Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on March 24, 2013, 04:52:27 PM
-
Please vote once per ship.
-
I would like to include all of them but work on them. I voiced some of the changes I would make and I will think through it some more. Hopefully I can, within the next few days, propose my changes.
I think we should, instead of making restrictions to specific ships, we should make a blanket restriction to carrier for Bakka.
-
I see no point in adding any of these. They exist and people can take them with permission which is fine. Not every ship created has to be in this document, and even less so when the ships make official ones obsolete as in the case of the enforcer or add nothing to the game in the case of the cardinal. In the cardinals case, why not just use the 2010 reserve rules to pull in any of the chaos ships to fill the role?
Leave well enough alone, we have enough to discuss and far too many tweaks with just the official set, why further complicate things?
-
Changed vote to no for the Defender.
On further reading it mentions in 2010 Bakka that the systems for the FDT are too complex for the IN's crews to operate, so Admech only.
-
Changed vote to no for the Defender.
On further reading it mentions in 2010 Bakka that the systems for the FDT are too complex for the IN's crews to operate, so Admech only.
Yeah, they had to write that in after certain unnamed posters on this board threw a fit and demanded that they removed the FDTs (and AC) from Bakka entirely. This was sort of the compromise idea they came up with was the admech FTD rule and Jovian.
-
Here are my proposed Bakka additions:
-Cardinal exactly like it is in BFGM#2 --> 190pts. It is a little overpriced but I believe this is to make up for the amount of combined firepower it has plus its maneuverability to be able to use that combined firepower.
-Enforcer. This ships should either be included as it is in BFGM#2 for 120pts or we can give it the same lance amount as a Dauntless (3 lances) and make it 110pts. Personally, I say just keep it as is at 120pts.
-Defender. It should be just as it is and making its FDTs just as the new Admech version, which, remember, will boost its turret about. I think it should be 105pts plus the cost of the FDTs.
-Vanquisher. I think the version in Planet Killer is a better option for players but also more fluffy at 20cm. I think it should be at 320pts with those stats (basically, the same stats as 2010 Vanquisher but at 20cm movement and 4 turrets).
-Bakka carrier limitations. I think we should make Bakka restricted to 1 ship with launch capabilities per 1000pts or part thereof. This way, Bakka can have 2 launch bay ships in a 1500pt game. The other option would be to limit launch capacity by point level. We may want to make 2 launch capacity per 500pts. That would be a pretty harsh limitation, but this way, the Jovian won't be made into an almost obvious pick like it will be in the first option of LC limitations. This restriction will make it much less likely for a Jovian to be used in smaller games compared to Dominions or Enforcers mainly because many may see it as dangerous to have only one vessel with LBs. This restriction may look harsh, but the capability for every capital ship to take +1 turret at 5pts is a major incentive to play Bakka as opposed to the regular IN fleets.
-I suggest that we add the following to the Bakka Admech reserves section: "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." This will add to the low ordnance flavor of Bakka and encourage some of the Admech crossover.
-
Here are my proposed Bakka additions:
-Cardinal exactly like it is in BFGM#2 --> 190pts. It is a little overpriced but I believe this is to make up for the amount of combined firepower it has plus its maneuverability to be able to use that combined firepower.
I admit this ship I used extensively to add extra punch to fleets that revolved around Dauntless and Enforcer. Horizon is right that she's a bit brittle in a prow on fight, but that's why you don't do that.
-Bakka carrier limitations. I think we should make Bakka restricted to 1 ship with launch capabilities per 1000pts or part thereof. This way, Bakka can have 2 launch bay ships in a 1500pt game. The other option would be to limit launch capacity by point level. We may want to make 2 launch capacity per 500pts. That would be a pretty harsh limitation, but this way, the Jovian won't be made into an almost obvious pick like it will be in the first option of LC limitations. This restriction will make it much less likely for a Jovian to be used in smaller games compared to Dominions or Enforcers mainly because many may see it as dangerous to have only one vessel with LBs. This restriction may look harsh, but the capability for every capital ship to take +1 turret at 5pts is a major incentive to play Bakka as opposed to the regular IN fleets.
Hmm... the second one looks like the better of the two, but I can see where it might still be too crippling and also means that you will never be able to take Dominus Astra unless Rath is granting an exception to this now.
How about: You cannot use the admech rule to bring in a carrier, but per 1k points or a fraction thereof you can take 3 Enforcers (the original fleet limit for them) or 1 Jovian or Dominus Astra (unless we're making Rath a Very Expensive way to get around this rule). This makes it less of a clear cut choice depending on your play style.
-
1. The cardinal has zero place in BFGR. please give me any possible use cases for this ship that present a scenario where a reserve Acheron would not be a better choice. It has worse maneuverability than IN ships due to the higher speed giving it a slightly wider turning arc and it has horribly conflicted weapons.
2. The enforcer at 120 is far too much of a power creep. It immediately makes both the defiant and lance dauntless obsolete due to providing an extra turret while retaining the heavy lances on the dauntless and removing the weapons batteries for LB. this gives it more firepower and speed than the defiant while giving it more firepower and better defense than the lance dauntless. Bad idea.
5-6. Didn't we already finish with the carrier limitations? Is there a problem with the current limits that requires a hard limitation? Second, lets not add more special rules for admech tied to a separate list. It adds complexity that quite frankly isn't warranted and creates exceptions to how admech works the can lead to confusion. I don't think we need to encourage admech here more than it is with the reduced reserve requirements.
-
1. The cardinal has zero place in BFGR. please give me any possible use cases for this ship that present a scenario where a reserve Acheron would not be a better choice. It has worse maneuverability than IN ships due to the higher speed giving it a slightly wider turning arc and it has horribly conflicted weapons.
You are arguing against it's usability in the fleet and because of that, say it should be removed. Some people think it is more usable and would prefer more than you would. I have said this many times: you don't just argue for a ship being removed because you think it's crappy. I would also make the case for the Tyrant and the Gothic because I don't think the IN NEED any of those ships when they have Lunars but they add options to the game for people to use them if they prefer. It's the same with the Cardinal. It should be priced where it is competitive and not just throw out because some people don't like it.
2. The enforcer at 120 is far too much of a power creep. It immediately makes both the defiant and lance dauntless obsolete due to providing an extra turret while retaining the heavy lances on the dauntless and removing the weapons batteries for LB. this gives it more firepower and speed than the defiant while giving it more firepower and better defense than the lance dauntless. Bad idea.
I am certainly willing to have this discussion and making it the appropriate point level so that it doesn't trump the other light cruisers and is a competitive option but not overpowered.
5-6. Didn't we already finish with the carrier limitations? Is there a problem with the current limits that requires a hard limitation? Second, lets not add more special rules for admech tied to a separate list. It adds complexity that quite frankly isn't warranted and creates exceptions to how admech works the can lead to confusion. I don't think we need to encourage admech here more than it is with the reduced reserve requirements.
I am proposing what I think is a better way to restrict carriers in Bakka. Yes, I think I did mention why I think the current limitation system is weak compared to the LC number limit system mainly because it encourages people to use the Jovian pretty much every game. Side note: for Rath, I think it would be easy to just say that Rath adds +2 to the launch capacity limit.
-
Dan, if you think the cardinal has use, then give me the use cases for taking it. That's what I asked for and since you are advocating adding a ship we don't currently have in, the burden of proof is on you to prove the ship has any reason to be included. I posit that any use case you bring forward is already covered by the the Acheron using the reserve rules as per FAQ2010.
Discussion: the enforcer should not be added. Period. There is nothing else to discuss. This is exactly the kind of power creep that needs to be reigned in. There is good reason some ships never made official status. Leave them for friendly games with permission. We don't have to add everything.
-
Dan, if you think the cardinal has use, then give me the use cases for taking it. That's what I asked for and since you are advocating adding a ship we don't currently have in, the burden of proof is on you to prove the ship has any reason to be included. I posit that any use case you bring forward is already covered by the the Acheron using the reserve rules as per FAQ2010.
How about those F/L/R torps? ;D (Yes, I know that's the first thing that everyone wants to remove but they are what makes it different than an Acheron)
I don't see the Acheron listed anyplace in FAQ 2010 as being allowed as a reserve for IN and frankly do we want to load up Bakka with yet more reserves rules?
I can make a few fluff arguments (one of which being that the Cardinal Class Sebastian Thor is STILL listed among the survivors of Circe), but the fact is that IA X already did bring it in, in an 'official but totally forbidden' list (which I strongly recommend that we clean up into something that resembles sanity for BFG:R).
Bakka thematically revolves around speed. The fluff for Tempestus states that line of battle fleet actions are rare there and they primarily focus on dealing with fast raiders, but do not use AC. The only way you're going to deal with fast raiders without AC is either be fast yourself or have lots and lots of 60 cm wbs and lances.
What this list currently has: Lots and lots of slow cruisers and few escort options, with a few slower battleships
What this list should have to follow fluff: lots and lots of escort options and fast light cruisers with a few slower battleships.
That's my two cents, anyway.
-
Yeah, got to love the multi-directional torps!
As it looks like the Cardinal will pass (pending revision, of course!), how would people feel about giving the side lances 60cm range? (+15/20pts?)
This would make it a fully long range support ship. And this would help differentiate it from the mid-ranged Acheron.
-
The Acheron has 60cm port and starboard. This is an Acheron -15cm range on its port/starboard and adding (really stupid) l/f/r torps. Seeing how its a chaos hull it shouldnt have the option for torps at all and certainly not multi arc.
-
Was just about to edit before someone saw that particular brain-fart! Really should have checked that earlier! :-[
But are Multi-arc torps really that controversial? The Schismatic and Havoc classes have them, and they passed the vote well enough.
Having played the Havoc recently, the torps were the only reason why I would even consider taking them, and I do actually want to make a couple of Schismatic's (Just want to test them first, whenever I can get the gaming in).
you could even argue that the Cardinal was the precedent for these ships in the first place.
-
Umm where did that profile for the Havoc come from? The Havoc doesnt carry Torpedoes it has 5 wb, 2 fixed forward and 3 lfr.
The Chaos light cruisers are ::).
I could see an understrength Dorsal mount with an explosive detriment but what would be the mechanic on a prow mount?
-
The Havoc from Plaxor's BFGR. I was under the impression this has been adopted for both Chaos and Bakka in this version of BFGR. Got to say, I much prefer the 2010.
Do you mean a Demiurg style silo for the dorsal mount? swapping prow and dorsal in this instance could be a good idea if this is the case (s4/5?). If so, this would open the case for all round torpedoes!
By explosive detriment, you could make it take +1 dam for dorsal critical hits.
I always imagined silos for the prow section, really. Don't older hull types have more esoteric technologies and whatnot?
-
Dan, if you think the cardinal has use, then give me the use cases for taking it. That's what I asked for and since you are advocating adding a ship we don't currently have in, the burden of proof is on you to prove the ship has any reason to be included. I posit that any use case you bring forward is already covered by the the Acheron using the reserve rules as per FAQ2010.
If you want, I can just copy and paste my earlier post: "You are arguing against it's usability in the fleet and because of that, say it should be removed. Some people think it is more usable and would prefer more than you would. I have said this many times: you don't just argue for a ship being removed because you think it's crappy. I would also make the case for the Tyrant and the Gothic because I don't think the IN NEED any of those ships when they have Lunars but they add options to the game for people to use them if they prefer. It's the same with the Cardinal. It should be priced where it is competitive and not just throw out because some people don't like it."
The reason it should be included is some people really like it, it was part of the original Bakka fleet, it is in BFGM#2, and in IAX, and I think we could discuss it again and make sure it is properly priced and included.
Discussion: the enforcer should not be added. Period. There is nothing else to discuss. This is exactly the kind of power creep that needs to be reigned in. There is good reason some ships never made official status. Leave them for friendly games with permission. We don't have to add everything.
Sounds like an attempt to bully people out of this. The fact is, BFG:R IS for friendly games and won't be accepted by people who do tournaments or anything official. That's just not what BFG:R is for. BFG:R is already used on a "with permission" basis. If this is power creep that should be reigned it, that doesn't mean that you throw something out. It can be reworked and repriced to make it non-powercreep.
Vaaish, you make a point about the Enforcer at 120pts. Let's talk that through some more.
-
The Havoc from Plaxor's BFGR. I was under the impression this has been adopted for both Chaos and Bakka in this version of BFGR. Got to say, I much prefer the 2010.
As is, the Havoc is the 2010 version in BFG:R (the new wave of BFG:R that is).
-
Wonderful, two cockups in the same thread :'(
-
Ya thats pretty spot on to what i was thinking. A Str 4 dorsal mount and +1 damage on dorsal crit sounds pretty reasonable. Background could be that it was an attempt to make the older classes more cohesive with newer fleet doctrines and the Acheron has already introduced that class as a test bed for new systems. The "explosive" detriment and low strength help force the price down and supports the problems of having a turret mounted firing system (limited shots and or longer reloading, poor munitions storage, etc).
-
-Vanquisher. I think the version in Planet Killer is a better option for players but also more fluffy at 20cm. I think it should be at 320pts with those stats (basically, the same stats as 2010 Vanquisher but at 20cm movement and 4 turrets).
The vanquisher seems like it will obviously pass. Anyone have a problem with these stats for the Vanquisher?
-
If you want, I can just copy and paste my earlier post: "You are arguing against it's usability in the fleet and because of that, say it should be removed. Some people think it is more usable and would prefer more than you would. I have said this many times: you don't just argue for a ship being removed because you think it's crappy. I would also make the case for the Tyrant and the Gothic because I don't think the IN NEED any of those ships when they have Lunars but they add options to the game for people to use them if they prefer. It's the same with the Cardinal. It should be priced where it is competitive and not just throw out because some people don't like it."
Actually, you completely miss the point. The ship hasn't been added to begin with. What I'm saying is that just because someone mentioned they like a ship shouldn't be grounds for immediately assuming it must be added. If you want a ship,then the burden of proof is on you to explain why it should be added, not on me to prove why it shouldn't.
So far you've just been trying to argue that I have to prove it doesn't need to be added. I want it thrown out because it doesn't have a place. You keep refusing to actually work through reasons why this ship would be taken and why it is someone would use it over an Acheron pulled in under the FAQ2010 reserve rules. Unlike the ships you try to mention in your example that all actually have roles and differing play styles, the cardinal is an inferior duplicate of an official ship which is an entirely different situation than what you are presenting. I'm challenging you again, prove why this ship needs to be added. Simply liking something should NEVER be the the only grounds for adding elements. For example, I personally like the Armageddon gun on the PK, but that doesn't mean I have valid grounds to include a PK in the IN fleet lists. I can guarantee that will end with power creep, and I hope that isn't what you intend with BFGR.
Sounds like an attempt to bully people out of this. The fact is, BFG:R IS for friendly games and won't be accepted by people who do tournaments or anything official. That's just not what BFG:R is for. BFG:R is already used on a "with permission" basis. If this is power creep that should be reigned it, that doesn't mean that you throw something out. It can be reworked and repriced to make it non-powercreep.
I would argue that yes, it does mean it should be thrown out. You cannot increase the AC since its already at the max for a CL, you decrease the lances and you basically have a fast FAQ2010 defiant. Swap them out for WB and we end up with what's basically being proposed as a BFGR defiant. Swap the lances for torpedoes and have the same problem with the torpedo dauntless. At this point you can't really change anything else without taking out the bays or messing with the speed or armor which again brings you into conflict with the endeavor series or the dauntless.
That leaves you with increasing the price considerably which doesn't really solve anything except hoping that people need the points more somewhere else.
Let me reiterate once again, I'm becoming sorely disappointed in the entire process here. People simply say they like a ship and suddenly it's up for inclusion with little discussion or reason outside of they like ship x or y. Once we hit that point any dissent is immediately met with extreme resistance. The only thing you want to "discuss" is how to include the ship with zero proof provided by the people who want a change as to why that change should happen in the first place. Start making people prove why their suggestion should be included instead of making everyone else prove why it shouldn't.
-
You are arguing against it's usability in the fleet and because of that, say it should be removed. Some people think it is more usable and would prefer more than you would. I have said this many times: you don't just argue for a ship being removed because you think it's crappy. I would also make the case for the Tyrant and the Gothic because I don't think the IN NEED any of those ships when they have Lunars but they add options to the game for people to use them if they prefer. It's the same with the Cardinal. It should be priced where it is competitive and not just throw out because some people don't like it.
But we're not arguing for a ship being removed, you're arguing for a ship to be included. Big difference. The onus is on you to prove that it is a necessary, viable and fluffy ship that does not alter interfleet balance. The latter 2 may be fine, but the first 2 certainly aren't.
I am certainly willing to have this discussion and making it the appropriate point level so that it doesn't trump the other light cruisers and is a competitive option but not overpowered.
But why do we even need it? Sure it may appear in Bakka fluff or whatever, but why does this "sod all AC" Bakka list have so many new carriers? Give them gunships! That's what they're all about. While I'm rather conservative when it comes to Bakka (the whole list should remain unofficial) if we have to ratify some extreme change I'd rather it be to crap like the Mercury/Long Serpent than yet more carriers. Not that I like that ship at all. It could simply be dropped in favour of an Overlord. Give Bakka the Dauntless, Siluria, Havoc, Viper and Dominion. Ditch the Jovian and replace the Mercury with the Overlord. The Vanquisher and Victory are fine but unnecessary. The Cardinal is complete smeg.
I am proposing what I think is a better way to restrict carriers in Bakka. Yes, I think I did mention why I think the current limitation system is weak compared to the LC number limit system mainly because it encourages people to use the Jovian pretty much every game. Side note: for Rath, I think it would be easy to just say that Rath adds +2 to the launch capacity limit.
The 2010 Bakka list has no access to Defiants, Enforcers, Dictators, Exorcists, Mars or Oberons. Only 1 Emperor can be taken and then only as a reserve (pfft, yeah right) or as Rath's ship. Ditch the Jovian and AC becomes pretty much self-limiting. This makes for 8 maximum AC at 1000 pts, using either 2 Dominions or 1 Dominion and 1 reserve Dictator. Not terribly over the top.
-
-Vanquisher. I think the version in Planet Killer is a better option for players but also more fluffy at 20cm. I think it should be at 320pts with those stats (basically, the same stats as 2010 Vanquisher but at 20cm movement and 4 turrets).
The vanquisher seems like it will obviously pass. Anyone have a problem with these stats for the Vanquisher?
I prefer the 15cm at 300 pts stats.
-
The Havoc from Plaxor's BFGR. I was under the impression this has been adopted for both Chaos and Bakka in this version of BFGR. Got to say, I much prefer the 2010.
As is, the Havoc is the 2010 version in BFG:R (the new wave of BFG:R that is).
I very much prefer the 5WB version. Don't know why it was ever changed.
-
If you want, I can just copy and paste my earlier post: "You are arguing against it's usability in the fleet and because of that, say it should be removed. Some people think it is more usable and would prefer more than you would. I have said this many times: you don't just argue for a ship being removed because you think it's crappy. I would also make the case for the Tyrant and the Gothic because I don't think the IN NEED any of those ships when they have Lunars but they add options to the game for people to use them if they prefer. It's the same with the Cardinal. It should be priced where it is competitive and not just throw out because some people don't like it."
Actually, you completely miss the point. The ship hasn't been added to begin with. What I'm saying is that just because someone mentioned they like a ship shouldn't be grounds for immediately assuming it must be added. If you want a ship,then the burden of proof is on you to explain why it should be added, not on me to prove why it shouldn't.
If enough people want to add it because they just like it, they can vote it in. They don't need to argue why it should be added. If you want to argue why it shouldn't be added, you may persuade people.
So far you've just been trying to argue that I have to prove it doesn't need to be added. I want it thrown out because it doesn't have a place. You keep refusing to actually work through reasons why this ship would be taken and why it is someone would use it over an Acheron pulled in under the FAQ2010 reserve rules. Unlike the ships you try to mention in your example that all actually have roles and differing play styles, the cardinal is an inferior duplicate of an official ship which is an entirely different situation than what you are presenting. I'm challenging you again, prove why this ship needs to be added. Simply liking something should NEVER be the the only grounds for adding elements. For example, I personally like the Armageddon gun on the PK, but that doesn't mean I have valid grounds to include a PK in the IN fleet lists. I can guarantee that will end with power creep, and I hope that isn't what you intend with BFGR.
I like the FLR torpedoes and the fact that I can use a ship that is mentioned in fluff and something that is in the original Bakka. I like the lore of it. My point is, just because something "has no place" isn't a reason to remove a ship or not include a ship the majority of people want included. My point with the IN cruisers is that there are some ships that have other ships that do the same job or are very similar. That's no reason to throw something out. I am not saying this ship NEEDS to be added. I am saying that if people want it to be included in Bakka, they have every right to vote for it being added, even if solely because they like the ship. If you think the Cardinal breaks IN rules that aren't already broken by the reserve rules you mentioned, then mention it. Your argument about the armageddon gun isn't relevant here.
Vaaish, do you think that is my intention? Power creep?
Sounds like an attempt to bully people out of this. The fact is, BFG:R IS for friendly games and won't be accepted by people who do tournaments or anything official. That's just not what BFG:R is for. BFG:R is already used on a "with permission" basis. If this is power creep that should be reigned it, that doesn't mean that you throw something out. It can be reworked and repriced to make it non-powercreep.
I would argue that yes, it does mean it should be thrown out. You cannot increase the AC since its already at the max for a CL, you decrease the lances and you basically have a fast FAQ2010 defiant. Swap them out for WB and we end up with what's basically being proposed as a BFGR defiant. Swap the lances for torpedoes and have the same problem with the torpedo dauntless. At this point you can't really change anything else without taking out the bays or messing with the speed or armor which again brings you into conflict with the endeavor series or the dauntless.
That leaves you with increasing the price considerably which doesn't really solve anything except hoping that people need the points more somewhere else.
I would like to keep it how it is and discuss the point cost of it. Different enough from the other light cruisers. What do you mean by considerably?
Let me reiterate once again, I'm becoming sorely disappointed in the entire process here. People simply say they like a ship and suddenly it's up for inclusion with little discussion or reason outside of they like ship x or y. Once we hit that point any dissent is immediately met with extreme resistance. The only thing you want to "discuss" is how to include the ship with zero proof provided by the people who want a change as to why that change should happen in the first place. Start making people prove why their suggestion should be included instead of making everyone else prove why it shouldn't.
I am not meeting you with extreme resistance. I would like to have a dialogue on how to make ships that the majority of people want to be in BFG:R usable and balanced. Is that so wrong? I know that you have been disappointed with this process, but I can't help you with that Vaaish. I am not going to move away from a voting system and I am not going to take one person's perspective on how the process should work against the voting of the forum. Simple as that. If the votes win and we don't include something, then great! If not, then we discuss it. If it doesn't work out, then we can vote again to ditch the thing.
When did I MAKE you prove why it shouldn't be included? I am not making anyone do anything, I am merely putting up votes. If you want to make a great case why the ship should not be included, then fantastic. You realize here that my discussion on the inclusion of these ships is just my opinion. If I am outvoted, so be it.I am willing to accept a change to BFG:R, even if I don't like it. Are you?
-
I can make a few fluff arguments (one of which being that the Cardinal Class Sebastian Thor is STILL listed among the survivors of Circe), but the fact is that IA X already did bring it in, in an 'official but totally forbidden' list (which I strongly recommend that we clean up into something that resembles sanity for BFG:R).
IA X isn't official. Nothing FW does is official unless and until it has be adopted by GW.
-
You are arguing against it's usability in the fleet and because of that, say it should be removed. Some people think it is more usable and would prefer more than you would. I have said this many times: you don't just argue for a ship being removed because you think it's crappy. I would also make the case for the Tyrant and the Gothic because I don't think the IN NEED any of those ships when they have Lunars but they add options to the game for people to use them if they prefer. It's the same with the Cardinal. It should be priced where it is competitive and not just throw out because some people don't like it.
But we're not arguing for a ship being removed, you're arguing for a ship to be included. Big difference. The onus is on you to prove that it is a necessary, viable and fluffy ship that does not alter interfleet balance. The latter 2 may be fine, but the first 2 certainly aren't.
Am I the only one who wants these ships included? I think not, considering the voting going on here. I think they should be included because I like them, I think they are interesting to have in Bakka. I think the FDT stuff is a nice option for Bakka. I think the Enforcer has cool fluff. I don't need to argue that it is necessary. Lots of ships are unnecessary. I would like to discuss it to make sure it is viable and balanced.
I am certainly willing to have this discussion and making it the appropriate point level so that it doesn't trump the other light cruisers and is a competitive option but not overpowered.
But why do we even need it? Sure it may appear in Bakka fluff or whatever, but why does this "sod all AC" Bakka list have so many new carriers? Give them gunships! That's what they're all about. While I'm rather conservative when it comes to Bakka (the whole list should remain unofficial) if we have to ratify some extreme change I'd rather it be to crap like the Mercury/Long Serpent than yet more carriers. Not that I like that ship at all. It could simply be dropped in favour of an Overlord. Give Bakka the Dauntless, Siluria, Havoc, Viper and Dominion. Ditch the Jovian and replace the Mercury with the Overlord. The Vanquisher and Victory are fine but unnecessary. The Cardinal is complete smeg.
Those of course are you opinions on the matter. Personally, I am less attached to the Enforcer, though I like it. I just have a different opinion on the matter. I think we should include these ships because of the fluff and I think they are good ships. If they don't pass the vote, then fine!
I am proposing what I think is a better way to restrict carriers in Bakka. Yes, I think I did mention why I think the current limitation system is weak compared to the LC number limit system mainly because it encourages people to use the Jovian pretty much every game. Side note: for Rath, I think it would be easy to just say that Rath adds +2 to the launch capacity limit.
The 2010 Bakka list has no access to Defiants, Enforcers, Dictators, Exorcists, Mars or Oberons. Only 1 Emperor can be taken and then only as a reserve (pfft, yeah right) or as Rath's ship. Ditch the Jovian and AC becomes pretty much self-limiting. This makes for 8 maximum AC at 1000 pts, using either 2 Dominions or 1 Dominion and 1 reserve Dictator. Not terribly over the top.
I prefer my method: 2 LC/500pts +2 for Rath. I am also not against limiting the Jovian at 2000+ games.
-
1) wtf... LFR torpedoes? Are these dorsal mounted? What does that prow look like? For some reason I never noticed this on other vessels Bessemer mentioned...
2) The Enforcer :P, the unbelievable amount of 7 people want to work on it. What are the ideas to change on this vessel?
3) Forgeworld IA3 has been used by many tournaments untill compendium 2010 came along.
The problem with most FW stuff: it is not free online, thus most will not have the rules to look into. That would be a reason for me to keep them from an official status.
- warning...
-
1) wtf... LFR torpedoes? Are these dorsal mounted? What does that prow look like? For some reason I never noticed this on other vessels Bessemer mentioned...
2) The Enforcer :P, the unbelievable amount of 7 people want to work on it. What are the ideas to change on this vessel?
7 out of the 13 voting currently. 6 whopping people don't want to work with it. So what? You can't argue limited number of voters when both sides have that little.
-
- warning...
Point taken. ;)
-
Eh, I just wanted to know what those 7 want to change on the Enforcer. :)
-
Eh, I just wanted to know what those 7 want to change on the Enforcer. :)
Yes, but what's your point? I am aware of that.
-
Well, to me the ship is broken, bad and wrong and see no way to fix it. So, I'd like to know what the people who want to work on it think about it. Increase price, change stats, eg. These people have more hope for the vessel then me.
And now I am baffled I am really explaining this... ::)
-
Eh, I just wanted to know what those 7 want to change on the Enforcer. :)
In my case it needs rebalanced point wise, and the current restriction of 3 per fleet should probably be looked at being balanced in another way (to avoid AC spam at lower point values).
But we're not arguing for a ship being removed, you're arguing for a ship to be included. Big difference. The onus is on you to prove that it is a necessary, viable and fluffy ship that does not alter interfleet balance. The latter 2 may be fine, but the first 2 certainly aren't.
I can vouch for it's viability in previous versions of Bakka. As far as current goes.... I can see it working fairly well in the right context. The real question will be how much different it is afterward.
But why do we even need it? Sure it may appear in Bakka fluff or whatever, but why does this "sod all AC" Bakka list have so many new carriers? Give them gunships!
But not new gunships, because we just got done objecting to that! ;D
That's what they're all about. While I'm rather conservative when it comes to Bakka (the whole list should remain unofficial) if we have to ratify some extreme change I'd rather it be to crap like the Mercury/Long Serpent than yet more carriers. Not that I like that ship at all. It could simply be dropped in favour of an Overlord. Give Bakka the Dauntless, Siluria, Havoc, Viper and Dominion. Ditch the Jovian and replace the Mercury with the Overlord. The Vanquisher and Victory are fine but unnecessary. The Cardinal is complete smeg.[/color]
My thoughts are ditch Jovian (which I agree is taken too often) for Exorcist (which fits fluff more closely, and is six lbs now so it can stand in), add Cardinal, Dauntless and Enforcer (with limits), as well as firestorm and (maybe) iconoclast, and allow the 20cm ships to take a +5cm speed upgrade for a to be determined point cost increase.
Also, ditch the awkward admech rule and bring back the old FDT. Your insistence on removing FDT from regular IN, Sig, is what lead to the admech rule and some of the more complicated rules juggling that has gone on.
The 2010 Bakka list has no access to Defiants, Enforcers, Dictators, Exorcists, Mars or Oberons.
Unless you reserve them in, or use the Admech rules to take them.
-
Ok lets fix the Enforcer:
1 launch/side
2 prow torps
2 prow wbs
20cm speed
2 turret
6+ front/5+ armor
2/500 restriction
100-110 pts
Done
Now the Cardinal:
Fix the torps forward
Move the dorsal weapons batteries to a p/s mount
Add two dorsal lances @60cm
Give it a 6+ prow
Make it 235pts
Done.
If you want the option of a light carrier in Bakka then we should just allow the Defiant, were having enough trouble making it viable without bringing in another ship that similar and that is already so drawn.
If you want to add another battle cruiser then bring in the Armageddon for much the same reason.
-
If you want the option of a light carrier in Bakka then we should just allow the Defiant, were having enough trouble making it viable without bringing in another ship that similar and that is already so drawn.
If you want to add another battle cruiser then bring in the Armageddon for much the same reason.
Andrew, we have the Armageddon already under FAQ 2010. (In, IMHO, could do without it)
This is one of those ongoing things that bugs me when people start talking about changing Bakka is how many of them have little to no idea what is on the fleet list, how it plays, or what needs work.
But all of them seem to think that it needs to play exactly like every other IN fleet, despite fluff and previous lists.
Edit: Minor fluff point, but the Armada fluff for Endeavour (and, logically this extends to it's variants) specifically states it's a poor choice for anti-pirate operations, something that the fluff for Battlefleet Tempestus states is their primary occupation.
-
Right then so why do you need another battlecruiser that is so close to it in function?
You have really got to stop making assumptions about people too man keep it to the game. No one is trying to make Bakka just like the other lists. Well maybe Sig...
Heh I checked the 2010 list, never realized you could take the Geddon, but then ive always taken the Jovian or Dominion, theyre both stronger choices and theyre more needed. Thats a problem there, When your making a Bakka list you shouldnt feel like you need any AC.
-
If enough people want to add it because they just like it, they can vote it in. They don't need to argue why it should be added. If you want to argue why it shouldn't be added, you may persuade people.
But how many is enough? In the case of the cardinal Baron half jokingly asked if putting in the cardinal was too much, you answered sure and now you keep wanting me to defend why it shouldn't be included. There was no discussion much less persuasion on why it should be ADDED in the first place! That's totally backwards unless you really don't care about balance.
Vaaish, do you think that is my intention? Power creep?
I can't judge your intentions, but I can judge your actions. If you truly want balance the default stance to every new idea or ship MUST be "no, now convince me why we should do this."
-
Right then so why do you need another battlecruiser that is so close to it in function?
Different fleet dynamic. 'geddons work great squadroned with Lunars in a slowboat line of battle, where as Cardinal is best used in conjunction with light cruisers like Siluria and Dauntless, with an escort hoard, since it can keep up with them and (atm) does not need to be prow on to fire torps. But even without the torps is still pretty useful in a light cruiser and escort fleet.
But how many is enough? In the case of the cardinal Baron half jokingly asked if putting in the cardinal was too much, you answered sure and now you keep wanting me to defend why it shouldn't be included. There was no discussion much less persuasion on why it should be ADDED in the first place! That's totally backwards unless you really don't care about balance.
Vaaish, I going ot say that his reasoning is most likely the fact that bakka finalization vote ended in a draw. By his logic, more work and discussion is required. I think that this we can both understand.
So, how do we change Bakka for the better? (Aside from escorting Sig to the door and locking him outside)
-
I would like to keep it how it is and discuss the point cost of it. Different enough from the other light cruisers. What do you mean by considerably?
Probably 150-160 points for it as it stands. Most of the time the lance dauntless doesn't get to use the side WB to best advantage to use the prow lances. The enforcer lets you drop off AC inside of intercept range on a target of choice AND plonk them with 3 lances. 3x lance dauntless on LO have a fearsome amount of firepower. Now add 6x bombers to that. It's an extremely powerful combination.
-
If enough people want to add it because they just like it, they can vote it in. They don't need to argue why it should be added. If you want to argue why it shouldn't be added, you may persuade people.
But how many is enough? In the case of the cardinal Baron half jokingly asked if putting in the cardinal was too much, you answered sure and now you keep wanting me to defend why it shouldn't be included. There was no discussion much less persuasion on why it should be ADDED in the first place! That's totally backwards unless you really don't care about balance.
I also proposed what I would like to see fixed and some people were in favor of it, so why not just vote to see where people are at? Notice, no one wants to keep any of the ships as is (maybe a few people of a couple ships) but there are a lot of people who said they would be interested to work on the ship so they can be included. Vaaish, I am not asking you to defend your claim. I don't care if you defend your view. Most of my posts including you have been responding to you. Don't play the victim here. We have a disagreement on what makes something worthy of adding to BFG:R in the first place. If the majority of people want a ship to be included, it will be. If they don't, they don't That's what the votes are for. People are not voting to just add it as-is. The votes show that a good handful want to fix those ships and include them.
Vaaish, do you think that is my intention? Power creep?
I can't judge your intentions, but I can judge your actions. If you truly want balance the default stance to every new idea or ship MUST be "no, now convince me why we should do this."
I don't know how my intentions can be interpreted as power creep. Notice, I was one of the people who was voicing that I want to make sure the new Defiant stats do not step on the Dictator's toes. I also do not want any of the other ships to step on any other IN ship's toes, but rather be a different ship.
Ok lets fix the Enforcer:
1 launch/side
2 prow torps
2 prow wbs
20cm speed
2 turret
6+ front/5+ armor
2/500 restriction
100-110 pts
Done
Why force the Enforcer to be a Defiant? Why does that have to be the fix? The Defiant is a different ship. Slower, more armored, totally different prow. I just don't see why we can't keep the Enforcer as it is or similar. Why do people automatically assume it's broken?
Now the Cardinal:
Fix the torps forward
Move the dorsal weapons batteries to a p/s mount
Add two dorsal lances @60cm
Give it a 6+ prow
Make it 235pts
Done.
I would say the same things here as I would for the Enforcer.
If you want the option of a light carrier in Bakka then we should just allow the Defiant, were having enough trouble making it viable without bringing in another ship that similar and that is already so drawn.
If you want to add another battle cruiser then bring in the Armageddon for much the same reason.
I will state my argument from earlier: " My point with the IN cruisers is that there are some ships that have other ships that do the same job or are very similar. That's no reason to throw something out."
To be honest, I am not overly attached to these ships, I just don't think they should be discarded so easily. I would personally like to see them worked on but I can compromise if anyone from the opposing side wants to propose something.
-
Thats a problem there, When your making a Bakka list you shouldnt feel like you need any AC.
This is as close to the major problem as anyone has posted so far.
Previous, we had the FDT, etc, that could crank up the number of turrets high enough that we could get away with a hard limit of 3 enforcers and Exorcist as an option with the occasional Dominus Astra and still have a viable fleet.
Then 'someone' threw a fit during the FAQ 2010 process that he hated Bakka (in general) and FDT (In particular) and demanded that the HA remove it from the fleet. And did so until members of the HA started to actually get pissed off, and gave him what he wanted.
Sort of.
(And let us be reminded of the old saying 'be careful what you wish for').
Personally I'd see Jovian AND Dominion AND the Ad Mech rule GONE in favor of Enforcer at a 3 per 1k limit, the occasional reserve Exorcist, and a return to the old FDT rules. Enforcer is powerful, don't get me wrong, but with the old FDT rules it's not the mandatory selection that Jovian is.
-
Thats a problem there, When your making a Bakka list you shouldnt feel like you need any AC.
This is as close to the major problem as anyone has posted so far.
Previous, we had the FDT, etc, that could crank up the number of turrets high enough that we could get away with a hard limit of 3 enforcers and Exorcist as an option with the occasional Dominus Astra and still have a viable fleet.
In the new rules, there is a +1 turret option that helps crank up the turrets that happens to work well with the current FDT. The Admech ship brought in by reserves don't get the +1 option from Bakka, but they do get the +1 turret from Admech. FDT gives the reroll. I think that's a great mechanic.
If we end up including the Enforcer, I would like to keep it limited greatly, as I have proposed before in the 2/500pt LC limit.
Then 'someone' threw a fit during the FAQ 2010 process that he hated Bakka (in general) and FDT (In particular) and demanded that the HA remove it from the fleet. And did so until members of the HA started to actually get pissed off, and gave him what he wanted.
Sort of.
(And let us be reminded of the old saying 'be careful what you wish for').
Personally I'd see Jovian AND Dominion AND the Ad Mech rule GONE in favor of Enforcer at a 3 per 1k limit, the occasional reserve Exorcist, and a return to the old FDT rules. Enforcer is powerful, don't get me wrong, but with the old FDT rules it's not the mandatory selection that Jovian is.
I would be willing to drop the Defender if there is some way for Bakka to reliably get a FDT in the fleet. That's why I would like to give the Admech reserve ships that option.
I could see this as a possible resolution:
-drop Defender, add Dauntless (this is mainly to balance with the extra turret option being give to the Bakka fleet.
-keep Enforcer, add heavier restrictions for LC (2/500pts, +2 if you take Rath). I think this restriction is preferable to the current carrier restriction because it doesn't encourage people to take the Jovian or Dominus over the Dominion or smaller.
-no FDT option in the fleet but allow it to be taken on Admech reserve vessels by choice instead of the regularly rolled gift (...the FDT version being the new FDT version). This new FDT mechanic works well with the +1 turret option of Bakka as opposed to the old mechanic. The old FDT allowed you to add turret amounts to the amount the target ship has. This FDT does not, but allows rerolls of turrets.
-
I always liked the original Ships of Mars FDT rule.
-
I would be willing to drop the Defender if there is some way for Bakka to reliably get a FDT in the fleet. That's why I would like to give the Admech reserve ships that option.
I could see this as a possible resolution:
-drop Defender, add Dauntless (this is mainly to balance with the extra turret option being give to the Bakka fleet.
-keep Enforcer, add heavier restrictions for LC (2/500pts, +2 if you take Rath). I think this restriction is preferable to the current carrier restriction because it doesn't encourage people to take the Jovian or Dominus over the Dominion or smaller.
-no FDT option in the fleet but allow it to be taken on Admech reserve vessels by choice instead of the regularly rolled gift (...the FDT version being the new FDT version). This new FDT mechanic works well with the +1 turret option of Bakka as opposed to the old mechanic. The old FDT allowed you to add turret amounts to the amount the target ship has. This FDT does not, but allows rerolls of turrets.
Are they longer range than 15 cm? Because if they're not, it doesn't matter: ad Mech doesn't have Dauntless (in FAQ 2010) so there's no way for the FDTs to keep up with the light cruisers without defender, and even if they re-roll, most of them have a turret stat of 1-2. I can reroll that all day and it's not going to reduce enough hits to matter against Tau, Eldar, Tyranids, Segmentum Solar or Chaos, even with turret massing.
The Enforcer Bomber trick is good, if they have just one carrier/heavy missile boat (IE another bakka fleet that takes Dominus Astra). If they have more than that, your version of FDTs will not keep this fleet in the game against an AC/Torp heavy fleet.
-
The Enforcer as is should be restricted to 1 per 10.000 points, only available in battles above 5.000 points... :P
Ahem...
I mean, vs Dauntless: same points, same speed, same prow weaponry.
+1 turret (+5)
But where as the Dauntless has str4 broadsides who are only sparsely used the Enforce has two launch bays which are much more flexible, can strike in any arc, thus assisting prow on as well.
2 per 500? I'd take at least three of them.
Its point cost should clearly be at least 140 points.
-
I mean, vs Dauntless: same points, same speed, same prow weaponry.
+1 turret (+5)
But where as the Dauntless has str4 broadsides who are only sparsely used the Enforce has two launch bays which are much more flexible, can strike in any arc, thus assisting prow on as well.
2 per 500? I'd take at least three of them.
Its point cost should clearly be at least 140 points.
I was going with 3 per 1k.
And, again, if you're blowing your load doing a head on assault with it like you would a Dauntless, it's a good suicide attack, but it sacrifices WAY too much of your ability to deal with their ordinance in turn 2-3.
-
Ahem...
I mean, vs Dauntless: same points, same speed, same prow weaponry.
+1 turret (+5)
But where as the Dauntless has str4 broadsides who are only sparsely used the Enforce has two launch bays which are much more flexible, can strike in any arc, thus assisting prow on as well.
2 per 500? I'd take at least three of them.
Its point cost should clearly be at least 140 points.
OK so make it a lance dauntless with LBs instead of WBs at 140pts and restrict 2/500pt LBs. That should do it for me.
-
Actually I just had a rather simple idea: limit it to Furies. The Enforcer isn't in the fleet to be a striker, it's there as support FOR strikers. It's even reasonably fluffy as it, in and of itself, is near zero threat to ships, but does provide 'big guns' cover from AC and allow them to close.
-
I would be willing to drop the Defender if there is some way for Bakka to reliably get a FDT in the fleet. That's why I would like to give the Admech reserve ships that option.
I could see this as a possible resolution:
-drop Defender, add Dauntless (this is mainly to balance with the extra turret option being give to the Bakka fleet.
-keep Enforcer, add heavier restrictions for LC (2/500pts, +2 if you take Rath). I think this restriction is preferable to the current carrier restriction because it doesn't encourage people to take the Jovian or Dominus over the Dominion or smaller.
-no FDT option in the fleet but allow it to be taken on Admech reserve vessels by choice instead of the regularly rolled gift (...the FDT version being the new FDT version). This new FDT mechanic works well with the +1 turret option of Bakka as opposed to the old mechanic. The old FDT allowed you to add turret amounts to the amount the target ship has. This FDT does not, but allows rerolls of turrets.
Are they longer range than 15 cm? Because if they're not, it doesn't matter: ad Mech doesn't have Dauntless (in FAQ 2010) so there's no way for the FDTs to keep up with the light cruisers without defender, and even if they re-roll, most of them have a turret stat of 1-2. I can reroll that all day and it's not going to reduce enough hits to matter against Tau, Eldar, Tyranids, Segmentum Solar or Chaos, even with turret massing.
The Enforcer Bomber trick is good, if they have just one carrier/heavy missile boat (IE another bakka fleet that takes Dominus Astra). If they have more than that, your version of FDTs will not keep this fleet in the game against an AC/Torp heavy fleet.
Um, they won't keep up of you don't let them keep up. Do you deploy all your ships on a line and then advance them all max, every turn? Then yes, you are right. You know better than that. ::)
All cap ships will have at least 2 turrets and if you squadron well, you can turret mass. FDT will protect the ship with the gift a bunch and and ship with 1 turret mass and the obvious +1 turret upgrade will kill at least 1.5 additional torpedoes or LC per attack. Um, that's better than 1 fighter on cap against bombers and can be very helpful against turrets. Against combined striker, you will have a couple fighters to deal with torpedoes and then FDT + additional turret + turret massing against bombers, or the other way around. That's plenty of defense.
-
Enforcer with access to only Furies? Ok I'll bite on that.
So remove the Endeavor/Endurance and add the lance and torp Dauntless and Enforcer limited to fighters only.
Give them either the same +1 base turret (and still can take the additional purchased +1) that the Endeavors got or allow them to take the current FDT.
What ships would be left that have less than 3 turrets available outside of destroyers?
And the big question, would this be enough for you to be comfortable with no AC or at the most a small group of fighters?
Alternativly I would be just as happy if the Endavours (and varients) can take +5cm speed and +1d6 AAF in place of their 6+ prow in Bakka.
-
Enforcer with access to only Furies? Ok I'll bite on that.
So remove the Endeavor/Endurance and add the lance and torp Dauntless and Enforcer limited to fighters only.
Give them either the same +1 base turret (and still can take the additional purchased +1) that the Endeavors got or allow them to take the current FDT.
What ships would be left that have less than 3 turrets available outside of destroyers?
And the big question, would this be enough for you to be comfortable with no AC or at the most a small group of fighters?
Alternativly I would be just as happy if the Endavours (and varients) can take +5cm speed and +1d6 AAF in place of their 6+ prow in Bakka.
Enforcers with only Furies? I'm in. What price?
I'm fine with dropping the Endeavor and Endurance for the dauntlesses. If we just let them pay for FDTs and the +1 turret, that would be great. Just keep them at 1 turret in the list. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to have no AC so the current ships with AC would still be available. That would mix well with the 2LC/500pts limit too.
-
Enforcers with only Furies? I'm in. What price?
I'm fine with dropping the Endeavor and Endurance for the dauntlesses. If we just let them pay for FDTs and the +1 turret, that would be great. Just keep them at 1 turret in the list. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to have no AC so the current ships with AC would still be available. That would mix well with the 2LC/500pts limit too.
Not sure. Current price is actually a bit steep for them in that case. Hmm...
How about.. Enforcers only carry Furies but Fury Squadrons launched from an Enforcer benefit from the Resilient Special rule? Just a thought.
Endeavour and Endurance I don't really have anything against except that the +5cm speed boost is against current fluff (despite their original Bakka stats).
-
OK,
-include enforcer with only fighters (calculate points)
-keep endurance, endeavor.
-add dauntless, add FDT addition option for dauntlesses (calculate cost like it was in admech)
-drop defender
-LC limit at 2/500pts. +2 for Rath
-
But not new gunships, because we just got done objecting to that! ;D
I have no objection to new gunships. I am perfectly fine with the Victory and Vanquisher. I have objections to stupid ships with stupid rules. Unfortunately the terribad list that is Bakka is packed full of retarded ships and rules. That is why I wanted to have this list deleted in the first place. If you removed the shit ships and rules I'd be happy to see a new IN list.
Also, ditch the awkward admech rule and bring back the old FDT. Your insistence on removing FDT from regular IN, Sig, is what lead to the admech rule and some of the more complicated rules juggling that has gone on.
That horrible FDT rule should be removed from the game not just Bakka. If we have to have it at all, leave it as a seldom used oddity of a fringe fleet, not use it as a crutch to make up for the otherwise craposity of an easily fielded main IN fleet.
The 2010 Bakka list has no access to Defiants, Enforcers, Dictators, Exorcists, Mars or Oberons.
Unless you reserve them in, or use the Admech rules to take them.
Admech are Admech and have nothing to do with what Bakka has access to. If someone wanted to have above the odds AC in a "Bakka" list and went to the trouble of buying and painting Admech ships then fine, let them. As for reserves, apart from them utilising a different paint scheme also, I had already accounted for them. In a 1000 pt game you can only get a maximum of 10 AC, assuming a 2AC Defiant and/or a 6AC Exorcist. Such lists are fairly gimped anyway:
FC + RR - 75
Dominion x 2 - 520
Siluria x 3 - 300
Defiant (reserve) - 105
1000 pts
OR
FC + RR - 75
Dominion - 260
Exorcist (reserve) - 260
Siluria x 4 - 400
995 pts
Given that an ordinary IN fleet has no problems outputting 16AC at 1000 pts I think that the restrictions currently in place are fine. There's no need for Bakka to have a Jovian/Enforcer/Defiant + AC restrictions. Just simply limit the carriers in the list to the Dominion. People can then either use it or go outside the list using reserves or Admech to get their AC. Either way it is self-limiting.
-
I insist to simplify all this nonsense...
allow 0-1 jovian on bakka and none on other fleets
allow 0-1 enforcer per 2 other non-carrier light cruisers on bakka and 0-1 on other fleets
allow 0-1 defiant per 2 endeavour/endurance on all fleets...
I'm ok to allow the enforcer to only carry fighters for 110 pts...
but the defiant should be able to carry bombers...
and yes, in bakka you should be able to take 1 jovian and 1 enforcer
-
Simplest fix:
A Battlefleet Bakka fleet list is limited to 2 launch bays per full 500pts.
Done.
We don't need limits on ships (except Jovian per fluff). This version scales the best. It's simple.
Defiant: no needed in Bakka.
Enforcer: I like Andrewchristlieb's ideas on it. I would love to pursue that route. Tyberius, as a person who owns an Enforcer, I would like to hear more from you on it.
Jovian: just leave it how it is in 2010
Dominion: just leave it how it is in 2010
Dauntlesses: add them in just like they are in IN.
FDT: make it like the Admech version and allow it as an upgrade for a Dauntless like Andrew was saying.
Defender: not needed with the Dauntless FDT option.
-
This Bakka discussion is, rather unfortunately, sliding in the direction of original Bakka. That is to say, EXTRAORDINARILY CRAP. I hope I'm not being too subtle there. Let's have a look at what made Bakka so detested.
Firstly, FDTs. These are a terrible idea. Why ships can get extra turrets that have long enough range to affect bombing attacks thousands of kilometres away with no loss of performance elsewhere is a complete mystery to me. If they can do this why aren't there FDTs on every single ship in every IN/Chaos fleet? Hell, why can't the more advanced races master this technology? Why do they only fire when the enemy ordnance is in its attack run and at its least vulnerable? Why can guns with this range fire numerous times per turn? Seriously, FDTs should replace main gunnery weapons and be fired in the shooting phase, once per turn, like every other gun (15cm, 1 shot per turret, hit AC on a 4+, no effect on ships, replaces a WBs on a point for point basis for no change in cost). Then it becomes sensible. As it stands it's a horrible horrible rule.
Next up we have the oddball Jovian. It's not all that bad in and of itself, but it does alter the interfleet AC dynamic a little, it alters the feel of the IN a lot, it's hard to justify in any current IN list (given the rarity of the vessel and the mindset of those lists as yet explored) and, most importantly it's a pure carrier specifically created for a battlefleet that eschews the use of carriers! This is just mind-bogglingly stupid. Without a doubt this should not be in Bakka.
If the IN were to come out with a "gun light/AC heavy" fleet list that included things such as the Nemesis and Enforcer, sure throw the Jovian in there, lock up the list so no reserves (either way) could be taken and it'd be fine.
Next we have the uber ship, the Enforcer. Objections to this one are very similar to the Jovian but with a further objection that the ship was just too good for its price. Broken, wrong list, stupid. Moving on ...
Finally, the gagworthy Cardinal. First off, this ship is based off a very poor ship for precedent. The Acheron has issues. Sure, for its cost it's not a bad medium range brawler. However, its broadsides are woefully under-gunned and its dorsal armament is inexplicably truncated. The former issue is hand-waivingly explained but the latter is not. I can see no reason why its dorsal guns shouldn't be 60cm range, particularly given its dearth of broadside weaponry. So, an odd ship to begin with. Not only does the Cardinal copy this design it goes a step further! Having even less direct fire weaponry it has even less range! This is just inexplicable. There's very very little reason the Acheron has only 2 broadside lances, even if they are 60cm range. The Cardinal having 2 at only 45cm is just waaaay out there.
On top of this, we're looking at a Chaos hull (i.e., old style IN) practically identical to every other Chaos hull and yet it has prow torpedoes. ??? Why don't any other Chaos cruisers have torpedoes? Is this supposed to be a hybrid hull that was simply incorrectly represented in the graphic? If so, why doesn't it have a 6+ prow? That aside, why should it have torpedoes at all given that the other crossover ships (Vengeance type CGs) have nothing at all?*
On top of all of that the Cardinal has LFR torps. LFR. What the hell were they thinking? Why not have LFR torps on every torpboat since it's obviously doable. This ship is a great big stinking pile of "What!?!" It should not exist.
Then to further add insult to injury a good number of otherwise acceptable ships were simply unbalanced. The Victory was too expensive as was the Viper, albeit slightly, and the Endeavour was a bit on the "meh" side. And for a supposedly low AC fleet it had fairly easy access to it, with the Dictator, Enforcer, Jovian, an Emperor and later the Exorcist.
The legitimacy of Bakka was dealt yet another blow with the inclusion of the Invincible class BL which was, to all intents and purposes, simply an up-gunned Long Serpent, which nobody liked in the first place.
So to fix this list you have to make an awful lot of changes. These include:
- Ditching the vast majority of carriers from the fleet, including the Enforcer and Jovian.
- Ditching the horrible horrible FDT rules. Replace with option to purchase a turret on capital ships.
- Removing the Cardinal from all consideration so that your opponents aren't forced to bring a vomit bucket to game against you.
- Tweaking the remaining ships and including a few more pure gunships and escorts (Overlord, Armageddon, Havoc, Idolator, Firestorm, Dauntless).
- ... and maybe create a fast cruiser of some kind. One that isn't god awful would be a help. Which rules out the Invincible and the Long Serpent of course.
And for the love of kittens ditch the Cardinal! Just in case you were a little unclear of my opinion on this piece of garbage.
*(Note: I don't think that this should be the case but to maintain consistency we should either give the Vengeance CGs prow torps or take them away from the Cardinal.)
-
Firstly, FDTs. These are a terrible idea. Why ships can get extra turrets that have long enough range to affect bombing attacks thousands of kilometres away with no loss of performance elsewhere is a complete mystery to me. If they can do this why aren't there FDTs on every single ship in every IN/Chaos fleet? Hell, why can't the more advanced races master this technology? Why do they only fire when the enemy ordnance is in its attack run and at its least vulnerable? Why can guns with this range fire numerous times per turn? Seriously, FDTs should replace main gunnery weapons and be fired in the shooting phase, once per turn, like every other gun (15cm, 1 shot per turret, hit AC on a 4+, no effect on ships, replaces a WBs on a point for point basis for no change in cost). Then it becomes sensible. As it stands it's a horrible horrible rule.
Are you against the FDT the Admech currently have that was voted on unanimously?
-
This Bakka discussion is, rather unfortunately, sliding in the direction of original Bakka. That is to say, EXTRAORDINARILY CRAP. I hope I'm not being too subtle there. Let's have a look at what made Bakka so detested.
I am aware you think it's crap but you also think the 2010 Bakka list is crap so that's nothing new.
-
@BaronI, that resilient rule is nonsense. Having a fighter only Enforcer is a good idea. Could be priced @ 100pts.
@ Afterimagedan, 2 lb per 500 pts is more then what I field in my Imperial Navy and AdMech list. ;)
@ Sig, catch up, your concerns are valid but we are moving on and fixing crap (eg flr torps, enforcer).
-
Simplest fix:
A Battlefleet Bakka fleet list is limited to 2 launch bays per full 500pts.
Done.
While I think that Bakka should definitely be carrier light, this strikes me as too artificial a limit. It's not terrible, but we have a more organic option available.
We don't need limits on ships (except Jovian per fluff). This version scales the best. It's simple.
We don't need the Jovian. :o
Defiant: no needed in Bakka.
Enforcer: I like Andrewchristlieb's ideas on it. I would love to pursue that route. Tyberius, as a person who owns an Enforcer, I would like to hear more from you on it.
Jovian: just leave it how it is in 2010
Dominion: just leave it how it is in 2010
Dauntlesses: add them in just like they are in IN.
FDT: make it like the Admech version and allow it as an upgrade for a Dauntless like Andrew was saying.
Defender: not needed with the Dauntless FDT option.
A fighter only Enforcer ... meh. I mean, why is it limited to fighters? Why give Bakka another carrier at all? They have one. A nice lancie one. One's enough.
As for the FDT, well I would insert a step before adding the Admech FDT to Bakka. Firstly, delete the Admech FDT. Then you can add the Admech FDT to Bakka.
Defender - never needed at all.
-
Sig, perhaps you told us before but I have forgotten then, but what would be your alternate approach to FDT?
-
@ Afterimagedan, 2 lb per 500 pts is more then what I field in my Imperial Navy and AdMech list. ;)
I know and I like your style in rockin the IN with low AC. Respect. But i think this is an appropriate limit. It allows for some ordnance but that industry standard of 8 at 1500 can't be reached unless the Dominus and Rath are taken.
-
While I think that Bakka should definitely be carrier light, this strikes me as too artificial a limit. It's not terrible, but we have a more organic option available.
I think it's actually pretty organic and simple. It's no more artificial than the limits on Defiants and Endurances, limits on Battlecruisers without a certain amount of cruisers, limits on battleships. This rule represents the limited AC ships that the Bakka fleet has and gives some control to the player to pick which ships he/she wants to take. It also scales well for very large games. Plus, it makes the Jovian unusable in games below 1500.
If people would be willing to allow for the FDT upgrade for the Dauntless, I would be willing to drop the Defender and Cardinal in this list. I support where the Enforcer is going with the fighters only setup.
-
Are you against the FDT the Admech currently have that was voted on unanimously?
Yes, but it is nowhere near as bad as the old FDTs. In fact, it's more of a nomenclature issue. I don't think of these as FDTs, rather they're AA ships that have better tracking systems (a la Tau). They still shouldn't be given to Bakka though. That is AM tech. Just give Bakka cap ships the option to buy an extra turret at +5 pts per ship. It's a pretty standard sort of refit, easily imaginable for a subsector that detests carriers and very easily implemented. Certainly sufficient to requirements.
I am aware you think it's crap but you also think the 2010 Bakka list is crap so that's nothing new.
Of course I do but that's not the point. The 2010 Bakka list is still too close to the original. It still has horrible FDTs and that crappy Mercury/Long Serpent and the unnecessary Jovian. The AM inclusion rules could also stand to be dropped. Not to mention that at its time of release the Endeavour and Endurance were not properly sorted, making it a terrible list. Still nowhere near as bad as the original. A few tweaks and it's good to go.
@ Sig, catch up, your concerns are valid but we are moving on and fixing crap (eg flr torps, enforcer).
The point I'm trying to make BH is that we're backsliding. There's talk of Defenders, Enforcers, Defiants, Jovians, original FDT rules (god help us), artificial constraints on AC to make up for the number of carriers, etc. There is really zero need for all of this. Simply leave the only natural carrier as Dominion. Rath's Emperor can stay, with the same restrictions. This means it'll only ever be a character ship when you buy a pricey admiral and can't be abused in smaller games anyway.
That way people can take whatever reserve ships they want and still be unable to go AC crazy. A maximum of 63% of what a normal IN fleet can get at 1000 pts. Natural cap.
And instead of mucking about with special FDT rules, just give them the option to buy another turret for cheap. Really simple.
That handles the Bakka innate hostility towards AC. The only thing left to do is grant them a bit of speed and some gunships. For that we can start with the Dauntless, Armageddon and Overlord. For a bit of extra speed we can try to do a fix to the Mercury or something.
Way too much unnecessary fluffing about.
-
Sig, perhaps you told us before but I have forgotten then, but what would be your alternate approach to FDT?
For Admech I would replace the FDT with another upgrade entirely. For Bakka I would simply give them another turret.
I think it's actually pretty organic and simple. It's no more artificial than the limits on Defiants and Endurances, limits on Battlecruisers without a certain amount of cruisers, limits on battleships. This rule represents the limited AC ships that the Bakka fleet has and gives some control to the player to pick which ships he/she wants to take. It also scales well for very large games.
No, it's not organic at all. It's an artificial constraint. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as there are other such artificial constraints that work fine, such as CB restrictions, reserves, BBs, etc. But not having that limit and simply limiting the players choice of carrier is much more organic. Consider a scenario: you're a beardy git and you want to maximise the possible AC you can get in your 1k fleet list. Let's say you take an Armageddon fleet list with the new ship costs. Ok, so you grab an Emperor (365), 2 Dictators (420) and a Defiant (105) leaving you 110 pts for a FC and re-rolls. That gives you 18AC. Now, try it with a Bakka list. You can take 4 light cruisers and 2 battle/grand cruisers, with 1 reserve ship. So either 2 Dominions and a Defiant or 1 Dominion and an Exorcist. Either way the best you get is 10AC. That's actually only 56% maximum capacity. In an AC maximising war the Bakka fleet is shafted from the outset.
Plus, it makes the Jovian unusable in games below 1500.
The Jovian doesn't belong in the list in the first place. And if you're playing Battlefleet Bakka then you really shouldn't get to take your pick of which carrier you want. Your choices should be a) Dominion or b) reserve it.
If people would be willing to allow for the FDT upgrade for the Dauntless, I would be willing to drop the Defender and Cardinal in this list. I support where the Enforcer is going with the fighters only setup.
Ugh. Like talking to a wall. Right, so why do Bakka need a FDT at all? They have access to some AC, mitigating incoming bombers and they can have access to cheap and plentiful turrets, greatly mitigating enemy AC. Aaand they get to spend their points on more gunships, greatly blowing up enemy carriers. And again, the fighter Enforcer is problematic and really we don't need to be making Bakka immune to AC. All we need do is make playing a gun oriented fleet a viable option. Not give them an "I win" button against heavy AC fleets.
As for the Cardinal, my problems with it aside, I imagine that the call for its inclusion is due to the need for a fast attack cruiser in Bakka, to better represent the fluff, etc. Well how about this, allow bakka cruisers (not CBs) the option to drop their prow armour for -15 pts and give them +5cm speed. For Endeavours and Endurances it'd be at -5 pts and give them +5cm speed and an extra 1d6cm on AAF as well. Just a thought.
-
I dont think the core cruisers need to have a +5cm option but obviously Im in favor of the Endevour varients being able to do that or just replace them with the Dauntless varients.
I think your being a bit easy on the Cardinal. Its just all wrong, although it has some potential as scrap metal... or just different stats.
The FDT (or what ever you want to call it) is a solid mechanic and shouldnt just be trashed because you dont like the idea of it, actually now that its not the original idiotic version Im not even sure what your complaint about it is...
I do agree about the AC restrictions tho, theyre fine as is. The 2/500 idea is a bit of over kill.
-
I tend to agree with sig. in almost every point....a gun driven fleet shouldn't favour carriers.
I revised my bfg magazine #2 And the jovian doesn't even appear in the bakka fleet list...it appears in a small annex about ships of the corribra sector, along with the Orion Battlecruiser, emasculator and hecate cruisers, and apostate raider, so The jovian doesn't even belong to Bakka!!
So reviewing bakka fleet list
it has only access to 5 carriers in their entire fleet:
1 emperor (dominus astra)
2 dictators and
2 enforcers (ships designed to operate solo as imperial colonial presence)
the fd turrets as sigoroth said should be modified long range turrets
and either shoot in the shooting phase or in the ordnance phase but not both... so a ship that fires their fdt to aid another ship cannot shoot them to defend itself in the same turn and is limited for defence to his normal turrets...
the cardinal Is crap... take out torps, give it 6 prow lfr wb's....nothing more to say
demon slayer................i really don't know what to say...
the enforcer is a good ship,I have one, I use one I love it and i have played with it several times in my regular fleet, no unbalance, no complains from my partners, it dies easy and soon, it does little more than a dauntless, I want it IN.....
Bakka could include the old version non-voss endeavour 25cm speed no armoured prow but i don't see a problem on including the new endeavour- endurance but should leave out the defiant
-
the enforcer is a good ship,I have one, I use one I love it and i have played with it several times in my regular fleet, no unbalance, no complains from my partners, it dies easy and soon, it does little more than a dauntless, I want it IN.....[/color]
It is too good. However, I noticed it costs 130pts in BFG magazine and 110pts in the 2002 annual (later).
But... you could make it happen in BFG:R if you sent some castings of your voss light cruisers. Bribery is a fine mechanic. ;)
haha, lolz
-
the enforcer is a good ship,I have one, I use one I love it and i have played with it several times in my regular fleet, no unbalance, no complains from my partners, it dies easy and soon, it does little more than a dauntless, I want it IN.....[/color]
It is too good. However, I noticed it costs 130pts in BFG magazine and 110pts in the 2002 annual (later).
But... you could make it happen in BFG:R if you sent some castings of your voss light cruisers. Bribery is a fine mechanic. ;)
haha, lolz
in bfg magazine it had 4 prow lances that's an uber light cruiser!! and as soon i make some voss lc castings I will put them for sale in this forum first ,and maybe i could give away 3 for the price of 2 ;)
-
Sig, perhaps you told us before but I have forgotten then, but what would be your alternate approach to FDT?
For Admech I would replace the FDT with another upgrade entirely. For Bakka I would simply give them another turret.
I think it's actually pretty organic and simple. It's no more artificial than the limits on Defiants and Endurances, limits on Battlecruisers without a certain amount of cruisers, limits on battleships. This rule represents the limited AC ships that the Bakka fleet has and gives some control to the player to pick which ships he/she wants to take. It also scales well for very large games.
No, it's not organic at all. It's an artificial constraint. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as there are other such artificial constraints that work fine, such as CB restrictions, reserves, BBs, etc. But not having that limit and simply limiting the players choice of carrier is much more organic. Consider a scenario: you're a beardy git and you want to maximise the possible AC you can get in your 1k fleet list. Let's say you take an Armageddon fleet list with the new ship costs. Ok, so you grab an Emperor (365), 2 Dictators (420) and a Defiant (105) leaving you 110 pts for a FC and re-rolls. That gives you 18AC. Now, try it with a Bakka list. You can take 4 light cruisers and 2 battle/grand cruisers, with 1 reserve ship. So either 2 Dominions and a Defiant or 1 Dominion and an Exorcist. Either way the best you get is 10AC. That's actually only 56% maximum capacity. In an AC maximising war the Bakka fleet is shafted from the outset.
You are making a false dichotomy. It doesn't make any difference whether it is "organic" or "artificial." Who cares. There are those sort of restrictions all over this game. There is nothing wrong with a one sentence restriction, whether you want to call it artificial or not. There is no being a beardy git and stretching it. It's a cruel, hard, cold, unbending restriction; the best kind. The only reason your "organic" restriction works is because you are assuming the other carriers are not included. Either way, if you would like to put up a vote, or have me put up a vote, to keep or drop the Jovian, go ahead. That will help determine the direction of this anyways.
Plus, it makes the Jovian unusable in games below 1500.
The Jovian doesn't belong in the list in the first place. And if you're playing Battlefleet Bakka then you really shouldn't get to take your pick of which carrier you want. Your choices should be a) Dominion or b) reserve it.
Yes, in your opinion. It's just this discussion all over again. Let's vote on it and get on our way.
If people would be willing to allow for the FDT upgrade for the Dauntless, I would be willing to drop the Defender and Cardinal in this list. I support where the Enforcer is going with the fighters only setup.
Ugh. Like talking to a wall. Right, so why do Bakka need a FDT at all? They have access to some AC, mitigating incoming bombers and they can have access to cheap and plentiful turrets, greatly mitigating enemy AC. Aaand they get to spend their points on more gunships, greatly blowing up enemy carriers. And again, the fighter Enforcer is problematic and really we don't need to be making Bakka immune to AC. All we need do is make playing a gun oriented fleet a viable option. Not give them an "I win" button against heavy AC fleets.
Any discussion about Bakka we have had has been like talking to a wall. Don't think you are exempt from that Sig. I don't think the FDT addition is an "i win" button. In fact, you just demonstrated how you can work your own system to get much more AC than mine. If you want less of an "I win" Bakka fleet list, go with my "artificial" restriction. While you will be able to stretch your system to 10AC, mine will have the Bakka player at 4.
As for the Cardinal, my problems with it aside, I imagine that the call for its inclusion is due to the need for a fast attack cruiser in Bakka, to better represent the fluff, etc. Well how about this, allow bakka cruisers (not CBs) the option to drop their prow armour for -15 pts and give them +5cm speed. For Endeavours and Endurances it'd be at -5 pts and give them +5cm speed and an extra 1d6cm on AAF as well. Just a thought.
Some might like that idea.
-
On the other hand...we can make a corribra sector fleet using:
nemesis fleet carriers
emperors
exorcists
jovians
marseseseseseses
dictators
defiants
enforcers
Just kidding.. :o
-
I do agree about the AC restrictions tho, theyre fine as is.
Is this with or without the Jovian in the list? What about the Enforcer? If we have the rule that carriers are taken as reserves, you are driving people to use the Jovian. You can drop the Jovian and go the Sig route, or we can keep the Jovian and have a different way to limit carriers, mainly the 2/500 limit. What we need to figure out is if people want to include the Jovian in the Bakka list and that will help determine the approach for finishing it. Alternately, we could just stop working on Bakka altogether. It seems to pull on too many emotion strings and has some deep seated arguments and grudges surrounding it.
-
[/quote]
Alternately, we could just stop working on Bakka altogether. It seems to pull on too many emotion strings and has some deep seated arguments and grudges surrounding it.
[/quote]
I think that may be the most level-headed option thus far. We can always get back to it later. Would I be right on thinking the Bakka fluff as we know it is fan made as opposed to official? If so, why the **** are some peple arguing so vehementyt about what Bakka "should" be? It's a game involving toy spaceships, how the **** did politics even get in to it this far!? Grow up.
Baron appears to be the only one who has seriously used the Tempestus fleet in any capacity, how about we give it to him? Would you be up for that Baron?
-
Baron appears to be the only one who has seriously used the Tempestus fleet in any capacity, how about we give it to him? Would you be up for that Baron?
I'd be happy to, but appointing me alone would not be acceptable to a number of the players. If we go this way, I'd like to nominate a committee to assist me in addressing the issue:
Andrew, who does not seem to share my overall vision, but is reasonable and at no point has declared his undying hate for the list (having even, apparently, played the FAQ 2010 version a little) and maybe Tyberius, who has some love for the ships of the old list but also interested in balance.
The idea being that we put together what appears to be a working list, rather than try to compromise with a dozen competing visions of what it is supposed to be, and submit it to dan for voting. This way the list works overall as a whole rather than focusing on individual ships. Or, at least, that's the theory.
I'll throw in that it deflects the eventual blame (whether it works or doesn't) off the overall project.
For Admech I would replace the FDT with another upgrade entirely. For Bakka I would simply give them another turret.
Sig, you suggested that to the HA for FAQ 2010 and they shot it down because when they playtested it, it caused the list to fail utterly against certain other lists.
-
I do like the idea of doing a committee to resolve the bakka issue though, it should cut down on the drama surrounding it. Dragon Lord might also be a good member, I've been talking to him on DR and he seems fairly even keeled as well.
-
This is my point. These are the types of unnecessary arguments that come out in proximity to Bakka. I'm going to move on. If someone has an issue with that, please message me.
-
Dan, I sent you a PM but your inbox is full.
-
Cleared some space. Please send again.
-
Having a small group to work on the tougher nuts like this isnt a bad idea at all. It will allow the majority to continue on so were not bogged down like we are right now. One cohesive list with a clear background and a balanced fleet will be easier to do a final go over with everyone and determine what needs to be corrected if anything instead of trying to hash out one bit at a time.
-
I sent the persons involved a link to a thread elsewhere where we can all discuss it with less drama.
-
I am going to recommend a different direction. Sorry if this sounds offensive Baron or Bessemer, but I think having Baron involved and not Sig is not fair or balanced, especially with Baron leading it. We are handing the forming of this list to one side of the debate. Not a good idea. I am not against it happening, but I won't include a document in BFG:R that isn't voted in. Voted on when it's done? That would be fine.
At this point, I am thinking it would be better to not have Bakka in it, considering the nastiness surrounding it. If you guys can make a Bakka list that passes then great!
-
Dan, I'll be blunt: I made a point to include people from the other side of the fence when I named the persons involved. And as I said, we would be submitting the information to you for voting.
Sig has never made any bones about his position being that there should be no Bakka list at all
(Which is not exactly the opposite of my position.)
-
I will also be blunt: you should not be leading the committee on Bakka and neither should Sig. If anything, someone like AndrewChristlieb should be leading it or we should just continue with the voting we have so far.
How many people would like to keep voting on things on this forum? How many people would just like to stop Bakka until later? How many people want to see a committee formed? If a committee is going to be formed, we should vote on the leader.
-
I will post my final proposal of what I think we need to change about Bakka (with the 2010 version as the base).
1. Add Dauntless with FDT option
2. Put a carrier restriction of 2 launch bays/full 500pts
3. Add Enforcer with fighters only.
That's all I think it needs and it can be totally done. Some of the old ships that lots of people wanted back, scaling launch capacity restriction, still primarily 2010 list.
-
If anything, someone like AndrewChristlieb should be leading it or we should just continue with the voting we have so far.
I have no problem with andrew chairing the committee, and as you know he was one of the first people I named to it. I'll admit my views are a bit radical. It's one of the reasons that I turned down the suggestion that I do it myself completely out of hand.
As far as being 'radical' being a reason not to participate in such a committee, however...
Let me put it this way: while I'm sure many of the voters may or may not like me, or agree with me, most of them will say that I'm honest and willing to admit when someone has a valid point (I've even agreed with Sig on occasion, though I will also try to punch holes in ideas I don't like). I'll point to the fact that I was more than willing to vote for Andrew's idea for Defiant, which I fully admit was a more balanced approach than I took.
-
If anything, someone like AndrewChristlieb should be leading it or we should just continue with the voting we have so far.
I have no problem with andrew chairing the committee, and as you know he was one of the first people I named to it. I'll admit my views are a bit radical. It's one of the reasons that I turned down the suggestion that I do it myself completely out of hand.
As far as being 'radical' being a reason not to participate in such a committee, however...
i never said you shouldn't be on it. I actually think you should. I would actually prefer the discussion and voting that's happening here but people don't seem to be willing to set aside long-tern grudges and baggage.
Let me put it this way: while I'm sure many of the voters may or may not like me, or agree with me, most of them will say that I'm honest and willing to admit when someone has a valid point (I've even agreed with Sig on occasion, though I will also try to punch holes in ideas I don't like). I'll point to the fact that I was more than willing to vote for Andrew's idea for Defiant, which I fully admit was a more balanced approach than I took.
I agree with you on that Baron and I commend you for that. I have nothing against you. I just think you and some of the other members have deep-seated baggage that makes this difficult. I think most on this board have a hard time watching the same arguments happen time and time again. I value and you and Sig and others you may have had conflicts with. You all have a ton to offer. We are half way done and this is going great so far.
Personally, the process of Bakka has been draining and I have caught myself thinking "man, maybe I need a break from this whole thing." I took a break before but I don't plan to stop this process again. At this point, I am going to put up votes that will help those who are not willing to jump head-first into the arguments a voice in this process. If more people would rather see a committee, please express that here so we can make some plans.
-
As for Bakka?
Andrew + Vaaish + third person they want to include on it. Heck, I could hook them up with Bob (HA) for some additional backup.
BaronI, Sig and me should not be in that team. From various pov's, but we tree may shoot on any outcome as we like to. ;)
-
Andrew + Vaaish + third person they want to include on it. Heck, I could hook them up with Bob (HA) for some additional backup.
So, We're seeing the following nominees for a Committee:
Myself (nominated by Bessemer)
Andrew (nominated by Horizon and myself and Dan)
Tyberius (nominated by myself)
Vaaish (nominated by Horizon)
Dragon Lord (Nominated by Myself)
Any other nominees?
-
I have been somewhat out of the BFG loop for quite some time, though I expect some of the older members like Horizon, Sigoroth and Vaaish will remember me, but I'm willing to help out if I'm wanted.
Dragon Lord
-
I'm honored to participate on this comitee, I will make sure the fleet will be balanced, logical, and fluff faithful. and I guess the final work will be submitted for voting as a whole, and it can be accepted or rejected by all the community so, I don't see a problem not including bakka detractors, cause they will vote against anyway if they don't like the fleet in question... we want bakka to be.... so you all have to like it to make it happen...
-
That's why I think the voting method is better than committee, but be my guest!
-
You are making a false dichotomy. It doesn't make any difference whether it is "organic" or "artificial." Who cares. There are those sort of restrictions all over this game. There is nothing wrong with a one sentence restriction, whether you want to call it artificial or not. There is no being a beardy git and stretching it. It's a cruel, hard, cold, unbending restriction; the best kind. The only reason your "organic" restriction works is because you are assuming the other carriers are not included. Either way, if you would like to put up a vote, or have me put up a vote, to keep or drop the Jovian, go ahead. That will help determine the direction of this anyways.
No, I'm making a TRUE dichotomy. You can successfully go either the artificial route with more access to carriers or the organic route with limited access. Artificial constraints do work, we see them all over the place in BFG. However an organic restraint is better. Two AC per 500 pts is more limiting, but this limit is being imposed in order to stop Bakka players using all the carriers they have access to. Fleet defence turrets are there to make up for the harsh restrictions. There is altogether too much happening here to force a very narrow path.
It is far easier to simply restrict carriers available to the list. No basic cruiser carrier, combined with limited access to the Emperor, does that perfectly. We know that even at its most beardy it's not an AC strong fleet. That's Bakka. No more constraints needed.
Yes, in your opinion. It's just this discussion all over again. Let's vote on it and get on our way.
Why does a carrier hating sector have the only pure IN carrier? I wish people would stop voting on this crap based upon what they want and start looking at what makes sense. Let's say that the Jovian was readily available to some other list, that IN players could currently get access to this vessel. So let's already assume that it's an official ship, and we're not voting on whether or not we think the ship is ok. Under that set of circumstances would anyone really suggest it for Bakka? I think not. People currently can't take this ship, they want to, so they use the Bakka list to bring it in, because that's where it's being voted on. Ridiculous.
Any discussion about Bakka we have had has been like talking to a wall. Don't think you are exempt from that Sig. I don't think the FDT addition is an "i win" button. In fact, you just demonstrated how you can work your own system to get much more AC than mine. If you want less of an "I win" Bakka fleet list, go with my "artificial" restriction. While you will be able to stretch your system to 10AC, mine will have the Bakka player at 4.
What you're doing is trying to make Bakka immune to AC, with the "trade off" that they can't take it themselves. Bakka shouldn't be immune to AC, they should simply take a different route to protecting themselves from it. Instead of "oh shit, the enemy have a lot of ordnance, let's fight fire with fire" it should be "oh crap, lots of ordnance, let's fight fire with water, bring out the hydrocannons". Obviously the FDT is an attempt at this, but why have a special rule upgrade for certain ships based upon a restricted level of tech (we're talking Admech stuff here) when a really really simple +1 turret upgrade is all that's needed?
In short, you're being overly complex. Carrier hating Bakka has lots of carriers (why?), but oh don't worry, they're severely and artificially limited (why?) and have superior tech (why?) to make up for it.
Compare that to mine. Carrier hating Bakka has few carriers, self limiting, and get a simple defensive upgrade to make up for it. Surely that's more desirable. Surely it's more internally consistent and requires less explanation.
-
For Admech I would replace the FDT with another upgrade entirely. For Bakka I would simply give them another turret.
Sig, you suggested that to the HA for FAQ 2010 and they shot it down because when they playtested it, it caused the list to fail utterly against certain other lists.
They didn't playtest it at all. They simply ignored it and moved on. There is no way that having an extra turret on all their capital ships would be insufficient to make Bakka playable. I have played low AC fleets without an extra turret and they're perfectly viable.
-
Committee? This seems like an attempt by the crazy Bakka faction to ditch opposition by cutting out reason. If there's going to be a Bakka committee then it has to be balanced. Either put me on the committee or take Baron off it. He's a complete nutter and shouldn't be let anywhere near the business end of rule making. He'd give SMs lances ffs.
-
He feels the same about you.
So both of you won't be in the committee.
Me neither.
But all three of us may shoot at the outcome.
-
He feels the same about you.
So both of you won't be in the committee.
Me neither.
But all three of us may shoot at the outcome.
That's fine by me.
-
I agree about the Jovian, it shouldnt be an option for the Bakka list but thats where its at right now. Unfortunatly 2010 opened the door for it and now were stuck trying to reason it out. Have we considered just removing it from Bakka and moving it to another list? The Gothic sector has plenty of good options for AC and this would be a small ripple in the pool there plus someone had mentioned that originally the fluff had one of these there near the end of the Gothic war.
-
Or a Gareox Initiative Fleet List. Oh shizzles, the AC swarms. With historical scenarios.
/It would make a cool warp rift article.
-
Committee?
If by 'crazy Bakka faction' you mean 'people who want a working Bakka list' then yes. As far as 'cutting out reason' goes, as I've said, I have no issue with everyone Horizon has named thus far (we both unanimously named andrew to the list, and I feel he would make a good chairman), who I like to think are a pretty good cross section of views, and even Dan had to admit that me being on the committee was acceptable, just not in charge of it. Which I am fine with.
The only people that have insisted that I not be on it are you and Horizon. Which is hardly surprising, all things considered. I had considered turning down bessemer's nomination, but this post has definitely changed my mind.
As far as why you, personally, were not invited: obvious conflict of interest (you have repeatedly stated that you want there to be no Bakka list, which Dan has threatened if this board cannot come to some sort of consensus, meaning if you sabotage everything you get your wish).
(Though it might amuse you to learn that I actually would like to propose to the committee something like your AC restrictions, I'm not a big fan of the way the AC limits are handled either)
That's why I think the voting method is better than committee, but be my guest!
You and I and Vaaish have discussed the issues the process has had though, as well, though. This side steps some of those issues, at least in the design phase, while still allowing the community to vote on the finished product.
The Gothic sector has plenty of good options for AC and this would be a small ripple in the pool there plus someone had mentioned that originally the fluff had one of these there near the end of the Gothic war.
Yeah, originally Jovian was a Gothic Sector ship.
"the first of these Jovian class ships, the Revenant, came into operation just before the outbreak of the Gothic War and quickly made good account of itself' - BFGM 01
-
and even Dan had to admit that me being on the committee was acceptable, just not in charge of it. Which I am fine with.
Dan actually said more along the line of: if BaronI is on board, so should Sig. Thus it is either both of you or none of you according Dan.
And I actually think the latter would be the best. I mean, the first would be ...ehm... a difficult proces. ::)
-
Dan actually said more along the line of: if BaronI is on board, so should Sig. Thus it is either both of you or none of you according Dan.
That's if I was in charge. Which I'm not. (By you, me,and dan's unanimous decision, I might also add).
And I might also add that you suggested Vaaish as a viable member instead of Sig. Which seems that everyone has also agreed with.
I can't picture anyone MORE opposed to doing something 'radical' with the list than he is.
Let's look at our proposed members:
Tyberius: Has generally been above the squabbles and petty bickering of this board, and likes the old school bakka ships, but is also willing to vote against them if he feels there's a lack of balance.
Dragon Lord: Is something of an outsider to both factions, and is known to a few of us on both sides of the fence.
Vaaish: is opposed to any serious changes to the status quo.
Andrew: is a moderate and has come up with some interesting compromises in the past and is generally respected by both sides.
Myself: (we all know how I am, but...) The polar opposite of Vaaish, I like to change things, but I also think that Bakka needs to be a balanced low AC fleet.
None of the above have any baggage with one another they would be taking into the discussion, and they represent most of the posters that have experience with one form of this list or another.
Horizon, if you have a better solution to the issue of Bakka being something of a berserk button around here, I'm listening. This way every faction has a voice at the table, and it had decent odds of no one using blunt instruments on each other or storming out in a huff.
-
also think that Bakka needs to be a balanced low AC fleet.
And this is something everyone agrees on. :)
Not a single person in here wants Bakka to be unbalanced & high on AC.
It is just that there are different paths leading to the thing everyone wants.
////In a hindsight: what is actually wrong with the 2010 Bakka list? What have been the 'mistakes' by the HA?
BFG:R is about fixing. If the mistakes are localised it be easier to fix.
edit:
Horizon, if you have a better solution to the issue of Bakka being something of a berserk button around here, I'm listening. This way every faction has a voice at the table, and it had decent odds of no one using blunt instruments on each other or storming out in a huff.
The committee is a good idea for this. And Andrew is surely capable of making it fine.
But we need also to look at this by taking a step back:
What we are doing is creating (BFG:R) a fine document that has the goal to fix points & stats regarding the main rulebook, Armada & FAQ/Compendium 2010.
But it is also unofficial. And in the end one might decide to only use parts of BFG:R and not use other things.
And if someone prefers Bakka 2002 and his opponents agree: that is fine!
As for tournaments: I guess these will stick tot Rulebook-Armada-2010 anyway.
-
////In a hindsight: what is actually wrong with the 2010 Bakka list? What have been the 'mistakes' by the HA?
BFG:R is about fixing. If the mistakes are localised it be easier to fix.
Broadly: The heavy alterations of the fleet from previous versions. The fleet went from being about rapid maneuvers with LC and escorts to a somewhat ham handed attempt to hammer it into the 'line IN' mold. This lead to a 'loss of flavor' to the fleet.
Specifically: Too many special rules to try and make it balanced. AdMech and Jovian being mandatory for a competitive list. Jovian being in the list at all. Voss instead of Dauntless. Balance issues against torp/AC heavy lists.
The problem with spot fixes on this list is that it's a house of cards as stands. Trying to change it causes failures elsewhere. I think that it would be better to start over with the 'theme' and the fluff in hand and rebuild the list from there. The committee could, in theory, do it right, with actual design and playtests rather than the sprawling arguments and drama that inevitably plague changing it on this board.
-
So.. if Bakka is still problematic on so many levels, maybe it should be skipped for now, instead of halting development of BFG:R? It's just a variant In fleet after all, while other fleets deserve finishing. It could be returned to after all core fleets are done, I think.
-
So.. if Bakka is still problematic on so many levels, maybe it should be skipped for now, instead of halting development of BFG:R? It's just a variant In fleet after all, while other fleets deserve finishing. It could be returned to after all core fleets are done, I think.
I think that it would be a good idea to hand it off to the Committee. BFG:R is getting bogged down on the minutia of trying to fix Bakka, Dan has already admitted it's giving him a headache because the board really cannot seem to come to a consensus on it, and I think it would be more productive than everyone sitting around sniping back and forth at each other.
-
also think that Bakka needs to be a balanced low AC fleet.
And this is something everyone agrees on. :)
Not a single person in here wants Bakka to be unbalanced & high on AC.
It is just that there are different paths leading to the thing everyone wants.
Thank you, Horizon. People seem to think that just because we want to make the Jovian available to this fleet means that we want it to be AC heavy or even AC normal. The restrictions I proposed allow for the Jovian to be used but restrict the fleet in a hefty way. It's not squeezable because it's specific. Call it artificial; I call it precise and unbending.
Baron, I think you are trying to use a few of my statements against my position. I am against the committee. I have no problem with you guys getting together and talking about the fleet and proposing a fix, but that's what has been happening on the boards already. Don't feel like you have been commissioned or nominated because Bessemer mentioned you are a possible committee leader of a possible committee. I like ya man, but it was quite weird how you took it and ran with it based on one subtle comment.
-
If by 'crazy Bakka faction' you mean 'people who want a working Bakka list' then yes.
No, I mean people that want Defenders, Enforcers, Jovians, FDTs and any other lunatic idea they can fit into a fleet.
As far as 'cutting out reason' goes, as I've said, I have no issue with everyone Horizon has named thus far (we both unanimously named andrew to the list, and I feel he would make a good chairman), who I like to think are a pretty good cross section of views, and even Dan had to admit that me being on the committee was acceptable, just not in charge of it. Which I am fine with.
This is not a good cross sections of views.
The only people that have insisted that I not be on it are you and Horizon. Which is hardly surprising, all things considered. I had considered turning down bessemer's nomination, but this post has definitely changed my mind.
And I still insist. One person insisting should be enough.
As far as why you, personally, were not invited: obvious conflict of interest (you have repeatedly stated that you want there to be no Bakka list, which Dan has threatened if this board cannot come to some sort of consensus, meaning if you sabotage everything you get your wish).
You want to know why I hate Bakka so much? It isn't because of the fluff. It isn't because IN don't particularly need another fleet list. I'm fine with that. It isn't because I don't want a balanced Bakka list. It's because there were sooooo many horrendous rules and stats released with Bakka that it was impossible to "fix". It needed to be started over and given that people see something they like and don't want to lose it it becomes impossible. FDTs for example. People see it, they want it, it's therefore impossible to fix. This rule, in either its original form or its AM redesign, should not be in Bakka. It's silly.
If we can get people away from the glut of terrible rules/ships then I would be very happy to see a working balanced Bakka list come out.
(Though it might amuse you to learn that I actually would like to propose to the committee something like your AC restrictions, I'm not a big fan of the way the AC limits are handled either)
By my "AC restrictions" you actually mean none, right? I'm sure you'd include Enforcers, which would make a mockery of the "restrictions" I proposed.
-
That's why hard restrictions are better if any of those carriers are included.
-
Or a Gareox Initiative Fleet List. Oh shizzles, the AC swarms. With historical scenarios.
/It would make a cool warp rift article.
You know, that wouldn't actually be a bad idea. This is the sort of AC heavy IN list I was talking about. Closed off, no reserve vessels to or from other lists. Load it up on Nemeses, Emperors, Mars, Dominions, Jovians, Exorcists, Dictators and Enforcers. Give it some token escorts and sod all else.
////In a hindsight: what is actually wrong with the 2010 Bakka list? What have been the 'mistakes' by the HA?
BFG:R is about fixing. If the mistakes are localised it be easier to fix.
Actually the 2010 Bakka list was a big step forward. It still contained too many rules that made the list broken though. The Endeavour and Endurance had problems of course, since they did in any list, and the Siluria is really quite weak for its cost (don't know why they increased it), Rath is too expensive (a common problem with FCs) and the Mercury was ... odorous.
These were all small problems though. The major problems were: 1) the FDTs were still a part of the ruleset; 2) the Jovian was still allowed in this list (quarantined as it was) and; 3) the AM were too freely allowed in.
They did do some good though. There was no Defender, no Enforcer and no carrier below the level of CB. The Victory and Vanquisher profiles were better and the Viper was brought down in price from its adjusted cost of 45 pts previous. The Havoc was a nice addition, and I like the 2010 rules for it better than the BFG:R rules. They had the option to increase buy an extra turret on cap ships for +5 pts. Lastly, they also ditched the Cardinal and Daemonship of course. Their omission was a big addition to the list.
What I would do to fix the 2010 FAQ Bakka list is use the updated Endeavour/Endurance profiles, drop the Siluria's cost back down to 90 pts, ditch the Mercury in favour of the Overlord, drop the FDTs and AMs and also put the Jovian on the back-burner for some other appropriate list.
That fixes all the crappy rules and ships and self-limits Bakka's AC. The only thing left to address is their focus on anti-piracy rather than line of battle style. As suggested earlier, some sort of prow armour/speed trade-off is my idea for that. Something that can be done across the board and doesn't involve some oddball blow-itself-up ship like a Long Serpent/Mercury or the piece of crap that was the Invincible.
Having said that the BFG:R Invincible wasn't too bad, though I would leave the prow torps at 6, not 5. Don't get why it's 5.
-
That's why hard restrictions are better if any of those carriers are included.
Not better, necessary. Of course, those ships are unnecessary to begin with, and so therefore so are hard restrictions. Bakka really really really doesn't need carrier colour. If anything they're a bit bland in their gunships, simply because the suggested options (Long Serpent, Mercury, Invincible, Cardinal) have all been just so bad.
-
That's why hard restrictions are better if any of those carriers are included.
Not better, necessary. Of course, those ships are unnecessary to begin with, and so therefore so are hard restrictions. Bakka really really really doesn't need carrier colour. If anything they're a bit bland in their gunships, simply because the suggested options (Long Serpent, Mercury, Invincible, Cardinal) have all been just so bad.
Yes, better, because they cannot be sneaky gitted out of. Anyways, I am not arguing that your way of restricting is bad, in fact it works quite well for the most part. I am saying that if the Jovian and Enforcer are included, which the votes are starting to show, then the 2/500pt LB restriction limits their use. Exactly what you have been saying.
-
If we can get a group together to talk this through while we move on Im all for it. I agree with a lot that has been said here especially that Bakka needs a clear foundation and direction, not just a bandaid. No offense ment to anyone but I also agree that Sig and Baron have a bit too much interest in this to make objective decisions. Im not saying you guys wouldnt be a great help with your personal views and input, just that if anything you two would be best used as more of a sounding board on anything that may be objectionable or out of character for the list.
Dan I know your against this right now but this list doesnt have the benifit of the stability that the other lists weve been working on have. I dont think it will hurt anyones feelings if we step back from Bakka for the time being and focus on some of the other pieces and hopefully we can come up with some sweeping solutions that will ease the tensions when we come back to it for voting.
-
Good call. Just place bakka in the fridge for now.
-
Alright, ,gets let these votes finish and then we can work on new stuff. Dark Eldar next.
-
Yes, better, because they cannot be sneaky gitted out of.
Not better. Having a very strict 2/500 like you're saying will guarantee that the Bakka player takes 2 per 500. It makes for less play room and more identical lists. This sort of limit or something like it will be necessary if the out-of-character Jovian and Enforcer make it into the list. But people should be looking at themselves hard though if we're seeing those ships being voted into Bakka.
On the other hand, if we just had the Dominion and nothing else and the Bakka player used reserves to get upto 10 AC at 1000 pts then it's possible that the Bakka player will have more AC than their opponent, but it's not likely and they can't do it as well as other lists. This is pretty much what you'd expect, a left shift for the Bakka bell-curve such that there's still overlap, i.e., where the higher AC Bakka lists have more AC than the lower AC non-Bakka lists, but not as much on average.
This sort of flexibility should be allowed where possible.
-
You point out the flaws in your own argument. You acknowledge that a Bakka player can have 10ac at 1000pts, which is why your method is obviously flawed and you call it "flexibility." You are having to bully people out of allowing the Jovian and Enforcer to make it work and everyone sees it. I would much prefer to limit people to 2/500pts which they will most likely max out if it keeps them from squeezing the not so restricted version. I can't believe I am arguing against Sig for harsher restrictions and less flexibility for carriers in Bakka. :D
-
And I still insist. One person insisting should be enough.
It that were true, you've have been banned on this board years ago. So would I, come to think of it.
It's because there were sooooo many horrendous rules and stats released with Bakka that it was impossible to "fix". It needed to be started over and given that people see something they like and don't want to lose it it becomes impossible. FDTs for example. People see it, they want it, it's therefore impossible to fix. This rule, in either its original form or its AM redesign, should not be in Bakka. It's silly.
Then read some of the things I have in mind rather than jump to conclusions. Though I *do* support it having certain silly ships you do not like, Jovian is not one of them.
If we can get people away from the glut of terrible rules/ships then I would be very happy to see a working balanced Bakka list come out.
Well, it depends on what you mean by terrible rules/ships, but that is actually pretty close to what I had in mind.
By my "AC restrictions" you actually mean none, right? I'm sure you'd include Enforcers, which would make a mockery of the "restrictions" I proposed.
Actually that has not been decided yet. We really need to look at what ships would go into it and how best to balance it. I think that Jovian needs to go, but how to balance the AC issue I'm not entirely sure. That was one of the reasons that I like the committee idea is that there are other people who have other takes on the idea.
No offense ment to anyone but I also agree that Sig and Baron have a bit too much interest in this to make objective decisions. Im not saying you guys wouldnt be a great help with your personal views and input, just that if anything you two would be best used as more of a sounding board on anything that may be objectionable or out of character for the list.
*shrug* Actually it should be apparent that I'm quite capable of making dispassionate decisions about the fleet list.
What I can't make a objective decision about is suggestions and positions espoused by Horizon and Sig, because I feel that I absolutely cannot trust them in any situation that involves game design as far as Bakka is concerned. No matter how innocuous, there's this nagging sensation that it's some sort of trap that I'm just not seeing.
-
You point out the flaws in your own argument. You acknowledge that a Bakka player can have 10ac at 1000pts, which is why your method is obviously flawed and you call it "flexibility." You are having to bully people out of allowing the Jovian and Enforcer to make it work and everyone sees it. I would much prefer to limit people to 2/500pts which they will most likely max out if it keeps them from squeezing the not so restricted version. I can't believe I am arguing against Sig for harsher restrictions and less flexibility for carriers in Bakka. :D
This isn't a flaw, it's the beauty. Bakka fleet lists will have, on average, less AC than other lists. A beardy player playing Bakka cannot get more AC out of it than he could any other list. At most a Bakka list could get 10AC out of 1k whereas a normal list could get 18AC. So on average, less AC. At the most beardy, a lot less AC. This is perfect. The fact that at its most beardy it can have more than someone else bringing a medium amount is fine.
Hell, even with your method a Bakka player could bring 4AC at 1k points and their opponent could choose to field none. So what then? You going to put in a rule saying they can only bring in AC if their opponents have more?
As for bullying people out of the Jovian and Enforcer, well the Jovian simply shouldn't be in this list. At all. No way should anti-carrier Bakka get the only IN pure carrier available.
As for the Enforcer, assuming that we could get that ship balanced without invalidating other ships, I could see it being used in Bakka, as a reserve. I'm sure it would do fine on lone patrols, providing logistical support to planets and guarding against raiders and whatnot. However they'd be few and far between and they'd also be the least likely to answer a call to muster a battlefleet, since they'd be indispensable in their current roles. So it could be available as a reserve. But if it's going to be a reserve ship then there's no need to put it in the Bakka list, just put it in another list and Bakka can just reserve it in like any other ship. It's not needed here.
-
Ok, here's the link.
http://darkreign.org/forum/index.php?topic=5901.0
-
It that were true, you've have been banned on this board years ago. So would I, come to think of it.
Rubbish. I'm questioning your competency at making reasonable and reasoned rules, not your right to spew forth your crazy ideas. I'm not even being unreasonable in my objection either, if it were up to you SMs would have lances.
Then read some of the things I have in mind rather than jump to conclusions. Though I *do* support it having certain silly ships you do not like, Jovian is not one of them.
The Cardinal is worse than the Jovian.
Actually that has not been decided yet. We really need to look at what ships would go into it and how best to balance it. I think that Jovian needs to go, but how to balance the AC issue I'm not entirely sure. That was one of the reasons that I like the committee idea is that there are other people who have other takes on the idea.
And what I don't like about the committee idea is that it's stacked with people that like a lot of the horrendous crap that came from original Bakka of which you're the worst. If you're ideas are similar to mine and I should just give them a go, proving that you're so reasonable and whatnot, then I should be on that committee with you. We're coming up with "similar" ideas after all. If yours aren't unreasonable then ergo mine aren't either. I doubt that ideas are like mine though, as I'm sure that the man that suggested a 4AC, 4T +1 on RO Defiant even after all the discussion saying why it couldn't be so has little in the way of reason.
So either we're both similar and reasonable and therefore just as eligible to join the committee or we're not similar at all and the committee could do without either of us.
No offense ment to anyone but I also agree that Sig and Baron have a bit too much interest in this to make objective decisions. Im not saying you guys wouldnt be a great help with your personal views and input, just that if anything you two would be best used as more of a sounding board on anything that may be objectionable or out of character for the list.
*shrug* Actually it should be apparent that I'm quite capable of making dispassionate decisions about the fleet list.
All my decisions are objective. They're not "dispassionate", but they're objective. If I have an intense dislike for something (such as the Defiant for example) I'll list my reasons for it. My original suggestion regarding the Defiant was to bin it. There were so many problems with it that it wasn't worth fixing. However, people wanted to do so anyway. So, a HUGE amount of discussion later we have a ship that 75% of people are 60% happy with. Fine, it'll do.
Case in point, the suggested 2/500 AC limit. Sure, it'll work. It won't be very fun. It's not terribly elegant. But it'll work. So why do I "passionately" push the alternative? Because the alternative is more elegant. It's also the simplest method. So objectively, the method I am suggesting is simply better.
If we are absolutely resolved to give Bakka a variety of easy to acquire carriers then we are forced to use an alternative method of restriction such as the 2AC/500 pts. It's not as elegant. It's clunky and it doesn't explain why Bakka has to have these carriers. {Note: since this seems to be the assumption and the point of contention can we get a justification of these carriers in Bakka?}
It is similar with the FDT. This is AM tech that can't be maintained by IN ratings and so requires a closer than usual relationship with the AM (hence the close ties in the 2010 version). A much simpler thing to do would be to just go with a straight forward easy to do refit that can be handled "in house" by the IN, i.e., a turret upgrade. So why would Bakka want to put themselves in bed with, and at the mercy of, the AM to get a FDT when a turret upgrade would do? This doesn't make sense.
Of course, a potential answer could be that they are so gimped that they absolutely need this on top of the turret upgrade. Well I don't think this would be the case if we just removed the 2AC/500 limit and simply avoided giving them an unrestricted carrier. So this suggests that people are trying to deliberately gimp Bakka so much in order to justify including this rule.
It's like doing 6 different things to achieve an outcome that can be done with 2 things. Both will get the same result but one takes more effort, is more convoluted and harder to understand the reasoning.
What I can't make a objective decision about is suggestions and positions espoused by Horizon and Sig, because I feel that I absolutely cannot trust them in any situation that involves game design as far as Bakka is concerned. No matter how innocuous, there's this nagging sensation that it's some sort of trap that I'm just not seeing.
I don't doubt you feel this way. It's because you have agendas and so expect others to have them too. I, on the other hand, just let the rules I espouse speak for themselves. Hell, I even try to spell out all the possible consequences such as in the TTS discussion.
My objections to Bakka are simply rooted in the over-abundance of pure horrible, and the amount of work that would be needed to fix it. Exactly like the Defiant. What we came up with for the Defiant is ... meh. It'll do. Mind you, I actually think that Bakka has more potential than the Defiant. The Defiant was screwed no matter which direction we turned, it was too tightly hemmed in. There is potential in Bakka to make a reasonable and themed list, I just don't see it happening due to people's love for the crap that holds it back.
-
Rubbish. I'm questioning your competency at making reasonable and reasoned rules, not your right to spew forth your crazy ideas. I'm not even being unreasonable in my objection either, if it were up to you SMs would have lances.
My position was and still is that if they're going to have them, they should balanced the same as every other weapon, and not written to deliberately punish the player for taking them. Making noob traps and deliberately bad options is not good game design.
The Cardinal is worse than the Jovian.
That's quite an assertion.
And what I don't like about the committee idea is that it's stacked with people that like a lot of the horrendous crap that came from original Bakka of which you're the worst. If you're ideas are similar to mine and I should just give them a go, proving that you're so reasonable and whatnot, then I should be on that committee with you.
So either we're both similar and reasonable and therefore just as eligible to join the committee or we're not similar at all and the committee could do without either of us.
*sigh* Fine, get someone (besides Horizon) to nominate you, and I withdraw my objection. I'll add though that the first outburst from you and I won't save you from the mods either. You will be on your best behavior or I will let Kage2020 feed you into a chipper shredder.
It is similar with the FDT. This is AM tech that can't be maintained by IN ratings and so requires a closer than usual relationship with the AM (hence the close ties in the 2010 version).
Minor detail, that's not official fluff, that's what the HA came up with to explain their compromise between previous rules and your demand for total removal.
I don't doubt you feel this way. It's because you have agendas and so expect others to have them too. I, on the other hand, just let the rules I espouse speak for themselves.
Considering how many times you've been dressed down by others for bullying, or that fact I get fan mail from several people now every time I stand up to you...
There is potential in Bakka to make a reasonable and themed list, I just don't see it happening due to people's love for the crap that holds it back.
I think that a certain amount of compromise is possible. However, I also hold up that I can generally disagree with others without calling the things they like 'crap' or otherwise disparaging them.
-
In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.
Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.
-
In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.
Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.
He's arguing just to argue at this point. Hell, I just agreed with him and he tried to pick a new fight about agreeing with him.
-
In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.
Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.
He's arguing just to argue at this point. Hell, I just agreed with him and he tried to pick a new fight about agreeing with him.
I never said he isn't a bully or argumentative.
-
That's not to say that I don't respect the hell out of him.
-
I never said he isn't a bully or argumentative.
Yeah, he was the number one objection from the Admins at Dark Reign when I pitched the idea of holding the committee meetings there rather than here. Which is what that link is, btw. I set up a special thread in DR's BFG section for the committee to hold meetings someplace the mods were not involved in the debate.
If Sig tries the same crap there that he does here, Kage2020 will be on him like the white on rice.
-
And will stop you when you for doing the same? Pick somewhere neutral.
-
BaronI,
did you just give a head start or did you enter the commitee?
I mean, we nominated people, right? Is that voting?
-
And will stop you when you for doing the same?
Yes, actually. Not that I would. Unlike Horizon here, I lose money as well as respect if I act like a jerk. Losing an entire paycheck does put one on one's best behavior.
BaronI,
did you just give a head start or did you enter the commitee?
I mean, we nominated people, right? Is that voting?
*shrug* I invited everyone that got nominated to that thread to share their thoughts on the issue, I'm sure all of us have ideas on how to fix it. At the time, I had thought the issue my membership settled, but I can see that's not the case.
In the interest of openness though I also posted the link here, so that if anyone has any question about the process, they can examine the record themselves.
Edit:
At Dragon Lord's suggestion, I'll decline the nomination on the stipulation that Sig also is not a candidate.
-
In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.
Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.
I agree about the jovian.
I Don't agree to disregard Sigoroth opinions, they are logical, informed and wise most of the time (when he's not being rude).
Me, being an imperial "I want all those pretty ships in my fleet" freak I curiously always seek for sig's opinions to make me put my feet on the ground.
I respect him as one of the most wise critics in this forum, so I'm so grateful to have him as the wall where we're all crashing when we get rules that might otherwise make this game a crap like warhammer 40k...
-
In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.
Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.
I agree about the jovian.
I Don't agree to disregard Sigoroth opinions, they are logical, informed and wise most of the time (when he's not being rude).
Me, being an imperial "I want all those pretty ships in my fleet" freak I curiously always seek for sig's opinions to make me put my feet on the ground.
I respect him as one of the most wise critics in this forum, so I'm so grateful to have him as the wall where we're all crashing when we get rules that might otherwise make this game a crap like warhammer 40k...
Tyberius, please re-read what I said. I am not calling for anyone to disregard Sig's perspectives, I am calling for and end to the argument. It's over. Please let it be.
-
In would be willing to move the Jovian to the Gothic sector list, 0-1.
Sig, we won't be agreeing on this restriction stuff so let's just stop.
I agree about the jovian.
I Don't agree to disregard Sigoroth opinions, they are logical, informed and wise most of the time (when he's not being rude).
Me, being an imperial "I want all those pretty ships in my fleet" freak I curiously always seek for sig's opinions to make me put my feet on the ground.
I respect him as one of the most wise critics in this forum, so I'm so grateful to have him as the wall where we're all crashing when we get rules that might otherwise make this game a crap like warhammer 40k...
Tyberius, please re-read what I said. I am not calling for anyone to disregard Sig's perspectives, I am calling for and end to the argument. It's over. Please let it be.
Sorry, I wasn't quoting you about sig, I was talking in general, I'm not even taking part on the actual discussion, if it's over is over, This was only my opinion about a member of the board. let's move on...
-
Ok, my bad. :D
-
My position was and still is that if they're going to have them, they should balanced the same as every other weapon, and not written to deliberately punish the player for taking them. Making noob traps and deliberately bad options is not good game design.
The solution then is obvious; don't give them any at all.
The Cardinal is worse than the Jovian.
That's quite an assertion.
I'm glad you think so.
Minor detail, that's not official fluff, that's what the HA came up with to explain their compromise between previous rules and your demand for total removal.
Yes, you're right, that is just what the HA came up with and is not "official". However I think you seriously overestimate my influence on the HA. I think the hardest thing they had to cope with concerning me was how to ignore me politely. The did a stellar job.
But even if my role as agent provocateur did cause this shift in thinking, is it unreasonable? We're talking a level of tech not enjoyed by regular IN. The only example outside of the IN that is close is the Tau. If we're not talking Bakka being in bed with the AM then how are they managing it?
Considering how many times you've been dressed down by others for bullying, or that fact I get fan mail from several people now every time I stand up to you...
Haha, fan mail. Priceless. Anyway, you avoided the issue raised, which is your agendas. You do have them, I do not. I merely have a process.
As to my bullying ... Well, I can see how it comes across like that. What I actually want is reasoned responses to the points I raise. I will very often go through a very well thought out argument, raising counter-arguments and in turn countering them. I then post it and wait to see what I have missed, what the rest of the community will point out to me, only to then have my post either summarily ignored or countered with arguments I've already raised and countered. So when I "bully" people, it's actually an effort to get them to acknowledge and account for the argument I have raised. If they don't then there is no way to move forward.
For example, the "no unrestricted carriers + turret upgrade" vs "2AC/500 + carrier variety + FDT (+ turret upgrade?)" issue has, eventually, boiled down to the desire for carrier variety. Now I'm just waiting on a reason for the inclusion of said carriers into Bakka (may be posted but I haven't read that far yet). But this got bogged down because I was not getting the right responses. I had already provided grounds for why I think Bakka shouldn't get a lot of different carriers, why I thought the FDT was bad and what I disliked about a rigid AC restriction. In return I had only had explanation of one of the alternatives (ie, dislike of the notion that a Bakka player could still get a moderate amount of AC). Why we needed the FDT and how it can be rationalised have not as yet been provided. Why Bakka needs a variety of carriers and/or access to unrestricted carriers has not yet been provided (so far as I've read today).
So yes, until I get all the answers I need I'm going to keep beating my head against a brick wall and I'm going to keep "bullying" people into accounting for my arguments. This is a matter of process though, not agenda. My one and only agenda came in the form of MMS Eldar and that is far more about fixing a terrible game mechanic than anything else. The Eldar from that document still do not come close to the Eldar of my agenda.
I think that a certain amount of compromise is possible. However, I also hold up that I can generally disagree with others without calling the things they like 'crap' or otherwise disparaging them.
I can't. I've got Crap Tourettes. If I see crap I just automatically scream it out. As for compromise, the only possibility is on assumptions, not argument.
-
Yeah, he was the number one objection from the Admins at Dark Reign when I pitched the idea of holding the committee meetings there rather than here. Which is what that link is, btw. I set up a special thread in DR's BFG section for the committee to hold meetings someplace the mods were not involved in the debate.
If Sig tries the same crap there that he does here, Kage2020 will be on him like the white on rice.
I don't even know anyone on DR. :o It seems my reputation precedes me, heh.
At Dragon Lord's suggestion, I'll decline the nomination on the stipulation that Sig also is not a candidate.
That works for me.
Though looking over that starting list of ships you posted, you already know I object vehemently to the Cardinal. You might be interested to know that that's the only objection I have. I haven't seen your rules proposals of course, and needless to say I anticipate a lot of objection there. I'm fine with the Emp/Oberon swap and lighter restrictions. I'm fine with the Vengeance (Avenger? ... one of them).
I Don't agree to disregard Sigoroth opinions, they are logical, informed and wise most of the time (when he's not being rude).
Nonsense! They are logical, informed and wise even when I am being rude!*
*Note: as always smileys can be taken as implied, even where absent. Inclusion of smileys does not in anyway imply that an absence of smileys should be taken as serious bzns. Sigoroth corporation limited reserves the right to somethingorother. This somethingorother changes depending upon the situation including, but not limited to, the post hoc insertion or deletion of smileys. Somethingorother is a registered trademark of Sigoroth corporation limited.
Me, being an imperial "I want all those pretty ships in my fleet" freak I curiously always seek for sig's opinions to make me put my feet on the ground.
I respect him as one of the most wise critics in this forum, so I'm so grateful to have him as the wall where we're all crashing when we get rules that might otherwise make this game a crap like warhammer 40k...
Aw, I'm gunna cry. While being critical is in my nature it's odd to be considered a bastion of conservatism. :o Just ask Bob Henderson whether or not I'm conservative.
-
1. So who exactly is on the committee?
2. Why not have CyerShadow set up a hidden dev board for the committee here? This will let the committee work without interruption and prevent people from forming opinions on docs that aren't ready to be reviewed.
-
Everyone who got nominated is in the team (except baron I). Thus you as well.
It can be found on the previous page, baronI posted a link.
-
I notice that you guys are after more gunship ideas, including in the BB category. What about the fixed (Plaxor's BFG:R) Invincible fast battleship?
-
Ok, I'd still recommend a private dev forum then to help focus the committee. It will give a clean slate and let us work in peace rather than having the general public getting riled up about concepts or ideas that might not even make it to a final document.
-
Thanks Sig the Invincible is along the lines I was thinking, fixed of course!
-
Ok, I'd still recommend a private dev forum then to help focus the committee. It will give a clean slate and let us work in peace rather than having the general public getting riled up about concepts or ideas that might not even make it to a final document.
*shrug* You'd have just as big a potential for drama if it's super secret as you do if it's in the open. At some point the information comes out since it still has to be voted on. Since the mods here and the mods there are of one mind, apparently, on any further 'drama' surrounding this, I don't think there's any major concerns.
-
With the divided list tempers do seem to have cooled a bit.
-
1. So who exactly is on the committee?
2. Why not have CyerShadow set up a hidden dev board for the committee here? This will let the committee work without interruption and prevent people from forming opinions on docs that aren't ready to be reviewed.
I would be happy to do this if requested.
-
So yes, until I get all the answers I need I'm going to keep beating my head against a brick wall and I'm going to keep "bullying" people into accounting for my arguments. This is a matter of process though, not agenda. My one and only agenda came in the form of MMS Eldar and that is far more about fixing a terrible game mechanic than anything else. The Eldar from that document still do not come close to the Eldar of my agenda.
I think that a certain amount of compromise is possible. However, I also hold up that I can generally disagree with others without calling the things they like 'crap' or otherwise disparaging them.
I can't. I've got Crap Tourettes. If I see crap I just automatically scream it out. As for compromise, the only possibility is on assumptions, not argument.
This is exactly what I am talking about Sig. This is saying "yes, I can come across as a bully, but I'm not a bully, I just do bully-ish thing." You aren't going to get more debate form me because I am just indulging you. I feel as if I have given good reason to what I have proposed, even if you haven't accepted it. I have acknowledged that your arguments have validity, but this isn't about one being objectively true or objectively false. This is a preference issue and game mechanic issue about who thinks which of two different methods work better. We don't need to go further on this, Sig, and I don't want to keep building up tension between us, so I am going to let it go.