New Westminster
Last Online


Never shift in to reverse without a backup plan.

Recent Posts
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@von-krieger said in A suggestion regarding boarding changes - inspired by the TT Rulebook!:

@Romeo in the current meta, BS are totally useless (for most fleets) precisely because they are vulnerables to boarding spam (what the TT book try to prevent).

I'm not quite sure swinging the pendulum back the other way and then ripping it off the clock is the correct response to that issue.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@nemesor-xanxas said in What Titan Ships are in the game?:

@romeo i wonder what the Tau Titan will be. Will their ships combine mech-style into a bigger ship/mech while shouting anime lines?

T'au I'd argue are the easiest to just make up a Titan for: They're one of the most active races in terms of development. My bigger question is what the Dark Eldar would have. Maybe make something up about Vect having some sort of "super-Dreadnought".

@aram_thehead said in What Titan Ships are in the game?:

@romeo In the tabletop description of the cairn it mentioned that the orks faced a [bunch of stuff that isn't a world engine].


posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@nemesor-xanxas said in What Titan Ships are in the game?:

Having completed the Necron campaign I can confirm you cannot field the world engine. No Titan ships show up except on the enemy sides.


Hopefully every individual faction ends up with a giant unit at some point, and I do mean everyone.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

That would be a decent middleground. I still miss the individual UI from last game, but this would at least be a step in the right direction.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@vectorstrike said in A suggestion regarding boarding changes - inspired by the TT Rulebook!:

Oh, I forgot another line that would immensely help people stop spamming light cruisers and looking more at bigger ships:

"In addition, a ship can't make a teleport attack against a target with more hits at that point in the battle than it has itself."

That means ships with very little HP remaining (TT's hits = Armada's HP) wouldn't be able to use Teleport Strike against ships with more total HP than themselves (perhaps relative HP would be a more understandable mechanic to the players). That alone would make people vie for beefier ships instead of hordes of smaller ones... I think.

I can't speak for others, but by god no, that'd be absolutely terrible in my eyes.

  • Battleships would be borderline unassailable by boarding.
  • Lightning Strike would be hilariously pointless.
  • Weakened ships would be unable to contribute much of anything on Tyranid and Space Marine fleets.
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@lilbobchicago said in Easy Anti Cheat is annoying.:

I understand the need for anticheat in multiplayer, but why oh why does it effect my campaign. All I want is to have no leadership cap in campaign, but unfortunately in combination with the last patch I can no longer remove these limits with a save editor. This has taken much of the fun out of this game for me and I am going to have to resort to a cracked version of the game in order to play it as an Armada instead of a battle squadron.

Yuuuup. I was saying this way back in the first Beta branch, that they should restrict EAC only to multiplayer. Many of us couldn't give a flying [expletive] about multiplayer balance, yet modifying our own stuff causes EAC to flip out.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@hjalfnar_hgv said in Autocast abilities (boarding, orders, ordnance) were my Favorite Part and now they are gone.:

Tactical cogitator is still there in the campaign, and autocast would be pretty useless as most abilities have now limited charges.

Not all of them though, and besides, even with limited charges, some abilities are almost impossible for the auto-targeting to screw up (Fighter Squads targeting ships with turrets, Bombs/Nova Cannon slightly leading targets, using repair automatically when criticaled, using troop replenishment automatically when down troops, using Lightning Strike automatically when a ship in range loses shields). They might not be the optimal use, but that should still be up to the player to decide whether that particular decision is worth their managing or not.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

I remember when they first announced we'd be getting almost double the fleet points, I was expecting to have almost double the fleet... Not almost double the costs on ships. 😆

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more


If you look at the mission, it will state which System they're in. Move your fleets to that System, then click the System (Not any of the planets). A little square should be to the bottom right of the System name on the map, with text saying "Launch Special Operation".

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@ogcroflazn said in [Suggestions] Change the AI behavior in regards to Engagement distance.:

Preface: I don't know if the devs will even read this, and sorry if this isn't the right place to put this. (crossposting with the subreddit)

Whether Engagement Distance is set or not, ships go straight forward towards the enemy until they move into range to attack. Ships that engage from the Side then proceed to turn 90 degrees and fire.

Side-firing ships don't seem to maintain Engagement Distance, at least not well at all. This is especially important for ships who want to maintain a range advantage, for example, Corsairs with Runic Targetting upgrade, and long-range Chaos ships. They seem to turn at most only like 5 degrees to move away from the enemy.

My suggestions with an example is this: You have a targeted enemy ship that has a weapons range of 9000, and you have a ideal/maximum range of 13500 (or even if they have Macro weapons while you have weapons like Lances.). It's in your advantage to keep distance from the enemy.

The first suggestion is that 1) when your ship enters the distance bracket nearing the desired Distance (which would be 13500 to 18000 here), it turns to a 40 degree angle to still be closing in, ready to a) fire weapons or b) launch a Boarding Action for ships set to 4500, etc.

  1. When your ships are inside of their Engagement Distances, they then turn away to 40 degrees to better distance itself from the enemy while still be able to fire.


Unfortunately, there's never going to be a perfectly intuitive way of handling this, because of circumstances each time. For example, it might be worth letting your enemy close the gap slightly if you know you can finish them off before they get too close. I think the current system is probably best left as is, while more finicky specifics can be done with the cogitator and multiple move commands.