Greetings once again! This is the third and final post in a series I’ve been working on that compares Firestorm Armada (FSA) and Battlefleet Gothic (BFG). You can find Part 1 here and Part 2 here. As you may recall from Part 2, this time I’m going to be tieing up a few loose ends on points I haven’t covered yet, and then give you my final thoughts. Onward!

Other Points of Comparison

Here are a few other things that I think are worthwhile to compare, no particular order:

• Leadership: BFG, like most games made by Games Workshop, has a leadership system. Every ship or escort squadron gets a leadership score between 6 and 11, and that value is checked against using 2D6 before certain actions can be taken. This system provides a great sense of command and control, and also gives the game a strong “fog of war” type of feel. In a campaign setting, it also provides for an elegant way to show progression and development. Unfortunately, I have not found another space combat game since BFG that really nails this to the same degree (including FSA).
• Target Priority: In FSA, you are free to attack any target you have within range and arc of your weapons. In BFG, you are required to attack the closest target unless you pass a Leadership check.
• Blast Markers: BFG employs this interesting construct of Blast Markers (BM’s) that supposedly represent an area of space roiled by burning gasses and debris. They are generated whenever a ship takes a hit to its shields, and also when certain other events happen (like escorts blowing up!). If a model is in contact with these markers, they reduce its shields, reduce movement by 5 cm, and make shooting (both at the ship and from the ship) less accurate. Now, BM’s make little sense from a scientific perspective, but that’s not really a problem given that we are talking about the 40k universe here! However, as a mechanic I rather like the way that BM’s build in a sense of having somewhat less control over the events of a game as the chaos of battle develops. FSA, again, really doesn’t have an equivalent system.
• System Degradation: In FSA, weapon systems are reduced in effectiveness by damage or the loss of crew, whichever is greater. In other words, if a cruiser with two points of damage has an attack that would normally be worth 7 dice, it would only be worth 5 instead. In BFG, there is not this gradual change. Instead, once a model gets reduced to half or less of its starting hull points, it’s considered crippled. Crippled ships only get half of their full weapons strength, and also loose half their movement, half their shields, and one of their defensive turrets.
• Target orientation: In BFG, the orientation of models has a lot more impact than it does in FSA. The BFG Gunnery Table will produce far fewer dice if your target is broadside-on instead of pointing towards or away from you. In FSA, the orientation of the target is largely unimportant, with the exception of being in a target’s rear arc (that reduces the DR/CR of the target by 1). Instead, in FSA players tend to be much more focused on the orientation of their own ships, to make sure their firing arcs are properly lined up on their targets.
• Squadrons: In FSA, multiple-ship squadrons are generally mandatory for all medium and small ships. The Linking mechanic Spartan uses takes full advantage of this, by giving benefits for being in a squdron without making them too powerful. BFG employes optional squadrons for large and medium ships, with mandatory squadrons for small ships. The large and medium ships limit flexibity as they have to stay in coherency and take the same special order for all ships in the squadron. In return, they provide a lot more firepower (they essentially use the Combine mechanic from FSA). Escort squadrons are different; in BFG, small ship squadrons have hits distributed across the whole squadron, not unlike how it has been done in some editions of 40k. This is distincly different than how it works in FSA, where players target individual models even at the small ship level.

Final Thoughts

Alright! I have most likely rattled on about this topic for long enough. Thanks to all of you who have managed to stick it out this long! So…how to wrap this up…

I am on record as saying that BFG is my favorite space combat rule set. I freely admit this is due in no small part to the fact that this is the first miniatures game I ever played, and there is some strong nostalgia surrounding it for me. However, that does not necessarily mean that BFG is a “better” game than FSA. It is of course somewhat impossible to objectively determine an answer to such a subjective question, but after having played a reasonable amount of both systems recently, I am realizing that despite BFG doing some things better, FSA may very well be the better game overall.

In the big picture, BFG is a somewhat more difficult system to learn, I think. It has a few more mechanics at work in the game, which translates to more “crunch” and more for players to keep track of. FSA is not the simplest game by any means, but compared to BFG it is quite a bit more streamlined. FSA also features less book keeping thanks to its prolific use of tokens and markers. I also think that FSA is easier to come to grips with tactically than BFG, thanks to the fact that FSA models tend to be far more maneuverable (though oddly, not much faster) than their BFG counterparts. That makes it a lot easier to bring weapons to bear and avoid obstacles than it is in BFG, which means that FSA is a lot more forgiving of faulty maneuvering. However, I am a big fan of the Leadership system as it’s implemented in BFG, and how well it is woven into so many different aspects of the game. If there is one element of BFG that I think is worth emulating, it is that system. In addition, I like the feel of how carrier operations and torpedoes play in BFG better than in FSA; there is just something satisfying about moving torpedo markers across the table instead of them being instantaneous attacks.

There are also the more intangible factors; BFG has the benefit of the incredibly deep background story that has been developed for 40k over the decades, while FSA is an original IP with comparatively little background to go on. That may seem like a small point, but I think it’s fair to say one of the reasons I’m so fond of 40k (besides the aforementioned nostalgia factor) is that the story and background is so engrossing. The way that the BFG develops the space-faring side of the 40k universe just invites players to create their own narrative and backstory for their fleet. Given that this is a miniatures game, it is probably worth talking about the model ranges for the two games. I think it is fair to say that the BFG models are a bit more advanced and detailed than the first edition of the FSA models. However, I would argue that Spartan has since caught up and surpassed BFG in the models department. Granted, many of Spartan’s designs are not as “greebled” as the BFG models are, but I think that is good because it is in keeping with the fact that FSA designs are supposed to be smaller than their massive BFG counterparts. BFG models need all the extraneous surface detail to give them that since of grand scale, as opposed to the FSA ships. There is also no denying that some BFG models (such as the GW Tau models) weren’t all that well done, and that they are becoming increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain (to the point that sculptors on Shapeways have started stepping in to re-create a number of the more difficult to come by ships). To be honest, I think that FSA has pulled ahead in the models arena. And finally, faction selection and balance is a bigger problem in BFG than it is in FSA. In BFG, some factions (such as the Necrons) have significant balance issues, while others (Dark Eldar) have very limited model ranges. FSA has more fully realized factions, but they are better balanced despite that.

So, to sum up, I still consider BFG to be my “favorite” space combat game, primarily due to my nostalgia for it and the strength of the 40k universe. However, as an older game it does come across as a bit clunky compared to FSA, and it is a bit harder to learn and more tactically demanding. Add to that the difficulty of finding models these days, and the lingering balance issues inherent in some of the factions, and it is much more difficult for new players to get into the game than it is for FSA. So, for those reasons, I think a strong case can be made that FSA may well be the better game.

And on that perhaps controversial note, I will close my case. Until next time!