Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on March 18, 2013, 03:04:34 AM
-
Bakka. Also, if you think there still needs to be changes that haven't already been voted down, please voice that here!
-
What are the list of changes before voting? Did we drop changing the victory and vanquisher and just add the carrier reserve penalty and rath changes?
-
Rath point revision, IN commander point revisions, reserve penalty, Victory merge option.
-
I'm going with a no because I think the Mercury and Vanquisher need help
-
I think we still have some work to do here.
There has been a lot of concern about making this more like the original version for one but also I think we should look at updating the list of ships available. Adding the Vengeance and Avenger back in and maybe the Dauntless type CL's seem like natural choices as these are already pretty limited and would make fluffy picks. Theres also the Dominator seeing how Tempestus is adjacent to Ultima I can see them receiving some support/ reinforcements from the fleet yards at Kar Duniash. Given the state of the fleet post "Circe incident" maybe allowing them to take Chaos reserves like Bastion also.
-
I voted no because I don't think we need the victory change. I sure as heck don't think there needs to be half of what you just rattled off as needed changes to the list.
-
If you guys want to work on more stuff, start talking! The people who wanted to scratch and start over were outvoted 2:1. There are a million ideas floating around here for Bakka changes but more discussion needs to be had.
The only changes I can see that need addressing:
-discuss and possibly modify Mercury (if people want to consider even using that... thing)
-discuss and possibly modify Vanquisher (though hardly anyone seems to have ideas about this)
-add Enforcer and Defender?
-
I voted no because I don't think we need the victory change. I sure as heck don't think there needs to be half of what you just rattled off as needed changes to the list.
Really? Whats the half you liked then because having a fleet that is supposed to be primarily focused on raider control and big guns with limited access to big guns and speedy choices is just dumb.
-
Perhaps the CG, but that's about it. I'm not convinced about those either. The list already has the Siluria and endeavor series so it doesn't really need another cl, you already have chaos ships available via the reserve rules from FAQ2010, and I believe the dominator was already tested in the list but dropped as a result of having too many high turret ships with cheap nc access.
-
-discuss and possibly modify Mercury (if people want to consider even using that... thing)
*SPLUTTER* *GASP* You really do have NO IDEA...
(http://www.coolminiornot.com/pics/pics14/img4bde5b10ba59f.jpg)
She was worth every dime of the three kits I had to buy to make her.
She was one of the Stars of my old Fast IN fleet, back when such a thing could be done with Bakka. (When she still exploded as a 12 HP battleship.)
Really? Whats the half you liked then because having a fleet that is supposed to be primarily focused on raider control and big guns with limited access to big guns and speedy choices is just dumb.
Again, as the only poster here (AFAIK) to ever use this fleet in a tournament, or any other capacity beyond screwing around with proxies...
The strength of this fleet has always been FDT, and fast light cruisers, supported by equally fast heavy cruiser/Battlecruiser options, with the original FDT rules. I can say that I rarely took any of the battleships (other than the Invincible).
My suggestion:
Ditch Jovian
Add Defiant (replacing Enforcer and stuck with both it's 2 per 500 and Enforcer's 3 total limits)
Add Dauntless
All 20cm light cruisers can take +5cm speed for +10pts
Original FDT rules for fleet restored.
-
-discuss and possibly modify Mercury (if people want to consider even using that... thing)
*SPLUTTER* *GASP* You really do have NO IDEA...
No idea about what? I am well aware that you love that long serpent of yours. You are basically using an overlord with +5 speed (which is less necessary with its range and actually works against having a nova cannon) and +2 weapon batteries, some at smaller range. Also, the explosion thing is a negative. I don't see why this would be preferred to an Armageddon or Overlord. If people think its fine, let's keep it in. I don't see why it's an option worth taking, especially with the explosion thing.
-
No idea about what? I am well aware that you love that long serpent of yours. You are basically using an overlord with +5 speed (which is less necessary with its range and actually works against having a nova cannon) and +2 weapon batteries, some at smaller range. Also, the explosion thing is a negative. I don't see why this would be preferred to an Armageddon or Overlord. If people think its fine, let's keep it in. I don't see why it's an option worth taking, especially with the explosion thing.
Let me guess, you never sacrifice your queen either.
Ever run into a fleet that had a really solid formation and wanted to break it up in a hurry? Or wanted to make a battleship change course?
This flying bomb is perfect for it. AAF into the center of the formation or make a ramming run at the battleship. You'll see ships scattering to try and get away from what may or may not be the 'big kaboom'. Factor in a hefty torp spread from everything else, and either they take big hits or scatter to be picked off by the small hoard of LCs and escorts following it.
-
The mercury is exactly like the RSV for SM: people have them, so we are keeping them IMO.
As for the enforcer: IIRC you can swap out the lances for torpdoes, right? That should not be allowed, as you will quickly see how useless the torpedo dauntless it by comparison, especially at the same cost.
The lance variant has a niche, and a real unique flavour, but the torpedo one is just an ordnance monstrosity.
-
The mercury is exactly like the RSV for SM: people have them, so we are keeping them IMO.
I don't want to drop it.
As for the enforcer: IIRC you can swap out the lances for torpdoes, right? That should not be allowed, as you will quickly see how useless the torpedo dauntless it by comparison, especially at the same cost.
I think that's a worthy discussion.
The lance variant has a niche, and a real unique flavour, but the torpedo one is just an ordnance monstrosity.
-
Here's exactly what I would like to see changed in BFB (I don't think we need to scrap BFB as it is in BFG:R now, but I would like to see added some more options from the original BFB):
1. Bring back the Enforcer (just as it is in BFGM 2, although should be 120pts)
2. Bring back the Defender (replacing its fleet defense turrets with the current upgrade from the Admech fleetn should be 115pts).
3. I am fine with keeping the Mercury/Long Serpent as it. I'll budge on that one.
4. I think the Vanquisher would be much more fluffy and usable if it was at 20cm movement at 310pts.
-
No idea about what? I am well aware that you love that long serpent of yours. You are basically using an overlord with +5 speed (which is less necessary with its range and actually works against having a nova cannon) and +2 weapon batteries, some at smaller range. Also, the explosion thing is a negative. I don't see why this would be preferred to an Armageddon or Overlord. If people think its fine, let's keep it in. I don't see why it's an option worth taking, especially with the explosion thing.
Let me guess, you never sacrifice your queen either.
Ever run into a fleet that had a really solid formation and wanted to break it up in a hurry? Or wanted to make a battleship change course?
This flying bomb is perfect for it. AAF into the center of the formation or make a ramming run at the battleship. You'll see ships scattering to try and get away from what may or may not be the 'big kaboom'. Factor in a hefty torp spread from everything else, and either they take big hits or scatter to be picked off by the small hoard of LCs and escorts following it.
P.S. I ALWAYS sacrifice my queen if I can take their queen down in the process.
-
As for the enforcer: IIRC you can swap out the lances for torpdoes, right? That should not be allowed, as you will quickly see how useless the torpedo dauntless it by comparison, especially at the same cost.
The lance variant has a niche, and a real unique flavour, but the torpedo one is just an ordnance monstrosity.
The Enforcer is limited to 3 per fleet though. Meaning you'll need torp daunts to support it.
And only sacrifice the Queen to put your opponent in Checkmate. One for one is a losing option with Queens. (That's what bishops, rooks, and knights, to a degree, are for, anyway.)
-
As for the enforcer: IIRC you can swap out the lances for torpdoes, right? That should not be allowed, as you will quickly see how useless the torpedo dauntless it by comparison, especially at the same cost.
The lance variant has a niche, and a real unique flavour, but the torpedo one is just an ordnance monstrosity.
The Enforcer is limited to 3 per fleet though. Meaning you'll need torp daunts to support it.
And only sacrifice the Queen to put your opponent in Checkmate. One for one is a losing option with Queens. (That's what bishops, rooks, and knights, to a degree, are for, anyway.)
If you feel confident that your ability to work with everything but the queen is greater than your opponent's ability with them, a one to one, queen for queen, is a winning option.
-
Here's exactly what I would like to see changed in BFB (I don't think we need to scrap BFB as it is in BFG:R now, but I would like to see added some more options from the original BFB):
1. Bring back the Enforcer (just as it is in BFGM 2, although should be 120pts)
2. Bring back the Defender (replacing its fleet defense turrets with the current upgrade from the Admech fleetn should be 115pts).
3. I think the Vanquisher would be much more fluffy and usable if it was at 20cm movement at 310pts.
Anyone want to back me up on any of these?
-
I will back up all three of those suggestions, dan. They seem great to me.
-
Here's exactly what I would like to see changed in BFB (I don't think we need to scrap BFB as it is in BFG:R now, but I would like to see added some more options from the original BFB):
1. Bring back the Enforcer (just as it is in BFGM 2, although should be 120pts)
won't this make the Defiant somewhat redundant? (or is that the point ;))
2. Bring back the Defender (replacing its fleet defense turrets with the current upgrade from the Admech fleetn should be 115pts).
Re-name so it doesn't clash with the Tau Escort? I submit the Stalwart as a replacement
3. I am fine with keeping the Mercury/Long Serpent as it. I'll budge on that one.
yep, if GW still did a parts service I would have already made one
4. I think the Vanquisher would be much more fluffy and usable if it was at 20cm movement at 310pts.
seems good. Original stats?
-
1. I think the Defiant discussion should inform how the Enforcer should look point-wise. The Enforcer will look more like the Dauntless than the Endeavor in its speed, armor, and prow.
2. I like that name! If others think that renaming it is a good thing, I'm game.
3. I have been partially convinced by Baron on this one and I'm willing to admit it.
4. 2010 stats. Are there others?
-
The Vanquisher first appeared in the 1st (and only) Planet Killer Magazine, don't know if you remember it. Just looked it up, Stats as 2010 with speed 20 and 4 turrets, 340pts. Also in the new ships compendium.
so yeah, 2010, speed 20, 310pts it is!
-
Anyone want to back me up on any of these?
I think all of those are excellent. Can we have the Cardinal back too as a reserve ship? Or is that just too much?
-
I'd forgotten about that! Hell, it even got a mention in one of the Badab IA books, why not add it?
If we do bring it back, shouldn't it be included in chaos as well?
for those who don't know...
190pts
Cruiser/8 hits, speed 25cm, turns 45, armour 5+, 2 shields, 3 turrets
port/starboard lances, 45cm, str 2, as arc
dorsal WB's, 45cm, fpw 6 f/l/r
prow Torps, spd 30cm, str6, f/l/r
model as Acheron, though it was given as an Imperial ship. Taint resistant design?
-
I'd forgotten about that! Hell, it even got a mention in one of the Badab IA books, why not add it?
If we do bring it back, shouldn't it be included in chaos as well?
Prob not because of the fluff about it. I'll check into it again but if I remember correctly, it's the pre-Acheron that didn't turn.
-
Anyone want to back me up on any of these?
I think all of those are excellent. Can we have the Cardinal back too as a reserve ship? Or is that just too much?
I'm not against that at all.
-
I think the original Vanquisher is more fluffy and fitting but extremely overpriced. I think 300pts is much more appropriate. Slower and less armed than the Desolator, but with that nice 6+ prow.
-
Is the Cardinal a battle/heavy cruiser, then?
I see not a lot of objection to it.
-
Yes, heavy cruiser. Forgot to mention :-[
-
Screw the Cardinal. Why would IN or Chaos even want that hunk of junk?
-
Screw the Cardinal. Why would IN or Chaos even want that hunk of junk?
Scrap metal? Although Im not against good ideas or additions this ship just really doesn't do it for me. Maybe if it was an "in between" cruiser like the Vengeance series with a torp prow and chaos hull. No still sounds like crap, remember this was a chaos hull design.
-
I can see Sigoroth his point: the Acheron is a better ship for the same points. Missing the armoured prow makes the torpedoes less attractive then on a more usual IN cruiser.