September 27, 2024, 06:21:14 PM
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: What's missing from BFG modelwise?  (Read 14509 times)

Offline Evil_and_Chaos

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2012, 01:12:28 AM »
Fair or not, AFAIK the FAQ2010 is not becoming official.
Logged

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2012, 02:24:24 AM »
FAQ2010 is a pretty good clean-up of the rules though
Logged

Offline Evil_and_Chaos

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2012, 02:45:01 AM »
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).
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 02:52:00 AM by Evil_and_Chaos »
Logged

Offline commander

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2012, 10:55:23 AM »
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.
Logged

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2012, 01:17:34 PM »
Quote from: Evil_and_Chaos on April 10, 2012, 01:12:28 AM
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.
Logged

Offline Seahawk

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • Bombardment!
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2012, 03:47:48 PM »
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 ;).
Logged

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #36 on: April 11, 2012, 04:22:59 AM »
Quote from: Seahawk on April 10, 2012, 03:47:48 PM
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.
Logged

Offline Seahawk

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • Bombardment!
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #37 on: April 11, 2012, 04:26:40 AM »
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.
Logged

Offline Koshi

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #38 on: April 22, 2012, 12:02:17 PM »
Tau Transports are missing. They were available from FW, but not yet.
Logged

Offline Jimmy Zimms

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Beshert is Beshert
    • Loc: World Traveler
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #39 on: April 22, 2012, 05:49:04 PM »
Quote from: Evil_and_Chaos on April 10, 2012, 02:45:01 AM
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.
Logged
As we Imperials say, "The Emperor [class battleship] Protects..."

Offline Koshi

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2012, 03:28:12 PM »
Quote from: Jimmy Zimms on April 22, 2012, 05:49:04 PM
Quote from: Evil_and_Chaos on April 10, 2012, 02:45:01 AM
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.
Logged

Offline Evil_and_Chaos

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2012, 08:39:00 AM »
Well, the HA pretends to still be the official rules body, while the Epic ERC makes no such claim.
Transparent lies just bug me.
Logged

Offline commander

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2012, 09:25:43 AM »
Quote from: Evil_and_Chaos on April 25, 2012, 08:39:00 AM
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.
Logged

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #43 on: April 26, 2012, 10:27:09 PM »
Quote from: commander on April 25, 2012, 09:25:43 AM
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.
Logged
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: What's missing from BFG modelwise?
« Reply #44 on: April 27, 2012, 04:03:53 AM »
Vanguard Light Cruiser would be cool.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
« previous next »