Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: AndrewChristlieb on June 12, 2013, 02:21:02 AM
-
Dan has asked me to post up the proposed Bakka changes. A little background here. Dragon Lord, Tyberius, Vaash and I have been working in the background to try and go through the several iterations of the Bakka list in order to get together a list that eliminates or fixes some of the many issues people have had while trying to steer the list towards the given fluff for the sector and create a unique twist on the standard IN fleet style.
Ship list and changes:
Escorts:
Havoc, Sword, Firestorm, Viper no change in stats
Light cruisers:
Siluria, 2 turrets instead of 1, remains 100 points
Dauntless, Endeavor, Endurance each receive +1 turret at 5 points over BFG-R base.
Cruisers:
Lunar, Tyrant, Gothic each receive +1 turret at 5 points over BFG-R base.
Battlecruisers:
Cardinal, 200 points.
8 hits, 25cm speed, 45* turns, 2 shields, 5+ armor, 3 turrets
Port/ Starboard 2 lances 45cm range r/l
Dorsal 2 lances 60cm range r/f/l
Prow 6 weapons 60cm range r/f/l
Mercury, 260 points.
8 hits, 25cm speed, 45* turns, 2 shields, 6+ front/5+ armor, 3 turrets
Port/ Starboard 8 weapons 60cm range r/l
Dorsal 2 lances 60cm range r/f/l
Prow 1 Nova 30-150cm range f
May replace prow nova with str 6 torpedoes -20 points. Equipped with targeting matrix base. Always counts their hits as 12 when determining the to hit dice for a plasma drive overload or warp drive implosion. The Fluff Idea behind this is that the ship is an advanced progression of the Overlord class fitted with battleship power reactors and all the fancy new doodads that the Overlord gets as optional upgrades (+1 turret, Targeting Matrix).
Battleships:
Retribution, Victory, Vanquisher all BFG-R base
Emperor, 0-1 and may only be included if Rath leads the fleet (removed the option to take an Emperor as reserves)
Fleet list:
Fleet Command:
Fleet Admiral, Admiral, Solar Admiral all per BFG-R.
Rath, BFG-R stats but restricted to fleets over 1000 points.
Re-rolls, Secondary commanders per BFG-R.
Capitol ships:
Battleships 1 may be taken for each full 750
Battlecruisers 1 may be taken for every 3 cruisers/light cruisers
Cruisers 1 may be taken for every 2 light cruisers
Light cruisers 0-12
Escorts:
standard, any number in groups of 2-6
Ordinance:
standard
Reserves:
Due to Battlefleet Bakkas relatively low priority they require 4 of any given ship type (battleship, cruiser, escort) to take 1 reserve.
Notes:
Imperial ships with 6+ prow armor may take a prow ram +5 points.
All Imperial ships may take an additional +1 turret for +5 points.
Admech, FDT, and any carrier options were removed from the base list.
Dan has mentioned allowing Admech reserves at the standard 1 for every three other ships and to keep it so they don't disengage when crippled.
-
I like it. I think the 4:1 reserves thing makes sense considering Bakka's approval rating with Adeptus Terra... The 1 cruiser per 2 light cruisers hit me hard at first but really, you can take 2 light cruisers which allows you to take 1 cruiser, which altogether allows you to take a battlecruiser. Not so bad. Also, the 1/750pts battleship seems to encourage the battleships being taken and allows you to count escorts toward battleships. That's pretty cool. I plan on running this Bakka list with two battleships: probably a Victory and a Retribution.
One thing Andrew and I talked about through email is that cruisers can actually be taking 2 turrets more than the original vessels. That threw me off at first but honestly, it seems about right for so heavily restricting ordnance. You basically have to play some pretty big games to get 1 launch bay cruiser.
I like this list a lot and actually have nothing bad to say about it. You have my vote!
-
Looks great!
The one thing I will say though is the Battlecruiser selection seems limited, and one of them is a very expensive BC at that. What happened to all the Dominion Class? Though they distrust AC, the fluff has a bunch of these on Bakka. Maybe a 0-2 Choice?
Maybe add the Avenger or Vengeance GC as a choice in the Battlecruiser slot. They definately fit in with the Big Gun Lobby idea. The Imperial GC didn't exist at the time of the creation of the original BFB otherwise I think they would have been added. Think about it: Vanquisher BBs are old and were recommissioned to cover losses after the Battle of the Circle. Why would they not also reactivate old Grand Cruisers that had been mothballed. (maybe even make it a cruiser slot choice, as they may have been reactivated as replacements to cover losses for just basic cruisers) Could also be restricted 0-1 or 0-2... though now I am starting to talk about alot of special circumstances/restrictions
This list makes me wish I owned more light cruisers.
-
Hi,
The restrictions are a good idea. It will give you many light cruisers in a way to reflect a fast response fleet.
Just for clarity, this is a legal fleet:
2x Dauntless
1x Lunar
1x Mercury
<some escorts to make it at least 750pts for bb requirement>
1x Battleship
And with those 4 cruisers in place I can add a reserve vessel.
The Cardinal: am I missing a set of port/starboard weapons? Only 2 lances per broadside seems weird.
The extra base turret + optional turret will make good AC defence.
-
Hi,
The restrictions are a good idea. It will give you many light cruisers in a way to reflect a fast response fleet.
Just for clarity, this is a legal fleet:
2x Dauntless
1x Lunar
1x Mercury
<some escorts to make it at least 750pts for bb requirement>
1x Battleship
And with those 4 cruisers in place I can add a reserve vessel.
The Cardinal: am I missing a set of port/starboard weapons? Only 2 lances per broadside seems weird.
The extra base turret + optional turret will make good AC defence.
The two per side thing on the cardinal is from the original. They swapped out the prow torpedoes for prow WB and the dorsal wb for dorsal lances, so overall roughly the same FP as the original IMO.
I would think the broadside would be stronger too though. A BFGR Slaughter outguns the Cardinal. Sure less range, but this is still 20pts more expensive and if it operates at range, it is harder to hit targets with the WB.
Looking though the Acheron is roughly equipped the same. Just different ranges. However, the Acheron is 10 pts cheaper and its lances are at longer ranges, which don't suffer from being at Range.
IMO the design concept for the cardinal is fine, but comparing it to the Acheron, it is overpriced.
-
Horizon, the Cardinal is 2 per broadside. The reason for this is that the ship ship is far inferior to the Armageddon which is priced at 235 and it shouldn't be lower than 200 since you run into IN cruiser territory. If you give the Cardinal three lances per broadside and split the dorsal lance strength you end up with a ship that is far superior to the gothic with 4 lances per side at 45cm and the dorsal WB.
Two lances gives you a ship that isn't as good as an armageddon and superior in range to the Gothic but that shouldn't make either useless.
On your list, I believe that is legal, however your reserve ship would still be subject to the restrictions in the list and you don't have a slot open for another cruiser or battlecruiser so you'd need to reserve in a CL or take two additional CL before pulling in the reserve ship.
-
Ya the Cardinal swaps the 45cm dorsal/prow and the 60cm broadsides of the Acheron for 60cm dorsal/prow and 45cm broadsides. Ive found this actually complements it better in its primary support role. Of course its an anomaly having this ship in an IN list and I think that played some small role in the decision to price it @200.
I have had some pretty good luck running a core of 2x Endeavor supported by a Gothic and a Cardinal with 2x Silurias as a flanking/ support group. Playing around with this has really opened me up to the different options for combining CL groups and a cruiser for support.
I may have worded the battleship section incorrectly. We were looking at giving people the ability to have one battleship unrestricted per 750pts. So you could do say a battleship, a couple light cruisers and some escorts in a 750, or two battleships in a 1500, etc.
-
Ah so, so I could start off with a battleship, then start adding the others.
I need to run it in theory somewhat because this means it is very easy to field 2 battleships in 1500pts. I'll come back to that in how it relates to other IN.
///
Did a build of two battleships, with max cruiser:
Fleet Adm
Vanq+Vict
4x Siluria
2x Lunar
Dropping the Vict to a 2nd Vanq opens up some more space to upgrade Silurias to Dauntless.
///
no issues!!
Vaaish, thanks on the reserves, you are right. I approve of the list building in general (just checkin the bb some more.
-
There seems to be some good consensus about this list so far. I will put up a vote for it within a few days.
-
I'm surprised Sig hasn't been by to rip it up yet, or perhaps he just doesn't even want to bother with it at this point :)
I'll be curious about his and baron's viewpoints.
Gothmog: the lack of carriers was 100% intentional. The line of thought was that any carrier added to the list would automatically be chosen in every fleet. Removing them entirely means you can only pull in carriers via reserve which seems more fitting to show the distaste for carriers in Bakka. That means you need 4 silurias before you can pull in a dictator or 800 points spent to pull in two. In higher point games this won't be quite as limiting but in low- standard point games you won't likely see many carriers unless your opponent REALLY wants them at the expense of just about everything.
You are correct on the price of the Acheron compared to the Cardinal, however the cardinal is in an IN fleet where it requires a different price point to fit as a cheap CB without it making other IN cruisers obsolete.
-
That's okay.
As for the Cardinal though, it makes sense, but I still feel 190 would be a better price point. But I would still vote yes for this.
Any thoughts on the Grand Cruisers? Right now the only fleet that can take them standard are Bastion Fleets. And I don't think Corribra can take them either. I feel the Avenger and Vengeance fit in with the fluff as I described above and are a great choice for smaller games that may just not fit a BB (500pt) or Cruiser Clashes.
-
Ok, I hate the Cardinal. I have issues enough with the Acheron being so undergunned, particularly as it should have at least 60cm range dorsal lances. This thing is an Acheron with bumped prow/dorsal ranges (fine) at a bumped cost (fine) but has even weaker broadsides. Not fine.
The Mercury is an Overlord with +5cm speed for 5 pts less? What? Oh, it blows up big. That's not a downfall. Park it in the middle of the enemy fleet and dare them to shoot it.
Overlord with targeting matrix and extra turret: 245 pts
Mercury with torpedoes: 240 pts
-
Gothmog: the lack of carriers was 100% intentional. The line of thought was that any carrier added to the list would automatically be chosen in every fleet. Removing them entirely means you can only pull in carriers via reserve which seems more fitting to show the distaste for carriers in Bakka. That means you need 4 silurias before you can pull in a dictator or 800 points spent to pull in two. In higher point games this won't be quite as limiting but in low- standard point games you won't likely see many carriers unless your opponent REALLY wants them at the expense of just about everything.
Yes, good job imo.
Grand Cruisers: I think adding the Vengeance and/or Avenger won't hurt the list. Perhaps they fall into the Battleship restriction (1 CG or BB per full 750pts).
///Acheron:
for 190pts you get the best mid-range gunnery cruiser Chaos has. Nothing undergunned about it. If it had 60cm the points should be upped to 200pts. But then it'd be a no-brainer in any Chaos fleet.
///Cardinal:
I see the design idea. But when Sigs says twice fine and once not fine it is +1 fine vs Acheron which I think is a great vessel. Not bad. ;)
-
///Cardinal:
I see the design idea. But when Sigs says twice fine and once not fine it is +1 fine vs Acheron which I think is a great vessel. Not bad. ;)
Well I have a different system of scoring, whereby they have to be all fine. So one fail is a complete fail. However, if we're talking number of faults here, let me add another. The Acheron was supposed to be a unique design. Very rare. And yet this Cardinal is practically identical (slightly better actually). This is not fine.
As for the Acheron being the best mid range bruiser Chaos has, this is true. It is also a good ship for its cost. However, consider a Carnage upgraded to a CB (ala Lunar > Armageddon) through the addition of 2L@60cmLFR dorsal for +30 pts. Significantly better focusable firepower than the Acheron at 15cm, 30cm and 60cm, roughly equivalent at 45cm and superior offside firepower (offside range being negligible). Even at +20 pts it'd pretty much invalidate the Acheron (price being the only true advantage of the Acheron).
-
Sig: what would you propose about the broadsides on the cardinal then? Giving it three lances makes it a gothic with the torpedoes traded for WB.
The Mercury isn't any more likely to explode than any other CA now, it just has a bit stronger explosion if it does. I think you are exaggerating the effect of driving it into the middle of a fleet and having it shot up. There's a lot of things that have low probability of happening if you try to plan on the thing blowing up. Price wise, I would see it more at 270 points.
Horizon: I don't think we really talked about CG in the list. Our goal was to focus it more on the CL and low AC. I don't think either the Vengeance or Avenger would be a problem, but would it be any better than as reserves now?
-
Ok, I hate the Cardinal. I have issues enough with the Acheron being so undergunned, particularly as it should have at least 60cm range dorsal lances. This thing is an Acheron with bumped prow/dorsal ranges (fine) at a bumped cost (fine) but has even weaker broadsides. Not fine.
Its not ideal, but then it really shouldnt be an ideal pick. I could see it with shorter ranged and stronger strength but then its really getting close to the Gothic.
The Mercury is an Overlord with +5cm speed for 5 pts less? What? Oh, it blows up big. That's not a downfall. Park it in the middle of the enemy fleet and dare them to shoot it.
Overlord with targeting matrix and extra turret: 245 pts
Mercury with torpedoes: 240 pts
The "exploding" but isnt intended as a downfall just a nod to the fluff and the original rules. By removing the crap where the chances of it blowing are increased this drops right back to the standard equally bad for both players that catastrophic damage is anyway. The problem with the original rules was just as you said, it was far too easy to aaf this to the center of the enemy and let it die, chances were that it wouldnt be left as a hulk.
Good call on the Overlord, we had discussed it at a higher cost but it really doesnt seem worth an increase in price. I would be fine with dropping the torpedo option and leaving it Nova only. Overlord (220) + turret (10) + Matrix (15) + speed (~5) + non optional Nova (10). How does everyone feel on that?
Grand Cruisers: I think adding the Vengeance and/or Avenger won't hurt the list. Perhaps they fall into the Battleship restriction (1 CG or BB per full 750pts).
Vengance or Executor would be more fitting than the Avenger imo, if they were added I would want to lean towards allowing one for every three cruisers or light cruisers tho.
-
If we put the CG in, just put it in under the regular CB slots they normally take and be done with it. No need to get fancy with it :)
If you drop the torpedoes on the Mercury the issue should go away. Why were they there in the first place again?
-
??? I never liked how it broke the mould of a ship upgrading to the Nova, same for the Victory.
-
Sig: what would you propose about the broadsides on the cardinal then? Giving it three lances makes it a gothic with the torpedoes traded for WB.
The Mercury isn't any more likely to explode than any other CA now, it just has a bit stronger explosion if it does. I think you are exaggerating the effect of driving it into the middle of a fleet and having it shot up. There's a lot of things that have low probability of happening if you try to plan on the thing blowing up. Price wise, I would see it more at 270 points.
Horizon: I don't think we really talked about CG in the list. Our goal was to focus it more on the CL and low AC. I don't think either the Vengeance or Avenger would be a problem, but would it be any better than as reserves now?
I get what Sig is saying. It isn't that the explosion is a big plus, it is that it is not a downside. However, his observation about it being the same cost as an overlord is valid. The BFG:R overlord is 220, 245 fully upgraded. The Mercury is 260. So it is 15 points more HOWEVER if you remove the Nova Cannon it is only 240, which is 5 points less for a ship with the same weapons and +5cm speed and no real disadvantage
I wouldn't remove the option to change out the NC for torpedoes since torpedoes are such a characteristic IN thing and this list actually hurts for them. If you did that it would be a lot of low torp CL and 2 BC with NO torpedoes, and even if you add GC they have no torpedoes. Maybe bump up the cost either 10 points. BUT if everyone is okay with having a IN fleet with a low torp count... It would justify the switch to vipers for escorts. Maybe drop the Sword for the Falcion as well, especially since you already have Havocs which fill that role AND falcions are suppossed to be similar to Endeavours, which the list is heavy on.
-
As for the GC, not the exorcist. That would break the no inherent carriers. If that was the choice, why not just include the Dominion since it is in the original fluff anyways.
I would say Avenger, Vengeance or Executor. Vengeance is the best balanced of the choices, with the mix of weapons. I feel the Avenger and Executor are better fits though. Honestly, I think the Avenger is the best fit, but you could put both the Vengeance and Avenger in. Makes up for the lower than average ship selection options and 4:1 reserves rule without breaking the list. I would shy away from the Executor. While it would be nice and can make sense from a fluff perspective, it could be abused as a Native of the BFB list, and be taken as reserves in other IN fleets, without having to be subject to "Strange Happenings"
-
Gothmog, I'm not sure where exorcist popped up, if I mentioned it as a potential, it was my mistake. I would leave it at the Vengeance and/or Avenger. Lots of people have either of those two, but the executor isn't very popular being part of the chaos fleets where better options are available. With the lack of new models, lets not make it harder for people to use the list :)
-
Bakka is fine with torps considering torpedo dauntlesses are readily available. Let's not forget the Viper.
-
I agree.
-
I rarely play bakka with out a few vipers, theyre super :).
-
Gothmog, I'm not sure where exorcist popped up, if I mentioned it as a potential, it was my mistake. I would leave it at the Vengeance and/or Avenger. Lots of people have either of those two, but the executor isn't very popular being part of the chaos fleets where better options are available. With the lack of new models, lets not make it harder for people to use the list :)
I may have misread Exorcist when I read executor. Doesn't matter.
I would leave it at vengeance and/or avenger too. Preferably "and" IMO.
-
On further thinking about the CG, do we really want 4-5 turret CG running around? Bakka would have the natural +1 turret and the option for a second. At the very least you'd have 4 turret CG which might be a spec much in the CB slots where the other options are 200 points and 260 points.
-
On further thinking about the CG, do we really want 4-5 turret CG running around? Bakka would have the natural +1 turret and the option for a second. At the very least you'd have 4 turret CG which might be a spec much in the CB slots where the other options are 200 points and 260 points.
Why do they need to receive the +1 turret benefit. They are quick reactivations to cover the losses after the battle fo the circle. They had no time to be refit with +1 turret. Leave them base as is.
-
The ability to add +1 turret is fleet wide for bakka, I'd rather see the CG not added than add exceptions to rules. Exceptions just breed confusion. If we think that 4 turret CG are too much, then leave the CG as reserves. It doesn't hurt the list for the CG to not be available naturally as part of the list.
-
You can already get a 4 turret lunar. What's wrong with a 4 turret vengeance?
-
The extra shields hits and firepower make CG's a tougher nut to crack. Three turrets already makes them fairly resistant to AC, adding a 4th or 5th might be too much.
-
Sig: what would you propose about the broadsides on the cardinal then? Giving it three lances makes it a gothic with the torpedoes traded for WB.
I say take a leaf out of the Executor's book and go 2@45cm and 2@30cm. For a bit more character you could put the prow guns at 30cm ala Devastation/Slaughter. Make it a real mixed up design, explaining its lack of favour amongst current fleets.
As for the comparison to a Gothic, well we are also talking faster and without prow armour. This is an old style ship (ie, Chaos) ship after all. It would seem to fit with Bakka too, being a ship bristling with guns, focussed upon the broadside strike and with a hodgepodge of ranges. Strikes me as reminiscent of the chaos of ship design at the turn of the 19th-20th century when big guns were in vogue, ships were ever changing and often included a mixture of old and new weapons on the one ship and fleet tactics weren't yet nailed down.
Presumably in this case it would be the shorter ranged weapons that were the newer ones, rather than the longer ranged ones, since technology in the Imperium is on the decline, but the analogy is still sound.
-
Sig that sounds really cool.
I dont see a problem with the grand cruisers having 4 turrets, thats kind of the midline here, battleships can have 5-6 after all an they're much more imposing.
-
Regarding CGs in Bakka, well I think that the Avenger would probably be ideal for this fleet, exemplifying both the big guns that the lobby was famous for as well as justifying the backlash against them (it's too slow, too short ranged, can be outclassed by AC, etc).
As for the turret issue, well I have always argued that the solution to having no carriers was to allow more turrets. Others have argued that this was not enough and we needed convoluted (and rubbish) FDT rules and dedicated fleet carriers (Jovian) and whatnot. It's strange to see the argument now that extra turrets is actually OP.
Nevertheless, it may be the case. However, I notice that you did not boost the base turret level of the battleships or escorts, only the cruisers and light cruisers. Presumably you could also elect to not boost the base turret level of the grand cruisers.
Also, you have the rule "all ships may purchase an extra turret for +5 pts". This seems to include escorts, which I would personally exclude from this. So I'd adjust it to read "all capital ships ...", etc. A further adjustment could be "all light cruisers, cruisers and battlecruisers may purchase ...", etc. This would further limit the Bakka dominance over ordnance if this is perceived to be too strong. Of course, it would allow for 4 turret cruisers and battlecruisers while allowing only 3 turret grand cruisers. Not to mention that battleships would have no further protection than cruisers against bombers in this case.
Alternatively, you could alter the rule to say that CLs, CAs and CBs can buy a turret at +5 pts and CGs and BBs can buy one at +10 pts. This would at least make those more durable ships pay for their protection.
-
I say take a leaf out of the Executor's book and go 2@45cm and 2@30cm. For a bit more character you could put the prow guns at 30cm ala Devastation/Slaughter. Make it a real mixed up design, explaining its lack of favour amongst current fleets.
As for the comparison to a Gothic, well we are also talking faster and without prow armour. This is an old style ship (ie, Chaos) ship after all. It would seem to fit with Bakka too, being a ship bristling with guns, focussed upon the broadside strike and with a hodgepodge of ranges.
You'd have no issues with an IN cruiser sporting 5x lances per side (splitting the dorsal)? I know it's an older design, but that seems a tad excessive when IN battleships barely support 6 per side.
Alternatively, you could alter the rule to say that CLs, CAs and CBs can buy a turret at +5 pts and CGs and BBs can buy one at +10 pts. This would at least make those more durable ships pay for their protection.
Sig, the CG's base turrets are 3, purchasing the extra turret would take them to 4 turrets and if we increased their base to 4 turrets, they would max out at 5. My primary concern is the extra turret on the vengeance. The extra turret would be less of an issue on the avenger since the ship is forced to get into 30cm range and lacks the prow armor.
-
You'd have no issues with an IN cruiser sporting 5x lances per side (splitting the dorsal)? I know it's an older design, but that seems a tad excessive when IN battleships barely support 6 per side.
Weeeeell, the Executor sports 12 in total. We are talking mostly short ranged too.
Sig, the CG's base turrets are 3, purchasing the extra turret would take them to 4 turrets and if we increased their base to 4 turrets, they would max out at 5.
Yeeees ... what about my previous post makes you think I didn't know any of this? This is why I suggested not increasing their base turrets as you've done to the cruisers and either disallowing the purchasable turret or increasing its cost to 10 pts (for CGs and BBs).
My primary concern is the extra turret on the vengeance. The extra turret would be less of an issue on the avenger since the ship is forced to get into 30cm range and lacks the prow armor.
Right, the reason I suggested the Avenger is because of its shortfalls.
-
I've been advocated primarily for the Avenger from the beginning as well. I think both would be nice, but not neccessary.
I agree wtih the +10 points for BB and CG to get an extra turret. And I don't think CG should have their base turrets increased either (it wasn't done for the BBs)
-
Weeeeell, the Executor sports 12 in total. We are talking mostly short ranged too.
The Executor is also a chaos CG with limited availability in the IN fleet. The cardinal is a full IN CB that any IN fleet list can use via reserves. IIRC i remember ages ago someone tried to do a CB version of the gothic and that proved a bit much, wouldn't that effectively be what you are hitting at?
Yeeees ... what about my previous post makes you think I didn't know any of this? This is why I suggested not increasing their base turrets as you've done to the cruisers and either disallowing the purchasable turret or increasing its cost to 10 pts (for CGs and BBs).
Your previous statement seemed to imply that 3 turrets was the max the CG could get after adding an extra turret.
-
Well the Avenger is about the furthest from a "big gun" grand cruiser you can get but if its the fan fave i say go for it, id still keep the Vengance too tho if theyre added.
On the turrets I would think keeping them all the same price would be best. At 10 points per ship or escort squadron theres only one ship i would feel is getting screwed and thats the Dauntless (125 pts just to get three turrets is O_o). I would not leave out the escorts tho, if anything theyre the ships that would be most commonly refitted in such a way.
-
The Executor is also a chaos CG with limited availability in the IN fleet. The cardinal is a full IN CB that any IN fleet list can use via reserves. IIRC i remember ages ago someone tried to do a CB version of the gothic and that proved a bit much, wouldn't that effectively be what you are hitting at?
Yeah, pretty much. However, if I recall the putative Gothic CB was 45cm broadside. However, that aside (as I'd likely have objections even at only 30cm) I think the main difference is that this is an older style ship, not a newer one. It should even predate the Executor. I don't really have an objection to the IN getting access to this many lances. My only objections to this sort of thing lies in the current IN capabilities. Do you have objections based on faction rather than style?
Your previous statement seemed to imply that 3 turrets was the max the CG could get after adding an extra turret.
Ah, no, I was saying that if you opted for not autobumping the base turrets and not allowing an optional upgrade it would be a bit odd having 3 turret CGs and potentially 4 turret cruisers.
-
@AndrewChristlieb
I think the suggestion was that bonus turrets would be +5 pts for escorts/cruisers, +10 pts for grand cruisers/battleships since they're comparatively harder to kill.
I'd support bringing Avengers and Vengeances into Bakka out of mothballs with 3 turrets, upgradeable to 4. 4 upgradeable to 5 might also not be too bad, but it might be easier to test the lower quantity first, and see if they need more after some play-testing.
It would fit a late 41st Millenium plot point for lore, certainly; after Hive Fleet Behemoth, Bakka scrambles to rebuild their strength by mass-producing light cruiser hulls and bringing back their mothballed grand cruisers to fill in for lost battleships.
Edit: I'm that case, I misunderstood you, and I understand your reasoning there now. Didn't think it was worth adding another post to the thread to say that though.
-
Ya i got that, still with the majority of the ships at 3 turrets I think the push to 4 would be fine at 10 for all of the capitols. This fits the established upgrade cost. 10 for an escort squadron also works well, 5/ escort is excessive for larger squads and fits the potential direction for escort upgrades in the other lists.
-
Do you have objections based on faction rather than style?
Partly faction and partly with regard to the other ships the IN has available. We'd discussed the Cardinal with three lances per side instead of two but I believe that too closely overlaps the Gothic while generally being superior due to the increased range and ability to focus firepower to a degree while offering basically the same armament. It also comes close to the armageddon and I'd prefer to see the ship fit between the gothic and armageddon rather than overlap.
With the stats you've put on it, I'd definitely go for a couple fast CB that can focus 10 lances per side total coring an enemy fleet on lock on. Anytime I see a ship like that I'd immediately put at the core of my fleet and take as many as I can, I get very wary of the ship being too strong. That's what those stats do for me.
It would fit a late 41st Millenium plot point for lore, certainly; after Hive Fleet Behemoth, Bakka scrambles to rebuild their strength by mass-producing light cruiser hulls and bringing back their mothballed grand cruisers to fill in for lost battleships.
Just a note, since Bakka is a big gun fleet, is there any indication they ever mothballed the CG? The might just have easily brought them against Behemoth and lost them.
regardless, despite my love for the Vengeance, I can't advocate pulling it into Bakka. I think it complicates the turrets more than necessary and the list doesn't NEED the ship. What I can say is that we can add the Avenger with the default turrets and leave the additional turret rules alone. 5 points seems to have worked for both battleships, cruisers, and escorts just fine since the 2010 list and the fleet now relies on them more than ever.
If everyone is happy with that, lets call the list good for the time being and vote on it.
-
10 for an escort squadron also works well, 5/ escort is excessive for larger squads and fits the potential direction for escort upgrades in the other lists.
I really don't think this is a good idea. Too variable. A full escort squadron gets 6 turrets extra for a little under 2 points each while a smaller squadron of three pays around 3.3 points for the same upgrade. less utility but more points is never a good route to go.
-
Isnt that better than paying 30 points for that same benefit in a group of six that an escort in a group of three pays 15 points for? Forgiving the odd torp salvo that might get multiple ships your only going to be using one extra turret at a time, its not like all 6 turrets are going to stack.
-
It is better in that it is CHEAPER, but no, it's not better for the game. A squadron of three should pay less because there are fewer ships that gain the benefit. You can't guarantee that a squadron will receive the exact same benefit regardless of the number of ships present. The whole situation is backwards to how the purchasing mechanics for BFG operate in ever other case I can think of.
-
GC aren't in the fluff for the original Bakka, but you have to take that with a grain of Salt since the original Bakka list was written before the vengeance was even thought of.
I wouldn't be upset with just the Avenger, but I'd like the vengeance too. I feel you are slightly overthinking/over reacting to the turrets, but that may be just my personal bias on it too.
As well I, the other reason I think both would be nice is that there is currently only 1 list that has GC in them, and that is the Bastion fleet list. It would be nice to see that option elsewhere and I feel this is thematically the best place for it. And it just seems odd from a fluff perspective that only the Avenger is in use in Bakka, and not the Vengeance as well.
BUT if no one else feels this strongly, I'd vote for it with just the Avenger.
-
Ideas on the table:
-adding 1-2 GCs
-changing the turret upgrade to 10pts (considering there are integrated +1 turrets for capital ships)
Anything else?
I think Bakka shouldn't get all the GCs because it seems like the Bastion fleet is their home and one of the primary bonuses of the Bastion fleet. The Bastion fleet represents "Battlefleeets Cadia, Agripinaa, Scarus and
Corona, in particular." So, the Bastion fleet represents a pretty sizable amount. Bakka can bring them in a reserve ship. I think it would be better to keep them at that arms length.
The turret upgrade, which is essentially a 2nd additional turret, has replaced the ability to easily take a launch bay cruiser. Now, any type of carrier is really hard to get, beside the Emperor with Rath (which is really expensive). That second turret primarily helps them against bombers but actually isn't super effective against most things, especially against Necrons (who turrets don't matter against), the Eldars (turrets only hitting on 6+). Keeping the turret upgrade at 5pts seems fine.
-
I think +5 points is good for the turret upgrade, but +10 points on BB/GC
-
From what I can tell, BBs are not allowed to take that upgrade. If GCs are included, I don't see why it should be 10pts instead of 5pts. Cruisers and GCs will both have 3 turrets in Bakka and I don't see a reason to price them differently, that's if the GCs are included. I think leaving it how it is now is the best option. No GCs in the list (to allow that to continue to be one of the reasons to take a Bastion fleet) and no additional turret upgrade option for BBs. What do you guys think?
-
That's fine with me; leaving them out means they're still possible as reserves in big games anyhow, just makes them rare.
-
Dan: I realize the summary at the start of the thread just hits highlights, but the document that Andrew put together for the fleet list has the turret available to any imperial ship for +5 points. The intent was that any ship could add a turret.
This follows the pattern of the 2010 FAQ bakka list here, albeit allowing the upgrade for escorts:
"Bakka- any capital ship of Battlefleet Bakka can add +1 turret to its profile for +5 points. This upgrade does not count against refits ships can take normally."
-
Ah OK, My assumption is that the BBs won't have an integrated additional turret considering they can buy one?
-
Well, with the focus shifted to light cruisers as the -base- even with the requirement of four instead of three the typical price has dropped some.
I wont cry if the escorts lose the option to take extra turrets either but it makes sense that they would have the option, although I don't think I've taken any with extra turrets while testing.
The only ships with the integrated turret are the basic cruisers and light cruisers.
-
From what I can tell, BBs are not allowed to take that upgrade. If GCs are included, I don't see why it should be 10pts instead of 5pts. Cruisers and GCs will both have 3 turrets in Bakka and I don't see a reason to price them differently, that's if the GCs are included. I think leaving it how it is now is the best option. No GCs in the list (to allow that to continue to be one of the reasons to take a Bastion fleet) and no additional turret upgrade option for BBs. What do you guys think?
I say 1 GC in the list. Leaving them only in the Bastion list leaves them to languish. I guess I go with Avenger, so it isn't a MUST TAKE choice, but still a fluffy and viable option. And since it doesn't come with the integrated extra turret, I don't think it is "broken". Just gets +1 turret for +5 points like the rest of the fleet.
Would prefer also allowing the vengeance since the Bastion fleet has other advantages to Bakka (access to carriers, access to Chaos ships, veteran Captains), but wouldn't be upset if it didn't happen
-
But see the advantages you listed already have a counterbalance. Veteran captains counterbalance the -1 Ld, carriers are counterbalanced by the Bakka turret bonuses, and the Bastion access to Chaos ships is the same as any other IN fleet. If you compare the Bastion fleet to other IN fleets, the GCs are one of the primary perks of using their fleet. Gothic sector has the Dominator, Armageddon has SM stuff. Most of those bonuses aren't very large. Bakka has limited ships and no carriers and harsher reserves penalties but gets the turrets, Rath, and some awesome ships that no one else has.
-
Bastion lists are the only ones that can take Chaos ships as reserves.
-
Gotcha. Forgot the reserve fleets.
-
Ok, so do we need to just vote on the inclusion of one or more grand cruiser and then vote to finalize? I think that is where we are at.
-
We've been discussing this, and all we really need to do is add the avenger and use the FAQ2010 wording for buying the extra turret. The extra turrets on escorts sound cool but they don't really do anything useful in practice since you won't be using bombers on them most of the time and it makes for a rather expensive suicide ship to block AC waves.
With those two changes, we just put the list up for a single vote, no need to vote on IF CG can be in the list and then vote on WHICH CG go in the list. you did after all create the commission to keep things from devolving into that level of minutia. :)
-
Dan has asked me to post up the proposed Bakka changes. A little background here. Dragon Lord, Tyberius, Vaash and I have been working in the background to try and go through the several iterations of the Bakka list in order to get together a list that eliminates or fixes some of the many issues people have had while trying to steer the list towards the given fluff for the sector and create a unique twist on the standard IN fleet style.
Ship list and changes:
Escorts:
Havoc, Sword, Firestorm, Viper no change in stats
Light cruisers:
Siluria, 2 turrets instead of 1, remains 100 points
Dauntless, Endeavor, Endurance each receive +1 turret at 5 points over BFG-R base.
Cruisers:
Lunar, Tyrant, Gothic each receive +1 turret at 5 points over BFG-R base.
Battlecruisers:
Cardinal, 200 points.
8 hits, 25cm speed, 45* turns, 2 shields, 5+ armor, 3 turrets
Port/ Starboard 2 lances 45cm range r/l
Dorsal 2 lances 60cm range r/f/l
Prow 6 weapons 60cm range r/f/l
Mercury, 260 points.
8 hits, 25cm speed, 45* turns, 2 shields, 6+ front/5+ armor, 3 turrets
Port/ Starboard 8 weapons 60cm range r/l
Dorsal 2 lances 60cm range r/f/l
Prow 1 Nova 30-150cm range f
May replace prow nova with str 6 torpedoes -20 points. Equipped with targeting matrix base. Always counts their hits as 12 when determining the to hit dice for a plasma drive overload or warp drive implosion. The Fluff Idea behind this is that the ship is an advanced progression of the Overlord class fitted with battleship power reactors and all the fancy new doodads that the Overlord gets as optional upgrades (+1 turret, Targeting Matrix).
Battleships:
Retribution, Victory, Vanquisher all BFG-R base
Emperor, 0-1 and may only be included if Rath leads the fleet (removed the option to take an Emperor as reserves)
Fleet list:
Fleet Command:
Fleet Admiral, Admiral, Solar Admiral all per BFG-R.
Rath, BFG-R stats but restricted to fleets over 1000 points.
Re-rolls, Secondary commanders per BFG-R.
Capitol ships:
Battleships 1 may be taken for each full 750
Battlecruisers 1 may be taken for every 3 cruisers/light cruisers
Cruisers 1 may be taken for every 2 light cruisers
Light cruisers 0-12
Escorts:
standard, any number in groups of 2-6
Ordinance:
standard
Reserves:
Due to Battlefleet Bakkas relatively low priority they require 4 of any given ship type (battleship, cruiser, escort) to take 1 reserve.
Notes:
Imperial ships with 6+ prow armor may take a prow ram +5 points.
All Imperial ships may take an additional +1 turret for +5 points.
Admech, FDT, and any carrier options were removed from the base list.
Dan has mentioned allowing Admech reserves at the standard 1 for every three other ships and to keep it so they don't disengage when crippled.
So we take this and replace the earlier stated rules and make it (from 2010 document) "any capital ship of Battlefleet Bakka can add +1 turret to its profile for +5 points. This upgrade does not count against refits ships can take normally. Reserve vessels may not be given this upgrade, but any vessels from the Battlefleet Bakka fleet list used as reserves in other fleets may take it with them." That would allow for 5 turret battleships to get to 6 turrets. Is that how it's supposed to be? That, and we should add the Avenger just like it is in BFG:R at this point. Good?
-
Yes thats right.
-
Excellent, should I put that vote up now?
-
Unless anyone has something to add I would thknk thats fine :).
-
Make it so.
8)
-
Unless anyone has something to add I would thknk thats fine :).
Just to be clear, is this vote for teh GC or for the list including the GC?
Belay that. Read Dan's post in full.
AAF for a vote IMO.
-
Almost. I forgot that we'd discussed removing the torpedo option for the Mercury to keep it more in line with the overlord pricing.
-
OK, so Mercury, no torps, how many points? In did go back and notice that discussion. Though torps would make it a useful ship, IMO, I see where you guys went with that.
-
Same point cost, just no option to take torpedoes since that knocks 20 points off the cost thus making it cheaper than the overlord and makes it a rather expensive ship to use like a fireship.
-
Anyone know what's happening with this?
-
Not sure, we were discussing reserve ships being able to buy the extra turret due to the FAQ2010 changes to the reserve rules and I was double checking with Ray. Likely means the balls in my court :) However, I think with the changes we talked about it should be clear for voting.
-
I think its done, but we died here for a week or so and its just starting to pick back up again so we'll see :).
-
Would anyone be up for compiling the list of the stuff we need to vote on that way I can get the vote together?
-
Andrew, can you just post the JPG you had in the bakka forum with the tweaks? I think that would be easier to use for voting than lots of individual bits.
-
Ya Ill update it and put it up. It might be a couple days due to work.
-
Andrew, where are you at on this?
-
Ummm... the beginning :D. Totally slipped my mind ::), Ill get on it.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xHYdOJkJU4TnNSQlQ0WGMyRDA/edit?usp=sharing
-
Bad Andrew! no soup for you! :)
-
:( I opened it up so it can be viewed, sorry guys.
-
Still can't see it for some reason.
-
No problem for me, perhaps a Google account is needed?
-
Andrew, I think you need to re-export the PDF and check that the DPI settings for graphics are above 200. The version up there right now is practically unreadable due to the low res export for the PDF.
-
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xHYdOJkJU4OF9kdU9fM3RyUzg/edit?usp=sharing
I bumped the settings up for all image formats but it still looks about the same to me :/. Maybe the source just isn't that good :P these being edited screen shots and all.
-
it does seem sharper though so that's a plus :)
-
I've had a chance to read over the list with its modifications, and like what it's shaping up to be. Though i at first supported including them, I've since begun to waffle on whether or not to include the Avenger. Keeping it at 3 turrets, with an optional 4th makes it a decent little pocket battleship, subject to course to its existing vulnerabilities, and there's a solid enough reason to still have a handful of these close-ranged brawlers in the big guns fleet. That said I don't know how often I'll field one anyhow with easy access to a wide range of battleships, and the tweaks to force selection definitely keep this fleet list feeling unique amongst the Imperial fleet lists. I could see maybe adding Mechanicus reserves at 3:1 with them refusing to run as readily. But I'm not sure how often I'd reach for that in list-building anyhow. It's not like its hard to get nova cannon... I guess I would be most likely to use it to pull in Dictators? And in that case, is it worth just leaving them generally in reserves (at 4:1) so we don't see fleets built around 3 Silurias, 1 Admech Dictator, and a battleship of your choice (Probably a Vanquisher, if even...), plus lots of turrets per 1000 pts?
Thinking:
105 - Siluria (+turret)
105 - Siluria (+turret)
105 - Siluria (+turret)
245 - Admech Dictator
Leaves you plenty of room at 1000pts for a battleship, and plays pretty much the same as any other imperial fleet at 1000pts. Sure, 4:1 on light cruisers to a reserve carrier isn't all that different (assuming a 210pt Dictator, or even a Mars), but at that point you're really sacrificing flexibility, gun range, and tactics (and have to take 4 light cruisers to do it, too, since a line cruiser in there would lock out the reserve ship) just to get a carrier into a fleet that's not meant to take them.
TL:DR - Admech Reserves at 3:1 (which had come up in discussion previously as a possible list addition), is reasonably fluffy, but probably breaks the fleet's style somewhat by making carriers easier to take in 1000pt games without too much sacrifice. Also, I could go either way about including the Avenger, but am fine with leaving it in (3 turrets, upgrading to 4 works just fine, IMO, may playtest later this week).
-
We'd talked about admech when working on the list prior to posting and I believe the conclusion was that they were unnecessary. Bakka has no real need to add them and especially not at the standard ratio. I would oppose a more to shoehorn then in. Let's leave it alone and leave changes to unbalanced or broken aspects that show up as part of wider playtesting.
-
Vaaish is right, we did discuss the Admech and the conclusion was that they didn't seem necessary, and including them could be a bit broken (e.g. by making carriers too readily available).