Specialist Arms Forum
Specialist Games General Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Snakeb1te on April 25, 2011, 02:47:23 PM
-
Hi I'm new to these forums and am looking for advice.
I originally posted this on the relic news forums where I've recieved a fair bit of help relating to W40k in the past, but specialist games is another matter, and it doesn't seem that there are many active there who know much about it. So I decided to do some research myself, and stumbled upon this forum!
I hope its ok, but instead of reposting the entire topic again here I'll just link you to the topic on RNF.
I value all help greatly, because I will really dive headfirst into the hobby I choose. :)
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?259579-Should-I-get-involved-with-Epic-Armageddon (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?259579-Should-I-get-involved-with-Epic-Armageddon)
-
First of all, welcome to the forums!
Complete Rules? The resources available on the GW site are many, but are they really the full rules and all I'll need to play the game?
You get everything you need to play from the GW site.
Difficult/loophole Rules?
There are not more than in any other games, the epic community does and did a great job bringing the rules together and even expanding them.
Range of Products/armies: I
Yeah that is kind of a problem but again here the epic community is working to expand the range of miniatures.
For Epic and BFG related topics, I would suggest you visit the TACCOM Forums:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/index.php
-
Thanks for the swift reply.
You get everything you need to play from the GW site.
Great.
There are not more than in any other games, the epic community does and did a great job bringing the rules together and even expanding them.
Ok. This isn't too bad anyway because myself and my opponent are pretty good with house rules should something happen that we're not sure about. Should I have any further questions about the rules/clarifications needed I'll pop along here and ask some questions!
Yeah that is kind of a problem but again here the epic community is working to expand the range of miniatures.
If by that you mean creating rule books for the races I have to admit I'm not too keen, I'd rather go on what GW has made official. But if you mean that you're harrassing GW on putting some more attention into Specialist Games, such as sending them ideas you have and asking them to implement then good! But again as there are already so many rules I'd rather invent my own house rules which I'll remember better than learning new ones.
I have to say though I originally was far more keen on Epic, I feel like I'd rather join a game which has more players/community, such as BFG. Aside from that are the advtantages that BFG can field less units for battles, and have more races (even though Chaos and IN/SM are the only ones with a good variety of ships).
In any case, I now find myself leaning towards BFG because of the variety it has. I know less about BFG though so is there any info/reccommendations you can give me? Is this a better game than Epic: Armageddon?
Thanks.
-
If by that you mean creating rule books for the races I have to admit I'm not too keen, I'd rather go on what GW has made official.
Well they wont make something official they no longer support, but there is a very active playtesting community and thousands of topics, where rule changes get discussed so no list gets out of balance.
But its not only rulewise, there are also some excellent proxys available for other 40k races that did not make it into the rulebook.
Like the exodus warrior edenites:
http://www.exoduswars.com/exodus-wars/edenite.html
Sadly though I think that harrassing GW about SG will be a useless endeavor.
Which is also a thing that has a good side, because SG games are developed now by gamers to make them more interesting and not to make a profit.
Cant really comment on BFG as I only playtested it once, also I prefer the larger land battles but thats personal preference. :) But I am sure theres plenty of BFG players around here that have useful tips.
-
BFG has recently undergone some modification on what is available for free on the GW site. these changes are not yet official but we all hope and expect them to be soon.
in addition to the 40k factions (minus SoB)
there are also AdMech, Corsair Eldars, a second Tau list, and some sundries aliens like Demiurge and Fra'al.
while fighters and bombers have a role to play, they do not overwelm gunships as was in the pacific theatre of ww2.
plastic exists only for chaos and imperial cruisers
forgeworld make some resin models
the rest are metal ... and with the new GW pull back from metals, we all wonder what this will mean for BFG as well as all SG games
-
@ Guthwine: I don't know what it is but I have trouble accepting proxies or proxy rules. Perhaps I'll learn to be more accepting in future.
You dont know much about BFG? Well feel free to chat about Epic! As it is very possible I will get both Epic and BFG as I'd like to tie in the games in a campaign. Right now I'm trying to make up my mind on which to get first, so some info on Epic if you have more experience would be great. One thing I was wondering was how much of the aspect warriors of the eldar does epic incorporate? Does it have all of the different aspects in a boxset? Does it have most of the codex units as well as all the badass looking super heavies I keep seeing?
I'm actually very sad that Epic:40k wasn't continued as that had Nids and it seemed to be quite good.
@ fracas: wow almost exactly what i wanted to know about prices e.t.c. It's clear that IN/Chaos are the best for nice cheap armies, as well as variety but its good to know which ones are the most cost effective; you can't be picky if you can't afford it! Nevertheless I'll still keep my options open as I still may bend toward Eldar ships to complement an Eldar army on tabletop. (Btw does IN count also as SM? Does SM have plastic ships?)
Yes I also understood from somewhere that although they are powerful, you can't completely mass attack craft as they're limited a certain ship count. Either way whether its ship cannon vs ship cannons or attack craft vs ships I'd be happy to just play some nice fluffy 40k space battles without worrying too much about balance, (I can always adjust some of the rules if it gets unfair.)
Also please elaborate on your first and final comments. Does the first one mean they will add more free Specialist Games material for free? Or pull it back?
And the final comment about metals, does that mean they'll produce plastic version of existing metal ships, produce more range of ships? Or simply pull back all the metal ships (effectively completely ending BFG outside of Chaos/IN).
-
it all comes down to how much support GW wants to give SG moving forward.
if they want to, they could update the rules as a bound volume and call it BFG 2.0 or some such, and sell it. then support this with either continued metal models or move to resin. plastic i think is a dream only.
if they do not want to support SG, then it will be left as is and die a quiet death when the current metal models inventory runs out.
yes, imperium and chaos give you the cheapest build and the greatest ship options. they also use the standard rules so these are good starting points. i would build one fleet of each to 750-1000 points unless you already have opponents waiting to play. get 4 cruiser hulls, one battleship, and a blister (for chaos) or two (for imperium) of escorts. build 2 cruisers and one heavy/battle cruisers and save the 4th hull tp build once you settle on your preferred play style. since you will only have one battleship i would start there with each fleet, either a gun battleship or a carrier battleship. then build your cruisers to complement the battleship but also capable of playing without the battleship.
space marine has their own models and ship list. they are not built for space naval engagement like the imperial navy.
-
Again, a very useful post and I thank you for all the added info.
Still, should I wish to have a fleet of space marine vessels to fight against my housemates heretical imperial guard (of course they are) ;) I doubt they are not built for space combat! I realise Space Marine ships are not geared towards ONLY being fighter vessels as they have to deploy space marines, and have training halls e.t.c, but still they should pack a punch. And even if they don't I care not! It's all about playing with the army you like the most as far as I'm concerned, and if I find myself losing 20 games in a row then I will just buy a few Navy ships to balance it out (pretending that they are support craft).
This info was posted on the original thread over at the relicnewsforums which I appreciate greatly, and will help me in choosing an army once I've learned the rules properly. What are your thoughts on it? Is this about right? If so I'll save it and keep it for future study.
In simple terms:
Navy: A mix of 18th century line and WW1 style tactics, lots of torpedoes (which are quite powerful if you hit with them). Good armor on front axis. Combined arms essential.
Chaos: WW2 naval combat. Direct fire vessels supported by lots of strikecraft. Probably the easiest faction to play.
This is the most well balanced matchup.
Eldar: Extremely maneuverable and pack some powerful guns. Will fall apart like wet tissues if they get hit.
Marines: Decently fast, good armor, strong but short range guns. Only one ship has lances. Very good at boarding.
Necrons: Usually considered the overpowered faction. Some of the strongest guns, and the best armor. Damn fast (which can work against them), but not particularly maneuverable.
Tyranids: Have never played against them. They seem to be really tricky to play because of the huge amount of special rules they have. On the other hand: Close combat IN SPACE!
Tau: Their most powerful ship is all-around a bit weaker than the Navy's Lunar-class cruiser. Imperial Armour 3 gives them a few new ships, like the Custodian (which isn't bad), but they're easily the weakest faction (which actually makes sense). Their non-FW ships don't have very good models, either.
Actually he mentions that more ships are added in the Imperial Armour 3 book, does this mean that not ALL the rules and fleet lists are in the PDFs on the main site?
P.S. If Epic players don't fight for my love, I think I will just choose BFG for the moment, and review whether I want Epic or w40k battles in a few years time. :(
-
Yes there are new ship profiles waiting for official approvals
The quote is good but know that there are three eldar factions: dark, corsair and craftworld
The IA3 tau has also been reworked
-
Hi,
welcome.
Next to the, indeed cheap starters Imperial Navy and Chaos, the Forgeworld Tau fleet is the next in line to be called cheap. Really.
Plus it has always been a balanced fleet. Especially Forgeworld. The GW Tau could be exploited and be called unbalanced/overpowered.
Imperial Armour 3 lacks a fleet list. Forgeworld had a pdf available with fleet list but this is no longer the case. It is floating on the internet though (on this site in the fanatic section iirc).
The new Tau draft is really cool & better.
-
Yes there are new ship profiles waiting for official approvals
What does this mean? Was it written by you guys and sent to GW? If so I don't know if that will be successful though I hope so. If not, where are they and who were they written by/why are they not official?
The quote is good but know that there are three eldar factions: dark, corsair and craftworld
Good to know Dark Eldar got their love too! I'm not too familiar with Corsairs but I'll read about them in future. From what I've seen on the GW site there are only 2 ships for Dark Eldar I'd hardly call that a faction. The Eldar section does have a few ships to choose from though, so that's good. (Don't look too bad, interesting design making them look like sails.) I've not seen/heard of Eldar Corsair ships anywhere, unless they're the same Eldar Craftworld ships with different rules to represent different type of army.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat490023a&rootCatGameStyle= (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat490023a&rootCatGameStyle=)
The IA3 tau has also been reworked
What does this mean? I was told that all the rules and army lists would be on the PDFs in the resources section (and it certainly seemed so as there's so much there :D) but now IA3 is being mentioned. To me this sounds like there are fleets and army lists missing and I'd have to buy this to work it out. I wouldn't bother getting it if all it includes is IN, SM or Chaos fleet lists as there's plenty of choice of ships on the PDFs, but what would be the point in my collecting the other armies if it requires buying those huge books to expand the range?
(Technically I can get a hold of the book if I really wanted to, but I was glad that for convenience, I'd only need to read those PDFs to know it all.) Not to mention the that I was so eager to start one of these two specialist game on the basis that I could download all playable data by computer, instead of having to buy a rulebook like the more popular wargames.
Please clarify if all GW approved armylists/rules are in the resource section. If not it'd be great if you could name those not there and where I could get them as I may find myself liking a fleet I never knew existed.
Thanks for confirmation of the statement, I'll now save it for decision time choosing a race between my housemate and I.
@ Horizon
By "starters" I assume you mean the boxset, I wasn't sure if I'd get it, especially if I don't need the rulebook or any of the markers and equipment. Sure I'd get some of the fleet, but whilst my friend is likely to go Imperial, I'm not sure that I want Chaos, in fact I could go for any race at this point, but I'll decide when I've read the PDFs and understood the different play styles better. Its good news to me that Tau are cheap as I do like their vehicle design in w40k, though I'm unsure about the BFG GW range where they have 8 models which look rather odd. I can always get some of the VERY good looking 6-7 vessels on Forge World as I have already been reccommended (a real possibility as they look just fantastic).
The rest of your post confuses me like the post by fracas.
1. Why have you said the Forge World fleet is balanced and the GW not? Are Forge World not merely providing models to GW rules? If they have different rules then how can GW allow them to produce their own models and rules to compete with their own?
2. I dont understand what you mean by the book missing a fleet list.
3. Which draft? Fan made or official?
Sorry if I'm irritating everyone with my questions, I'm just really quite clueless as to what the hell is going on with this game. The main 3 games are all supported by GW and I can learn everything from their sourcebooks/stores, but with the specialist games it seems that I'm being referred everywhere. As always I thank you all for your posts so far, but please bear with me and I'll eventually understand this all and join your ranks!
-
GW assigned stewardship of BFG to a group of individuals we refer to as the High Admiralty.
They are the ones that has made the 2010 FAQ along with new materials for imperial, chaos, orks, tau, and rogue trader. We here gave them feedbacks and playtested. All this was done a few months ago and has since been sent to GW. Since the High Admiralty is GW's people, we all expect the proposal to be adopted, should GW decides to support BFG.
-
Heya,
@ Horizon
By "starters" I assume you mean the boxset,
Not really. Just that because Imperials & Chaos have plastic cruisers (2 per box) available make them cheaper to collect.
I wasn't sure if I'd get it, especially if I don't need the rulebook or any of the markers and equipment. Sure I'd get some of the fleet, but whilst my friend is likely to go Imperial, I'm not sure that I want Chaos, in fact I could go for any race at this point, but I'll decide when I've read the PDFs and understood the different play styles better.
The rulebook (& armada) are for download at the GW site. The order dice can be ordered at GW though are not needed it you replace them with tokens of own design which resemble special orders. All other cardboard stuff is on the GW site. Warp Rift (unofficial fanzine) also has numerous material to represent attack craft and alike.
Its good news to me that Tau are cheap as I do like their vehicle design in w40k, though I'm unsure about the BFG GW range where they have 8 models which look rather odd. I can always get some of the VERY good looking 6-7 vessels on Forge World as I have already been reccommended (a real possibility as they look just fantastic).
see later.
The rest of your post confuses me like the post by fracas.
1. Why have you said the Forge World fleet is balanced and the GW not? Are Forge World not merely providing models to GW rules? If they have different rules then how can GW allow them to produce their own models and rules to compete with their own?
GW made the metal models with rules in Armada. If you only go with Explorers, Hero's and Orca's the list become really strong. Add variety and it balances.
FW made the resin models with the rules in Imperial Armour 3. GW never recognized them as being really official. So you can use the FW models to represent the GW ships. Now, in the draft 2010 pdf's the FW Tau got a new set of rules (jay!!) written by the BFG rules committee (see Fracas post above).
Do they compete? Nah. FW is still GW.
2. I dont understand what you mean by the book missing a fleet list.
Well... the IA3 book has rules for the ships but not a fleet list (eg commander costs xx pts, may take 1 battleship per xx cruiser, etc). The PDF did have this list.
3. Which draft? Fan made or official?
Soon to be official we all hope.
Not irritating at all. :)
Summary:
At the GW website you can download the rulebook v1.5 (separate pdf's), you can download armada in separate pdf's. Plus separate pdf's for: Craftworld Eldar (Doom of the Eldar & Yriel's Raiders), Ships of Mars (Adeptus Mechanicus) and Powers of Chaos (Terminus Est/Nurgle).
Furthermore we had FAQ2007 which has never been uploaded to the GW site.
Now we have FAQ2010 & drafts for various factions:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
Some of these replace ones at the GW website if they become official.
Number of ships in a faction:
Dark Eldar are modular. In fact you have 4 cruisers iirc. Use bits or the booster pack to pimp the ships. Craftworld Eldar are also modular. Corsair Eldar are the Eldar as described in the rulebook.
If you look at Lunar/Gothic etc you'll notice that the Imperials are also modular. But laid out individual in the book.
cheers!
-
Proposals by the High Admiralty
Well this is good news. In this case, I wouldn't mind adopting these rules until anything is officially changed by GW. And just out of interest what are the community's realistic hopes on this actually being taken onboard by GW and within what timespan. We looking at a few months to a year here or far longer?
These 2010 PDFs you've linked me to, these were designed by the High Admiralty? Whilst it certainly looks like Games Workshop material, I was a little amused to click on the Space Marine fleet first, and to find a spelling mistake in the name of the first unit I saw! Fortress - Monestary? At least the rest of the article spelt it correctly :P
Other than that, a quick glance over 2-3 of the PDFs and they are very good looking so great job to whoever took part in it. I assume they're as balanced as you've/they've possibly tried to make it through extensive playtesting e.t.c. In which case I'd be more than happy to adopt them for the moment, and regularly check back here in these forums for updates. Another question I have is whether these rules have been made for by this forum only and presented to GW, or if this was made by High Admiralty (who have nothing to do with this forum) and the PDFs are used by the majority of BFG community as a result.
Eldar Factions
About the Eldar I'm still a little puzzled. There's the xenos section which has a few ships of Eldar looking like ships with fins, and there's another one called Doom of the Eldar which has newer looking craft. Was the second supposed to replace the older or are they to be used in tandem? Like an expansion pack.
And the Dark Eldar only have 2 types of ships listed in the xenos list, as well as only 2 on sale, so I don't quite understand your point.
Not really. Just that because Imperials & Chaos have plastic cruisers (2 per box) available make them cheaper to collect.
Oh right. Though I don't want to limit myself to an army JUST because of cost, it is always something to keep in mind unless you're a millionaire so thanks. Actually I hadn't realised until you said it that BFG had extended rules, I thought Armada was actually the boxset with the rules in it :P
The rulebook (& armada) are for download at the GW site. The order dice can be ordered at GW though are not needed it you replace them with tokens of own design which resemble special orders. All other cardboard stuff is on the GW site. Warp Rift (unofficial fanzine) also has numerous material to represent attack craft and alike.
Yeah a lot of the stuff I already noticed on the PDFs, which is why I was drawn to Epic/BFG in the first place as it meant I wouldn't have to buy a bucketload of supplementary stuff even before getting the actual armies! Anything other than the ships themselves I'd be fine with being cardboard markers, including the attack craft.
I don't know which of the PDFs is actually the Armada expansion rules though, is it the advanced rules (2nd PDF) or a combination of all the PDFs below? I'll be reading all the PDFs and IA3 Tau fleet section before I make a single purchase anyway.
GW made the metal models with rules in Armada. If you only go with Explorers, Hero's and Orca's the list become really strong. Add variety and it balances.
I'd been told that GW Tau were the weakest faction actually, so far as saying that their strongest ship was only as strong as a cruiser. Fracas from this forum agreed with the quote as a whole too. Check a few posts back on that quote I inserted as it seems you're in disagreement.
FW made the resin models with the rules in Imperial Armour 3. GW never recognized them as being really official.
Are the FW rules used by the majority of the community though? Would someone entering into a Specialist Games Tournament (organised by GW or otherwise) be allowed to use this list? If so thats fine with me.
So you can use the FW models to represent the GW ships.
Indeed. Though I'd think twice about it if the rules regarding them were overpowered or underpowered.
Well... the IA3 book has rules for the ships but not a fleet list (eg commander costs xx pts, may take 1 battleship per xx cruiser, etc). The PDF did have this list.
Actually when I had a look at the book it did have points costs. Unless you mean more detailed rules similar to the stuff about force organisation charts in 40k. Indeed the book only described the models and their abilities (except a transport which had a points value of "special") and didn't contain anything about how to actually incorporate them into an army. Is this not because they follow the same rules as the Tau PDF on the GW site? Perhaps FW intended it so that you're supposed to add the FW rules to the existing GW rules in order to use the new ships. What do you think?
If not, then all I gotta do is get a hold of that old PDF. I'm sure it shouldn't be too hard to find. I'm more concerned as to WHY Forgeworld removed it. Perhaps they deliberately wanted to cut out the tau fleet expansion for whatever reason, and thus took away the backbone of it by deleting the PDF. Thoughts?
- PDF Prospects? Realistic possibilities, and when?
- PDF held in high regard by BFG community? Would a friendly games bunker allow me to utilise it despite no official acceptance by GW?
- A little more info on Eldar and its range (see 2nd paragraph for specific questions)
- Which of the resources comprise the actual Armada expansion, released after the BFG rules?
- GW Tau fleet list over or under powered?
- The unofficial FW rules regarding tau, are they allowed in tournaments for example? Are they accepted by BFG community?
- Thoughts on why FW recalled the PDF with the expansion tau fleet list
By the way I would be happy share skype or other instant messenger details to discuss there, so people don't have to spend so long reading and replying here. Just understand that I really look into details and analyse everything, a trait I've picked up since studying Psychology, and later Law. :)
-
Hi,
first things first:
GW site, BFG resources from top to bottom:
from BFG basic Rules.pdf to BFG campaign rules.pdf = Rulebook
from Imperial fleets pdf to BFG Tau fleets = Armada
others are individual pdf's never been published in a book.
The Eldar.
(set GW as UK, but you get the jist I hope...)
Corsair & Craftworld Eldar:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat490023a&rootCatGameStyle=
Corsair Eldar = Void Stalker, Shadow, Eclipse, Hellebore, Aconite, Nightshade & Hemlock *1
Craftworld Eldar = Yriel's flagship, Dragonship, Wraithship, Shadowhunters. *2
*1 Forgeworlds also sells the Aurora & Solaris light cruisers for the Corsairs.
*2 Four basic types:
Yriel's flagship. I call it Void Dragon Class. You can consider this a Grandcruiser
Dragonship : one basic model but with various weapon options. You can build 4 variants (eg weapon batteries + torpedoes, pulsar + launch bays etc)
Wraithship : one basic model but with various weapon options. You can build 4 variants (eg weapon batteries + torpedoes, pulsar + launch bays etc)
Shadowhunter : one basic model but with various weapon options. You can build 2 variants (weapon batteries or lance)
So we talk about 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 = 11 different ships in reality.
Again: Imperial cruiser base model, select weapon:
lance str2 + batteries str6 (lunar)
or
lance str4 (gothic)
or
batteries str12 (dominator)
see? Also modular.
Add in the option te make the Craftworld Eldar vessels Ghostship variants the options increase. Just read Doom of the Eldar (old) or the one in the link I gave (new).
Dark Eldar:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat490022a&rootCatGameStyle=
The cruiser model has 3 (or 4) weapon options to take.
So one model = 3 different options in game.
But yeah, DE could use an extra vessel tbh.
Tau,
well, I think setup I gave is strong :)
Certainly not a weak fleet.
The "link"
these are the pdf's made by the High Admirality/rule committee. In close relation with the community. Currently at GW to be uploaded.
IA3 pdf:
http://sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/
issue 75
- PDF Prospects? Realistic possibilities, and when? No idea
- PDF held in high regard by BFG community? Would a friendly games bunker allow me to utilise it despite no official acceptance by GW?mostly yes, check with opponent(s)
- A little more info on Eldar and its range (see 2nd paragraph for specific questions)did
- Which of the resources comprise the actual Armada expansion, released after the BFG rules?[/i]given[/i]
- GW Tau fleet list over or under powered? depends on ships used
- The unofficial FW rules regarding tau, are they allowed in tournaments for example? Are they accepted by BFG community? accepted, check before
- Thoughts on why FW recalled the PDF with the expansion tau fleet list because it was free and they want money?
-
Eldar
OH I SEE! The boxsets are much like the Baneblade boxset where it comes with different parts for different variants. I didn't realise some ships would come with different parts to choose from. I've taken a better look at the different PDFs. The IN seem to have ready made ships to choose from, Craftworld Eldar have a standard ship and a section on the profile where you have to "choose a prow weapon." The Corsairs have their variety on another page, not on the main profiles, like wargear on the codices. In this case yes then I would agree that there is variety after all. I'd do well to look at army lists to better gauge variety.
That entire Eldar section has really cleared things up for me, I understand them far better now and am in a better position to relay all that to my housemate come army choice time. Golden job thankyou!
Dark Eldar just look crappy. Its k. xD
Tau
Cheers for going ahead and pointing me to the old fleet list I'll have a look around sooner or later.
2010 PDFs
Well if most members agree that they're accepted (I will always check rules before games anyway, I do so even with w40k) then I will accept them too.
I was going to ask about the variety in Necron/Tyranid fleets, but I've had a look myself and noticed the different customisation options there so I don't need to ask anymore.
IN CONCLUSION:
Thanks to all you lovely people I've got all the information I need on BFG in order choose:
- Where to find all rules, including extra FW Tau (with linked fleet list PDF), and massively expanded lists on as of yet unofficial PDFs
- What I can do with the boxes I buy
- The cheaper more accessible armies
- And most importantly, a brief outlook on BFG and how its developed to where it is now, and how it could be in the future (when I am part of it).
As far as BFG is concerned I've got nothing more to ask. I will now keep all this and do a little looking around for the same info regarding Epic: Armageddon, which appears to suffer with even less races, and army lists. I may just postpone that if I manage to convince my housemate to start with BFG for the moment and decide on Epic in a year or two.
Once again, a big thanks to all here. You'll see me again soon, whether it be enquiring about Epic or starting on BFG. :)
I'll be quietly looking around these forums until then.
-
I’ve been playing BFG for a few years and I’ve gotten into Epic recently. Both are fantastic; while 40k is a great hobby, these two are great games.
They feel nothing alike though. Units in Epic can move quite quickly, whereas ships in BFG are slow enough that you need to have a plan and stick to it from the start. I’m not saying you can do well in Epic without a plan, but you’ll just plain embarrass yourself in BFG if you try to wing it. BFG games feel more specific, like they’re one small part (the decisive part) of a major battle. Epic has more back-and-forth, and it feels like a slower-paced game despite the typical match being just three turns. I have to say I get more of a “general with a God’s eye view†feel from Epic. Alternating activations helps here, but it’s also because in BFG fleets need to act as one body. In Epic you’re going after objectives spread all over the board.
The Epic community is strong, but it’s all at the Tactical Command forum (TacComs). Because GW only released a few official lists, there have been a lot of fan-developed lists (and continuous but tiny revisions to the originals, sometimes with Jervis Johnson’s blessings). With all due respect, I prefer their approach* to fan-made units and army lists. They’re more conservative and true to the designers’ original intent, and have refrained from filling in the gaps in any army lists’ capabilities. They also have quite a few people actually creating models and making them available – they could keep the game going if GW and FW stopped all production. There are also 6mm miniatures by other companies that work as proxies for a couple of armies. Unlike non-GW spacecraft, many of them fit in reasonably well, in terms of style. There’s more available on eBay too, because various versions of Epic have been around since the early ‘90s and they actually sold very well back then.
*To be precise, the Epic community is split (in a friendly way) even though they’re all present in the same forums. NetEA is the most prolific and inventive when it comes to changing old lists and writing new ones, and their army lists are the most commonly used in American Epic tournaments (though it’s not really a US-based group). EpicUK writes re-balanced lists for the UK tournament scene and is more conservative. FERC does the same in French for France and Belgium. NetEPIC is totally different – their rules are based on 2nd edition Epic rather than Epic: Armageddon.
On the other hand, BFG has Warp Rift! Maybe it’s because there’s less overlap with 40k, but the BFG community is strong and seems to have a bigger and more unified presence than Epic’s. It’s more willing to make big changes, some of which are great (Eldar MMS) and that makes up for the things I’m not such a big fan of (many of the new ships). It must said that it’s harder to tweak BFG; it’s a tougher and sometimes more awkward game to work with. The different fleets play much more differently from each other, so balance is a greater challenge. (The variety in Epic is bland in comparison, though that helps keep things even.) BFG is also a very pretty game, with a beautifully distinctive aesthetic. More stylized. It’s cheaper, terrain is easier to build, and small games are a lot of fun. Epic isn’t a good fit for skirmishes; no one plays fewer than 2,000 points and 3k is the norm.
Whatever you end up doing, you’ll enjoy it.
-
I thought no voice would speak out for Epic! I'm glad you posted, thanks for your carefully thought out post.
I'll start off by saying that whether one game has a larger community than the oher matters little to me as I am interested only in friendly battles with my housemate. The only reason it matters at all to me is because the one with the largest community indicates to me which one is more complete out of the specialist games, which I have to say is quite influential to me as I too am not keen on fanmade rules.
Both are fantastic; while 40k is a great hobby, these two are great games.
Very interesting quote here. Indeed the gaming part of the hobby is more important to me than really the painting and the miniatures themselves. I'm a wargamer.
So as I said I don't really like fanmade rules, although I've been reassured by Horizon that the 2010 PDFs submitted to GW are generally accepted by most of the BFG community, so in this case I'm not going to stand by GW and claim that they are invalid and until made official. I'm content with that.
Epic is another story however. The extended BFG rules are merely adding in a few nice little tidbits to the wargame, the epic fanmade rules stretch as far as creating rules for the races never even mentioned by GW. Necrons were never part of the range and yet the rules have been made from scratch to incorporate them. I must say I'm not too comfortable with that.
What this means is that for me then, there are only 4 Epic races with good range miniatures and complete army lists. Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Eldar and Orks. I would have been pleased if the Tau from IA3 were included, but it seems those models are no longer sold, so I guess they're gone (I don't really want a whole army of proxies either though perhaps I'll change my mind.) I'll have to consider whether I want these armies against my friend's guard. The only ones I really do NOT want are the orks, I wouldn't mind the others.
Having played both then, out of interest which is cheaper?
-
The counterpoint to your concern about 'fan-made' army lists is that the Epic rules are nicely balanced for tournaments, and these happen fairly often.
As such, a significant number of them are well-tested, some of them more rigorously-tested than GW's 'vanilla' or RAW (rules as written) products. Further, the Taccomms board has, in many cases, made this testing fairly transparent: vis the ongoing debate over Tyranid Hive fleet Onachus (currently crawling toward version 0.4 after repeated exposure to the game table).
As to the Necrons, check out: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=12551 to get a sense of the flavor of the army, and take a look at the (free download) PDF for Epic Raiders (Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Minervan Armored Legions) http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/epic/raiders2.zip
Also, in terms of available sci-fi miniatures:
www.darkrealmminiatures.com
www.exoduswars.com
www.microworldgames.com
www.plasmablastgames.com
and
khurasanminiatures.tripod.com
The tactical command boards give good reviews on these minis.
-
Which tournaments?
Yes perhaps you're right. I do have some sort of mental block from letting me accept fan made rules. I'm not sure why I think GW does such a better job than everyone else when these people are doing it for free and GW not.
Having said that, if like the people in BFG you give me a set of rules which are used by the majority of the Epic community in competitive environments such as the tournaments in Nottingham I will reconsider. I do after all understand that its about the fun to be had. I just dont feel too comfortable swearing loyalty to a product made by internet dudes on a forum who could be being biased towards their army. I argue about the interpretation of rules with a real fire, and to do that I have to believe in them and that they're worth it.
Sorry if that kind of approach sounds a little insane over a game, but some of us were born to be Chaplains or Commissars xD.
-
BFG can be cheaper, particularly if you make use of the plastic cruisers for the Imperial Navy or Chaos. You can buy a well-balanced 1500pt fleet for less than $150, sometimes even less. Many players are happy at 1500 points.
In Epic the plastic infantry boxes also offer great points-per-dollar values, especially for Space Marine and Eldar armies, but they make up a smaller part of a balanced army. You can make an unbalanced 3,000pt army for $150 (just for those two armies; IG or Orks would cost more), but you’d be better off budgeting at least $200. And Epic has so many unit types that you’ll be sorely tempted to get much more than that.
Regarding officiality… I’ve been deleting and rewriting this paragraph a few times now because I don’t know how to word it quite right, especially because I haven’t participated in rules or list development. I hope everyone can take these words with a grain of salt.
I feel more comfortable with the rules and fan development in Epic. The core rules are more refined (it’s the 4th edition of GW’s 6mm game, after all) and there’s less variety between armies and fewer special rules. That makes it easier to balance and easier to understand. BFG feels rough around the edges, and the fan community is a great job of dealing with that but it means that the core rules feel like they’re in flux. The turret suppression debate drove me crazy, and it isn’t finished yet. There are other core rules that still under discussion, like Eldar movement (I think the fan-written MMS rules are great, though I’m uneasy about using unofficial rules too). There’s a lot of personal interpretation of rules in BFG and I had a hard time getting comfortable with that.
I kind of feel like that variation and uncertainty are reflected in the fan-written ship types and fleet lists for BFG. They’re much more original and controversial than any of the Epic army lists approved by NetEA or EpicUK. I don’t feel comfortable using them, but I do feel comfortable with those Epic lists.
There are a few factors there. First, GW intended to release some of those lists. When GW killed Specialist Games, some of the people involved helped the fan community out. Jervis Johnson has provided a lot of personal input. Second, the official GW lists were not intended to be generic lists for their armies. They didn’t intend for all Space Marine armies to be geared towards aerial + drop pod assaults, or for all IG armies to be so mechanized (it’s the Steel Legion list after all), or for all Eldar armies to be modeled after Biel-Tan’s. The intent seems to have been to have a wide variety of more specific lists like those. Third, the community appears to seek a greater level of consensus before approving anything. Like I said, it feels more conservative to me. And there are no rules issues. The rules were updated in 2009 and those changes are incorporated into the .pdfs available on GW's website. It's just the army lists that change now.
Also, there are people in the Epic community who work magic with making figures available to people who are interested.
*edit* the UK tournament scene seems to use these:
http://epic-uk.co.uk/armylists.shtml
-
Ok I've got the gist of the costs involved now, and I have decided that they are irrelevant when it will come to game choice and army choice. I'm going with what I like. Ahh my bank account won't like that, but I feel good :D
Regarding officiality… I’ve been deleting and rewriting this paragraph a few times now because I don’t know how to word it quite right, especially because I haven’t participated in rules or list development. I hope everyone can take these words with a grain of salt.
I feel more comfortable with the rules and fan development in Epic. The core rules are more refined (it’s the 4th edition of GW’s 6mm game, after all) and there’s less variety between armies and fewer special rules. That makes it easier to balance and easier to understand. BFG feels rough around the edges, and the fan community is a great job of dealing with that but it means that the core rules feel like they’re in flux. The turret suppression debate drove me crazy, and it isn’t finished yet. There are other core rules that still under discussion, like Eldar movement (I think the fan-written MMS rules are great, though I’m uneasy about using unofficial rules too). There’s a lot of personal interpretation of rules in BFG and I had a hard time getting comfortable with that.
I kind of feel like that variation and uncertainty are reflected in the fan-written ship types and fleet lists for BFG. They’re much more original and controversial than any of the Epic army lists approved by NetEA or EpicUK. I don’t feel comfortable using them, but I do feel comfortable with those Epic lists.
There are a few factors there. First, GW intended to release some of those lists. When GW killed Specialist Games, some of the people involved helped the fan community out. Jervis Johnson has provided a lot of personal input. Second, the official GW lists were not intended to be generic lists for their armies. They didn’t intend for all Space Marine armies to be geared towards aerial + drop pod assaults, or for all IG armies to be so mechanized (it’s the Steel Legion list after all), or for all Eldar armies to be modeled after Biel-Tan’s. The intent seems to have been to have a wide variety of more specific lists like those. Third, the community appears to seek a greater level of consensus before approving anything. Like I said, it feels more conservative to me. And there are no rules issues. The rules were updated in 2009 and those changes are incorporated into the .pdfs available on GW's website. It's just the army lists that change now.
A valuable insight as player of both games, and I will remember what you said. However whilst I am new to general Fleet fluff I'm not new to 40k fluff so I have the advantage perhaps of being ignorant about the deviations the BFG guys make regarding vessel fluff, so whilst I'll be attentive when gauging the quality of what are in those PDFs, I'm sure I'll be more tolerant than yourself.
However I will scrutinize the lists/backstory you've posted about Epic very carefully and if I am happy with its overall faithfulness to the background of the hobby as well, I'll accept them too. Especially as you've said that they're utilised for tournaments in the UK. I like an air of "officiality" with the rules I use.
A valuable find. A shame about the absence of Nids and Crons, but I am already happy with what is there.
Thankyou very much Carlisimo you've done for me what fracas and Horizon did for me regarding BFG. Also cheers to Carrington and anyone else who linked me to other miniature sites. I'll see if I can now bring myself to accept "proxies."
Actually one final question; why are there space marine (generic), eldar ork and IG lists on that link? Is it not sufficient to read the ones on the GW site? I feel like I have two codices now, one in the old rules by GW and one used by these tournament guys.
-
Those have minor tweaks for balancing. The documents actually explain the changes, on the last page. Eldar might’ve changed the most, because they were considered overpowered when they came out. GW changed a couple of their special rules, which hurt some units more than others (the Scorpion, for example, needed a boost after that).
BFG’s controversial ships aren’t really about the fluff, but about filling gaps in fleet lists that some people think are important to keep. Or they feel like someone just really wanted their pet creation to be a little more official. I hope someone chimes in because I know I’m being unfair.
-
Controversial ships in BFG? The only ship I ever really called horror on was the old Seditio Opprimere but this has been fixed.
Unofficial rules, well in BFG I do not use all rules from 1.5 or the FAQ2010 simply because the one in the original book being the best about it (talking about blastmarkers in contact with ships here). And I've noticed all and every player at least uses one smaller or bigger change.
But if groups no harm is done.
The biggest unofficial rule I/we use is the Eldar MMS rules. Why? Because the official Eldar (Corsair & Craftworld) rules are crap in BFG. In my opinion that is. But for starters I just say use the official rules first, don't like them? The fix exists. :)
-
Those have minor tweaks for balancing. The documents actually explain the changes, on the last page. Eldar might’ve changed the most, because they were considered overpowered when they came out. GW changed a couple of their special rules, which hurt some units more than others (the Scorpion, for example, needed a boost after that).
BFG’s controversial ships aren’t really about the fluff, but about filling gaps in fleet lists that some people think are important to keep. Or they feel like someone just really wanted their pet creation to be a little more official. I hope someone chimes in because I know I’m being unfair.
So Eldar as they are in the rules, are over powered, and you believe these PDFs fix that? Same with Space Marines?
This sounds like alteration of original rules to me, which I thought was not occurring. I was under the impression that the PDFs about the established 4 main races were merely compiling the info in a nice format, not that they were also changing rules for balance.
Unofficial rules, well in BFG I do not use all rules from 1.5 or the FAQ2010 simply because the one in the original book being the best about it (talking about blastmarkers in contact with ships here). And I've noticed all and every player at least uses one smaller or bigger change.
But if groups no harm is done.
The biggest unofficial rule I/we use is the Eldar MMS rules. Why? Because the official Eldar (Corsair & Craftworld) rules are crap in BFG. In my opinion that is. But for starters I just say use the official rules first, don't like them? The fix exists.
Oh I thought the BFG PDFs ALSO only added and not changed what was already in the rules.
Horizon are you saying that even you don't use ALL the rules in the material sent to GW?
Also if MMS is movement speed, then that DOES sound like a massive change in gameplay. Whether its intended for balance or diversity, I might agree that it is controversial change, because that would involve altering existing rules.
Hmmhmmhmm
Heresy everywhere.
P.S. Actually my biggest question is regarding the Tau in epic. The UK Epic tournament guys have got a list of codices they've modified, but the Tau one is not designed by them apparently. Is this a tweaked version of the first ever tau list in Imperial Armour vol. 3? Or is it a whole new one altogether. If its the latter, why did they not keep the old one? (If it IS the old one but updated then I'm guessing they did the same with Tau as they did with the other armies and just modified the rules a little and explained why mostly for tourney balancing.)
-
Snakeb1te, the Eldar MMS rules are unofficial but worth considering. The official Eldar rules make for a large proportion of games where they either win by a lot or lose by a lot. On the other hand, turret suppression is a rule that's changed in an official capacity.
What I meant about Epic is that the rules are not changing anymore. They were revised in 2009 and that's it. No one is still pushing for changes to the core rules. By this I mean chapter 1 of the rulebook - the rules, as opposed to the army lists or units.
The Eldar army list (which contains the Eldar special rules) changed once. I'm not sure if it was in 2009 along with the main rules or not. Pulsar was changed to mean "two shots" rather than D3 hits if the first shot hit, and I think there might've been something else relating to spirit stones. The documents on the GW website DO include these changes, and they are no longer considered overpowered. However, the change resulted in internal imbalance, and because of this NetEA and EpicUK gave the Scorpion a boost. They also address imbalances that already existed, like Warp Spiders being too good and Howling Banshees being too weak. Tournaments use those changes, so while they're not official you won't get any tournament time unless you adopt them. Besides, officiality is dead when it comes to Specialist Games.
The official Space Marines list didn't change. EpicUK changed some points values because everyone was getting bored of seeing the same units in every army (terminators, thunderhawks, & warhounds). NetEA made the same changes plus one or two more. I don't consider these to be rules changes, just list changes.
As for Tau... EpicUK has approved the Tau list that NetEA wrote for tournament use. I don't know its history, but here's some information about how official certain lists are: http://www.players.tacticalwargames.net/tiki-index.php?page=Epic+Armageddon+Army+Lists
Two Chaos lists were official (but SG died before it could release the models), and Tau were "Experimental" which means GW acknowledged the list as more than just a fan list, but it didn't get beyond that before official support ended. It probably isn't based on Imperial Armor material; I've heard bad things about Forgeworld writers' knowledge of Epic (in terms of rules, not background).
==
Horizon, when I step back into BFG forums after a long absence, I see lots of ship names I don't recognize. And I see the Seditio Opprimere and lance options in the Space Marines .pdf. What's going on?
-
Are these Eldar MMS rules in the PDFs here?
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1 (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1)
If not where?
-
Hey,
Eldar MMS rules (1.9) are here:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/geldarmms01.html
(ignore the Dark Eldar document).
MMS = move move shoot
official = MSM = move shoot move
You can talk about MMS in another thread (bfg - epx rules section of this forum) if you have questions.
Well, I do not use the blastmarker rules as described in the rulebook 1.5 but as described in the old original book.
And from the new pdf's (your link) I will most likely ignore the Eldar stuff (see MMS).
-
This is an interesting thread, and one that I have been trying to keep up with.
Firstly, a general note.... If you are looking for a game that is 'complete' and has all official rules produced by GW, then none of the Specialist Games tick that box I am afraid. In general, all of the games were abandoned before they were complete and the incredible SG community have picked up where GW left off in all cases. Now, part of this is because of the way that SG was originally set up. When created, the development of the games was a collaborative process from the very beginning. All SG games had a rules committee consisting of Jervis and a number of key players of the game. Each year, the committee for each game would 'meet' (virtually) and agree on core rules changes and development direction. When GW fell back from SG and their development, these development groups/committees simply continued. For example, BFG has the High Admiralty and EA has that ERC (Epic Rules Committee), and although the membership of these groups may have changed (I think that the HA are the original members but that only nealhunt is retained from the ERC) their mission is unchanged.
With Epic, aside from the ERC, each force had an Army Champion. With so many so work on, official development was limited to Marines, IG, Orks and Eldar, with Chaos added later. Other ACs were appointed by Jervis personally and development happened at TacCmd, with the view that development could be moved to the SG boards when a miniature line was developed and GW were ready to produce the force, and it would be mostly done by that point as well. Unfortunately, the reverse happened, GW pulled back and the official development in the other direction, onto TacCmd, and then the SG boards were also moved to the same location.
I guess that what I am trying to say is that all SG games have a percentage of fan-development. And, this fan development is taken seriously and is not the same kind of fan development that you will usually see in 40K (apologies to any 40K players that I may offend with this). As a community, we are aware that developing serious, balanced and professional lists and rules is something that will make or break the games that we love. I understand the reluctance to accept fan development, and the reasons for this, but it is worth giving it a go with the SG games.
Also, I served as the AC for the Tau for a brief period, so I can hopefully help there. In general, the progression of rules and lists is that the 'most official' are the lists produced in the GW suppliments. The NetEA/TacCmd lists are in a state of development following these examples. The EpicUK lists are developed specifically for the tournament scene in the UK, in a response to the perception that some official or NetEA lists worked better for tournaments with a few minimal alterations. I am sure that EpicUK will produce all lists eventually, and currently the EpicUK Tau writer is also the NetEA Tau AC, so I am hopeful that a single list will be produced for both sets of players.
Development of the Tau has been ongoing since the beginning (I still have the email from Jervis somewhere about the Tau AC). Around version 3.4 of the Tau list, FW produced the IA3 book. This contained a version of the EA Tau list which was extremely similar to version 3.4 of the NetEA Tau list, but with a few alterations in the rules (for example the Manta) and formations changed to meet the current FW Tau pack sizes. All speculation on the origin of the IA3 list will end there, except to say that the NetEA Tau list is now on version 6.4. The IA3 list is generally considered unbalanced in a number of areas. (One example where fan-development is considered an advantage over official, since we can continue to adjust and test.)
For both EA and BFG, the rules are stable. Even GW produces alterations to their core rules gradually, and that process is likely to continue with both EA and BFG, but the games are balanced in their core rules and accepted generally. You can go to someones games club and play the same rules of BFG with only a quick discussion on whether you use MMS, and the new attack craft, reloading and Nova rules. Epic is almost as easy, but a little more complex as the organisation of the rules has meant that there are a few more differences. There are the core GW rules, a set of updates, and a revised rules set, known as the handbook.
Anyway, I am pretty sure that no matter which of the games you decide to pick up, you will be back to pick up the other one shortly after! ;D
-
Pick up both epic and bfg
-
My main concern is, if there are so many rules flying about, which ones should I be listening to? I'll start off by listing all the sources of the rules I have (GW and other) and then guessing as to how I'll approach choosing. Please comment if thats correct or if you know of a better method.
BFG:
-Original PDFs and Army lists on GW site
-The extra PDF apparently missed out of GW's stuff (last page of Armada or something?)
-FW IA3 Tau Fleet pages
-FW Tau fleet list from Fanatic which allows me to actually use the FW Tau
-2010 PDFs sent to GW.
-Eldar MMS rules
-------------------------
1. I'll read the original stuff (and to me that includes the Forge World supplement). These will serve as my backbone, they'll be the original set of rules with which I can compare the later stuff. Should I want to ignore everything after GW's involvement I can remain here.
2. I will then proceed to read the 2010 PDFs: the expansion of the original fleet lists. I'm still unclear as to whether they're expanding or rectifying or just downright adding. In any case, contradictions to the original rules at this point I will note down. When I've finished I'll compare them and decide whether overall the changes are within the spirit of the game or if too many liberties have been taken with the fluff/gameplay.
3. Finally, as its only a matter of balance affecting a single race, I will read the MMS rules from the fan magazine, as these are the rules that sound more like "house rules." If they also sound suitable then I'll adopt those too.
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Epic:
-Original material on GW site
-Epic UK List tournament acceptable rules
-FW IA3 Tau
1. Again, to serve as a foundation I'll want to read the original stuff. In Epic's case I won't regard the epic Tau section of the IA3 book as official. If I want to ignore everything not produced by GW I'll remain here, and if it turns out that I decide only on the races originally produced, then I will ignore anything subsequently read about Epic UK. E.g. I read everything you guys have given me and in the end choose eldar and my housemate IG, the rules cover them both in the original stuff.
2. I'll read the Epic UK accepted army lists
3. Read the Tau from IA3
The reason I'm doing it this way, is because to learn theory you need to start somewhere, and where better to start than on the material produced by the makers of the game. After that it involves reading fanmade material which may or may not conflict with rules I've already learned. I'll note the differences, and decide whether the changes are acceptable.
I am confident that I'll accept both the changes by EpicUK and the High Admiralty, but if I don't, I can always remain a narrowminded space marine and only follow the GW material.
Does this sound reasonable? Its the only way I can go about learning all these different rules without worrying about contradictions. To follow rules you need a supreme authority to lay them down and edit them. Games Workshop is no longer that, so I have to see what they've left behind and how others have taken it into their own hands since.