell that community is dead.

Not played it, but would Star Wars Armarda be any good?

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you really want to play BFG theres always DropFleet Commander which is basically a modernized version of the same game.

Owning and having played both - they are VERY different

BFG is alot faster, has much better fighter and bomber rules - eg you can actually use the fromer to defend against the latter. DFC also already has a huge amount of errata and rebalancing.
DFC does have a interesting mechanic regarding targeting ships but aso has an incredably involved and long "drop" element

A Call to Arms: Babylon 5 is also a great descendant of BFG but again is quite different.

Sadly space games don't seem to have long lasting apeal :(

Not tried Armada yet due to price.

DFC plays slower in large part due to the targeting/sensor rules, I admit, but I see this as a benefit rather than as a negative. You can avoid the "drop" element by simply not playing atmospheric games and playing a "deep space" game instead. Fundamentally many of the core mechanics are identical (with some streamlining in DFCs case, gone are the atrocious gunnery tables from BFG, thank god).

Babylon 5 ACTA was a great game (though not without its problems), but I thought it predated BFG? Internet says that it came after, so I guess not. Another example of what BFG could have been had they spent some more time editing/streamlining the game I suppose.

Armada is a phenomenally great game, I love it, but it is COMPLETELY unlike Battlefleet Gothic (or really any of the other games being discussed here). For one your fleet sizes will generally be smaller - at standard game sizes IIRC the most ships you can get on the table is 5 (unless you double-count flotillas as they are technically 2 ships on one base), and those will be all corvette/blockade runner type vessels with little to no upgrades, no star destroyers or anything cool or fancy. Overall its not a fleet scale game, and feels much more like a skirmish game in space, definitely has some interesting mechanics to it and its a very tactically deep decision-heavy game that really captures the feel of ponderous and lumbering capital ships slugging it out.

And to Mr Mordens point about space games not having lasting appeal - I would argue that its true of naval games as a whole genre. I think there are a laundry list of reasons that can be used to try to explain that, but chiefly I think it comes down to naval games generally being overly crunchy and overly technical, with a lot of process and resolution involved to execute even a simple action without very much of a payoff at the tail end of all that effort. I think it probably has something to do with the differing evolutionary developments that naval (as well as aerial) wargaming took to get to where they are today compared to ground combat. I think naval gaming is still largely rooted in things like Harpoon and Janes Fighting Ships and the training games used to develop naval officers 50-100 years ago, which are overly concerned with technology and systems and statistics, etc. as opposed to developing a rewarding play experience, etc. Over the past 20-30 years I think we've gradually seen a shift in mentality towards experiential gaming on the naval side of things, but development on that front has lagged behind ground combat - in part because ground combat has a broader appeal and is more profitable and thus has more effort and resources dedicated to improving it as a genre, but I think another part of it is that a lot of designers are still rooted in the mentality of "what came before" so they aren't necessarily trying to move past the old school mentality in their game design.

As far as space games go, I think a big part of it too is that the community as a whole has very differing interpretations of what a space game is - for a lot of people, when they say they want a space combat game, what they actually mean is that they want to fight world war 1/2 naval battles in space, while others are looking for a game with three dimensional vector movement and mechanics that require a degree in astrophysics instead.

In a sense, I think Armada is probably one of the first big steps forward in terms of naval wargame design in a pretty considerable amount of time. I don't pretend to be an expert but as a collector and researcher of rulesets, it seems most other naval wargames are still rooted in the design paradigms established by games like Full Thrust and Starmada (~early 90s), Battlefleet Gothic (~late 90s), Starfleet Battles (~late 70s/early 80s), General Quarters (mid 70s), and Shipwreck (late 90s). There are probably a few others that could be mentioned but are too obscure to be worth referencing. You'll notice that most of the games on that list are space games, and thats because space games have really been the driver in development of naval wargaming rules (Victory at Sea, for example, is rooted in the A Call to Arms system, which is as I just learned rooted in Battlefleet Gothic). The naval grognard community overall is unsurprisingly traditionalist in their approach to naval wargaming and has taken few if any great steps forward in the realm of wargame design on their own. Its largely been space navy games that have stepped forward with new innovations (as few and far between as they may be) in the approach to game design that have then looped back to wet navy games in turn.

As far as Armada is concerned, it seems to have spawned its first off-shoot game in the form of "Heart of Leviathan". Haven't played the game/don't know much about it, but you can see the Armada influences pretty clearly IMO:

https://www.imagestudios.us/heart-of-leviathan.html

Yeah ACTA is by Mathew Sprange who is ex GW (like aot of games people) and the various ACTA systems can be seen as an evolution of that game - although they are quite different from it and indeed each other. Its the game I am most familair with being a playtester and writter of some unoffical supplements.

I have also got the old FASA Leviathan (Centurion universe) and the BattleSpace games as well but not managed to play any of them. Firestorm Armada was also interesting but hardly got a game before it died.

I wanted to like Dropfleet - I really did but the drop element and balance issues put us off very quickly. I remember trying out Full Thrust and still have it. never tried SFB or B5 Wars.

One of the things I most liked about ACTA was how they handled fighter/aux craft combat - I have not found better and sadly they seem to have abonned much of it for Victory at Sea. ACTA had balance issues indeed - young races against Minbari, "I can't see you -you shoot me" or Dilgar against Vorlons are not fun - ironically Dilgar are brutal against the elder race.

Intersting point about naval games - thanks

I don't remember too much about how ACTA handled squadrons, but I think Armada is my favorite take on them. They've found a way to keep Squadrons relevant without making them completely OP which is an issue that a lot of naval games have.

Squadrons activate in their own phase after all the capital ships have gone, and players alternate activating their squadrons two at a time until all of them are activated. During their activation a squadron can either move or attack, it cannot do both unless it has a special rule that allows it to do so (mainly the "Rogue" keyword).

ALTERNATIVELY, almost/every ship has a "Squadron" stat which, if they use a Squadron special order (instead of one of the other x many orders they have access to - they can usually only use one order per turn), allows them to activate a number of squadrons up to their squadron stat within a certain range immediately during the Ship Phase (instead of waiting until the Squadron phase), at which time the Squadron can move *AND* attack (unlike during the squadron phase where its either/or without the Rogue keyword).

Squadrons can move up to a distance indicated on their stat card in any direction, no restricted maneuver/movement (which I believe is similar to how ACTA handled it) like with the capital ships.

Squadrons moving within a certain distance of one another ("Range 1") are considered to be engaged, they cannot move and can only attack the squadron(s) they are engaged with.

Ships have a Squadron Defense stat which is the number (and type) of attack dice they get to roll against squadrons. When a ship attacks a squadron it chooses its attack arc and can roll that many dice against every squadron in that arc that is within range of that die (the dice colors correlate to weapon ranges).

Likewise Squadrons have two different attack stats, an anti-squadron stat and an anti-ship stat which gives them varying degrees of lethality depending on their target (which allows for some pretty flavorful design by allowing squadrons to be really good at hurting other squadrons but bad at hurting capital ships, and vice versa). Squadrons can shoot 360 degrees but can only ever fire at a target within range 1, regbardless of the color of dice they get to chuck.

Squadrons have a number of points of damage they can sustain, which is represented by a dial on their base, as they take damage you rotate the dial until it reaches 0 at which point the base is removed. Oh, and squadrons ignore damage from critical hit results on the die which gives them a slight survivability boost. I think that covers everything.

There are of course additional special rules in the form of keywords (I told you about "Rogue" earlier). and some "character" squadrons have special rules in addition to keywords. Swarm, for example, allows you to reroll an attack die if you are attacking an enemy squadron that is engaged with at least one other friendly squadron. Relay allows the squadron to act as a "repeater" for the squadron order used by a capital ship (i.e. if the squadron with the keyword is within range 1 of a ship using a squadron order, you can use the order to activate squadrons out to range 3 of the Relay squadron). Heavy squadrons don't prevent squadrons they are engaged with from moving or attacking other targets. Etc.

Overall its very fluffy and flavorful, pretty well balanced, and all in all very simple and intuitive. My only real gripe is that ships don't carry squadrons or have any sort of "launch value" built into them the way they do in a game like BFG or ACTA. Instead of being "built in" to the ships you are fielding, they are separate units that you have to pay for. There is one ship upgrade that allows you to recycle a destroyed squadron (once per game) - I.E. if its destroyed within a certain range you can place it back on the table within a certain range of the ship with the upgrade and then discard the upgrade. Theres also another upgrade that lets a ship act as a carrier - i.e. you set aside a number of squadrons up to the ships squadron value instead of deploying them, and then later in the game you can spend a squadron order to deploy them within Range 1 of the ship. Aside from those specific upgrades/scenarios however the game does somewhat miss the feel of being able to launch fighters, etc. which is unfortunate because it is (to me) a key part of the setting. Armada makes up for that (IMO) by representing the relationships and interdependence between capital ships and fighters/bombers, both through its core rules as well as through upgrades and special rules such as Relay and various upgrades that encourage and reward coordinating your squadrons with the actions of your capital ship, etc. Its something I haven't seen a lot of in other naval wargames, which usually treat squadrons as fully independent (and often disposable) assets that don't really benefit from a "mothership" or have any command and control dependencies to the fleet they are supporting, etc.

Sounds very similar to ACTA B5

Fighters move last and shoot first, no restricitons on turns etc
if touching are "dogfighting" , can't leave until free - fight twice a turn
They have normal weapons and Dgofight rating, only use guns if not dogfighting, a few have Anti-fighter weapons that fire before dogfight
You can fire normal guns against fighters but most have a high dodge save so not usually worth it.
Certain ships have the Fleet Carrier trait which allows you to increase the dogfight of craft and even recover some destroyed ships (D6roll)- quite often they are also Command ships which increase fleet inititve bonus
You had a set load of craft for a ship or you could buy independant squadrons

Yep having a set load of fighters seems a slight miss for SW Aramada - but otherwise sounds good rules.

My main issue with A Call To Arms is the initiative system - frankly my main issue with Armada and Adeptus Titanicus too.

Alternating activations sounds okay until you realise one tiny flotilla or knight banner nowhere near the fight can screw with the activation order to the point your main ships rarely ever get a shot off, and playing silly buggers with the turn order allow two-activations-in-a-row rubbish with a star destroyer.

In the case of A Call To Arms specifically, this was made massively worse by most human, narn and drazi ship's having their big guns in a 'boresight' arc - a thin line straight forwards (think a warlord titans corridor arc but even harder to line up), meaning unless you joined in the 'initiative sink bull**** tango' your big guns on your biggest ship's never had a target.

Alternating activations is fine, adds a level of strategy even (like "who fights first" in 40k assaults) but where you have restricted arcs of Fire it's very easy to game the system. Dropfleet activating by roughly equal 'battlegroups' was a sensible compromise.


A Call To Arms also had some serious issues with critical hits not scaling with the size of ship.

BFG and Armada aren't so bad at this - because ship's have shields and flak proportional to their size you don't take critical without an appropriate investment of effort.

BFG does still suffer the nonsensical weirdness of a battleship losing its prow weapons because a destroyer shot it in the stern, though.
On the other hand, the poster child for 'sensible' critical damage, B5 Wars, would have you did of old age resolving a duel between two ships, let alone a fleet battle.

One other game I'll throw out as a name was Halo Fleet Battles. Really good fun, but sadly gone. The only space combat game which has really kept it's strength is X-wing, and that's as much due to the Star Wars IP as anything (I'm not knocking it - it's a great game - but it's also a dogfight game, not really a space battle 'fleet' system, despite wizkids trying to turn it into one with Attack wing).


Honestly, one thing that irks me is Battlefleet Gothic: Leviathan going missing. It was a near-perfect, GW-Licensed port of the board game, using the latest rules, for mobile or tablet. you'd got Imperial navy, space marines, chaos, flesh tearers, necrons and Tyranids all in the game and it was so much fun...then it just....wasn't on the app store anymore.

I dont know I ever even heard of BFG: Leviathan, but the reality is that the 2 Armada games for PC are effectively the tabletop game in RTS form. At least for me it scratches most of the same itch but without the need to reference gunnery tables or interact with some of the mechanical flaws of the tabletop game.

And yes, Halo Fleet Battles seemed to have been too short lived (though there is an active community presence trying to keep the game alive with 3d printable minis and house rules) to really make any sort of mark on the market. To me, its most meaningful innovation was the idea of formation or whatever it is they called them - i.e. a larger ship and an escort or 2 or 3 on the same base as a single unit with modified statlines depending on the number and type of ships involved, etc, or a pair of escort-class ships as a standalone vessel, etc. It was a nice way of increasing unit variety without requiring additional sculpts, and was kind of a neat trick to make fleets seem larger without necessarily up-scaling the cognitive burden placed on the player.

chaos0xomega wrote:
DFC plays slower in large part due to the targeting/sensor rules, I admit, but I see this as a benefit rather than as a negative. You can avoid the "drop" element by simply not playing atmospheric games and playing a "deep space" game instead. Fundamentally many of the core mechanics are identical (with some streamlining in DFCs case, gone are the atrocious gunnery tables from BFG, thank god).

I personally like gunnery tables. Sure they are bit clunky, but they motivate you to get into good firing positions. I know that before Specialist Games were killed off, Chambers was working on a new version which would have dropped gunnery tables in favour of simple 4+ roll (like lances) but really it sounded lame.

Any way, I am not particularly excited about the prospects of BFG re-release. Sure the rules and model range would need an update (finding legal models is hard anyway) but they would probably give it a same treatment as they did to regular 40k - super-mega Deathstar battleships, new generation of Indomitus Crusade ships which make old ones obsolete etc.

There are ways to achieve similar results to a gunnery table without actually requiring there to be a table to reference. Also, since each vessel only really cared about a single row of the table, you could simply print that one row on the ships stat sheet instead of requiring a lookup on a separate sheet.

Gee, all our efforts with BFG FAQ 2010 feel so overlooked and unappreciated.

are you complaining that nobody is discussing your houserules from a decade ago?

chaos0xomega wrote:
are you complaining that nobody is discussing your houserules from a decade ago?

Hey, Chaos, just because you didn't like them didn't make them 'unofficial'.

I didn't say one way or another how I felt about it, but thats an absolutely stupid statement to make, they are 100% unofficial.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I didn't say one way or another how I felt about it, but thats an absolutely stupid statement to make, they are 100% unofficial.

Let's see... written by the Rules Team who also wrote Armada, at the request of Jervis Johnson, who at the time was head of Specialist Games. Used at Adepticon for the BFG tournaments until they stopped.

The only reason that it didn't end up on GW's site was that they ended Specialist Games. That's the only difference between FAQ 2010 and FAQ 2007.

Still unofficial. Most people who played Battlefleet Gothic never used those rules, and probably never even realized they existed.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Still unofficial. Most people who played Battlefleet Gothic never used those rules, and probably never even realized they existed.

If you went to any kind of tournament you did.

And, if they're unofficial, we filled out out a lot paperwork for GW for no reason then.

FAQ 2010 is a good package and a starting point, I appreciate it. It's to be considered the official end point of GW approved rules and the relevant question hereabouts is "hey wanna play BFG, 2010 or Revised lists?"

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Gee, all our efforts with BFG FAQ 2010 feel so overlooked and unappreciated.

Ah yes, the 40 point Eldar Cruiser edition.