Steam installeren
inloggen
|
taal
简体中文 (Chinees, vereenvoudigd)
繁體中文 (Chinees, traditioneel)
日本語 (Japans)
한국어 (Koreaans)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgaars)
Čeština (Tsjechisch)
Dansk (Deens)
Deutsch (Duits)
English (Engels)
Español-España (Spaans - Spanje)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spaans - Latijns-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Grieks)
Français (Frans)
Italiano (Italiaans)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Hongaars)
Norsk (Noors)
Polski (Pools)
Português (Portugees - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Braziliaans-Portugees)
Română (Roemeens)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Fins)
Svenska (Zweeds)
Türkçe (Turks)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamees)
Українська (Oekraïens)
Een vertaalprobleem melden
Nope, not crying about GW changing anything; they haven't.
You and a few others are saying GW has do to a couple black libary books (which the author said he exaggerated, and FFG took as a source. FFG is not Games Workshop but licenses the IP for the RPGs and boardgames. GW has stated that the authors of BL and their contents is that author's view or the in-world editors/writers view. BL has been retconned and ignored quite a few times (see Grey Knights & Sisters of Battle incident).
We haven't gotten a new BFG book. FFG is releasing a new boardgame? Is GW rereleasing BFG with these numbers? When they do I stand corrected.
That crew debate has been ongoing even back on the GW BFG forums when they had forums. 40K has always teetered on the absurd, I won't argue that. Orks having the logistical prowess to get a hulk, or even a Kruiser going still baffles me.
But then there's a point where you're beyond absurdity. For years we'd established 1-2k crew per wound. That the 26k and greater numbers have snaked their way back into the soft canon is new to me.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
And now you're just making ♥♥♥♥ up entirely. GW has literally stated no such thing. And the ONLY canon statement we have is that ALL officially licensed material is of equal status.
No. We haven't. NOBODY has. People called Chambers figures ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ game mechanics abstraction WHEN HE WROTE IT because it conflicted with other demonstrated feats on size of navy crews.
There is NO SUCH THING as soft canon for 40k.
FFG's books are objectively canon. Andy Chambers OPINIONS were NEVER canon.
Right. So the arguement is that a Frigate (Sword or Firestorm) has a compliment of 26,000 right?
Calgar's Fury:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Foyu267uo0xpz.png
Space Marine battlebarge which are over 8km in size (10km if going by the 1km per Hit), the Octavius was 4 miles long 6km)
Crew size: 40,000 humans and servitors.
BFG Remastered Official Rulebook
The Invincible (originally in BFG 13)
Imperial Invisible Class Battleship.
Crew size: 12,000+ (let's go the bigger numbers and say 24,000 original souls) ordered to evacuate, 4000 made it out of which 1200 were saved.
Meanwhile, a Sword Class frigate has a crew contingent of 26,000?
Space Marine ships are SPECIFICALLY noted for having significantly smaller crews due to increased automation.
And 24000 souls being ordered to evacuate =/= "the whole crew".
Stop appealing to Andy Chambers numbers. They're wrong, and always were.
and
and this is a Battlebarge, designed to not only deploy marines, their equipment, be able to patrol massive swaths of space, as well as be able to deploy at a moments notice to anywhere, I'd imagine they'd want even more people than some lowly Sword-class frigate.
From BFG Official Rulebook Remastered
On the Invincible Class Battleship
On Warpspace and Warp travel (as I had posted earlier)
From BFG Official Rulebook Remastered
LOL!!! Sure thing
Warhammer 40K is all about exaggerating about everything
This is the Imperator-height argument all over again. Black Library books are as canon as anything else -- granted this is 40K, so that's not saying much -- and insisting that out-of-print sources for a discontinued game are to be held higher makes as much sense as arguing that random asides from 6th edition codices should take precedence over lore from new sources GW has approved.
I understand that Helldiver is apparently fond of BFG, and it looks like an awesome game, but it is hardly the definitive source for all things 40K, naval or otherwise.
good news, you're all right, you're also all wrong, there is no 1 set number for these things and games workshop is going to be perfectly fine with authors and game writers throwing out a dozen conflicting answers
if people want to get upset over this there's way more concrete things than the numbers which eventually come down to just deciding which source you like most, like the fact that we're running around in a frigate and consistently getting into fights with 4-8 times our number in enemy ships of equal or greater number, including *necrons* according to the ship trophy cargo options you can sell to the imperial navy
numbers for a ship's crew are hilariously inconsistent (even speed of those ships and range of their weapons is hilariously inconsistent) but what is consistent is that a sword class frigate, even an upgunned frigate with some archeotech or xenotech integrated into it, isn't going to do a thing against a battlegroup that outnumbers and outmasses it by that much, to say nothing for the idea of a frigate with at most 1 backup frigate somehow holding its own against necron ships with the odds this game's fights usually throw you against