Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on February 25, 2013, 04:43:23 AM
-
I would like to just integrate the Bakka stuff into the IN document, that way we have all the IN style ships and each Battlefleet list in the same document. Anyone have any thoughts about what we should do with Bakka? What changes do we need to make to it?
-
Well, Victory: Dorsal weapons battery at 6 or 9? Also how does everyone feel about the pricing on this one? Its basically an /Apoc -2 lances a side and +5cm speed, oh and it has no downfall for shooting over 30cm, currently at 345pts (-10pts to swap the nova for 9 torps).
I am not a fan of the Vanquisher even being an option, I breaks too many battleship standards as is and really isnt needed.
Jovian... well, its not a terrable little ship but it has a bad history and once again breaks from the norm.
Dominion fits in nicely as is, these should be available to other fleets as standard.
Mercury breaks from the norm again and it has a slew of special rules to boot.
Siluria seems ok.
Havoc is another that breaks the mould, although the shipo its self isnt bad.
Vipers are fine.
Rath is overpriced as always and being the only way to get the Emperor he should be looked at, also in relation to the fleet commander repricing.
5pt turrets would be fine if the list didnt have great carrier options, maybe move the Dominion to other lists and off of here? That would leave the Jovian as reserve and the Emperor w/Rath as the only options for carriers (and Admech Dictators of course).
Admech get fleet defense turrets for +5 pts instead of a random option seems ok.
Anything else?
-
Well, Victory: Dorsal weapons battery at 6 or 9? Also how does everyone feel about the pricing on this one? Its basically an /Apoc -2 lances a side and +5cm speed, oh and it has no downfall for shooting over 30cm, currently at 345pts (-10pts to swap the nova for 9 torps).
9 seems OK to me, as does the cost
I am not a fan of the Vanquisher even being an option, I breaks too many battleship standards as is and really isnt needed.
More of a fluff thing IIRC, it's inclusion is more to do with finding cheap replacements to cover losses from Macragge than anything else. But, yaeh, not a fan. What about giving it the carrier option from the original BFGR?
Jovian... well, its not a terrable little ship but it has a bad history and once again breaks from the norm.
I see it as a character ship for the Bakka list, so it relly should be there. Again, tho, not a fan. had one back in the day, soon turned it into an Armageddon
Dominion fits in nicely as is, these should be available to other fleets as standard.
Yep
Mercury breaks from the norm again and it has a slew of special rules to boot.
Used for hunting pirates and such in lue of carriers so it fits fluff-wise. I do actually like this ship, but like you say it does break from the norm. Not always a bad thing though ;)
Siluria seems ok.
Anyone in favour of it's original stats? (as is minus the front battery, 90pts)
Havoc is another that breaks the mould, although the shipo its self isnt bad.
Would it be as is, or swap with the one from the Chaos list?
Vipers are fine.
Yep
Rath is overpriced as always and being the only way to get the Emperor he should be looked at, also in relation to the fleet commander repricing.
Agreed, but my head for figures is bad, what would be a better price?
5pt turrets would be fine if the list didnt have great carrier options, maybe move the Dominion to other lists and off of here? That would leave the Jovian as reserve and the Emperor w/Rath as the only options for carriers (and Admech Dictators of course).
Not sure on that, means you would have to field just those ships to get AC, limiting the chioces you could play. One Dominion/Dictator per 500pts? 750pts?
Admech get fleet defense turrets for +5 pts instead of a random option seems ok.
Yep
-
Hi,
All in all: Jovian out.
The Compendium 2010 list came out okay I think.
-
I would personally like to keep it as is. I like the Jovian :P I think the turret option is there because of the limited options for carriers (restricted choice is a negative to the turret option as a positive). I am not against the mold breaking these ships have committed.
I really have a hard time just dropping things, especially if that were in the 2010 rules and people may have made models for them.
-
Dont drop anything then, lets fix stuff.
Victory: The only problem I see with this is that it makes the Apoc obsolete, luckly now its only available to Bakka and should remain as such. Change the dorsal to 9wb@60cm, with those stats I think it should fall in at 355, 345 with Torps.
Vanquisher: Is this an Emperor or Retribution hull, it looks like a mix, anyway... This is an oddball, it looks like an Emperor with lances instead of launch, I think Id drop the weapons range to match the lances and boost the torps up to 9. Leave the dorsal empty and price it at 325, give it the BFG-R option to swap its torps and 6+ prow for 4 launch bays.
Leave the Jovian as is, move the Dominion to the Bastion/ Solar fleet lists.
This leaves our carrier options as:
*Freely available
Vanquisher (battleship requirements, BFG-R upgrade)
Emperor (Rath, battleship requirements)
Admech Dictator (battlecruiser requirements)
Admech Defiant (battlecruiser requirements)
*Reserves
Emperor (battleship requirements)
Exorcist (grandcruiser requirements)
Jovian (battlecruiser requirements)
Mars (battlecruiser requirements)
Dominion (battlecruiser requirements)
Dictator
Defiant
Im sure Im missing some here but this seems like plenty of options for carriers.
Mercury: 255pts
Cruiser/8 Speed/25 Turns/45* Shields/2 Armor/6+|5+ Turrets 2
Weapons: 6@45cm 4@60cm port and starboard
Lances: 2@60cm dorsal L/F/R
Nova: 1 Prow
Special explosion any ideas? I think it should just roll 6 for a plasma instead of 4 and 12 for a warp instead of 8 since it has battleship powerplants instead of rolling 3d6 for catastrophic.
Rath:
Leadership 10
2 rerolls
+1 when defending against boarding
ship refit
weapons refit
This certainly doesnt seem like its worth the same as Abbadon but anything less than 150 seems a bit low.
-
What specifically is your goal with these changes? Bakka isn't perfect but I don't see that most of these ships require the changes you are proposing.
If the victory is Baka only it doesn't make the apoc obsolete since you are fielding different fleets and I dare say different type of ships with the Baka turret boost.
Part of the point of Baka is to have a low ac fleet, why would you give the vanquisher the option to get launch bays? Also what other IN battleships lack dorsal weapons?
-
What specifically is your goal with these changes? Bakka isn't perfect but I don't see that most of these ships require the changes you are proposing.
Theyre really just minor tweaks to pull the ships more inline with the other options.
If the victory is Baka only it doesn't make the apoc obsolete since you are fielding different fleets and I dare say different type of ships with the Baka turret boost.
Right, thats why I said it should remain Bakka only, the change on the dorsal weapons is just to bring it in line with the other battleships (except the Emperor?) which went to 9wb.
Part of the point of Baka is to have a low ac fleet, why would you give the vanquisher the option to get launch bays? Also what other IN battleships lack dorsal weapons?
Im going off whats already out there, BFG-R already has the Vanq with the option to swap prow for launch, and its never had dorsal weapons. I imagine this is something to do with the fluff which states that the weapons systems were stripped at one point. Im not sure where the idea for the prow launch came from, but its always nice to have options this could be deleated tho. Edit: the Vanq originally had launch bays that were replaced in favor of torpedoes according to its listing in the additional ships compandium.
-
Hmm.. Other options within the bakka fleet or comparative to the rest of the in bb?
Is there any specific issue with the victory that warrants the boost in the dorsal wb? I don't see the value in boosting weapon strength on it and then upping the points to match. That seems more like a tweak for the sake of tweaking than to solve an problem with the ship.
I definitely wouldn't allow the lb to make a return in Baka. It partially compromises the purpose of the bakka fleet. I also don't understand the reasoning of dropping a slow bb to only 45cm weapons, giving it three more torp strength and boosting the cost by 25 points with the option to straight swap for the lb. What the ship has going for it is a pretty cheap battleship with good mid range firepower and near immunity to ac. You have to shoot the thing and you still have to strip 4 shields on that 6+ prow armor.
-
I like a lot of what you are suggesting, Andrew. A few tweaks to the Victory and Vanquisher that make them more in line with the layout of usual cruisers seems fine to me. Maybe not the launch bay one.
I would personally like to keep the Dominion and Jovian just how they are and not in the other fleets, same with the Mercury. Andrew, what makes you want to tweak the Mercury?
Let's match the admirals in Bakka to the regular IN fleets and make Rath 150pts.
-
Vaaish: the dorsal wb to 9 is a general BFG:R thing iirc. The standard value for all dorsal wb's on battleships.
The launch option on the Vanquisher can be gone imo.
-
Horizon is right about the WB: 9. This was a minor 'quirk-fix' that seems to have echoed on.
As far as the LB variant of the Vanquisher, it was mainly intended as a carrier option for my 'Wardens' fleet list--which was heavy on escorts. Thematically the Wardens fleet was designed to be a torpedo/gun light fleet and more AC heavy than typical IN, to represent what a 'pirate hunting' fleet may look like. Also the Vanquisher is historically known to have a LB prow.
-
If there's going to be a entry for the Havoc class frigate in Bakka and Chaos fleets... match it please. :)
-
The Victory is the same value as a BBB Retribution, I would say it should be boosted to 345 with Torps and 355 with Nova with dorsal 6wb too.
Vanq can drop the launch, Im not a fan of Bakka getting a lot of options there either just pointing out that it has already been an option. Its not a 300 point ship right now, actually in BFG-R its already been boosted to 320pts, it also has 20cm speed in BFG-R, which is why I thought bringing the weapons and torps to Retribution range would fit better.
The Mercury is ok, I just dont get why its easier for it to explode, but the explosion isnt any stronger when the fluff makes it sound like it should be. I would be ok with it staying as is if everyone else thinks its ok tho.
Dominion does not fit with Bakka, Armageddon or Bastion sure but not Bakka. There should be no carriers they can just take, they should all have a catch.
-
BFGR seems to have crept a bit wider than a few tweaks here and there goal it had when I was here a few months ago. There seem to be significant changes to some of the ships and some other additions.
-
Vaaish,
I assume that you haven't read the current Plaxor BFG:R stuff? It has huge changes. What we are doing now is mild compared to it. So far, we haven't made any rules changes (except the 2 hit escort rules that were needed for that change).
-
To note the BFG-R stats I was working off of on the Vanq was Plaxors version 1.6 Imperial fleets.
-
Ya man. Vaaish, afterimagedan brought BFG:R back to its roots. But with some new rounds of voting and entering 2-hits escorts albeit it still being a tricky subject.
-
Big changes are a thing, and they are here to stay. A few points of my own:
1) If the Dominion is removed, where does it go? Bakka is the only list that has it, and yet it seems rather popular, based on what I have heard over my time on this forum.
2) Would the Jovian see more play with a Nova Cannon on it? It would need a price hike but it would give it a much more specific role: it would be a long range support vessel, firing its NC and lances at vulnerable targets whilst protecting the rest of the fleet from ordnance.
3) The two havocs should be the same. Goes without saying.
4) Bakka +1 turret option is not bad at all, problem is it does not work if the player in question is spamming carriers to overcome the drawback of the list. What if we limited the amount of carriers by point total? As in only one per 750pts or so. If we also made the turret increase MANDATORY, we would significantly enhance the flavor of the fleet whilst keeping its power level neutral.
Thoughts?
-
Dominion should stay.
The Jovian is just a bad omen.
3) agreed, yes.
-
Big changes are a thing, and they are here to stay. A few points of my own:
1) If the Dominion is removed, where does it go? Bakka is the only list that has it, and yet it seems rather popular, based on what I have heard over my time on this forum.
It should be moved to the Bastion, Solar lists. Bakka should not be able to field these outside of reserves.
2) Would the Jovian see more play with a Nova Cannon on it? It would need a price hike but it would give it a much more specific role: it would be a long range support vessel, firing its NC and lances at vulnerable targets whilst protecting the rest of the fleet from ordnance.
I think the problem is that no one wants the Jovian to see any play :P.
3) The two havocs should be the same. Goes without saying.
Indeed.
4) Bakka +1 turret option is not bad at all, problem is it does not work if the player in question is spamming carriers to overcome the drawback of the list. What if we limited the amount of carriers by point total? As in only one per 750pts or so. If we also made the turret increase MANDATORY, we would significantly enhance the flavor of the fleet whilst keeping its power level neutral.
I dont like the idea of making something mandatory, further limiting the availabilty of carriers might be something to look at.
Thoughts?
-
How about allow one carrier per 500pts. Leaving the Defiant unrestricted may be an option, the Bakka list should be about firepower, and the defiant does make a fluff fitting stop-gap for adding AC...actually recommending the Defiant...think I need a lie down... :-[
-
I had only seen the fleet lists in Dan's sig at the time and hadn't looked over the IN one yet. I miss 6 months and the whole game changes :)
-
The Jovian should never be included. Although it may be a 'novel' ship and have no notable effect on gameplay the majority of players detest it.
Besides, from a fluff standpoint a BC with full launch bays makes no sense. IN mid-size carriers should only ever be in the form of GCs.
The dominion isn't all that inspiring IMO. I'm not a huge fan of Bakka since it diverges from the other IN fleets only to cover a weakness. It is a fleet made by someone who wants to play only gunfights, but BFG demands a certain number of AC minimum for a fleet to be competitive.
As far as +1 turret goes, meh. More immunity to bombers I suppose. There are other options.
1 Carrier per 500 points? That would make it look like any other IN fleet. 1 per 1000 (or part) would be about right (most IN fleets have 8-12 bays at 1500, so this would be the lower end).
-
Although if put to the vote most people would say to remove the Jovian, as with RSV vessels some people own this vessel and we can't really just tell them to go suck it, can we?
Dominion is considered quite good, IIRC. I believe (don't quote him) AndrewChristlieb is quite fond of them in particular, and as far as a support cruiser goes it is generally more useful than the current incarnation of the Mars class, due to battery range drawbacks and better turret rating, all whilst remaining cheaper.
1 per 1000pts seems a little steep, but what about 1 per 750pts as a compromise? That would basically limit you to the minimum amount you put forth whilst giving you more options at higher levels.
Lets face it, the smaller the force (up to a point...) is the more representative it should be of that particular faction/race/army/fleet. At 750pts there should be a noticeable difference in two imperial fleets, and considerably more so compared to chaos or eldar. Bakka, due too its distrust of AC should have a disproportional low amount of AC and a higher ratio of lances/battery. At the really large point values like 2000pts+, the differences between IN fleets should be almost non-existent, because they represent a large portion of what that faction can bring to bear. The current rules somewhat represent that, with reserving and point value limits being less meaningful at higher point values. So although Bakka may not field much AC in general, in a 2500pts battle they will still have a significant AC presence, by virtue of using a significant portion of fleet strength.
This has the advantage of both following the fluff quite well and of giving people more options, and people like option, amiright?
-
That's probably the best proposition so far. I've already said that I'm not a fan of the Jovian, but people do have them, and it is unfair to remove them just 'cause it's not popular. Hell, the Murders not as popular as the other Chaos cruisers, but no-ones asking for that to be axed.
Lets face it, the smaller the force (up to a point...) is the more representative it should be of that particular faction/race/army/fleet. At 750pts there should be a noticeable difference in two imperial fleets, and considerably more so compared to chaos or eldar. Bakka, due too its distrust of AC should have a disproportional low amount of AC and a higher ratio of lances/battery. At the really large point values like 2000pts+, the differences between IN fleets should be almost non-existent, because they represent a large portion of what that faction can bring to bear. The current rules somewhat represent that, with reserving and point value limits being less meaningful at higher point values. So although Bakka may not field much AC in general, in a 2500pts battle they will still have a significant AC presence, by virtue of using a significant portion of fleet strength.
Very true! Though my BFG buddy an I do 3000+ games with some regularity 8)
-
Very true! Though my BFG buddy an I do 3000+ games with some regularity 8)
WHY DON'T WE GET TO SEE PICTURES OF THESE
-
Next time he get leave I'll see to it! unfortunately, we don't know when that will be...
-
Why put a restriction on the ships when we already have built in restrictions with the reserve rules.
If we move the Dominion (which I do love :D) from the Bakka list and place it with the Bastion and Solar lists the cheapest you will be able to get a carrier is 455 pts for an Admech Dictator and thats assuming you take two Silurias. Most likely your going to be looking at 600+ for two standard carriers and one of the Admechs, which come with their own downfalls. In fact I would likely stick to standard reserves so 3x Silurias and a Dictator/Mars/Dominion/Exorcist puts your minimum at 520 pts and thats with 3 craptastic light cruisers, not really powergaming material. I would likely have a pair of Lunars or a Gothic Tyrant/Dominator combo and maybe an Endeavour on the low side, more likey another cruiser pair. Anyway, 695 on the low side for a Dictator and thats not taking any additional turrets.
-
If we move the Dominion (which I do love ) from the Bakka list and place it with the Bastion and Solar lists the cheapest you will be able to get a carrier is 455 pts for an Admech Dictator and thats assuming you take two Silurias.
I'd like to point out that this is a rather flawed way of looking at things. Most of the time people will have 4 cruisers in a 1500 point fleet. You are ignoring that in the course of selecting ships for the fleet people are automatically filling the requirements to reserve in other ships. You don't LOSE anything to take the reserve ship in your fleet.
Saying that the admech dictator costs you 455 points to take in a bakka fleet isn't an accurate statement because it assumes that the points used to access that dictator have no other utility or would not have been spent unless you were planning to take that dictator.
-
I dont really understand your thinking, of course you dont lose anything to bring in a reserve.
What I was saying is that if the only way to get a carrier is to bring in a reserve then you dont need to put in place a point limitation on them. Saying that you can only have 1 carrier per 750 when you can only get that carrier by buying three other cruisers is redundant. Unless someone is min/maxing for carriers if all carriers are reserves you wont have more than one/750 and even if they min/max for carriers they wont have an effective cruiser force and will lose every benifit of taking a Bakka list.
-
So, would you move the Dominion to the same sort of position as the Jovian is currently, in that you have to take is as a reserve? I think that would be a good option.
-
Then how will Bakka look like?
-
I am thinking basically no changes except Dominion to reserves like Jovian and new point value for names character. How many people want to try to rework the battleships?
-
Victory: 355. topside batteries at 9 is the common consensus I believe.
Someone did say that it makes the Apocalypse obsolete, but fluff-wise that's exactly what it is, a more modern version of an ancient design. Seeing as it's only available in the Bakka list I don't see it being a problem, especially with the Apocalypse's BFGR rules
Vanquisher: As the 2010 comp has it.
It's supposed to be a budget battleship and at 300pts you can't exactly complain about it.
-
Dominion needs to be moved to another list if anything, making it a Bakka only reserve unnecessarily restricts it from any other list. By moving it to another list you keep it freely available to all lists but increase the restriction on them for Bakka.
-
I don't think we should add it to the other lists, sorry. It's a Bakka ship, I think it should stay there. What reason do you think we should move it to the other lists?
-
If you remove it from the Bakka list and make it a Bakka reserve like the Jovian it will only ever be able to be taken in the Bakka list as opposed to right now where it can be taken by any list (as reserve). Adding it to the Solar and/or Bastion list wouldn't be a game breaking change to any of the lists and would allow Bakka to still take them, as reserves.
-
But why do you want other lists to be able to take them instead of just having them as reserves?
-
What I was saying is that if the only way to get a carrier is to bring in a reserve then you dont need to put in place a point limitation on them. Saying that you can only have 1 carrier per 750 when you can only get that carrier by buying three other cruisers is redundant. Unless someone is min/maxing for carriers if all carriers are reserves you wont have more than one/750 and even if they min/max for carriers they wont have an effective cruiser force and will lose every benifit of taking a Bakka list.
Sorry, it seemed like you were adding in the cost of prerequisites to boost the effective cost of taking a reserve ship. The point I was trying to make was that if you are taking ships that fill the requirements it's not really adding to the cost of taking the reserve ship.
On bakka, the dominion fluff seems to indicate it belongs in the bakka fleet, but its exceptionally rare, maybe not nearly so as the Jovian, but still rare. Because all other carriers in the bakka fleet either require special rules or come in as reserves, why not just make it a blanket rule that any carrier in the bakka fleet comes in via reserve rules due to the aversion to using ac?
-
I'm fine with that change, Vaaish. I think that's the best option so far. Basically, the only change we need to make is instead of jovian being taken as a reserves ship, ALL carriers are taken as reserves ships.
-
Even the Admech defiant? I'd leave that unrestricted. But other than that it's the best solution thus far.
-
There needs to be the distinction between carriers being reserves and carriers requiring a reserve slot to take.
The Jovian is a reserve to the bakka fleet which means it can't be taken by other IN lists. If you do the same for all bakka ships, things like the dominion can't be used outside of bakka.
Unless that isn't an issue, then by all means just have all carriers taken as reserves.
-
But why do you want other lists to be able to take them instead of just having them as reserves?
Because if you make them a reserve then they can not be taken by any list except for Bakka. Under the proposed reserve rule, just like the Jovian, if i want to take a Dominion in say a Gothic sector list im sol as only a Bakka list would be able to take the ship.
-
Gotcha, forgot about that. So, basically, all we need to do is add a rule that says that taking any ship with launch bays will need to be taken as if they are reserves? Do we want to exclude Defiants?
-
I wouldn't. Adds an exception and we should aim for as few exceptions as possible.
-
Ok, so we just want to add the rule that any type of carrier ship must be taken like reserves (3 cruiser/1 carrier)? If this is what we want to do, I will get the vote up.
After this, we just need modifications to the Vanquisher and Victory, right?
-
Maybe this:
Due to suspicions regarding the use of attack craft, fleets using Battlefleet Bakka may only take ships with launch bays under reserve rules. Unless otherwise stated, these ships are still part of Battlefleet Bakka and may be used as reserves in other Imperial Navy fleets.
So are we treating the battleships as they appear in FAQ2010 or starting from the BFG-R rules?
-
Due to suspicions regarding the use of attack craft, fleets using Battlefleet Bakka may only take ships with launch bays under reserve rules. Unless otherwise stated, these ships are still part of Battlefleet Bakka and may be used as reserves in other Imperial Navy fleets.
Love it. I will put the vote up. As far as the battleships, I am not sure. That's up to you guys.
-
I wouldnt exclude them, theyre already only available as reserves anyway.
-
Well yeah, I just mean whatever changes to them.
-
Changes to vote on to finish Bakka:
-Rath at 150
-Victory at 355 and wb 9 dorsal wbs.
Anything else? Once we are done with this, I can clean up the documents and have a finished IN PDF. JOY
-
What's the rationale for the dorsal boost and price increase again?
-
Its equivilant to a BBB Retribution with a Nova in its base form = 355points. The dorsal weapons boost isnt needed at all, but its more fitting with similar ships.
-
Ok to the points increase. I'd almost think it should be in Emperor territory since it packs everything good about the apoc with no downside.
I would lean against the dorsal weapons boost if there is no balance reason to adjust it. Not every battleship needs to be the same and the 4x lances per side at 60cm make me nervous about giving it better battery strength to complement those lances.
-
Do keep in mind, the victory has 2 less 60cm lances on each side. That's a big deal.
-
Not horribly so. It has 60cm range naturally with no penalty for firing or required SO/LD test. You are only averaging 1 hit or so more with those two additional lances on the apoc.
-
Vaaish, check the BFG:R current version that has been voted on in the original BFG:R:
Imperial Navy (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1596994/BFGR%202/BFGR%20Imperial%20Navy.pdf)
-
I think thats the link to the current BFG-R fleet lists.
I dont see the Victory in the original BFG-R just the Vanq
-
I'm not seeing either the Vanquisher or Victory in that link Dan.
-
I am saying that the Apoc is different.
-
I am saying that the Apoc is different.
Ok, but I'm not really sure how this applies here. Nobody is saying the apoc isn't different.
-
So what do you mean about the penalty to firing at 60cm? The Apoc has 6 at 60cm, the Victory has 4 at 60cm. There is that lock on downside for the Apoc, but the 4 lances instead of 6 is a definite downgrade.
-
The apoc takes a bm and can't turn whenever it fires outside of 30cm. It looks you took out the LO requirement entirely to fire over 30cm. The only problem the apoc had was the stupid engine crit rule. Not sure why the weapons changed but that's a different conversation.
My point being that the victory doesn't have any penalties for firing over 30cm and even though it has two fewer lances, the effective difference is 1 hit on average. Fewer lances is a downgrade but not that much of one and there are couple of upgrades that make up very difference.
-
The Apoc changes were from the original BFG:R voting, not me. Plus, please don't put the changes on me, specifically. I haven't made any changes to BFG:R that I know of that haven't been voted on.
[urlhttp://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=4903.msg37400#msg37400]Here are the original votes for BFG:R[/url]
So, what do you think we should change about the Victory to make them balanced between the two?
-
Sorry about that. When I'd last remembered was that the only change the apoc was getting was a bm if it failed the LO to fire 60 cm. it took a lot of digging, but I understand how the change came about. Unfortunately it really changes the apoc so that the benefits of a victory are rather minimal. With the ret already at 355 it puts things in a even more difficult place for the victory.
I think that the victory would either need to be deleted in favor of the apoc or the victory née to change a bit more.
I'm thinking s6 60cm wb port and starboard. 355 points. No other changes.
That gives it a combined 18 WBE per side with a max combined 24 on one side. Hopefully that makes it a different flavor gunship from the ret and the apoc.
-
Sounds like an upgunned vanq.
-
Basically, yes but the apoc changes combined with the ret changes leave precious little room for either the victory or vanq in any capacity. The Apoc has too little downside now to have room for the victory without overlapping something unless you just ignore the apoc entirely since it won't show up in bakka.
I think id have pushed to have the apoc at 30cm with the options to shoot 60cm if locked on for the cost of a bm in base contact.
Anyway, the fluff has this as a derivative of the retribution attempting to replicate the apoc. That means it should be a mix of the two. Hence port and starboard batteries with the lances. The other option is a bit silly but we could replace the dorsal batteries with S3 or 4 lances at either 60 cm or 45 cm.
-
Mmm lancy goodness.
-
It would be nice to have it look unique. One weapon battery and 2 lances per side. I think would be entirely fitting for the fluff too. So,
Lance 4 per side 45
Wb 6 per side. 45cm
wb 9 dorsal 60cm
Nova. Can switch to torps.
Similar but flipped retribution. Lances on side instead of top. Less wbs on side but dorsal instead. Nova instead of torps. Can switch to torps.
-
I like this version too, stands out from both the retribution and the apocalypse.
-Retribution is a centre field line breaker, clearing out things with torpedoes and splitting the enemy fleet with its punishing broadsides. The dorsal lances finish off wounded targets.
-Apocalypse closes slowly, punishing outflankers with its nova whilst providing long range fire support with its lances with battery for blowing shields.
-Victory closes firing Nova, then breaks and brackets the core fleet, bombarding it with combined fire while other cruisers pick off its leaving.
Sounds legit to me.
-
It should be 365 pts and -10 for switching to torps, just like the current version.
-
Vanquisher?
-
Hmm, well that Victory would not look different than the Vanquisher, now that I look at it. However, I think that is the best option for the Victory and I think the Vanquisher could use some work. One thing that I was thinking of was to make it similar to the old Ret stats without the dorsal stuff.
-
Hmm, well that Victory would not look different than the Vanquisher, now that I look at it. However, I think that is the best option for the Victory and I think the Vanquisher could use some work. One thing that I was thinking of was to make it similar to the old Ret stats without the dorsal stuff.
Yep. that's the problem. If you change the victory to basically a vanquisher loadout you eliminate the vanquisher. If you boost the Victory you end up with an apocalypse. Personally I think this is where we are breaking down. Ships were created to bit between other offerings and we've changed the ships so that there aren't spaces for some of these variants now.
-
Here's my Vanquisher.
20cm movement. 5 turrets.
Wbs 12 30cm sides.
2 30cm lances per side.
9 torps. = 300pts.
Way more close range. Torpedoes: instead of nova. No dorsal. Poor mans Ret. It has its uses as a partial battleship but needs to get in close. I propose this along with my Victory version.
Lance 4 per side 45
Wb 6 per side. 45cm
wb 9 dorsal 60cm
Nova. Can switch to torps.
Similar but flipped retribution. Lances on side instead of top. Less wbs on side but dorsal instead. Nova instead of torps. Can switch to torps.
-
In the original bakka thread many just said: remove that battleship. Lol
-
I think those options are better than just removing it.
-
Vanquisher.
20cm movement. 5 turrets.
Wbs 12 30cm sides.
2 30cm lances per side.
9 torps. = 300pts.
Victory
Lance 4 per side 45
Wb 6 per side. 45cm
wb 9 dorsal 60cm
Nova. Can switch to torps like it currently can at -10pts.
Any takers?
-
Not particularly fond of either profile. Vanquisher seems fairly useless for the cost and victory doesn't seem to fit the fluff as an attempt to replicate the apoc; it is just the current vanquisher with a dorsal battery and higher point cost.
-
Here's the problem I think we are running into.
1. We want to stick to the victory fluff which says it's a modified apoc.
2. If we get close to making it like an apoc, people just say it's too close to an apoc.
Victory fluff: "In internal layout, the Victory class shares many similarities with Retribution, and Imperial Navy analysts speculate the design is a byproduct of grafting lance weaponry onto the improved power conduits and relays of the Retribution template in an attempt to replicate the Apocalypse battleship class while overcoming various shortfalls inherent with that ancient design."
I actually think that profile fits this perfectly without stepping on the apoc's toes. Still shares "similarities with Retribution" but also similarities with the apoc too.
Also, tinkering with the cost of the Vanquisher, the cost is more appropriate at 290.
-
No Imperial or Chaos battleships under 300.
With the Victory just go ahead and leave it as-is in the Bakka list.
This fits it in nicely under the Apoc at -20 pts, -4 lances, -3 weapons, +5cm speed, +no blast marker. Its not the price I would like or perfectly suited to its role but thats fine as its also the only option for Bakka to get a ranged battleship.
Vanquisher: I really dislike having an Emperor/Retribution bastard hull.
This would look better and be more fitting to the 300pt cost and general fluffiness if it was setup similar to the Armada Oberon -Launch, range, and +1 leadership
Vanquisher: 300pts
Battleship:12 Speed:15 Turns:45* Shields:4 Turrets:5 Armor:5+
Armament: Range/Speed Firepower/Strength Arc
Port Lance Battery 45cm 4 Left
Starboard Lance Battery 45cm 4 Right
Port Weapons Battery 45cm 6 Left
Starboard Weapons Battery 45cm 6 Right
Prow Weapons Battery 45cm 5 Left/Front/Right
Dorsal Weapons Battery 45cm 5 Left/Front/Right
-
I would so much rather go with my vanquisher version with 45cm lances at 310pts. I can't see someone taking a 45cm gunship that moves 15cm with no ordnance. I'm sticking to my guns on my victory idea. :)
-
We could make the vanquisher 15cm movement and make it the long range battery ship. Could be like the.original retribution stats with no dorsal and FLR wbs on the front like the.emperor. 12 wb 60cm per side. 6 wb 45-60cm FLR. Emperor model, no dorsal turrets. All wb sides.
-
You are missing what that bit of fluff you quoted is getting at. The first three words make it plain that we are talking about internal similarity to the retribution, not particularly in load out. In function the thing is supposed to be closer to the apoc but without the power difficulties firing the apoc lances.
Of any of these, the victory should be at 60cm not 45cm. Even if that means it goes down to 15cm speed.
-
Nothing says it needs to be 60cm. If you make a battleship with 6 60cm lances, you basically have an apoc. Let's make something different. There should still be some ret similarities I think because it is a return hull, that's my point.
-
Nothing says it needs to be 60cm. If you make a battleship with 6 60cm lances, you basically have an apoc. Let's make something different. There should still be some ret similarities I think because it is a return hull, that's my point.
Since the fluff for this ship says it's trying to replicate the Apoc not the Ret, lets make something that fits the fluff be that different or similar. The point about hull is a moot one. All IN BB are effectively based on the same hull, it's the innards and weapons that change them.
Victory: 365pts
Battleship:12 Speed:15 Turns:45* Shields:4 Turrets:5 Armor:5+/6+
Armament: Range/Speed Firepower/Strength Arc
Port Lance Battery 60cm 4 Left
Starboard Lance Battery 60cm 4 Right
Port Weapons Battery 60cm 6 Left
Starboard Weapons Battery 60cm 6 Right
Dorsal Weapons Battery 60cm 9 Left/Front/Right
Prow NC
The ship trades 4 lances for 12wb, giving it effectively the same firepower as the apoc without the downsides caused by the full 6x 60cm lance armament. The only problem with this is that it overlaps the vanquisher although less so than giving the victory 45cm arms and trying to make it ret.
-
Sorry, the quote I posted implies that there are differences in the ship hull types and their effect on how the weapons work. There are also differences in engines and turret amount. The Ret has 1 less turret and 5cm more speed. Are we assuming they downgraded the engines?
The quote implies that the hull effects the way the ship works. They tried to turn a ret into an apoc. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that it will have similaries of both.
-
The ship trades 4 lances for 12wb, giving it effectively the same firepower as the apoc without the downsides caused by the full 6x 60cm lance armament. The only problem with this is that it overlaps the vanquisher although less so than giving the victory 45cm arms and trying to make it ret.
The problem with this, game mechanic wise, is you have a ships with the same firepower as the Apoc with an extra turret and no downside for shooting over 30cm for the same point cost as the Apoc. This ship just trumps the Apoc with those stats. WB 4 at 60cm on the side may be more appropriate without giving it some "insufficiently powered" like problem.
-
Alright, here's a second crack at the Vanquisher, trying to make it usable.
300
12 hits 20cm speed 4 shields 6+/5+ 4 turrets
P/S lances 4 45cm
P/S WBs 6 45cm
Torpedoes 9
This is -1 turret, down to 45cm on the batteries, but plus 3 torps and 5cm movement. Similar to the Desolator but with different uses.
-
Sorry, the quote I posted implies that there are differences in the hulls and their effect on how the weapons work. There are also differences in engines and turret amount. The Ret has 1 less turret and 5cm more speed. Are we assuming they downgraded the engines?
Differences, yes. Voss ships have different prows, the Emperor and Ret have different prows. There are cosmetic differences in appearance too. Lances are far more complex and consume a whole lot more energy to fire out to 60cm It's not off base to think that some of the additional power that was shunted to the rets engines is used to power the added lances.
The problem with this, game mechanic wise, is you have a ships with the same firepower as the Apoc with an extra turret and no downside for shooting over 30cm for the same point cost as the Apoc.
what downside does the apoc have at this point in the course of a normal game? When it's closing and doesn't want to turn it gets a BM and when it's within 30cm it doesn't matter. If you are concerned about the battery strength, try this instead:
Victory: 360pts
Battleship:12 Speed:15 Turns:45* Shields:4 Turrets:5 Armor:5+/6+
Armament: Range/Speed Firepower/Strength Arc
Port Lance Battery 60cm 4 Left
Starboard Lance Battery 60cm 4 Right
Port Weapons Battery 60cm 6 Left
Starboard Weapons Battery 60cm 6 Right
Dorsal Weapons Battery 60cm 6 Left/Front/Right
Prow NC
All it does is knock it down 1d6 against most targets over 45cm and drops the dice by 3 in a best case scenario.
-
Sorry, the quote I posted implies that there are differences in the hulls and their effect on how the weapons work. There are also differences in engines and turret amount. The Ret has 1 less turret and 5cm more speed. Are we assuming they downgraded the engines?
Differences, yes. Voss ships have different prows, the Emperor and Ret have different prows. There are cosmetic differences in appearance too. Lances are far more complex and consume a whole lot more energy to fire out to 60cm It's not off base to think that some of the additional power that was shunted to the rets engines is used to power the added lances.
The problem with this, game mechanic wise, is you have a ships with the same firepower as the Apoc with an extra turret and no downside for shooting over 30cm for the same point cost as the Apoc.
what downside does the apoc have at this point in the course of a normal game? When it's closing and doesn't want to turn it gets a BM and when it's within 30cm it doesn't matter.
If it's not a big deal than we should just give the same downside to this ship as well, make the stats just how you had them earlier, and price them evenly. Not bring able to turn is a pain when you are trying to line up separate targets for your nova in the front and lances at a side target. This ship won't have that problem and will be able to line up long range ships much more easily.
I would be willing to go along with your earlier 365 version. Work with me a bit on the Vanquisher? When it comes down to it, this ship has an extra turret and no blast marker problem, unlike the Apoc, but its wbs are not as effective at longer range.
-
Where are we getting weapons betteries on the Victory from?
The model clearly has 3 lance bits and 0 weapons batteries.
This BTW is going way beyond a few little tweeks here, its not following the fluff nor is it sticking to the ships themself.
-
Side note: I think we should make this, from page 3 of Bakka: "When used with Battlefleet Bakka, Adeptus Mechanicus capital ships may take the Fleet Defense Turrets refit for +5 points instead of rolling for it randomly on the Mechanicus Gifts table."
...into this: "When used with Battlefleet Bakka, Adeptus Mechanicus capital ships may opt to take the Fleet Defense Turrets Gift instead of any other gift. Make this decision while distributing Gifts."
-
Where are we getting weapons betteries on the Victory from?
The model clearly has 3 lance bits and 0 weapons batteries.
That's part of the problem. It's silly that it gets 4 lance shots with 6 lances on the side of the model. It seems that we are trying to work that out. If it has 4 lance shots on the side, it should have 2 modules with 4 lances on the model.
This BTW is going way beyond a few little tweeks here, its not following the fluff nor is it sticking to the ships themself.
I can see that. If we want to go really barebones about it than we should just change the dorsal lances to 9 on top. It just hurts deep down that we are looking at a ship with 6 lances on both sides and they, game-wise, really are 4.
How about this:
6 lances per side @ 45cm. 9wb dorsal, NC. 20cm move, 4 turrets. This is the only way I see we can stick to this statement from Bakka that the Victory "still is not capable of delivering the level of firepower that ancient class (Apoc) was capable of," and make it true to its look and bits. Yes, it technically does still have the FP of the Apoc, just at shorter range.
That, and this for the Vanquisher....
300
12 hits 20cm speed 4 shields 6+/5+ 4 turrets
P/S lances 4 45cm
P/S WBs 6 45cm
Torpedoes 9
...are the best small scale changes I got.
-
@Dan- that's probably the most faithful to the original profile I've seen so far. The fluff does mention the Vic of being able to overcome some of the apocalypse's shortcomings. Didn't mention they had got all of them ;)
could making the Dorsal WB's range 45cm be in the realms of posibility? It is a "modern" ship, and Imperial technology is lacking on the long range WB's. This would also help differentiate the Vic from the Apoc a little more.
-
Maybe, but they may not be lacking in long ranged weapon batteries if this is a refitted Retribution. I think the 60cm dorsal is just the standard operating procedure so I would prefer keeping it that way with the victory.
-
Side note: I think we should make this, from page 3 of Bakka: "When used with Battlefleet Bakka, Adeptus Mechanicus capital ships may take the Fleet Defense Turrets refit for +5 points instead of rolling for it randomly on the Mechanicus Gifts table."
...into this: "When used with Battlefleet Bakka, Adeptus Mechanicus capital ships may opt to take the Fleet Defense Turrets Gift instead of any other gift. Make this decision while distributing Gifts."
"When used with Battlefleet Bakka, Adeptus Mechanicus capital ships may opt to take the Fleet Defense Turrets Gift in the same manner as if it had rolled a 6 for leadership. Make this decision before rolling for Gifts." This keeps people from rolling to see what they get and then having the ability to ignore it and take the FDT instead.
That's part of the problem. It's silly that it gets 4 lance shots with 6 lances on the side of the model. It seems that we are trying to work that out. If it has 4 lance shots on the side, it should have 2 modules with 4 lances on the model.
Desolator :P
I can see that. If we want to go really barebones about it than we should just change the dorsal lances to 9 on top. It just hurts deep down that we are looking at a ship with 6 lances on both sides and they, game-wise, really are 4.
How about this:
6 lances per side @ 45cm. 9wb dorsal, NC. 20cm move, 4 turrets. This is the only way I see we can stick to this statement from Bakka that the Victory "still is not capable of delivering the level of firepower that ancient class (Apoc) was capable of," and make it true to its look and bits. Yes, it technically does still have the FP of the Apoc, just at shorter range.
Ya, ok that sounds pretty good. 365, 355 with 9 Torpedoes? (BFG-R Retribution equivalent with a Nova.)
That, and this for the Vanquisher....
300
12 hits 20cm speed 4 shields 6+/5+ 4 turrets
P/S lances 4 45cm
P/S WBs 6 45cm
Torpedoes 9
Good, a bit too good ;). This feels more like a ~320.
...are the best small scale changes I got.
[/quote]
@Dan- that's probably the most faithful to the original profile I've seen so far. The fluff does mention the Vic of being able to overcome some of the apocalypse's shortcomings. Didn't mention they had got all of them ;)
could making the Dorsal WB's range 45cm be in the realms of posibility? It is a "modern" ship, and Imperial technology is lacking on the long range WB's. This would also help differentiate the Vic from the Apoc a little more.
Ok, At what strength? were looking at most battleships having 9wb@60cm now so what would a 45cm battery look like, 12? That seems like a bit much... Ive got to say the 9wb@60 and 6l@45 really make me want to bust one of these out with a Retribution :D 9wb@60cm, 3l@60cm + 18wb@45cm and 6l@45cm + 18 Torpedoes!!! 0_0 Im talking Retribution, Victory, 5x Siluria, Dictator, Fleet Admiral, Some extra turrets......
-
Exactly what I was thinking on the Victory. 365, 355 with torps. And yes, you have me on the Desolator thing. I even like the desolator... But chaos is much more... messy about things.... ::) We can give them a pass for that. As far as His Emperor's Holy Imperial Navy, we must make it orderly. :o
Anyways, glad you like those stats. I'll look into Vanquisher point values again tomorrow.
-
@andrew- was thinking 9. Just throwing it out there as Imp's batteries are lower quality than chaos, but if a Victory is made from a reconditioned Ret (ie. ancient) it's weapons would be of better Provenance.
But yeah, the Vic's looking pretty good with that profile ;D. Spam those light cruisers!
-
I need sleep, but I'll try to comment on the Victory tomrrow. Short version, adding the extra WB is suspposed to reduce the number of lance turrets that need power to reduce stress on the conduits and allow the ship to fire out to 60cm. The IN has no shortage of 60cm WB on battleships. Cruisers, yes it's a bit sparse but BB are where you get 60cm WB regularly.
I can accept 365 points for the vic.
-
Consolidating the profiles:
Victory
365
12 hits 20cm speed 4 shields 6+/5+ 4 turrets
P/S lances 6 45cm
Dorsal WBs 9 60cm
Nova cannon (-10pts to switch to 9 torps)
Vanquisher
320
12 hits 20cm speed 4 shields 6+/5+ 4 turrets
P/S lances 4 45cm
P/S WBs 6 45cm
Torpedoes 9
Andrew, Bessemer, and I seem to be up for it. Anyone else? Vaaish?
Also, anyone know why the light cruisers in Bakka are 5 points less with an additional turret? Will they now just be taking the IN version? If not, what should the note in the Bakka fleet list look like so people know of the difference?
-
Test (for Dan)
-
Up the p/s lances to 60cm on the victory. Of all the weapons that we can figure they'd want to fix from the apoc to fire long rane, the lances are it.
-
Vaaish, then you just have a super apoc. That's lame. Everyone who used an apoc will grumble about it because there is now just a better apoc in the bakka list. I would prefer having the apoc stay the best at long range lanced.
-
Vaaish, then you just have a super apoc. That's lame. Everyone who used an apoc will grumble about it because there is now just a better apoc in the bakka list. I would prefer having the apoc stay the best at long range lanced.
Yeah, now that the Jovian is out (which I call total bullshit on as I was not permitted to vote for some reason), I propose that the Bakka fleet list have the Nemesis.
You can't deny it would be both unique and in keeping with the 'one carrier' flavor of the fleet.
-
Wait, it's not out dude. It just isn't open to other fleets other than Bakka.
-
Vaaish, then you just have a super apoc. That's lame. Everyone who used an apoc will grumble about it because there is now just a better apoc in the bakka list. I would prefer having the apoc stay the best at long range lanced.
It seems we are talking about different things. I'm still talking about a 4 lance +WB armed Victory.
Victory
365
12 hits 20cm speed 4 shields 6+/5+ 4 turrets
P/S lances 4 60cm
P/S WB 6 60cm
Dorsal WBs 6 60cm
Nova cannon (-10pts to switch to 9 torps)
The point behind the victory was to replicate the Apoc but take care of the problems with it. The apoc has the ability to fire it's lances out to 60cm but at a penalty. The goal behind the Victory would then be to maintain as much of the Apocs firepower as possible and fire out to 60cm without penalty.
The HA tweaked this to be the 4 lances per side and dorsal WB. Effectively a loss of 4x lances to allow the ship to move faster and shoot as far as the Apoc with no penalty. That gave the Victory 2/3 of firepower of the Apoc. Fits pretty well with the concept behind it.
Now, with the changes to the Apoc in place, the Apoc gets 6x lances and 9x WB to one side. Usually it doesn't fire both sides at once and certainly not at long range. That gives the Apoc 27 WBE to a side.
With what I'm proposing earlier in the post, the Apoc still has more firepower than the Victory and much better long range firepower. It has three less dorsal battery strength and the two lances replaced with WB since it makes better sense visually and makes good sense if you are trying to conserve power to boost the range of your lances. That gives it 4x lances and 12x WB to a side at 60cm which translates into something like 24 WBE (it's basically an official retribution with an extra lance firepower wise).
If our victory is shooting at a capital ship abeam past 30cm, we traded the two lances from the apoc dice for zero extra WB dice. At best we gain one extra WB dice for our trouble past 30cm. Within 30cm we finally gain parity trading two lance dice for two battery dice albeit we now hit on a worse number and have to worry about BM. Either way, I don't see you getting parity on dice rolls from the loss of the lances very often.
So, who's better off? I'd say the Apoc has it still and it is more cost effective doing it too. But, what the Victory DOES have is the apoc vibe which is what we should be looking for based on the fluff. Unfortunately this leaves the Vanquisher in a hard place since it's the same thing but cheaper and slightly less range and firepower.
-
Wait, it's not out dude. It just isn't open to other fleets other than Bakka.
Yeah. But as it was not by a single vote, and it refused ot count my vote in favor of it being allowed....
-
Ah, I see your point now, sorry about that. Well, let's continue the discussion then! A 50/50 vote indicates to me that more discussion is needed.
-
Vaaish, I am going to bring up the vote for the Victory because I think we have 3 profiles that are the options that have come up: the 45cm 6 lance variant (that I proposed), the Vaaish version (4 lances @ 60cm + wbs), and the original version. Things aren't really making any progress so let's vote!
-
One thing I see a lot of while I'm reading this thread, aside from a certain amount of confusion, is that we're mathhammering this rather than asking the most important question:
What is Battlefleet Bakka's feel? How is this fleet list actually different than, say, Segmentum Solar?
One thing that I had a serious problem with in FAQ 2010 was that the overall drive was to make battlefleet bakka 'More IN' when, previous to this point, it played very differently. I know that a lot of posters have (overwhelming, blinding) preconceptions about what IN 'should' be, but frankly, most of them also rarely, if ever, played with or against this fleet list.
Point 1 that Bakka had:
Speed.
Not one light cruiser hull in Bakka had a speed below 25cm pre FAQ 2010. Even the Endeavor had a speed of 25cm in the 2002 List. The Long Serpent makes up, somewhat for the loss of the Cardinal heavy cruiser, but the removal of the Enforcer changed this fleet's play at a fundamental level, rather for the worse against ordinance heavy adversaries like Tau.
( ::) But OMG SM lances will change the flavor of SM FOREVER! ::))
Point 2 that bakka had:
The Fleet Defense Turret.
While certain player voiced their extreme dislike for this option, it was almost mandatory for most competitive builds with this fleet. I would recommend this restriction be removed again.
Bakka Point 3:
This isn't so much about what the fleet had as about the change in fluff that has the Big Gun Lobby kneeling before the Heretic Cardinal Bucharis with the rebel Young School backing the Imperium. It rather takes a dump on the old Gareox Prerogative fluff. The only reason I mention this is that I see Ray over there making 'newcron' fleet lists and giving necron ships shields to bring them into line with current fluff.
(For those that have asked: Mercury/Long Serpent originally exploded as a 12hp Battleship, but this was deemed exploitable in suicide attacks)
Personal thoughts on Bakka list changes:
The only IN battleship I used in this fleet was the Victory, due to it's speed.
Possible addition: Invincible Class Fast Battleship would fit well.
I think that non-escorts though should have a special rule where they may purchase +5 CM. This should not be, however, allowed on bakka ships taken as reserves by another list.
-
I for one do not see the point in disallowing the Jovian as reserves for any IN fleet.
Point A: its a freaking spaceship in freaking outer space, whats keeping it locked in one tiny little section of the galaxy.
Point B: "Despite its success, the fleet lords of Bakka hold fast to their big-gun philosophy, and it is unlikely another ship of this class will be requisitioned be Segmentum Naval authority"
This says that Bakka probably wont get another, but once more mainstream fleets get word of its successes Im sure there will be others that push to see these into production.
Mind you i dont like this ship, but the restriction is absurd.
I never played Bakka pre FAQ but i rather like the FAQ version, its a bit overpowered compared to standard IN in my opinion tho.
-
I for one do not see the point in disallowing the Jovian as reserves for any IN fleet.
Point A: its a freaking spaceship in freaking outer space, whats keeping it locked in one tiny little section of the galaxy.
Point B: "Despite its success, the fleet lords of Bakka hold fast to their big-gun philosophy, and it is unlikely another ship of this class will be requisitioned be Segmentum Naval authority"
This says that Bakka probably wont get another, but once more mainstream fleets get word of its successes Im sure there will be others that push to see these into production.
Mind you i dont like this ship, but the restriction is absurd.
I never played Bakka pre FAQ but i rather like the FAQ version, its a bit overpowered compared to standard IN in my opinion tho.
It's because the FAQ's fluff is a mashup of the original fluff for the class from the three of them that took part in the Gothic War as part of Battlefleet Gothic and the Gareox Prerogative/Battle of Circe fluff.
-
Hey Baron, do you happen to have any of those documents from the original Bakka stuff that would could post for us? I would like to read through them. And, I'm glad to have you as part of this discussion so please continue to contribute.
-
I would retract my version of the victory in favor of the original if that's on the table. Only necessary changes and I don't think the victory qualifies with the impasse here.
-
Mention that in the Victory voting blog if you could and indicate which is your so people know about it. Either way, if people like it more, they will be able to vote on it. Definitely bring that up in discussion though so people know your stance on things.
I would even be willing to go for an option to choose between the original and the 45cm version, sort of like allowing the user to use the 60cm wb12 Ret OR the 45cm wb18 Ret. Something like that.
-
Don't have a link handy but I can tell you where to find them:
If you have the Battlefleet Gothic Magazine (or the pdfs of them on the internet wink wink) issues
02 (original fleet list),
13 (they added the Invincible class fast battleship [a speed 25cm, 8 HP battleship] as a battleship option to it in this issue),
and Annual 2002 (for some reason they pulled all the battlecruiser and heavy cruiser options but the Overlord and added in all three Grand Cruisers) they're in print in those.
Interesting little notes about where some of these ships came from:
Jovian was in BFGM 01 and in the Corribra Sector LBgasm fleetlist in Planet Killer with SIluria (and the much ballyhoo'd Nemesis Fleet Carrier)
Dominion was from Book of Nemesis (From which we get the Chaos Fast Battleship. Never mind the chaos light cruisers [which a lot of people fixate on], there's a speed 30cm Battleship in here with 45 and 60 cm wbs and lances)
-
This?
http://www.google.nl/url?q=http://yenlowang.free.fr/warhammer-forum/BFG/BFG_-_Additional_Ships_Compendium_1.4.pdf&sa=U&ei=oDU4UfT_M8KBOKTNgeAF&ved=0CB4QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHx7luxShBQcuYXJDLdxh7eG2FO3Q
(direct pdf)
-
What's a ballyhoo and how do I get one. 8)
-
what?
If it doesn't work, google: BFG additional ship compendium
(v1.4).
-
Horizon, last I checked, and it's been a while, the file you linked (the additional ships compendium) only gives ship stats, not the fleet lists and rules for those fleets.
Which is, I might add, sort of the problem we ran into before. People have no idea what Bakka is, or even where to find a copy of the fleet list, but will tell you what it's 'supposed' to play like. (Granted, it was an obscure 'unofficial' GW published list before FAQ 2010)
I will say I look forward to fixes for the 'official' Corribra and Maelstrom lists for FAQ 20xx.
-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45668663/Battle-Fleet-Gothic-Magazine-02
Google Fu?
/ffs
Preview version, needs payment to get full doc.
-
Yeah, I sort of mentioned that pdfs of BFGM 02 (and several others) exist around the internet.
However, my point stands.
-
Do you have those rules available? You played Bakka in a tournament setting. Perhaps you can scan/upload them?
-
.....
Technically that's illegal. What I could do however is type it here in chat. I think.
Ship Stats can be found in the additional ships compendium.
Original Version:
Rath was 250 points (LD 10, 3 rerolls) and any battleship he commanded could Come to New Heading (1500+ pts fleet required)
Battleships:
0-1 Emperor Class (Dominus Astera) [Rath was not required, but honestly I never used it)
Victory Class
Retribution Class
Battlecruisers:
Overlord class
Cardinal class Heavy Cruiser
Cruisers:
0-1 Daemon Slayer
0-2 Dictators
0-3 Lunars
0-3 Gothics
0-3 Dominators
0-3 Dauntless
0-2 Defender
0-2 Enforcer
Escorts:
Firestorm
Sword
Viper
Cobra
This iteration I tended to revolve around the light cruisers and escorts with the Cardinals and a Victory for punch.
In the 2002 annual, Rath's rules changed that he granted 2 free refits (1 ship 1 weapon) to the ship he commanded as opposed to annulling the Come to New Heading rule, and he had to command a battleship.
Fleet Defense turrets were changed from being unique to the Defender to being an upgrade, str 1+5pts (any cruiser or escort) str 2 +10pts (crusiers only)
The over all list changed to:
Battleships:
0-1 Emperor Class (Dominus Astera) [Rath was not required, but honestly I never used it)
Victory Class
Invincible Class Fast Battleship (as of BFGM issue 13)
Battlecruisers:
Overlord class
0-1 Avenger
0-1 Vengeance
0-1 Exorcist
0-12 Cruisers:
Dictator
Gothic
Dominator
Dauntless
Lunar
Endeavor (speed 25cm in this list)
0-3 Enforcer
Escorts:
Firestorm
Sword
Viper
Cobra
The Fast battleship slid into my fleet like a glove, as did the changes to FDTs, though I missed Rath's come to new heading change. However, I will say that another list I ran into at the time involved massed LBs from Enforcers, dictators, an Exorcist and the Dominus Astra.
-
Shizzles, cool, thanks.
Now I remember something I posted:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=1225.0
-
Yeah, the Invincible works a hell of a lot better when you can screen it effectively or use it as a fast punch on the flank.
The Vic in the scenario just doesn't make good enough cover.
-
We seem to have 3 more things to vote on for Bakka.
1. Rath point value
2. Light Cruisers (they have higher turrets in Bakka)
3. Vanquisher
-
Which Rath? There have been so many by this point.
If we're messing with the light cruisers turrets, I'd go back to the pre FAQ 2010 version of the Fleet Defense Turret rules.
-
Hehe, the 2010 compendium one. We should reconsider him in light of a lot of the admiral changes in BFG:R, especially Abaddon which is now 150pts.
-
Yeah, if Abby is that low, Rath needs to either drop in price of go back to giving two random upgrades.
The ability to take Dominus Astra isn't worth the cost.
Personal opinion again: Current Bakka (FAQ 2010) needs to be tossed. The radical changes that were made to it in the same of more IN sameness pretty much ruined the 'flavor'.
I propose a vote of whether to pitch Bakka as stands and start over.
-
Any second that?
-
It certainly has merit. Screw it, i'm in. ;D
-
Another thread of countless pages of "like" vs "dislike"?
Sure, as long as everyone behaves.
(I think the FAQ2010 list has more interesting options (but is not flawless) that what BaronI posted from the old style).
-
Im just going to toss some fuel on the fire here but if theyre so "big-gun" happy why dont they have a lower restriction on battlecruisers or battleships or even have grand cruisers?
-
@horizon Not sure what you mean by everyone behaving.... ::)
I presume starting from scratch actually means examining Bakka lore and working from there rather than starting a new typical IN fleet that tries to replicate bakka?
-
I am against scratching and redoing.
-
Based on the posts, I'd say we have three for, two against putting it to a vote. Let's throw up a thread.
-
@horizon Not sure what you mean by everyone behaving.... ::)
I presume starting from scratch actually means examining Bakka lore and working from there rather than starting a new typical IN fleet that tries to replicate bakka?
agreed. While I'm lurking while the important people fight it out, I'll state that Bakka has been blanded out to total distaste imo. I'd love to see a fresh publicly discussed design thread on this.
-
Alright, so do we need to talk about the Bakka list anymore? Does the Vanquisher need working on at all? I would like to put up a vote to close the Bakka list soon if because it looks pretty close to complete with the Light Cruiser changes.
-
CS Note - I have removed a couple of posts from this point in the thread. There is no need for petty remarks and snide comments in general. I would be grateful if we could all put ourselfs forward in a mature way.... when talking about giant made up space ships fighting millions of miles from any star with technologically backwards weapons thirty eight thousand years in the future. :P
-
Wait it isnt 39986??
-
Check it out, annual 2002,..... the dreaded list... the BAKKA!
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5203.msg42612#new
-
Nice, havent seen one of those outside of ebay in a few years :P. Theres some good fluff bits there :D.
-
Check it out, annual 2002,..... the dreaded list... the BAKKA!
You do realize that can be interpreted as '...the STUPID!' right? 8)
-
Nah, it is just this google-fu I used and foud it. And since everyone wants it, just out of curiousity, I made it a tad easier to find. And, it is.... Bakka! And much more...
-
How's the committee going?
-
Its comming along. We're pretty close to having a fleet and command structure in place and we have been making progress on folding the unique aspects in.
-
There, you've heard more about it than I have then.
-
Apologies if we haven't been keeping people updated with progress, but yes, it's coming along.