Joined
Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in BFG - Off-topic read more

I think BFG should be a turn based game, it is after all a turn based TT game. I think the relative success of Battletech should show there's still a viable market for turn based computer games based on tabletop/board games. So while you may have been doing a decent job making real time games. I still think you should make your next BFG project turn based.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@kadaeux said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@banjojohn said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

Really? Discount my opinion? Because I think I know more about BFG and 40k than you do. For every space marine ship, there are hundreds or thousands of imperial navy ships of the same class. As naval institutions the imperial navy is the bullwark, and marines are a small force. And space marine 'fleets' gathering together is rare. Each company has its own strike cruiser, and rarely if ever does a space marine 'ship' exist without transporting a company or two of marines. You'll typically only have 1-3 company of marines on a planet at a given time depending on the need. And most companies are engaged in battle at some time or another. It makes little sense to have a fleet of marine ships acting in a naval battle. It makes more sense to have marine ships acting as a support unit in an imperial navy fleet.

And here you say that, and instantly prove you don't. I am mightily amused.

Space Marine fleets gathering together is not rare at all (It is rarer for such gatherings to be of a single chapter.). Each company does NOT have it's own Strike Cruiser. Indeed, some chapters maintain very many Strike Cruisers.

The Space Wolves, though it is said they maintain an abnormally large fleet, has EIGHT Battle Barges, over THIRTY Strike Cruisers, in excess of forty escort SQUADRONS as well as two Ramilies Class Star Forts! (Codex Space Wolves: 7th Edition)

The Ultramarines, the literal definition of Codex Compliant chapters has a fleet consisting of 1 Gloriana Class Battleship, 3 Star Forts, 6 Battle Barges, 15 Strike Cruisers and 20 Rapid Strike Vessels.

The Dark Angels maintain a fleet of 8 Battle Barges, 16 Strike Cruisers and 21 Rapid Strike Vessels. (No Star Forts, because they have the Rock)

The Blood Angels are the first fleet we have numbers for that are low, which is unsurprising for such a heavily depleted and crippled Chapter. And thats two Battle Barges, Seven Strike Cruisers and sixteen Rapid Strike Vessels.

The Black Templars have six named Battle Barges and Five named Strike Cruisers, Crusade Fleets allegedly having dozens of ships of Battle Barge and Strike Cruiser size.

About the only thing you said with any truth was how the Astartes fleets NORMALLY operate in support of Imperial assets. And the rules for BFG actually even included this (For an Imperial Campaign you could roll a dice to see if you got Astartes support for a mission.)

Astartes fleets are not uncommon however, and generally show their hand at major events.

But go on. Spew your ignorance some more.

And just for giggles.

The Ultramarines Battle Barges and Strike Cruisers currently in service are.

Battle Barges
In active service

Seditio Opprimere - Battle Barge
Severian - Battle Barge
Octavius - Battle Barge
Spear of Macragge - Battle Barge
Adsidus - Battle Barge
Aeternus - Battle Barge

Strike Cruisers
In active service

Accipiter - Strike Cruiser
Fidelis - Strike Cruiser
Fist of Ultramar - Strike Cruiser
Garra de Macragge - Strike Cruiser
Internecio - Strike Cruiser
Iter Splendere - Strike Cruiser
Vae Victus - Strike Cruiser
Valin's Revenge - Strike Cruiser
Rex Aeterna - Strike Cruiser
Defence of Talassar - Strike Cruiser
Will of the Emperor - Strike Cruiser
Primarch's Sword - Strike Cruiser
Indefectible Vengeance - Strike Cruiser
Sword of Honour - Strike Cruiser
Righteous Fury - Strike Cruiser

Its not my fault that games workshop changed the lore from when BFG originally came out in 3rd edition and 4th edition which I am more familiar with than what it is now which you clearly are more familiar with. But go ahead, keep on spewing your ignorance.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@kadaeux said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@banjojohn said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

I think BFG as a TT game started off well enough. Every fleet has its own silly lore and background. Most of the talk about eldar ships being unstoppable is from small skirmish engagements, 1-3 ships. In the TT if you did have 3 ships vs 3 ships, or.. 200-500 point matches, sure the eldar could be hard to beat because of being able to move out of the firing arcs of guns. The bigger the scale of the battle, the more 'fleet' the eldar have to deal with. Fleet tactics are much different from skirmish tactics, eldar at the fleet level are very much vulnerable to any other fleet and need to play even more careful. Adding in space marines didn't make much sense because they are primarily a ground force, but why not, their ships may mainly be there to transport them but they can fight in space too if needed. Mechanicus are odd and have their own thing going so sure why not give them a fleet too. Dark eldar and craftworld are basically the pirate eldar but a little twist.

The Marines always made sense as they've always publicly maintained fleets before their inclusion in BFG. The same goes for the Mechanicus.

Tau make sense as a fleet in the fact that I'm sure during the great crusade, the imperium smashed various alien races who did have fleets too. And I think a BFG"great crusade" would probably be a much more varied and fun game because of the possibilities if the time to develop new alien races could be properly done.

Orks never make sense in any context but there really isnt 40k without them so why not keep them.

Every other fleet can be justified with the lore. I think they can be balanced. I think tyranids and necrons can also be balanced. I don't think they should be taken out of the game, the cat is already out of the bag. But I do think its was a mistake to include them in the game, as fleets, instead of just as things that fleets have to deal with.

Given you just said that it didn't make sense to include Marines or Mechanicus, I think we can safely discard your opinions.

Really? Discount my opinion? Because I think I know more about BFG and 40k than you do. For every space marine ship, there are hundreds or thousands of imperial navy ships of the same class. As naval institutions the imperial navy is the bullwark, and marines are a small force. And space marine 'fleets' gathering together is rare. Each company has its own strike cruiser, and rarely if ever does a space marine 'ship' exist without transporting a company or two of marines. You'll typically only have 1-3 company of marines on a planet at a given time depending on the need. And most companies are engaged in battle at some time or another. It makes little sense to have a fleet of marine ships acting in a naval battle. It makes more sense to have marine ships acting as a support unit in an imperial navy fleet.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@kadaeux said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@banjojohn said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@kadaeux said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

A : The Planet Killer in Star Trek is killable by a single outdated Federation ship firing a torpedo down it's throat.

It took a state of the art constitution class heavy cruiser detonating its warp core inside the mouth to stop it, otherwise it could blow up any ship that comes its way or devour planets whole.

It took an older Constitution class (USS Constitution NCC 1017). A ship that, compared to TNG and Voy should be weak and ridiculously outdated.

My point isnt even that necrons or tyranids should be removed from the game. I just want people to aknowledge that they were a mistake to bring into the game in the first place.

They were never a mistake. Repeating your point doesn't make it less stupid.

You can't compare eras like this, the constitution class was state of the art when the planet killer event happened, so thats the tech level you have to compare it to when you have a 'planet killer' ship type scenario.

You can't compare necron tech now to what imperial tech could be in 20k years if it keeps downgrading, or if it starts upgrading again. You compare necron tech at M49 or whenever the events are happening.

Planet killer happend in TOS not TNG, so TNG 'didnt exist' for comparison reasons, thus the constitution class was state of the art tech at the time.

Sure, TNG era has better tech, but planet killer didnt happen then, so you cant make the comparison. And IF they did write a planet killer episode in TNG era, then the planet killer would just be bigger/stronger/whatever to make it a dramatic threat for the time.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

I think BFG as a TT game started off well enough. Every fleet has its own silly lore and background. Most of the talk about eldar ships being unstoppable is from small skirmish engagements, 1-3 ships. In the TT if you did have 3 ships vs 3 ships, or.. 200-500 point matches, sure the eldar could be hard to beat because of being able to move out of the firing arcs of guns. The bigger the scale of the battle, the more 'fleet' the eldar have to deal with. Fleet tactics are much different from skirmish tactics, eldar at the fleet level are very much vulnerable to any other fleet and need to play even more careful. Adding in space marines didn't make much sense because they are primarily a ground force, but why not, their ships may mainly be there to transport them but they can fight in space too if needed. Mechanicus are odd and have their own thing going so sure why not give them a fleet too. Dark eldar and craftworld are basically the pirate eldar but a little twist.

Tau make sense as a fleet in the fact that I'm sure during the great crusade, the imperium smashed various alien races who did have fleets too. And I think a BFG"great crusade" would probably be a much more varied and fun game because of the possibilities if the time to develop new alien races could be properly done.

Orks never make sense in any context but there really isnt 40k without them so why not keep them.

Every other fleet can be justified with the lore. I think they can be balanced. I think tyranids and necrons can also be balanced. I don't think they should be taken out of the game, the cat is already out of the bag. But I do think its was a mistake to include them in the game, as fleets, instead of just as things that fleets have to deal with.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@kadaeux said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

A : The Planet Killer in Star Trek is killable by a single outdated Federation ship firing a torpedo down it's throat.

It took a state of the art constitution class heavy cruiser detonating its warp core inside the mouth to stop it, otherwise it could blow up any ship that comes its way or devour planets whole.

My point isnt even that necrons or tyranids should be removed from the game. I just want people to aknowledge that they were a mistake to bring into the game in the first place.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

None of this "being a dick to people who play these fleets" would even be a problem if the mistake of making them fleets to begin with wasn't made. BFG is a mutant who has grown a second thumb on its hands, and those thumbs are the necron and tyranid fleets. Cutting them off to make things balanced and normal again would make things right, people who play these fleets shouldn't feel punished, they should feel glad they even got to play after such mistakes were made.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@bellumvinco said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

Ever heard of tyranid splinter fleets? Don't be so closed minded bud. Instead of focusing on why you think it's not possible, figure out ways it is possible.

Yeah, I have the 3rd edition tyranid codex, I know about spliter fleets. I'm not being closed minded.

Having necrons and tyranids as fleets would be like playing a star trek game and having one person play the federation and letting the other person plop down 2-3 giant planet eating ships. Sure you could try and 'balance' the planet eaters so that they could not be overwhelmingly powerful compared to a fleet of 10 ships, but its silly to do so. They should be overpowered, an obsticle to fail against time and time again and only win against sometimes.

A squad of 3 necron light cruisers should launch from a planet in the battlefield of a BFG game, and then blast their way through whatever ships are in their way as they make their way out.

A tyranid fleet is slowed down on its way to consume, there is no winning, not when so much other stuff is going on.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

This isn't really the fault of Tindalos, but rather games workshop. Even though Necrons and Tyranids are playable 'armies' in 40k and battlefleet gothic. I really think because of their background, Necrons and Tyranids should have been 'set piece' type of ships in BFG instead of being somewhat fleshed out fleets for players to build.

I dunno, maybe you all will develope some scenarios that reflect this, but really with how overwhelming Tyranid numbers can be, or overpowered necron technology is, it makes more sense to have their 'ships' exist as a set piece NPC type of thing that you deal with during your battle, or its a scenario battle designed completely around trying to win a no-win situation, or run away from a no-win situation, etc.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

I would still kinda like this to be a turn based game where you plan out your moves ahead of time and see how well your plan for the turn ends up doing against your opponents plan.


Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.