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

[Vaaish]

TL/DR.

BI, you really need to understand that the community is not against new ships or content. They are against things that don't fit the feel of the existing fleets. As the HA have stated before and probably will again, not to mention the admiral and Sig, there are certain themes that the various fleets were built around and that determine the type of ships we place in them. Some ships, like the Jovian, violate those themes for one reason or another and require special treatment (in this case, the jovian is only allowed by reserve in Bakka and can't be used in any other IN fleet list) so they don't alter the fleets from their intended function.

For IN that means you shouldn't be making a 25cm battleship with 90` turns or dedicated carriers as the core of your list. If you want to do that, you need plausible reasoning for the ship as well as plausible capability to create such a vessel. In the former example, the Imperium is declining in technical knowhow and such things are beyond their capabilities to produce. In the latter, it's been stated over and over that the IN mindset is that of a big gun fleet rather than a carrier fleet. This isn't to say they aren't capable of producing dedicated carriers or haven't experimented with them, just they would rather bigger guns than more bombers and thus a craft that forgoes nearly all gunnery for carrier capability should be decidedly rare as with the Jovian.

[Sigoroth]

Except that, as I said, the Gothic list is a mishmash of ships from other sectors created for game purposes rather then representing what the battlefleet actually has on hand.  It's like saying that selection of famous ships from the Normandy Invasion fleet represents a typical countries Navy.  

So? This has nothing to do with feel. The list is full of ubiquitous ships, therefore provides a very general feel. If you made a fleet list incorporating every single IN ship that is currently official then it would still 'feel' right. All those ships are fine for IN.

Further, I don't see you calling for the removal of Admech, which has used FDT for years.  Your basic assertion that Armageddon is OK but Bakka is broken hinges on the idea that 'light cruisers with nothing but LBs, GOOD, battle cruisers with nothing but LBs, BAD.'

I hated the FDT when Bakka first came out in BFG mag. It was a stupid idea then. Still a stupid idea now. As it happens I don't think it should be used on AdMech ships either. It hasn't been an issue though. AM ships have more turrets and it's a random roll, not something manipulable. It's a throw away rule. It simply didn't matter. BF Bakka uses it extensively and it is highly manipulable and if made official will impact on all IN lists through reserves. That will put us in the position of having a really crap rule being common as muck. So it'll always be staring us in the face.

As for your interpretation of my assertions, you are completely wrong. How do you come up with that? Currently there are no pure carriers in any Imperial Navy list, big or small. All of them fail at least 1 of the 2 metrics. Yes, dedicated CVLs or CVEs are less powerful than dedicated CVAs or CVBs (BVs?) and so this certainly does become a consideration of whether a particular proposed design is objectionable, even if a relatively small one. That has nothing to do with what makes Armageddon fine and Bakka crap though.

Still not clear on this 'feel' buisness, and I'll explain why: Most of the time, when someone has said to me in the context of TT gaming that something doesn't 'feel' right they really mean 'because it breaks my favorite strategy with/against them' and/or 'I have to revise my list to remain competitive'.  Maybe it's because I write reviews of gaming systems/supplements, but I've heard this same phrase over and over when rules revisions have happened to a number of systems, and after questioning the speaker closely, this is what they really meant, the majority of the time.

Pah! I have no problems adjusting my tactics to new circumstances. Nor do I care about being "forced" to alter my list. I have enough ships to cover most contingencies. The feel of the IN in play is much like a phalanx. Chaos is much like light horse archers (Parthians for example). That is one aspect of feel, how the ships play. Another aspect is alignment to ideology or doctrine. For example, if I introduced a 12 hit, 6+ all-round armour , 4 shield/turret battleship with 20cm speed and resilient AC what race would you be thinking? If I proposed the above ship for Elder I would be violating the feel of the fleet, regardless of whether the ship were internally balanced.

Now, since IN have eschewed the fleet carrier idea and have instead focused on main guns with only AC support, whereas Chaos have not and Chaos have lighter, cheaper, ships and focus on hitting from afar then the IN should not be able to out-AC Chaos point for point. If you allow a Jovian as a reserve then you act contrary to the 'no pure carriers' feel (all their current carriers fail at least 1of the 2 metrics) as well as allowing the IN to out-AC Chaos in 750 pt battles.

Similarly the Mercury is contrary to IN feel, as it's too fast, outpacing the formation.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

D'Art, congratulations, you've successfully created a list no one will ever play because it is, somehow, even LESS interesting then Vanilla BFG.   Seriously, D'Art, this idea is so hoary it's positively Lovecraftian.

This one can be made without even needing a new list using Gothic and the reserve rules except for adding a special rule and possibly a battleship selection for under 2k points.

Which begs the question: why do you need another fleet list when there are already THREE in existence? Do you really need more? Especially when there are OTHER races which need to have new lists introduced?

Now, if anyone would like to play a list NOT unearthed from a cyclopian tomb in an unnamed city in the desert, we can at least TRY OUT what the HA is pushing rather then bitching about these new fangled coal powered contraptions.  (What next?  Smokeless lanterns?)

As fr as non-standard ships go, some of us have been using them for years already, and found most of them to suck a lot less then might appear at first glance, due to something called 'tactics' rather then depending on list choice to win it for us.

People have already made their comment. Again, do you really need the new ship designs?

Engage Rant Mode:

Seriously, and D'Art just tipped over my apple cart again, all I hear out of you people is 'CHANGE SCARES US!'  'NEW SHIPS ARE SCARY!'  'WE DON"T WANT ANYTHING NEW.'

Assuming that you are the correct gender, for the love of GOD GROW A PAIR!

Let me try and spell this out because some people are not getting this.

GROW OR DIE.

Either we grow the game, and get GW to take a second look at it, or the game dies.  It's an unpleasant fact, but bluntly, a fanbase can only really keep a game going so long (see D&D 1st ed), until it's eventually just a handful of aging fatbeards sitting around talking about how much better things were before.  

Right now, we have a chance most other gaming communities DON'T GET.  

Thanks to FFG making the RT RPG, we ACTUALLY might be able to turn this around if someone at GW realizes there might be some interest in this.  They've already shown some signs of coming around to this mode of thought with IA 10.  

But if we STAY THE SAME we're sunk.  Hell, the fluff in our game doesn't even match up with the rest of the 40k fanbase anymore.  And, much as some of you might despise them, our hobby needs their support, as THEY'RE the ones that GW is pandering to.  

Our existing ships and fleets and etc HAVE NOT DONE THIS.  

Rather then sitting here trying to make it stay the same, what we SHOULD be doing is trying to find ways to improve it.  If the HA thinks that bringing in non-standard ships will do it, I say: Go For It.  Let's try it out.  Who gives a flying rat's ass if it changes the flavor of IN if it funnels players from other 40k based games into our camp!?!  The 'feel' of IN has not save us thus far, and I'm quite happy to see someone's sacred cow go to the chopping block if it brings in more players.

/rant

And again, your penchant for being obtuse misses the point again. I definitely get what you want to happen. However, I do not think another IN list is the way to go about it.

I am not saying change should not be incorporated. I am saying there are other races out there other than IN which need more lists than IN RIGHT NOW.

Yes. Grow. Grow the other races. Add more ships to their lineup. Add more unique (but not broken) rules. At this point in time, IN is already well developed without having to add another list in there. Unlike Dark Eldar or Necron or Nids. These other races need to be brought up in their fleet list varieties. That is what is needed to grow this game. Not another IN fleet list which in and of itself is conflicted. It wants a list with minimal ordnance and yet has access to ships which have the most LBs. That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

IN has 3 lists already, 4 if you include the AM. Inquisition is coming up next. Compare this to 2 for Chaos, 2 for Orks, 2 for Eldar, 2 (technically) for Tau, 1 for SM, 1 for DE, 1 for Nids, 1 for Necron. The sheer number of variety in both ships and fleet lists for IN compared to the other races is already far ahead compared to the other races that I do not think another one is beneficial for the game.

The new IN ships are ok. But does IN REALLY REALLY REALLY need them? Answer me that in the affirmative. Prove to me that IN needs this change in order to help the game "grow". Does it really? All I see is it helps IN grow. But what about the others? I could create two or three more IN lists each with their own flavor and own ship designs but heck I would rather grow the other races first.

This coming from an IN player.

[lastspartacus]

Sig, what about the idea that range isn't related to power, but accuracy?  

I feel the Jovian is a cool ship, just in something besides the Bakka fleet.

I think only one new B-ship class is needed, save the other for another segmentum.

The Mercury is just wierd.

Love the Havoc, Viper, and, um...that other one that was good.

Edit:  As to d'arts post, I agree that while even more alternate IN fleet lists are cool, and its neat to flesh out all the Segmentums, other races much more desperately need the attention.

[Sigoroth]

Sig, what about the idea that range isn't related to power, but accuracy? 

Nope, range is definitely related to power. However, if you have crap accuracy your effective range could drop. IJN battleships had bigger guns than their American counterparts for the most part, but the yanks did better because of more accurate radar. Improving yank accuracy would do little to improve their range, whereas improving Jap accuracy would. They had the more powerful guns, so better potential range.

Apart from notions of how one would justify the IN already having powerful enough weaponry to shoot far but just crappy electronics (easiest thing to upgrade), it still doesn't fly here. Because to get accuracy on this scale you would need to have power regardless of how top notch your electronics are. To be shooting at a bomber in the middle of its attack runs while it's avoiding defensive flak and possibly about to go into the friendly's shadow you would have to be talking in the seconds for your shot to arrive, not minutes. That means that at a maximum of 15,000 kms we're talking roughly the 1.3% C that BI brought up in his ME2 quote. That's a hell of a lot of power, and it's going to damage whatever it hits, even if it's just some frozen peas into metres thick armour.

I feel the Jovian is a cool ship, just in something besides the Bakka fleet.

I would actually only allow it in the Bakka fleet. Sure it doesn't make sense given the givens, but it has no chance of unbalancing things if left here. Similarly, if the FDT just gets restricted to Bakka (though it should be binned/altered) then at least that won't impact on other (ie, real) lists.

[Plaxor]

D'art. Although I do agree with you. Necrons, Dark Eldar, and even orks need new ship designs. To add some variety to the game. Which is why I adopted any reasonable conversion for DE and Necrons for my ruleset.

With IN/Chaos, yes they do have enough things. Adding in new fleetlists isn't trouble though, they just add to the game. Naturally every new IN/Chaos ship should be written into a new fleetlist, which should be balanced in themselves and have their own character.

There is no reason not to include the new ships, other than they don't need them. Honestly, even developing and making lists like these legal should boost GW's sales in the BFG department. Even we can choke down a few things for that.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Plaxor, there's already 3 fleet lists with with ships that have almost all types of weapons loadout one can think of. These ships means people will buy the game if people really want to get into it. At this point in time, I feel what's needed is for GW to really support the game. But as long as they think it's not worth supporting, they won't.

For cruisers, there's
1. the Lunar having a mix and match of WBs and Lances.
2. the Gothic with pure lances.
3. Tyrant and Dominator with pure WBs.
4. Dictator with WB and LB.

The only thing missing is an all LB cruiser which as pointed out is a deliberate decision.

The above cruisers have their equivalent in BCs with the exception of the Gothic.

These are the core ships one needs in IN. What more do you need to make the cruisers to maek the IN list? Why do you need the Jovian when there is a deliberate choice to limit the IN access to AC?

The Jovian will at best just add one ship to the above lineup. Will it really boost the sales for BFG or grow the game? With the advent of magnets, one doesn't even need to buy multiple battleship chassis or Vengeance chassis.

The LC chassis are the problematic ones since there is almost no chassis one can use other than the Dauntless or Admech LC.

At best, you just have another list to use for IN. Grow the game? I seriously doubt it.

[Plaxor]

No, I don't mean the Jovian specifically. Honestly that ship could never see the light of day and it would have no affect on me.

By building a whole new fleet lists that lacks most of the currently available vessels, and swaps them out for different 'new' ones they can have their own inherent character flaws and whatnot. Kinda like playing a whole new race, or a different marine codex. It isn't that much different, but it gives people something more different or unique to play with.

Each IN list has its own unique character, given sometimes not applied well enough but we could say this:
Gothic: Standard
Bastions: Access to older ships
Armageddon: More battlecruisers, and SM allies
Bakka: [more turret defense], access to Admech allies

Even my ideas have their own 'theme':
Tartanus: Escort/CL basis, more carrier options/assault boats.

You could argue that the chaos lists have their own theme;
Gothic: Traitors, non-sm with set leadership
13th: CSM, daemonships

However, my proposed ideas for this are quite different:
Daemoship fleet seperate, with 13th only able to take a daemonship ally.
Maelstrom fleet based off cls/escorts (mostly for the fluff of the tartanus sector/balance between the two fluff fleets/random peoples desire for cls, and a chaos fleet that would support them most effectively)

[BaronIveagh]

TL/DR.

BI, you really need to understand that the community is not against new ships or content. They are against things that don't fit the feel of the existing fleets. As the HA have stated before and probably will again, not to mention the admiral and Sig, there are certain themes that the various fleets were built around and that determine the type of ships we place in them. Some ships, like the Jovian, violate those themes for one reason or another and require special treatment (in this case, the jovian is only allowed by reserve in Bakka and can't be used in any other IN fleet list) so they don't alter the fleets from their intended function.

For IN that means you shouldn't be making a 25cm battleship with 90` turns or dedicated carriers as the core of your list. If you want to do that, you need plausible reasoning for the ship as well as plausible capability to create such a vessel. In the former example, the Imperium is declining in technical knowhow and such things are beyond their capabilities to produce. In the latter, it's been stated over and over that the IN mindset is that of a big gun fleet rather than a carrier fleet. This isn't to say they aren't capable of producing dedicated carriers or haven't experimented with them, just they would rather bigger guns than more bombers and thus a craft that forgoes nearly all gunnery for carrier capability should be decidedly rare as with the Jovian.

*sigh*
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp.  The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build.   Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.  In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well.  The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier.  From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.  

The simple reason for this tendency may be the need to counter the large number of carriers that the ruinous powers seem to possess, particularly as, at least in fluff, there are capitol class 'pure carriers' in that region who's slow extinction would be a strong motivator for a stopgap such as modifying a Mars into a Jovian.

In the areas outside the tendency toward big guns as symbolic of Imperial Authority could, in theory, continue unabated, as they are quite effective against orks, etc.  This is why the arrival of the Tyranids has been so difficult for the Imperium to stop, navally, as AC are quite effective against them, but millenia of fallout from the Gareox Incident (which is none too clear now that Bakka was not part of the Imperium at that time) has left the 'southern' segmentums vulnerable.

As far as technology goes: While the command and control functions of a carrier are more advanced then other ships, the simple fact is that they're actually much simpler to operate and maintain then a 'big gun' battleship.  If the Imperium's technological base was truly in the sort of downslide that is indicated, the relative simplicity of a carrier to maintain and operate would make it more attractive, not less, considering that anything with a spaceworthy hull can be made into a carrier.  (See escort carriers)

Nope, range is definitely related to power. However, if you have crap accuracy your effective range could drop. IJN battleships had bigger guns than their American counterparts for the most part, but the yanks did better because of more accurate radar. Improving yank accuracy would do little to improve their range, whereas improving Jap accuracy would. They had the more powerful guns, so better potential range.

Apart from notions of how one would justify the IN already having powerful enough weaponry to shoot far but just crappy electronics (easiest thing to upgrade), it still doesn't fly here. Because to get accuracy on this scale you would need to have power regardless of how top notch your electronics are. To be shooting at a bomber in the middle of its attack runs while it's avoiding defensive flak and possibly about to go into the friendly's shadow you would have to be talking in the seconds for your shot to arrive, not minutes. That means that at a maximum of 15,000 kms we're talking roughly the 1.3% C that BI brought up in his ME2 quote. That's a hell of a lot of power, and it's going to damage whatever it hits, even if it's just some frozen peas into metres thick armour.

Except in space, range is not reflective of power at all, power dictates relative velocity instead.  To hit even the largest ships at the ranges involved would require accurate targeting, as it would be impossible to generate enough fire to 'cloud' a target through volume of fire at these ranges.  (This is why the gunnery table is a lie.  The targeting cogitator on any given ship would either hit or miss, as they would all be tied to the same sensor data and motion prediction.  At the ranges represented, human fire control would be far too inaccurate to even come close to a target.  How orks and necrons do it, I have no idea, though I suspect they're both very different.  Eldar can see the future, so motion prediction is no problem.  Tau get around it through advanced sensors and self guided missiles, as well as the railguns projectiles moving at a significant fraction of C.)

I would suggest that the FDT is a rapid cycling laser system with advanced motion prediction.  The ToT at 15,000 km would be within parameters.  

And again, your penchant for being obtuse misses the point again. I definitely get what you want to happen. However, I do not think another IN list is the way to go about it.

I am not saying change should not be incorporated. I am saying there are other races out there other than IN which need more lists than IN RIGHT NOW.

Yes. Grow. Grow the other races. Add more ships to their lineup. Add more unique (but not broken) rules. At this point in time, IN is already well developed without having to add another list in there. Unlike Dark Eldar or Necron or Nids. These other races need to be brought up in their fleet list varieties. That is what is needed to grow this game. Not another IN fleet list which in and of itself is conflicted. It wants a list with minimal ordnance and yet has access to ships which have the most LBs. That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

IN has 3 lists already, 4 if you include the AM. Inquisition is coming up next. Compare this to 2 for Chaos, 2 for Orks, 2 for Eldar, 2 (technically) for Tau, 1 for SM, 1 for DE, 1 for Nids, 1 for Necron. The sheer number of variety in both ships and fleet lists for IN compared to the other races is already far ahead compared to the other races that I do not think another one is beneficial for the game.

The new IN ships are ok. But does IN REALLY REALLY REALLY need them? Answer me that in the affirmative. Prove to me that IN needs this change in order to help the game "grow". Does it really? All I see is it helps IN grow. But what about the others? I could create two or three more IN lists each with their own flavor and own ship designs but heck I would rather grow the other races first.

This coming from an IN player.

Actually there's 3 lists for SM now (have not seen new ones in IA 10), 4 for IN, 3 for orks (counting clanz lists as 1), 2 for eldar, 2(3?) for tau, 1 for DE, 1 for nids, 1 for necrons.  

Lists that need new/more ships by order of priority:

DE (no brainer, need both ships and lists, possibly cabal fleets???)
Eldar
Orks
Tau


Nids would be better to get more biomorphs then whoile new ships, as they're more or less swiss army knife ships.  Maybe specialized one for certain fleets?  Levianthan, etc.

Necrons... necrons don't have a lot of variety in any list in any system.  The fact that they, unlike everyone else, really are almost absolutely uniform means there would not be a lot of variation in their ships either.

Personal opinion:

As I said before, I would see them release a new list with at least three new ships in it per year for each race.  It's not likely to happen though.  

GW laid out rules, and, I hate to say it, IN, SM, Tau, Orks and Chaos are what they're pushing and they all have to be made with existing kits.  This is the stumbling block.  IN we can make new ships easily, as all the possible combinations of the original kit are not used, so I don't blaim the HA for using IN, which will probably be one of their easier sells, to try and load up new ships.  A lot of IN ships were cut not, as some people have suggested, due to lack of quality, but due to the fact that content was cut to tidy up production costs.

This is due to most books being printed in groups of pages who's name escapes me at the moment.  Printers will charge based on how many of these groups there are.  If a group is 15 pages, and the text is 16 pages, it's more cost effective for the publisher to cut one page then to try and fill the remaining pages.  (for those that are cynical like me, GW's actual cost per book for Armada would have been between 5-10 dollars per copy at the time they made it, based on an old price guide I have laying around.)  

Jovian being published right away after bluebook makes it look to me like something that got cut for space by GW rather then something the designers decided to toss.  In BB, each IN ship is more or less mirrored by a chaos equivalent, with a few exceptions.  The exceptions were more then likely cut content to reduce printing costs.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

*sigh*
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp.  The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build.   Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.

And you would be wrong. The original BFG has always been a Jutland in space combat. Also it is not only feel. IN have always had expensive carriers, even the Emperor which needs 330 points at least to be able to field one. That's what the designers designed the game around. To counter the large number of carriers, IN have access to torps and the NC. One may think that it is not balanced but somehow it actually worked then and up to now.

If you want to consider the WWII carrier feel, you have to look at the Tau with their carrier and torp focused armament.

Actually there's 3 lists for SM now (have not seen new ones in IA 10), 4 for IN, 3 for orks (counting clanz lists as 1), 2 for eldar, 2(3?) for tau, 1 for DE, 1 for nids, 1 for necrons.  

Fine, so others have a few more. However, there are still some which needs additions. I think these needs to be focused on much more than IN which already have 3 lists+Admech+the upcoming Inquisitor and I think I am still missing 1 or 2.

Even if it were true that IN are the most readily available, what about Chaos? Chaos should have just as much variety if we are talking about availability in the market. Unfortunately, for the other races, until they get around to releasing plastic sprues (which essentially means, GW or SG showing support), they will be left out in the cold. However, doesn't mean we can't design new ships for them in the meantime.

And I would prefer to see new IN lists which evolve because the other races' lists have also evolved to answer the existing innovations of IN and even Chaos lists. That way, growth can then happen instead of another IN list popping up with ideas which are at odds with what the fleet should be like or with weapons and ships which people don't really like even if they are balanced and are just inserted "just because".

Bakka feels just like that: a fleet list where ships published before could be chucked in to make official even if the vessel rules run contrary to IN game design and adding a weapon system which frankly the game can do without.

Frankly, I'd rather Bakka be made after the other races have been brought up to par with IN then figure out what to really add in and subtract out then choose which ships really need to be added in.

[RCgothic]

I'm certainly not against change:

I like the Viper, Havoc and Siluria. The Victory's Weapon configuration is fine, it just needs a points break to account for its less-than-retribution firepower and even more conflicted role. The Vanquisher layout is again fine, it just needs 5cm extra speed to make it good at its role, and a points break to make it a viable alternative to the Retribution as a linebreaker.

That's 5/7 new ships I'm absolutely fine with and happy to see included.

The Mercury leaves me a bit wtf - it wouldn't make a sensible choice, due to not outgunning an Overlord and going up like a bomb when destroyed, but it wouldn't break anything to include it - arguably the very fact that it has 5cm speed is also a massive drawback - it has a wider turning circle than the rest of the fleet (due to 12.5cm between turns), and will outpace them when it's required that the fleet go slowly. I can certainly see the class as a relic of an experiment into faster ships that the IN eventually concluded: actually, all this extra expense/liability isn't worth it. It's unusual, but it doesn't break things.

The Jovian DOES break things:
Firstly, it's against the fluff of battlefleet bakka to include "attack carriers" - The Jovian is most certainly an attack carrier - it has the vast majority of its power is in its AC (1 other WBe per AC). Neither the Defiant (3 other WBe per AC) nor the Emperor (2.625 other WBe per AC)have such a large proportion of their power in AC. Those other carriers either have enough big guns to avoid the label "attack carrier", or don't provide enough AC for more than an escort role. Even if the Jovian were to be included, it shouldn't be in the bakka list.
Secondly, even though it's not as complete a package as the Styx in the chaos list, it provides the IN with AC in powerful wave sizes at a points efficiency far in excess of the Emperor. If you want to include offensive AC, the Jovian would be an auto-include.
Thirdly: Whilst IN might not have AC Superiority, it definitely has ORDNANCE superiority with its torpedos. Allowing IN to go on a par with chaos in AC as well would make it nearly impossible to defend against. The IN can do perfectly well without AC superiority, but other lists would struggle.

And as far as FDTs go:
It's still a horrible rule, and it's good that AM only have it as a random upgrade. If bakka are supposed to be stronger against AC, why not a universal +1 turret, or a left columns shift when direct-firing at Ordnance?

[BaronIveagh]

And you would be wrong. The original BFG has always been a Jutland in space combat. Also it is not only feel. IN have always had expensive carriers, even the Emperor which needs 330 points at least to be able to field one. That's what the designers designed the game around. To counter the large number of carriers, IN have access to torps and the NC. One may think that it is not balanced but somehow it actually worked then and up to now.

If you want to consider the WWII carrier feel, you have to look at the Tau with their carrier and torp focused armament.

The Tau is actually more akin to modern carrier combat, with dedicated firecontrol ships and long range guided missile as well as carriers being more or less unlimited.  

And, again, no, Jutland was very much different from the way this game is played.  One, while I'm sure Hipper would loved to have been able to teleport genetically enhanced killing machines aboard the Iron Duke, I don't recall that happening.  Two, everyone was on the same technological level.  While if this game was IN vs IN at all times, you might have a point, most of the time it's Tsushima style fleet tactics vs WWII style fleet tactics vs Peloponnesian war style fleet tactics, vs War of 1812 style fleet tactics vs modern fleet tactics against the saucermen (necrons).

And, if it was meant to Jutland in space, there would have been no AC at all, except as scout ships.  However, initially, we got the v1 AC rules, which made most battles Midway in space, except then people abused it to the point it became necessary to nerf it.  

Further, you're forgetting that the ordinance game has changed.  All torps are now a single str 6 counter regardless of actual str.  This means that your torp waves of the past arn't there anymore and Chaos, in particular, is going to just move out of the way and keep rolling bombers and aboats rather then fighters to eliminate torps unless you've bought the guided torps upgrade.  

Fine, so others have a few more. However, there are still some which needs additions. I think these needs to be focused on much more than IN which already have 3 lists+Admech+the upcoming Inquisitor and I think I am still missing 1 or 2.

Even if it were true that IN are the most readily available, what about Chaos? Chaos should have just as much variety if we are talking about availability in the market. Unfortunately, for the other races, until they get around to releasing plastic sprues (which essentially means, GW or SG showing support), they will be left out in the cold. However, doesn't mean we can't design new ships for them in the meantime.

And I would prefer to see new IN lists which evolve because the other races' lists have also evolved to answer the existing innovations of IN and even Chaos lists. That way, growth can then happen instead of another IN list popping up with ideas which are at odds with what the fleet should be like or with weapons and ships which people don't really like even if they are balanced and are just inserted "just because".

Bakka feels just like that: a fleet list where ships published before could be chucked in to make official even if the vessel rules run contrary to IN game design and adding a weapon system which frankly the game can do without.

Frankly, I'd rather Bakka be made after the other races have been brought up to par with IN then figure out what to really add in and subtract out then choose which ships really need to be added in.

I'd love Chaos to get light cruisers.  Probably not gonna happen though.

While I'm perfectly willing to admit that other races SHOULD be first, we have to deal with the way GW has set this out for us.  I have no doubt that GW will be happy to allow the HA to do that, once they've gotten all the fleets GW  WANTS them working on worked on.  From your response to this, you're obviously forgetting the blood bowl debacle where GW held the rules update hostage to get them to remove stats for characters that GW didn't make (among other things).

The Mercury leaves me a bit wtf - it wouldn't make a sensible choice, due to not outgunning an Overlord and going up like a bomb when destroyed, but it wouldn't break anything to include it - arguably the very fact that it has 5cm speed is also a massive drawback - it has a wider turning circle than the rest of the fleet (due to 12.5cm between turns), and will outpace them when it's required that the fleet go slowly. I can certainly see the class as a relic of an experiment into faster ships that the IN eventually concluded: actually, all this extra expense/liability isn't worth it. It's unusual, but it doesn't break things.

The Jovian DOES break things:
Firstly, it's against the fluff of battlefleet bakka to include "attack carriers" - The Jovian is most certainly an attack carrier - it has the vast majority of its power is in its AC (1 other WBe per AC). Neither the Defiant (3 other WBe per AC) nor the Emperor (2.625 other WBe per AC)have such a large proportion of their power in AC. Those other carriers either have enough big guns to avoid the label "attack carrier", or don't provide enough AC for more than an escort role. Even if the Jovian were to be included, it shouldn't be in the bakka list.
Secondly, even though it's not as complete a package as the Styx in the chaos list, it provides the IN with AC in powerful wave sizes at a points efficiency far in excess of the Emperor. If you want to include offensive AC, the Jovian would be an auto-include.
Thirdly: Whilst IN might not have AC Superiority, it definitely has ORDNANCE superiority with its torpedos. Allowing IN to go on a par with chaos in AC as well would make it nearly impossible to defend against. The IN can do perfectly well without AC superiority, but other lists would struggle.

And as far as FDTs go:
It's still a horrible rule, and it's good that AM only have it as a random upgrade. If bakka are supposed to be stronger against AC, why not a universal +1 turret, or a left columns shift when direct-firing at Ordnance?

The Mercury is a fun ship that either works really well with your strategy or blows up in your face.  I enjoy it.  That's really all I have to say on it.

The Jovian, I do agree, is an odd fit for Bakka.  I think that the fluff where it's embraced out of necessity (the fleet having just been annihilated at Circe) makes some sense, as BFB was reduced down to, IIRC, about a dozen ships that managed to fight their way free and escape, and lack of attack craft played a key role in their defeat.  Their 'only' carrier had just bought it, so I can see where as a stop gap something like the Jovian might be made since they now had absolutely no carriers at all of any type left.  

Personally, rather then the odd rule about reserves, I would simply have it so that you can either take the Dominus Astra or the Jovian, since the destruction of one caused Bakka to acquire the other.  

As far as the possibility of other IN getting it as a reserve ship, again, you're forgetting that against chaos, this new str 6 counter buisness, IN is definitely nerfed there now at range, particularly against chaos and Necrons.  IN's 'ordinance superiority' is now largely a thing of the past outside 40 cm.  

FDT: Giving a universal +1 turrets would make it broken due to turret massing.   A left shift would have to be two or three columns to be as effective as turrets.  Making them hit ord on a +4 would also be largely broken, due to the range at which it could be done allowing you to eliminate ships on cap, which would be wildly unbalanced compared to everyone else.

[Vaaish]

Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp.  The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build.   Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.  In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well.  The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier.  From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.   

The LIST construction may change but the FEEL does not. Now we know your group tends to play with a whole lot of non standard rules and ships anyway which DOES change the feel. So if you could put all of that out of mind and look at what we have in the rule books, you can see that it's set up so that IN ends up with a weaker fleet if they take primarily carriers. (dictators are 220 and defiants are limited to 1 per 500 points) This is indisputable FACT regardless of what fluff you pull from outside sources or how you may FEEL about it.

Newer offering from FFG quite frankly DO NOT MATTER when it comes to the set themes that guide the overall creation of each fleet. Those were set in stone when the game was made and repeatedly adhered to by HA (with some prodding) and players alike in the creation of ships that fit within the framework laid out for us. Anything outside of those themes can safely be assumed as one of or highly experimental or ancient vessels.

[Sigoroth]

*sigh*
Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp.  The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build.   Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.  In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well.  The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier.  

You cannot say that feel is purely personal. Otherwise I could say that I feel that Eldar should have high hits and armour and slow speed therefore they should have that. Feel isn't how you think they should be, it is a response to how play. So 'these' are the rules, what 'feel' do they inspire. Of course, you can argue that the feel that the current ruleset inspires is incorrect, ie, that it should be some other way. So when people say that the Jovian violates the current IN feel they are perfectly right and correct. It does. You can take issue with whether that is a correct interpretation of the IN. I think that, for the most part, it is. Certainly there are a number of vessels in the Imperial Navy that run contrary to this feel, and therefore so do the fleets that comprise them. This isn't the norm though. That is to say, if you took a snapshot of the IN in its entirety and summed up the general themes you'd find that carriers aren't their most efficient choice.

From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.

Escort carriers are almost purely defensive vessels. It seems that a gun lobby under pressure to build carriers from the argument of necessary defence or to escort torpedoes would do just this. That is, the Tempest seems an alternative to a dedicated attack carrier, so is quite consistent with the big gun lobby.

Except in space, range is not reflective of power at all, power dictates relative velocity instead.

Except we are not talking about distance in space. We're talking about distance over time in space, which means when we're talking 'range' what we mean is velocity. Therefore range is directly related to power.

I would suggest that the FDT is a rapid cycling laser system with advanced motion prediction.  The ToT at 15,000 km would be within parameters.  

But here again we come back to power. For those lasers to remain damaging enough at those ranges to take out the bombers (we're not talking simple projectiles now, those lasers would have to cut through the bombers) it would require rather enormous levels of power. Most likely the turrets would be quite large too. So we're looking at some loss of main gunnery due to power/space requirements and also most likely some loss of close fire capability since they're larger turrets and likely wouldn't track so well as normal turrets. Unless of course, the FDTs were added on top of the normal turrets, simply displacing some main guns.

Lastly, I would be wondering at the mechanic that allows these guns to simply function as a turret on the defending ship. For example, why would you fire them when the ship is actively being attacked and the AC is at its most manoeuvrable and most hidden, rather than when they're on their way in? Also, why should they reduce bomber attack runs (assuming they do)? It's not likely that the bombers will be able to jink away from laser fire, it's not as though there would be flak to try to avoid. Either the bombers would be hit or not.

This concept of secondary weaponry being able to extend their effective range to main gun levels with much greater accuracy and efficiency than main guns and no loss of other performance whatsoever is untenable. It certainly could be done by shifting resources, such that it is being performed by main guns. And it makes more sense to shoot these anti-ordnance guns in the shooting phase where the AC is flying on the way in, rather than when they're in the attack.

Jovian being published right away after bluebook makes it look to me like something that got cut for space by GW rather then something the designers decided to toss.  In BB, each IN ship is more or less mirrored by a chaos equivalent, with a few exceptions.  The exceptions were more then likely cut content to reduce printing costs.

If the Jovian was cut from the BBB I doubt it would be due to production costs. I imagine it far more likely because the designers were uncertain on it. Justifiably so. The fact that it was published so soon after the BBB was released and yet had never become official in all the time since, even though newer ships have, says to me that there is something objectionable about the ship.

[BaronIveagh]

Ok, I'm gonna take a deep breath here and make a point I think that you all might grasp.  The 'feel' of a fleet, particularly one that is as flexible as IN, differs from person to person, based on the style of fleet that particular player tends to build.   Thus, from my perspective, IN is more akin to WWII then WWI.  In this, there are big guns, they have their role, but carriers have a key role to play as well.  The idea of a 'pure' carrier would be unusual, but not inconceivable in this scenario, particularly considering how close the number one most common battleship in the Imperium, the Emperor class, is to being a pure carrier.  From what I've read in fluff and with the newer offerings from FFG, there is the direction that the fluff, at least for the sectors of the galaxy around the eye of terror are heading with such local ships as the Tempest, which would not logically exist if the drives was simply toward bigger guns, as the idea of a purpose build escort carrier (as opposed to modified cargo ships) would be anathema to an 'all big guns' mindset.  

The LIST construction may change but the FEEL does not. Now we know your group tends to play with a whole lot of non standard rules and ships anyway which DOES change the feel. So if you could put all of that out of mind and look at what we have in the rule books, you can see that it's set up so that IN ends up with a weaker fleet if they take primarily carriers. (dictators are 220 and defiants are limited to 1 per 500 points) This is indisputable FACT regardless of what fluff you pull from outside sources or how you may FEEL about it.

Actually, I put 'all that' out of my mind a lot, notice that I have NOT been strongly championing the Mercury, a ship which I use frequently in non-standard games, other then to say I like it and find it a fun ship (and think it needs a forward str 6 torp option).  Looking ONLY at approved rules, you are wrong, and the reason is FAQ2010 and it's changes to torpedoes.  IN depends heavily on torps as an AC counter, and with the new changes, there's no need for AC to counter them against IN except at close range.  You can no longer blanket an area with torps by having squadrons or other ships combine salvos, as the entire salvo is still a single str 3 marker regardless of str.  This means that Chaos, in particular, with it's fast ships and strong long range game will be able to focus more ac against ships rather then for purposes of defending against torps.

Newer offering from FFG quite frankly DO NOT MATTER when it comes to the set themes that guide the overall creation of each fleet. Those were set in stone when the game was made and repeatedly adhered to by HA (with some prodding) and players alike in the creation of ships that fit within the framework laid out for us. Anything outside of those themes can safely be assumed as one of or highly experimental or ancient vessels.

Yes, they do, as we saw with the changes to the Rogue Trader list.  According to GW, FFG is canon now and, bluntly,if we want stuff approved we have to at leat pay lipservice to GW's decrees.

If themes were set in stone at game creation, Space Marines would still be prisoners that were converted as punishment, and the admech would be working hand in hand with the squats.

Escort carriers are almost purely defensive vessels. It seems that a gun lobby under pressure to build carriers from the argument of necessary defence or to escort torpedoes would do just this. That is, the Tempest seems an alternative to a dedicated attack carrier, so is quite consistent with the big gun lobby.

Not true, as examples of Emperor, Dictator, and just about every carrier but Defiant have also turned up (and it specifically can take aboats which are an offensive weapon).  You aren't going to have 'all' of these with a dedicated 'big gun' fleet.  As to why this would be, I draw your attention to the Angevin Crusade's primary adversary, the Yu'vath, and their primary space weapon, the unmanned Void Wasp, which is absurdly fast (think 30-35cm), slightly smaller then a destroyer, fires with a keel mount in all directions, ignores shields, and seems to come in big swarms (sound familiar?).  Since Battlefleet Calixis was made of the surviving ships of Angevin's Crusade, there's going to be a high percentage of carriers because fleets with carriers would have been more successful against them then those without.  

(along with the 'Fenksworld Calamity' where radical inquisitors sabotaged the Apocalypse Class battleship Tempest's Child and used it destroy over 20 other warships and demolish quite a bit everything else in it's path.  One would imagine that this would have dealt a heavy blow to any big gun lobby in the newly founded sector fleet)

But here again we come back to power. For those lasers to remain damaging enough at those ranges to take out the bombers (we're not talking simple projectiles now, those lasers would have to cut through the bombers) it would require rather enormous levels of power. Most likely the turrets would be quite large too. So we're looking at some loss of main gunnery due to power/space requirements and also most likely some loss of close fire capability since they're larger turrets and likely wouldn't track so well as normal turrets. Unless of course, the FDTs were added on top of the normal turrets, simply displacing some main guns.

Incorrect.  A laser system can be made sufficiently powerful to fire on and destroy another target in space using modern technology.  The Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser, despite being diffused by Earths atmosphere was able to destroy a target slightly larger then a car at 432km, which was traveling at orbital velocities.  In a vacuum, with proper targeting equipment, this range could be increased by a factor of 20, easily, due to the reduction in blooming.  

Picture of it: man for scale



The laser beam itself is only 14 x 14 cm, bit is capable of easily burning through most modern heat and radiation shielding.  It can produce a megawatt beam for over 70 seconds.  More then enough to chop bombers in half, and is fast enough tracking that even close in targets can be easily burned through or chopped up.

Lastly, I would be wondering at the mechanic that allows these guns to simply function as a turret on the defending ship. For example, why would you fire them when the ship is actively being attacked and the AC is at its most manoeuvrable and most hidden, rather than when they're on their way in? Also, why should they reduce bomber attack runs (assuming they do)? It's not likely that the bombers will be able to jink away from laser fire, it's not as though there would be flak to try to avoid. Either the bombers would be hit or not.

This concept of secondary weaponry being able to extend their effective range to main gun levels with much greater accuracy and efficiency than main guns and no loss of other performance whatsoever is untenable. It certainly could be done by shifting resources, such that it is being performed by main guns. And it makes more sense to shoot these anti-ordnance guns in the shooting phase where the AC is flying on the way in, rather than when they're in the attack.

With that sort of range, I admit, it's not clear to me either, but then, there's a whole lot of similar plot holes in BFG (why don't ships ever come up underneath a target where it has no guns? is a big one) that perplex me.



I would suggest it has to do with beam duration.  To burn through a ships hull would require it to fire for a prolonged period.  To burn through a bomber the size of a 747 would require vastly less time, particularly since it's a bomber loaded with explosives.