Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: flybywire-E2C on February 02, 2011, 05:32:05 PM
-
Okay folks, the ham sandwich recipies were entertaining. Now how about we discuss making Bakka playable?
Is it perfect? No, it was a FIRST DRAFT. Of COURSE this still needs to be adjusted. It’s a fleet list, not a new rule-set, and some of the ships have come to be quite popular, even by those that hate everything else. These rules have existed since 2001, and only now is there so much noise being generated, and that by a very small percentage of people. People can choose to use it or choose not to. People complained about the Retribution for years but still used them BEFORE we corrected the point cost. Many people STILL hate the Tyrant, and that doesn't mean it's broken- “I hates it†and “It’s broken†are two different things. Even if someone totally hates this list, this doesn’t change the Imperial fleet rules. DON’T USE THE LIST IF YOU HATE IT!
The goal is to create something that isn't broken. In the end, even if you hate it, the idea is to make sure it's not so unbalanced that it is cheating or broken if you have to face it as an opponent.
Disagreement is welcome and appreciated. Everyone is welcome to participate, even if its to say "I hate it and think the whole idea is drivel," in which case we will know ahead of time your subsequent posts will probably be of the ham-sandwich variety.
Here's the caveats:
The ONLY "fanboy" ships under discussion are those that have been in the magazine since 2001.
Profiles can be adjusted, prices can DEFINITELY be adjusted.
No, the fleet WON'T have GC's as primary ships.
The point of Bakka is to create a carrier-light Imp fleet list. Thus, it should be heavy on turrets and cheap BB's, which tend to be more ordnance-resistant.
We are not re-pricing ships to be BOTH better AND cheaper than current Imperial ships. The choices are cheaper OR better, not both (with emphasis on cheaper). By saying "cheaper AND better," that ALSO includes making a mediocre ship so cheap that it's almost too good to be true. For example, the Siluria is a neat little ship that should be the cheapest CL in the game. However, it can't be cheaper than 100 points. Period.
Everything else is up for grabs as long as it doesn't break core Imperial fleet rules.
Finally, constructive criticism is what we are looking for. Ham sandwhcih posts (and their posters) will be ignored. In the end, if you choose to offer nothing but vitriol, you have nobody to blame when you face this fleet as an opponent. If this gets too childish, we can just end the debate and be done with it. It's your call, and thanks for the help.
:) ;) :D ;D
-
OK:
Battleships:
0-1 Emperor if Admiral Rath is taken is fine. If you want to shell out that many points, you've earned those 8 AC in my view. Its inclusion is fluffy, even if it breaks teh general theme.
Retribution, hell yes, it's still cool despite STILL being underpowered.
Victory: Doesn't need the extra speed, so 15cm. Role is more conflicted than the Retribution, and NC is not worth more than S9 torps on any day of the week. Take Retribution and -10pts for speed and role confliction. 335pts.
Vanquisher: This would make a really cool cheap line breaker if it just had 20cm speed. Objectively compared to a retribution, it then loses focus ability and power in its front arc for additional off-side firepower and 1T. It only loses 1T firepower overall, but it does suffer a heftier arc restriction. I'd like it to be cheaper, but I can't objectively find reasons why with 20cm speed it shouldn't be in the region 325pts-335pts.
Endeavour: Yes, though the 6+ prow should be unrestricted, and 90' turns to boot.
Endurance: Yes, but similar.
Defiant: Perfect for the list, also similar to other Voss.
Siluria: Isn't different enough from Endeavour. Could we get it for 80pts if we knocked it down to 4 hitpoints?
Enforcer: A firm fan favourite, please include!
Viper: Hell yes.
Havoc: Hell Yes, although it doesn't need 2 turrets, 35pts is fine.
Will get round to cruisers later, time to head for home!
-
Thanks for the levity, Nate. Glad you liked the sandwiches.
First things first, i really don't see a need for the new battleships. If there is a "gunship" concept, the fleet should focus on range, and keeping AT range.
The current battleships that are legit that fit into this are the Apoc and the Oberon (both slow, both effective at range) the oberon still fits since it has limited LC. The Victory does not fit because it's too fast. No point in being fast if your effective weapons are designed for long range.
Battlecruisers, well lets face it. the new Overlord is perfect here. long range, has bonuses to shift.. An idea is allowing in THIS FLEET ONLY for an overlord to purchase a nova cannon. The mars is out, too easy to take launch capacity, but can still be taken as reserves. The Armageddon is another obvious choice. the Jovian just doesn't fit.
Cruisers, we need to be selective here. Ironically enough, the belittled little tyrant belongs here. Medium range, nova cannon capable. The lunar as well. The gothic and dictator are out because they can't take nova canons, and no carriers allowed.
Light Cruisers: Endeavor, Endurance and Siluria are perfect. Allow Defiants on a 1 for 1 basis with other cruisers.
Escorts: Drop the viper, keep the others.
Special rules.
Fleet defense turrets are no go.. there is no reason for THIS fleet to have something the Admech has to roll randomly for. If they sacrifice carriers for guns, they pay for it. It's how this fleet is balanced. There will be guns ablazing but they will suffer against bombers. If you must, allow cruisers to purchase a single additional turret for 5 points.
This restricts your carrier to the Oberon, and maybe a reserve Mars. Dictators should be barred from reserves, no emprah.
-
Nate:
My idea:
Good As Stands:
Mercury
Vicky (extra speed is just fine)
Havoc
Siluria
Lunar
Gothic
Tyrant
Retribution
Viper
Armageddon
0-1 emp if rath is taken
Not really interested in:
Vanquisher
Need to be removed:
All voss ships
Cobra
BFGM Add:
Invincible class battleship
Enforcer (1 per 1k)
Cardinal
Other fleets:
Oberon
Dictator (0-1)
Avenger
Vengence
Alternative to FDT:
Fleet Defense System: Turrets can be fired as a weapon in addtion to thier normal rules, in the combat phase, against ord only. They have a range of 30cm and remove ord from play on a +4 rather then a +6. This is in addition to the standard rules for turrets. A ship may only use the base number of turrets in it's profile when firing in this manner. The number of turrets a ship has for purposes of firring in this manner is not increased by turret massing.
+5 points for escorts, +10pts for capitol ships. All ships in a squadron MUST take this upgrade if one does.
-
Even if someone totally hates this list, this doesn’t change the Imperial fleet rules. DON’T USE THE LIST IF YOU HATE IT!
The issue is when this becomes official and up on GW, anyone can use it and the ships without the opponents permission. True, we can just not play at all, but it's better to have something that we can all use than have something people dislike or can't avoid if someone else takes it.
Anyway, thoughts from the previous thread before they got buried in ham sandwiches:
On the various ships currently in the list:
Victory: 325-335. I still think this ship is going to be OP. It's functionally the equivalent of the Apocalypse BB but trades two lances and the special critical rule for four lances that are always capable of firing 60cm with no penalty and it's as fast as a retribution. It seems extremely attractive at 335 or the more likely 325 points with torpedoes.
Vanquisher: there just isn't any reason to ever take this over a Victory class outside of a special story driven scenario. Character ship or no, it's just too close to the Victory's profile and cost.
Mercury: Still messed up. this thing really needs a reason to exist as it does. Compare it to an overlord which has equivalent firepower but none of the drawbacks this ship has. If you are going to make it blow up spectacularly because of it's battleship power systems, it needs a bit more than an extra 5cm speed to make the need for those systems believable. Give this thing battleship grade weapons and it'll be more reasonable. It really does not have any reason to blow up like it does right now. Really, look at the stats. It gains +2 batteries over an overlord battelcruiser which amounts to a single dice gained for all its battleship power generation capability. That one dice is completely negated by the Overlord's targeting array. All this ship gains for the spectacular explosive ability is +5cm speed. Congratulations, it is now a 250 point fireship.
Jovian: I'm not fond of how if breaks the IN rules, but it's effectively limited so it's not problematic. I'm sure the IN did some experimentation along the way to the modern fleet. The ignored prow critical fixes any problem the ship itself has.
On the new parameters:
In order for a low AC IN fleet to work we need to boost the inbuilt ship defenses to counter the low AC. This can be either using a mechanic like giving turrets a better rate of fire, better hitting capablities, or in the ill fated FDT's. After having thought through it a bit, I think that it could work well to just let bakka turrets hit ordnance on a 3+ rather than a 4+ to show their increased capabilities. Cost could be built into the profiles if needed but it should be standard rather than an added upgrade if you want it to be taken often.
I think moving rath to the emperor was a good idea and it should make any emperor pretty rare in the lists.
Carriers will pose pretty difficult thing to affect. Most people want at least 8LB and will be willing to do quite a bit to get it. Reserve rules ensure that at least one carrier can easily be pulled into the list and quite possibly two with minimal effect. If the Jovian remains, it will be taken unless it's made less attractive, say by limiting it to launching only fighters or AB. If the Jovian is removed, you will probably see a dictator in every list plus a mars. Either way there's just too many options to easily pull in a good deal of AC with minimal effect on your list choices.
To fix that, I'd say remove the mars entirely, remove the jovian entirely, and bring in the defiant with the limit of 1 per 500 points since it has low AC numbers and inbuilt weakness. This leaves you with the Mars, Dictator, and Exorcist as your carrier choices for reserve. With the mars having the NC and the Exorcist unable to squadron with regular cruisers it probably means you would see a dictator pulled in via reserve and squadroned with two defiants to hit 8LB since it comes in substantially under the cost of the empy and you'd be sacrificing either line cruisers or your BB to pull in a second dictator. That leaves you stuck with no change to the LB taken in the fleet so you probably need a means to limit reserve carriers a bit more by disallowing them entirely since the big gun lobby hates carriers and won't be asking for any reserves.
so, in summery:
FDT: Turrets hit ordnance on a 3+ rather than 4+ and this is inbuilt to the list rather than an upgrade.
Fleet list: Remove mars and Jovian, add defiant. Prevent Bakka from taking ships with LB as reserve options.
Ships: see previous comments.
-
Everything else is up for grabs as long as it doesn't break core Imperial fleet rules.
What about a different layout of the fleetlist?
Battlefleet Bakka is no regular "sector fleet", it is a "segmentae fleet".
I always had the impression that these fleets are a kind of "rapid response force": they go to battle if the regular sector fleets can't handle a specific situation (say: a tyranid hive-fleet ^^).
So I tought that these fleets consisted of more heavy components (BBs and BCs) than regular fleets.
The current list doesn't support this idea, but I think that this could be a way to make it more interesting: allow BC's on a 1:1 (or even unrestricted) ratio, and BB's on a 2:1 Basis.
so if Victory and Vanquisher are inferior ships, you can at least have more of them....
-
Invincible class battleship
Whilst I REALLY Like the idea of a fast battlecruiser design, I think the Invincible would need to be modified substantially - 8 hits is just weird for a ship that size - it should just have 12 hits, and be more prone to losing them. It still can't CTNH, despite what it's special rules say, and a little bit more of a difference between it and the Retribution would be nice, and 4 Dorsal Lances is a no-no - the maximum is 3.
-
Hey Nate. I don't know if you saw this, but I was trying to keep track of everyones opinion on what they wanted to see in this list.
Vote Count.... (basically) Black means yes, orange means apathetic/other option, red means no. Tried to keep as good of track as I could, sorry if I screwed something up. Teal means 'with vengeance'.
Delete FDTs [Vaaish, Plaxor, Sigoroth, RCgothic valhallan
Vanquisher 300 (or less) pts [RCgothic, Plaxor, Sigoroth, Eldanesh
Victory 330 pts: [RCgothic, Plaxor, Vaaish, Eldanesh Valhallan
Delete Jovian: [Admiral D, Horizon, Valhallan, Zelnik, lastspartacus, Plaxor, Sigoroth, BaronI]
Add Dominion: [Plaxor, Horizon, Valhallan, RCgothic, Sigoroth, Zelnik]
Vanquisher 20cm speed: [Valhallan, Plaxor, RCgothic]
+1 Turrets (possible increased cost): [Sigoroth, Plaxor, Rcgothic, Valhallan, Zelnik]
Delete Victory: [Plaxor, Zelnik]
Vanquisher somewhere else: [Zelnik... Plaxor]
Delete Mercury: [Zelnik,
-
to make the vanq appealing in comparison to the vicky, imo it should be dropped to 300 points. it sacrifices range and speed (and *turning* when its under fire) it saves you ~50 points then from the ret/vicky, which is perfect as thats the points for a cheep admiral. making it effectively what you wanted: a cheap character ship. note that it's broadsides are ~ a desolator, but with shorter range. this is traded for better protection (prow, turret). so 300 is the right ballpark.
FDT's are nifty, though apparently a consistency violator. compiling alternate ideas:
turrets shoot w/ 1 dice 15 or 30 cm range, hit ordy on 4+
+1 to hit with turrets and/or +1 turret for 5pnts.
With the access to lots of CL's it makes it quite easy to pull in 2 mars' and the jovian (i play 2k's mostly). making a quite AC heavy fleet (for IN). sadly then, one of these carriers must go, if not both.
enforcer/defiant allows for the inclusion of defensive fighters or torp escorting fighters, but no access to AB's nor any effectively large bomber wave. adding the enforcer would also fit with the 'pirate hunter' fleet fluff, and be a good compromise for not having the dauntless. [note i have no idea what ships were in BFGm ... let alone since 2001].
ahh the Mercury. though of this last night. if its supposed to have BB level firepower then it should have 3 'hard points' of guns. i would suggest adding in 2 45cm lances to the broadsides. that makes it a bit hittier than the vengeance. proper to its proposed nitch. not sure how pricing would change.
-
For those that don't know, I'm from sunny Florida, USA 8)
@Nate: Is this supposed to be a fleet with: 1. Low amount of carrier hulls, 2. Low amount of attack craft total numbers or, 3. Low, to none, attacking attack craft? Cause this will help me focus my unrelenting assault as to why the Jovian and Mars are on this last as written currently.
-Zhukov
-
Nice, but as LS stated, the south doesn't count.
I'm from Denver, Colorado. Woot! our football team cheats!
Nate, I think that you already have all your answers for one more round of changes in your document.... we did discuss it for a while...
It's unfortunate that you're only allowing BFGm ships, but meh.
We would never want to make something both good and cheap. We want everything to be cost-appropriate. We have to fight against these fleets too!
Before this doc came out, I wrote up my versions of a lot of these ships for BFT. Vanquisher had more wbs and 3 lances, all at 45cm, havoc had 5+/4+ armor. (I really don't understand why no one else put any thought behind that)
The Siluria, at 100 points and its current profile is boring. Redundant. I really do hope you see RC & my opinion that it should be reduced to 4 hits, and dropped to 80 points to make it a much more intriguing ship.
I am currently in the process of converting out a vanquisher.... which is quite tedious. I actually started before this document. It's in the stage where it looks like a space shuttle... I think Kar Duniash ships just look that way...
-
Mercury: Still messed up. this thing really needs a reason to exist as it does. Compare it to an overlord which has equivalent firepower but none of the drawbacks this ship has. If you are going to make it blow up spectacularly because of it's battleship power systems, it needs a bit more than an extra 5cm speed to make the need for those systems believable. Give this thing battleship grade weapons and it'll be more reasonable. It really does not have any reason to blow up like it does right now. Really, look at the stats. It gains +2 batteries over an overlord battelcruiser which amounts to a single dice gained for all its battleship power generation capability. That one dice is completely negated by the Overlord's targeting array. All this ship gains for the spectacular explosive ability is +5cm speed. Congratulations, it is now a 250 point fireship.
Other then the occasional tremendous explosion, it actually makes for great extra punch in a fast IN build.
Typically I take it with light cruisers and use it as a squadron flagship. I know that most people seem to thing that Squadroning cruisers is also soemthing IN never does, sort of like use AC offensively or have lances over 30 cm, but... it actually works pretty well, since, unlike the Overlord, the Mercury can keep up.
ahh the Mercury. though of this last night. if its supposed to have BB level firepower then it should have 3 'hard points' of guns. i would suggest adding in 2 45cm lances to the broadsides. that makes it a bit hittier than the vengeance. proper to its proposed nitch. not sure how pricing would change.
A Mercury is not a battleship, nor is it supposed to have battleship level firepower. It is a BC, it just happens to have 25cm speed and a nasty side effect if thigns go wrong. The only thing it needs is a swap option for the NC.
On the new parameters:
In order for a low AC IN fleet to work we need to boost the inbuilt ship defenses to counter the low AC. This can be either using a mechanic like giving turrets a better rate of fire, better hitting capablities, or in the ill fated FDT's. After having thought through it a bit, I think that it could work well to just let bakka turrets hit ordnance on a 3+ rather than a 4+ to show their increased capabilities. Cost could be built into the profiles if needed but it should be standard rather than an added upgrade if you want it to be taken often.
I like my idea better. That way turrets actually work like a CIWS does.
Fleet list: Remove mars and Jovian, add defiant. Prevent Bakka from taking ships with LB as reserve options.
Agree with removing Jovian and Mars. Strongly disagree with adding defiant. Defiants are rare in the sector they're built in. While some being sent to the Eye of Terror for the Bastion fleets makes some sense, Bakka not only would resist them for all the same reasons they would a Jovian, but also it would be a drain on the limited resources for the Armageddon War.
Instead allow very, very limited numbers of dictators. They mesh better with the fleet's philosophy then Defiant
No to any more elaborate Reserves rules. The only thing IN has that even might noticibly alter balance is the Emperor, it you'd have to be playing a pretty big game to be reserving in a fourth battleship.
-
I'm from Denver, Colorado. Woot! our football team cheats!
Which "football" team my friend (Rapids or the Broncos)? You are posting this on a forum with a lot of European folks so you may need to be more specific! LOL!
-Zhukov
-
Broncos :) American Football.
I'm surprised you knew about the Rapids.
-
Broncos :) American Football.
I'm surprised you knew about the Rapids.
I'm a huge soccer fan :)
I'm a big fan of the FC Tampa Bay Rowdies (in the totally chaotic D-2). A PROUD member of Ralph's Mob, the hardcore supporter group of the team.
-Zhukov
-
The specific ships aside, Nate has said that he wants a list that gets a lot of turrets to counter its lack of LBs and go BB heavy.
There is already have a good selection of CLs in the list and if the Siluria goes to 4HP @ 80 that will be more so. What if the BB limits were relaxed a little for this fleet? What if escorts in squadrons of 3 or 4 or even 5 counted as one of the three cruisers to get BBs?
I'm of the opinion that giving the AdMech refit to the whole feet is not a good way to go. I would propose that turrets get to fire against both AC and Torps in each phase as a start and then some combination of the following:
Turrets hit on 3+ (perhaps just on the 1st turret die)
Extra turrets as a refit.
WBs get a left shift against ordnance.
Limited ships and/or escorts with access to the AdMech refit.
Just some thoughts.
-
Guys; Nate is looking for simpler. +1 turret is easier for gameplay/rules than any modification of the turret rules.
The simple explanation is that this fleet is in more 'readied' condition because of Gryphonne IV (Hah.) and Bakka, due to the fact that it is a Segmentum Strike force.
-
Re-posting this question:
The point of Bakka is to create a carrier-light Imp fleet list. Thus, it should be heavy on turrets and cheap BB's, which tend to be more ordnance-resistant.
@Nate (or anybody else willing to weigh in till he get's back): Is this supposed to be a fleet with: 1. Low amount of carrier hulls, 2. Low amount of attack craft total numbers or, 3. Low, to none, attacking attack craft (having fighter only carriers)?
-Zhukov
-
The problem with just giving it more turrets is that this fleet would quickly fold under pressure from even an IN carrier fleet at that point, let alone a 'nid aboat swarm or carrier based Tau.
What we need is the ability to give turrets some range. At least 30cm because most AC have a speed of 20cm or greater. If it's 15cm, you'll rarely get a shot off.
So, I say we make it a fairly cheap upgrade, +5 or +10, and basically, in addtion to how they work now, they also function as 30cm lance that can only be used on ord and hits on a +4.
It's simple, elegant, and gets around the problem without being OP like making all the weapons hit ord on +4 or giving everything the +x number of turrets they would need to survive (since I doubt +1 will be as powerful as some people think)
As far as 'lots of BBs' goes: invert the selection process like with Tau or Nids. Just be sure to put limits on HOW MANY battleships are allowed. We've all seen the 'all battleships' list from Tau in the past, and it might win, but it's not lot of fun to play against.
-
I can understand the carrier light, heavy on cheap battleship feel.
Ok cheap battleships would go to Retribution and Oberon. I would say that just swap the Emperor class for the Oberon in the fluff to make things simpler instead of having a list having a ship which is not in the list but has the option to be included. Then just add either the Victory and/or the Vanquisher for heavy battleship feel. I have no beef with both ships although the Vanquisher rules feel too limiting since its only one ship in the class can be taken in the fleet.
So no Grand Cruisers. As far as battlecruisers go, just stay with the Armageddon and Overlord for cheap heavy then add the Invincible instead of the Mercury. It's basically the same concept though different cost if I remember correctly.
Cruisers, stick with Lunar, Gothic and Tyrant with seeding of Dictators. Endurance, Endeavor and Siluria are fine but I think the Dauntless can also be included here.
The new escorts look ok.
Now to replace the FDT, just allow ships to be able to purchase 1 turret at +5 points (Vanquisher turret should go down to 4 in this regard) as well as either:
1. hit better with direct fire weapons at 5+ instead of 6+ or
2. get a left column shift with WBs.
I prefer option #1 myself.
I'm also tinkering with the thought of turrets hitting on a 3+ instead in lieu of Direct Fire improvement. But 3+ might be too good.
To add to having battleship heavy feel, go for 1 battleship:2 cruisers instead of 3.
Ought to make an interesting fleet list.
-
The problem with just giving it more turrets is that this fleet would quickly fold under pressure from even an IN carrier fleet at that point, let alone a 'nid aboat swarm or carrier based Tau.
Again, how do you figure that? With battleships being assisted by 2-3 escorts, it would now have 6-7 turrets to help in shooting down ordnance. Nids now only have at most 2x the LB capacity if I am not mistaken. If Nids decide to send in their ABs singly, chances are good it would die to turret fire. If the Nids send it in waves, then use improved direct fire which I am proposing.
What we need is the ability to give turrets some range. At least 30cm because most AC have a speed of 20cm or greater. If it's 15cm, you'll rarely get a shot off.
Nope, bad idea. This is basically FDT enhanced.
-
Again, how do you figure that? With battleships being assisted by 2-3 escorts, it would now have 6-7 turrets to help in shooting down ordnance. Nids now only have at most 2x the LB capacity if I am not mistaken. If Nids decide to send in their ABs singly, chances are good it would die to turret fire. If the Nids send it in waves, then use improved direct fire which I am proposing.
Except enhanced direct fire can be used to force your opponent to RO every turn in order to keep fighters on CAP out to 60cm, which gives you a hefty advantage in how many SO you can take compared to your opponent.
Sorry, D'Art, but that's just broken, if they have to SO to put fighters on CAP, and you don't to eliminate them.
Nope, bad idea. This is basically FDT enhanced.
Not really. In fact, doesn't even really resemble the FAQ's version of FDT.
FDT basically moved a turret from one ship to another, effectively massing at range. Thus directly effects bomber attacks, etc.
Instead, for any additional effect at all, they have to be shot down at range. This can either be really effective, or... not, depending on how far the ord has to travel. Basically it offers your opponent a choice. Close into gun range, or continue to experience reduced ord effectiveness.
Basically, turret becomes a 1 die per pt str 30cm lance that can only be used on ord and hits it on +4.
Please go back to page 1, actually READ what I wrote there and THEN come back and invent relevant objections.
-
Except enhanced direct fire can be used to force your opponent to RO every turn in order to keep fighters on CAP out to 60cm, which gives you a hefty advantage in how many SO you can take compared to your opponent.
Sorry, D'Art, but that's just broken, if they have to SO to put fighters on CAP, and you don't to eliminate them.
Carriers ARE supposed to RO almost every turn. Carriers will have a disadvantage in the SOs they can take. So what's the problem? Because battleships can now shoot at ships with CAP on them? Is that really a problem? If you're shooting the CAP on a ship, you're really missing the more important target. Shoot the SHIP not the CAP on the ship.
Not really. In fact, doesn't even really resemble the FAQ's version of FDT.
FDT basically moved a turret from one ship to another, effectively massing at range. Thus directly effects bomber attacks, etc.
Instead, for any additional effect at all, they have to be shot down at range. This can either be really effective, or... not, depending on how far the ord has to travel. Basically it offers your opponent a choice. Close into gun range, or continue to experience reduced ord effectiveness.
Basically, turret becomes a 1 die per pt str 30cm lance that can only be used on ord and hits it on +4.
Which is why I said it is FDT ENHANCED. This is actually a better form of FDT. You can now shoot farther (FDT is 15 cm), you don't have to take another ship to use since youcan take it on your ship for a measly 5-10 points and get a better effect and hit ordnance on the standard 4+ only this time against all the other race's ordnance. Kinda broken isn't it?
-
Hey Nate. I don't know if you saw this, but I was trying to keep track of everyones opinion on what they wanted to see in this list.
Vote Count.... (basically) Black means yes, orange means apathetic/other option, red means no. Tried to keep as good of track as I could, sorry if I screwed something up. Teal means 'with vengeance'.
Delete FDTs [Vaaish, Plaxor, Sigoroth, RCgothic valhallan
Vanquisher 300 (or less) pts [RCgothic, Plaxor, Sigoroth, Eldanesh
Victory 330 pts: [RCgothic, Plaxor, Vaaish, Eldanesh Valhallan
Delete Jovian: [Admiral D, Horizon, Valhallan, Zelnik, lastspartacus, Plaxor, Sigoroth, BaronI]
Add Dominion: [Plaxor, Horizon, Valhallan, RCgothic, Sigoroth, Zelnik]
Vanquisher 20cm speed: [Valhallan, Plaxor, RCgothic]
+1 Turrets (possible increased cost): [Sigoroth, Plaxor, Rcgothic, Valhallan, Zelnik]
Delete Victory: [Plaxor, Zelnik]
Vanquisher somewhere else: [Zelnik... Plaxor]
Delete Mercury: [Zelnik,
Hi everyone! There’s a LOT to respond to here so I will make my first fast-pass post in reply to this one. Everyone else does deserve replies as well, but some of these posts are actually conflicting (some say keep a ship because it’s great, others say get rid of it). That doesn’t make the arguments bad, but I will see how the discussion plays out and make adjustments accordingly. PS: “with a vengeance†means nothing to me. You either like it or you don’t. If your argument is rational, let’s talk about it.
- FDT’s seem to be causing the most hate so they are gone. They are NOT being replaced with a different odd, used-nowhere-else mechanic such as turrets that hit on 3+. However, something far simpler is acceptable, such as all Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points. Thoughts?
- The 1.1 Bakka list (not yet posted) already has the Vanquisher for 300 points. This is as low as its going so arguments to drop the price further are moot. No, it’s not getting a speed boost.
- As I demonstrated using the Smotherman Rules everyone is so fond of, the Victory for its firepower is about equivalent to a Retribution, with a stronger prow compensated by weaker dorsals. Making this ship cheaper than a Retribution guarantees the Ret will never be used. As was pointed out recently, the Victory has several advantages over the Apocalypse, which is only 10 points cheaper. Speaking of which, I know everyone wants this ship to be 15cm because they want the Nova Cannon to be used as a stand-off weapon, but 20cm isn’t a handicap when used on cruisers. Again, the intent is to make this ship a Ret analogue. If the ship is still too confused or misguided for your tastes, don’t use it.
- There seems to be some massive, vitriolic, almost prepubescent hate for the Jovian. Only one ship can ever be used in an entire fleet, it can only be used by Bakka, and yet people still absolutely HATE it. Okay, it’s gone, but what gives? Really?
- The Dominion- has anybody actually playtested this against Eldar? I have- I own one but NEVER thought of making this official! It’s advertised as a pirate hunter, but its 260 points worth of strawberry jam against Eldar. We can put this in the Jovian’s place since so many people want it, but in my opinion it really is rubbish. By the way, strawberry jam goes great in ham sandwiches (sorry, couldn’t help it :) )
- Allowing all Bakka ships to have Nova Cannons is insane. Period. It’s bad enough the fleet list already makes them pretty common. Were it up to me, Dominators would NOT be part of the fleet list, but only an idiot would suggest that Dominators (which originate from relatively nearby Kar Durniash) would not be a primary ship in a Bakka fleet list when the farther-away Gothic fleet list counts them as primary ships.
- I don't mind giving the Mercury a torps option, but I will have to pass this by Bob. On that note, the Mercury is like the Overlord in that it is not an ideal gunship BC. Imperials don’t get an ideal gunship BC. Play Chaos if that’s what you want. Period.
- Since this fleet is supposed to be AC-light, Defiants are absolutely, positively OUT. I know some people reading this have either min-maxed fleets at least once or played against people who have. Admiral Rath, three Defiants and an Emperor is NOT what I call a Bakka fleet. Period.
- Endeavor and variants are NOT getting 90deg turns AND 6+ armor. One OR the other. Argument ends.
- This is not a “Segmentum†fleet list, it is a Bakka Sector fleet list just like the Gothic Sector or Armageddon Sector fleet lists. It just so happens that Bakka is the Segmentum Fortress for Segmentum Tempestus. I imagine that as Voss is pretty close to Armageddon but rather far from Terra (not to mention Terra’s immediate proximity to Mars), a Battlefleet Solar fleet list has only a passing resemblance to that of Battlefleet Armageddon, though both are within Segmentum Solar. This is only an observation and not anything that actually needs to be disputed or debated over.
- Due to the proximity to the Bakka Forge World, it has been suggested that the fleet gets one Adeptus Mechanicus ship as part of the primary fleet list (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
- It has been suggested that the fleet gets one Space Marine strike cruiser as part of the primary fleet list due to its strong affinity toward Maccrage and the Ultramarines (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
- I do NOT believe battleships should be 1:2, as battleships are still rare and precious assets throughout the Imperium. However, 1:1 for battlecruisers isn’t entirely unacceptable, again thanks to Bakka’s proximity. Thoughts?
- The Mars BC will NOT be deleted for exactly the same reason why the Defiant SHOULD be so. AC are supposed to be rare for this fleet, NOT absent. The Mars is the most expensive 4LB carrier in the whole game if you don’t count the one-off Ork battleships. Nobody will be using these to fluff out a fleet. Even if battlecruisers are made 1:1, the best cruiser ratio you can get is 4 launch bays per 360 points, assuming a fleet made up entirely of Dominion BC’s and Siluria CL’s.
- For reasons not worth ruminating over here, we will NOT be adding anything from Forgeworld’s Badab war fleet list to this project unless Bob or Ray specifically want to address the issue, nor will we as HA’s be addressing anything published in IA10. As far as we are concerned, it’s all official as-is if GW says it is. If Forgeworld actually comes out with any models to support these new rules, I will be quite happy and might even buy some.
-
- FDT’s seem to be causing the most hate so they are gone. They are NOT being replaced with a different odd, used-nowhere-else mechanic such as turrets that hit on 3+. However, something far simpler is acceptable, such as all Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points. Thoughts?
Fleet = DOA vs Tau/Chaos/'nids. Without some way to counter large amounts of ord before impact, even at +1 per 5, we're talking naked here. And that nerfs bombers too far.
- There seems to be some massive, vitriolic, almost prepubescent hate for the Jovian. Only one ship can ever be used in an entire fleet, it can only be used by Bakka, and yet people still absolutely HATE it. Okay, it’s gone, but what gives? Really?
Personally, I like the Jovian, just not in this fleet. As a suggestion: make it official but don't add it to a fleet list so anyone can take it as a reserve. That should give those of us that want it the ability to have it, and the people that don't like it can go *content deleted due to inflammatory, heretical, and obscene nature. Moral Threat: Extremis* in the palace of *name of ruinous power redacted by order of the Inquisition* and *content deleted due to inflammatory, heretical, and obscene nature. Moral Threat: Extremis* themselves.
- The Dominion- has anybody actually playtested this against Eldar? I have- I own one but NEVER thought of making this official! It’s advertised as a pirate hunter, but its 260 points worth of strawberry jam against Eldar. We can put this in the Jovian’s place since so many people want it, but in my opinion it really is rubbish. By the way, strawberry jam goes great in ham sandwiches (sorry, couldn’t help it :) )
Notice that I didn't suggest it. And, I have, and, you're right.
- I don't mind giving the Mercury a torps option, but I will have to pass this by Bob. On that note, the Mercury is like the Overlord in that it is not an ideal gunship BC. Imperials don’t get an ideal gunship BC. Play Chaos if that’s what you want. Period.
Torps for everyone!
- Since this fleet is supposed to be AC-light, Defiants are absolutely, positively OUT. I know some people reading this have either min-maxed fleets at least once or played against people who have. Admiral Rath, three Defiants and an Emperor is NOT what I call a Bakka fleet. Period.
- Endeavor and variants are NOT getting 90deg turns AND 6+ armor. One OR the other. Argument ends.
- This is not a “Segmentum†fleet list, it is a Bakka Sector fleet list just like the Gothic Sector or Armageddon Sector fleet lists. It just so happens that Bakka is the Segmentum Fortress for Segmentum Tempestus. I imagine that as Voss is pretty close to Armageddon but rather far from Terra (not to mention Terra’s immediate proximity to Mars), a Battlefleet Solar fleet list has only a passing resemblance to that of Battlefleet Armageddon, though both are within Segmentum Solar. This is only an observation and not anything that actually needs to be disputed or debated over.
For that exact reason please remove all Voss variants. It's stated bluntly in the Armageddon fleet fluff that they're rare in the sector they're built in, let alone half way across the galaxy in Bakka.
- Due to the proximity to the Bakka Forge World, it has been suggested that the fleet gets one Adeptus Mechanicus ship as part of the primary fleet list (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
- It has been suggested that the fleet gets one Space Marine strike cruiser as part of the primary fleet list due to its strong affinity toward Maccrage and the Ultramarines (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
Other then it breaks the 'all big guns' theme, sure. It might help offset the lack of carriers.
- The Mars BC will NOT be deleted for exactly the same reason why the Defiant SHOULD be so. AC are supposed to be rare for this fleet, NOT absent. The Mars is the most expensive 4LB carrier in the whole game if you don’t count the one-off Ork battleships. Nobody will be using these to fluff out a fleet. Even if battlecruisers are made 1:1, the best cruiser ratio you can get is 4 launch bays per 360 points, assuming a fleet made up entirely of Dominion BC’s and Siluria CL’s.
Incorrect: Admech list allows Dictator. If you allow the admech ship, most people will take Dictator. (If they're really lucky it will come with FDT)
- For reasons not worth ruminating over here, we will NOT be adding anything from Forgeworld’s Badab war fleet list to this project unless Bob or Ray specifically want to address the issue, nor will we as HA’s be addressing anything published in IA10. As far as we are concerned, it’s all official as-is if GW says it is. If Forgeworld actually comes out with any models to support these new rules, I will be quite happy and might even buy some.
So taking the Nicor will be perfectly acceptable in Bakka, as a reserve ship, if SM are allowed as reserves. Nate, while I love to see big, indestructible hunks of metal blast my foes to ash, that seems... a bit OP.
-
- FDT’s seem to be causing the most hate so they are gone. They are NOT being replaced with a different odd, used-nowhere-else mechanic such as turrets that hit on 3+. However, something far simpler is acceptable, such as all Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points. Thoughts?
+5 should be enough.
- The 1.1 Bakka list (not yet posted) already has the Vanquisher for 300 points. This is as low as its going so arguments to drop the price further are moot. No, it’s not getting a speed boost.
- As I demonstrated using the Smotherman Rules everyone is so fond of, the Victory for its firepower is about equivalent to a Retribution, with a stronger prow compensated by weaker dorsals. Making this ship cheaper than a Retribution guarantees the Ret will never be used. As was pointed out recently, the Victory has several advantages over the Apocalypse, which is only 10 points cheaper. Speaking of which, I know everyone wants this ship to be 15cm because they want the Nova Cannon to be used as a stand-off weapon, but 20cm isn’t a handicap when used on cruisers. Again, the intent is to make this ship a Ret analogue. If the ship is still too confused or misguided for your tastes, don’t use it.
Why not just swap the speed of the Vanquisher and Victory? Granted the later is a Ret analogue and I have no problems really with it but seems more logical and I most likely will take it with the torp version anyway.
- I don't mind giving the Mercury a torps option, but I will have to pass this by Bob. On that note, the Mercury is like the Overlord in that it is not an ideal gunship BC. Imperials don’t get an ideal gunship BC. Play Chaos if that’s what you want. Period.
Chaos doesn't have an ideal gunship BC.
- I do NOT believe battleships should be 1:2, as battleships are still rare and precious assets throughout the Imperium. However, 1:1 for battlecruisers isn’t entirely unacceptable, again thanks to Bakka’s proximity. Thoughts?
1BC:1 Regular cruiser is fine.
- The Mars BC will NOT be deleted for exactly the same reason why the Defiant SHOULD be so. AC are supposed to be rare for this fleet, NOT absent. The Mars is the most expensive 4LB carrier in the whole game if you don’t count the one-off Ork battleships. Nobody will be using these to fluff out a fleet. Even if battlecruisers are made 1:1, the best cruiser ratio you can get is 4 launch bays per 360 points, assuming a fleet made up entirely of Dominion BC’s and Siluria CL’s.
Dictator's would be better then.
-
- FDT’s seem to be causing the most hate so they are gone. They are NOT being replaced with a different odd, used-nowhere-else mechanic such as turrets that hit on 3+. However, something far simpler is acceptable, such as all Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points. Thoughts?
+5 would be better. +5 for escorts min. imo. writing up some sample bakka lists (2k) i'd spend abou 50 on FDT's, though they'd have about 10 cap ships. 5pnts happens to be the smotherman value.
- The 1.1 Bakka list (not yet posted) already has the Vanquisher for 300 points. This is as low as its going so arguments to drop the price further are moot. No, it’s not getting a speed boost.
Rockin'!
- The Dominion- has anybody actually playtested this against Eldar? I have- I own one but NEVER thought of making this official! It’s advertised as a pirate hunter, but its 260 points worth of strawberry jam against Eldar.
horizon brought it up. I seconded. our groups each use MMS.... its pure gold.
- I do NOT believe battleships should be 1:2, as battleships are still rare and precious assets throughout the Imperium. However, 1:1 for battlecruisers isn’t entirely unacceptable, again thanks to Bakka’s proximity. Thoughts?
really? you want AC lite, but now half of the CB's are carriers, and your talking about making 1:1 CR/BC? that's practically as bad as the defiant you really don't want in the list.
- It has been suggested that the fleet gets one Space Marine strike cruiser as part of the primary fleet list due to its strong affinity toward Maccrage and the Ultramarines (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
cute. leave it for when someone makes a kar duniash or IN ultramar sector fleet. too much AC in marines... or so i hear. Never played em. but thats my two cents. (pence? wtf is a pence?)
- Due to the proximity to the Bakka Forge World, it has been suggested that the fleet gets one Adeptus Mechanicus ship as part of the primary fleet list (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
sounds cool. extra turrets, extra lance. nifty refits. is it ANY ship or any ship within fleet restrictions (ie no mech. arc when you already got a BB). dictator though?
- As I demonstrated using the Smotherman Rules everyone is so fond of, the Victory for its firepower is about equivalent to a Retribution, with a stronger prow compensated by weaker dorsals. Making this ship cheaper than a Retribution guarantees the Ret will never be used. As was pointed out recently, the Victory has several advantages over the Apocalypse, which is only 10 points cheaper. Speaking of which, I know everyone wants this ship to be 15cm because they want the Nova Cannon to be used as a stand-off weapon, but 20cm isn’t a handicap when used on cruisers. Again, the intent is to make this ship a Ret analogue. If the ship is still too confused or misguided for your tastes, don’t use it.
its still a sweet ship as is. 345 or 335 is fine with me. 20cm is rad. lets me turn that NC around when under fire.
other notes:
jovian. meh. no prow weapons. for its hardpoints it shoulda had 8lb. i'd never of used it.
I'm still behind the enforcer with only fighters. though its probably the same argument as the defiant. oh well.
the 'geddon is an excellent gunship. (esp here if i can buy it an extra turret).
okay. keep the Mercury as is. just put in some dauntless' to fly around with it. otherwise it's only got escorts that can keep up with it... oh and sularias (redundant as both are WB). torps are cool, i dig.
-
-All Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points.
How about +5 for escorts, +10 for cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships instead?
-There seems to be some massive, vitriolic, almost prepubescent hate for the Jovian. Only one ship can ever be used in an entire fleet, it can only be used by Bakka, and yet people still absolutely HATE it. Okay, it’s gone, but what gives? Really?
Because that one vessel will ALWAYS be taken. Between having the incredibly rare Emperor, a more expensive Mars (which has less LB's anyway), and no Dictator or Defiant means the only good way to get LB's will be the Jovian. And for a fleet who is supposed to be intentionally lacking in attack craft, 6 LB's on a Jovian really picks up the slack for the average player who wants an average of 8 in his fleet.
- The Dominion
Can someone send me the stats to this ship please?
-Allowing all Bakka ships to have Nova Cannons is insane. Period. It’s bad enough the fleet list already makes them pretty common. Were it up to me, Dominators would NOT be part of the fleet list, but only an idiot would suggest that Dominators (which originate from relatively nearby Kar Durniash) would not be a primary ship in a Bakka fleet list when the farther-away Gothic fleet list counts them as primary ships.
Why not create an "alternate" profile for the Dominator that has torps instead of NC's for 170 pts?
-I don't mind giving the Mercury a torps option. On that note, the Mercury is like the Overlord in that it is not an ideal gunship BC. Imperials don’t get an ideal gunship BC.
Actually I think the Armageddon is friggin awesome and most certainly fits the definition of an ideal BC. I just noticed the fleet list reduced the cost of the Armageddon. So why exactly would someone spend 20 (or 35!?) extra points for a ship that explodes violently and has comparable firepower? Not to mention, the BB engines fluff wise doesn't make any sense. I thought the Imperium had lost the tech to build new BB's? So why would they waste BB engines on a cruiser hull?
-Since this fleet is supposed to be AC-light, Defiants are absolutely, positively OUT. I know some people reading this have either min-maxed fleets at least once or played against people who have. Admiral Rath, three Defiants and an Emperor is NOT what I call a Bakka fleet. Period.
Actually, Defiants absolutely positively DO fit the definition of having AC-light fleets! There are ways of restricting the use of Defiants so the above example does not happen. Like, taking them 1:2 with other cruisers and battlecruisers in the Bakka fleet. If you want AC-light fleets, then you have to have ships with little (2!) LB's. And if the player wants a lot of Defiants, then he has a lot of vulnerable ships on the table!
-Due to the proximity to the Bakka Forge World, it has been suggested that the fleet gets one Adeptus Mechanicus ship as part of the primary fleet list (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
Emperor, Dictator, and Defiant could be a problem. Otherwise, I think it's totally reasonable!
-It has been suggested that the fleet gets one Space Marine strike cruiser as part of the primary fleet list due to its strong affinity toward Maccrage and the Ultramarines (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
Agreed! Like this idea! Though I potentially see the problem of having Bakka fleets with it's one cruiser just sending it out as bait (to soak up fire) and looking for someone to board. If you force Bakka to take the Strike Cruiser with the additional Bombardment Cannons instead of the T'Hawks that may keep the theme of the fleet going.
-I do NOT believe battleships should be 1:2, as battleships are still rare and precious assets throughout the Imperium. However, 1:1 for battlecruisers isn’t entirely unacceptable, again thanks to Bakka’s proximity. Thoughts?
I think it's necessary to give more credence to a firepower fleet. A lot of Armageddon's and Lunar's running around would be scary me thinks....
-The Mars BC will NOT be deleted for exactly the same reason why the Defiant SHOULD be so. AC are supposed to be rare for this fleet, NOT absent. The Mars is the most expensive 4LB carrier in the whole game if you don’t count the one-off Ork battleships. Nobody will be using these to fluff out a fleet. Even if battlecruisers are made 1:1, the best cruiser ratio you can get is 4 launch bays per 360 points, assuming a fleet made up entirely of Dominion BC’s and Siluria CL’s.
Which equals to a total of 16 LB's in a 1500 pt fleet (360x4+50 pt fleet commander=1490)! That could be a problem...
-Nor will we as HA’s be addressing anything published in IA10. As far as we are concerned, it’s all official as-is if GW says it is.
:o ??? >:( :'(
-Zhukov
-
- FDT’s seem to be causing the most hate so they are gone. They are NOT being replaced with a different odd, used-nowhere-else mechanic such as turrets that hit on 3+. However, something far simpler is acceptable, such as all Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points. Thoughts?
Well, the FDT was a different off, used-one-place-else mechanic, so I don't see why it would be problematic to do that here unless your hands are tied by GW but since you won't entertain the thought I guess the turret increase would do.
I think it should be an automatic +1 turret for all ships in the list with a +5 point cost increase already added to the ships and the option to take a second turret for +10 points.
Despite the added turrets, bakka is still going to have problems with ordnance unless they have a good cheap decently armored torpedo boat like the falchion to intercept torpedoes with small salvos. This will be a serious issue against Tau who can easily synergy alpha strike and negate most of the turret effect. The only way around this would be to let them shoot at any ordnance rather than being force to choose between AC and torpedoes but you don't seem to be willing to try that since it would make a new mechanic.
- The 1.1 Bakka list (not yet posted) already has the Vanquisher for 300 points. This is as low as its going so arguments to drop the price further are moot. No, it’s not getting a speed boost.
Is there anything that you would be willing to change to give it some benefit over just taking a victory? The profiles are just too similar and there isn't a scenario reason to ever use this ship.
- Allowing all Bakka ships to have Nova Cannons is insane. Period. It’s bad enough the fleet list already makes them pretty common. Were it up to me, Dominators would NOT be part of the fleet list, but only an idiot would suggest that Dominators (which originate from relatively nearby Kar Durniash) would not be a primary ship in a Bakka fleet list when the farther-away Gothic fleet list counts them as primary ships.
Ok, then if the dominator has to stay, remove the option for all other ships outside the mars to take a NC. Fluff reason is that all available NC went on the dominators.
- I don't mind giving the Mercury a torps option, but I will have to pass this by Bob. On that note, the Mercury is like the Overlord in that it is not an ideal gunship BC. Imperials don’t get an ideal gunship BC. Play Chaos if that’s what you want. Period.
Torpedo option is needed for this ship. It's not so much that I'd like to see an ideal gunship as something to make the super explosiveness make sense. If you do a direct comparison to the Overlord they both have exactly the same 60cm WB capabilities for about the same points with the overlord's targeting array. There is no logical reason why the Mercury would NEED the battleship size powerplant to power the weapons when the overlord already has the ability to use weapons that powerful WITHOUT the powerplant.
25cm speed isn't enough of a reason to have a glorified fireship. Increase battery strength, an extra lance or two, anything to justify why this ship needs the powerplant and therefore the risk of exploding is sorely needed to make this ship work. Anything else and people will just reserve in an overlord.
- Since this fleet is supposed to be AC-light, Defiants are absolutely, positively OUT. I know some people reading this have either min-maxed fleets at least once or played against people who have. Admiral Rath, three Defiants and an Emperor is NOT what I call a Bakka fleet. Period.
I highly doubt you'd ever see that taken. It's just a crap fleet. I suggested defiants because they are the crappiest carrier available to the IN and have the lowest LB numbers. People can try taking them but it's going to hurt them more in the long run. By way of example, how hard is it to force a 1 shield strike cruiser to brace and they have 6+ armor? Now ask the same question about the defiant. Once braced your AC evaporates and with it any offensive punch you might have had. Most people would rather reserve in a dictator than take one of the defiants. Not to mention they already have prescedent for being limited to at least 1 per 500 points or if you wanted 1 per 750 to so increased rarity. Much better than leaving the mars in.
- Due to the proximity to the Bakka Forge World, it has been suggested that the fleet gets one Adeptus Mechanicus ship as part of the primary fleet list (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
Very bad. A mechanicus dictator will always be taken for AC and turrets. You want AC light not easy access.
- It has been suggested that the fleet gets one Space Marine strike cruiser as part of the primary fleet list due to its strong affinity toward Maccrage and the Ultramarines (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
Also bad and unnecessary with the Marine Dominion list that better represents IN with a strong affinity to Marines.
- I do NOT believe battleships should be 1:2, as battleships are still rare and precious assets throughout the Imperium. However, 1:1 for battlecruisers isn’t entirely unacceptable, again thanks to Bakka’s proximity. Thoughts?
1:1 will work alright if the Mars goes away. A siluria + mars done twice ends up leaving you plenty of space for more cruisers, escorts, and battleships.
-
Hi everyone! There’s a LOT to respond to here so I will make my first fast-pass post in reply to this one. Everyone else does deserve replies as well, but some of these posts are actually conflicting (some say keep a ship because it’s great, others say get rid of it). That doesn’t make the arguments bad, but I will see how the discussion plays out and make adjustments accordingly. PS: “with a vengeance†means nothing to me. You either like it or you don’t. If your argument is rational, let’s talk about it.
Oh sorry about that. Forgot to delete that statement. Note nothing was in teal.
- FDT’s seem to be causing the most hate so they are gone. They are NOT being replaced with a different odd, used-nowhere-else mechanic such as turrets that hit on 3+. However, something far simpler is acceptable, such as all Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points. Thoughts?
I think it should be +5, the relative low cost of the turret is reasonable considering that they would have low ordinance. Besides, 10 point turret upgrades are too much for most people to consider on a regular basis. Most players would go without if they were so expensive.
- The 1.1 Bakka list (not yet posted) already has the Vanquisher for 300 points. This is as low as its going so arguments to drop the price further are moot. No, it’s not getting a speed boost.
Nice. Why not? It had it in BFGm?
- There seems to be some massive, vitriolic, almost prepubescent hate for the Jovian. Only one ship can ever be used in an entire fleet, it can only be used by Bakka, and yet people still absolutely HATE it. Okay, it’s gone, but what gives? Really?
I think it's a combination of things. Its already a detested idea by a small group, and putting it in the fleet which has fluff contrary to using LB ships is just suicide on its part.
- The Dominion- has anybody actually playtested this against Eldar? I have- I own one but NEVER thought of making this official! It’s advertised as a pirate hunter, but its 260 points worth of strawberry jam against Eldar. We can put this in the Jovian’s place since so many people want it, but in my opinion it really is rubbish. By the way, strawberry jam goes great in ham sandwiches (sorry, couldn’t help it :) )
Yeah, I don't get the pirate hunting idea. Then again most pirates aren't eldar? Having lances against Ork pirates is golden. I don't think it's rubbish. Sig went on a rant about it, saying that it should be 255. I think it's decent, and will build one for my IN fleet that I've just started (Go Tartanus!)
- Allowing all Bakka ships to have Nova Cannons is insane. Period. It’s bad enough the fleet list already makes them pretty common. Were it up to me, Dominators would NOT be part of the fleet list, but only an idiot would suggest that Dominators (which originate from relatively nearby Kar Durniash) would not be a primary ship in a Bakka fleet list when the farther-away Gothic fleet list counts them as primary ships.
Nate.... The Gothic sector only had one Dominator in the fluff. The reason that it allows multiples is because the game designers didn't want to force fluff so hard on the fleet lists. The Gothic sector doesn't say 0-2 Emperors... 0-20 lunars, 0-6 Tyrants etc.
- I don't mind giving the Mercury a torps option, but I will have to pass this by Bob. On that note, the Mercury is like the Overlord in that it is not an ideal gunship BC. Imperials don’t get an ideal gunship BC. Play Chaos if that’s what you want. Period.
I agree. Although most feel that a different ship build could suit a similar role and be more appealing to players. Look at the Ignus build, all you have to do to make it 'feel' like a fast BC is give it Improved Thrusters.
- Since this fleet is supposed to be AC-light, Defiants are absolutely, positively OUT. I know some people reading this have either min-maxed fleets at least once or played against people who have. Admiral Rath, three Defiants and an Emperor is NOT what I call a Bakka fleet. Period.
Yes.
- This is not a “Segmentum†fleet list, it is a Bakka Sector fleet list just like the Gothic Sector or Armageddon Sector fleet lists. It just so happens that Bakka is the Segmentum Fortress for Segmentum Tempestus. I imagine that as Voss is pretty close to Armageddon but rather far from Terra (not to mention Terra’s immediate proximity to Mars), a Battlefleet Solar fleet list has only a passing resemblance to that of Battlefleet Armageddon, though both are within Segmentum Solar. This is only an observation and not anything that actually needs to be disputed or debated over.
True.
- Due to the proximity to the Bakka Forge World, it has been suggested that the fleet gets one Adeptus Mechanicus ship as part of the primary fleet list (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
I really do love this idea. It makes the list much more interesting than it would be without.
- It has been suggested that the fleet gets one Space Marine strike cruiser as part of the primary fleet list due to its strong affinity toward Maccrage and the Ultramarines (the rest still count as reserves). Thoughts?
No. That was one little war for the fleet. The Gothic sector doesn't get access to Eldar ships because they worked together once. Reserves works fine for this.
- I do NOT believe battleships should be 1:2, as battleships are still rare and precious assets throughout the Imperium. However, 1:1 for battlecruisers isn’t entirely unacceptable, again thanks to Bakka’s proximity. Thoughts?
I agree. Battleships are a rare commodity. In most references in the fluff (that you partially writ :)) battlecruisers are considered the real 'fighting' ship within the IN. If the IN wants to win a battle, they send in BCs, BBs are rare and valued, and hard to maintain so they wouldn't see combat like the BCs do.
- The Mars BC will NOT be deleted for exactly the same reason why the Defiant SHOULD be so. AC are supposed to be rare for this fleet, NOT absent. The Mars is the most expensive 4LB carrier in the whole game if you don’t count the one-off Ork battleships. Nobody will be using these to fluff out a fleet. Even if battlecruisers are made 1:1, the best cruiser ratio you can get is 4 launch bays per 360 points, assuming a fleet made up entirely of Dominion BC’s and Siluria CL’s.
I agree.
-
Oh, no thoughts on the Siluria@4hits? A lot of people like this idea.... I'll start up a new list here soon.
-
Nate,
it is the Dominion from the book of nemesis. I'll dig the stats later (or someone else).
-
Nate,
it is the Dominion from the book of nemesis. I'll dig the stats later (or someone else).
Ugh...
Cruiser Stats but with 3 turrets
2P/S launch bays
2P/S lances @45cm
2 Dorsal lance @45cm
6 prow torps.
I was thinking about it, and it would be kinda cool to put in a Firedagger escort. With 15cm wbs that hit ordinance on a 4+. Call them 'flak' batteries or something. Kind of a compromise between the two sides. Maybe even a mix of 15&30cm batteries, and the ship has the 'old' shadowhunter special rule.
-
There seems to be some massive, vitriolic, almost prepubescent hate for the Jovian. Only one ship can ever be used in an entire fleet, it can only be used by Bakka, and yet people still absolutely HATE it. Okay, it’s gone, but what gives? Really?
Just for the record: I don't have any problems with the Jovian. I don't think its overpowered or "theme breaking". Asuming that every regular IN fleet would have at least a Emperor and a Mars or dictator (for a total of 12 AC), a Jovian/Mars in a Bakka list will still have less AC. And at all the Jovian is a good bit overpriced, so I really don't see the problem.
I won't remove it: it''s a nice ship with a nice background and you did the work already. If people think that they'll see it in every list, simply make it more expensive. Say 280 Points. This way it is less attractive and if you desperatly want it, be it for style reasons or to add some more ACs, then you have to pay...and, 20 points isn't such a big deal..
Which equals to a total of 16 LB's in a 1500 pt fleet (360x4+50 pt fleet commander=1490)! That could be a problem
Can't really imagine that anyone plays that... and compared to a "hangar-maximised" Solar or Gothic fleet it is still less: a Gotic list can have up to 4 Dictators and 2 Mars in 1500 Points for a total of 24 AC - so a Bakka fleet is at 2/3...seem fine..
Number of BCs/BBs
OK, BCs 1:1 and BBs on the regular 3:1 rate seems fine, to me, but the problem why I wanted to lower limits on BBs stays: The Vanquisher is so underperforming that I can't see anybody using a "slot" for it.
So another suggestion: what do you think about allowing one (1) Vanquisher per full xxxx Points (maybe 1500) to be taken without the usual restrictions?
+1 turrets
I suggest 15 or 20 Points per Escort Squadron - it encourages player to take larger Squadrons, what is IMO a good thing.
Cruisers should pay 5 points, and BBs 10 Points.
Simply because 2 or three turrets isn't such a great improvment, but the step from 4 to 5 turrets is...
-
2-3 turrets is a MASSIVE improvement. It cuts the expected damage from bombers by 40%, even without factoring in the additional casualties!
- Since this fleet is supposed to be AC-light, Defiants are absolutely, positively OUT. I know some people reading this have either min-maxed fleets at least once or played against people who have. Admiral Rath, three Defiants and an Emperor is NOT what I call a Bakka fleet. Period.
But nobody would take that list. Yes, it does have the potential for 14AC, but only the 8 that the Emperor has are actually any use offensively, getting more than double the attack runs of all the Defiants put together. Even with all the defiants squadroned and in base contact, they don't match the Emperor for offensive power, and gain quite a few significant downsides as well.
A standard list would demolish Emperor&3 Defiants! For that cost I could get a Retribution (Immune to bombers), and 3 Lunars. There can't possibly be any dispute over which would win.
Two Defiants aren't worth one Dictator, and they cost more. I can't think of anyone who would rather have the Defiants than a Dictator or Mars. The only reason you could possibly have for taking a Defiant is if you otherwise would have no AC - the exact situation in bakka. That's why Bakka is the natural home of the Defiant.
-
Just for the record: I don't have any problems with the Jovian. I don't think its overpowered or "theme breaking". Asuming that every regular IN fleet would have at least a Emperor and a Mars or dictator (for a total of 12 AC), a Jovian/Mars in a Bakka list will still have less AC. And at all the Jovian is a good bit overpriced, so I really don't see the problem. s...
Try Emperor and Jovian instead of Jovian and Mars. Even then an Emperor (365)+Mars (275) for a total of 640 points is much more expensive than Emperor (365)+Jovian (260) for a total of 625 points, even if one must take Rath (just figure him as you want to take the highest fleet commander you can).
-
On the Mercury:
There's not enough difference between it and the Overlord. It doesn't outgun the Overlord, the nova cannon is meh, and the +5cm speed isn't excuse enough for it going boom so much. If it had an extra shield as well, that would be a strong reason for giving it a BB power plant.
Anyway, if battleship power plants are rare, why are you putting them in a cruiser?
On the battleships:
Note that the Retribution is not a good ship, and benchmarking other ships against it just make them rubbish as well. For gunships you should be benchmarking against the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse has 60WBe@60cm, not counting prow, and the handicap has been nerfed so much it doesn't matter. The Retribution has just 37.5 in the same slots. On top of that, you say a NC is worth more than 9 torps (I don't agree, but whatever). By any standards the Retribution is comically undergunned. The Victory joins it in its mediocrity.
The Vanquisher for 300pts is actually pretty cool, and at least has properly powered broadsides even if it isn't strong on top/prow. Still needs 20cm though, and you haven't explained why that's been nerfed from its BFMg stats.
-
- FDT’s seem to be causing the most hate so they are gone. They are NOT being replaced with a different odd, used-nowhere-else mechanic such as turrets that hit on 3+. However, something far simpler is acceptable, such as all Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points. Thoughts?
Perfect.
- The 1.1 Bakka list (not yet posted) already has the Vanquisher for 300 points. This is as low as its going so arguments to drop the price further are moot. No, it’s not getting a speed boost.
Happy with this.
- As I demonstrated using the Smotherman Rules everyone is so fond of, the Victory for its firepower is about equivalent to a Retribution, with a stronger prow compensated by weaker dorsals. Making this ship cheaper than a Retribution guarantees the Ret will never be used. As was pointed out recently, the Victory has several advantages over the Apocalypse, which is only 10 points cheaper. Speaking of which, I know everyone wants this ship to be 15cm because they want the Nova Cannon to be used as a stand-off weapon, but 20cm isn’t a handicap when used on cruisers. Again, the intent is to make this ship a Ret analogue. If the ship is still too confused or misguided for your tastes, don’t use it.
Ok, bit of discussion here. Let's first consider the torp version vs a Retribution. They have the same profile and prow weaponry. The broadside weaponry is equivalent up to 30cm, with the advantage going to the Victory above 30cm. This advantage makes the Victory more likely to be used as a stand-off ship. This is again true given that as a line-breaker you've got a good chance to pass within 15cm of the enemy, making the WB of the Retribution a better choice. So the Vic is a stand-off ship, the Ret a line-breaker. Each ship has wasted stats for their role, however the Ret paying for range it doesn't use is nowhere near as bad as the Vic paying for prow armour, torps and speed it doesn't use.
Throw on top of this that the Retribution actually has the same total stand-off firepower and superior line-breaking firepower (due to the weak dorsal weaponry of the Vic) then we have a ship that is flat out superior in all regards. So the Retribution, a conflicted ship with subpar weaponry, is superior to Victory in all roles. The Ret should be 18WB@45cmL+R for 355 pts and this is what we should be balancing the Victory against.
Comparing the NC Vic to an Apocalypse we have a ship with weaker broadsides and faster speed, which is crap on a stand-off ship. So I fail to understand how this is a favourable comparison for the Vic. If you're talking about the consistency issue of the Apocalypse, well it does suck, but not the penalty for shooting over 45cm (which isn't even a real penalty) rather the fact you've got to pass your LO. This rule for the Apocalypse should be changed. It should be 60cm range but if you fire over 30cm put a BM in contact (thus reducing shield strength and speed, but providing consistency at range).
So, if the Apocalypse only manages to successfully LO 2 out of every 3 turns, and so in the turns that it fails to LO it has no target to shoot at, then that means that the Apocalypse and the Victory would both have the same total firepower (more concentration on the Apoc though, which is better). So the Victory would be able to compare equally to a broken ship? Yay.
Now let's compare it to a proper Oberon (ie, 60cm range, 355 pts). The Oberon puts out equal stand-off firepower at same range, has +1 turret and leadership, doesn't move too fast and gives 4AC. Er.
Now compare it to the Desolator. It's the same, but trades speed for prow armour. The Desolator is 300 pts.
Summary: The Victory compares slightly unfavourably to what are pretty weak Imperial battleships. If they were fixed it would compare terribly. A fixed Ret, Apoc or Oberon would be far far better. A Desolator is far better. It is owned by the current crappy Retribution.
Fix: Up its dorsal weaponry to 9 (the Apoc should get this too).
- The Dominion- has anybody actually playtested this against Eldar? I have- I own one but NEVER thought of making this official! It’s advertised as a pirate hunter, but its 260 points worth of strawberry jam against Eldar. We can put this in the Jovian’s place since so many people want it, but in my opinion it really is rubbish. By the way, strawberry jam goes great in ham sandwiches (sorry, couldn’t help it :) )
Well, yes, if the pirates you're hunting are Eldar then this isn't the ship for you. If they're escorts from any other race on the other hand ...
- Allowing all Bakka ships to have Nova Cannons is insane. Period. It’s bad enough the fleet list already makes them pretty common. Were it up to me, Dominators would NOT be part of the fleet list, but only an idiot would suggest that Dominators (which originate from relatively nearby Kar Durniash) would not be a primary ship in a Bakka fleet list when the farther-away Gothic fleet list counts them as primary ships.
I don't think it's insane, but it would be inconsistent with the view that they're overpowered, cheesy or rare so I agree.
- I don't mind giving the Mercury a torps option, but I will have to pass this by Bob. On that note, the Mercury is like the Overlord in that it is not an ideal gunship BC. Imperials don’t get an ideal gunship BC. Play Chaos if that’s what you want. Period.
Torps would be more sensible, though the ship is still waaaaaay over-priced and only fills a very particular niche of people that like stupid ships. Oh, and as for pure gunships CBs, well, firstly, surely this would be the list to create one since it's meant to be a gunfleet. Secondly the Armageddon is pretty damn close to a pure gunship, as close as IN get anyway. Thirdly, well even Chaos don't have a pure gunship. Give me a Carnage with 2 dorsal lances at 60cm range LFR for 210 pts and I'll agree.
- Endeavor and variants are NOT getting 90deg turns AND 6+ armor. One OR the other. Argument ends.
It's strange that you say this, as there is no fluff, balance or logistic reason why they shouldn't, and there is fluff, balance and logistic reasons why they should. You position is untenable and smacks of pouting. Care to explain why they shouldn't get both?
-
- FDT’s seem to be causing the most hate so they are gone. They are NOT being replaced with a different odd, used-nowhere-else mechanic such as turrets that hit on 3+. However, something far simpler is acceptable, such as all Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points. Thoughts?
Perfect.
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger. Doctor Smith here thinks it's perfect.
Let's stop and think about this for a second: this nerfs bombers, but does little about aboats. Bakka is the fleet that got it's teeth kicked in by nids and is looking hard for a way to fight them. Nids ONLY have aboats, not bombers. HOW IS THIS LOGICAL?
- I don't mind giving the Mercury a torps option, but I will have to pass this by Bob. On that note, the Mercury is like the Overlord in that it is not an ideal gunship BC. Imperials don’t get an ideal gunship BC. Play Chaos if that’s what you want. Period.
Torps would be more sensible, though the ship is still waaaaaay over-priced and only fills a very particular niche of people that like stupid ships.
If I get to take one to a tourney, and see you there, i will take great pleasure in melting your face with my 'stupid ships'.
- Endeavor and variants are NOT getting 90deg turns AND 6+ armor. One OR the other. Argument ends.
It's strange that you say this, as there is no fluff, balance or logistic reason why they shouldn't, and there is fluff, balance and logistic reasons why they should. You position is untenable and smacks of pouting. Care to explain why they shouldn't get both?
Because it flies in the face of newtonian physics? (not that other things don't anyway, but...) remember that +6 armor comes from staping millions of tonnes of metal to the box. The thrusters would have to work extra hard to turn her.
-
Turrets, well an extra turret is extra protection.
Endeacour 6+ prow.
well, a cl, Dauntless base. Flies 5cm slower. Gains 6+ prow.
/debate.
;)
-
Turrets, well an extra turret is extra protection.
"Where are the radiation protective suits?"
"We don't have any. The warehouse was out, so they sent us chemical protective suits instead."
"They might as well wear raincoats!"
Endeacour 6+ prow.
well, a cl, Dauntless base. Flies 5cm slower. Gains 6+ prow.
/debate.
;)
Because a CL dauntless still has a speed of 25cm and doesn't have a +6 prow as written in BFGm?
Personally, I think the Enforcer is the perfect answer to Bakka's CV dilemma. It's a carrier, but it's 25cm 90 degree turns. All it lacks is +6 prow armor. (And wth are you doing needing +6 prows on a carrier ANYWAY? Stop trying to use carriers as line ships...) and it's supposedly a Tempestus ship, so...
-
tssk, you're slipping.
Sigoroth adressed the Endeavour & friends.
Those have 20cm.
-
tssk, you're slipping.
Sigoroth adressed the Endeavour & friends.
Those have 20cm.
Sigoroth addresses the moon and calls it green cheese. Personally, I think the Voss ships need pulled entirely. Their presence breaks fluff.
-
The Moon is hollow, a starship or sumtin else ;)
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-directories/7-moon/moon-directory.htm
What fluff do they break?
-
3 turrets is 50% better than 2 turrets against all target types. The fact that it also cuts bomber attacks by 40% is a flaw of the bomber system, not Ordnance as a whole.
The space marines Strike Cruiser is precedent for CL with 6+ and 90'.
Your argument that adding mass to a CL makes it less maneouvrable might be a valid argument if we were arguing for 6+ prows as an upgrade, but we're actually of the opinion that that's what they should have had right from the start.
-
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger. Doctor Smith here thinks it's perfect.
Let's stop and think about this for a second: this nerfs bombers, but does little about aboats. Bakka is the fleet that got it's teeth kicked in by nids and is looking hard for a way to fight them. Nids ONLY have aboats, not bombers. HOW IS THIS LOGICAL?
An extra turret shooting at Aboats does little?
-
The Moon is hollow, a starship or sumtin else ;)
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-directories/7-moon/moon-directory.htm
What fluff do they break?
'like all Voss pattern ships, being unique to that forgeworld, it is not commonly distributed throughout fleets.'- Armada, pg 19. While some leeway might be made for Bastion fleets, being relatively nearby and having a high demand for anything spaceworthy and armed, Bakka is halfway across the galaxy, and at the same time they would actually have a demand for these ships, Voss is entirely given over to the 3rd Armageddon war as far as production goes.
An extra turret shooting at Aboats does little?
... in much the same way that firing three shots as opposed to two into an ork hoard does little. Stop and think: they're experience that changed their tune about carriers was against the Tyranids. Against aboat swarms, since fighters can suppress turrets for aboats the same as they do bombers, how effective will 1 extra turret be?
3 turrets is 50% better than 2 turrets against all target types. The fact that it also cuts bomber attacks by 40% is a flaw of the bomber system, not Ordnance as a whole.
So the fact it nerfs bombers even further, making it broken against every fleet but 'nids and SM is of no concern?
The space marines Strike Cruiser is precedent for CL with 6+ and 90'.
The SC is +6 all over. +6 in one location would put increased stress on the frame during tight maneuvers as well as pushing the limits of your thrusters. Look at hte mass of most other ships with +6 prows compared to the prow itself.
Your argument that adding mass to a CL makes it less maneouvrable might be a valid argument if we were arguing for 6+ prows as an upgrade, but we're actually of the opinion that that's what they should have had right from the start.
But they weren't, and never have been, so it's an upgrade.
-
Personally, I like the idea of giving the Voss CL stats to some Dauntless variants (so people can actually use them). BUT, you NEED TO CHANGE THE NAME!!!! It's NOT an Endeavor! It looks NOTHING like it. It only ACTS like it.
-Zhukov
-
There's a difference between Voss PATTERN and Endeavour CLASS.
Pattern is specific to a particular forge world. Pattern is what the ship looks like, the class refers to its functionality.
If a forge world produced a light cruiser with 6 hits, 1 shield, 20cm speed, 90' turns, armour 5+, 2 turrets, S2 broadside lances, FP2 L/F/R WBs and S2 forward torps, then that's an Endurance class regardless of what it looks like.
My Endeavour, Endurance, and Defiant class cruisers are not Voss Pattern. Interestingly, the ships depicted in the battlefleet Bakka fleet list aren't Voss pattern either.
-
Voss is entirely given over to the 3rd Armageddon war as far as production goes.
Are we sure about that? I mean that all of BFG falls under the realm of during the 3rd Armageddon war. With the retrofitting of all mars to use the targeting array and the ability to use upgrades on more than just the named ships I don't think we can assume that we are only referencing a particular galactic period so it's quite possible things have been exported or are just built as a different pattern elsewhere.
So the fact it nerfs bombers even further, making it broken against every fleet but 'nids and SM is of no concern?
We are running with few options here. With what Nate has said so far we are killing the FDT mechanic but aren't allowed to create a new mechanic. That limits us to adding more turrets to make up for the low AC. Unless his hands are tied by GW, I don't think that just adding more turrets is the best route for this since it's rather spotty in increasing the capabilities as a whole.
-
2-3 turrets is a MASSIVE improvement. It cuts the expected damage from bombers by 40%, even without factoring in the additional casualties!
This statement is nonsense. The Faktor how large damage is reduced depends on the wave size. The ordnonance system does not work in a linear way, so you can hardly make a useful statement about a single bomber.
Try Emperor and Jovian instead of Jovian and Mars. Even then an Emperor (365)+Mars (275) for a total of 640 points is much more expensive than Emperor (365)+Jovian (260) for a total of 625 points, even if one must take Rath (just figure him as you want to take the highest fleet commander you can).
You got it: i can't field an emperor with a jovian. I can only field an Emperor, Jovian and an overpriced Fleet commander nobody would ever use willingly because his LD10 is completly wasted on an Emperor. To be honest it's a bit like the flame of Asuryan and the Pirate prince.
And you forget the main point: if I want to spam AC in an Imperial fleet (don't know why anybody should do that) I don't use Bakka. It doesn't matter if there is a jovian or not in the list, a powergamer won't use the Bakka list as almost any other fleet has more AC as well as a more effective general setup.
-
There's a difference between Voss PATTERN and Endeavour CLASS.
Pattern is specific to a particular forge world. Pattern is what the ship looks like, the class refers to its functionality.
If a forge world produced a light cruiser with 6 hits, 1 shield, 20cm speed, 90' turns, armour 5+, 2 turrets, S2 broadside lances, FP2 L/F/R WBs and S2 forward torps, then that's an Endurance class regardless of what it looks like.
My Endeavour, Endurance, and Defiant class cruisers are not Voss Pattern. Interestingly, the ships depicted in the battlefleet Bakka fleet list aren't Voss pattern either.
Um, RC, all three Endeavour hull based ships are refereed to as the 'Voss triumvirate' in fluff, and the classes are actually NAMED after the motto on the 'Shield of Voss'. I think that would imply at least some connection between that forgeworld and these ships.
"Above all else, Battlefleet Armageddon and, in particular, Voss forgeworld, is known for their light cruisers. Not only are these vessals characterized by thier distinctive prow, but by the midships sheilding they employ, in the form of huge plates mounted either side of an unusually narrow corridor'. - Armada, pg 115.
So, have you given up your +1 against boarding or are they Voss ships? Somehow the idea that 'extra training' has given them a +1 bonus seems absurd, since it's the same bonus that orks and khornate berzerkers get.
Are we sure about that? I mean that all of BFG falls under the realm of during the 3rd Armageddon war. With the retrofitting of all mars to use the targeting array and the ability to use upgrades on more than just the named ships I don't think we can assume that we are only referencing a particular galactic period so it's quite possible things have been exported or are just built as a different pattern elsewhere.
Well, as far as Voss' production goes it says so on pg 17 of Armada.
The Gothic War itself takes place almost 1,000 years before present. 1st Tyrannic War, about 150ish.
As far as how many and when... not clear. The text for the Endeavour implies that ships that had been sent to other sectors were returned to Battlefleet Armageddon for the war. Bakka suffered it's near annihilation only about a century before at Circe, and we know approx how much of what got clear of that debacle, so there are none predating that incident. Since the lsit here is Bakka, thoguh wether pre- or post Circe is a good question. It's rather muddled by the presence of the Jovian (which could ony have come post) and the Dominus Astra (which was destroyed at Circe).
Arguably, there might have been a few examples from Voss pre-Circe that were destroyed, but getting them post 1st Tyrannic war is unlikely.
While, yes, we could drag out the Lord Daros example, that it only took 11 years to build it, I might also point out that the text talks about how remarkable this was that it was finished so quickly. It implies it's a record rather then the norm, and even producing at that rate, the battlefleet would only have produced 10-20 cruisers since, meaning they're probably still understrength, even if they produced at speeds rivaling the IN record holder.
We are running with few options here. With what Nate has said so far we are killing the FDT mechanic but aren't allowed to create a new mechanic. That limits us to adding more turrets to make up for the low AC. Unless his hands are tied by GW, I don't think that just adding more turrets is the best route for this since it's rather spotty in increasing the capabilities as a whole.
Well, I can say that my idea worked, it was not FDT enhanced as D'Art dismissively, and erroneously, called it, but We're up frak creek now, arn't we?
Nate: you know, it would be interesting to see what BFG is doing NOW as opposed to a thousand years ago. All these fleets aren't just scattered in distance but TIME. Only Armageddon seems to be a list from what is the 'present' of 40k.
-
As far as how many and when... not clear. The text for the Endeavour implies that ships that had been sent to other sectors were returned to Battlefleet Armageddon for the war. Bakka suffered it's near annihilation only about a century before at Circe, and we know approx how much of what got clear of that debacle, so there are none predating that incident. Since the lsit here is Bakka, thoguh wether pre- or post Circe is a good question. It's rather muddled by the presence of the Jovian (which could ony have come post) and the Dominus Astra (which was destroyed at Circe).
Arguably, there might have been a few examples from Voss pre-Circe that were destroyed, but getting them post 1st Tyrannic war is unlikely.
While, yes, we could drag out the Lord Daros example, that it only took 11 years to build it, I might also point out that the text talks about how remarkable this was that it was finished so quickly. It implies it's a record rather then the norm, and even producing at that rate, the battlefleet would only have produced 10-20 cruisers since, meaning they're probably still understrength, even if they produced at speeds rivaling the IN record holder.
Thinking about it a bit more, it's probably immaterial since the Siluria is available and it's a proto-endeavour for all intents and purposes. That gives some credence to the idea that a proto-defiant could exist there or that several were acquired before the Pro-carrier group lost sway. Regardless of how you fluff it though, I think the defiant is the best fit of the IN carriers to represent a fleet that dislikes carriers with its load out and precedent for being limited in a list already.
Rereading that section on the Lord Daros the remarkable fact was that it was built in such a primative place making it an example that the uncomplicated nature of the design allows it to be built practically anywhere, not that it only took 11 years to build it. The time it took isn't even connected in any substantial means to the remarkable nature of building it there in the first place. Even if the timespan was what was being referenced, you'd have to conclude that such a production rate was, at the least, standard for any shipyard and not abnormally short given conditions.
-
Rereading that section on the Lord Daros the remarkable fact was that it was built in such a primative place making it an example that the uncomplicated nature of the design allows it to be built practically anywhere, not that it only took 11 years to build it. The time it took isn't even connected in any substantial means to the remarkable nature of building it there in the first place. Even if the timespan was what was being referenced, you'd have to conclude that such a production rate was, at the least, standard for any shipyard and not abnormally short given conditions.
Eh, the Brutal Interdiction was a sword class built at Cypra Mundi and took four years to compete the final activation and checks of the ships systems, despite being for all intents and purposes finished. If, and admittedly this is based on an assumption, the ships construction was at the same scale as a modern ocean ships construction time, this means that Brutal Interdiction spent about 50 years on the slip.
Cruisers are bluntly stated in some fluff to take centuries or longer to finish, implying that the Lord Daros is far from the 'average' amount of time that it takes.
-
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger. Doctor Smith here thinks it's perfect.
Let me start first off by saying you, BI, are a fucktard.
Let's stop and think about this for a second: this nerfs bombers, but does little about aboats. Bakka is the fleet that got it's teeth kicked in by nids and is looking hard for a way to fight them. Nids ONLY have aboats, not bombers. HOW IS THIS LOGICAL?
Firstly, a-boats don't need nerfing. They're terribly weak already against cap ships and have been nerfed into the ground against escorts. Secondly, Bakka got mauled by ordnance, turrets shoot down ordnance, therefore more turrets. Perfectly logical reasoning. If you can't grasp that then there's no hope for you. Thirdly, what is attempted here is to make a low to zero AC fleet possible. Bombers are the biggest threat to your ships in-game. So if adding an extra turret to ships in a low AC fleet protects more against the dangerous bombers than the piss-weak a-boats then fine.
If I get to take one to a tourney, and see you there, i will take great pleasure in melting your face with my 'stupid ships'.
I wouldn't count on it.
Because it flies in the face of newtonian physics? (not that other things don't anyway, but...) remember that +6 armor comes from staping millions of tonnes of metal to the box. The thrusters would have to work extra hard to turn her.
Compare to a Lunar. Lunar more massive, yet has same turn rate and speed as the proposed swap. Compare to a Dauntless. Dauntless has increased turn rate and speed, but loses armour. The Voss triumvirate should straddle the line. They have Dauntless mass with line-cruiser armour, so they should have either 25cm/45° or 20cm/90° with the 6+ armour. The former makes them too fast for the rest of the line, the latter makes them able to redeploy to cover holes in the line faster, which would presumably be the point of the ship. Add to this the fact that they're all overpriced, then the addition of the armour with no other change would be a simple fix.
In short, this is not one ship adding armour and therefore losing something else, it is how the class should have been in the first place. If you want to think of it another way, consider that they had +5cm speed to match the Dauntless (25cm/90°/5+ prow) and then the armour can be added at a 'cost' of 5cm speed (20cm/90°/6+ prow).
-
Let me start first off by saying you, BI, are a fucktard.
My, such language.
Firstly, a-boats don't need nerfing. They're terribly weak already against cap ships and have been nerfed into the ground against escorts. Secondly, Bakka got mauled by ordnance, turrets shoot down ordnance, therefore more turrets. Perfectly logical reasoning. If you can't grasp that then there's no hope for you. Thirdly, what is attempted here is to make a low to zero AC fleet possible. Bombers are the biggest threat to your ships in-game. So if adding an extra turret to ships in a low AC fleet protects more against the dangerous bombers than the piss-weak a-boats then fine.
Sig, again, if anyone had bothered to read my post, my proposal didn't nerf one ordinance, or even one AC, over another. That said: Sig, 'nids only have aboats, fighters, and boarding torps. So, if they had bombers, I'm sure that would make sense. But they don't. In fact, they don't even have damage dealing torps.
And arn't you the one that sat around dissing this list anyway and insisting that it should just sink because it was unnecessary?
After having said that, why should anyone listen to you on what should be done with this fleet?
I wouldn't count on it.
Indeed
Compare to a Lunar. Lunar more massive, yet has same turn rate and speed as the proposed swap. Compare to a Dauntless. Dauntless has increased turn rate and speed, but loses armour. The Voss triumvirate should straddle the line. They have Dauntless mass with line-cruiser armour, so they should have either 25cm/45° or 20cm/90° with the 6+ armour. The former makes them too fast for the rest of the line, the latter makes them able to redeploy to cover holes in the line faster, which would presumably be the point of the ship. Add to this the fact that they're all overpriced, then the addition of the armour with no other change would be a simple fix.
In short, this is not one ship adding armour and therefore losing something else, it is how the class should have been in the first place. If you want to think of it another way, consider that they had +5cm speed to match the Dauntless (25cm/90°/5+ prow) and then the armour can be added at a 'cost' of 5cm speed (20cm/90°/6+ prow).
While 25cm speed is fine, the problem is that the prow now has more mass. To 'turn' a starship, the thrusters on that part of the ship have to fire, while the thrusters on the engine end of the ship fire in the other direction to turn it. The problem is putting more mass on the bow means that more force is required to accelerate it to turn the ship. Voss ships are, as the song says, 'little in the middle', therefor vulnerable to stresses on the center of the ship. More mass = more stress in a sudden turn.
It's not just the mass you're fighting to accelerate that much ship, it's the mass that you're fighting to 'turn' it.
-
Sig, again, if anyone had bothered to read my post, my proposal didn't nerf one ordinance, or even one AC, over another. That said: Sig, 'nids only have aboats, fighters, and boarding torps. So, if they had bombers, I'm sure that would make sense. But they don't. In fact, they don't even have damage dealing torps.
Seriously? You still don't get it? I'll try once more. Nids kicked their arses with AC. These were a-boats. How do the IN defend against AC (even a-boats)? Turrets or fighters. Fighters means carriers, they don't want carriers, that leaves turrets. So, fluff wise, how would they defend against AC? Turrets.
Now, let's move to game balance. This is not fluff. It's game rules now. Got that? Good. A-boats are weak (again, this is in-game) and no one needs a buff to their fleet to defend a gunfleet from a-boats. Normal gunships with no extra defence would do fine. So the fact that an extra turret doesn't do a hell of a lot against a-boats (-0.5 H&R attacks per wave) is neither here nor there. Mind you, it is extra protection. Anyway, the biggest worry for a zero AC fleet is enemy bombers. This is because unmolested bombers can do a lot of damage to 2 turret ships, which is what the majority of most fleets is made up of. Against 3 turret ships bombers become a lot less useful. So, in GAME terms, an extra turret will make the 0 AC fleet quite viable. In FLUFF terms increasing anti-ordnance defences because they got trashed by ordnance makes sense.
As for your "proposal" it was worse than FDTs in effect, though slightly more sensible in concept. As d'Artagnan said the FDS is more powerful in that it allows Eldar ordnance to be hit on a 4+ by what is, for all intents and purposes still a turret. As for the concept, I still have objections on the basis that it should require main-gun weaponry or at least resources to achieve this effect.
And arn't you the one that sat around dissing this list anyway and insisting that it should just sink because it was unnecessary?
After having said that, why should anyone listen to you on what should be done with this fleet?
Because what I say makes sense. And my biggest concern is the balance of other fleets. With the Jovian sealed to Bakka I was satisfied. With FDTs removed I was satisfied. Therefore I am no longer concerned about negative impacts on the game. The rest, such as prices for BBs, etc, are just balance issues. Since the ships concerned are all too weak then it doesn't really matter if they stay that way. Someone taking a Bakka fleet will simply be penalised. I don't see why that should stop me from giving analytical feedback though.
While 25cm speed is fine, the problem is that the prow now has more mass. To 'turn' a starship, the thrusters on that part of the ship have to fire, while the thrusters on the engine end of the ship fire in the other direction to turn it. The problem is putting more mass on the bow means that more force is required to accelerate it to turn the ship. Voss ships are, as the song says, 'little in the middle', therefor vulnerable to stresses on the center of the ship. More mass = more stress in a sudden turn.
It's not just the mass you're fighting to accelerate that much ship, it's the mass that you're fighting to 'turn' it.
Except the SC is 6+ all over and can turn 90°. The Voss CLs are all lighter than line-cruisers and so it isn't unreasonable to suggest that this loss of mass makes the ship easier to manoeuvre. As a light cruiser of the line it makes sense that they should be able to turn to fill holes. This would be the point of building the ship. A lighter armoured ship (Dauntless) can move faster. Compared to Chaos, the armoured prows of IN ships reduces speed. So as a Lunar is to a Murder (+armour -speed) so is an Endeavour to a Dauntless (+armour -speed).
-
An extra turret shooting at Aboats does little?
... in much the same way that firing three shots as opposed to two into an ork hoard does little. Stop and think: they're experience that changed their tune about carriers was against the Tyranids. Against aboat swarms, since fighters can suppress turrets for aboats the same as they do bombers, how effective will 1 extra turret be?
People have already pointed out that Aboats aren't as threatening as bombers. Orks are more dangerous in that they have Fighta Bommas. That 1 more turret will still be more effective than without it.
While 25cm speed is fine, the problem is that the prow now has more mass. To 'turn' a starship, the thrusters on that part of the ship have to fire, while the thrusters on the engine end of the ship fire in the other direction to turn it. The problem is putting more mass on the bow means that more force is required to accelerate it to turn the ship. Voss ships are, as the song says, 'little in the middle', therefor vulnerable to stresses on the center of the ship. More mass = more stress in a sudden turn.
It's not just the mass you're fighting to accelerate that much ship, it's the mass that you're fighting to 'turn' it.
Except the SC is 6+ all over and can turn 90°. The Voss CLs are all lighter than line-cruisers and so it isn't unreasonable to suggest that this loss of mass makes the ship easier to manoeuvre. As a light cruiser of the line it makes sense that they should be able to turn to fill holes. This would be the point of building the ship. A lighter armoured ship (Dauntless) can move faster. Compared to Chaos, the armoured prows of IN ships reduces speed. So as a Lunar is to a Murder (+armour -speed) so is an Endeavour to a Dauntless (+armour -speed).
Yup. Should be that way definitely (Spd 20cm,6+/5+ prow and 90' turns). I still can't understand what the issue is with Nate.
-
2-3 turrets is a MASSIVE improvement. It cuts the expected damage from bombers by 40%, even without factoring in the additional casualties!
This statement is nonsense. The Faktor how large damage is reduced depends on the wave size. The ordnonance system does not work in a linear way, so you can hardly make a useful statement about a single bomber.
No, he is pointing out that an additional turret means bombers both can be shot down and their number of attacks reduced because of the nature of bomber attack rules and its interaction with turrets. Whether singly or in a wave, the turrets will still reduce the number of attacks a bomber can generate.
Try Emperor and Jovian instead of Jovian and Mars. Even then an Emperor (365)+Mars (275) for a total of 640 points is much more expensive than Emperor (365)+Jovian (260) for a total of 625 points, even if one must take Rath (just figure him as you want to take the highest fleet commander you can).
You got it: i can't field an emperor with a jovian. I can only field an Emperor, Jovian and an overpriced Fleet commander nobody would ever use willingly because his LD10 is completly wasted on an Emperor. To be honest it's a bit like the flame of Asuryan and the Pirate prince.
And you forget the main point: if I want to spam AC in an Imperial fleet (don't know why anybody should do that) I don't use Bakka. It doesn't matter if there is a jovian or not in the list, a powergamer won't use the Bakka list as almost any other fleet has more AC as well as a more effective general setup.
The point was you were making comparisons about ships via points which I pointed out was a bit flawed since one can bring both an Emperor and a Jovian in a Bakka fleet. So let's say you don't want an Emperor and a Jovian. You can bring a Jovian and a Mars which can get you 10 LBs which is only 2 less than your Emperor+Mars combo and yet costs much less if you are comparing them in isolation to the other requirements. That's how effective a Jovian is. While Bakka may not be a good example for an IN AC spamming fleet, it is still viable especially in games of 1500 points level where we mostly play at.
As for Rath being overpriced and would not be used willingly, "Lord Admiral Rath is Ld-10 and comes with two re-rolls as part of his point cost. His crew is honored and inspired by the great man’s presence and will fight with great courage and pride; they add +1 to their roll when defending against boarding actions. Respect for him extends to the forge world of Bakka itself, and his flagship receives one ship refit and weapon refit (rolled randomly) as part of his point cost."
Those 3 items in bold would cost more than 50 points. So while his Ld might be wasted on an Emperor, the other stuff he brings are not, especially the second built in re-roll and ship and engine refits.
I would WILLINGLY take Rath in an Emperor.
-
As for Rath being overpriced and would not be used willingly, "Lord Admiral Rath is Ld-10 and comes with two re-rolls as part of his point cost. His crew is honored and inspired by the great man’s presence and will fight with great courage and pride; they add +1 to their roll when defending against boarding actions. Respect for him extends to the forge world of Bakka itself, and his flagship receives one ship refit and weapon refit (rolled randomly) as part of his point cost."
Those 3 items in bold would cost more than 50 points. So while his Ld might be wasted on an Emperor, the other stuff he brings are not, especially the second built in re-roll and ship and engine refits.
I would WILLINGLY take Rath in an Emperor.
Eh, it depends. If you took a Ld 9 Admiral (100 pts) +1 RR (+25 ps) and 2 refits (+73 pts) this gives a total of 198 pts and is equivalent to Rath when on an Emperor. I would take a Fleet Admiral though and depend upon enemy being on orders to push his Ld to 10, saving 50 pts. So according to this Rath is at least 2 points overpriced (which could make a difference given that you're using refits - either in a campaign or by agreement). He is more likely 52 pts overpriced, since you'd not usually even bother with the Ld 9 admiral.
However, where Rath comes into his own is when you're playing a one-off game without normal access to refits. Then you can get something you'd normally not be able to. This is even more valuable on a different BB, where his Ld 10 will come fully into play (not that this was the point of the discussion, since we were specifically talking about the Emperor).
-
1st as pointed out: voss cl's with 20cm move and prows *should* have 90* turns. and DO in FS. (is anyone other than BI gonna take bakka to a tourny? i'm not). in free fall (space) it matters less the mass of the object in respect to the force required to move it.
nids have aboats. extra turrets 86 bombers from being deadly. bakka was ripped apart by aboats. this seems fluffy to me. I like the idea of a free extra turret and a second at +10. i think that was RC or the Ad. good thoughts. though i still think aboats taking out weapons is the deadliest possibility to a gunship fleet. going from 2 ->3 turrets should 'protect' most CR's enough to throw them right into the storm of AC.
either FDT's back (meh...) or extra turrets for free/cheap (yea!). forces imperial phalanx movement with heavy gunships to provide B2B massing turrets ->good.
just cuz of the story in the beginning of the doc. people should stop comparing bakka ordy defense to Nid AC... nobody (sans tau maybe) can possibly counter bug AC... there is just too much of it.
FLUFF DOES NOT IMPLY CRAP.
already mentioned drop mars for defiant/enforcer.... won't continue on nates principle of 'not a good idea' despite my strongly disagreeing.
btw. I'd rather see rath on a fixed Ret!
-
Also, on the topic of Rath, notice that half the ship refits are useless or next to it (leadership bonuses or +1 repair dice ... yay). And crew skills are typically crap all round, with the only gem in there being the ships AC counting as Eldar-light (Eldar rules, except hit by turrets on a 4+). Elite command crew is ok, if you intend to AAF into an asteroid field. :o
-
Eh, it depends. If you took a Ld 9 Admiral (100 pts) +1 RR (+25 ps) and 2 refits (+73 pts) this gives a total of 198 pts and is equivalent to Rath when on an Emperor. I would take a Fleet Admiral though and depend upon enemy being on orders to push his Ld to 10, saving 50 pts. So according to this Rath is at least 2 points overpriced (which could make a difference given that you're using refits - either in a campaign or by agreement). He is more likely 52 pts overpriced, since you'd not usually even bother with the Ld 9 admiral.
However, where Rath comes into his own is when you're playing a one-off game without normal access to refits. Then you can get something you'd normally not be able to. This is even more valuable on a different BB, where his Ld 10 will come fully into play (not that this was the point of the discussion, since we were specifically talking about the Emperor).
Yup those points are correct though there would still be a difference in cost bet Ld 10 vs Ld9 and the the +1 to Boarding Roll when being boarded. My main point about Rath though is that even with his price, it does come with those perks and while he may be more effective on a ship without the +1 Modifier to Ld, I would still be willing to take him on an Emperor at that price and those perks.
-
Seriously? You still don't get it? I'll try once more. Nids kicked their arses with AC. These were a-boats. How do the IN defend against AC (even a-boats)? Turrets or fighters. Fighters means carriers, they don't want carriers, that leaves turrets. So, fluff wise, how would they defend against AC? Turrets.
Why, turrets didn't work the first time. This is why the FDT fluff made a degree of sense as it was an attempt to improve existing defenses rather then heap on more of the same. Remember that 'turrets' is a catch all for dozens of different weapons systems, basically an abstraction to make the game simpler. Logically, since the existing systems did little to help, they'd look into something new.
Now, let's move to game balance. This is not fluff. It's game rules now. Got that? Good. A-boats are weak (again, this is in-game) and no one needs a buff to their fleet to defend a gunfleet from a-boats. Normal gunships with no extra defence would do fine. So the fact that an extra turret doesn't do a hell of a lot against a-boats (-0.5 H&R attacks per wave) is neither here nor there. Mind you, it is extra protection. Anyway, the biggest worry for a zero AC fleet is enemy bombers. This is because unmolested bombers can do a lot of damage to 2 turret ships, which is what the majority of most fleets is made up of. Against 3 turret ships bombers become a lot less useful. So, in GAME terms, an extra turret will make the 0 AC fleet quite viable. In FLUFF terms increasing anti-ordnance defences because they got trashed by ordnance makes sense.
Maybe I'm missing something, but last I heard, one of the classic 'nid strategies was to use aboats and boarding torps to jack up your ships before using claws and feeder tendrils to eat them. Particularly with the ability to suppress turrets for aboats.
As for your "proposal" it was worse than FDTs in effect, though slightly more sensible in concept. As d'Artagnan said the FDS is more powerful in that it allows Eldar ordnance to be hit on a 4+ by what is, for all intents and purposes still a turret. As for the concept, I still have objections on the basis that it should require main-gun weaponry or at least resources to achieve this effect.
Other then bombers, eldar ord is speed 30cm. Granted, bombers are probably in trouble, but torps aren't, which is most of what I've seen eldar use.
Because what I say makes sense. And my biggest concern is the balance of other fleets. With the Jovian sealed to Bakka I was satisfied. With FDTs removed I was satisfied. Therefore I am no longer concerned about negative impacts on the game. The rest, such as prices for BBs, etc, are just balance issues. Since the ships concerned are all too weak then it doesn't really matter if they stay that way. Someone taking a Bakka fleet will simply be penalised. I don't see why that should stop me from giving analytical feedback though.
Except if players are being penalized for playing a Bakka list, then that's not balanced, now is it? Basically, your concern, in a nutshell is 'I don't want it better then IN is (fair enough) and don't care if I force it to suck in the process (which is where you and I do not see eye to eye)."
Except the SC is 6+ all over and can turn 90°. The Voss CLs are all lighter than line-cruisers and so it isn't unreasonable to suggest that this loss of mass makes the ship easier to manoeuvre. As a light cruiser of the line it makes sense that they should be able to turn to fill holes. This would be the point of building the ship. A lighter armed ship (Dauntless) can move faster. Compared to Chaos, the armoured prows of IN ships reduces speed. So as a Lunar is to a Murder (+armour -speed) so is an Endeavour to a Dauntless (+armour -speed).
*sigh* except that the SC *IS* +6 all over, which means that no one particular section of the ship is under more stress then another. It's like saying that just because a DC-3 can survive a particular maneuver, a PBY can too. Doesn't work that way. The SC's armor mass is evenly distributed. In the case of a Daunt or Endeavor, it's not. The armored prow on a lunar makes up a fairly small amount of it's total mass. (small enough it actually shouldn't work, but due to abstraction, does).
People have already pointed out that Aboats aren't as threatening as bombers. Orks are more dangerous in that they have Fighta Bommas. That 1 more turret will still be more effective than without it.
*sigh* Against most other races you might have a point, but against 'nids you're dead wrong, and we're going to see that with the turret suppression rules the way they are now. Against IN and it's notorious short ranges, nids using aboats for launch a bunch of hit and runs before closing with claws and tendrils is about as basic as it gets.
(is anyone other than BI gonna take bakka to a tourny? i'm not).
Then something is broken if it's a list no one other then hardcore fans would take. It seems to be the point that everyone is avoiding.
in free fall (space) it matters less the mass of the object in respect to the force required to move it.
Incorrect. Inertia is actually the biggest factor, thus mass has a key role. Further, you have to also have enough force to STOP it turning.
nids have aboats. extra turrets 86 bombers from being deadly. bakka was ripped apart by aboats. this seems fluffy to me. I like the idea of a free extra turret and a second at +10. i think that was RC or the Ad. good thoughts. though i still think aboats taking out weapons is the deadliest possibility to a gunship fleet. going from 2 ->3 turrets should 'protect' most CR's enough to throw them right into the storm of AC.
either FDT's back (meh...) or extra turrets for free/cheap (yea!). forces imperial phalanx movement with heavy gunships to provide B2B massing turrets ->good.
Um, where are you getting the free turret + a second one for +10? Last I checked it was just 1 for +10.
FLUFF DOES NOT IMPLY CRAP.
At least, on this point, we are in agreement. The fleet should not suck to maintain fluff.
-
Quote from: Sigoroth on Yesterday at 09:21:40 PM
Except the SC is 6+ all over and can turn 90°. The Voss CLs are all lighter than line-cruisers and so it isn't unreasonable to suggest that this loss of mass makes the ship easier to manoeuvre. As a light cruiser of the line it makes sense that they should be able to turn to fill holes. This would be the point of building the ship. A lighter armed ship (Dauntless) can move faster. Compared to Chaos, the armoured prows of IN ships reduces speed. So as a Lunar is to a Murder (+armour -speed) so is an Endeavour to a Dauntless (+armour -speed).
*sigh* except that the SC *IS* +6 all over, which means that no one particular section of the ship is under more stress then another. It's like saying that just because a DC-3 can survive a particular maneuver, a PBY can too. Doesn't work that way. The SC's armor mass is evenly distributed. In the case of a Daunt or Endeavor, it's not. The armored prow on a lunar makes up a fairly small amount of it's total mass. (small enough it actually shouldn't work, but due to abstraction, does).
Quote from: Valhallan on Today at 04:10:54 PM
in free fall (space) it matters less the mass of the object in respect to the force required to move it.
Incorrect. Inertia is actually the biggest factor, thus mass has a key role. Further, you have to also have enough force to STOP it turning.
yes F=ma. easy in space. complex in the atmosphere. it would be easier for a 6+ prow 5+ else CL to pull the turn than a 6+ all CL (strike CR.) stress-smesh. these ships are durable enough to TURN without reprocussions. besides. if a proper IN CR w/ 6+ prow goes 20 and turns 45*, then by your reasoning, why exactly should a lower mass CL with 6+ prow at 20cm move turn the same?
Quote from: Valhallan on Today at 04:10:54 PM
nids have aboats. extra turrets 86 bombers from being deadly. bakka was ripped apart by aboats. this seems fluffy to me. I like the idea of a free extra turret and a second at +10. i think that was RC or the Ad. good thoughts. though i still think aboats taking out weapons is the deadliest possibility to a gunship fleet. going from 2 ->3 turrets should 'protect' most CR's enough to throw them right into the storm of AC.
either FDT's back (meh...) or extra turrets for free/cheap (yea!). forces imperial phalanx movement with heavy gunships to provide B2B massing turrets ->good.
Um, where are you getting the free turret + a second one for +10? Last I checked it was just 1 for +10.
as it states earlier in my post. someone suggested it. I was just seconding the idea. it'd give enough turrets to stop bombers. but the pay-for-extra turret at premium would potentially make it so we could fight off aboats from knocking out our precious big guns.
Quote from: Valhallan on Today at 04:10:54 PM
FLUFF DOES NOT IMPLY CRAP.
At least, on this point, we are in agreement. The fleet should not suck to maintain fluff.
Sweet. I'm glad we agree. I have this sneaking suspicion you and I are both the biggest proponents of Bakka. I like em as a concept, but some of these rules are meh (hence my discussing this so much).
also note. substituting in the FS ships by plax and the community really fixes a lot of issues with bakka.... like reserving in the expensive exorcist with 6LB... but that isn't what this discussion is about.
also...somebody...: no falchion needed. min/maxing for torps this list can throw out SO many torp salvos. (with t-bombs too!) cobras 86 other salvos and fighters quite easily.
basically it boils down to:
vicky <=345
vanq <=300
cheap/free access to extra turrets.
and IMO defiant/enforcer in place of mars.
even with 1:1 CR/CB this list is fun and different *enough* from the 'geddon list.
-
I would WILLINGLY take Rath in an Emperor.
No Ld upgrade is worth an additional cruiser. Period.
Rath is a good deal if you compare him to a "regular" Solar Admiral, but as Admirals and rerolls in general are totaly overpriced it is still a bad deal.
Crap doesn't become a good option only because it is slightly better than other crap. It still crap.
Same goes for refits. Some are worth their points, but most are useless junk. Oh, and the IN shouldn't have radom refits - hell, they are no Orks, nether they are changing the layout of a ship every month nor do they built something without an intention
-> IN refits should have specific point costs and players should be able to take them directly (goes for AdMech as well). There are only two fleet which should have random upgrades: Orks and Tyranids, as their ships aren't build, they develop due to evolutionary pressure - it's ironic that tyras are the only race which can purchase reftis directly.
To make it short: if anyone brings Rath on an Emperor in a competitive play I consider this one not as an opponent, but as easy prey.
No bright player who wants to win would ever buy more than an ordinary Fleet Admiral with one or two rerolls. Bakka can't do that. Thats more than enough punishment.
At the moment it is as Sig said: Someone taking a Bakka fleet will simply be penalised.
And People here work hard to make it even unplayable (or better: un-win-able ;D). Can't understand that at all.
Oh and please: let out physics in such discussions. BFG is such a bad joke in scientific terms, be it the ship design or the game mechanics that you shouldn't build not any argument on technical plausibility.
-
Except the SC is 6+ all over and can turn 90°. The Voss CLs are all lighter than line-cruisers and so it isn't unreasonable to suggest that this loss of mass makes the ship easier to manoeuvre. As a light cruiser of the line it makes sense that they should be able to turn to fill holes. This would be the point of building the ship. A lighter armed ship (Dauntless) can move faster. Compared to Chaos, the armoured prows of IN ships reduces speed. So as a Lunar is to a Murder (+armour -speed) so is an Endeavour to a Dauntless (+armour -speed).
*sigh* except that the SC *IS* +6 all over, which means that no one particular section of the ship is under more stress then another. It's like saying that just because a DC-3 can survive a particular maneuver, a PBY can too. Doesn't work that way. The SC's armor mass is evenly distributed. In the case of a Daunt or Endeavor, it's not. The armored prow on a lunar makes up a fairly small amount of it's total mass. (small enough it actually shouldn't work, but due to abstraction, does).
Dude, if they can make an all around 6+ ship turn on a dime, I'm pretty sure they can make a 6+/5+ armor ship turn on a dime. There's not much maneuver a DC-3 can do which a PBY can't seeing as the PBY is actually a similar in size to the DC-3 and is just as maneuverable as the DC-3.
People have already pointed out that Aboats aren't as threatening as bombers. Orks are more dangerous in that they have Fighta Bommas. That 1 more turret will still be more effective than without it.
*sigh* Against most other races you might have a point, but against 'nids you're dead wrong, and we're going to see that with the turret suppression rules the way they are now. Against IN and it's notorious short ranges, nids using aboats for launch a bunch of hit and runs before closing with claws and tendrils is about as basic as it gets.
Why would I be dead wrong? Bakka is AC light but that doesn't mean they have no AC at all which can help against those Nid ABs. Adding turrets, they can now defend better than most IN lists especially if the ships use mass turrets. Bakka also has access to NCs which can also hit the ABs as long as they are still beyond 30 cm or shoot the ship with claws to help prevent the claws and tendril attack. If you want to let your opponent get to within really close range with all those ABs and claw ships without doing something about it, then by all means do so. I won't.
-
I would WILLINGLY take Rath in an Emperor.
No Ld upgrade is worth an additional cruiser. Period.
Rath is a good deal if you compare him to a "regular" Solar Admiral, but as Admirals and rerolls in general are totaly overpriced it is still a bad deal.
Crap doesn't become a good option only because it is slightly better than other crap. It still crap.
But it's not just an Ld upgrade. There's also the other perks. You agree that he's already a good deal compared to a regular Solar Admiral or other Admirals so it doesn't matter whether they are priced correctly or not. What matters is how they are comparatively priced. You can't avoid not taking them in games of 750 points even if you think they are overpriced.
If you don't want to use the Emperor because of Rath, fine. You can still have the Jovian+Mars combo which lets you have 10 LBs. Not bad considering and that's why the Jovian is really a problem ship.
-
Okay folks, I have given my two cents..
I am going to duck out of this conversation. You all know my opinions, and my criticisms. To reduce the cooks in the kitchen, I am going to sit and wait for the nest update.
-
But it's not just an Ld upgrade. There's also the other perks. You agree that he's already a good deal compared to a regular Solar Admiral or other Admirals so it doesn't matter whether they are priced correctly or not. What matters is how they are comparatively priced. You can't avoid not taking them in games of 750 points even if you think they are overpriced.
If you don't want to use the Emperor because of Rath, fine. You can still have the Jovian+Mars combo which lets you have 10 LBs. Not bad considering and that's why the Jovian is really a problem ship.
Except the Jovian is out now because people threw a fit at the idea of a 3 lb per side BC in IN. So, sorry, no Jovian + Mars combo. You MUST take the overpriced officer to get the Emp.
Dude, if they can make an all around 6+ ship turn on a dime, I'm pretty sure they can make a 6+/5+ armor ship turn on a dime. There's not much maneuver a DC-3 can do which a PBY can't seeing as the PBY is actually a bit smaller than the DC-w and is probably more maneuverable than the DC-3.
Sorry, D'Art, size has nothing to do with it. It's stress. The wings tend to tear off a Catalina quite easily if you try evasive maneuvers because of how it's designed (and, yes, someplace, I have pictures). The stength of the wings to the forces on them is so bad it's wings actually flap slightly in flight. (Much to my Grandfather's horror when he went up in one as a emergency blister turret gunner)
A DC-3 however can execute much harder turns without being torn apart due to it's superior wing and fuselage design (not that either one is a good thing to be flying in a furball).
Why would I be dead wrong? Bakka is AC light but that doesn't mean they have no AC at all which can help against those Nid ABs. Adding turrets, they can now defend better than most IN lists especially if the ships use mass turrets. Bakka also has access to NCs which can also hit the ABs as long as they are still beyond 30 cm or shoot the ship with claws to help prevent the claws and tendril attack. If you want to let your opponent get to within really close range with all those ABs and claw ships without doing something about it, then by all means do so. I won't.
Well, first of all, that's some damn good NC shooting to hit those 2cm by 2cm markers. And wow, D'Art, you make it sound like it's easy to kill all those cheap cruisers and hive ships before they close. I wonder why I didn't think of that...? Oh, it's because of those damn Kraken meat shields and the fact IN has crap lance range.
-
Except the Jovian is out now because people threw a fit at the idea of a 3 lb per side BC in IN. So, sorry, no Jovian + Mars combo. You MUST take the overpriced officer to get the Emp.
You're missing the gist of the discussion. The point was partly to reply to why the Jovian is wrong for IN, Bakka list or otherwise. Whether it's Emp+Jovian or Jovian+Mars in the Bakka list. This is why I and more than a few others don't like the Jovian in any IN fleet.
Sorry, D'Art, size has nothing to do with it. It's stress. The wings tend to tear off a Catalina quite easily if you try evasive maneuvers because of how it's designed (and, yes, someplace, I have pictures). The stength of the wings to the forces on them is so bad it's
wings actually flap slightly in flight. (Much to my Grandfather's horror when he went up in one as a emergency blister turret gunner)
PBY went into combat with a Jap bomber. Granted the PBY lost but point is it's maneuverable enough for that.
A DC-3 however can execute much harder turns without being torn apart due to it's superior wing and fuselage design (not that either one is a good thing to be flying in a furball).
And so we both agree they both suck at maneuvering. So it's completely irrelevant with the Dauntless and Endeavor discussion.
Well, first of all, that's some damn good NC shooting to hit those 2cm by 2cm markers. And wow, D'Art, you make it sound like it's easy to kill all those cheap cruisers and hive ships before they close. I wonder why I didn't think of that...? Oh, it's because of those damn Kraken meat shields and the fact IN has crap lance range.
Dude, you place the template then hope the scatter dice comes up with a hit or deviate only 1-2 cm. Wave gone. If ABs are really the problem. Which now it seems is something else.
Now you're introducing other elements. I never said taking out cheap cruisers and hive ships were easy but you do have to do something about them instead of what I keep getting from you that you just wait for them to get close and then get devoured by them. Aside from which, Horizon I think it was that said WBs perform better than lances vs Nids and IN has a lot of long range WBs with their heavier ships and even with the short range cruisers.
So what is really the problem for you? ABs or ships?
-
You're missing the gist of the discussion. The point was partly to reply to why the Jovian is wrong for IN, Bakka list or otherwise. Whether it's Emp+Jovian or Jovian+Mars in the Bakka list. This is why I and more than a few others don't like the Jovian in any IN fleet.
There's nothing wrong with the Jovian. I have not seen one whit of evidence that the Jovian 'breaks' IN, or suddenly makes them unstoppable. Frankly, the only thing it does do it make it so they can rival chaos for two types of AC, though they continue to not even come close for aboats. The only thing it actually changes is it allows the possibility of an AC build that doesn't suck or involve SM ships. Personally, I'd prefer to have a possible AC build using IN, maybe we wouldn't see +6 armor shooting around so much.
Dude, you place the template then hope the scatter dice comes up with a hit or deviate only 1-2 cm. Wave gone. If ABs are really the problem. Which now it seems is something else.
Now you're introducing other elements. I never said taking out cheap cruisers and hive ships were easy but you do have to do something about them instead of what I keep getting from you that you just wait for them to get close and then get devoured by them. Aside from which, Horizon I think it was that said WBs perform better than lances vs Nids and IN has a lot of long range WBs with their heavier ships and even with the short range cruisers.
So what is really the problem for you? ABs or ships?
D'Art, you obviously missed the point entirely. It's the synergy between these two that spells trouble for this fleet (coupled with the fact that nids can also spam boarding torps on top this). You seem to be treating each stat as an individual item rather then looking at the overall playing field that they're used in. On their own, with no other ships around, aboats do weak damage. The problem is the over all strategy they're deployed in. Against a tyranid fleet using aboats to execute large numbers of hit and runs against the fleet while they close, even against a cap ship, a lucky HnR will cripple it when the 'nid cruiser comes calling.
And 'nids can pump these babies out by the dozen. Remember that they launch twice their LB, and if properly screened by kraken, have little trouble closing to striking range. if they keep their waves small, mix in some fighters to suppress, they're pretty much guaranteed a few successful hit and runs against you (not even factoring in if their escort meat shields are throwing boarding torps on top this).
On the NC hit: Congrats. If you're lucky you have eliminated one wave of aboats. Now about the other ten... and the boarding torps...
-
There's nothing wrong with the Jovian. I have not seen one whit of evidence that the Jovian 'breaks' IN, or suddenly makes them unstoppable. Frankly, the only thing it does do it make it so they can rival chaos for two types of AC, though they continue to not even come close for aboats. The only thing it actually changes is it allows the possibility of an AC build that doesn't suck or involve SM ships. Personally, I'd prefer to have a possible AC build using IN, maybe we wouldn't see +6 armor shooting around so much.
The point still being it's not a ship which should be available to IN. The problem with your rival argument is that one can only have the same amount of AC counters on the table as the LB they have. So there is no point to "not even come close to aboats" because whether one uses bombers or aboats, it's still the same number of counters on the table that both races have to deal with. Aside from which, bombers are more the threat than AB.
D'Art, you obviously missed the point entirely. It's the synergy between these two that spells trouble for this fleet (coupled with the fact that nids can also spam boarding torps on top this). You seem to be treating each stat as an individual item rather then looking at the overall playing field that they're used in. On their own, with no other ships around, aboats do weak damage. The problem is the over all strategy they're deployed in. Against a tyranid fleet using aboats to execute large numbers of hit and runs against the fleet while they close, even against a cap ship, a lucky HnR will cripple it when the 'nid cruiser comes calling.
And 'nids can pump these babies out by the dozen. Remember that they launch twice their LB, and if properly screened by kraken, have little trouble closing to striking range. if they keep their waves small, mix in some fighters to suppress, they're pretty much guaranteed a few successful hit and runs against you (not even factoring in if their escort meat shields are throwing boarding torps on top this).
On the NC hit: Congrats. If you're lucky you have eliminated one wave of aboats. Now about the other ten... and the boarding torps...
And we know this is how Nids play. You seriously are telling me that Nids won't be able to harm an IN fleet which is heavy on the AC side? Is there really a difference is one fleet list has a bit more AC compared to another list which has more turrets when fighting against a Nid fleet with claws, acid or boarding torps, ABs and lots of escorts?
So, say in a typical 1,500 point match, Gothic list can bring say 12 LBs while retaining gun efficiency. Bakka can bring 10 LBs using the Mars+Jovian combination while having a bit more turrets. Tell me the difference cause I am failing to see one at the moment other than one has more AC and the other more turrets.
So who is missing the point now?
-
The point still being it's not a ship which should be available to IN. The problem with your rival argument is that one can only have the same amount of AC counters on the table as the LB they have. So there is no point to "not even come close to aboats" because whether one uses bombers or aboats, it's still the same number of counters on the table that both races have to deal with. Aside from which, bombers are more the threat than AB.
I'm not clear why you think that crippling enemy ships has no effect on the game. Granted, blasting things with bombers is effective, but taking Chaos Space Marines and doing hit and runs is a pretty effective tactic too.
And we know this is how Nids play. You seriously are telling me that Nids won't be able to harm an IN fleet which is heavy on the AC side? Is there really a difference is one fleet list has a bit more AC compared to another list which has more turrets when fighting against a Nid fleet with claws, acid or boarding torps, ABs and lots of escorts?
So, say in a typical 1,500 point match, Gothic list can bring say 12 LBs while retaining gun efficiency. Bakka can bring 10 LBs using the Mars+Jovian combination while having a bit more turrets. Tell me the difference cause I am failing to see one at the moment other than one has more AC and the other more turrets.
So who is missing the point now?
Because you can't take that list now because you got Jovian thrown off the list, so now you only have the 4 on that Mars? Somehow I don't think that having 1/3rd as much fighter coverage is made up for with those turrets.
Since people seem to be vague as to what can be taken at this time, IIRC:
Emp with Rath
Vicky
Vanquisher
Retribution
Cruisers-
Tyrant
Lunar
Gothic
Dominator
Endeavour
Endurance
Siluria
BCs:
Mercury
Mars
Armageddon
Escorts:
Sword
Havoc
Viper
Cobra
Now, how does this list feasibly take on an AC heavy list like 'nids? (since they're going to be the foe that Bakka will think of when they look at acquiring ships.)
Reminder: we don't have any special rules, just +1 turrets for 10 points.
Personally, as far as I can see, it's up a creek against an aboat list. The extra turrets will help a lot against bombers, but against hit and runs it's pretty screwed. Since fighters can escort aboats, turrets won't have as big an impact on how many hit and runs you take and nids can generate a lot.
I hate to say it but at 1500 you're probably looking at 8 lbs max and making a decent gunline. So, looking at fluff, let's take it in a different direction. Let's ditch Rath, and take this as the fleet 'after' Circe.
Looking at it from a AAR, Bakka lost due to two things. Not being able to counter the large amount of 'nid ordinance, and not being able to get clear when things went south. Both of these factors contributed to the fleets near annihilation at Circe. Only due to a tremendous asspull by Rath did anyone get clear at all.
So, we see a glaring weakness
The two traits we would logically see are increased AC defenses (or, if they had brain one, increased AC) and increased speed.
Good candidates for this fleet:
Excorcist: Has good firepower as well as LBs and would appeal to the big gun crowd as an old warhorse from the 'good old days'. Many players have suggested it as a logical LB 6 ship, Bakka might be a good place for this variant. It would draw less flack then the Jovian, and be explained as being war surplus from another sector.
Siluria: Good all around CL, makes Endeavor unnecessary.
Vicky: Fast, long range BB.
Mercury: Fast, long range BC. Good flagship for CL squadrons.
Cardinal: Heavy cruisers are an oddity in IN, but it's fast with good firepower, both making it attractive to the big gun lobby in the wake of Circe
So:
Retribution
Victory
Vanquisher
Cruisers:
Lunar
Gothic
Tyrant
Siluria
Schismatic
Heavy Cruisers:
Cardinal
BC:
Mars
Mercury
Armageddon
GC:
Exorcist
Escorts:
Havoc
Apostate
Viper
Cobra
I'm sure you're all wondering why the Apostate and Schismatic are in there. (Or arn't because you already think I'm mad anyway)
The Apostate fills in nicely for the absense of the Falchion and firestorm, though it's weaposn will need restatted, as stands it's too powerful, and is based off the same hull as the Havok.
The Schismatic provides a high speed torp based CL that also carries lances, eliminating the need for the Endurance.
-
My God Baron.... It's like you have some sort of gift for defiance.
What would 90' turns do to the Voss ships really? Logic, hell even fluff are both second to gameplay.
The Voss ships right now just feel like little shitty cruisers. They provide no real advantage other than being cheap. With 90' turns they provide some intriguing function, and a different playstyle for the voss including fleets. I remember you mentioning how you wanted to add more variety and different playstyles to the game.
90' turns aren't a big thing. In fact it won't make much difference in the long run unless someone chooses to actually build a fleet of voss.
Other than that, this thread has become a new SM rules thread.... We're not getting 90' turns on the Voss, so no sense in debating it.
I think I'm with Zelnik.... we should wait till another update, and not swamp this thread with irrelevant arguments.
-
Since fighters can escort aboats, turrets won't have as big an impact on how many hit and runs you take and nids can generate a lot.
What possible reason could there be to escort assault boats with fighters? If they get intercepted by other fighters, 1 marker is removed whether the defender was a fighter or not. Might as well have been another assault boat.
Against turrets, they shoot down 1/2 a marker each whether or not the defender was a fighter or not. Might as well have been another assault boat.
-
What possible reason? If I'm one of the hundred dudes on board an assault boat, I sure as hell hope I got some fighter coverage :)
-
The point still being it's not a ship which should be available to IN. The problem with your rival argument is that one can only have the same amount of AC counters on the table as the LB they have. So there is no point to "not even come close to aboats" because whether one uses bombers or aboats, it's still the same number of counters on the table that both races have to deal with. Aside from which, bombers are more the threat than AB.
I'm not clear why you think that crippling enemy ships has no effect on the game. Granted, blasting things with bombers is effective, but taking Chaos Space Marines and doing hit and runs is a pretty effective tactic too.
What has crippling enemy ships got to do with the availability of the Jovian in an IN fleet? Or even the availability of ABs in Chaos for that matter? IN will be launching fighters most of the time anyway. So what's the big deal about ABs critting which I think you meant instead of crippling.
And we know this is how Nids play. You seriously are telling me that Nids won't be able to harm an IN fleet which is heavy on the AC side? Is there really a difference is one fleet list has a bit more AC compared to another list which has more turrets when fighting against a Nid fleet with claws, acid or boarding torps, ABs and lots of escorts?
So, say in a typical 1,500 point match, Gothic list can bring say 12 LBs while retaining gun efficiency. Bakka can bring 10 LBs using the Mars+Jovian combination while having a bit more turrets. Tell me the difference cause I am failing to see one at the moment other than one has more AC and the other more turrets.
So who is missing the point now?
Because you can't take that list now because you got Jovian thrown off the list, so now you only have the 4 on that Mars? Somehow I don't think that having 1/3rd as much fighter coverage is made up for with those turrets.
Well until Nate brings out the next draft, it's still in there. And even assuming so, since he did say it's out, you can still either take the Emperor+Mars option or the Mars+Mars option. If each of the Mars purchases another turret that would be 3 turrets per ship plus the possibility of massing turrets up to 6 with the help of other ships. So 8 fighters and 6 turrets to shoot up enemy ordnance. Will it be enough? Probably not. But still a whole lot better than not having the additional turrets.
Since people seem to be vague as to what can be taken at this time, IIRC:
Emp with Rath
Vicky
Vanquisher
Retribution
Cruisers-
Tyrant
Lunar
Gothic
Dominator
Endeavour
Endurance
Siluria
BCs:
Mercury
Mars
Armageddon
Escorts:
Sword
Havoc
Viper
Cobra
Now, how does this list feasibly take on an AC heavy list like 'nids? (since they're going to be the foe that Bakka will think of when they look at acquiring ships.)
Reminder: we don't have any special rules, just +1 turrets for 10 points.
See this is why I am still relying on the latest Bakka draft. because we still don't know the other changes which the HA will be incorporating. So as of now, use the 1.1 draft of Bakka first. Otherwise, conjecture is very difficult. I mean, how many points will each additional turret really cost? How many can one purchase? What is the final ship list?
Personally, as far as I can see, it's up a creek against an aboat list. The extra turrets will help a lot against bombers, but against hit and runs it's pretty screwed. Since fighters can escort aboats, turrets won't have as big an impact on how many hit and runs you take and nids can generate a lot.
I hate to say it but at 1500 you're probably looking at 8 lbs max and making a decent gunline. So, looking at fluff, let's take it in a different direction. Let's ditch Rath, and take this as the fleet 'after' Circe.
And again, even with decent AC coverage, you will still have the same problems as Bakka with the amount of ordnance Nids can put on the table. Have you even gamed it yet? The problem is you're theoryhammering here. Which isn't really conducive.
Looking at it from a AAR, Bakka lost due to two things. Not being able to counter the large amount of 'nid ordinance, and not being able to get clear when things went south. Both of these factors contributed to the fleets near annihilation at Circe. Only due to a tremendous asspull by Rath did anyone get clear at all.
So, we see a glaring weakness
The two traits we would logically see are increased AC defenses (or, if they had brain one, increased AC) and increased speed.
Good candidates for this fleet:
Excorcist: Has good firepower as well as LBs and would appeal to the big gun crowd as an old warhorse from the 'good old days'. Many players have suggested it as a logical LB 6 ship, Bakka might be a good place for this variant. It would draw less flack then the Jovian, and be explained as being war surplus from another sector.
Siluria: Good all around CL, makes Endeavor unnecessary.
Vicky: Fast, long range BB.
Mercury: Fast, long range BC. Good flagship for CL squadrons.
Cardinal: Heavy cruisers are an oddity in IN, but it's fast with good firepower, both making it attractive to the big gun lobby in the wake of Circe
So:
Retribution
Victory
Vanquisher
Cruisers:
Lunar
Gothic
Tyrant
Siluria
Schismatic
Heavy Cruisers:
Cardinal
BC:
Mars
Mercury
Armageddon
GC:
Exorcist
Escorts:
Havoc
Apostate
Viper
Cobra
I'm sure you're all wondering why the Apostate and Schismatic are in there. (Or arn't because you already think I'm mad anyway)
The Apostate fills in nicely for the absense of the Falchion and firestorm, though it's weaposn will need restatted, as stands it's too powerful, and is based off the same hull as the Havok.
The Schismatic provides a high speed torp based CL that also carries lances, eliminating the need for the Endurance.
All this is well and good but until we see what the HA have come up with for the next Bakka draft, let's leave probably lists out of the discussion for now.
And the funny thing is, as someone has pointed out, if Nids do win because of ABs then hey, it really follows the fluff. So what's your beef?
-
Why, turrets didn't work the first time. This is why the FDT fluff made a degree of sense as it was an attempt to improve existing defenses rather then heap on more of the same. Remember that 'turrets' is a catch all for dozens of different weapons systems, basically an abstraction to make the game simpler. Logically, since the existing systems did little to help, they'd look into something new.
Would 2,000 turrets work? How about 100? 50? Yes. So the failure wasn't in turrets, it was in the numbers of turrets. FDT only adds an extra turret anyway, it just does it stupidly. It would be far easier and more consistent to just add extra turrets to ships.
The fact that Bakka got beaten by ordnance at one point in their history is not a reason to invent a convoluted and/or illogical rule. Simply adding a turret will do. This has the advantage of not spilling over to other IN lists.
Maybe I'm missing something, but last I heard, one of the classic 'nid strategies was to use aboats and boarding torps to jack up your ships before using claws and feeder tendrils to eat them. Particularly with the ability to suppress turrets for aboats.
What the hell are you talking about? How can turrets be "suppressed" for a-boats? If the Nids are able to spew forth so many a-boats to make up for their inherent weakness to a point where it becomes a viable strategy (certainly not overpowered) then that's fine. An extra turret will help against such a strategy.
Other then bombers, eldar ord is speed 30cm. Granted, bombers are probably in trouble, but torps aren't, which is most of what I've seen eldar use.
You make out as if the ships themselves cannot move towards the ordnance to bring them into range.
Except if players are being penalized for playing a Bakka list, then that's not balanced, now is it? Basically, your concern, in a nutshell is 'I don't want it better then IN is (fair enough) and don't care if I force it to suck in the process (which is where you and I do not see eye to eye)."
Le sigh. My concern "in a nutshell" is that I don't want terribly crap elements of Bakka contaminating other fleets. The Jovian I like, and in Bakka as a one-off ship it's fine. When you allow it to be used as a reserve in other fleets it changes the shape of the 750 pt bracket of games. Its limitation to Bakka only was sufficient to alleviate this concern. As for FDTs, this was such a terrible rule that I also didn't want contaminating other lists. IF it were limited solely to Bakka and Bakka remained as crap as it currently is then I wouldn't care. This is because the rot would be contained, and anyone taking a Bakka fleet would be at a disadvantage.
Now that FDTs are gone, and a more sensible alternative in place and the Jovian is contained then I have no objections to the Bakka list in principle. The Mercury is still rubbish, and there are some other slight balance issues (Victory), but that's it. I don't know how you can suggest that I want Bakka to be worse, when my analyses of the Mercury has shown it to be tremendously overpriced and the Victory to be also to be weak. Therefore I'm actually suggesting improving the list.
*sigh* except that the SC *IS* +6 all over, which means that no one particular section of the ship is under more stress then another. It's like saying that just because a DC-3 can survive a particular maneuver, a PBY can too. Doesn't work that way. The SC's armor mass is evenly distributed. In the case of a Daunt or Endeavor, it's not. The armored prow on a lunar makes up a fairly small amount of it's total mass. (small enough it actually shouldn't work, but due to abstraction, does).
You have got to be kidding me. You really think that this is an argument? Mass distribution is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in BFG. Look at the damn ships. None of them should work. 8 hits 6+/5+ 45° 20cm -----> 8 hits 5+ 45° 25cm ----> 6 hits 6+/5+ ? 20cm ---> 6 hits 5+ 90° 25cm. Fill in the blank. According to the physics of the BFG universe it should be 90°. According to the role of the ship it should be 90°. If it were the ships (End/End) would be balanced.
*sigh* Against most other races you might have a point, but against 'nids you're dead wrong, and we're going to see that with the turret suppression rules the way they are now. Against IN and it's notorious short ranges, nids using aboats for launch a bunch of hit and runs before closing with claws and tendrils is about as basic as it gets.
What are you talking about? There's no such thing as turret suppression for a-boats.
Then something is broken if it's a list no one other then hardcore fans would take. It seems to be the point that everyone is avoiding.
No, we're not avoiding it. There have been many posts from quite a few people saying how weak some of the ships are.
-
Would 2,000 turrets work? How about 100? 50? Yes. So the failure wasn't in turrets, it was in the numbers of turrets. FDT only adds an extra turret anyway, it just does it stupidly. It would be far easier and more consistent to just add extra turrets to ships.
The fact that Bakka got beaten by ordnance at one point in their history is not a reason to invent a convoluted and/or illogical rule. Simply adding a turret will do. This has the advantage of not spilling over to other IN lists.
The problem with that idea is that A) a turret can only defend the ship it's on, and B) it precludes the idea of creating a specialist flak ship which is soemthing that any sensible commander would start looking at.
In Addition: using 'beaten' to describe the battle at Circe is sort of like saying that the Battle of the Tuetenwald was a 'setback' for the Roman Legions. From the desc5ription, the majority of the sector fleet was wiped out.
What the hell are you talking about? How can turrets be "suppressed" for a-boats? If the Nids are able to spew forth so many a-boats to make up for their inherent weakness to a point where it becomes a viable strategy (certainly not overpowered) then that's fine. An extra turret will help against such a strategy.
"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010
You make out as if the ships themselves cannot move towards the ordnance to bring them into range.
As you, yourself, pointed out in another thread, it's also not like the ord can't stay out of range until the best moment to attack.
You have got to be kidding me. You really think that this is an argument? Mass distribution is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in BFG. Look at the damn ships. None of them should work. 8 hits 6+/5+ 45° 20cm -----> 8 hits 5+ 45° 25cm ----> 6 hits 6+/5+ ? 20cm ---> 6 hits 5+ 90° 25cm. Fill in the blank. According to the physics of the BFG universe it should be 90°. According to the role of the ship it should be 90°. If it were the ships (End/End) would be balanced.
Personally, I've always felt that the turn wasn't the problem so much as the lack of speed. They really should have been 25cm ships and the Defiant should have been LB 2 on a side. But that's my opinion.
What are you talking about? There's no such thing as turret suppression for a-boats.
"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010
What has crippling enemy ships got to do with the availability of the Jovian in an IN fleet? Or even the availability of ABs in Chaos for that matter? IN will be launching fighters most of the time anyway. So what's the big deal about ABs critting which I think you meant instead of crippling.
God, I hate the term 'critting'. It's a grammatical nightmare. Since the ship can still move and shoot to a degree, it's crippled, and while I'm aware there is actually a rule where a ship is crippled, frankly, both uses pretty much describe the same thing, whether it came about from critical hits or just blasting it's superstructure to bits.
Well until Nate brings out the next draft, it's still in there. And even assuming so, since he did say it's out, you can still either take the Emperor+Mars option or the Mars+Mars option. If each of the Mars purchases another turret that would be 3 turrets per ship plus the possibility of massing turrets up to 6 with the help of other ships. So 8 fighters and 6 turrets to shoot up enemy ordnance. Will it be enough? Probably not. But still a whole lot better than not having the additional turrets.
Below 750 you could only take the Mars. The Emp simply COSTS too much. At 1500 you can take it, but it's more then 1/3rd of your fleet. This is not anything resembling cost effective.
While, I grant that increasing the turrets would improve survivability, it probably won't make them survive.
All this is well and good but until we see what the HA have come up with for the next Bakka draft, let's leave probably lists out of the discussion for now.
And the funny thing is, as someone has pointed out, if Nids do win because of ABs then hey, it really follows the fluff. So what's your beef?
D'Art, maybe I'm misinterpreting Nate's post, but it had a definite feel of 'Fine, you think you're so smart, YOU try it.' which more or less seems to me to suggest that hte HA is waiting for US to come up with something viable.
I think that This list, with some tweaking, and the 'extra turrets' that everyone seems to think will save them, would be viable.
Retribution
Victory
Vanquisher
Cruisers:
Lunar
Gothic
Tyrant
Siluria
Schismatic
Heavy Cruisers:
Cardinal
BC:
Mars
Mercury
Armageddon
GC:
Exorcist (with option for +1 LB per side for +15pts)
Escorts:
Havoc
Apostate
Viper
Cobra
Other then the oddball Schismatic, it meets the requirements set forth, would not 'feel' drastically different from current IN, uses ships from BFGm, does not break fluff, and all more or less matches the 'theme'.
The only things that will probably need changing would be to re balance the apostate's weapons and *maybe* reduce the Schismatic's speed to 25cm. Nothing in this would 'break' or 'contaminate' IN if used in other lists, and it's viable against most threats.
-
"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010
You do realize that means you have no benefit to sending a fighter with them right? You'd get the exact same result if you sent 4 AB or 3AB and 1 Fighter. Why bother putting a fighter there when it does nothing to help you and could be better served on CAP or with bombers?
-
You'd get the exact same result if you sent 4 AB or 3AB and 1 Fighter.
No, it's worse: if no turret hits you just have 3 instead of 4 hit&run attacks.
It MAY help if we had a race with resilent fighters and non-resilent ABoats, but as long as this isn't the case...
-
"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010
You do realize that means you have no benefit to sending a fighter with them right? You'd get the exact same result if you sent 4 AB or 3AB and 1 Fighter. Why bother putting a fighter there when it does nothing to help you and could be better served on CAP or with bombers?
'nids don't have bombers and cap is sort of pointless for them if using kraken's as a shield. Since you can buy AC not in ships, and fighters cost less then aboats, it makes sense.
Once you actually are launching ord, though, you're right.
You'd get the exact same result if you sent 4 AB or 3AB and 1 Fighter.
No, it's worse: if no turret hits you just have 3 instead of 4 hit&run attacks.
It MAY help if we had a race with resilent fighters and non-resilent ABoats, but as long as this isn't the case...
Like, if, say, you're playing a campaign against someone who's gotten the 'Excellent Pilots' crew skill? Admittedly, not having any bearing on 'nids, but... just a thought.
-
The problem with that idea is that A) a turret can only defend the ship it's on, and B) it precludes the idea of creating a specialist flak ship which is soemthing that any sensible commander would start looking at.
Point A: so what?
Point B: No, it doesn't preclude the idea of creating specialist flak ships. I don't even mind the idea. However, a specialist flak ship should be using its main armament to fulfil its role. To say that your specialist flak ship is a normal ship that just has secondary weaponry so far beyond other ships capabilities is dodgy in the extreme.
"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010
Right, you know that's meaningless yes? There is zero benefit for sending in a fighter escort rather than just more a-boats. In fact, it's detrimental.
As you, yourself, pointed out in another thread, it's also not like the ord can't stay out of range until the best moment to attack.
As you know, that was a small closed example for one, and would not work across an entire fleet. Secondly, it is impossible with torps. Thirdly, given that the ships with the FDS would have greater speed than the SDM then bombers would be unable to pull off this manoeuvre. So the only one that potentially could would be a-boats. I thought your system was meant to be anti-A-boat ...
Aside from that though, if you did manage to force him to delay striking for a turn then that is still an extra turns defence. So if he hits you every 2nd turn rather than every turn then you've halved the effectiveness of his ordnance. So it either becomes too powerful (or rather just not worth going around) or it unfairly discriminates against Eldar ordnance while still being poor conceptually.
Personally, I've always felt that the turn wasn't the problem so much as the lack of speed. They really should have been 25cm ships and the Defiant should have been LB 2 on a side. But that's my opinion.
Well, the Dauntless has good firepower and is fast and agile. It's a large escort. These ships however are slower and have broadside focus. The lack of speed fits well with the speed of the IN line cruisers. The broadside focus makes them want to break the enemy line, so they can fire both sides. This means that they're really suited to act as line cruisers. For this role they really don't need that extra speed. They are light cruisers still, and they must have been built to fill some battlefield role. Since they're meant to be used in the line then being lighter must be an attempt to be able to redeploy quickly to fill holes in the line.
"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010
Again, this is not turret suppression. It's meaningless. If you sent in a wave of 3f and 5 a-boats against a 5 turret target you do less than sending in 8 a-boats. In fact, 1f & 7a-boats is still worse than 8 a-boats.
I think that This list, with some tweaking, and the 'extra turrets' that everyone seems to think will save them, would be viable.
Retribution
Victory
Vanquisher
Cruisers:
Lunar
Gothic
Tyrant
Siluria
Schismatic
Heavy Cruisers:
Cardinal
BC:
Mars
Mercury
Armageddon
GC:
Exorcist (with option for +1 LB per side for +15pts)
Escorts:
Havoc
Apostate
Viper
Cobra
Other then the oddball Schismatic, it meets the requirements set forth, would not 'feel' drastically different from current IN, uses ships from BFGm, does not break fluff, and all more or less matches the 'theme'.
The only things that will probably need changing would be to re balance the apostate's weapons and *maybe* reduce the Schismatic's speed to 25cm. Nothing in this would 'break' or 'contaminate' IN if used in other lists, and it's viable against most threats.
Screw the Schismatic. No Chaos CLs ever. The Cardinal is also terribad.
By "rebalance the apostate's weapons" I presume you mean make the prow torpedoes fire forwards rather than left. ::)
-
Again, this is not turret suppression. It's meaningless. If you sent in a wave of 3f and 5 a-boats against a 5 turret target you do less than sending in 8 a-boats. In fact, 1f & 7a-boats is still worse than 8 a-boats.
Achem:
Since you can buy AC not in ships, and fighters cost less then aboats, it makes sense.
Once you actually are launching ord, though, you're right.
Again, I really wish people would READ the whole thing rather then just grab a random post and start bitching.
Screw the Schismatic. No Chaos CLs ever. The Cardinal is also terribad.
By "rebalance the apostate's weapons" I presume you mean make the prow torpedoes fire forwards rather than left. ::)
Achem: the 'No Chaos CL's might have baring if this was a chaos list. Since it's IN that would make it an IN light cruiser. Or should we pull the Siluria off this list too, since it's very similar profile?
What's terribad about the Cardinal? It's not OP, while it's lance is 45cm it's also fairly weak at str 2 and is fixed broadside rather then dorsal.
On the Apostate: it's torp needs to be forward and it's lance to be 30cm. Other then that...
-
Since you can buy AC not in ships, and fighters cost less then aboats, it makes sense.
Once you actually are launching ord, though, you're right.
Oh big deal.
Achem: the 'No Chaos CL's might have baring if this was a chaos list. Since it's IN that would make it an IN light cruiser. Or should we pull the Siluria off this list too, since it's very similar profile?
Yeah, except that if this distinctly Chaos looking ship became official for the IN there'd be clamours for it to be official for Chaos too.
What's terribad about the Cardinal? It's not OP, while it's lance is 45cm it's also fairly weak at str 2 and is fixed broadside rather then dorsal.
You're kidding right? This ship has terribly weak broadsides, as weak as the Acheron's, but without even the range to explain it. Its dorsal weaponry is also weaker than the Acheron's, and the Acheron already has substandard dorsal guns being too short ranged. And then, on top of all that, it has LFR torps! Crappola! Mind you, neither the Schismatic nor Cardinal suit the big gun idea of Bakka. If you were going to chose one of the Chaos CLs from BoN for Bakka it would likely be the Heretic or Unbeliever. As for the Cardinal, if you're going to allow Chaos hulls in the fleet then I'd just give them reserve fleet Murders.
On the Apostate: it's torp needs to be forward and it's lance to be 30cm. Other then that...
Ya, and the torps gotta come down to 30cm. And it shouldn't be named 'Emasculator class cruiser' or cost 185 pts either. All simply cut and paste errors of course.
-
God, I hate the term 'critting'. It's a grammatical nightmare. Since the ship can still move and shoot to a degree, it's crippled, and while I'm aware there is actually a rule where a ship is crippled, frankly, both uses pretty much describe the same thing, whether it came about from critical hits or just blasting it's superstructure to bits.
So you don't like critting. Still different from crippling. And no, they are different things. Stop this line of thought already.
Below 750 you could only take the Mars. The Emp simply COSTS too much. At 1500 you can take it, but it's more then 1/3rd of your fleet. This is not anything resembling cost effective.
Of course below 750 one would most likely take the Mars. It would still limit a fleet to only 4 LBs though. So how does that help an IN fleet survive Nids? With a ship from the Bakka list at least you now can add turrets. With other IN lists, you can only take LBs. And yes, the Emperor in Bakka would cost too much. So bite the bullet or either take another Mars. One will lose 4 more LBs but if the argument is because of Nid ABs, 4 more LBs won't really be changing the dynamics of the game much because Nids will still have more ABs on the table than one has LBs in an IN fleet.
Personally though, I would change the fluff of Rath being in an Emperor to Rath in an Oberon and make that ship available without the mandatory inclusion of Rath. It makes more sense from a background perspective of the fleet being AC light and would be easier to change. Of course, I would also prefer the Oberon to get back the range on its WBs that it lost. Nate however...
While, I grant that increasing the turrets would improve survivability, it probably won't make them survive.
And again, you think a fleet with only a slightly higher amount of LBs will survive?
D'Art, maybe I'm misinterpreting Nate's post, but it had a definite feel of 'Fine, you think you're so smart, YOU try it.' which more or less seems to me to suggest that hte HA is waiting for US to come up with something viable.
You know, not to toot our own horn but I do think we can come up with something viable. Each of us CAN make a viable list, as you are trying to do. Each of us CAN collectively make a list which can be accepted, grudgingly or not, by most of us. Problem is Nate is shooting down a lot of the ideas we are presenting like the Endeavors (20cm speed, 6+/5+ armor, 90' turns). I don't know why because he won't disclose details because of his Non-Disclosure Agreement. I don't know why they won't incorporate changes that it would mean we are coming out with BFG Mk II when this would actually be a perfect time to do so with fixing the weapons on some ships and/or cost as well as polish up the fluff and timeline. It's the perfect time because another company wants to take the reins (or has already) and hopefully make it viable.
Many have presented ideas to help make Bakka viable and feel fluffy. The idea of additional turrets is already being considered. However, I do feel it might be lacking so I was proposing a left column shift for WBs or hitting on 5s instead of 6s for Direct Fire weapons or 3+ to hit with turrets. Personally I think the last is ideal but Nate has declared it won't be incorporated.
But really at this point, worrying about Bakka having problems with Nid Aboats and claws when even other IN lists which can have more AC will have the same problem is a pointless argument.
-
Yeah, except that if this distinctly Chaos looking ship became official for the IN there'd be clamours for it to be official for Chaos too.
While, I, personally, don't think that's a bad thing, it's a good ship and a good fit for the fleet as far as CLs go. I'm gonna say that Grand Cruisers are Chaos Looking and they fit in IN fleets just fine. I'll leave the issue of things people want but can't ever have alone as it's a separate issue.
You're kidding right? This ship has terribly weak broadsides, as weak as the Acheron's, but without even the range to explain it. Its dorsal weaponry is also weaker than the Acheron's, and the Acheron already has substandard dorsal guns being too short ranged. And then, on top of all that, it has LFR torps! Crappola! Mind you, neither the Schismatic nor Cardinal suit the big gun idea of Bakka. If you were going to chose one of the Chaos CLs from BoN for Bakka it would likely be the Heretic or Unbeliever. As for the Cardinal, if you're going to allow Chaos hulls in the fleet then I'd just give them reserve fleet Murders.
Meh, Murders wouldn't bring much to this fleet. It needs some flavor. Again: not looking to make superships. We'll have to actually playtest the Cardinal to see if it needs buffed compared to other IN ships rather then compared to Chaos ships.
I think that the Schismatic is a good choice based on it's variable combat profile. It's ability to fire torps without being in a closing profile gives it a useful ability.
Ya, and the torps gotta come down to 30cm. And it shouldn't be named 'Emasculator class cruiser' or cost 185 pts either. All simply cut and paste errors of course.
Yes, obvious errors are obvious.
Dunno, a 45cm torp might be interesting. A little OP maybe, but there's nothing set in stone that says that every torp in the game must be 30cm. (Nids have a speed of 15. Short Burns have a speed of 40)
You know, not to toot our own horn but I do think we can come up with something viable. Each of us CAN make a viable list, as you are trying to do. Each of us CAN collectively make a list which can be accepted, grudgingly or not, by most of us. Problem is Nate is shooting down a lot of the ideas we are presenting like the Endeavors (20cm speed, 6+/5+ armor, 90' turns). I don't know why because he won't disclose details because of his Non-Disclosure Agreement. I don't know why they won't incorporate changes that it would mean we are coming out with BFG Mk II when this would actually be a perfect time to do so with fixing the weapons on some ships and/or cost as well as polish up the fluff and timeline. It's the perfect time because another company wants to take the reins (or has already) and hopefully make it viable.
LOL All I can suggest is that GW contracted out parts of the BFG property to a party or parties with some stipulations on both sides of the game table.
Where is Andy working, these days, anyway? ;)
-
Even with all the stipulations, why not change what needs changing? The game is long in the tooth. It needs changes in many areas like rules, weapons and fluff. The HA could get a pool of players who can present what really needs changing and then present them to the HA along with the reasons why things need changing and then the HA can approve/disapprove the proposed amendments and then present it to the new management.
There is no cost involved. There will be no salaries given out (except maybe some per diem for the HA). There is no paper book which needs to be printed in the thousands, just an online PDF. At best, they will just do a run with the BFG Starter Box if they still have the molds and they are still useable. They will get a better product. Everyone wins.
-
Even with all the stipulations, why not change what needs changing? The game is long in the tooth. It needs changes in many areas like rules, weapons and fluff. The HA could get a pool of players who can present what really needs changing and then present them to the HA along with the reasons why things need changing and then the HA can approve/disapprove the proposed amendments and then present it to the new management.
There is no cost involved. There will be no salaries given out (except maybe some per diem for the HA). There is no paper book which needs to be printed in the thousands, just an online PDF. At best, they will just do a run with the BFG Starter Box if they still have the molds and they are still useable. They will get a better product. Everyone wins.
Stop and consider though: is GW jeopardizing it's existing contract? How much is that contract worth? How far is GW willing to go to protect that contract? GW is very conservative fiscally these days. A bird in the hand really is worth two in the bush.
-
This would be my take for Bakka:
Battleships:
Oberon (dump the mandatory Rath+Emperor)
Invincible (I'd go with Invincible since it as part of the Bakka fluff but put the hp at 10)
Victory
Battlecruisers:
Mars
Mercury (needs tweaks, specifically torps instead of the NC then make it cheaper)
Overlord
Cruisers:
Dominator
Gothic
Lunar
Tyrant
Light Cruisers:
Endeavor
Endurance
Siluria
Escorts:
Cobra
Havoc
Sword
Viper
2 faster than usual ships. But if Nate wants a pirate hunting feel, there you have it.
-
Stop and consider though: is GW jeopardizing it's existing contract? How much is that contract worth? How far is GW willing to go to protect that contract? GW is very conservative fiscally these days. A bird in the hand really is worth two in the bush.
Depends on what is in the contract but even then, there's really no cost to GW nor to the new management, not unless the new management has a team in place making the changes which I doubt since Nate wouldn't be here asking for our input if they are. What event would cost either company millions if the changes were implemented? I don't think they have new models out yet. So any changes are still being made on paper (electronic paper at that) and so again, no cost yet other than what the new management paid for licensing the rights. GW will still hold onto the rights, you can be sure of that. So I don't see any situation yet where huge losses will happen.
-
Depends on what is in the contract but even then, there's really no cost to GW nor to the new management, not unless the new management has a team in place making the changes which I doubt since Nate wouldn't be here asking for our input if they are. What event would cost either company millions if the changes were implemented? I don't think they have new models out yet. So any changes are still being made on paper (electronic paper at that) and so again, no cost yet other than what the new management paid for licensing the rights. GW will still hold onto the rights, you can be sure of that. So I don't see any situation yet where huge losses will happen.
Dunno. I know that the current license out on BFG's IP are worth several million pounds a year that GW does not have to lift a finger to profit from. Right now they're just sitting back collecting checks.
Serious alteration to the ships capabilities might void it. I know that FFG holds the license for all BFG ship stats and names atm. We've already seen their hand in the current FAQ so the idea that these limits come from their contractual relationship with GW is not that far fetched.
This would be my take for Bakka:
Battleships:
Oberon (dump the mandatory Rath+Emperor)
Invincible (I'd go with Invincible since it as part of the Bakka fluff but put the hp at 10)
Victory
Battlecruisers:
Mars
Mercury (needs tweaks, specifically torps instead of the NC then make it cheaper)
Overlord
Cruisers:
Dominator
Gothic
Lunar
Tyrant
Light Cruisers:
Endeavor
Endurance
Siluria
Escorts:
Cobra
Havoc
Sword
Viper
2 faster than usual ships. But if Nate wants a pirate hunting feel, there you have it.
Eh... it's not really BAD... but you're not getting much use out of the faster ships. The Invicible and Vicky are good, but the Voss Trio and the Oberon make it feel like an Apoc list. Particularly with marine reserves.
The Havoc and the Siluria make Sword and Endeavour redundant. Endurance.... eh... again, not a big fan of Voss ships in this list. It's bad enough they turn up in the Bastion fleets list. Putting them here just dilutes the flavor of Apoc and this list further.
-
Why, turrets didn't work the first time. This is why the FDT fluff made a degree of sense as it was an attempt to improve existing defenses rather then heap on more of the same. Remember that 'turrets' is a catch all for dozens of different weapons systems, basically an abstraction to make the game simpler. Logically, since the existing systems did little to help, they'd look into something new.
Background
I don't think that this fleet list represents battlefleet Bakka “Today†(999.M41). The presence of the Dominus Astra and Admiral Rath implies that the list represents battlefleet Bakka before or during the first tyranic war (~745.M41). So the “improved†turrets are no reaction to the tyranid menace, it is the tactical setup of Bakka ever since. Even if we assume that this list is from the “40k present timeâ€, there are a lot of arguments against such a change.
a) The tyranids are “just another alien raceâ€. We, the players know that they are something bigger, but from an ingame view they are “joe alienâ€: a race like a hundred other which the Imperium had annihilated during its existence. Keep in mind that after the battles of Circe/Macragge the Imperium believed that they had defeated the tyranids once and for all. Only after the apperance of Kraken (993.M41) and Leviathan (997.M41) they realised that there are many more of them. And you don't change your tacics against a opponent if you thing he is beaten already.
b) Imperials don't change their setups so easily. The templates are holy and sacred for the mechanicus. The Black Templars needed over hundred years that the Land Raider crusader was accepted by the mechanicus. I don't think that they change the template of a cruiser in such a short timeframe. Even if we asume that the changes took place directly after circe 250 years is very short by imperial standards. ^^
c) Imperial Command isn't very open minded, so to say. I think that “more of it†is a far more logical choice than “better equipmentâ€. So if the turret defences were inferior it makes perfect sense that they just raised the numbers. “better eqipment†would be the tau solution to a specific problem, the Imperium usually prefers numbers over quality.
Gamewise
+1turrets works fine against any form of ordnance. I see the problem at another “frontlineâ€: torpedos. You own as well as the enemys.
a) Your own. Without own AC the enemy just sends some Fighters on CAP and your Torps are useless. The logical choice is something what most players woill not like: you use more Ncs. This not only allows you to do some damage, it also has the advantage that you don't neen “reload ordnance†any more, so you are free to use other special orders instead.
b) enemy torpedos. As long as the enemy is in the front arc it'snot a big deal, the 6+ armour helps a lot. But if he somehow gets into your flank you have a problem. I know, this isn't unusual: its always a problem when someone gets into the flank of the “imperial phalanxâ€, but without AC the problem is bigger. Much bigger.
Possible Solutions:
Obvioulsy you need some AC. I tried out a game completely without AC, it just didn't work. As it would be boring to use two or even tree Mars in every game you should allow other carriers:
- the Jovian should be in
- you should allow the Dictator either as a 0-1 (or 1 per 1500 points) choice or you move him in the battlecruiser section. You can explain this by the fact that the Dictator is a rare ship in Bakka lists.
- another battlecruiser–carrier would be a nice thing. I'm tninking about a “Dictator battlecruiserâ€: a dictator with 45cm Batteries, and a s2@45cm lance for ~ 250 Points.
A more “exotic†idea is another NC variant: the HA wanted that the NC in this list isn't used as a piece of artillery. Instead it should be used in a more aggressive manner. How about this:
“Supernova†assault system
A Novacannon with 10-30cm Range. When you fire, roll the scatter dice and 2D6. One dice is the damage, the other is the scatter distance. The player can freely decide which dice is used for damage and which one scatter. In addition this NC variant can be fired while the ship is under special rules like BFI, AAF or CTNH.
This upgrade is for free, but 50% (rounded down) of the fleets NC's must be exchanged with this variant.
→ the idea is to avoid “long range NC Spam†on the one hand, and on the other hand give the Bakka fleet a potent short range weapon system on the other hand, what IMO fits better to a Big Gun/close combat fleet.
Thoughts?
-
Possible Solutions:
Obvioulsy you need some AC. I tried out a game completely without AC, it just didn't work. As it would be boring to use two or even tree Mars in every game you should allow other carriers:
- the Jovian should be in
- you should allow the Dictator either as a 0-1 (or 1 per 1500 points) choice or you move him in the battlecruiser section. You can explain this by the fact that the Dictator is a rare ship in Bakka lists.
- another battlecruiser–carrier would be a nice thing. I'm tninking about a “Dictator battlecruiserâ€: a dictator with 45cm Batteries, and a s2@45cm lance for ~ 250 Points.
A more “exotic†idea is another NC variant: the HA wanted that the NC in this list isn't used as a piece of artillery. Instead it should be used in a more aggressive manner. How about this:
“Supernova†assault system
A Novacannon with 10-30cm Range. When you fire, roll the scatter dice and 2D6. One dice is the damage, the other is the scatter distance. The player can freely decide which dice is used for damage and which one scatter. In addition this NC variant can be fired while the ship is under special rules like BFI, AAF or CTNH.
This upgrade is for free, but 50% (rounded down) of the fleets NC's must be exchanged with this variant.
→ the idea is to avoid “long range NC Spam†on the one hand, and on the other hand give the Bakka fleet a potent short range weapon system on the other hand, what IMO fits better to a Big Gun/close combat fleet.
Thoughts?
Eh,the problem with that is 'no new rules'. Further, wouldn't this compliment NC spam rather then nerf it?
As far as the timeline goes, it's unclear. The Jovian is from 'after' but Rath and the Dominus are from 'before'. So which is it?
-
Dunno. I know that the current license out on BFG's IP are worth several million pounds a year that GW does not have to lift a finger to profit from. Right now they're just sitting back collecting checks.
Serious alteration to the ships capabilities might void it. I know that FFG holds the license for all BFG ship stats and names atm. We've already seen their hand in the current FAQ so the idea that these limits come from their contractual relationship with GW is not that far fetched.
We're not talking about alterations from the ground up. Tweaks is more like it. And besides which, there's really not going to be any changes to the physical stuff they will be profiting from. That's where the money is. And if you tweak the ships and rules so that people will like them and buy them then it would only lead to profit in the long term.
Eh... it's not really BAD... but you're not getting much use out of the faster ships. The Invicible and Vicky are good, but the Voss Trio and the Oberon make it feel like an Apoc list. Particularly with marine reserves.
The Havoc and the Siluria make Sword and Endeavour redundant. Endurance.... eh... again, not a big fan of Voss ships in this list. It's bad enough they turn up in the Bastion fleets list. Putting them here just dilutes the flavor of Apoc and this list further.
You won't really be getting much use out of the faster ships because IN doesn't really have any fast cruisers. At best you will have a fleet with the Invincible, Mercury and 2 Silurias sprinkled with escorts if you want a fast setup.
Also, it's only Endeavor duo since the Defiant is not in there. And the Endeavors I am thinking of are of course the Spd 20, 6+/5+ Armor and 90' Turn variety. Of course, I would prefer the Dauntless in there rather than the Siluria which would make for a better combo with the Invincible and Mercury.
And so my list has ships which have similar ships with other lists. Armageddon and Bastion did not dilute the flavor of the Gothic list even if there were Emperors, Lunars, Tyrants and Gothics in there. Armageddon did not dilute Bastion and vice versa when both have Apocs and the Endeavors. What makes the list standout is the addition of other ships and unique rules for he list, not the ships which are available in other fleet lists.
I still think Bakka should get 3+ to hit with their turrets.
-
You won't really be getting much use out of the faster ships because IN doesn't really have any fast cruisers. At best you will have a fleet with the Invincible, Mercury and 2 Silurias sprinkled with escorts if you want a fast setup.
Also, it's only Endeavor duo since the Defiant is not in there. And the Endeavors I am thinking of are of course the Spd 20, 6+/5+ Armor and 90' Turn variety. Of course, I would prefer the Dauntless in there rather than the Siluria which would make for a better combo with the Invincible and Mercury.
And so my list has ships which have similar ships with other lists. Armageddon and Bastion did not dilute the flavor of the Gothic list even if there were Emperors, Lunars, Tyrants and Gothics in there. Armageddon did not dilute Bastion and vice versa when both have Apocs and the Endeavors. What makes the list standout is the addition of other ships and unique rules for he list, not the ships which are available in other fleet lists.
I still think Bakka should get 3+ to hit with their turrets.
My old setup for Fast IN with bakka revolved around Invincible, 'Mercury', Cardinal, Enforcer and Dauntless.
The Endeavor and Endurance just don't have synergy with the the Mercury and Siluria. To me they feel like the odd man out here.
There's a reason that I refer to the Gothic list as Battlefleet Generic. It's like adding tofu. Bastion Fleets and Armageddon have their own flavor, I think that Bakka should too.
-
My old setup for Fast IN with bakka revolved around Invincible, 'Mercury', Cardinal, Enforcer and Dauntless.
The Endeavor and Endurance just don't have synergy with the the Mercury and Siluria. To me they feel like the odd man out here.
Unfortunately, Cardinal and Enforcer are probably out of the question.
The Endeavor and Endurance don't have synergy with the fast ships. They do have synergy with the other ships in the list and so are not the odd man out.
There's a reason that I refer to the Gothic list as Battlefleet Generic. It's like adding tofu. Bastion Fleets and Armageddon have their own flavor, I think that Bakka should too.
Bakka will have its own flavor in higher turrets and new ship options along with the AC light feel.
-
Unfortunately, Cardinal and Enforcer are probably out of the question.
The Endeavor and Endurance don't have synergy with the fast ships. They do have synergy with the other ships in the list and so are not the odd man out.
Not sure why Cardinal would be out. It fits the requirements of Bakka like a glove.
Enforcer, you have a point.
Endeavour has synergy with nothing. It's doubly useless in this list, as we have the Siluria. Endurance, not so much, but still not a good option.
-
Not sure why Cardinal would be out. It fits the requirements of Bakka like a glove.
Enforcer, you have a point.
Endeavour has synergy with nothing. It's doubly useless in this list, as we have the Siluria. Endurance, not so much, but still not a good option.
If the Cardinal is available, it should only be as a reserve as it's basically an old design which is susceptible to Chaos influences. Probably better to allow it in a future Chaos list than an IN list.
Lunar, Tyrant, Gothic and Dominator. Endeavors have synergy with these. They move at the same speed and they can cover the blind spots of those cruisers, esp if they can get the proposed alterations we are pushing for. The Siluria's speed would be wasted by sticking with these ships in formation. Siluria is a fast ship and much more suited with the Mercury and if it is included, the Invincible for a fast anti-pirate task force.
Though the Dauntless would still be a better option than the Siluria with its prow lances.
-
If the Cardinal is available, it should only be as a reserve as it's basically an old design which is susceptible to Chaos influences. Probably better to allow it in a future Chaos list than an IN list.
The Siluria and Havoc are equally old, and currently in use in this fleet. Remember that this is also a fleet dredging the bottom of the barrel for ships following a catastrophic loss. Hence why experimental ships like the Mercury and aging war horses like Siluria and Havok are in line use. Frankly, I'm surprised that Reserve fleets ships aren't available to it, since this is the exact situation that things like mothball fleets exist for. Not that Tempestus gets the best gear anyway.
-
If the Cardinal is available, it should only be as a reserve as it's basically an old design which is susceptible to Chaos influences. Probably better to allow it in a future Chaos list than an IN list.
The Siluria and Havoc are equally old, and currently in use in this fleet. Remember that this is also a fleet dredging the bottom of the barrel for ships following a catastrophic loss. Hence why experimental ships like the Mercury and aging war horses like Siluria and Havok are in line use. Frankly, I'm surprised that Reserve fleets ships aren't available to it, since this is the exact situation that things like mothball fleets exist for. Not that Tempestus gets the best gear anyway.
Which means a Murder is more likely to be found in Bakka than Cardinal.
-
Which means a Murder is more likely to be found in Bakka than Cardinal.
Ehh... the Cardinal was in Bakka in BFGm This way it sticks as close as can to ships that have already been in the list.
-
Which means a Murder is more likely to be found in Bakka than Cardinal.
Ehh... the Cardinal was in Bakka in BFGm This way it sticks as close as can to ships that have already been in the list.
That maybe but I would think that there is already too many new ships for this fleet list that having one more would be redundant instead of just adding an existing one like the Murder which again is the more prevalent hull and much more likely to be with any list scraping the bottom of the barrel. Also, at this point, it also seems Cardinal is out since it was not included in the latest Bakka drafts. I think the HA is also trying to streamline what kind of hulls are available to each race preferably limiting it to what hulls they normally use.
-
That maybe but I would think that there is already too many new ships for this fleet list that having one more would be redundant instead of just adding an existing one like the Murder which again is the more prevalent hull and much more likely to be with any list scraping the bottom of the barrel. Also, at this point, it also seems Cardinal is out since it was not included in the latest Bakka drafts. I think the HA is also trying to streamline what kind of hulls are available to each race preferably limiting it to what hulls they normally use.
Hm, so that new rule where chaos can take IN ships is a figment of my imagination?
I'm going on the idea that the previous pdf lists are probably not what they're looking at now. The Cardinal is a much better fit then the Murder, having a higher base number of turrets to begin with, which is more or less what everyone seems to want rather then FDT.
-
Ok another try: my impression how Battlefleet Bakka (BFB) should look.
Notes:
All ships have +1 turret. Instead of a fixed price I used an increase from between 0 and 10 points, depending on my impression if the ship needs a beef up or not compared to its competitors. E.g.: the Dominator pays 10 points while the Tyrant gets it for free.
I don't use the regular categories of Battleship/Battlecruiser/Cruiser, instead I used rare ships/uncommon ships/common ships
Rare ships: you can have 1 rare ship for every 3 uncommon and/or common ships in your Fleet.
- 0-1 Dominus Astra 580 Points (6 turrets)
(Note: Admiral Rath and Assault Boats included in the cost. Should have one or two fixed refits instead of one randomly rolled. Obviously no other admiral if you take it)
- Retribution class Battleship 355 Points (5 turrets)
- Victory class Battleship 345 Points (5 turrets)
- Vanquisher class Battleship 300 Points (6 turrets)
- 0-1 Jovian class Battlecruiser 260 Points (4 turrets)
Uncommon ships: you can have 1 uncommon ship for every 2 common ships.
- Mars Class Battlecruiser 290 Points (4 Turrets)
(Note: a Mars has to buy the turret upgrade from the FAQ 2010. Costs aleady included)
- Dictator class cruiser 230 Points (4 turrets)
- Armageddon class Battlecruiser 245 Points (3 turrets)
0-12 common ships: you can have up to 12 common ships in your fleet
- Mercury class Battlecruiser 260 points (3 turrets)
- Dominator class cruiser 200 Points (3 turrets)
- Tyrant class cruiser 185 Points (3 turrets)
- Lunar class cruiser 185 Points (3 turrets)
- Gothic class cruiser 185 Points (3 turrets)
- Endeavour class light cruiser 120 Points (3 turrets)
- Endurance class light cruiser 120 Points (3 turrets)
- Siluria class light cruiser 100 Points (2 turrets)
Escorts: you may include any number of escorts in your fleet in squadrons of 2-6 ships.
-Sword class frigate 40 Points (3 turrets)
-Havok class frigate 40 Points (3 turrets)
-Viper class destroyer 40 Points (2 turrets)
-Cobra class destroyer 35 Points (2 turrets)
-
Hm, so that new rule where chaos can take IN ships is a figment of my imagination?
What has that got to do with IN taking Chaos hulls?
I'm going on the idea that the previous pdf lists are probably not what they're looking at now. The Cardinal is a much better fit then the Murder, having a higher base number of turrets to begin with, which is more or less what everyone seems to want rather then FDT.
And why shouldn't they be looking at the old Bakka list? Really it's there for everyone to see. Aside from which the other IN ships available (Mars, Lunar, Dominator, Tyrant, Gothic) don't have 3 turrets anyway so having 3 turrets is not an auto requirement.
-
What has that got to do with IN taking Chaos hulls?
... D'Art, are there two of you posting to here?
I think the HA is also trying to streamline what kind of hulls are available to each race preferably limiting it to what hulls they normally use.
My point was: if they're trying to limit what hulls can be taken by what race, then why introduce a rule that actually makes it more muddled?
I see no problem with the Cardinal being used. it's a good ship for this fleet, though I grant Sig's earlier point that the lances may need rebalanced.
*fleet list*
It's... an interesting way to do it, but I think it's too different to fly. I'll have to try it out sometime that way though, might lead to some interesting combinations.
-
My point was: if they're trying to limit what hulls can be taken by what race, then why introduce a rule that actually makes it more muddled?
So far the only fleet IN fleet list which can take the Chaos hulls is the Reserve Fleet of Segmentum Obscuras. The Chaos list allowing traitor IN vessels is so far only a draft. This is what I mean by the HA limiting which lists allow for using another races' hulls.
I see no problem with the Cardinal being used. it's a good ship for this fleet, though I grant Sig's earlier point that the lances may need rebalanced.
I do since if this is not a reserve ship, another list can take it via reserves. I grant that it's a good ship but I think much better suited for Chaos lists than IN. There's already the Mercury if you want a fast ship. I don't think the list needs another.
-
Ok, here is how I would suggest Bakka.
No FDT.
Add "When using the Bakka Fleetlist, non-reserve ships gain +1 turrets."
Victory seems cool, but maybe 10 points overcosted.
Vanquisher should lose a base turret.
Mercury should lose nova for torps.
Jovian is a really cool ship. It belongs in another fleet list.
The Cardinal is a fine and interesting choice. Definitly not very powerful for its points, great to give uniqueness to a fast Bakka list.
I don't like the Dominator in the fleet, but if its fluffy, so be it. Why is it fluffy again?
Why are the Voss patterns in this fleet? And why not the Defiant?
Why is the Gothic in the list?
-
The Dominator is in the fleet because Bakka is closer to Kar Duniash than the gothic sector.... and what he isn't realizing is that the gothic sector only has them because they had one during the war. Not 5, not 3, just one.... which makes it feel more like a reserve vessel anyways.
It's fine to include it here. The vessel isn't really anywhere else.
-
I'd say it, but someone has already mentioned that the Gothic list might as well not exist, right?
Anyway. Fine for the Dom.
-
Okay folks, v1.2 of the Bakka list is posted. There are so many changes incorporated, it will be easier for me to just do a fast-pass on the highlights. Once again, I’m expecting a LOT of comments on this. I will not be able to respond to them all, but I will be reading them all.
1. The Vanquisher is no longer a one-of, and its price is dropped a LOT. The profile is unchanged.
2. The Dominion has made an appearance as a regular ship. I don’t understand the attraction, but it’s here, profile unchanged. I did however have to change the fluff a bit from the Nemesis list. Unless it’s unavoidable (such as in a planetary assault), the IN does NOT use battlecruisers for convoy duty- these are expensive line ships!
2a. The Mercury can have torps for -20 points. (sigh) :-\
3. The Jovian is NOT gone. Before you panic, that does not mean we’re not removing it from the FINAL. The ship is specifically a one-of and a reserve vessel of Battlefleet Bakka, meaning it can’t appear anywhere else. Why I left it in is because I simply don’t get all the hate this ship is generating. It’s rule-set isn’t broken, and as a one-of reserve, a lot of ships have to already be in play before it can be taken. Finally, for being 10 points cheaper than a Mars, it only has two more launch bays and gives up a LOT of firepower for the privilege. For the same price, a Styx would whack this thing hands-down! Secondly, even if you assume a min-max fleet, it’s both a reserve ship AND a battlecruiser. The very smallest max-carrier fleet that could have one of these is four Silurias, a Mars and a Jovian, AND a 50-point fleet commander because you bounced above 750 points to get it. Even with no re-rolls, you just spent 980 points. For that same 980 points, Chaos can have a fleet commander, FOUR Devastations and a Murder. Even any other Imperial fleet isn’t doing bad: a min-max Imperial fleet can have a fleet commander, FOUR Dictators and an extra re-roll with points to spare. Keep in mind that this 980 points didn’t buy the Bakka fleet ANY extra turrets or other shiny bits so I fail to see how this can POSSIBLY be overpowering. The point is, it’s a character ship that has existed for more than a decade, and I have seen it used at least once every GamesDay I have been to and numerous times at game events with little fanfare or headache. Once again, it’s here only for discussion, but I REALLY don’t get all the angst.
4. Fleet Defense Turrets are gone. However, Adeptus Mechanicus vessels in a Bakka fleet can have them for +5 points instead of rolling their Mechanicus Gifts normally. Additionally, as Bakka is a Segmentum forgeworld, a Bakka fleet can use AM cruisers in lieu of battlecruisers. Oh god HORRORS- AM Dictators EVERYWHERE!! Before you panic, the BASE price for an AM Dictator is 255 points, 5 points less than a Dominion.
5. Ray believes FDT’s are what gave this fleet it’s special character, and I agree with him. However, in lieu of FDT’s, all IN capital ships get +1 turret for +10 points apiece. Additionally, the Endeavor and Endurance have been made into “flak ships†by making their base cost 120 points for a base profile of 3 Turrets. Yes, this means they can also get +1 turret for +10 points. They become expensive for not a lot of firepower, but they become flak ships in a very real sense. Once again, before I hear any lip about how overpowering this is, a min-max fleet of a fleet commander, four Endeavor flak ships (+1 turret apiece), an AM Dictator and a Jovian comes to 1085 points. Because all Bakka carriers are battlecruisers, even with 2 Silurias you can’t squeeze another carrier into the fleet. Now because the Jovian is the only reserve in this fleet you can now also take a Space Marine SC, and for those two more bays (some consider SC bays to count as 3 IN bays: ok fine), the only thing you can get is one more cruiser or two more CL’s to approach 1500 points. Now let’s pretend you min-max those to get two MORE +1-turret Endeavors to bring you to 1490 points. Good job- you have ONE ship with FDT’s, only ONE other ship that exceeds 6hp, six single-shield CL flak ships with big turrets, ONE space Marine SC and a TOTAL of 12 launch bays (13 if you want to say 2 SC bays count for 3 IN bays). Now, if you can’t imagine any number of Imperial or Chaos (NOT to mention Tau, Tyranids, etc.) 1490-point fleets that can smash this flat, you are arguing because you just like to argue.
6. Space Marine strike cruisers can be taken as reserves. I suppose you can use these to skew your min-max counts, but these are pretty expensive vessels in and of themselves and in the end all you scored by taking the Jovian is two extra launchbays. In other words, I’m not debating this with a min-max argument. Post theoretical fleet lists to your heart’s content- I’m actually looking for a more convincing argument than min-max counts. Of course, if you can think of something that is actually broken, such as a min-max Bakka carrier-heavy fleet that can actually outnumber a min-maxed fleet from another race, then we need to discuss it. Do NOT bring up Eldar. :)
7. While it’s not reflected here, the FAQ going to GW will reflect that the Cobra “Widowmakers†refit can only be taken by Imperial Navy squadrons (not pirates, renegades, etc.), ONLY Cobras can take the refit, ALL Cobras in a squadron must take the refit if taken, and more than half the ships in the squadron must be Cobras. This is how the refit should ALWAYS have been used. This provides for clever variations if desired, and it prevents the stupidity of one Widowmaker Cobra leading a flotilla of five Vipers (or Swords wanting a lock-on bonus, for that matter).
Last but not least, I’m NOT saying the Jovian isn’t dead. If we need to kill it, we will. I just want the debate to center around how this ship (or any of the other rules) breaks the fleet, not some tangential argument about “fluff says it’s impossible†or something similar. Let me repeat- I am NOT engaging in a fluff argument!
Okay, well that’s it for now. I’m going to bed. Let the debate commence!
-
Debate, or throw massive balls of flame at each other?
Noticed a few typos. I see you still have your Jovian-love.
Turrets should really be a 5 point MANDATORY upgrade. People won't buy them, so they should be mandatory.
-
I liked the Fleet Defense Turret. I know that you'd rather see them on AM ships for the sake of fluff, but the Imperium is so big... maybe that somewhere, sometimes happens something strange...
Fluff says that the Imperium is big only for the purpose of let happen everything.
I think that 1 turret for 10 points is worst than that.
The only reason to eliminate the FDT was fluff? Did I lost some points about gameplay concerning them?
-
oi, where to start.
First off I guess I'll mention reserves. There is far too much list and race bleed going on here. It was fine to have the armageddon list representative of a combined IN/marine fleet because it made sense in the terms of the war and provides a good base for marine dominion fleets. Then we got the marine dominion fleet and now we have bakka which breaks all reserve rules and allows marines to be taken as reserve in an IN fleet or VV. This isn't adding anything that can't already be done with the other lists and breaks a core principle of reserve ships (It was even specifically stated as an example of what you can't do!). I really don't like adding in all the exceptions to the reserve rules as it just makes the rules muddier as to what fleets are legal (admech can show up in any imperial fleet, IN can show up in a dominion fleet, SM can show up in a bakka fleet where admech can also appear 2:1 instead of 3:1). And, no, "if you don't like it, don't use it" doesn't apply here because you are eroding the core ruleset which should be guiding the creation of the fleet lists instead being used as a cork board to tack on a list of exceptions. Build lists with as few exceptions to the core mechanics as possible!
Ok ships:
Victory. I'm still surprised at this ship. The thing compares extremely favorably to an apocalypse class battleship but trades a total of 4 lances (2 per side) for being able to fire 60cm without penalty and +5cm speed. You can even give it one turret more and have the same price as an apocalypse. That either makes the Apocalypse overpriced (which it probably is) or this underpriced (which it probably is). Everything else I'm fine with though I find it a bit odd that NC is only worth 10 points on the ship rather than the usual 20.
Vanquisher. IF the victory goes up in price then this becomes a valid option with the extra turret. As it stands right now I'd still take a Victory over this ship for the speed to keep up with the cruisers and ability to turn with a BM in place.
Jovian. I don't have a problem with this ship being as restricted as it is, but they will be a common sight in the Bakka list if the dominion is a typo since they do provide a good chunk of the needed AC at 1500 points and I don't think the +1 turret for ten points you can buy for the fleet will really help reduce the reliance on AC.
Dominion. is 6LB a typo? With this ship at 6lb, no one will take a jovian :) It seems a bit powerful for the same cost as the far more restricted and weapon light Jovian. Even with 4lb, this thing completely negates ANY reason to continue including the mars in the list and every reason to remove the mars to reduce the access to NC.
Mercury. You still haven't fixed or even addressed this ship in any way except grudgingly giving an option for torpedoes instead of NC. There is no logical reason for the battleship grade powerplant to blow up like it does and there is absolutely no reason to take this ship because of that. There HAS to be something more here to make this ship worth taking over a reserve Overlord. 5cm extra speed does not do it on a ship that is otherwise functionally the same as an overlord and yet pays +15 points more for the privilege of blowing up in your face.
Endeavor/Endurance. Can anyone say AC bunker? I'm not sure that this is needed or even really useful, but I'll take it and see if it breaks anything. They will be tough nuts to crack with AC. Hopefully just shooting them doesn't negate this.
Cobra: with the viper using the same model there really isn't a need for this in the list and it will avoid confusion. it can easily be fluffed for the lack of cobra.
-
I liked the Fleet Defense Turret. I know that you'd rather see them on AM ships for the sake of fluff, but the Imperium is so big... maybe that somewhere, sometimes happens something strange...
Fluff says that the Imperium is big only for the purpose of let happen everything.
I think that 1 turret for 10 points is worst than that.
The only reason to eliminate the FDT was fluff? Did I lost some points about gameplay concerning them?
No, the reason FDT was eliminated was that 'some people' in this thread threw screaming tantrums about how much they hated it and the Jovian. They never bothered to test it, or even post a battle report. They just screamed until it went away.
Personally, Why would we reserve Jovian into another list when we can reserve in Dominion?
Vaaish: On the Mercury: It used to cost 295 and explode, and I still took it. I have the feeling that people don't get this ship and what it can do.
Nate: Looks like you can only manage 10 lbs at 750. Chaos can do 14. However, I'm sure that someone will point out how this is obviously far, far too many, as a min-maxed necron fleet has zero launch bays.
Endeavour, still useless. Endurance, slightly better.
-
Ok, some comments.
Reserves, SMs and AdMech.
I agree that the reserves rules should be paired down to basics. While not broken per se allowing the AM instead of CBs does go against typical reserve rules, and as such it just sucks. Again, not broken, but definitely not good.
Likewise, it would probably be better to not include SM ships as reserves, since they are mentioned as a different race from the IN, and we already have a list that allows the intermingling of the ships freely. If Bakka could do it then why not just allow it for all IN lists? One or the other I would suggest.
Given that this fleet uses older mothballed ships then maybe allow the Murder as a reserve ship.
The Jovian as a reserve only is satisfactory.
Fleet Defence Turret
I would very much like to bury this crap rule for all time. The fact that it's included in the AM random list of upgrades should be something best hand-waived away until those rules themselves come up for review and we can do away with it forever. You certainly shouldn't be highlighting it and bringing it into another list, particularly as a selectable choice. Dumping this rule would allow the AM to go back to normal reserves too, as I suspect that this is the reason why you made them the CB filler in the first place. Note: even if you did include this rule, why would they have to pay 5 pts to take the FDT? They already pay for their upgrade and the FDT is one of the worst of the lot. There's no reason to make them pay more.
Ships
The Victory: despite what Vaaish says, the Apocalypse is better than the Victory. It has +50% broadside firepower. That is a massive increase. As a stand-off vessel the speed is really pretty useless. It might have some use, but it also has its downside, in the increased minimum move and it isn't really worth much. in essence, of all stats speed is the easiest sacrificed. It does no harm to the Emperor or Oberon to have only 15cm speed, nor the Apocalypse either. As for the "consistency" argument, well having 2 turns of 6 lances apiece (locked-on) is better than having 3 turns of 4 lances apiece (2 turns locked-on). And that's assuming that you'll fail your LO test one time in three. Even when you do so however, you still don't lose the 6WBs dorsal, so it's just the broadsides that come into the comparison. And on top of all this, the LO rule for the Apocalypse is a bad one. It should have 60cm range at all times, but drop a BM in contact for firing over 30cm. So the Victory shouldn't be compared to an unbalanced Apocalypse, it should be compared to a good one. Against the good Apocalypse it's woeful.
The Mercury: this ship is still overpriced. Let's assume that we have the torp version, at 235 pts. With range upgrade it comes to 250 pts. Let's compare to the alternative, a 220 pt Overlord with targeting matrix upgrade (+15 pts). Well, as others have pointed out, we're looking at practically identical firepower. So that means that the Mercury pays 15 pts for +5cm speed and the privilege of blowing up spectacularly in your own lines and crippling your entire fleet. Wot? At best you'd be trying to use its extra speed to get it as deep into enemy lines as quickly as possible before it blows. This makes it a fireship, not a warship. If you just made it 60cm range on all guns (no price change) and got rid of the range upgrade option then it'd be fine, for those that wanted to have a fast fireship of course (I'd still take the Overlord before this ship, and the Armageddon before the Overlord).
The Dominion: Apart from the 6AC typo already pointed out, the ship is missing its torpedoes.
Flak Ships
OK. We'll see how it goes.
Fleet List
I can see the removal of the Mars, Sword and Cobra. These are redundant in the list. Mars/Dominion are equivalents, and the Mars is a NC toting ship. Given the preponderance of NCs in the list we don't need the Mars. As for the other two, I'd consider that Bakka should probably be a little more constrained to these alternative vessels.
-
No, the reason FDT was eliminated was that 'some people' in this thread threw screaming tantrums about how much they hated it and the Jovian. They never bothered to test it, or even post a battle report. They just screamed until it went away.
Look, I'm getting sick of your shit. You act as if you've got the monopoly on how the game should be run. My objections, and those of some other people, were not balance issues. Therefore there was absolutely no fuckin need to playtest. Just because something may not be broken does not mean it should automatically be included (though the jury was still out on balance).
And how is it even any different from how you act? You scream to get things you want, such as lances on SM ships, despite how fuckin retarded that is. So unless you have an argument to make for or against something, shut the fuck up.
-
Vaaish: On the Mercury: It used to cost 295 and explode, and I still took it. I have the feeling that people don't get this ship and what it can do.
That has no relevance to what's happening here because it was both overpriced and before the changes to the Overlord boosted it's capabilities. Right now, outside of the NC, there is NOTHING this ship does better than the Overlord. That being the case, what is that huge BB size powerplant being used for? BB are massively larger than CA so it can't just be the 5cm speed increase. Basically the ship needs to have comparable weapons strength to a battleship and the speed to justify the explosiveness. Anything less just doesn't make sense when you have the overlord available since the logical choice to increase speed would be to reduce armor or some other aspect.
Sig: I think that the reqirement of the Apoc to achieve lock on to reach 60cm range is important. It adds another variable to the equation that means you may end up with the ship stuck at 30cm and even if you can shoot 60cm you've got the problem of that critical on the apocalypse. It basically means you trade 1-1.5 hits per turn for gaining more reliable ranged fire than on the apocalypse. To me that seems a pretty small price to pay for reliability.
-
Sig: I think that the reqirement of the Apoc to achieve lock on to reach 60cm range is important. It adds another variable to the equation that means you may end up with the ship stuck at 30cm and even if you can shoot 60cm you've got the problem of that critical on the apocalypse. It basically means you trade 1-1.5 hits per turn for gaining more reliable ranged fire than on the apocalypse. To me that seems a pretty small price to pay for reliability.
You're right, it does have to be accounted for. Sometimes you may find yourself wanting to shoot over 30cm but can't because of a failed LO. Assuming that you can find no other targets within range that means you've wasted your firepower. This is why I assumed that you'd fail your LO one time in three. So, one time in three your Apocalypse fails to fire its lances. That means that the other two times out of three it fires 6 locked-on lances, for a total of 12 LO lances over 3 turns. The Victory in the exact same circumstances would fire 8 LO lances and 4 normal lances. This is flat out worse than the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse also has the advantage of focus. Those 12 lances only have to worry about 2 turns worth of shields, rather than 3. On top of which, the chance of failing that LO test is less than 1 in 3, given average leadership, and particularly given re-rolls. Then, on top of that, what about when the enemy closes to within 30cm range? The Apocalypse simply gains +33% focusable firepower and +50% off-side firepower.
As for the crit, since it no longer does damage to the ship it's a joke. The chances of getting through your end phase and then your opponents end phase without having repaired it are minuscule. Even then for it to matter your opponent would have to make sure he laid a BM in contact. Which means long range firepower wasted on a BB rather than one of your other ships, and still unlikely to pay off. And you only even suffer the crit for firing over 45cm anyway, not 30cm. Meaning you're not even going to always take the crit.
And then, on top of all of this, the Apocalypse is still unbalanced. People shouldn't have to pass a command check just to get the proper range on their BB. They should always get it. It should be that reliable, just drain engines and shields (hence the BM) in return for the extra range.
So, comparing the Victory to this version of the Apocalypse (ie, a balanced version), then it really comes up short. It comes up short against the proper Apocalypse, the proper Oberon, and even the flawed Retribution, let alone the proper one. So, let's say that the Victory becomes fully balanced against all the current profiles of all these ships, then that would mean we've produced yet another crappy IN BB. Is that what we want?
-
It would be best if all the IN battleships got a review but seeing that won't happen, I'm not sure if it would be better to just balance them against each other or to create something new in hopes that eventually the others will be reviewed.
-
The Apocalypse is the hands down better ship.
-
Wait, you repair in your opponents end phase?
-
Rulebook, P31, The End Phase > Damage Control, first sentence.
"Both Players may attempt to repair critical damage during the end phase."
-
Well damn, I don't like that. You knock out someones weapons and they shoot right back at you in their turn.
-
No, the reason FDT was eliminated was that 'some people' in this thread threw screaming tantrums about how much they hated it and the Jovian. They never bothered to test it, or even post a battle report. They just screamed until it went away.
Look, I'm getting sick of your shit. You act as if you've got the monopoly on how the game should be run. My objections, and those of some other people, were not balance issues. Therefore there was absolutely no fuckin need to playtest. Just because something may not be broken does not mean it should automatically be included (though the jury was still out on balance).
And how is it even any different from how you act? You scream to get things you want, such as lances on SM ships, despite how fuckin retarded that is. So unless you have an argument to make for or against something, shut the fuck up.
Okay everyone, ease up. Everyone here is entitled to disagree with each other. Lay the vitriol to rest.
-
Look, I'm getting sick of your shit. You act as if you've got the monopoly on how the game should be run. My objections, and those of some other people, were not balance issues. Therefore there was absolutely no fuckin need to playtest. Just because something may not be broken does not mean it should automatically be included (though the jury was still out on balance).
And how is it even any different from how you act? You scream to get things you want, such as lances on SM ships, despite how fuckin retarded that is. So unless you have an argument to make for or against something, shut the fuck up.
Sig, this has been my list for years, as was. Worked fine, was not unbalanced. (occasionally blew up in my face against Necrons, but that's a side note) Now, I don't mind changing my list if, for example, the HA deems a ship too powerful, or there's a legitimate balance issue. I don't mind changing my list if a new BFG codex came out.
I don't mind changing my list and how it works if the HA deems that point need altered, etc. Due to the 'new' list, I have already had to change my line up. Three times. (I think that HA, however, for adding torps to the Mercury)
I have never claimed to have a monopoly on 'how this game should run' however, I do think that a bunch of people, some of whom have insisted vehemently for years in several forums that this particular list must never become official, have set out to deliberately sabotage this list and/or convert it to a generic IN list. (Thank you, google)
And, unlike some people, I try to site sources and bring evidence. I don't have to scream and use profanity to get my point across.
I also object to hypocrites. Which, I might point out, you and, to a degree, D'Art, have been in this thread.
To paraphrase D'Art over in the SM lance thread: When you've actually played with Bakka, you can come back and give your input.
Okay everyone, ease up. Everyone here is entitled to disagree with each other. Lay the vitriol to rest.
Nate: this list has already lost so much flavor it's not funny. Of the original ships of BFB, only the Vicky, Viper, and the Dominus Astera are still in at this point. I would suggest that this list be renamed, as it is no longer Battlefleet Bakka. It's just Gothic with two Bakka ships reserved in. At least if it gets renamed, those of us who do use the Bakka list can still use our old fleets and fleet lists.
-
You're a fucktard BI, go fuckin kill yourself.
-
the baron is a cylon, there are many copies. beware what you wish for...
on a completely different note, my reactions to bfb 1.2:
new fdt rules look solid. spend the same points (+10/ship), rock some extra turrets, massing within 15cm basically... should retain the flavor while appeasing everyone.
dominion: 2 LB per side. missing 6 prow torps. in BoN its dorsals were 45cm... but i'm not complaining about those.
mercury: thanks for torps. it can make one of the nastiest pounces in the imp navy now!... if only bfb had dauntless'
vanq: now feasible. v.cool. still listed at 320 in the fleetlist though.
the 4th turret option on the CL's might be a little OTT. playtesting will be required, though the concept of throwing one of them at a huge wave of a-boats to save a bigger ship has a very imperial feel to it ;)
i'm still not sure how to tell apart a vicky and an apoc (non voss prow) on the table... but other than that, no big problems. regardless of whats happening in FS, officially the vicky is the cheapest standoff BB (on par/stronger than empy or official ret or official oby in the 60cm band).
do crippled admec (in CB slots) have to disengage when crippled (as per admec reserve)?
in the fleetlist i'm still seeing that *Endurance* CL's are unlimited... isn't this supposed to be *Endeavors?*
-
Eh, that comment should be edited sigoroth....
-
You're a fucktard BI, go fuckin kill yourself.
*sigh* I don't even have to prove my points anymore, sig does it for me.
the baron is a cylon, there are many copies. beware what you wish for...
on a completely different note, my reactions to bfb 1.2:
new fdt rules look solid. spend the same points (+10/ship), rock some extra turrets, massing within 15cm basically... should retain the flavor while appeasing everyone.
dominion: 2 LB per side. missing 6 prow torps. in BoN its dorsals were 45cm... but i'm not complaining about those.
mercury: thanks for torps. it can make one of the nastiest pounces in the imp navy now!... if only bfb had dauntless'
vanq: now feasible. v.cool. still listed at 320 in the fleetlist though.
the 4th turret option on the CL's might be a little OTT. playtesting will be required, though the concept of throwing one of them at a huge wave of a-boats to save a bigger ship has a very imperial feel to it ;)
i'm still not sure how to tell apart a vicky and an apoc (non voss prow) on the table... but other than that, no big problems. regardless of whats happening in FS, officially the vicky is the cheapest standoff BB (on par/stronger than empy or official ret or official oby in the 60cm band).
do crippled admec (in CB slots) have to disengage when crippled (as per admec reserve)?
in the fleetlist i'm still seeing that *Endurance* CL's are unlimited... isn't this supposed to be *Endeavors?*
LOL I wish I was that hot in a red dress. Though I don't have A plan, I have The Plan.
Anyway, I didn't say it wasn't a fairly solid list. But it doesn't feel the same. You mentioned Daunts, which is interesting, since Endeavours used to be a 25cm ship in this list and could make for a strong synergy with Mercury if restored, but Silurian also works.
-
on topic: the dauntless can rock torps too though making for some seriously fast ord deployment deep into enemy lines.
off topic: The Plan was seriously boring.
-
on topic: the dauntless can rock torps too though making for some seriously fast ord deployment deep into enemy lines.
off topic: The Plan was seriously boring.
Yeah, you could reserve them in, i suppose, with Silurias. That would be a fairly good little fleet, as long as nothing big and AC comes along.
On the aside: Yeah, you're right. It wasn't very exciting.
-
You're a fucktard BI, go fuckin kill yourself.
Come on, Sig. Really?
-
the baron is a cylon, there are many copies. beware what you wish for...
on a completely different note, my reactions to bfb 1.2:
new fdt rules look solid. spend the same points (+10/ship), rock some extra turrets, massing within 15cm basically... should retain the flavor while appeasing everyone.
dominion: 2 LB per side. missing 6 prow torps. in BoN its dorsals were 45cm... but i'm not complaining about those.
mercury: thanks for torps. it can make one of the nastiest pounces in the imp navy now!... if only bfb had dauntless'
vanq: now feasible. v.cool. still listed at 320 in the fleetlist though.
the 4th turret option on the CL's might be a little OTT. playtesting will be required, though the concept of throwing one of them at a huge wave of a-boats to save a bigger ship has a very imperial feel to it ;)
i'm still not sure how to tell apart a vicky and an apoc (non voss prow) on the table... but other than that, no big problems. regardless of whats happening in FS, officially the vicky is the cheapest standoff BB (on par/stronger than empy or official ret or official oby in the 60cm band).
do crippled admec (in CB slots) have to disengage when crippled (as per admec reserve)?
in the fleetlist i'm still seeing that *Endurance* CL's are unlimited... isn't this supposed to be *Endeavors?*
Good catches here. I'll fix the fleet lists and make a note about the AdMechs. Seprately, yes, the note about unlimited ships is supposed to say "Endurance" to differentiate it from the Endurance that is restricted in the Armageddon list. The Endeavor is already unrestricted so no mention is needed.
-
the 4th turret option on the CL's might be a little OTT. playtesting will be required, though the concept of throwing one of them at a huge wave of a-boats to save a bigger ship has a very imperial feel to it ;)
Hmm.. I've been mulling over this: the Endeavor should get a +5cm *purchasable* speed upgrade (+10?). It would be more in line with how the ship was, *and* more effective at being thrown into the path of AC. The way things are there rally isn't much reason not to take the Endurance over the Endeavor, so we'd be unlikely to actually see it much.
-
on the tactical note (which really isn't what we're discussing here) the endurance is great! with 6+ prow you can squad it with other line cap ships and use it's crazy turretyness to defend against AC. meanwhile it pairs up well with other 30cm broadside ships:
lunar endur: 8 guns (1 extra dice from 6) and 4 lances
gothic endur: really,,, 6 lances... awesome
dominator endur: 14 guns, 2 lances. slightly better off than dom+endev (with the exception of close range closing)
I plan on picking up some dauntless hulls and converting 2 endurance....
Nate: glad i could help
-
I also object to hypocrites. Which, I might point out, you and, to a degree, D'Art, have been in this thread.
You better be able to back up your accusation. I've never said anything here which is contrary to what I believe IN should be which is a fleet which does not have easy access to AC among other things. I don't like hypocrites either. I hate people who make false accusations more though.
Ships wise:
Victory, am ok with or without changes though probably slightly overcosted.
Vanquisher, quite a cheap battleship. Is the points really accurate, only playtesting will show. Still very cheap if I use Smotherman by 33 points.
Jovian, still wouldn't want it in the list as well as in existence. It's not a matter of breaking the list. For sure, most fleets involving the Bakka list will have the ship as almost an auto include as with one ship, it can give the fleet the fighter protection it needs. Adding a Mars or Emperor (again, I feel Oberon would be better suited) after is basically a bonus.
Dominion, more apt ship to include over the Jovian as long as the LBs are fixed as well as given prow weaponry.
Mercury, am ok with it.
Changes to the Endeavors, I'll still have to think about it.
Escorts, am ok with them as before.
-
My theory was proven correct. Sig gets angrier the more that he talks, also his statements get shorter.
Horizon is Sigs tamer?
BaronI is insane.... then again I'm in this barrel too.
Admiral D is ridiculously conservative.
So far Zelnik is winning out of the most reasonable column, my evidence:
Okay folks, I have given my two cents..
I am going to duck out of this conversation. You all know my opinions, and my criticisms. To reduce the cooks in the kitchen, I am going to sit and wait for the nest update.
Oh, forgot about Vaaish, he's a decent guy.
-
Plaxor should not do popularity polls. This ain't highschool.
gLee! club BFG. :)
On Bakka,
in the version I d/l it still has the old FDT rule. Am I missing something?
The stats for the Dominion are WRONG.
Nate, it should be:
Prow torps str6
port bays str2
starboard bays str2
dorsal lance str2 @ 45cm lfr
port lance str2 @ 45cm
starboard lance str2 @45cm
///
I also think Emperor should be replaced by Oberon.
Jovian out imo.
Vanquisher/Victory, I like Victory more. Both ships kinda fill same role with all the lances...
-
Plaxor should not do popularity polls. This ain't highschool.
Popularity poll? What? I'm also confused if this statement is directed at me, or everyone else.
We can do popularity polls though.... BFG Idol 2011!
-
Aimed at you. ;)
You made the list of posters and gave an opinion.
Should we rename dakkadakka website into bakkabakka?
-
I see I didn't even make the edit! :P
I think I agree with the others who've mentioned concerns about lists bleeding together. We already have a list that allows marines and IN together, and AM could already be taken as reserves.
I agree with Sig that FDTs should be kept to the AM list until it can be reviewed and then eliminated altogether.
The Turrets are too expensive. For the cost of upgrading 7 capital ships, I could get a Viper and a re-roll, and I know which will come in more useful. Perhaps as Plaxor said, a mandatory 5pt upgrade to every capital ship.
The Victory/Mercury's Torps: You're over-valuing the NC, and you should pay a premium to have a choice. The NC isn't worth 20pts. That's why you have to think before upgrading a cruiser with it - you pay a premium because it's a choice. If you're doing it the other way round, a -20pt upgrade to torps is like a gift. In the case of S6 Torps, I would happily lose the NC for -10pts - I'd seriously consider it for free. This is paying a premium for the choice. On the Victory, there could even be an argument that taking S9 torps should be MORE expensive than the NC - they're both equally valued, but the Torps are the option adn therefore command the premium.
On the Mercury: The battleship engines really are ridiculous. It doesn't utilise anywhere near battleship levels of power. Could this be changed to:
Mercury class battlecruisers are fitted with experimental engineering plants that increase its speed and
provide it with greater firepower at the expense of stability. When reduced to zero hits, it rolls 3D6 for
catastrophic damage (any roll greater than 12 counts as 12), and a Plasma Drive Overload or Warp Drive Implosion
result is based on a starting damage of 12Hp.
-
Admiral D is ridiculously conservative.
That's how I am. Doesn't mean I can't change my stance. Just have to prove to me that I have to. As with the Invincible thread, I am open to change but I do have my ideas how they should be as others have. Still, I always try to stick to the BBB fluff, the balance between races and the rules.
We have to remember this is a game where there has to be a semblance of balance even with the differences esp where in the fluff the tech is mostly stagnant (for IN anyway). If this were according to real life, we'd see advances in performance and efficiency so much that rules have to be updated every year. It's competition and having similar weapons as what the other guy has. We would be seeing all types of ship classes in all races with only small differences in weapons loadout. But then, that would be boring.
-
Sorry RC. I don't have any popularity comments for you. You+Val are both on team Plaxor (god, I feel like I'm mentioning twilight.... ick....) Which auto-qualifies you as insane... according to Zelnik.
On topic: Second RC's thoughts on Nova Cannon. He is exactly right in this case.
Admiral D; I do agree with you. Fleets have themes, they shouldn't vary from these save for only in slight. Although, there are reasons for adding more vessels. You must see this?
-
I see I didn't even make the edit! :P
You got called a legend at warseer.
-
You got called a legend at warseer.
That is pretty win right there. You can add that to your title when you introduce yourself.
"Hi I'm RCgothic, Legend of Battlefleet Gothic, adamant Invincible supporter, turret applicator, hater of the Jovian."
As a note for you Horizon, people in my gaming group actually refer to 'Team Horizon' as people who support MMS. :)
-
I think that the Dominion doesn't have the torpedoes because of the old "design rule" made by the creators of BFG, that was told us by the HA in the thread where there was the discussion about the Defiant:
"you will never see a ship with torpedoes and launch bays out of the Dictator! Muhahahahaha!! (resistance is useless)"
This rule is referred to all the ships, excluded the Tau, as was reported time ago in that discussion.
That really is a crime in my opinion :(
The fact that it already is a battlecruiser limit this ship and, above all, if I want to do a fleet that only needs Reload Ordnances, I can already take all the Dictators that I want.
Giving the torpedoes to the Dominion wouldn't change that
-
The Victory/Mercury's Torps: You're over-valuing the NC, and you should pay a premium to have a choice. The NC isn't worth 20pts. That's why you have to think before upgrading a cruiser with it - you pay a premium because it's a choice. If you're doing it the other way round, a -20pt upgrade to torps is like a gift. In the case of S6 Torps, I would happily lose the NC for -10pts - I'd seriously consider it for free. This is paying a premium for the choice. On the Victory, there could even be an argument that taking S9 torps should be MORE expensive than the NC - they're both equally valued, but the Torps are the option adn therefore command the premium.
This is correct, though I wish you hadn't pointed it out. I chose not to because the Mercury is already extraordinarily overpriced and the Victory needed the reduction too. As for actual value, I believe the NC would be pushing it to be on par with 9 torps, so therefore +10 pts over the standard 6 torps (as shown by Dominator and confirmed by the Apocalypse).
So this says that the option is what costs the premium and this is how I've always viewed it. Therefore if you were giving the Dom the option of torps it would -10 pts actual value +10 pts for the option which makes it a straight swap. [I very much prefer a 180 pt torp ship with a +20 pt NC option, to give parity between a WB gunship and the Lunar/Gothic, and so have argued for such a change to the Tyrant.] Similarly, a NC armed BB such as the Vic given the option to swap to torps would actually cost +10 pts.
However, there is another way to look at it. That is that the premium is not due to the option (or at least not wholly) but rather due to the option to spam NCs. So from this, somewhat slanted, point of view it is justifiable to apply a point reduction when swapping out the NC for torps, as you're reducing NC spam. This doesn't really sit well with me, but the ships in question here are overpriced.
-
You better be able to back up your accusation. I've never said anything here which is contrary to what I believe IN should be which is a fleet which does not have easy access to AC among other things. I don't like hypocrites either. I hate people who make false accusations more though.
Note the term 'to a degree'. You're calling for radical changes to how a list is played that's been in use for the better part of a decade and calling it 'conservative'
From the perspective of a player of this list: that would be like replacing the vanilla Gothic IN list's shields with holofields and calling it 'conservative'. I was not really thrilled with the changes the HA made to the list in ver 1.0 and I'm steadily growing less happy with it as this has gone along.
Bakka has *never* played like a generic IN list and frankly the efforts to make it 'fit in' have destroyed more of the 'feel' then they have preserved. I find it bizarre that a group of people that have never played the list are complaining about 'feel' when not one of them has a damn clue what Bakka's fleetlist 'feels' LIKE because they've never played it.
That's why what you and a LOT of these other nice people are doing is hypocrisy D'Art. If what *I* had to say about SM and lances has 'no merit' because 'go play space marines yourself and then you can tell us about it' (your own words, IIRC) then then what possible merit does the view of ANY OF YOU who have never played the Bakka fleetlist have?
I think I agree with the others who've mentioned concerns about lists bleeding together. We already have a list that allows marines and IN together, and AM could already be taken as reserves.
I agree with Sig that FDTs should be kept to the AM list until it can be reviewed and then eliminated altogether.
Wait, you're opposed to lists becoming bled together, and thus, generic, but you support removal of one of the key points that differentiates Bakka from Vanilla IN?
Horizon is Sigs tamer?
For some reason I just pictured Horizon throwing out a pokeball and yelling 'Sigoroth, I choose you! Flame attack, now!'
-
I'm... puzzled. There seems to be a lot of hate for the FDT but no one seems to be bothering to explain why?
-
FDT hate comes from fluff. its new and rare to Admec, but Bakka rocks the socks off FDT. hence a contradiction in story.
current bakka "FDT's" (cuz they're not fdt's really anymore) allow for massing 2 turrets when up to 15cm away (but only for 1 ship/ordy phase), and the optional purchase of +1 turret for any cap ship for +10 points. this aint too bad, and helps reduce ac problems, nobody is immue to bombers without paying out for it. and we can get T3 Cr's and some T4 Cb's... the potnetial for a T4 CL is interesting as a sacrifice ship... really being quite dauntless with respect to AC despite being endurances'/endevours'
--nearly everyone is famous on whineseer, even I, the humble Grom Hellscream, inventor and OP of the true 7th ed orc and goblin chariot spam has some recognition....
what exact objections does the baron have? (mind you I've never seen the Original 2000somthing Bakka list anywhere)
*we altered FDT (toned down a bit and made more consistent with fluff)
*put the jovian as reserve (appeasement of the population majority)
*reduced some BB prices (good)
*added the coolest IN carrier ever (v.good)
*gave the mercury a torp option (v.good)
and thats about it...
-
FDT hate comes from fluff. its new and rare to Admec, but Bakka rocks the socks off FDT. hence a contradiction in story.
current bakka "FDT's" (cuz they're not fdt's really anymore) allow for massing 2 turrets when up to 15cm away (but only for 1 ship/ordy phase), and the optional purchase of +1 turret for any cap ship for +10 points. this aint too bad, and helps reduce ac problems, nobody is immue to bombers without paying out for it. and we can get T3 Cr's and some T4 Cb's... the potnetial for a T4 CL is interesting as a sacrifice ship... really being quite dauntless with respect to AC despite being endurances'/endevours'
--nearly everyone is famous on whineseer, even I, the humble Grom Hellscream, inventor and OP of the true 7th ed orc and goblin chariot spam has some recognition....
what exact objections does the baron have? (mind you I've never seen the Original 2000somthing Bakka list anywhere)
*we altered FDT (toned down a bit and made more consistent with fluff)
*put the jovian as reserve (appeasement of the population majority)
*reduced some BB prices (good)
*added the coolest IN carrier ever (v.good)
*gave the mercury a torp option (v.good)
and thats about it...
Hmm... so Bakka is now Armageddon with Admech reserves? I hate to say this, because reading these posts the Baron seems rather full of himself, but he does have two points. Bakka does not play like vanilla IN, and this does not feel like Bakka. As a Bakka player, I object to these changes. FDT were very much a part of the flavor of Bakka, and as of now, reserving in ships from other IN is nearly impossible, due to the fact that you have to use most of your reserve slots to get your FDTs.
Other then the baron, myself, and the HA, have any of you played Bakka fleets previously?
-
The FDT talk made me look at the 1.2 list up on the server again and I'm a little confused. I thought the FDT was completely replaced by the ability to add one turret to a ships profile for +10 points.
Further reading seems to indicate that bakka ships have 2x FDT for free that basically act like massed turrets but can be used outside of base contact and only help a single ship per ordnance phase and that any mechanicus ships taken in the bakka fleet can take the upgrade for +5 points. In addition to this, it seems that IN ships also gain the ability to take an extra turret for +10 points.
Is this supposed to read that any IN ship may take an extra turret for +10 points and any Admech ship in the bakka fleet may take the FDT upgrade for +5 points? If it is, the information in the document seems rather complicated.
-
Hmm... so Bakka is now Armageddon with Admech reserves? I hate to say this, because reading these posts the Baron seems rather full of himself, but he does have two points. Bakka does not play like vanilla IN, and this does not feel like Bakka. As a Bakka player, I object to these changes. FDT were very much a part of the flavor of Bakka, and as of now, reserving in ships from other IN is nearly impossible, due to the fact that you have to use most of your reserve slots to get your FDTs.
*sigh* They don't WANT Bakka, they just want another IN variant list and Bakka happened to be a convenient name. It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them 'why' Bakka is one of the more popular non-official lists and they're trying to shoehorn it in with the rest of IN.
The FDT talk made me look at the 1.2 list up on the server again and I'm a little confused. I thought the FDT was completely replaced by the ability to add one turret to a ships profile for +10 points.
Further reading seems to indicate that bakka ships have 2x FDT for free that basically act like massed turrets but can be used outside of base contact and only help a single ship per ordnance phase and that any mechanicus ships taken in the bakka fleet can take the upgrade for +5 points. In addition to this, it seems that IN ships also gain the ability to take an extra turret for +10 points.
Is this supposed to read that any IN ship may take an extra turret for +10 points and any Admech ship in the bakka fleet may take the FDT upgrade for +5 points? If it is, the information in the document seems rather complicated.
I read it as that Admech ships can choose to take it rather then roll for it. But it is rather complicated. Basically they're trying to alter fluff and rules o that both make sense and ended up with a complicated lump.
-
It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them 'why' Bakka is one of the more popular non-official lists
Then please tell us why in your opinion what makes bakka, bakka. It can't be just they have FDT because that really isn't all that much of a change from regular IN.
-
in addition: a link to the old bakka rules would be helpful for us ;)
-
It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them 'why' Bakka is one of the more popular non-official lists
Then please tell us why in your opinion what makes bakka, bakka. It can't be just they have FDT because that really isn't all that much of a change from regular IN.
Hmm... hard to describe. It's... it's a fleet that is good at keeping your opponent guessing. Endeavour used to be a 25cm ship with Bakka, with Dauntless, and Enforcer also available. Rath was worth the points because you could CTNH in the battleship he commanded in the original list, though they changed that in Annual 2002 to the current, and IMHO less desirable, version. Now he's price reduced for -1 reroll, but still something not worth taking.
While there were a lot of IN cruisers available, most people I know that used the list never took most of them, with the occasional exception of Gothic or Dictator. The fleet really shone in it's fast reaction and rapidly closing with your opponent.
It has a lot more in common with marine fleets then with Vanilla IN. It's fast. It's 'ded shooty'. It had an anti-AC system that made sense, somewhat, but more importantly, worked. Basically we've stripped away a lot of that to try and make it more IN-ish, and I think that really kills it.
in addition: a link to the old bakka rules would be helpful for us ;)
Not too sure If we're allowed to do that or not. I looked around online but the only one's I saw were illegal downloads of Annual 2002 and BFG Mag 02.
-
in addition: a link to the old bakka rules would be helpful for us ;)
I don't think that the list itself is allowed, though most of them are in the 'Additional BFG ships' pdf floating around the Internet. If they're IN from BFGm issue 2 or Annual 2002 they're probably from Bakka.
-
Admiral D; I do agree with you. Fleets have themes, they shouldn't vary from these save for only in slight. Although, there are reasons for adding more vessels. You must see this?
Uh, you do see my comments on the new ships in the Bakka list? Did you see in any one of them me saying delete the ship? I don't mind adding new ships as long as it's within the flavor of the faction in question.
-
Win! Admiral D is on the 'New ships' philosophy.
-
Note the term 'to a degree'. You're calling for radical changes to how a list is played that's been in use for the better part of a decade and calling it 'conservative'
What radical change? Because you're losing the FDT? Did you also note that in exchange, I wanted the IN ships in Bakka to have better direct fire weapons vs ordnance as well as other things to help balance it out? Also note, Sig and RCGothic were the ones who really wanted it out. I am mostly silent on the issue even though I agree it's out of place and would probably be better replaced with better turrets or direct fire weapons which is simpler mechanics wise.
From the perspective of a player of this list: that would be like replacing the vanilla Gothic IN list's shields with holofields and calling it 'conservative'. I was not really thrilled with the changes the HA made to the list in ver 1.0 and I'm steadily growing less happy with it as this has gone along.
Bakka has *never* played like a generic IN list and frankly the efforts to make it 'fit in' have destroyed more of the 'feel' then they have preserved. I find it bizarre that a group of people that have never played the list are complaining about 'feel' when not one of them has a damn clue what Bakka's fleetlist 'feels' LIKE because they've never played it.
That's why what you and a LOT of these other nice people are doing is hypocrisy D'Art. If what *I* had to say about SM and lances has 'no merit' because 'go play space marines yourself and then you can tell us about it' (your own words, IIRC) then then what possible merit does the view of ANY OF YOU who have never played the Bakka fleetlist have?
Really? Losing the FDT would be like giving IN holofields? You, sir, exagerrate.
Bakka still plays for the most part the same against other fleets. Bakka is not losing ships over it yet, even if I don't like the Jovian. Bakka is even gaining new ships vis a vis the other IN lists, most of which are part of the original Bakka. If you're losing those ships, you might have a point. Bakka plays differently against ordnance but it will play similarly for ship to ship combat, even with access to slightly faster ships because the stats for the main ships are not different with the existing ones nor that different with the new ones.
The difference bet the SM thread and this Bakka one is that in the former, lances are being introduced into SM capital ships which is more a threat to ships than any FDT will ever be. If you can't see that difference, then there's no point continuing this debate.
-
Win! Admiral D is on the 'New ships' philosophy.
Never said I wasn't. I've designed some ships already. Governor would be the more known. I also have my own Gothic BC which I call Conqueror, a DE BB called Sadistic. An Ork Brute-Writ-Large called Orkhram's Raza which I entered into an SG contest and won 3rd. For SM the LB heavy SC and BB.
I do think new ships are possible but preferably within the context of the fleet it is being designed for.
-
@Admiral,
I really do like the 'direct weapons hit ordinance easier idea'. Simple rule: Hunter, weapons on ships with this rule hit ordinance on a 4+
Which is why I proposed adding the Firedagger escort with this rule.
@Baron,
Just because we don't like something never meant that it was broken. Besides, you were already using a semi-official list, why not just keep using it?
@Sigoroth
Burn and purge. You'd make a good Arch-Arsonist.
-
Hmm... hard to describe. It's... it's a fleet that is good at keeping your opponent guessing. Endeavour used to be a 25cm ship with Bakka, with Dauntless, and Enforcer also available. Rath was worth the points because you could CTNH in the battleship he commanded in the original list, though they changed that in Annual 2002 to the current, and IMHO less desirable, version. Now he's price reduced for -1 reroll, but still something not worth taking.
Well, not our fault that Endeavor's speed is now only 20 cm and I do sympathize esp since it didn't get anything back. And I don't mind Bakka getting the Dauntless as well as the Enforcer.
While there were a lot of IN cruisers available, most people I know that used the list never took most of them, with the occasional exception of Gothic or Dictator. The fleet really shone in it's fast reaction and rapidly closing with your opponent.
It has a lot more in common with marine fleets then with Vanilla IN. It's fast. It's 'ded shooty'. It had an anti-AC system that made sense, somewhat, but more importantly, worked. Basically we've stripped away a lot of that to try and make it more IN-ish, and I think that really kills it.
This is the issue. Fast IN ships. It's not about FDTs. Those are secondary. Who wouldn't want a fleet full of fast IN ships and still shooty? From your comment alone it's obvious that the mainline cruisers were not the cruisers you were using.
-
got a chance to glace at the 2002 bfb.
with the exception of the dauntless not being in the new bfb, I think the list looks fine.
-
Note the term 'to a degree'. You're calling for radical changes to how a list is played that's been in use for the better part of a decade and calling it 'conservative'
What radical change? Because you're losing the FDT? Did you also note that in exchange, I wanted the IN ships in Bakka to have better direct fire weapons vs ordnance as well as other things to help balance it out? Also note, Sig and RCGothic were the ones who really wanted it out. I am mostly silent on the issue even though I agree it's out of place and would probably be better replaced with better turrets or direct fire weapons which is simpler mechanics wise.
From the perspective of a player of this list: that would be like replacing the vanilla Gothic IN list's shields with holofields and calling it 'conservative'. I was not really thrilled with the changes the HA made to the list in ver 1.0 and I'm steadily growing less happy with it as this has gone along.
Bakka has *never* played like a generic IN list and frankly the efforts to make it 'fit in' have destroyed more of the 'feel' then they have preserved. I find it bizarre that a group of people that have never played the list are complaining about 'feel' when not one of them has a damn clue what Bakka's fleetlist 'feels' LIKE because they've never played it.
That's why what you and a LOT of these other nice people are doing is hypocrisy D'Art. If what *I* had to say about SM and lances has 'no merit' because 'go play space marines yourself and then you can tell us about it' (your own words, IIRC) then then what possible merit does the view of ANY OF YOU who have never played the Bakka fleetlist have?
Really? Losing the FDT would be like giving IN holofields? You, sir, exagerrate.
Bakka still plays for the most part the same against other fleets. Bakka is not losing ships over it yet, even if I don't like the Jovian. Bakka is even gaining new ships vis a vis the other IN lists, most of which are part of the original Bakka. If you're losing those ships, you might have a point. Bakka plays differently against ordnance but it will play similarly for ship to ship combat, even with access to slightly faster ships because the stats for the main ships are not different with the existing ones nor that different with the new ones.
The difference bet the SM thread and this Bakka one is that in the former, lances are being introduced into SM capital ships which is more a threat to ships than any FDT will ever be. If you can't see that difference, then there's no point continuing this debate.
Eh... it's something of a stretch, but the in the sense that they're both primary defenses, he has a point, sort of, I suppose.
And Bakka has already lost of a lot of ships. Dauntless, Enforcer, Cardinal, Dictator, Avenger, Vengeance, Overlord, Firestorm, and Defender have all been pulled. Long Serpent is actually added, mostly because people seemed to assume it was in there anyway, since both were in the same issue of BFGm.
The only ships the new list has in common with either old Bakka list other then escorts are Victory, Dominator, Lunar, Tyrant and Gothic. Endurance has been significantly changed and is not counted.
To make a comparison: It's like saying that the feel of an Armageddon list wouldn't be changed if you removed the Armageddon, Apocalypse, Lunar, Gothic, Falchion, Endurance, Defiant, and Endeavour and swapped them with something from Blue Book that worked 'sort of like them'.
This is the issue. Fast IN ships. It's not about FDTs. Those are secondary. Who wouldn't want a fleet full of fast IN ships and still shooty? From your comment alone it's obvious that the mainline cruisers were not the cruisers you were using.
Among other things yes. Bakka has never been a 'line astern' IN fleet. I suspect from his comments that the Baron and I used similar fleets for Bakka, which more or less fits with my own experiences that most people build this fleet using it's light cruisers backed up by a handful of line cruisers and battleships.
I will say, however, that FDT is key to this fleet, as it lets you shift a large number of turrets around where needed. I know it saved my ass against a Tau fleet last time I played one, by moving a lot of turrets off of frigates and onto the light cruisers that engaged their Explorers. The current design those light cruisers would have been swarmed under, even with their increased turrets. 2k points of Tau can produce a lot of AC. Better direct fire weapons wouldn't have worked, since there would have been no time to use it at 15cm.
got a chance to glace at the 2002 bfb.
with the exception of the dauntless not being in the new bfb, I think the list looks fine.
Stop and read the ships that are in it and think about how they're used. Just because an IN list has Lunar, Tyrant, and Gothic in it doesn't men that these ships are the one's you should be using.
-
What radical change? Because you're losing the FDT? Did you also note that in exchange, I wanted the IN ships in Bakka to have better direct fire weapons vs ordnance as well as other things to help balance it out? Also note, Sig and RCGothic were the ones who really wanted it out. I am mostly silent on the issue even though I agree it's out of place and would probably be better replaced with better turrets or direct fire weapons which is simpler mechanics wise.
D'Art, at the ranges most Bakka ships work at, you'll be lucky to get a firing phase to shoot them. This isn't like Chaos where you can stand off 60cm and pick them off as they come up.
Really? Losing the FDT would be like giving IN holofields? You, sir, exagerrate.
Bakka still plays for the most part the same against other fleets. Bakka is not losing ships over it yet, even if I don't like the Jovian. Bakka is even gaining new ships vis a vis the other IN lists, most of which are part of the original Bakka. If you're losing those ships, you might have a point. Bakka plays differently against ordnance but it will play similarly for ship to ship combat, even with access to slightly faster ships because the stats for the main ships are not different with the existing ones nor that different with the new ones.
No, it doesn't. Bakka is about closing quickly and hitting the target hard at close range. This is the way you win with this fleet. Hitting ord with weapons on a +4 does nothing to protect these ships, because most of your fighting is going on at knife fight ranges.
The Jovian is something they added with this PDF to try and 'not give' this fleet more LBs. I'd like to see it made official, just not in Bakka. (I still think there should be an AC heavy IN list) Neither it nor the Mars have EVER been in this list before, previously we have the Dictator (which I never really took) and Enforcer.
And I call FIE on those of you that decry BoN for it's Chaos CLs and then rush to embrace it's fluff breaking long range lances and LBs.
The difference bet the SM thread and this Bakka one is that in the former, lances are being introduced into SM capital ships which is more a threat to ships than any FDT will ever be. If you can't see that difference, then there's no point continuing this debate.
You're suggesting that one point of lance strength on a light cruiser has more impact then the ability to surround and neutralize carriers like the Styx, Emperor, and Explorer quickly? Because in the right hands that's what FDT does...
Just because we don't like something never meant that it was broken. Besides, you were already using a semi-official list, why not just keep using it?
Because official list trumps semi-official list. This has been the source of much griping of late around here, since, from out perspective, the official rules changed, and then changed again within six months. With an official Bakka fleet, I'm not able to play my old list anymore.
-
Eh... it's something of a stretch, but the in the sense that they're both primary defenses, he has a point, sort of, I suppose.
Holofields and FDT? Really, loooong stretch.
And Bakka has already lost of a lot of ships. Dauntless, Enforcer, Cardinal, Dictator, Avenger, Vengeance, Overlord, Firestorm, and Defender have all been pulled. Long Serpent is actually added, mostly because people seemed to assume it was in there anyway, since both were in the same issue of BFGm.
Yes, and as you pointed out, you never used the slower, heavier ships much anyway. You were using the Dauntless and Cardinals more with a sprinkling of Gothics and Dictators. Not much of a loss. I proposed the Dauntless be included for what its worth. Enforcer, well, the HA doesn't want the list to have cheap carriers.
The only ships the new list has in common with either old Bakka list other then escorts are Victory, Dominator, Lunar, Tyrant and Gothic. Endurance has been significantly changed and is not counted.
To make a comparison: It's like saying that the feel of an Armageddon list wouldn't be changed if you removed the Armageddon, Apocalypse, Lunar, Gothic, Falchion, Endurance, Defiant, and Endeavour and swapped them with something from Blue Book that worked 'sort of like them'.
Well, the Lunar and Gothic are in the BBB. The other remaining ships do work like them in that they are slow, prow armored ships which still fight broadsides. Note again that the list does have its own unique ships. Now as to whether you can keep the Bakka feel, you have to talk to Nate about that because they're the ones changing the list.
This is the issue. Fast IN ships. It's not about FDTs. Those are secondary. Who wouldn't want a fleet full of fast IN ships and still shooty? From your comment alone it's obvious that the mainline cruisers were not the cruisers you were using.
Among other things yes. Bakka has never been a 'line astern' IN fleet. I suspect from his comments that the Baron and I used similar fleets for Bakka, which more or less fits with my own experiences that most people build this fleet using it's light cruisers backed up by a handful of line cruisers and battleships. [/quote]
What other things are there? It's not as if you can't use the Gothic to create a similar list or Bastion. Dauntless' supporting heavy ships. People have been using that formula outside of Bakka for years.
I will say, however, that FDT is key to this fleet, as it lets you shift a large number of turrets around where needed. I know it saved my ass against a Tau fleet last time I played one, by moving a lot of turrets off of frigates and onto the light cruisers that engaged their Explorers. The current design those light cruisers would have been swarmed under, even with their increased turrets. 2k points of Tau can produce a lot of AC. Better direct fire weapons wouldn't have worked, since there would have been no time to use it at 15cm.
You can use better direct fire to shoot at ordnance from as far as 60 cm depending on what ships you bring. How would this be bad? Of course, Nate has shot this down in favor of additional turrets. I feel it is still lacking though and if he really wants an AC lite fleet, then I feel those turrets should be hitting at 3+ instead of 4+.
Just out of curiousity, what is your fleet list when using Bakka's original list? Same request also for you Baron, if you don't mind. Maybe from there we can produce something that can get back the Bakka feel.
-
D'Art, at the ranges most Bakka ships work at, you'll be lucky to get a firing phase to shoot them. This isn't like Chaos where you can stand off 60cm and pick them off as they come up.
A significant number of Bakka ships can shoot more than 30 cm. If the Dauntless can be put back in, it would be another excellent option. However, as Nate has declined to go this route, in addition to additional turrets (+10 is really expensive) proposed, they should be able to shoot down AC at 3+ which then makes the +10 cost per turret acceptable. That's quite a boost already.
No, it doesn't. Bakka is about closing quickly and hitting the target hard at close range. This is the way you win with this fleet. Hitting ord with weapons on a +4 does nothing to protect these ships, because most of your fighting is going on at knife fight ranges.
Which means ships are more the factor than FDTs. Now I would really push that the Dauntless be returned to the list as well as Invincible. Those along with the Mercury can give you back that fast feel.
And I call FIE on those of you that decry BoN for it's Chaos CLs and then rush to embrace it's fluff breaking long range lances and LBs.
You can call all you want. There are some good ships in there and some questionable ones. It's not official anyway.
You're suggesting that one point of lance strength on a light cruiser has more impact then the ability to surround and neutralize carriers like the Styx, Emperor, and Explorer quickly? Because in the right hands that's what FDT does...
It has an impact on the fluff of the SM, the balance against fleets, its rules and its gameplay. Yes, there's a difference. FDTs won't deal damage to ships. Lances will.
-
The reason the old Bakka list was never made official is because it was crap. A very large portion of this crap came from FDTs. Either way, I see no reason for all this bitching that the new Bakka list isn't like the old Bakka list. If this Bakka list was like the old one it wouldn't become official. Because the old one was crap!
-
Just out of curiousity, what is your fleet list when using Bakka's original list? Same request also for you Baron, if you don't mind. Maybe from there we can produce something that can get back the Bakka feel.
Invincible, Daunt X 3, Cobra X3 (2x) Cardinal, Enforcer X3, Long Serpent (reserve)
The problem is without FDT the daunt's don't work. With only six LBs, there's no way to cover the approach without the ability to shift turrets from the Cobra's to the Daunt's. Even if you buy turrets at +10 each, that only gives you two turrets. This means you're still naked to bombers.
The reason the old Bakka list was never made official is because it was crap. A very large portion of this crap came from FDTs. Either way, I see no reason for all this bitching that the new Bakka list isn't like the old Bakka list. If this Bakka list was like the old one it wouldn't become official. Because the old one was crap!
Sig, a tip: Obvious troll is obvious.
By the way, for being crap, the above list actually works pretty well.
-
Invincible, Daunt X 3, Cobra X3 (2x) Cardinal, Enforcer X3, Long Serpent (reserve)
The problem is without FDT the daunt's don't work. With only six LBs, there's no way to cover the approach without the ability to shift turrets from the Cobra's to the Daunt's. Even if you buy turrets at +10 each, that only gives you two turrets. This means you're still naked to bombers.
How about trying it with the changes I proposed? Either:
a. 3+ to hit with turrets as well as purchasing 1 for 10 points or
b. the improved Direct Fire that either hits on a 5+ or left column shift on the WB table.
I do like the Invincible (with changes: +2 to HP and +1 shield from the orig stat at 310 points) and I do think the Dauntless should be included in the Bakka list. Loss of Enforcer will be a major change though. Cardinal and Long Serpent can be substituted for by the Mercury.
-
i have had some time to look over the old and new fleet lists and my only change to consider is that the dauntless REALLY REALLY needs to be in the new one. if bakka is fast: the daunt is fast. if bakka chooses to be torpy (new list) then the daunt can help (with new merc's). if bakka is NC spamming, the dauntless can help (as heavy escort). with dominion, reserving CG's (kinda a disappointment from the original, but then we'd just have bastion lists with turret massing at 15cm).
plus the daunt with two turrets at 120 would be a rockstar. peroid.
baron. if you would please frakkin try to be the bigger man and stop edging sig on that would be rad. its distracting, taking up space, and if i *had* to side with one of you it'd be sig cuz he's been here longer, and i like the rest of his ideas. no offense meant, do not take this personally. I'm here to work on fleets, not petty arguments.
-
What of the simple and easy +1 turret idea?
-
If it was +1 additional turret at +5 points per, I think that would be fine. +10 is too expensive. If however, turrets shoot down ordnance at 3+ then +10 would be fair.
-
a. 3+ to hit with turrets as well as purchasing 1 for 10 points
Nate already shot that idea down. He doesn't want to add new mechanics which basically ties our hands to adding turrets or using the old FDT.
-
a. 3+ to hit with turrets as well as purchasing 1 for 10 points
Nate already shot that idea down. He doesn't want to add new mechanics which basically ties our hands to adding turrets or using the old FDT.
I know but I think it's a good alternative to what was lost with the tossing of FDT out the window. Otherwise, I seriously object to +10 points per turret. Make it +5. However, there seems to be no cap in the number of turrets one can purchase per ship. Is this correct?
While Nate has shot it down now, he's still looking for ideas and I think it would be best to convince him first, preferably thru playtesting. The problem is, with all these changes, kinda hard to tell if they're ok or not without playtesting.
-
I think it's a good alternative as well. I think you are limited to buying just one turret for 10 points right now which I agree is a bit expensive since the fleet is supposed to be about better ordnance defenses and the 10 point cost seems to push people away from bulking up the defenses rather than pulling them to boost it.
-
3+ is/was a MMS mechanic. :)
-
The reason the old Bakka list was never made official is because it was crap. A very large portion of this crap came from FDTs. Either way, I see no reason for all this bitching that the new Bakka list isn't like the old Bakka list. If this Bakka list was like the old one it wouldn't become official. Because the old one was crap!
...
Just out of curiousity, what is your fleet list when using Bakka's original list? Same request also for you Baron, if you don't mind. Maybe from there we can produce something that can get back the Bakka feel.
Mine is Dauntless X3, Endeavour X 2, Hammer of Scaro (yes, it's blue), Enforcer X3, Cardinal, Gothic and firestorms.
Dauntless' supporting heavy ships. People have been using that formula outside of Bakka for years.
Hmm.. I think I see part of the problem then: The Dauntless' don't support the heavy ships, the heavy ships support the Daunt in a bakka fleet. It's backwards to how a regular IN list works. Put forming line out of your mind, think Nelson at Trafalgar or Perry in the latter phases at Put-in-Bay. The heavy ships are there for the coup de grace. Close rapidly, blast at close range with WB and torps, then hit them with massed lance fire. Looking at the Baron's list it looks like he goes torp heavy. Basically it's a trade for a much bigger intial shock for more kills over time with lances.
I will say that without FDT the Dauntless' get chewed up too badly against carrier heavy opponents, even massing turrets. With FDT you can effectively mass during the movement phase, which means that the usual trick of trying to put waves of AC in the Dauntless' path of movement doesn't work. You end up spending all your LBs on fighters to clear the way for th ships rather then clear the way for torp attacks.
I think it's a good alternative as well. I think you are limited to buying just one turret for 10 points right now which I agree is a bit expensive since the fleet is supposed to be about better ordnance defenses and the 10 point cost seems to push people away from bulking up the defenses rather than pulling them to boost it.
The problem is that we're working within some rather strict guidelines. The two options that the HA has given us are Add Turrets at disgusting cost, which is not going to work, or Take FDT, which does work as originally written (reducing bombers) but seems to generate random amounts of hate.
Personally, I like how FDT used to work, and think it's the better solution of the two. The problem with additional turrets is that not every class has two turrets. Some have 1, some have 3. If you give a 1 turret ship +1, you've improved it somewhat, if you give a 3 turret ship +1 you're pretty much creating a monster as far as AC goes.
The Endeavour and Endurance will not really work as flak ships. They're too slow, and too easy to kill. Against, for example, a decent AC heavy Chaos fleet, they'll most likely be torn apart, because at these speeds they'd have to move in front of the fleet, making them easy to pick off with 60cm fire and leave the rest of the fleet flapping in the breeze. Worse, they won't be able to respond quickly to changing situations with AC, and so would be easy to fake out into going in the wrong direction.
-
Hmm.. I think I see part of the problem then: The Dauntless' don't support the heavy ships, the heavy ships support the Daunt in a bakka fleet. It's backwards to how a regular IN list works. Put forming line out of your mind, think Nelson at Trafalgar or Perry in the latter phases at Put-in-Bay. The heavy ships are there for the coup de grace. Close rapidly, blast at close range with WB and torps, then hit them with massed lance fire. Looking at the Baron's list it looks like he goes torp heavy. Basically it's a trade for a much bigger intial shock for more kills over time with lances.
Sorry, to clarify what I meant, I was saying that multiple Dauntless' + minimum Heavies have been in use for many years outside Bakka. This normally means Emperor and 3 Dauntless or more.
I will say that without FDT the Dauntless' get chewed up too badly against carrier heavy opponents, even massing turrets. With FDT you can effectively mass during the movement phase, which means that the usual trick of trying to put waves of AC in the Dauntless' path of movement doesn't work. You end up spending all your LBs on fighters to clear the way for th ships rather then clear the way for torp attacks.
Yes and so I was proposing either improved direct fire or the 3+ to hit. Nate however has issues with both. Personally, I see none as this is just a draft for a fleet with some special rules to compensate for losing something. Much like special rules of other races. Nate should really be more flexible when it comes to this. Or maybe re-rollable turrets.
Personally, I like how FDT used to work, and think it's the better solution of the two. The problem with additional turrets is that not every class has two turrets. Some have 1, some have 3. If you give a 1 turret ship +1, you've improved it somewhat, if you give a 3 turret ship +1 you're pretty much creating a monster as far as AC goes.
Remember though there is no limit (yet as far as I can read). If you purchase 2 turrets for +5 each instead of the prohibitively expensive +10, that makes that ship quite resilient to ordnance.
The Endeavour and Endurance will not really work as flak ships. They're too slow, and too easy to kill. Against, for example, a decent AC heavy Chaos fleet, they'll most likely be torn apart, because at these speeds they'd have to move in front of the fleet, making them easy to pick off with 60cm fire and leave the rest of the fleet flapping in the breeze. Worse, they won't be able to respond quickly to changing situations with AC, and so would be easy to fake out into going in the wrong direction.
You can't account for all situations. You have to do the best with what you have. The same situation can happen with your list against Chaos. Chaos can just stay far off and pick off your Dauntless' with heavy WB and Lance fire. Those are still just light cruisers.
-
I don't think +1 turret for free in a bakka fleetlist, with little or no AC in the fleet, would be a problem.
Failing that, 5 points. My vote is we go with one of these.
-
At this point, I'd prefer Bakka get:
1. 3+ to hit with turrets for free, then +10 per additional turret or
2. Re-rollable turrets for free, then +10 per additional turret, though this still feels a bit overcosted.
-
Plaxor should not do popularity polls. This ain't highschool.
gLee! club BFG. :)
On Bakka,
in the version I d/l it still has the old FDT rule. Am I missing something?
The stats for the Dominion are WRONG.
Nate, it should be:
Prow torps str6
port bays str2
starboard bays str2
dorsal lance str2 @ 45cm lfr
port lance str2 @ 45cm
starboard lance str2 @45cm
///
I also think Emperor should be replaced by Oberon.
Jovian out imo.
Vanquisher/Victory, I like Victory more. Both ships kinda fill same role with all the lances...
Hi Horizon! Yep, the Dominion profile is the subject of a very poor cut and paste. However, for the same 260 points I upped the dorsals to 60cm (no other changes). With all other Imp BC's in the game having 60cm dorsal lancs, I believe the seat of a Segmentum Forgeworld and the producer of the Mercury can manage to put these on its analogue of the Mars. :)
-
I've read some of the more recent posts, and we seem to have once again devolved to name calling, flame-stoking and other such juvenile wastes of time. Okay, I admit "Team Horizon" was actually sort of funny. The rest of it though- really? We're all aduls or courtesy of the Internet at least can pretend to be. 'Nuff said.
In any case, Bakka 1.3 is on the street. Not as many changes this time, but they are still significant. The Dominion profile was corrected, and the Mercury "goes pop" has been toned down a bit. The biggest change is in the fleet list, where AdMech cruisers can be taken as battlecruisers and don't count as reserves. This keeps the FDT's fluff-true while allowing FDT's to be present in enough numbers to be characterful, if not entirely common. Before anyone panics because, "oh my gosh, now there will be Dictators EVERYWHERE!!" keep in mind that AdMech Dictators before adding FDT's are 255 points each, only 5 points cheaper than a Dominion, which as a Bakka BC can already be taken one for two Silurias for your min-max fiends out there.
On a side note, we're getting pretty close to the finish line with these projects so the document provides a sneak-peek at the final format and style of all the projects we will be sending to GW.
Enjoy! Oh, and easy on the flames already! :( ???
-
Turrets are really too expensive, Nate. +5 should be good if its just adding turrets. If you give additional boosts like the ones I propose (though not necessarily only my proposal), then you can put it at +10/turret.
-
I agree with D'art. The turrets need to be +5 points regardless of the Overlord having to pay 10 points. If you want to have people stock up on them that's what needs to be done.
Second, with the availability of the dominion, please delete the Mars. All you are doing is adding another ship with a NC in easy reach and the dominion already fills the role the Mars has. There isn't any need to keep the mars and it'll make Bakka more flavorful if it's removed. Besides production is supposed to have ended on the Mars and if they lost most of the fleet to the Nids, they won't be likely to have more sitting around.
Third, Please pull the cobra as well, the viper uses the EXACT same model and removing one will help reduce confusion in mixed squadrons. The cobra really isn't needed in this list.
Fourth, why the reserve thing with the Marines? that really isn't needed and doesn't even provide anything useful. If you are using reserves to get Admech for FDT and take a Jovian, you won't have slots for marines and if you go marines you really aren't gaining much since the best you will be doing is taking a strike cruiser. Leave the marines list out of this one. We can use the Dominion list if we want or the armageddon list too. This is just options for the sake of options.
Finally. The change to the Mercury is appreciated, but if you are going to say that the upgraded powerplant gives it stronger weapons you still have to reconcile it with the Overlord that does not have the special powerplant and yet has the same firepower at the same range for just about the same price. A ship that blows up easily really needs a reason to do it and +5cm speed really isn't a good enough reason. So far you've not even commented on why you don't want to see the weapons improved or any changes to make the explosiveness a reasonable trade off.
Some dialog and explanation would be nice to see on this because so far it feels like the list is being pushed despite misgivings.
-
5 point turrets! 5 point turrets! :p
-
Again, my main comment is going to be that allowing torps as a -20pt refit on the Mercury/Victory is a gift. Nova Cannons are worth about 10pts over 6 torps, thus the Dominator. The other ships pay 20pts because it's a choice to take the non-primary option and thus pay more.
So if you're trading out torpedoes for a nova cannon with no options, the torpedoes are worth 10pts less for a S6 and break even when you swap them out for S9 torps. If the torps are the option, you're looking at a free swap for S6 and actually CHARGING 10pts for the S9.
Both the ships in question are already overcosted as well, so giving them torps so cheaply just guarantees that only the torp versions will be taken as players try and claw back some of the value.
The Mercury wording change is appreciated, but I also have to say: What firepower? It doesn't outgun the Overlord at 235pts. FP10 is what you'd expect from a BC anyway. If it were FP12@60cm, or S4 lances@60cm, that would just about qualify as up-rated firepower. FP10 doesn't.
-
*Agrees with RCgothic again*
-
To an extend.
The Dominator is unique.
It must take the NC.
The others have a 20pts upgrade.
Now question is about Mercury, it is no longer a must, thus an option. Thus diffence between torp/nc is 20pts.
Which is a must in this case.
-
Is there any fluff to suggest that the Bakka fleet has an unusually high number of AM or SM ships? Because if not, then they shouldn't have SM ships as reserves, and they shouldn't have access to AM ships as standard.
Also, why would you want to include the AM in order to field the FDT? This thing is a crap rule full stop. It should be dropped kicked out of the game. Also, it's just not that great a rule. Why would I take an AM ship, pay full price for the "random" upgrade and then pay 5 pts over the top to take the worst upgrade?
The RAW regarding FDTs still aren't clear either. According to them every ship in Bakka has 2 FDTs as standard. I doubt this is the intention, as you say that Bakka can't service and maintain FDTs later on. Delete the "two turrets on a ship are exchanged for FDTs".
Regarding those that want cheaper turrets, I disagree. Current IN fleets taking 1/4 of their fleet as carriers pay around +40 pts over what a straight gunfleet would. I see no reason why Bakka shouldn't pay the same in extra turrets to defend those 4 ships instead of AC, since it gets more guns in return and doesn't need to worry so much about RO. Particularly as they have the option of not taking the turrets. Also, shifting from 2 turrets to 3 turrets is a significant jump up in defence against bomber based fleets. If you were going to make it +5 pts it would have to be a mandatory purchase for every capital ship in the fleet, at the very least.
The Mercury is still overpriced and useless, and the Victory is still outclassed in all regards by the current Ret and soundly thrashed as a stand-off vessel by the Apocalypse (again, current version).
I would drop the Mars, Cobra and Sword from the list to reduce redundancy and confusion and to promote character. It seems more characterful if the list had to depend more on the older Havocs than the ubiquitous Sword. The Mars is just more NC spam given that there's a fine alternative in the Dominion. With the fleet having access to the Mercury, Dominator and Victory, we're already seeing a large amount of potential NC spam. Not that I particularly care, but it has been a stated goal of yours to reduce this type of thing. Besides, I like the idea of the list being forced off the beaten path slightly. This sentiment applies to the Cobra too, but this is more important, given they use identical models.
-
I agree with Sig on the viper thing. I didn't include them in my document for the reason that THEY ARE THE SAME MODEL! I guess its not that big a deal, but its just annoying. At least with the Havocs you know that the infidels in that IN list are not infidels.
-
For the record I agree on:
Mars out
Cobra out
Sword out
For the first time I'll start thinking about the FDT for Bakka.
-
Agreed on dropping all but Cobra, unless the fluff on the Viper is changed a bit to them being more common.
Agreed that its wierd that Bakka gets admech and sm. Unless the fluff makes it something like 'this fleet is really really tight with marines and admech', then most other battlefleets have ready relationships with forgeworlds and marine homeworlds.
-
Is there any fluff to suggest that the Bakka fleet has an unusually high number of AM or SM ships? Because if not, then they shouldn't have SM ships as reserves, and they shouldn't have access to AM ships as standard.
Also, why would you want to include the AM in order to field the FDT? This thing is a crap rule full stop. It should be dropped kicked out of the game. Also, it's just not that great a rule. Why would I take an AM ship, pay full price for the "random" upgrade and then pay 5 pts over the top to take the worst upgrade?
The RAW regarding FDTs still aren't clear either. According to them every ship in Bakka has 2 FDTs as standard. I doubt this is the intention, as you say that Bakka can't service and maintain FDTs later on. Delete the "two turrets on a ship are exchanged for FDTs".
Regarding those that want cheaper turrets, I disagree. Current IN fleets taking 1/4 of their fleet as carriers pay around +40 pts over what a straight gunfleet would. I see no reason why Bakka shouldn't pay the same in extra turrets to defend those 4 ships instead of AC, since it gets more guns in return and doesn't need to worry so much about RO. Particularly as they have the option of not taking the turrets. Also, shifting from 2 turrets to 3 turrets is a significant jump up in defence against bomber based fleets. If you were going to make it +5 pts it would have to be a mandatory purchase for every capital ship in the fleet, at the very least.
The Mercury is still overpriced and useless, and the Victory is still outclassed in all regards by the current Ret and soundly thrashed as a stand-off vessel by the Apocalypse (again, current version).
I would drop the Mars, Cobra and Sword from the list to reduce redundancy and confusion and to promote character. It seems more characterful if the list had to depend more on the older Havocs than the ubiquitous Sword. The Mars is just more NC spam given that there's a fine alternative in the Dominion. With the fleet having access to the Mercury, Dominator and Victory, we're already seeing a large amount of potential NC spam. Not that I particularly care, but it has been a stated goal of yours to reduce this type of thing. Besides, I like the idea of the list being forced off the beaten path slightly. This sentiment applies to the Cobra too, but this is more important, given they use identical models.
I agree with the Mars, Cobra, and Sword being removed due to being redundant.
I don't agree with the the idea that the FDT is crap, though it's now definitely nerfed against bombers now. The Mercury is not useless, though I feel it's new rule makes it less interesting. I liked it better when it exploded like a 12 hp BB.
As far as the Vicky goes, I could see it maybe being str 5 lances, but as is it's fine.
As far as fluff goes: Bakka is a segmentum fortress. None of the other fleets are, even the Bastion fleets. Bakka in the past has aided the (very) near by Ultramar, which is, after all a peculiarity as the the Ultramarines chapter master is, effectively, both the Chapter master and the Lord Sector. Which is rather humorous as it is a nice bypass on the whole Space Marin-lances thing. As the Lord Sector, he technically commands the sector fleet and all PDF and Gaurd regiments. As chapter master of the Ultramarines, he controls a space marine chapter. Which, if you think about it, means that Guilliman wrote a big exception for himself, in the rules. This was probably brushed off at the time as being to facilitate him being a SM commander AND the high lord of Terra in overall command of all the Imperium's forces.
As far as the admech, again, this is a Segmentum fortress and the seat of most of IN's naval activity in the segmentum. There's going to be a much larger admech presence and that presence will be much, much better equipped then, say, a forgeworld in the Gothic sector.
HOWEVER.
What is the point of this fleet again? It seems to be turning into a huge mass of ships that are only taken with weird rules to try and placate everyone AND make the thing work.
It was a lot simpler when we just had FDT and a few ships people didn't like. As is, we're stumbling into some very strange lists now and I'm getting to the point I'm doing almost as much book keeping to build the list as I do to play the list, with all the ships that are 'instead of', 'if you take x you may take y', and 'reserve only'
-
So the upshot of that is that you think Bakka should be as SM/AM restricted as normal lists?
-
So the upshot of that is that you think Bakka should be as SM/AM restricted as normal lists?
No, I just think that there should be more ships to pick from in the regular list. As things stand, we have a million reserve ships, and a handful of ones that we can actually pick from, most of which are the generic IN ships, except for the Siluria which is the old Endeavour -torps, The Victory which is the Apoc -weird rules and lance str, the Vanquisher which, as you yourself have said, no one will probably take, and now rules that pretty much ensure no one will ever take a battlecruiser because they're going to be spending their slots to get the FDT or reserving in SCs to back up ships like Mercury.
How is this list a viable big gun list if you have to use 'not reserves' from another list to make it work?
The Reason FDT came into existence is that early on, it was found that balance was impossible by just increasing turrets. Effectively, you end up with broken ships with 4 and five turrets that are nearly ord immune without focusing whole cruiser squadron's fire on a single ship. Because at this point, sacking your escorts that normally run down ord for more points in turrets becomes viable. 180 points isn't much to spend on near immunity to bombers for a whole cruiser squadron and with turret massing, pretty good defenses against any other ord. Rolling 7 or 8 dice, you're most likely going to shoot down something.
We won't even consider the absurdities that you get into with battleships under this. Six turrets is almost a guarantee.
-
No, I just think that there should be more ships to pick from in the regular list. As things stand, we have a million reserve ships, and a handful of ones that we can actually pick from, most of which are the generic IN ships, except for the Siluria which is the old Endeavour -torps, The Victory which is the Apoc -weird rules and lance str, the Vanquisher which, as you yourself have said, no one will probably take, and now rules that pretty much ensure no one will ever take a battlecruiser because they're going to be spending their slots to get the FDT or reserving in SCs to back up ships like Mercury.
How is this list a viable big gun list if you have to use 'not reserves' from another list to make it work?
You currently can use the AM ships in the list, you don't have to. As it stands, a no-AC IN list isn't all that powerful. This is because bombers tend to do well against 2 turret targets and the most effective way of stopping enemy bombers is you having fighters. Similarly, being able to clear enemy CAP makes your torps more valuable. Hence people prefer to have some AC.
Now if you increase turrets to at least 3 then bombers effectiveness tends to fall away, making them on-par with guns. Therefore you no longer need AC to defend yourself. Having some fighters to clear CAP for your torps is desirable though, and this Bakka list will have access to some. So that's sorted.
As for the feel of the list, if you took the Gothic list, removed the Dictator and Emperor and added the extra turrets then that would be sufficiently different to make the list feel more gun oriented. There's no need for Enforcers or Mercuries or whatever. You can add or subtract ships, but you don't need to. So the addition of Vanquisher/Victory does add some character, even if they're only slight variations. The Jovian/Dominion also add character. In the case of the Dominion this is again a variation on a theme (Mars). The Jovian I can understand from its fluff, and I can accept due to its rarity and the fact that it won't show up in other lists. Others don't like it, and I can understand their objections, they're valid.
The Havoc, Viper and Siluria are again just minor variations that just add a bit of character. The Endeavour/Endurance "flak ships" are another matter, but they're meant to help the fleet accomplish no-AC viability, for which I think they're overkill, but it's irrelevant.
What I don't get is the fast ship theme. The Mercury is just not called for in this list. Also fairly worthless too. With extra speed it'd be a line breaker. Why would I want long range in this role? If I used it as a stand-off ship the Overlord does better in the same role for cheaper. It goes faster than the rest of the fleet, making it harder to keep formation (both for the extra minimum move and the temptation to run it faster). You could make more fast ships, but, um, why? Isn't Bakka meant to be a gunfleet? Since when have they been a fast ship fleet?
So, sans fast ships and sans FDTs what other ships would you add to Bakka?
The Reason FDT came into existence is that early on, it was found that balance was impossible by just increasing turrets. Effectively, you end up with broken ships with 4 and five turrets that are nearly ord immune without focusing whole cruiser squadron's fire on a single ship. Because at this point, sacking your escorts that normally run down ord for more points in turrets becomes viable. 180 points isn't much to spend on near immunity to bombers for a whole cruiser squadron and with turret massing, pretty good defenses against any other ord. Rolling 7 or 8 dice, you're most likely going to shoot down something.
We won't even consider the absurdities that you get into with battleships under this. Six turrets is almost a guarantee.
Don't be ridiculous. There's no way that FDT was made because it was impossible to achieve balance otherwise. They were added because someone just thought "hey, cool, what about this idea?" and it turned out to be a bad one. As for the mechanic itself, how is being able to add turrets to other ships from afar any better than just adding turrets to their profiles? Increasing the standard turret value to 3 will greatly reduce the power of AC against the list. Combine that with the fact that you're getting more guns for doing this and an all-gun fleet becomes perfectly viable. The only thing I'd add would be falchions, to clear CAP. That way a no AC list would be quite viable. There have been some objections to this idea though.
-
Hi all! I read the massed posts of feedback and made some fast-track changes for v1.4, which was just uploaded to the site (see my signature for the link). Once again there's too much to reply to individually so I'll just tell you the changes incorporated based on the collective input and toss in a bit of feedback as well.
1. The Cobra and Mars are gone. The Mars is pretty much made redundant by the slightly cheaper Dominion so its departure is not very impactful to this fleet list. I don’t agree with removing the Cobra, but the arguments for doing so were valid so leaving it in would only be for spite. The Sword was left in because it is truly a ubiquitous escort in ALL the fluff, and it offers a cheap way to start out with a two-turret escort before adding the Bakka+1. The Havoc is SUPPOSED to be really old so it’s staying as-is. The Viper fluff was adjusted slightly to make it more common in Bakka.
2. Speaking of “Bakka+1,†+1 turret is now +5 points and is still available to all Bakka IN vessels. The base price for a Bakka Endeavor/Endurance has been adjusted to reflect this.
3. A point was made that the Endeavor/Endurance +1 when defending against boarding actions should NOT be fluff-linked to crew proficiency. Keep in mind however that this benefit ONLY refers to when defending against boarding and not all the time like Chaos or Orks. The point however is valid, and this has been changed to refer to unusual ship design characteristics, as it already is for Voss-pattern Endeavor/Endurance vessels.
4. Somewhere I read a post that the AdMech vessels still count as reserves. This was changed in 1.3 to where they DON’T count as reserves but can only be taken as battlecruisers. I made this much clearer in the v1.4 document by giving the AdMech their own section in the fleet list instead of appearing as a footnote.
Speaking of AdMech vessels, they will remain having access to FDT’s for +5 points instead of rolling their Mechanicus Gifts randomly if desired. This allows this fleet to have access to FDT’s without making them overpowering to the fleet as a whole, and those who totally detest FDT’s are not obligated to take them and can save the points by rolling randomly for something else.
It is agreed by the HA’s that FDT’s are one of the things that made Bakka especially characterful, and this provides additional balance for the fleet being relatively AC-poor compared to other fleets. Rather than invent a new mechanic, this uses a rule mechanic that has existed since 2000 in BFG Mag #2, has been approved by GW as official in the Adeptus Mechanicus rule-set, and does NOT expand the rule beyond AdMech ships so fluff and future-creep isn’t violated.
Keep in mind that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and nobody is obligating YOU to agree, like this or even use this system on your ships. Please keep the vitriol to a minimum. Thanks! :D ;D
5. There are some complaints about allowing the Space Marines to be used as reserves. While allowing the Ultramarines to work closely with Battlefleet Bakka is not entirely against fluff, it is a valid argument that allowing SC’s to be used as reserves has the potential to “break†the fleet list. Even by restricting reserves only to strike cruisers, I have managed to create a broken fleet list combination so this option is now gone. It sucks that I have to play like a munchkin to test the rules, but the reality is what it is.
To this end, before anyone gets in a fluff argument to tell me I’m wrong about the Ultramarines, please save it because with the rule removed, the argument is moot.
6. There have been some arguments that the Mercury isn’t “shooty†enough for the restriction placed on it for how it blows up, even though its explosion has been nerfed down to cruiser size and only the 3D6 remains different. The comparison made to the Overlord is that the firepower isn’t much better for being more expensive. The point is that first of all, the firepower IS better, so let’s compare the ship to the Armageddon, to which it is priced the same if you take into account the Nova Cannon, since the former comes with one that can be removed, and the latter doesn’t but can take it.
First let’s look at the 3D6 when blowing up. As it now blows up as a cruiser and not a battleship, this simply means the ship blows up more easily but otherwise dies exactly the same way as other ships. Even very conservatively, this is well worth a +5cm speed increase for an IN battlecruiser. If your taste gravitates toward using NC’s as artillery and the speed increase bothers you that much, take an Armageddon and put a NC on it. Save some points, put torps on the Mercury and let it chase your Vipers around. Of course, you can also just not use it if you hate it that much.
Now assuming the +5cm speed and the “goes pop easier†cancel each other out, we can compare this ship to the Armageddon based only on firepower to firepower. If we use Smotherman’s formula ONLY as a framework (did I mention how much I hate Smotherman’s formula?), 6x60cm + 4x45cm batteries is roughly equivalent to 12x45cm batteries. Since Smotherman also says a given lance is worth 3WB’s of the same range, we can say the Armageddon’s 6x45cm WB’s + 2x45cm lances are ALSO roughly equivalent to 12x45cm batteries. Thus, from purely an apples-to-apples standpoint, these ships are equal. “Yeah, but those meaty engines should let this thing SHOOT better!†you say. Agreed, but when it comes to something hard to quantify like broadside firepower, I would rather start cheap and allow someone to make a ship more expensive rather than vice versa, since that’s a paradigm that has existed in the game since the beginning (eg: Tyrant). That’s why the Mercury’s notes allow the batteries to ALL be 60cm for +10 points (changed from v.1.2), the same cost it takes for the Tyrant to upgrade all of its batteries to 45cm. Thus you can either have your Mercury for cheap, or for more points you can have a “fast almost-Retribution but smaller.†Once again, you can always just not use the Mercury if you hate it that much.
I know that these arguments assume a NC is worth +20 points. This is only for the sake of simplicity using well-established values, and I am NOT debating whether or not NC’s should be valued differently. Period.
That’s it. Try it out over the weekend and post what you think. By the way, by “try it out†I mean you do so on a table against an opponent before you summarily gripe and moan about this list and rule-set. Thanks and enjoy! :) ;D
-
Hmm... I'll try it out, but I do think that a stat corrected Apostate would be a good addition to this fleet. It's built on the same hull as a Havok so it wouldn't look out of place. Maybe as a rare variant or something.
-
4. Somewhere I read a post that the AdMech vessels still count as reserves. This was changed in 1.3 to where they DON’T count as reserves but can only be taken as battlecruisers. I made this much clearer in the v1.4 document by giving the AdMech their own section in the fleet list instead of appearing as a footnote.
Speaking of AdMech vessels, they will remain having access to FDT’s for +5 points instead of rolling their Mechanicus Gifts randomly if desired. This allows this fleet to have access to FDT’s without making them overpowering to the fleet as a whole, and those who totally detest FDT’s are not obligated to take them and can save the points by rolling randomly for something else.
It is agreed by the HA’s that FDT’s are one of the things that made Bakka especially characterful, and this provides additional balance for the fleet being relatively AC-poor compared to other fleets. Rather than invent a new mechanic, this uses a rule mechanic that has existed since 2000 in BFG Mag #2, has been approved by GW as official in the Adeptus Mechanicus rule-set, and does NOT expand the rule beyond AdMech ships so fluff and future-creep isn’t violated.
Keep in mind that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and nobody is obligating YOU to agree, like this or even use this system on your ships. Please keep the vitriol to a minimum. Thanks! :D ;D
So in the Bakka Sector fleet (not Segmentum force) AM ships pop up all the time? 'Cause I thought this was supposed to be the sector fleet. As for the FDT there is just so much wrong with this system. There's no way that turrets on one ship would be able to act just like turrets on another ship some 15,000 kms away. Apart from that, there is no explanation why no other race uses this extremely simple technology. It allows the turrets to gain so much range without sacrificing anything in return. The ship loses no speed or range from its main guns, nor any firepower or shield strength and, unlike Eldar, doesn't even have to shoot at the ordnance with main guns.
6. There have been some arguments that the Mercury isn’t “shooty†enough for the restriction placed on it for how it blows up, even though its explosion has been nerfed down to cruiser size and only the 3D6 remains different. The comparison made to the Overlord is that the firepower isn’t much better for being more expensive. The point is that first of all, the firepower IS better, so let’s compare the ship to the Armageddon, to which it is priced the same if you take into account the Nova Cannon, since the former comes with one that can be removed, and the latter doesn’t but can take it.
First let’s look at the 3D6 when blowing up. As it now blows up as a cruiser and not a battleship, this simply means the ship blows up more easily but otherwise dies exactly the same way as other ships. Even very conservatively, this is well worth a +5cm speed increase for an IN battlecruiser. If your taste gravitates toward using NC’s as artillery and the speed increase bothers you that much, take an Armageddon and put a NC on it. Save some points, put torps on the Mercury and let it chase your Vipers around. Of course, you can also just not use it if you hate it that much.
Now assuming the +5cm speed and the “goes pop easier†cancel each other out, we can compare this ship to the Armageddon based only on firepower to firepower. If we use Smotherman’s formula ONLY as a framework (did I mention how much I hate Smotherman’s formula?), 6x60cm + 4x45cm batteries is roughly equivalent to 12x45cm batteries. Since Smotherman also says a given lance is worth 3WB’s of the same range, we can say the Armageddon’s 6x45cm WB’s + 2x45cm lances are ALSO roughly equivalent to 12x45cm batteries. Thus, from purely an apples-to-apples standpoint, these ships are equal. “Yeah, but those meaty engines should let this thing SHOOT better!†you say. Agreed, but when it comes to something hard to quantify like broadside firepower, I would rather start cheap and allow someone to make a ship more expensive rather than vice versa, since that’s a paradigm that has existed in the game since the beginning (eg: Tyrant). That’s why the Mercury’s notes allow the batteries to ALL be 60cm for +10 points (changed from v.1.2), the same cost it takes for the Tyrant to upgrade all of its batteries to 45cm. Thus you can either have your Mercury for cheap, or for more points you can have a “fast almost-Retribution but smaller.†Once again, you can always just not use the Mercury if you hate it that much.
I know that these arguments assume a NC is worth +20 points. This is only for the sake of simplicity using well-established values, and I am NOT debating whether or not NC’s should be valued differently. Period.
That’s it. Try it out over the weekend and post what you think. By the way, by “try it out†I mean you do so on a table against an opponent before you summarily gripe and moan about this list and rule-set. Thanks and enjoy! :) ;D
OK, you are missing a few things here. Firstly, I'll just make a comment about the range upgrade. It is good that you brought it down from its ludicrously high price, but I should just point out that it is still not on par with the Tyrant range upgrade. With the Tyrant you add +15cm range onto 6 firepower for 10 pts. Here you're adding +15cm range onto 4 firepower for +10 pts.
Anyway, you say the Mercury has more firepower than an Overlord. Well, let's look at an Overlord (220 pts) with the targeting matrix (+15 = 235 pts) vs a torp Mercury (235 pts). In the 45-60cm range bracket the Overlord shits all over the Mercury. With a left-shifted strength 8 firepower vs just strength 6. This makes the Overlords broadside twice as good as the Mercury in this range bracket. When we go to 45cm or less, well, the Armageddon is by far the best option. Since the Mercury has some 60cm range weaponry and the option to upgrade the rest to 60cm, and the Armageddon doesn't, we're obviously looking at the ships stand-off capabilities.
So let's assume fully upgraded range (so now it's 245 pts). Now it's FP 10 vs the overlords left-shifted FP 8. So in the 30-60cm range band the Mercury would get either 5, 4 or 2 dice, depending on circumstances. The Overlord will get either 6, 4 or 3(2) dice in the same circumstances. So the Overlord has either the same firepower or more firepower in the 45-60cm range band, even against an upgraded Mercury. In the 15-30cm range band the Mercury will get 7, 5, 4 or 2 dice, whereas the Overlord will get 7, 6, 4 or 3(2) dice, once again being superior. So from >15cm the Overlord purely owns the more expensive Mercury in terms of firepower. The only time the Mercury has better firepower is when the left-shift is useless, ie, when using the defences column.
So, the Overlord is superior as a stand-off ship, and outperforms the Mercury from >15cm. So you might assume that the Mercury comes into its own in the 15cm range band, since it does have the speed to get there. However then the Armageddon is generally on par or superior (depending on AV).
Now, you brought up the Smotherman formula, mentioning that 1L = 3WB, regardless of range. This is demonstrably false. Let us assume that the Lunar/Gothic comparison is fine, and that these ships are actually interchangeable in terms of overall value, so 1L = 3WB up to 30cm range. If this is true, and I think it's fairly hard to split the Lunar and Gothic in terms of value (apart from personal leanings), then you cannot argue that 1L = 3WB at ranges > 30cm. Therefore the 12WBe of the Mercury (more on this later) != to the 6WB/2L of the Armageddon. The Armageddon is superior.
So how to fix the ship? Well, let's assume that the speed is no detriment at all. So the ship is purposed around it, and leaving behind the rest of the fleet is no downfall. We'll even ignore the increased likelihood of going POP. So, since it has speed it's therefore designed to close quickly. So it'll be used as a linebreaker. So it doesn't need range. Bring its range back down to 30cm and drop its cost. Of course, you'll likely spout some nonsense about a CB not being below 45cm range or whatever. So what else? Well, you said the 6WB@60cm+4WB@45cm is roughly worth 12WB@45cm. Well, then how about this. Make the Mercury 12WB@45cm for current cost, and give the option to 'upgrade' this to 10WB@60cm for +10 pts. This way the ship would have a clear role as a line-breaker, trying to get to the 15cm range bracket and actually benefiting the player more if you did so than using an Armageddon.
-
Advanced computer targeting accuracy on the turrets, Sig. Not a fan of the way FDT works right now, but i can fluff-explain it rather satisfyingly, anyway.
I don't understand the readily available admechs. Its cool to have something different, I'm just wondering what kind of special forge-world bond these guys have with the admech for the techno boys to readily participate their precious archiotech cruisers in common defense not based on admech gains. I mean, other sectors have forgeworlds, right?
-
Advanced computer targeting accuracy on the turrets, Sig. Not a fan of the way FDT works right now, but i can fluff-explain it rather satisfyingly, anyway.
Right. But Chaos can't do it. SMs can't. Orks can't. Nids can't. Necrons and Tau can't do it. And for Eldar to be able to do it they need to use their main guns. Not to mention that half the time the targets will actually be in the shadow of the friendly ship, while also being at their most manoeuvrable and hardest to hit. Targeting accuracy my arse.
Bakka is supposed to be an AC light list. That is supposed to be their feel. They don't need the Ad Mech or some stupid special rule to achieve this. In fact, these inclusions make the fleet not an AC light list, but rather a FDT list, or a mixed IN/AM list, or a fast ship list, or whatever. Par it back to its essence. Take out main carriers, give extra turrets, and simply leave this as a gunship list. Bastion fleets have their feel, and they don't need all this crap to achieve it, and where they did have special rules (captains & unreliable) it is in fact these very rules that clutter the list and make it less attractive.
-
In my opinion, Vipers have a big weakness: their utility depends only on an order (RO obviusly), BUT:
-I cannot backup their LD like I do with cruiser that are squadroned
-they don't have an option like the Cobra Widowmaker
I think that this escort should have the option to increase their LD like the Cobra (that is also dependent from RO )
otherwise, take this escort represents a huge risk to waste their points (that is very limited with Cobra)
-
Any chance of including the Invincible?
-
Right. But Chaos can't do it. SMs can't. Orks can't. Nids can't. Necrons and Tau can't do it. And for Eldar to be able to do it they need to use their main guns. Not to mention that half the time the targets will actually be in the shadow of the friendly ship, while also being at their most manoeuvrable and hardest to hit. Targeting accuracy my arse.
Achem: SM can go 25cm with +6 armor. Chaos and IN can't. Chaos can lower your leadership by broadcasting magic porn...
Sig, if the idea of 15cm turrets burns your noodle, try this: How does a targeting system upgrade only 'some' guns on a ship, when all the guns would have to be tied to the same sensor system, since, according to fluff, a ship only has a single targeting system? If targeting was the problem, they would all have it.
Bakka is supposed to be an AC light list. That is supposed to be their feel. They don't need the Ad Mech or some stupid special rule to achieve this. In fact, these inclusions make the fleet not an AC light list, but rather a FDT list, or a mixed IN/AM list, or a fast ship list, or whatever. Par it back to its essence. Take out main carriers, give extra turrets, and simply leave this as a gunship list. Bastion fleets have their feel, and they don't need all this crap to achieve it, and where they did have special rules (captains & unreliable) it is in fact these very rules that clutter the list and make it less attractive.
Sig, while I do agree with you that this list is getting pretty cluttered, I'll try it out first.
Any chance of including the Invincible?
Seconded
-
The comparison made to the Overlord is that the firepower isn’t much better for being more expensive. The point is that first of all, the firepower IS better
Nate, thanks for the updates and explanations it helps immensely! I have to say though that this is flawed. If you were comparing the pre-FAQ2010 Overlord then you would be quite right, but as Sig pointed out with the targeting matrix, the overlord has functionally the same firepower as the flying bomb that is the mercury. With options like the Dominion and Victory, it even makes sense to take the armageddon as a second battle cruiser choice or reserve in an overlord which fits bakka well using it's targeting matrix AND already having the option to upgrade it's turrets to 3.
On admech. Hows does this work for opening more CB clots? If you take say an admech gothic, it fills one CB slot in the bakka fleet but since admech ships aren't battlecruisers does it count as one cruiser for opening a second CB slot? In orther words would something like this be legal, ignoring points for the time being:
Siluria
Siluria
Admech Gothic
Dominator
Admech Gothic
Dominator
Armageddon
Jovian
-
imo it is quite clear that the AM cruisers *count as CB's* and fill CB slots, so they do not count also as crusiers.
btw nate, the endev/endur side box still says +1 turret for +10 points.
-
imo it is quite clear that the AM cruisers *count as CB's* and fill CB slots, so they do not count also as crusiers
The problem is that it doesn't say counts as CB or that admech cruisers become battlecruisers in the bakka list. It says the admech ships are cruisers that can be taken in the same manner as in battlecruisers (in other words 2 bakka cruisers to one admech cruiser) and that the admech cruisers taken this way fill battlecruiser slots. That doesn't make them battlecruisers or preclude them from counting as one of the two cruisers needed to open up another battlecruiser slot.
-
imo it is quite clear that the AM cruisers *count as CB's* and fill CB slots, so they do not count also as crusiers.
btw nate, the endev/endur side box still says +1 turret for +10 points.
BC's count as cruisers for purposes of reserves and battleships, so it doesn't really matter.
-
The problem is that it doesn't say counts as CB or that admech cruisers become battlecruisers in the bakka list. It says the admech ships are cruisers that can be taken in the same manner as in battlecruisers (in other words 2 bakka cruisers to one admech cruiser) and that the admech cruisers taken this way fill battlecruiser slots. That doesn't make them battlecruisers or preclude them from counting as one of the two cruisers needed to open up another battlecruiser slot.
^Lawyering. thats almost as bad as saying bakka cr 1:1 with AM cr.
If a ship fills a CB slot it can't be used to open another CB slot.
example of your logic:
take 2 bfb cr
take am cr
take bfb cr
take am cr
take am cr
here AM cr's are 1:1 with bfb cr's, but fill CB slots? no this totally doesn't make sense. AM Cr's count as CB's in the bakka list. good point bringing this up it should be stated more explicitly.
-
I hate to say an answer to IN having it but...Certain forgeworld exclusive archeotech? >->
Hell, I wonder all the time why Crons and Eldar don't have 90cm weapons, let alone 60cm weapons.
For the record, I hate all the disadvantages of the Bastion Fleets.
-
BC's count as cruisers for purposes of reserves and battleships, so it doesn't really matter.
It's not for getting battleships BI, it's about getting access to more admech ships or battlecruiser slots. If the admech ships are still cruisers then you just need one more cruiser from bakka to get access to another admech ship or cb.
^Lawyering. thats almost as bad as saying bakka cr 1:1 with AM cr.
We are supposed to be trying to break the list to iron out things like this. The whole point about pointing this out is to bring it to Nates attention to make the wording more water tight.
-
The comparison made to the Overlord is that the firepower isn’t much better for being more expensive. The point is that first of all, the firepower IS better
Nate, thanks for the updates and explanations it helps immensely! I have to say though that this is flawed. If you were comparing the pre-FAQ2010 Overlord then you would be quite right, but as Sig pointed out with the targeting matrix, the overlord has functionally the same firepower as the flying bomb that is the mercury. With options like the Dominion and Victory, it even makes sense to take the armageddon as a second battle cruiser choice or reserve in an overlord which fits bakka well using it's targeting matrix AND already having the option to upgrade it's turrets to 3.
On admech. Hows does this work for opening more CB clots? If you take say an admech gothic, it fills one CB slot in the bakka fleet but since admech ships aren't battlecruisers does it count as one cruiser for opening a second CB slot? In orther words would something like this be legal, ignoring points for the time being:
Siluria
Siluria
Admech Gothic
Dominator
Admech Gothic
Dominator
Armageddon
Jovian
Hi Vaaish! :) The Bakka fleet list states the following:
In a Bakka fleet list, cruisers from the Adeptus Mechanicus fleet list may be taken in place of and in the same manner as Imperial Navy battlecruisers.
The intent is that AdMech cruisers count as battlecruisers in all respects. To make this clearer, we will change the following to state:
In a Bakka fleet list, cruisers from the Adeptus Mechanicus fleet list may be taken instead of and in the same manner as Imperial Navy battlecruisers, counting as battlecruisers against any fleet limits in all respects.
As such, your fleet list is two battlecruisers too heavy. Even though you can take one reserve cruiser/battlecruiser/etc. for every three cruisers in the fleet, you still need two cruisers per battlecruiser. Now if you wanted to cheese out on min-max carriers, this would actually be legal:
Siluria
Siluria
Admech Dictator
Dominator
Dominator
Admech Dictator
Reserve Dictator
Reserve Dictator
This however would be quite an expensive fleet, and reserve vessels don’t get the cheap +1 turret so while you would have a lot more ordnance than a typical Bakka fleet, this would also lose out on a lot of the benefits of playing a Bakka fleet as well. For carriers, It also can still be swamped by a plain-vanilla Imperial Navy fleet: AdMech cruisers legally count as reserves for ANY Imperial Navy fleet, and a plain-vanilla IN fleet can bring two more Dictators (for the two Dominators) than this fleet can bring for very little difference in total price
This ALSO doesn't take into account that AdMech cruisers aren’t really true battlecruisers despite their price so a plain-vanilla IN fleet can square against this with four Dictators and two Mars in the BC slots, and even then the point costs would not be that far apart.
As for the Mercury, the arguments are beginning to get circular. Everyone clamored to bring the Overlord price down so we did. Then everyone used it as a hook to drop the Armageddon so we did. NOW some are complaining the Mercury needs to drop in price because of these other ships. I understand and get the price issues so the HA’s discussed it and it happened.
Mention has been made that the Overlord is better than the Mercury because it can take the targeting matrix refit so the Mercury should be made cheaper. Firstly, the Overlord can only be taken as reserves in this fleet so comparing the Overlord to the Mercury is like apples and basketballs. Secondly, while the Overlord can take a targeting matrix, it costs +15 points, the same price as a Mercury without the NC. The turret argument doesn’t wash either- while both can get +1 turret, the Mercury gets it for +5 points, while it costs the Overlord twice that. Added together you get your pick between two “flavors†of Overlord: one that’s faster, or one that has more-accurate firepower. Again, in actual gameplay (which I suggest some people try), what makes one better than the other will come down to playing style.
The Mercury is a brand-new ship, and we would rather aim a bit high with the points than aim too low (see the Devastation). We’re not revisiting the Mercury anymore unless it is broken as far as fairness or rule mechanics go. Players are NOT being obligated to use this ship if they don’t like it. Some people like it, some people hate it. It isn’t the only ship in the game that suffers this problem, and that in and of itself doesn’t make it un-playable.
-
imo it is quite clear that the AM cruisers *count as CB's* and fill CB slots, so they do not count also as crusiers.
btw nate, the endev/endur side box still says +1 turret for +10 points.
Good catch- thanks! Oh, and you're right about the AdMech cruisers counting as CB's. That's fixed as well.
-
thanks for the props, but thank vaaish for bringing it up.
for the record i think this fleet is perfectly fine now.
-
thanks for the props, but thank vaaish for bringing it up.
for the record i think this fleet is perfectly fine now.
I don't, but that's because I would love to have stuck another BB in here, like the Invincible or the Terra. However, it's starting to become subtraction by addition in that EVERY IN fleet list should consist of a core of mid-grade, plain vanilla warships with a sprinkling of Sector-unique vessels to give the fleet flavor. We were already tipping the scale with the new ships in this list, and to be honest I think tossing the Mars to put in yet another new ship (Dominion) was a bit of a stretch. However, it's done with a smile, but I don't think we should entertain adding even more new ships to this thing. Besides, the stipulation was that we would only be adding ships from the BFG Magazine so in the end I don't know if GW is going to bite off on the Dominion. I think they will, but lately there's just no telling.
I don't think I've said it enough, so let me say thanks to all of you for beating me with various blunt instruments (and sometimes not so blunt) until we got this thing about 90% right. Yes Sig, that goes for you too. ;) :) :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
-
I don't think I've said it enough, so let me say thanks to all of you for beating me with various blunt instruments (and sometimes not so blunt) until we got this thing about 90% right. Yes Sig, that goes for you too. ;) :) :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
I find that the board with nail is my favorite blunt instrument. (does the nail make it a piercing weapon?) I usually carry one with my hand sandwich. They go rather well together, taking the 'Board+Nail' as reserves for the sandwich.
-
I'm actually confused about your statement Nate? How are they more likely to approve ships that you made up (The majority of PoC, the new ork ships etc.) that are radical compared to the Dominion? Something that has been around and isn't strange at all?
-
I'm actually confused about your statement Nate? How are they more likely to approve ships that you made up (The majority of PoC, the new ork ships etc.) that are radical compared to the Dominion? Something that has been around and isn't strange at all?
Great question- while these are new ideas, the Ork Lite actually dates back to 1999 straight from Andy C, and the PoC battleships were actually in work (the Tzeentch one even had a model made) before everything was unplugged. I'm not saying the Dominion won't happen - I'm not a personal fan of the ship, but it isn't actually broken so I don't have a problem with it. As far as I'm concerned, it's staying in the Bakka project. My only worry is that feedback from GW lately has been more of the "we don't like it, never mind" variety rather than the "we don't like it, please fix."
-
Those Douches! Maybe we should start beating them with our blunt objects.
-
I don't, but that's because I would love to have stuck another BB in here, like the Invincible or the Terra. However, it's starting to become subtraction by addition in that EVERY IN fleet list should consist of a core of mid-grade, plain vanilla warships with a sprinkling of Sector-unique vessels to give the fleet flavor.
You could always remove the Retribution to stick the Invincible in. :D
-
he intent is that AdMech cruisers count as battlecruisers in all respects. To make this clearer, we will change the following to state:
That's all it needed to plug the hole :) Thanks for clearing it up now rather than it showing up in a tournament!
Mention has been made that the Overlord is better than the Mercury because it can take the targeting matrix refit so the Mercury should be made cheaper. Firstly, the Overlord can only be taken as reserves in this fleet so comparing the Overlord to the Mercury is like apples and basketballs. Secondly, while the Overlord can take a targeting matrix, it costs +15 points, the same price as a Mercury without the NC. The turret argument doesn’t wash either- while both can get +1 turret, the Mercury gets it for +5 points, while it costs the Overlord twice that. Added together you get your pick between two “flavors†of Overlord: one that’s faster, or one that has more-accurate firepower. Again, in actual gameplay (which I suggest some people try), what makes one better than the other will come down to playing style.
I think you are missing the point Nate. We know you have to bring the Overlord in via reserve, but the issue we are brining up is the fluff inconsistency between the Overlord having the same level of firepower and range without the extra-explody-ork-built-reactor core. It doesn't matter what the point cost is right now when you have one ship that seems to be fine with the long range weapons and yet a different ship with almost the exact same weapons load is specifically stated as needed a special reactor that's partly unstable to pull off the same feat yet only gains +5 speed for the trouble.
You are right that we have two flavors of overlord, though. One that moves slightly faster and blows up and one that doesn't. I'd rather see the Mercury be a bit more expensive to mount more powerful weapons and fit with the explanation of why it needs the fancy reactor than what is there now.
I don't think I've said it enough, so let me say thanks to all of you for beating me with various blunt instruments (and sometimes not so blunt) until we got this thing about 90% right.
Soo... does that mean I get that article for WR now? :)
-
I think Bakka starts to look fine. How nice.
-
ahh, i must have been daydreaming, this list would be fine if it had the dauntless:
1.) as bakka is supposed to be pretty fast, another 25cm boat is a good thing
2.) being a 25cm boat, it can pull fast maneuvers with the mercury
3.) the merc currently has no 'compliment' ships (ie lance boats), with the same speed.
4.) you could make a quite fast navy of suliarias and dauntless' with a couple mercs and a victory for an interesting fast/standoff fleet
5.) dauntless is a patrol boat, and a decent pirate hunter, fits the story.
6.) of course for these reasons the enforcer should be in, but i understand the LB issue. however the dauntless has been around since the get go and is a tried and tested fair ship (and generally the comparison for other CL's).
7.) it's torp option makes it so every class of ship can put out sizable salvos.
also it doesn't screw up the fleet:
1.) it doesn't overshadow the other CL's. sularia is cheaper, and the daunt can't compare to the staying power or flak abilities of the endev/endur.
2.) its not the cheapest ship, so it won't throw min/max lists
3.) if ya don't like it you don't have to take it.
-
Agreed that Dauntless makes more sense here than the Voss types.
-
Most of the problem we have with the Mercury isn't its general firepower level. It probably has a fairly balanced level of firepower, and 235pts for no nova cannon is probably about right. (though the nova cannon is massively over-valued and the NC Mercury is going to be by far in the minority of variants fielded, just like NC Lunars are by far in the minority of Lunar variants actually fielded.).
The point is that the blurb states the Mercury has increased firepower, when it patently doesn't. The Armageddon easily outguns it in terms of firepower. At 235pts, the Overlord outguns it both in terms of range AND in terms of firepower. The Mars equals its firepower at R60cm.
Where is this magical extra firepower that the special rule claims it has?
I'm not against it having an extra 5cm speed for free along with a special rule that makes it more likely to blow up, but I really would prefer the rules and profile to match up. It doesn't have any additional firepower, so let's stop claiming it does, please?
-
The "flagship" rule at the endurance still states that an additional turret can be taken for +10 points (should be +5)
Mars: I think the mars should be in. Simply because you'll see a lot of Carrier BC's in bakka, as it is their only source of AC. And I prefer a fleet with mixed ship classes instead of only one type. A fleet with one mars and one dominion looks nicer than one with two dominion.
At all it is no big difference, but I don't see a reason in forbidding a ship class as long as both clases are almost equal in worth and performance.
Same question for the overlord: is there any reason why it is not included? The fluff speaks that it is hard to build an only a limited number served in segmentum obscuras, but that doesn't mean that other forgeworlds in other segmentae have the same problem ;)
It is surly not an overpowered design and the 60cm guns as well as the 3rd turret option show that it is a ship in the "spirit" of Bakka.
Btw.: is there any chance that we can see a 1:1 BC ratio as mentioned some pages ago? IMO that would fit the big gun theme well...
Dauntless: here I'm not sure. I love the dauntless. It is by far the best navy light cruiser class. But this is the problem: You won't see much Siluras under the current rules, but you won't see any of them if you can include a dauntless which is only 10 points more expensive and far superior.
What Bakka IMO misses is a unique basic cruiser that “fits†the philosophy. Perhaps something like a Dominator but with torps instead of a Nova and a 3rd turret.
-
The problem is with the Siluria then rather than the Dauntless. It is rather underwhelming even compared to the more expensive Endeavor.
-
IMO it is a problem of both "sides": the daunt has an impressive amount of (focusable) firepower for such a small ship.
At all it has firepower like an escorts (which usually have more firepower-per-point compared to cruisers). so at all it should be a bit more expensive.
On the other hand the 3 light voss cruisers have a reasonable firepower for their size but are overpriced a bit.
The silura....well it is overpriced AND undergunned ;D
-
The silura....well it is overpriced AND undergunned ;D
Nah, not a problem with "both sides". The above line says otherwise. ;D
-
OK..lets try another approach.
If you compare a silura to the light Voss cruisers it looks like the girl next door compared to Megan Fox: you know what you want, but you can live with both.
But if you bring in the dauntless then the silura suddenly looks like ..well...Beth Ditto.
-
The problem is the Siluria already pales compared to Megan Fox (Endearvor, Endurance). It's really a problem with the Siluria then if Megan Fox is the basis of comparison. ;D
-
if hot celebrity chicks are the basis of comparison then we're totally screwed.
the problem is with the sularia... as nate said many pages ago, it can't be cheaper cuz otherwise its 'arder to take 2 than 1 dominator... but if it went down to 4 hits.... (or just dropped the F/L/R guns) then maybe it could be cheaper and offer an alternative to the daunt...
however, the daunt and the suliara fill qutie different roles, and besides would compliment each other well in a fast attack force... so i still see no problem...
besides if everything goes to hell... and i have ~110 spare points, i'll reserve 1 if necessary.
-
Siluria, did it change? I kinda liked the vessel. Best of the Bakka 1.1 I think.
But more importantly: Megan Fox will not be in Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon! Aaaaah! Already negative starting points for the movie. Superbowl spot looked cool though.
edit:
Siluria --> No need for Dauntless in Bakka!
Siluria loses 1point of wb as maximum focus compared to Dauntless. But Dauntless must be closing, thus easier to hit. Siluria can be abeam = yay.
Same speed, same turns.
Victory model -> same as Apocalypse?
-
It loses not only 1 point of focus but also 3 points in total
Also I'm a fan of the torp-daunt which canstay out of range - something that is even better than showing broadsides ;)
-
It loses not only 1 point of focus but also 3 points in total
Doesn't matter. With the Siluria you want to keep it abeam.
Dauntless loses 8wb if it focus on prow.
Also I'm a fan of the torp-daunt which canstay out of range - something that is even better than showing broadsides
yes, torp Dauntless is nice if used well though it needs the Reload Ordnance order to be effective.
-
People usually like the Lance Dauntless better, for a number of reasons. No need to reload, real solid weaponry that is easy to get within range, only loses 1 lance to crippling.
-
And of course the representation of the Dauntless has to be hotter than Megan Fox.
-
Someone needs to paint/photoshop Megaon Fox on the Dauntless prow.
-
Lol, I think I might name one of my Dauntlesses 'Lady Fox' or something.
-
Wait, wait. The Endeavor/Endurance are the Megan Fox'. Have to think of someone else for the Dauntless.
Someone needs to paint/photoshop Megaon Fox on the Dauntless prow.
You mean the motorcycle scene only instead of the motorcycle, she's sitting on the Dautnless' prow? Holding a ham sandwich?
-
Either the motorcycle scene or the one where she opens the hood of Bumblebee (pt1).
lolz
Nerdrage. :)
-
You mean the motorcycle scene only instead of the motorcycle, she's sitting on the Dautnless' prow? Holding a ham sandwich?
Would it be legal if the sandwich had both mustard and mayo?
-
We established that mayo and mustard are not to be combined in an official sandwich, and any attempt to do so will result in a cease and desist order
-
The silly part was I just pictured someone putting a voss style prow on a daunt with Megan Fox as the figurehead.
-
On the Dauntles with torps vs lance variant (Megan Fox vs Rosie Huntington?).
The Dauntless torp can kill a battleship.
The Dauntless lance cannot kill a battleship.
-
You mean the motorcycle scene only instead of the motorcycle, she's sitting on the Dautnless' prow? Holding a ham sandwich?
Would it be legal if the sandwich had both mustard and mayo?
We established that mayo and mustard are not to be combined in an official sandwich, and any attempt to do so will result in a cease and desist order
Heck, mustard and mayo on Megan Fox would be totally worth it and will definitely result in a CDO if only to prevent a lot of heart attacks.
-
Itd be interesting if only torpedo dauntless' were allowed. That would be quite interesting.
Say its a Bakka specialty.
-
In my opinion, Vipers have a big weakness: their utility depends only on an order (RO obviusly), BUT:
-I cannot backup their LD like I do with cruiser that are squadroned
-they don't have an option like the Cobra Widowmaker
I think that this escort should have the option to increase their LD like the Cobra (that is also dependent from RO )
otherwise, take this escort represents a huge risk to waste their points (that is very limited with Cobra)
did I say anything wrong? If I roll 1 for LD of the Vipers squadron (LD=6 as you know) I can bet that I won't use them! Am I exaggering? Ok that I may have 2 rerolls for example, but I will give them orders after all the other ships for sure, so on one side I must have luck to have the possibility of giving them orders, on the other side they would preferentially fail the LD check! It is the same reason becase the cobra widowmaker option exist!
To fail an order is NOT an option for a ship that relies fully in it as Vipers
Am I wrong if I say that another ship so order-dependant doesn't exist? Come on, Vipers cannot even ram for absurd, they have the lowest armour of the game! They only can reload ordnances all the game at the best
-
I know I'm getting into this pretty late but it took me a while to slog though this thread.
Nate, I know people have supposed one thing or another but I'd like to hear it from you. Is this list supposed to represent Bakka pre or post Circe? It seems a bit muddled. If it's pre Circe then some fluff needs changing. If it's post Circe then at the very least Rath needs to go and honestly I just don't see the whole battlefleet being replaced in 250 years.
Any particular reason the Overlord isn't in the list? It was in both previous incarnations and seems to be a good fit.
Any thoughts on allowing a Chaos cruiser as a reserve into the fleet to hint at the Cardinal without actually making up a new ship? It would give the Mercury something that could keep up with it. My suggestion would be the Murder
Was any thought put into a significantly different fleet build style rather than cruisers allow battlecruisers and both allow battleships? I have some ideas that I think might be approprate.
-
The overlord would use the exact same model as the Torp Mercury, which would be confusing.
-
I'll confess to not having slogged though seventeen pages of this, but as I thought I might have had a nominally useful idea, rather than my last post, I'd put it forth.
Would it make sense in the fleet, given how it's renounced carrier capital ships to move the functionalities to auxilary vessels. Should the fleet be given no capital ship carriers, but, instead be allowed a number of escort carriers? You know the ones, normally used to replace transports in senarios, but in this case they'd probably be recosted and included in the main fleet list, maybe with a limitation like one per two capital ships?
-
Would it make sense in the fleet, given how it's renounced carrier capital ships, to move the functionalities to auxilary vessels? Should the fleet be given no capital ship carriers, but, instead be allowed a number of escort carriers? You know the ones, normally used to replace transports in senarios, but in this case they'd probably be recosted and included in the main fleet list, maybe with a limitation like one per two capital ships?
Escort carriers probably not. The Ld modifier kills these from being effective. The Defiant or Enforcer however is a different story. However, the HA seem resistant to this idea. Why? Some made up fear of having "Defiant only" Bakka fleets flying around. Even though a simple restriction like 1-1 with Battlecruisers or Battleships or the like would make them sparce additions to a Bakka fleet.
EVERYONE:
Why can't we introduce a Gothic class upgraded to Battlecruiser standards for this list? Fluff claims Bakka prefers lances as a supporting weapon to attack craft so it would fit perfectly for them! Take out the Gothic class as an option and only allow the Battlecruiser. Now THAT kind of vessel would set Bakka apart as a true gun fleet! And for those fearing it's transfer to other fleets as a reserve vessel, just make a note saying you can't because "it's a treasured ship class in limited number so the Bakka high command wants to keep them for themselves" or something like that.
-Zhukov
-
Assuming it was priced correctly why would anyone be afraid of a lance CB leaking to other lists? It's merely a gunship, and IN use gunships.
-
Well I like it. 4 lances per side and two 45cm lances on the dorsal?
-
Hasn't this or similar CB gothics been floated from time to time? I think the problem ends up that the natural progression for a Gothic CB is 4x lances @45cm and 2x @60 which ends up creating either a balance issue or a fluff issue with the Apocalypse. Could be both, but it's been a while since I remember seeing one come up.
-
Well, mine just added 2 dorsal lances at 60 cm. Priced at 220 since I didn't want it to be cheaper than IN's most expensive regular line cruiser but should really be only in the 210-215 point band.
-
Flat 45cm range.
No competition with the Apocalypse, and in comparison to the Armageddon it has greater firepower in the 30-45cm band, but loses out at 15cm and 45-60.
235pts, identical to the Armageddon.
-
30cm broadsides, 45cm dorsal, my vote.
-
S2 R60 lances on dorsal; no other 'upgrades'.
-
Why are you all so keen on R30 broadside? That's rubbish on a CB. R45 would make it distinct from the other gunship CBs, specifically the best from R30-R45, whilst being slightly weaker at other ranges (a perfect fit for a 235pts CB!), without having oddities like a mix of R30 and R60 lances.
-
Because Str 6@45cm can really wreck a cruiser's day or plink battleships for 2 turns if the BC Gothic goes Lock On which it can afford to.
Fluff-wise, an IN cruiser's power plant can most likely handle the load of the 60cm dorsal lances but will not have enough power to up the range of the broadside lances to 45 cm.
-
Because Str 6@45cm can really wreck a cruiser's day or plink battleships for 2 turns if the BC Gothic goes Lock On which it can afford to.
Fluff-wise, an IN cruiser's power plant can most likely handle the load of the 60cm dorsal lances but will not have enough power to up the range of the broadside lances to 45 cm.
Uh, you realize that's basically what an Armageddon is... right? 6 WB's and 4 lances at 45cm...
I noticed that Nate has already said he's not for adding additional ships to this document. Though I would argue a Gothic BC is a better addition than a Mercury. In fact, if you were to give the Gothic BC the Mercury special rule and give Bakka access to the Overlord, that would work pretty well I think...
In all honesty, the Imperial Navy may need a really upgunned fleet to compete with the new Powers of Chaos document.
-Zhukov
-
Uh, you realize that's basically what an Armageddon is... right? 6 WB's and 4 lances at 45cm...
-Zhukov
WBs which suffer a right column shift for ranges above 30 cm, number of dice dependent on the facing and has to hit vs the armor facing it vs 2 additional lances with no penalties and hitting on a 4+? I know the difference.
-
I know the difference.
Actually I was refering to the power plant argument...
-Zhukov
-
I know the difference.
Actually I was refering to the power plant argument...
-Zhukov
Power to lances is more draining than power to WBs. Yes an Armageddon can have 45 cm to it's 4 broadside lances but I don't think it can power a total of 8 along with the 60 cm dorsal lances.
-
Firstly, I was suggesting a flat 45cm range including 45cm range dorsals, which I think some may not have picked up on - specifically better than the other BCs in the 30cm-45cm band, but worse in the others.
Secondly, Zhukov was referring to the Mercury, not the Armageddon - 10 lances total might just equate to this "additional firepower" it supposedly has but doesn't.
-
I did pick up on it. It's why I said Str 6 lances (in one broadside).
As for Mercury, assuming it was the ship being pointed to, fluff has it that it has battleship sized power plant. if that's the case then there is no issue with powering a lot of lances unlike an uprated Gothic.
-
even so, ten@45 is not the same as 12@60 plus additional weaponry.
-
Problem is it's 12@60 Weapon Batteries, not 12@60 Lances. WBs do not take as much from the power plant and again, a battleship rated power plant would be sufficient to handle the load esp if its mostly WBs.
-
You know...why did Bakka send a massive fleet to aid Ultramar? Doesn't it have its own segmentum to worry about? What was Kar Duniash doing?
-
You know...why did Bakka send a massive fleet to aid Ultramar? Doesn't it have its own segmentum to worry about? What was Kar Duniash doing?
I've wondered this a few times. I just assume there were warp storms or some such. And don't forget, just because two places are physically far doesn't mean there isn't a fairly short warp route and vice versa.
-
True, but its in entirely different segmentums. Bakka is close to the border, but its still a quarter-galaxy away.
I seriously wonder if it wasn't a huge typo or fluff ignorance. A Segmentum would not send 200 precious warships to an entirely different segmentum without the other Segementum being totally incapable of dealing with the problem. Thats a significant chunk of the segmentum battlefleet right there, and it would leave it much less capable of normal defense and patrol. We all know that the Imperium is filled with self-serving groups, if that even needs to be mentioned outside of tactical head-scratching.
-
It's because there's something called the Tau empire between Kar-Duniash and Ultramar. Bakka's ships would have a straight run, whereas Ultima segmentum would have ot bypass the Damocles Gulf.
-
That's nonsense: the whole story existed long time before the Tau where introduced as a new race to the 40k background. Also the Tau "Empire" is just a tiny dot on the star map and i don't see a way how the tau could stop anyone bypassing their room via warp space.
And additionally: 200 imperial war ships would have wiped out the Tau in that time. Damokles-crusade warfleet had only 12 capitalships and nearly destroyed one of the Tau homworlds. At all the the crusade was only ended because of the tyranid treat.
-
Its not so much the Empire, but isn't the gulf itself hard to traverse?
Either way, it is Kar Duniash' responsibility to figure it out, absolutely, either way. Or they need to redistribute the segmentums.
I just think its ludicrous, now that I think about it, and believe it should be retconned entirely as a big forgeworld-level fluff oversight.
Edit: Every map is a bit different, but it looks like Kar Duniash has a clear shot to Ultramar around the Gulf.
Warp routes being what they are though, I'm sure neither route is quite straight.
-
Why are you all so keen on R30 broadside? That's rubbish on a CB. R45 would make it distinct from the other gunship CBs, specifically the best from R30-R45, whilst being slightly weaker at other ranges (a perfect fit for a 235pts CB!), without having oddities like a mix of R30 and R60 lances.
I do believe that with 45cm main gun range the CB Gothic would be a competitor with the Apocalypse. If the Apoc was more reliable (ie, could always shoot to 60cm) then it would compete less.
However, I think the main argument against the range upgrade is that it simply does not need it. The IN fleet is a line-breaking fleet by design. You close with the enemy, firing torps (and dorsal lances from CBs) on the way in and break their lines for a full broadside. For this role broadside range simply is not necessary. It doesn't mean to say that there is no utility in having extra range, and extra range on a lances is better, but range costs too much as far as I'm concerned. I would simply like an IN equivalent to the Murder/Hades relationship instead of all this faffing about with compulsory range upgrades. So at 210 pts just make a battlecruiser Gothic with +2L@60cmLFR dorsal.
-
That's nonsense: the whole story existed long time before the Tau where introduced as a new race to the 40k background. Also the Tau "Empire" is just a tiny dot on the star map and i don't see a way how the tau could stop anyone bypassing their room via warp space.
And additionally: 200 imperial war ships would have wiped out the Tau in that time. Damokles-crusade warfleet had only 12 capitalships and nearly destroyed one of the Tau homworlds. At all the the crusade was only ended because of the tyranid treat.
According to the 5e book's map, it's about 1/6th of the southern half of Ultima Segmentum. And, I seem to recall a much different fight, where the IN discovered rather rudely that they had bitten off more then they could chew, the world in question being described as having defenses comparable to a Sector Capitol World. Further, I seem to recal that it was actually a colony world of the second sphere expansion.
In addition, please remember that warp travel is not in a straight line. Some entire sectors are only reachable by rather esoteric means, being blocked off by warp storms, etc (see the Jericho Reach as an example of this). The administratum would not re-designate the sectors or segmentums when the Imperium split in half, I doubt that they'd reshuffle them for something as minor as travel between two areas in the same segmentum being impossible.
-
You know...why did Bakka send a massive fleet to aid Ultramar? Doesn't it have its own segmentum to worry about? What was Kar Duniash doing?
It happened because GW says it happened. Please don't let this drain into some stupid fluff discussion of a fiction series that has hardly any real science, tactics, and strategy to it. If you want to do that, then start a different thread. Thank you.
Why are you all so keen on R30 broadside? That's rubbish on a CB. R45 would make it distinct from the other gunship CBs, specifically the best from R30-R45, whilst being slightly weaker at other ranges (a perfect fit for a 235pts CB!), without having oddities like a mix of R30 and R60 lances.
I do believe that with 45cm main gun range the CB Gothic would be a competitor with the Apocalypse. If the Apoc was more reliable (ie, could always shoot to 60cm) then it would compete less.
However, I think the main argument against the range upgrade is that it simply does not need it. So at 210 pts just make a battlecruiser Gothic with +2L@60cmLFR dorsal.
Well something to mention is the Apoc is not available to the Bakka list at present. So there is no competition except if you reserve the Gothic BC to another fleet (which is why I said no to reserving it out).
To you're second point. The Imperial Navy was designed with a theme. The Cruisers were to have 30cm range weapons with no dorsals, with a single option at getting a 45cm range broadsides (Tyrant). The BC's were to be 45cm range broadsides with 60cm dorsal lances with a single option at getting 60cm range broadsides (Overlord). The Battleships are to only have 60cm range weapons (with exceptions to 'older' vessels getting less range (the Apoc only half counts to this since it has the ability to extend it's ranges)). That being said, I feel the Gothic BC should have 45cm range broadside lances. In fact, I'm ok with giving it 60cm dorsal lances too, but maybe to get that, it would need the BB engine core to power it (with the exploding greatly chances that go with it).
-Zhukov
-
Well something to mention is the Apoc is not available to the Bakka list at present. So there is no competition except if you reserve the Gothic BC to another fleet (which is why I said no to reserving it out).
Any list with access to both would see it compete with the Apocalypse due to the latter's poor balance. There's no reason to restrict a CB Gothic to this list, as it isn't anything that other IN lists wouldn't do anyway. Mind you, this isn't so much an argument against a 45cm range rather an indictment of the current Apocalypse.
To you're second point. The Imperial Navy was designed with a theme. The Cruisers were to have 30cm range weapons with no dorsals, with a single option at getting a 45cm range broadsides (Tyrant). The BC's were to be 45cm range broadsides with 60cm dorsal lances with a single option at getting 60cm range broadsides (Overlord). The Battleships are to only have 60cm range weapons (with exceptions to 'older' vessels getting less range (the Apoc only half counts to this since it has the ability to extend it's ranges)). That being said, I feel the Gothic BC should have 45cm range broadside lances. In fact, I'm ok with giving it 60cm dorsal lances too, but maybe to get that, it would need the BB engine core to power it (with the exploding greatly chances that go with it).
Given the exceptions this is not much of a theme. Particularly given the Mercury. There is no reason why a Gothic couldn't be refitted with extra dorsal guns. This would be a fast and dirty upgrade, compared to the Armageddon, benefiting from being relatively simple and quick. There is reason to suggest that extending the broadside range to even 45cm would be problematic. The extra range also does not fit with the IN overall theme of line breaking. On top of this the range upgrade is invariably too costly. If the Armageddon was 210 pts with the option to extend its range for 25 pts I simply wouldn't take the range upgrade. If you're using the range often enough to make it worth its cost then you're being sloppy.
So, in short, I think the extra range has always been redundant and too costly for all the IN line-breaking ships (Overlord, Retribution, Armageddon, Tyrant). There is reason to suggest that pushing range on masses of lances is hard. Therefore this is the best opportunity to finally do away with the overly expensive range upgrade.
-
What dont you like about the Apocalypse now, Sig?
-
Its not so much the Empire, but isn't the gulf itself hard to traverse?
Either way, it is Kar Duniash' responsibility to figure it out, absolutely, either way. Or they need to redistribute the segmentums.
I just think its ludicrous, now that I think about it, and believe it should be retconned entirely as a big forgeworld-level fluff oversight.
Edit: Every map is a bit different, but it looks like Kar Duniash has a clear shot to Ultramar around the Gulf.
Warp routes being what they are though, I'm sure neither route is quite straight.
Without digging too deeply into the fluff materials because I'm off to bed, the reason why Bakka responded to this is because the warp between Kar Durniash and the Dominion of Ultramar was cut off over dozens of sectors by the Tyranids' "warp shadow." While Kar Durniash is normally closer, Bakka was the closest fleet of any significant size after the space between Kar Durniash and Ultramar was cut off.
-
Got it. So due to unusual and emergency curcumstances that threatened the Imperium as a whole, and requiring a strong and decisive blow that only a segmentum fortress could issue, Bakka sent aid. Fluff monsters satisfied ;)
-
What dont you like about the Apocalypse now, Sig?
The fact that it is a stand-off ship but you need to pass a command check in order to make use of it in this role. This isn't just a ld test (which I would still find onerous) but a command check, which means that you either place it higher in the order and thus have a greater likelihood of failing another command check further down the line or you place it lower (after carriers say) and thus have a greater likelihood of failing it (which is why I used the 2/3 passes in my comparison example against the Victory, even though it should be higher than this).
The actual consequence of firing at long range is insignificant. Firstly it only kicks in when you're over 45cm away and then you'll have anywhere between 12 to 24 dice to try to repair it and even if you don't repair the crit there's still a pretty good chance that the enemy will not be able to take advantage of the downfall, since they'd need to put a BM in contact to make you count as a defence, assuming you fail to repair, and even then they've got to have enough WBs within range of a ship that hangs out in your back line to take advantage of the situation.
No, the actual penalty for firing at long range is now a joke, since you don't take damage anymore. The biggest downside of the rule is the fact you have to pass the Ld test. This is silly. The ship is expensive and slow and wastes points in its prow armour and NC. It also doesn't get to use its off-side weaponry like most IN ships. This should be made up for by very strong long ranged firepower. The dorsal weaponry is piss weak. It should be strength 9 WBs at the very least. The lances are strong enough, but can only sometimes fire at range. This isn't good enough. I get it that it's hard to get that many lances to fire at long range. Fine. But the extra energy drain could more aptly be represented by a BM being placed in contact, dropping the ships speed and shields temporarily. This makes the downside of long ranged fire (ie, >30cm) actually meaningful, while not being as severe as the original. Instead of 1 pt of permanent hull damage you take 1 pt of damage against shields. Which the enemy could potentially turn into 1 pt of hull damage if they happened to be firing on the Apoc. Similarly, instead of a severe movement penalty (-10cm) that you'll very rarely have to worry about at all, but will occasionally be crippling you get a more constant -5cm penalty.
-
Sig,
with the knowledge you are only certain of 100% lance shot at wanted range being 30cm then the NC/prow isn't wasted.
Because at 60cm you can choose to take the Ld test or the Scatter Nova.
Being abeam 5+ or prow on 6+ isn't much of a difference vs weapon batteries.
-
Sig,
with the knowledge you are only certain of 100% lance shot at wanted range being 30cm then the NC/prow isn't wasted.
Because at 60cm you can choose to take the Ld test or the Scatter Nova.
Being abeam 5+ or prow on 6+ isn't much of a difference vs weapon batteries.
No, it's completely wasted. If you're using the Apoc as an approach vessel then it must be with the thought in mind to break the enemy lines. The Apocalypse simply does not have the speed to justify this role. Simply take a Retribution instead. Also, there is no way a single NC is worth 6 lances. It's not even worth the 4 lances on the Victory. Hell, if you wanted to use NC that much then you could buy a much much cheaper ship to do so. It is terribly inefficient to use a stand-off battleship in a closing role to use a NC that you could get for 175 pts less.
-
so turn the prow/side arc line right between two ships...
-
I think Bakka may see the rise of the viable IN CL fleet. I was fiddling around today to get a list for an upcoming game for a friend who likes to have a good bit of maneuverability and ended up with this:
2x Vengeance
2x Armageddons +turret
2x Endurance +turret
2x Endeavour +turret
Admiral +reroll
To me, this seems a fairly AC resistant fleet. It'll be a bit easy to shoot at the CL with their 1 shield, but it does put 8 capital ships on the table and two of them are near battleship level. I could even swap out the vengeance for Exorcists and have 8LB making this list almost entirely impervious to AC and difficult to target with torpedoes. All four light cruisers have 4 turrets and every thing else has three. That's coupled with a good selection of long range lances, torpedoes, and 60cm batteries.
Any thoughts?
-
Vengeance? Aren't Vengeances considered Battlecruisers in an IN fleet for the purposes of taking one?
-
I believe so. I realized that as I was driving home from work a few minutes ago. When I made the list I calculated up the number of ships I needed to get both vengeance taken in under reserves but forgot to check for the CB slots because I'd started building the list under the Armageddon rules before deciding bakka would work better for my purposes.
Retribution
2x Armageddons +turret
2x Endurance +turret
3x Endeavour +turret
Admiral+reroll
That should make the fleet legal
-
Good enough list. I might go with the Victory and torps though as well as try to sneak in a Mercury so the LCs can have cap ship support. Might be a good change of pace.
-
yeah, I did think about it. Gains me an extra turret and maybe a NC but that's about it and I've got a retribution built already. Plus I wanted to test out a marine list and I figured that even more lances would be a bit over the top.
-
funny. i just wrote up a similar fleet last night. ended up going 'geddon instead of bakka to reserve in 2 CG's... though i play at 2000 points.