July 25, 2024, 05:22:47 PM

Author Topic: BFG-R Bakka  (Read 18792 times)

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #75 on: August 03, 2013, 03:11:08 AM »
Ummm... the beginning :D. Totally slipped my mind  ::), Ill get on it.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xHYdOJkJU4TnNSQlQ0WGMyRDA/edit?usp=sharing
« Last Edit: August 03, 2013, 04:29:02 AM by AndrewChristlieb »
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #76 on: August 03, 2013, 05:53:58 PM »
Bad Andrew! no soup for you! :)
-Vaaish

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #77 on: August 03, 2013, 06:08:23 PM »
:( I opened it up so it can be viewed, sorry guys.
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #78 on: August 04, 2013, 03:10:32 AM »
Still can't see it for some reason.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #79 on: August 04, 2013, 06:05:14 AM »
No problem for me, perhaps a Google account is needed?

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #80 on: August 05, 2013, 05:34:57 AM »
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.
-Vaaish

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #81 on: August 05, 2013, 10:40:39 AM »
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.
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #82 on: August 05, 2013, 02:44:30 PM »
it does seem sharper though so that's a plus :)
-Vaaish

Offline Armiger84

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 131
    • Loc: Boston, MA
    • De Bellis Futuris
BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #83 on: August 06, 2013, 05:18:47 PM »
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).
My modelling blog:  http://armiger84.blogspot.com

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #84 on: August 06, 2013, 07:53:41 PM »
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

Offline Dragon Lord

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: BFG-R Bakka
« Reply #85 on: August 14, 2013, 08:29:47 PM »
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).