If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?

[Xyon]

I make very few mistakes. And since this is basically a wishlist thread about what ship you would want to make legal, it doesnt matter if Imperial have access to it normally or not,  they'd get access to it if it was a legal ship. Not trying t be mean, just blunt.

[Vaaish]

Then I gather it wasn't a mistake you ignored the first post in the thread before posting a new special weapon?

. No special weapon mechanic! "This cruiser is equipped with a Wave Matter Motion Destroyer: If it hits a targget less than 30cm away, roll 2D6. On a roll of 12, the target is destroyed! On a roll of 2, the Wave Matter Motion Destroyer causes the firing ship to take 2D6 Fire criticals!" Yeah, nothing like that

[Xyon]

I guess I did,  21 pages to read through didnt appeal to me.   And its nothing new,  just the ork heavy gunz rule boiled down to a generic special rule and applied to lances.

[Dark Depths]

Grand cruiser, 10 hits, 2 shields, 15cm move, 45 degree move, 2 turrets. 5+ armor
Dorsal heavy lance,     1 strength, 30 cm, LFR
Port heavy lance,         2 strength, 30 cm,  L
Port weapon battery   , 6 strength, 45 cm, L
Starboard heavy lance, 2 strength, 30 cm, R
Port weapon battery,    6 strength, 45 cm, R
pts to be determined.

Apart from the underpowered turrets, shields and speed, my issue with this design is that it doesn't fill a hole as we already have the Executor GC, which is a traitor vessel, but it doesn't take much imagination to use it as an Imperial ship considering it is one of the Vengeance class (I know what the fluff says, but there are always exceptions...)  Sorry, that's just my opinion, I don't like unneccersary duplication.

[flybywire-E2C]

Here's something to REALLY get the pot stirred. Freshly posted at the BFG Repository is the first draft (v1.0) of Battlefleet Bakka.

As this is a first draft, there of course is going to be some tweaking involved to get it right so please don't everyone pull out their boltguns, las-pistols and assorted other favorite weaponry and shoot me full of holes all at once! At least get in line first, dammit!  

This represents the last project the HA's will be working on before we get everything trucked off to GW. Once it's done, it's done. In the meantime, please let us know if something is horribly screwed up in the documents already stamped "FINAL."  We won't be adding any rulings or making any significant changes, but if something is actually busted, we can fix it before it goes to GW.  No, the Tau Custodian isn't going to be a grand cruiser.

Smile, game on and enjoy!

[Plaxor]

I wasn't expecting that..... wow.

Nice stats on the Havoc. It is a hard ship to make unique, although I think it should have lighter armor (5+ prow and 4+ sides and rear) as it is described as a glass cannon. Probably should be 30 pts as well.

Other than that, the Jovian needs a prow weapon.... even for the fact that it has the 'prow sensors' it suffers the issue that the vengeances had with criticals. So either it needs a prow whatever, or it needs to ignore prow criticals.


Hmmm.... the Vanquisher kind of needs a dorsal weapon, but this is only in theme with larger vessels having dorsal weaponry. It is also rather.... underpowered feeling due to this. I would give it a dorsal wb that is str 6 @45cm, but that's unecessary.

I would remove the Uniqueness on the Jovian as well, iirc there is no fluff basis for that, and it works fine so long as it is contained in the bakka list.

The mercury battlecruiser is a bit meh, but I don't know what I would change on it.

The siluria was more interesting with its original profile. Also the model is quite small, and it would make it more unique to make it 4 hits rather than 6. I wouldn't give it improved engines.... just make it something cheap and weak with (relatively) high firepower.

[Eldanesh]

Battlefleet Bakka

I don't see the "theme" for the list: I can have (and will always use) an Emperor and have unlimited access to the Mars class. I don't see where this kind of list has less flyers than any regular navy list, as the dictator was always a bad joke and never a serious option.

Fleet decence turrets: as there is no real "lack" of flyers, there is no reason to pay for this upgrade. Should be free for the first and 5P for the second turret.

Classes:  
Victory
1.to expensive to even consider to use one. Make her cheaper an give her something that makes her somehow attractive: 6 turrets, 5th shield, 25cm speed – doesn't matter. But at the moment its just as weak as a Retribution and more expensive.
2. The torpedo option should NOT lower the point costs! S9 torpedos are better than a Nova cannon under current rules.

Vanquisher:
lol. It's a joke, isn't it? Why? This has the same firepower as an Armageddon BC.

Mercury:
A Mars that trades 4 launch bays for a S4@45cm +5cm speed and -10 points? Would be an option if that speed had any value in fleet context. But as there is no other cruiser that can follow her it's almost useless – not interesting.

Jovian
nice concept but still overpriced... reduce it ~30 points or give it at least some prow weapon system and we could talk, but in this condition... no

Siluria
don't have an opinion yet. IMO better than endeavour/endurance, but still no good ship. Would be better ~90 or 80 points

Havok.
I doubt that +1 Bat is worth showing the enemy the front side. And considering the -1 turret compared to the sword...no, I still prefer the sword.

Viper.
Yes!!! a cobra thats get rid of the useless battery in favor of an additional torpedo. Finally the IN has a good escort!

Admiral Rath: compared to a regular LD10 Admiral he is a real good deal. But as Admirals in general are horribly overpriced I'd never take more than a LD8 Admiral with 2 rerolls sitting on an emperor. So I can't really imagine to ever use this guy If I can have an additional cruiser for the same points.

Conclusion: I hate it to be so terribly negative, but at all it would be simpler by just adding the Viper to the other imperial fleetlists. The other stuff isn't interesting.


Oh and by the way: why is the IN always restricted by this “sectorlist”-stuff? Chaos as well as Tau can combine their ships in any way they are happy: Tau don't even have the same optical theme and can mix them, and Chaos can use all the Blue book ships in the Armada-list.
Just the navy is limited in the access of their ships. Why?
(And don't say “Background reasons”: There are only 3 Despoilers and only 1 Acheron ever build – and both ships are unrestricted in both Chaos fleet lists...)

[Vaaish]

Hmm... this is interesting. Lets see where to start....

Emperor limitations. This is effectively a false limitation since 90% of the time people only take one battleship anyway so limiting a fleet to a single emperor really doesn't change anything. If you want the fleet to feel more unique, remove the option for the Emperor entirely because unless you do it will remain the most cost effective and capable means of acquiring the necessary AC in the fleet.

Victory and Vanquisher. I'm grouping these together because the Vanquisher is basically a poor man's Victory. The Victory class can't stand in its current form because it outclasses the Apocalypse with the ability to use the 60cm lances without penalty and swapping for torpedoes far more useful than the extra 2 lances the apocalypse especially given the retribution speed this ship has. The Vanquisher is basically the same thing, just shorter ranged, slower, and less capable, but hey, at least it's 20 points cheaper and you get a free turret. See the point about the emperor on the 0-1 limit of battleships.

In fact, looking at the picture, the loadout for the Vanquisher seems quite odd. Typically one IN lance module represents s2 lances. This is how it's been on every IN ship up to this one, yet the Vanquisher mounts three modules but only has s4 lances. I think that the Victory load out is much more sensible with the loss of the dorsal weapons and the addition of the battery module up front.

When it comes down to it, there really isn't much point in taking the Victory class at all with the options available to the IN with the apocalypse and the Vanquisher. In that match up, the vanquisher wins out with the speed, options, and no funky penalty for using it's lances at range.

Mercury class. Yes, I realize that it's a slightly modified long serpent, this is a conflicted design. It has a NC which makes it want to hold back, but it has more speed than anything else the IN has available at a full cruiser level and it's a battlecruiser to boot. It ends up as a far more expensive Overlord even with the drop in price with slightly better batteries out the gate and a NC. To be useful this ship needs shorter ranged batteries, but heavier and trade out the NC for torpedoes. Then you have a ship that uses it's speed to close and harass the enemy and can make a mess of things if they take it down when it's close to enemy ships.

Jovian. I don't like this as I feel it goes against the theme of the IN fleet with regard to AC, but you do have even more limited options for AC than a typical IN fleet so I guess it can slide although if you pull the Emperor all together (not a bad idea) you are looking at two options for AC. That limits you to a Jovian + your choice of reserve vessels or Mars + jovian. I also see this ship as a problem since it is much easier to take it as reserve in another IN fleet where there is wider access to carriers. Lack of prow weapon leaves it open to the same AB exploit you just patched for the Vengeance class.

Endeavour/Endurance. Why are these 10 points more than the same ships in other lists as per the 2010 FAQ? and why are you restricting the Prow armor swap?

Siluria. I don't really have an opinion on this. It's the weapons of an endeavor slapped on a dauntless with a slight price reduction. Nothing supremely interesting save that it lets you take battlecruisers effectively at a 1:1 cost.

Havoc: too conflicted to be useful. One point better battery strength for one less turret and restricted firing arcs. Not really worth taking over the sword that's also in the list.

Viper: alright, slightly better than a cobra but not sure I'd bother paying the +5 points for the extra torpedo when the cobra is available.

Fleet list. You are making a NC players dream come true. Every other fleet outside of the gothic list makes you pay at least 200 points for the NC. You say you dislike the NC and want to limit the number taken, yet you've just created a fleet where NC are everywhere.

There are also FAR too many options for reserves. I think it could be more interesting if you kept the reserve options you have but prevent the list from pulling ships from other IN lists and vv. You've effectively done this already by making grand cruisers and battlecruisers require three battlecruisers from the bakka list to pull in and giving them access to every IN cruiser except the Dictator, dauntless, and defiant. Battleships already require so high a point limit as to make it impractical.

Direction: Fleet defense turrets are gimmicky when you have to pay for them. Give them to the whole fleet for free, remove the emperor, and mars to limit the AC in the fleet and make the Fleet defense turrets more useful. Remove the Dominator to keep the NC spam down.

[Zelnik]

I have to say, the 'theme' your going for in this fleet is REALLY lost due to the joke of carrier restrictions.

Remove the emperor entirely.  Remove the jovian entirely (it is a poorly designed vessel, and should never have been added to the imperial navy in the first place... and is entirely contrary to the fluff of the segmentum!)

Here is another alternative, since the fleet uses older vessels.

Replace all of the battlecruiser options with -grand cruisers-.  Let them use the imperial grand cruiser hull with impunity! If they want to have carriers, make them pay for Exorcists and Retaliators.  That way you keep with the fluff of "using old ships" and "not favoring carriers".... you even get the benefit of "big guns" to boot (especially when it comes to Avengers and Execution's) Add in the Governor as a character flagship for the special character.


The battleships are.... very meh.  I fail to see why I would take the victory over and Apocalypse. Same points, better broadsides, better fleet to back it up!

I don't mind the idea of a 'very light' cruiser, especially in a grand cruiser fleet. the new escort is only questionable in effectiveness.

The 3 torpedo escort is... meh? I can see this being abused heavily. 

The Mercury is an Overlord analogue, and of questionable effectiveness. With a st10 battery, but no free column shift, I fail to see it's effectiveness at range. Not to mention, it's weapon loadout is conflicting with it's enhanced speed.  Also, it's going to be outstripping the rest of the fleet and breaking up the phalanx in a very bad way.

the Endeavors and Endurances are 10 points more expensive.

[Zelnik]

Here, how about this for a fleet list.

(standard imperial command, the new character must be on a Governor or a battleship)

Imperial Battleships:
Apocalypse
Retribution
Oberon (0-1)

Grand Cruisers
Avenger
Vengence
Exorcist
Execution
Retaliator

Cruisers:
Lunar
Tyrant
Gothic

Light Cruisers
Endeavor
Endurance
Silurian

Escorts
Sword
Firestorm
Cobra

Character Vessel: Governor Grand Cruiser (0-1) 1 per 1500 points, Your commander must be embarked if no battleship is present.

[flybywire-E2C]

Hi all! I appreciate all the quick fast-pass responses so here's a fast-pass response of my own. I'll let this simmer for a few days before adding something more coherent!  

Some of the comments are conflicting in that some people hate Ship A but like Ship B, others Liek Ship B but hate Shp A, etc. That's perfectly understandable- every player will tailor their fleet list to how they like to play, and even the most reasonable and fair player of any game system will "power game" to their own strengths, not intentionally or with any malice but purely for the sake of what they find to be the most fun. It makes perfect sense- its a GAME!

The intention of the Bakka fleet list is NOT to fix anything broken in the current Imperial fleet. The intention is to create a fleet list that follows their theme, is congruent to existing fluff and frankly provides a venue to loop in a few of the ships that have existed for the better part of ten years now but never became official. We can't inlude them all, but the intent is to include the ones that don't really break anything or "break theme" either. The Jovian was a close one- this really has no business in an Imperial fleet if one looks at the fluff storyline irregardless of game balance because the point as HA's in the end is if we incorporate anything at all, it has to fit in the story, be true to the fleet's "flavor" AND be balanced. It's a tall order, and we would rather do NOTHING than break this ethos. Once again, anyone can house-rule any ship they want, but that does in NO WAY mean it NEEDS to be made official.

The Vanquisher remains exactly as it appeared in Warp Storm, with the only changes being +1 turret and -5cm speed to reflect its age. It does not have dorsal weapons on purpose and isn't getting any. The Jovian "prow problem" is another matter and will have to e revisited, but it will not be getting a prow weapon. the Endeavor and Endurance are +10 points because they actually come with two FDT's for "free" in that they always have them and always pay for them by being +10 points more expensive in their basic cost.

Simply getting rid of the Dominator would be a fluff violation because Kar Durniash (the place that INVENTED the Dominator) is far closer to Bakka than Cypra Mundi is.  If Obscurus fleets can have unlimited Dominators, it would be wrong to say Bakka can’t. That’s not to say there isn’t an easy fix for this- just like Bakka fleets can have unlimited Endurance CL’s, Fleet Defense Turrets and has no Dictators, it is just as easy to say what refits these ships can have as well. Simply stating Tyrants and Lunars can’t take NC’s in a Bakka fleet list is a start. Another one can be a subtle restriction that isn’t restrictive in and of itself, such as “Lunars are ubiquititous throughout the Imperium and nowhere more so than in Bakka; no single cruiser class can outnumber the number of Lunars in a fleet list.” This isn’t fixed or set in stone or anything, its just directions to take this. Keep in mind the entire project is still a work in progress.

The ships included in this list are for the most part a "best of" over the last ten years of BFG Magazine as one last chance to get some of them looped in before we unplug this process for good. None of these are much better than anything currently in the Imperial fleet, and that is ALSO intentional. Once again it comes down to flavor- people who want characterful fleets with some unusual variety can use them if they want. People who play tailored fleets to win games don't have to use them if they don't want to. As it was pointed out in a previous post, the Reserves rule lets a player circumvent any part of this fleet list he or she chooses, as can already be done with every Imperial fleet in the game.

Game on.

[Zelnik]

Hey nate.

Just becuase they are the 'best of' does NOT mean they should be in the game.  The real 'best of''s made it into armada because they held a monocre of sense and balance without blowing the other fleets out of the water... or just didn't capsize the whole idea of an imperial fleet. 

This list CLEARLY violates several statements in it's OWN fluff! The ability to take an emperor (which we all know is a huge "WTF" when you insist on a low-carrier setup.  Also, this fleet is begging for "nova cannon spam" up the wazoo with unlimited mars and dominator ships.

Nate, your great, but have a look at the fleet list I suggested, and maybe we can prevent this fleet from being a disaster

[Vaaish]

The Jovian was a close one- this really has no business in an Imperial fleet if one looks at the fluff storyline irregardless of game balance because the point as HA's in the end is if we incorporate anything at all, it has to fit in the story, be true to the fleet's "flavor" AND be balanced.

With ships like this where only a single ship was supposed to be built, I think you should exempt it from being used as a reserve in any other fleets since it would be highly unlikely for it to somehow filter around the galaxy and it provides a filler for the planned AC gap with IN. Being able to pull over even one ship is usually enough so the 0-1 limit will mean little to someone picking out a fleet.

Simply getting rid of the Dominator would be a fluff violation because Kar Durniash (the place that INVENTED the Dominator) is far closer to Bakka than Cypra Mundi is.  If Obscurus fleets can have unlimited Dominators, it would be wrong to say Bakka can’t.

Ok, fluff violation it may be, but it is the simplest solution. Whatever you decide to do the NC options should be more limited unless you've changed your mind about NC spam

None of these are much better than anything currently in the Imperial fleet, and that is ALSO intentional.

Yes and No. The victory would outpace the Apocalypse despite having two fewer lances because it is capable of firing them at max range for no penalty. The Jovian is set to become the best cruiser carrier available to the IN. Stuff like the Mercury and Havoc are just plain nonsense. They are cool ideas, but they need fixing first. Neither have to be BETTER than what we have, but it would be nice for them to make sense too.

the Endeavor and Endurance are +10 points because they actually come with two FDT's for "free" in that they always have them and always pay for them by being +10 points more expensive in their basic cost.

I missed that when I was reading the PDF. Seeing that, I'd get rid of the Fleet defense turrets as an upgrade altogether and just incorporate them into the profiles and costs like with admech. that will add the flavor to the fleet and simplify the list building and focus the fleet more on shooting and less on AC.

I really would ditch the emperor all together though. It's in EVERY list available to the IN and this is one where it is supposed to be rare. with average games at 1500 points most times you only see one battleship thus making the restriction a joke.

[Eldanesh]

This list CLEARLY violates several statements in it's OWN fluff! The ability to take an emperor (which we all know is a huge "WTF" when you insist on a low-carrier setup.

The domius astra was an Emperor battleship and it was the flagship of battlefleet bakka. So using it can hardly be a "violation of the own fluff".

If you want to restrict it you can bound it to admiral rath: if you want the flagship, you'll have to pay the admiral. This makes it so expensive (565 points and an LD10 which is useless on an emperor) that you'll hardlysee one.

Oh, and @Zelnik: your list suggestion has nothing to offer, sorry. Bluebooklist is preferable. A list should have advantages as well as disadavtages. This list has only the later.

And why the hell is everybody afraid with NC spam? Under current rules NC are teethless tigers, only real dangerous in their shortest distance from 30 to 45cm. And NC Spam means lack of torpedos, meaning the enemy easily gets the upper hand in the "ordnance battle". and if i want to "powergame" I'll don't play navy, I'll use tyranids, Chaos, Eldar or even Necrons.

[Zelnik]

Any fleet with easier access to grand cruisers does not lack advantages, especially with the new rules that the 2010 faq provided. I am sorry your not flexible enough to see that, Eldanesh. 

The fluff written in the document is new, and thus can be altered. Throw out the emperor.. hell throw out the entire fleet.

why are we afraid of NC spam? because it's a problem. you may not see it, but we do.