Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Evil_and_Chaos on February 21, 2012, 05:36:40 PM
-
Just wondering what's missing from the range, that no 3rd party company provides all that well either.
-
Craftworld Eldar battleship
Dark Eldar cruiser sized vessel (the current is more light cruiser).
Various Kroot spheres
Nicassar dhows (out of stock, never to be made again)
Demiurg escorts
All other extras would be bonus.
-
This thread makes me happy. ;D
Also, Craftworld Eldar Auxiliaries (Transports mostly, but tankers and Escort Carriers would be nice too)
-
Wow.. I am rather amazed at the liberty taken by you Horizon, I am pretty damn sure he meant "what ships exist but do not have miniatures"
Which effectively limits it to the following
Space Station (we have an orbital dock, but nothing that directly resembles what is shown in the book)
Nicassar Dhows (no longer in production :()
Miscellaneous vessels in the appendix section.
-
Relatively new to this, but the ships I'm aware of:
CE Supernova cruiser
CWE Wyrm BS (even has concept art!) (http://sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=3613.0)
Then, most of the Tyranid fleet. Obviously most people make their own models using 40k bitz, but purpose designed Alien Bioships would be nice to see (and wonderfully IP-neutral, too)
-
This thread makes me happy. ;D
Also, Craftworld Eldar Auxiliaries (Transports mostly, but tankers and Escort Carriers would be nice too)
FW makes eldar transports
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/ELDAR-TRANSPORTS.html
-
But not CWE Transports.
Edit: To expand, and trying not to drag things too far off topic, there are several key differences between Eldar Corsairs and CWE ships.
1) The hull. Corsair fuselages have a much sharper prow, and are much taller in relation to their height. In more specific terms, Eldar ship hulls are generally conic sections, or close approximations thereof. Corsairs have their hullscut closer to the point of the cone than CWE ships, resulting in a different overall shape. CWE ships also have 'clean' hulls with batteries sanwiched between the upper and lower hulls; Corsairs have 'dirty' hulls, studded with turrets.
2) The sail. CWE ships have a single mast that supports a continuous membrane for each sail, i.e. something like a Bermuda Rig. Corsairs have ribbed sails, much like those on traditional Chinese Junks, composed of a pattern of smaller membranes within a rigid structure.
The FW Transports have high, pointed prows studded with turrets, and ribbed sails. I'd like to see a CWE styled Transport. Actually a Star Wars Medium Transport (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/GR-75_medium_transport) with a solar sail on a rigger attached to the back would fit the bill pretty well. It even has the same style bridge. (Must be a coincidence)
-
What page is the space station image on?
Alternatively, are there any pictures online?
Sounds like it'd be a fun second BFG project for me (my first was a BFG scale caestus assault ram).
EDIT: Oh wait I found it. Gonna make me one, I think!
-
i agree with horizon
Kroot spheres, small, medium and large
demiurge escorts
as well as transport ships of all varieties for all factions
-
I would love more Tyranid ships and more Demiurg ships. It may not be fluffy or whatnot but a full Demiurg fleet would be awesome.
-
I'd love to see don Rak'gul ships personally. There's enough stats from Rogue Trader RPG to compare them to Lunar and Gothic ships and port the stats to BFG.
-
But not CWE Transports.
Edit: To expand, and trying not to drag things too far off topic, there are several key differences between Eldar Corsairs and CWE ships.
Meh. All those pointy ears look the same to me (especially after my WBs are done with them)! ;)
-
Endeavour/Endurance/Defiant light cruisers?
Tyranid Krakens?
-
these work for the Endeavour series CL:
http://www.twolandscreative.com/wip/bfg/zeusupdate.jpg
-
these work for the Endeavour series CL:
http://www.twolandscreative.com/wip/bfg/zeusupdate.jpg
Where can these be ordered?
-
these work for the Endeavour series CL:
http://www.twolandscreative.com/wip/bfg/zeusupdate.jpg
Where can these be ordered?
Zac Soden
-
Oh yeah, does any company make torpedos with the correct size bases?
-
FW at one point I think did make torpedoes. However the best way I found was to use the fancy ended toothpicks to make them. Cheap and easy.
-
I thought someone did Torpedo markers on shapeways with slots for dice. All I could find were the old style markers ferom Grimdarkbits.
-
Could anyone measure a torpedo marker for me? I seem to have lost my tin of markers. :-/
-
They are the same size as the old square epic bases. Or, if you are using the 6 wide ones, the same as the current epic strips.
I made some that are available on shapeways with dice holders, but they are prohibitively expensive in any of the materials that look acceptable.
http://www.shapeways.com/shops/vaaish
-
http://www.litko.net/products/Gothic-Space-Missiles.html
http://www.litko.net/products/Gothic-Space-Blast-Markers.html
-
Litko are nice, but I prefer E&C's patented Modular-snap Torpedo Strips; Thanks Vaaish!
-
NP, but do realize that torpedo strength is supposed to be marked with dice these days rather than individual torpedo blocks since they are limited to the size of a square epic base.
-
Since when?
-
Faq2010 requires torps to be represented by a 3 strong salvo. This is to alleviate concerns over large salvos having an unfair advantage when turning, however large attack craft waves have the same problem and yet they remain largely untouched with exception to a blurb about how they must be formed up.
-
Faq2010 requires torps to be represented by a 3 strong salvo. This is to alleviate concerns over large salvos having an unfair advantage when turning, however large attack craft waves have the same problem and yet they remain largely untouched with exception to a blurb about how they must be formed up.
Actually, this isn't true. The salvo size was cut to 3 because it didn't make sense for torpedoes from a few ships to take up such a wide area. A squadron of 4 cruisers, or worse, 3 battleships, could put out a 24+ strength salvo. This in essence makes the further edges of the salvo travel some 10cm+ from the launching ship even when the salvo is placed in base contact.
When turning torpedoes turn they pivot from 1 edge and the travel distance is measured from the other edge, thus no extra distance is gained. In fact, travel distance is lost from the pivoting edge.
AC on the other hand has to be formed up in as close to square formation as possible, thus limiting its frontage. This also makes it harder for the wave to negotiate a safe path through celestial phenomena and blast markers. Therefore there is no problem with AC.
-
That's the FAQ (really largely an Errata from my reading of it*) that GW recently turned down and refused to make official.
Has something changed that means GW is going to upload it?
*A FAQ clarifies rules, an Errata changes rules. "FAQ2010" seems to do a lot of the latter.
-
So why not form up torpedo salvos in as close to a square as possible if they are only worried about the length. I see no reason for torps to have been nerfed. To say that it's ok for an attack craft wave to take up a larger area because they might run into terrain is flawed because torps suffer the same (actually worse because most torps cannot avoid even a close graze). Just more reasons IMO that ordnance needs to be scrapped and started from scratch. I have also never seen nor heard anyone that turns ordnance differently from the way ships turn (pivot from the center) this is interesting.
-
So why not form up torpedo salvos in as close to a square as possible if they are only worried about the length. I see no reason for torps to have been nerfed. To say that it's ok for an attack craft wave to take up a larger area because they might run into terrain is flawed because torps suffer the same (actually worse because most torps cannot avoid even a close graze). Just more reasons IMO that ordnance needs to be scrapped and started from scratch. I have also never seen nor heard anyone that turns ordnance differently from the way ships turn (pivot from the center) this is interesting.
What would be gained by making torpedoes square? Even a battleship salvo will only be 3 wide. Being 3 deep gives no advantage and simply makes it easier to destroy them with fighters or NC rounds or somesuch. Similarly it is no great benefit for attack craft to take up the area that they do. You can't string all 8 out in a single line and trying to use area denial tactics with them isn't all that helpful. Typically they don't need to be placed such that the enemy will run into them because they can manoeuvre to intercept even if they don't.
If attack craft were simply stacked one atop the other, so that no matter how large the wave they'd only occupy 1 square, this would, for the most part, be a benefit. Having a smaller profile helps them avoid hazards. Therefore it is disingenuous to argue that torpedoes shouldn't be 'nerfed' to occupy a smaller area simply because AC were not similarly 'nerfed'.
The area occupied by torpedoes (advantage) was too large. It didn't make sense. This is much more noticeable in large combined salvoes where the outer edges are placed a long way away from the firing ships (thus getting free movement). The area occupied by attack craft (disadvantage) is not too large. It doesn't make sense, but since they form up in a square formation with the leading elements placed in base contact and the trailing elements forming up as they squadron moves away then almost no extra distance is gained. They do occupy a space far greater than is logical, but this does not act to their benefit.
-
Fair or not, AFAIK the FAQ2010 is not becoming official.
-
FAQ2010 is a pretty good clean-up of the rules though
-
That doesn't seem to make it anything other than house rules written by some experienced fans, though.
IMO BFG HC should admit that and present their rules as an alternative to the official rules, rather than pretending they are still the official rules body (SG is dead, no updates on the scale of FAQ2010 seem remotely likely IMO).
-
Yes, HA is 'dead' as far as GW goes, but the game itself is also 'dead' as GW offers no support, FAQ, errata ... ; only sells models but nothing new.
BFG stll lives because of dedicated fans and any effort made by the community is better than that what we get from GW.
My point of vieuw ;)
But this is all off topic.
-
Fair or not, AFAIK the FAQ2010 is not becoming official.
There are a good number of things I find objectionable in the latest 'FAQ' and I recommend that you discuss with your game group what rules you'd like to take on board and what rules you'd reject. I'd say the same if it was give the "100% official" rubber stamp from GW though. I don't really give a rats arse about the 'officialness' of it. I'm willing to accept that the HA (and the BFG community at large for that matter) know a lot more about the game than GW ever will, so screw them.
Having said that, I would recommend familiarising yourself with all the erratas and clarifications in the FAQ so as to be on the same page as far as discussions are concerned. For some reason people play the rule that a BM in contact with a target will effect gunnery weapons even when a LoF is not drawn through them. Given this odd choice I sometimes have to make allowances.
-
When you're told to use FAQ 2010 (say, for tournaments), and that rule for blast markers is right on page 4, well you get used to playing it that way ;).
-
When you're told to use FAQ 2010 (say, for tournaments), and that rule for blast markers is right on page 4, well you get used to playing it that way ;).
Yes, having a recognised set of rules to play by at tournaments is a necessity. It's still a stupid rule though, which is why I lobby to get it 'officially' changed so that those of you who play tournaments aren't gimped by it.
-
Fair enough, I was annoyed by the change too.
But then, I'm used to rules changing every 4 years a la 40k/fantasy, warmachine, etc.
-
Tau Transports are missing. They were available from FW, but not yet.
-
That doesn't seem to make it anything other than house rules written by some experienced fans, though.
And the HA is different from say the ERC how? We've all got no problem treating the compendium as cannon.
-
That doesn't seem to make it anything other than house rules written by some experienced fans, though.
And the HA is different from say the ERC how? We've all got no problem treating the compendium as cannon.
Agreed, same here in my group.
Also Nicassar Dows and Rigs and so on are missing. Would be nice to have.
-
Well, the HA pretends to still be the official rules body, while the Epic ERC makes no such claim.
Transparent lies just bug me.
-
Well, the HA pretends to still be the official rules body, while the Epic ERC makes no such claim.
Transparent lies just bug me.
Not quite. They don't pretend. As i understood, GW endorsed them to produce a Faq (can be wrong here). GW didn't like the result apparently.
-
Not quite. They don't pretend. As i understood, GW endorsed them to produce a Faq (can be wrong here). GW didn't like the result apparently.
In a nutshell, that was the impression I got as well. While, and this amuses me, much of the Rules Alterations that Sigoroth does not like was fine by GW, they didn't like the 'new' ships (that were actually by and large taken from old GW published materials). Because (horror) they have no plans to make minis, meaning the fans run out and make their own, diluting their IP.
-
Vanguard Light Cruiser would be cool.
-
GW gave no order to the HA.
It was the HA working on old Andy Chambers/Matt Keefe material/notes.
In the hope GW would upload it. As they did with Ships of Mars.
-
Litko are nice, but I prefer E&C's patented Modular-snap Torpedo Strips; Thanks Vaaish!
Where can I find these torpedo markers ?
Thanks
-
On the subject of missing ships and Tyranid Kraken, I recently bought my first bunch-o-bugs (photos pending). Problem is I have the imagination/creativity of a hair squig (anyone remember those?) Would anyone be willing to share thoughts on how one might construct these little beasties?
Humble thanks
LDTM
-
Here's how I do it... BFG Tyranids (http://afterimagedan.blogspot.com/2012/03/tyranid-ships-for-bfg-how-to-make-them.html)
-
Here's how I do it... BFG Tyranids (http://afterimagedan.blogspot.com/2012/03/tyranid-ships-for-bfg-how-to-make-them.html)
Brilliant work good sir. Thanks.
-
Any time! Hope it helps.
-
Litko are nice, but I prefer E&C's patented Modular-snap Torpedo Strips; Thanks Vaaish!
Where can I find these torpedo markers ?
Thanks
I didn't make them physically yet.
The only relevant model designed for a space game that I currently have on sale would be this: http://www.freewebstore.org/Abomination/Venusian_Spacecraft/p1322681_7596631.aspx