IA10

[BaronIveagh]

Yes, this is Nate being a politician. Firstly, GW doesn't say it's official. Point me to one line saying "the ships and lists produced by FW for BFG are official". If FW comes out with models for the ships of course he'll be happy. Most people will. It means we can produce real rules to go with the ships.

Specifically for BFG, no.  There's usually just a broad statement that the rules are allowed in the games they are for.  (Hence the absolute SCREAMING about the Achilles, as it's listed as a heavy support choice for Codex: Space Marines [personally, I think it's meh.  It's nearly indestructible, but it's damage output is sort of...eh.  That and it's special rule doesn't take into account weapons OTHER then meltas and lances that roll extra penetration, such as a Vanquisher Cannon]) 

And I can already hear Sigs mind revving up to try and rules lawyer it.

[Sigoroth]

So GW has a general policy of letting FW have their way. Big deal. The only way rules become official for BFG is through SG. SG have control of BFG and blanket policies by their parent company regarding the doings of a sibling company are neither here nor there. Sure GW can make it official by telling SG that it's official. Until it appears on the website alongside all the rest of the rules then it's not officlal. As for rules-lawyering, it seems to me more a case of rules-lawyering to try to imply that these rules are legal. "Ah but FW is a subsidiary of GW, which is the parent company of SG, and they have in the past allowed FW rules to be official for other game systems so I don't see why I can't go around the HA and SG and take a 7 BB fleet and the Nicor". Fuck off.

[BaronIveagh]

Sure GW can make it official by telling SG that it's official.

Which would explain the HA's statement that it's offical if GW says it is.

Until it appears on the website alongside all the rest of the rules then it's not officlal. [/color]

Not true, it doesn't have to appear on the site to be official.

[Sigoroth]

Not true, it doesn't have to appear on the site to be official.

Where, then, should it appear? How would the typical BFG player out there become aware of this new "official" rule? What point to SG administering the game and having a rule review committee if they can be ignored? Tell me, would these rules be "official" if the HA flat out said no (as they bloody well should mind you)? Would you then say "well, you're just the HA, what would you know, these rules are official because FW says so"?

If you wouldn't say that, if you would follow their edict that it was not official, then that would mean that it isn't official until it passes their inspection. In BFG Mag this would be labelled an experimental rule, awaiting feedback before final decisions made. As it stands, it's almost as if Forgeworld resent the game being so good and want to find ways to fuck with it.

[BaronIveagh]

Not true, it doesn't have to appear on the site to be official.

Where, then, should it appear? How would the typical BFG player out there become aware of this new "official" rule? What point to SG administering the game and having a rule review committee if they can be ignored? Tell me, would these rules be "official" if the HA flat out said no (as they bloody well should mind you)? Would you then say "well, you're just the HA, what would you know, these rules are official because FW says so"?

If you wouldn't say that, if you would follow their edict that it was not official, then that would mean that it isn't official until it passes their inspection. In BFG Mag this would be labelled an experimental rule, awaiting feedback before final decisions made. As it stands, it's almost as if Forgeworld resent the game being so good and want to find ways to fuck with it.

Conversely, then, none of the rules of the game were official for many years, as they were not printed on the site (there not being one) you had to buy the book.  Which is, I might point out, how most of GW's games work. 

Personally, I figure that, like they did with BFG in the past, once they feel that sales of the book have plateaued, they'll allow the stats to be posted on the site.  This is what they did before, and probably will do again.

I can say that someone at FW must like the game, otherwise they wrote a list with some obscure ships for hating it...

[horizon]

Wrong BaronI,
the rules have been official for many years and always. At the former SG site (when it was hosted/sanctioned by GW) there where sections for each SG game. Labelled Official rules, Experimental rules, FAQ, Fanatic Online, Support (markers etc), etc.

Then that SG site went, official pdf's went to the GW site itself.
This site came.

[Martini Henrie]

Nah, it isn't going to be that bad.  Alan does actually play BFG, but as to what level of update he works to is up for debate.

[Sigoroth]

I can say that someone at FW must like the game, otherwise they wrote a list with some obscure ships for hating it...

I'm sorry, but how does the fact that they wrote terrible rules that rip apart all balance and precedent show that they like BFG? Because they included named and obscure ships? That seems an even greater act of spite as far as I can see. Classes that no one has heard of even in the voluminous and often crap fluff, 5 shield monstrosities, ships that can't turn (wtf!?), a 6+ armour Chaos ships, ridiculous range breaks and terrible strength/hardpoint ratios ... This ruleset looks to have been put together by a blind man that glanced at BFG once.

[BaronIveagh]

Wrong BaronI,
the rules have been official for many years and always. At the former SG site (when it was hosted/sanctioned by GW) there where sections for each SG game. Labelled Official rules, Experimental rules, FAQ, Fanatic Online, Support (markers etc), etc.

Then that SG site went, official pdf's went to the GW site itself.
This site came.

Horizon: I dug up the SG site using the Internet Wayback machine: while there were some rules on the site, the official rules for BFG were not posted on the site until 2005.  Otherwise you had to buy the book.

Sig's assertion was that no rules were official unless posted on the SG site.  This is not the case.

I'm sorry, but how does the fact that they wrote terrible rules that rip apart all balance and precedent show that they like BFG? Because they included named and obscure ships? That seems an even greater act of spite as far as I can see. Classes that no one has heard of even in the voluminous and often crap fluff, 5 shield monstrosities, ships that can't turn (wtf!?), a 6+ armour Chaos ships, ridiculous range breaks and terrible strength/hardpoint ratios ... This ruleset looks to have been put together by a blind man that glanced at BFG once.

It's forgeworld.  If there's one thing they're really good at, it's throwing precedent out the window.  Balance, YMMV. 

I think of it this way: if they make new minis for BFG, dealing with oddities like this is a small price to pay for renewed GW support of the game.  The downside, of course, of GW actually looking back into BFG is codex creep.

[Sigoroth]

Horizon: I dug up the SG site using the Internet Wayback machine: while there were some rules on the site, the official rules for BFG were not posted on the site until 2005.  Otherwise you had to buy the book.

Sig's assertion was that no rules were official unless posted on the SG site.  This is not the case.

Do you really think that my argument was that the BBB wasn't official? Obviously the rules published by GW for the game are official, and then the rules published by SG when they gained custody of the game were also official. FW does not have custody of the game. They're a subsidiary of the parent company of the company that does have custody. The way in which rules become official is pretty clear. They're published on the GW website.

The process is HA get together to have a chat, most times getting feedback from us, send off their findings to SG, they give it a once over for policy breakers (I doubt very much they have any opinion whatsoever of how the state of play should be) and then rubber stamp it, publishing the pdf to the website. I very much doubt that it even goes to GW. This process could no doubt be circumvented. The suits could bypass the HA and even SG altogether.

They could even bypass the way we consider something official. They could, for example, release a statement saying that the FW rules are official. So far they haven't though.

It's forgeworld.  If there's one thing they're really good at, it's throwing precedent out the window.  Balance, YMMV. 

I think of it this way: if they make new minis for BFG, dealing with oddities like this is a small price to pay for renewed GW support of the game.  The downside, of course, of GW actually looking back into BFG is codex creep.

No doubt if GW actively poked their noses into BFG there would be more than just codex creep, there'd be all sorts of crap, some nearly on par with FW ideas. Most likely they'd even decide to make the IA10 crap official, to try to extort more money from people in sales. My reasons for believing this is that I think that those at GW have been so long out of BFG that they have no idea.

However, if FW does make models for these crap ships then that would be great. More models is always good.

[Zhukov]

To be fair, there's nothing that says weapon ranges HAVE to be multiples of 15cm, but some of these ideas are pretty trippy.

To get back onto a proper subject, like what to do with these ship ideas and such, I agree with this statement. I think something that has severly limited the possibilities of BFG as a whole were the 15cm brackets for seeminly everything. We open a WIDE range of possibilities if we start breaking that norm. That's my opinion anyways.

-Zhukov

[BaronIveagh]

To be fair, there's nothing that says weapon ranges HAVE to be multiples of 15cm, but some of these ideas are pretty trippy.

To get back onto a proper subject, like what to do with these ship ideas and such, I agree with this statement. I think something that has severly limited the possibilities of BFG as a whole were the 15cm brackets for seeminly everything. We open a WIDE range of possibilities if we start breaking that norm. That's my opinion anyways.

-Zhukov

Hmm... for once, you me and Gothic agree on this then, I think that it'd be a good idea to have ships with a greater range of ranges too.

[horizon]

I do no agree. The 15cm breaks aren't bad. And topping it at 60cm is very fine. I'd rather see 10cm steps then going over 60cm.

[Plaxor]

I'm with Horizon. I don't think there is any reason to add the increments of 5 to the game for range. Look at 40k, every weapon fires in a multiple of 6" EVERY ONE.

15cm ~ 6"

Although contrary to Horizon, I could see up to 90cm weapons, but only on defenses. (like the blackstone) and they would have to suffer an additional right shift for over 60cm.

[lordgoober]

Ok.  I saw the book today.  For purposes of Adepticon if people want to use these ships.  The Loyalist ones will be legal for the Space Marine fleet and Battlefleet Armageddon only in standard force org positions (IE Vanguards in Cruiser slots,  The GC ship needing 2 Cruisers and the Raptorus Rex in the Battle Barge slot) and the Secessionist ship in the Chaos Fleet.

I'm going to give FW an email mentioning to them that the Raptorous Rex as written cannot turn.  I'm going to be potentially making a simple house rule with that ship for Adepticon (IF I am allowed to do it because the rules deadline change was Feb 1) changing the movement rules for the R.R. to function like a Space Hulk with respect to turning only.

This is interesting.  Here is the response I just got from FW.

"Hi,

      Thank you for your email.  The Raptorus Rex is listed as a battleship in order to provide the size of ship and base size that should be used, however it is in effect a special ship and is slow moving.   It is to be moved as you suggested like a Hulk, i.e it can move 10cm then make a single turn upto 45 degrees.

"

So.  For Adepticon If anyone decides to use a R.Rex,  It will be moving as if it was a Space Hulk.