The BFG: Expanded Revised Rules Thread (New Years 2022 Update!)

[Thinking Stone]

Also, one good thing about Xca|iber’s BFG:XR is that he tried to keep it in the same format, so it would work well printed (and it’s not too different in size from the original rules). It also incorporates all the changes directly into the text, whereas with FAQ2010 you’d have to flip pages, and it’s not quite as simple to know what’s changed.

If you have the original books, then the cheapest printing option is just FAQ2010. If you didn’t have the originals, then it’d be a wash between the options.

If you don’t mind having electronic documents, then BFG:XR is the most convenient (though you might want to join them all into one PDF).

You could always print off single pages for important changes to refer to during games, if you didn’t mind that, too.

[horizon]

Good replies TS. 

[Thinking Stone]

Good replies TS. 

I’m glad I haven’t embarrassed myself too much with my verbosity

Incidentally, @horizon, I don’t suppose you have a copy of the XR campaign rules, do you?

Also, Happy New Year from the future, everyone! (at least we can say the BFG year started off with some active discussion!)

[Draccan]

Thanks for the replies guys. Very informative and helpful!

I do hope someone will come along with the missing pdf and share it here or in a PM!

Happy New Year!

[Thinking Stone]

I somehow overlooked Green_Squad_Leader’s thread with their completed campaign rules!

http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=8935.msg75661#msg75661

I don’t know how developed this is from Xca|iber’s work (until someone rescues and shares it, at least!), but this is probably the work GSL mentions earlier in this thread.

If you don’t like GSL’s extensions, this can always just be a good source for refits and appeals to use with the original campaign rules, too (which I think do a good job of creating that long-term fleet progression).

[Draccan]

Thanks Thinking Stone. But I guess that still leave the missions..?

[Thinking Stone]

Thanks Thinking Stone. But I guess that still leave the missions..?

That it does, unfortunately (as I’ve realised from a second look at the document). I suspect that the rulebook/Armada missions you have would work with no trouble (I don’t recall too many changes to them out of the BFG:R project, for example), and they were probably such a low priority for revision because they were designed well to begin with.

The rulebook/Armada campaign also includes the subplots charts, which GSL seems to have left out in favour of their revised system.

Nonetheless, I shall post something on the Facebook BFG page that a lot of the folks around here seem to be on, and see if there are any replies! Another possible avenue is Gothmog on here (the Additional Ships Compendium caretaker), who was working in parallel with Xca|iber’s efforts.

[Draccan]

Found someone kind enough to print the rules for me and bind them and send them to me from UK to Denmark.

I would love if someone could share the missing file with me in the next day or so!

 

[Fr05ty]

In the absence of the other, perhaps more enlightened, folks interested in BFG:XR, I’ll try to provide some sensible responses! I would have tried replying earlier except that the year got away from me too quickly!

@Fro5ty: For the Dark Eldar, I presume the lack of 45 cm weapons is historical and was originally part of their playstyle intentionally. Other Eldar also lacked 45 cm weapons in the earlier lists, for example. As I understand it, Xca|iber’s intent was to not substantially change lists (unless necessary), but to continue the efforts of things like BFG:R.

It might be an interesting question to ask in a new thread, to see if any of the real long-term veterans of BFG remember anything. Maybe you could try out 45 cm weapons on the grand cruiser and see how it goes?

The original Mortalis in Warp Rift 16 had the option for 45cm WB and 45cm Lances, hence my question. Additionally, the Dark Eldar in BFG:A2 are getting a battleship as well. Think I'll collate all the new ships that are being added from the game and see how they should fit into BFG:XR.

Also, someday we should fix Smotherman's formula... But that's not that important

[Thinking Stone]

@Draccan, I have infiltrated the BFG:XR Facebook group! From what I’ve read there, Green_Squad_Leader’s campaign rules are probably the most recent set. BFG:XR’s main focus was on revising ship profiles rather than changing core rules, so I suspect there were few changes to the scenario and campaign rules.

I’ll ask to see (with hopefully a reply soon—but I can’t promise within a few days, since I don’t know how responsive the group is!) if there was ever anything else.

So, worst case scenario, assuming there’s nothing else, you’d have these options: (1) add GSL’s rules to your document and use those; (2) add the original campaign and scenarios section (I forget if FAQ2010 has any changes, but I think Armada does), which should fit the theme and layout); (3) keep your original books around for campaigns, and leave the scenarios/campaign rules out.

But hopefully we get a positive reply! I’ll also check the original rules, Armada, and FAQ2010 to remember what’s in there.

[Thinking Stone]

@fro5ty: Ah, I’d forgotten the Warp Rift rules! I’m guessing the original cruiser rules might have influenced BFG:R (I recall seeing a Dark Eldar MMS ruleset about, but I thought Dark Eldar never moved like Eldar in the first place… I’ll have to check).

Have you checked any of the BFG:Revised discussion about Dark Eldar? I forget how much there was, but there might be some thoughts about the stats there (which might explain why there aren’t any 45 cm batteries).

There are some Dark Eldar players who sometimes visit, and the Facebook group is probably a good place to ask about it, too. I reckon there would be others willing to playtest that kind of change to the BFG:XR list to see if it’s a necessary/useful addition, who are much more experienced with DE than me. My suspicion is that it’s really a matter of how restrained one’s tastes are in limiting the fleet lists to create specific playstyles.

I think the same idea goes for new ships introduced in the video games BFG:A and BFG:A2—in a way, it’s obvious that Dark Eldar will get a battleship, because every faction has a battleship for game mechanics. The background is secondary to game mechanics here, as can be seen with Chaos light cruisers and the very different implementation of escorts in BFG:A. Should Dark Eldar have a battleship? There’s probably some background justification, though I suspect Dark Eldar probably don’t need large fleet assets in the way that other fleets do. Does the Dark Eldar fleet list need a battleship? That question needs someone more experienced with playing and fighting Dark Eldar than me to answer—but I think the real question is ‘can the Dark Eldar list have a battleship without significantly changing the playstyle of the list?’. With restrictions like the Corsair Voidstalker, I think that kind of addition is possible.

But basically, all that waffle is to say: there are different schools of thought on what should be in fleet lists. Some people like to create heaps of interesting variants; other people prefer to create specific playstyles for fleets by restricting what they can take. BFG:XR sits pretty firmly in the second category (and since Xca|iber’s not likely to come back to it soon, it’ll likely stay in the second category).

However, Gothmog’s Additional Ships Compendium project is designed to be exactly the sort of place for variants and new ships that didn’t fit into BFG:XR! That would be the place to go with new ships from BFG:A2. The project is more active, too, so there are more people casting a critical eye over stats, and more people are likely to use new ships from it.

(ASC 2.0 Chaos Development
 https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?share_fid=50385&share_tid=7099&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eforum%2Especialist-arms%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D7099&share_type=t)

None of this is to say that you can’t create or use new ships, or modify them to your tastes—it’s just that it’s unlikely they’d be incorporated into the BFG:XR lists, whereas the ASC explicitly exists for this purpose.

================

As to the Smotherman Formula: I expect some things will never be captured well by points formulae because the nature of battles is for individual things to be subjected to unbalanced interactions, as is mentioned in the Formula. But at least one person on Facebook has mentioned a revised points formula that they use for personal projects, so maybe it’s worth trying to get a hold of that one!

I think it’s also good to keep in mind that a points formula never works in a vacuum: there’re implicit assumptions about everything else in the game maintaining a certain power level. The reason it’s so easy to make a points formula for BFG that actually works is because BFG is a relatively simple game with relatively simple variations between ship types (which is part of the beauty! And part of why some people are frustratingly keen on keeping fleet lists restricted!).

[Zelnik]

I wanted to let all of you know that you did a really great job with the rules. BFG has suffered a LOT over the years, essentially being abandoned by GW, and the promise of new minis falling rather flat (they still haven't fully revitalized Blood Bowl, though Necromunda seems to be doing pretty damn well).

You all keep this hobby going. Keep it up.

[Green_Squad_Leader]

Anyone who has a functioning link to the campaign and scenarios rules. Original post is removed and the other link in the thread is not working either.

Here you go man, here is the most up to date campaign rules set.  Conversations are ongoing at this very moment to revamp the scenario rules as well.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wt57x3qk2eyw9yv/bfg%20-%20revised%20campaign%20rules%20ver%201.4.1.pdf?dl=0

To everyone else, I have returned....

[Green_Squad_Leader]

I'm glad to see that there is still interest in this game and this project after a year away from it.

Here's where things stood about 18 months ago before work largely stalled out with Xcalibre moving on and my being deployed:

1. The last official project which had been completed was the substantial reworking of the Orks.  They work very well now, are a blast to play, and are far fluffier than ever before.  This was the last thing Xcalibre produced as far as I am aware.
2. After that we were debating whether to move on to Tyranids (my recommendation) or Dark Eldar (what we went with).  Discussions had begun regarding a revamp of the Dark Eldar to make them more fun to use and play without their original "the game is over in 5 minutes" concept.  We had refined a number of weapon rules and had worked out the concepts for what we were going to do with them largely, really the big issues was figuring out how to better portray their ambush/stealth concept.  Then the project stalled and nothing was actually finalized.
3. Tyranids had some discussion, but things essentially stalled over what to do with some of their unique weapons.  I'd gladly revive those conversations, as this was a case of their rules being often slightly too simple to actually work well, or having unnecessary complexity in other ways.  As I said we had started talking about it but stalled out.  Overall their current rules are functional, they just have some relatively minor issues that could really benefit from a refinement pass.
4. The absolute last thing to be produced was my revised Campaign rules.  These include the new detachment system, adapted from 8th edition 40k, which rewards balanced list builds while not disallowing unbalanced ones for those factions that can make them (cough, space marines, cough).  It also converts the campaign system from the original book, which was NEVER A FINISHED PRODUCT MIND YOU, into a functional system.  Flavor is added, complexity is decreased where appropriate, and quite vitally all factions now actually work using the same campaign system.

So where does that leave us now?  I'm not the only one still here, I saw Horizon is still around which is good, and I actually only joined the project in 2016, but if we have the goal of releasing a unified new edition book all we really need is updated scenario rules.  I talked with Xcalibre back at the beginning of 2017 and he mentioned that he had been working on them, but he didn't feel the product was at the point yet where he wanted to share it.  I never saw a demo, but as he was working on that aspect of the rules I tackled the campaign and detachment rules (which took a good 6 months to finish).

After that we would need to just make a combined product and then we would have a unified edition update.  Afterwards the factions which still need revisions are:
1. Dark Eldar - They desperately need to be reworked, and I'm curious to see what was down with them in the new RTS.
2. Tyranids - They are functional, but have a lot of issues that were discussed a while ago in this thread.  Essentially they need the same treatment we gave Orks.

That's it I think.  Rogue Traders could use a pass, but they work as is.  Inquisition could also use a pass as they are stuck in 2004, and the concepts of how the ordos work have been very much refined and expanded over the last few years.

So here is my recommendation of how to move forwards with the core rulebook to have a new edition that we can present to the community (1 book, 1 pdf for all your needs, with everything working).  The vast majority of it is already finished, what we need to add are:

1. Detachments
2. Scenarios
3. Campaign Rules
4. Maybe subplots

The Detachment and Campaign Rules are ready to go and just need to be incorporated into the existing PDF (I of course would appreciate proof reads and I'm open to balancing).  I believe that the best way to approach this would be to make the Detachment rules their own section and place them just before the Scenario rules, and to keep the campaign rules at the end of the book.  The reason I think this makes sense is both because the detachment system fixes a lot of the balancing issues we otherwise were stuck with while NOT requiring players use our updated fleet lists.  It also provides us a cool mechanic for designing the scenarios.

With the detachments before the scenarios we then would be able to incorporate scenario specific stratagems and detachments, which would help to simplify the alternative force organizations appropriate for each scenario.  So, for example, in the convoy scenario we could incorporate a new detachment called a "convoy detachment" made up of 3 freighter-analogue ships.  Rather than have the player calculate points for freighters simply state that they must include 1 convoy detachment for every 2 detachments in the list, and I would recommend making this detachment cost 1 command point (-1 CP).  This would encourage the defending player to take larger detachments (ie: Fleet Support, Recon, and Combat Patrol) as escorts to reduce the number of freighters they have to guard.  For scenario specific stratagems for example we could make one for the escalating engagement scenario that would allow players to bring their units into the fight faster, potentially with the downside of needing a turn to shift power away from their engines (essentially arriving on All Ahead Full!).

Once we have the scenarios reworked we add them after the detachments/stratagems rules.  Then at the back of the book we add the revised campaign rules and we'd have a completed product.

As far as subplots go I feel that they always were rather clunky and that most of their value would be represented within the stratagem system.  That said we could largely leave them as is for flavor as an optional rule like they are now, or theoretically integrate them with the stratagem rules to provide a number of additional stratagems that players could elect to take before the battle that have some impact on their fleet or for the coming battle.  I'm leery of doing that as it sounds like it would get very complicated very quickly, but it is something we could investigate.

Now with all that said, we do need to gain access to the templates needed to make the book into a finished product.  Does anyone have access to that stuff aside from Xcalibre?  If not is anyone in touch with him?

We're very nearly ready to produce a unified new edition book, we just need to start assigning tasks and get back to work on it.  Hopefully we can get this all done in the first half of 2019 and give a nice give to the community.

[Xca|iber]

Just a heads up everyone, I'll be posting a small update on a couple of things later tonight.