Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on March 27, 2013, 08:00:33 PM
-
Add this rule to the Battlefleet Bakka fleet list:
"A Battlefleet Bakka fleet list is limited to 2 launch bays per full 500pts. If Lord Admiral Rath is taken in your fleet, you may add 2 to this total."
-
What are the alternatives?
2 per 750? ::)
-
Are you thinking 2/full750?? ???
-
It was half kidding as I know most will go by this or non-restriction, but yes 2 per 750, 4 per 1500. +2 with Rath is fine then.
But what about the Emperor then. ;)
-
2/500 makes the Emperor possible with Rath at 1500.
-
This is how the 2/500pt rules look in my mind as far as fluff goes:
"Despite the varying but limited carrier ships in Battlefleet Bakka's retinue, they rarely come together for joint combat actions. Because of this, a Battlefleet Bakka fleet may only have 2 launch bays in their fleet per full 500pts."
-
I'm confused about the Ralth rule. He allows 4ac per 500 is present?
-
I'm confused about the Ralth rule. He allows 4ac per 500 is present?
Rath is only in 1500pt+ fleets and adds +2 to the launch cap limit.
-
I tend to think the AC restriction could be better implemented by restricting access to the carriers themselves rather than a direct launch bay limit. Same end result I suppose though.
-
I don't agree to artificially limit launch bays on any fleet I vote NO
not in bakka not ever.....
bakka's outcome is yet to happen... the fleet will auto limit its AC in a natural and uncomplicated way...so no need for this...
-
It won't be limited enough with the Enforcer and Jovian passing. I don't want to rehash this Tyberius, so I won't continue to argue with you. Sig and I are trying to let the argument go, so please don't bring it back up with a post like that.
-
Hey Dan,
but voting is almost equal (and I didn't vote), you really call the discussion closed?
I know you want to move on, that's cool, it is in a way your protocols and call. Just say it is your decision to implement that way and done with it.
-
Um, ok so I'm a little confused here. I am trying to end the discussion because we have been publicly reprimanded for arguing as intensely as we have been. That's why I am asking for the discussion to be over with. People can keep talking if they want; I'm not going to be a dictator. Don't I have the right as a board member, like everyone else, to ask for a discussion to be over with? I just felt like even with all this reprimand and me obviously trying to pull away from a debate with Sig, it was sort of crappy of Tyberius to burst into it again with such a potent post. I am not against him saying anything, but that post needed a response.
-
Shall we close this paticular voting thread then? All Bakka threads? The committee started its work.
-
Leave them be. It may turn out that the committee's work isn't accepted, then we need these.
Also, since most people are on the same page with two lists, I am hoping to committee will be willing to work on the board so that everyone gets their voice heard on this.
-
Leave them be. It may turn out that the committee's work isn't accepted, then we need these.
I would have thought the committee's work should be recursive, so that if their first proposal is rejected, they would tweak or revise their proposal, until they arrive at one that can pass the vote.
-
They certainly can keep trying until it works. Whats the sense in stopping these votes though?
-
Um, ok so I'm a little confused here. I am trying to end the discussion because we have been publicly reprimanded for arguing as intensely as we have been. That's why I am asking for the discussion to be over with. People can keep talking if they want; I'm not going to be a dictator. Don't I have the right as a board member, like everyone else, to ask for a discussion to be over with? I just felt like even with all this reprimand and me obviously trying to pull away from a debate with Sig, it was sort of crappy of Tyberius to burst into it again with such a potent post. I am not against him saying anything, but that post needed a response.
I voted and I gave my opinion, sorry for the crappy feeling.
Again I am not reviving any old discussion...I think this was the first time I made a potent statement about this matter, is not my intention to make trouble but to reach agreement.
I said bakka fleet will auto limit its ac, cause in the comitee, we already discussed that the jovian will not pass, and the emperor will be replaced by the oberon, so I guessed there will be no need for this kind of restrictions.
-
They certainly can keep trying until it works. Whats the sense in stopping these votes though?
I know you want to keep the votes for the record. Just asking what you think the role of the committee is. I'm glad you agree with me about it - they should be allowed more than one shot at getting it right, before we fall back to these votes (let's hope that wont be necessary).
-
No one called for a committee. Baron just started it. Basically they are just coming together as a group to give their best crack at Bakka and then proposing it here to be voted on, all the while excluding the voices of everyone else.
-
The committee is fine, I was just more baffled that being nominated automatically meant to be in it. But that's okay, the people in it are capable enough.