July 24, 2024, 11:15:45 PM

Author Topic: BFGR status  (Read 5890 times)

Offline Daemon_Primarch_Lorgar

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 52
    • Loc: Stockholm
BFGR status
« on: November 05, 2013, 10:13:08 AM »
Hello people!

I just wanted to see how everything is going with the completion of BFGR and if anyone involved needed any help? I'm checking these forums on a regular basis and there was some time since I saw or heard anything about it :). So, if anyone need any assistance, I am more than happy to help!

Hope you all had a great Halloween!

Offline Bessemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 339
    • Loc: UK
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2013, 03:28:11 AM »
IIRC, There's Orks, Rogue Traders and Planetary Defenses to do.

Orks, Under the stewardship of Khar, have undergone a round of (possibly final) changes, pending feedback.

RT's are under Horizons wing, may be wrong. Awaiting submission.

PD are anyone's game!

Someone please correct if wrong!
I refuse to be killed by something I've never heard of.

Offline Gorlak

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2013, 02:38:46 PM »
While it may not seem like it, I am persevering with the update to the main rule book that incorporates FAQ2010 directly into a single volume. This is no small task as it means quite a bit or reorganizing the layout to get it to fit, but I am progressing! The whole document has to be reconstructed from scratch using InDesign.

While this isn't strictly speaking the rulebook for BFGR, I for one am planning to use the combined BFG+FAQ2010 rule book with the BFGR lists as my chosen format of 'community edition' rules for space combat in the 41st millennium.

As I suspected, summer has not really allowed any time on it and work has been keeping very much tied up from this (I'm wrting this in China during a month long stay for work!) but I'm hoping now that winter comes along I can get some time in to finish it up.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2013, 07:32:24 PM »
Bessemer is spot on.

I can post up the Rogue Trader bit that is done....

Offline Daemon_Primarch_Lorgar

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 52
    • Loc: Stockholm
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2013, 08:43:42 PM »
Thank you very much for the update guys! My curiosity regarding the project got the better of me ;)! I've actually been playing around with the planetary defenses a bit lately. I would never claim to have played even remotely enough games to be able to completely judge the effectiveness of the different units, but I have noticed a couple of.. peculiar.. things. Namely:

Armed freighters: I've used these guys a lot since I love the FW models. However, they don't really seam very worthwhile for their points cost.. Or to be more precise: losing half of your cargo capacity is a very high price to pay to get 1 more WB and 30cm range. For those points you can almost get another Iconoclast instead. Actually, I don't think I'd want to change my regular transports for armed freighters even if it was free haha! What would you think about letting them keep the cargo capacity of a regular transport (i.e. "2")? Perhaps increase their points cost a bit (even though I think 20pts is probably fine then).

Escort carriers: These guys are cool. It needs to be said, light carriers are just awesome ;)! But again, I think loosing all of your transport capacity is a little bit to much of a blow when you're playing the scenarios that rely on transports. I do think the 60pts cost is fine, otherwise it be to easy to just spam cheap carriers in for example planetary assault. But perhaps these guys could be the "half freighters" that Armed freighters are now. What do you think?

Heavy transports: I love these guys, they are tough as nails and I can see why they cost 40pts and are only allowed as one third of your total cargo capacity. If I could, I'd use all of my transports as these guys ;)!

These are the only units I've played repeatedly with so far and so will be the only ones I'll mention for now. Keep in mind though that these are just the first few observations of a happy amateur :)! I'd be very interested to hear your opinions on the matter. Perhaps I'm just using some of these units wrong? What changes would you suggest?

Offline Neferhet

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 99
    • Loc: Florence
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2013, 10:13:16 AM »
While it may not seem like it, I am persevering with the update to the main rule book that incorporates FAQ2010 directly into a single volume. This is no small task as it means quite a bit or reorganizing the layout to get it to fit, but I am progressing! The whole document has to be reconstructed from scratch using InDesign.

While this isn't strictly speaking the rulebook for BFGR, I for one am planning to use the combined BFG+FAQ2010 rule book with the BFGR lists as my chosen format of 'community edition' rules for space combat in the 41st millennium.

As I suspected, summer has not really allowed any time on it and work has been keeping very much tied up from this (I'm wrting this in China during a month long stay for work!) but I'm hoping now that winter comes along I can get some time in to finish it up.

That is great, man!  ;D if you should need something, you have my mail.

Offline Khar

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 152
    • Loc: Frozen Wastes of Poland
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2013, 01:24:13 PM »
Guys, I've been wondering... We're in fact, done. Some minor editing to do, mostly. Orks are likely finalized, as last version did not realy rise any complaints.

So... Has anyone seen Afterimagedan? He coordinated this thing after all, and some finalization votes are in order...

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2013, 11:21:10 PM »
Hey guys. I would like to ease my way back in if that's cool with you all. It's been quite a while! I've been getting used to my hardest semester in grad school and having a new baby. Wow, busy. Anyways, any BFG:R updates I haven't seen?

Offline Khar

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 152
    • Loc: Frozen Wastes of Poland
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2013, 11:30:23 PM »
Glad to see you back.

There's a possibly-final-list in the Ork thread, and I guess it just needs a finalization vote now.

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2013, 11:44:23 PM »
Awesome. I saw the Rogue Trader thread too with Horizon and Andrew proposal. Sweeet. Where are we at with Bakka?

Offline harec

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2013, 10:48:22 PM »
Hey Dan,
long time no see, I guess no mayor changes in battlefleet bakka since you left. ???
I colaborate with a spanish blog called profanus40k.
http://profanus40k.blogspot.com.es/

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2013, 11:52:45 PM »
So we need a finalize vote on Orks? I believe we had a finalize vote for Tyranids and Inquisition last. Bakka need voting on?

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2013, 05:43:42 PM »
People need to vote on rogue traders as well. Andrew and I only need to add profiles to it. Hopefully I can do this soon.

Last time I checked the bakka thread from andrew it seemed finished.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2013, 08:18:06 PM »
Bakka is done, but I dont think it ever got voted on.
-Vaaish

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFGR status
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2013, 08:44:59 PM »
So, if everyone wouldn't mind too g a last look through of Orks and Bakka, that would be great.