Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka

[BaronIveagh]

You better be able to back up your accusation. I've never said anything here which is contrary to what I believe IN should be which is a fleet which does not have easy access to AC among other things. I don't like hypocrites either. I hate people who make false accusations more though.

Note the term 'to a degree'.  You're calling for radical changes to how a list is played that's been in use for the better part of a decade and calling it 'conservative' 

From the perspective of a player of this list: that would be like replacing the vanilla Gothic IN list's shields with holofields and calling it 'conservative'.  I was not really thrilled with the changes the HA made to the list in ver 1.0 and I'm steadily growing less happy with it as this has gone along. 

Bakka has *never* played like a generic IN list and frankly the efforts to make it 'fit in' have destroyed more of the 'feel' then they have preserved.  I find it bizarre that a group of people that have never played the list are complaining about 'feel' when not one of them has a damn clue what Bakka's fleetlist 'feels' LIKE because they've never played it.

That's why what you and a LOT of these other nice people are doing is hypocrisy D'Art.  If what *I* had to say about SM and lances has 'no merit' because 'go play space marines yourself and then you can tell us about it'  (your own words, IIRC) then then what possible merit does the view of ANY OF YOU who have never played the Bakka fleetlist have?

I think I agree with the others who've mentioned concerns about lists bleeding together. We already have a list that allows marines and IN together, and AM could already be taken as reserves.

I agree with Sig that FDTs should be kept to the AM list until it can be reviewed and then eliminated altogether.

Wait, you're opposed to lists becoming bled together, and thus, generic, but you support removal of one of the key points that differentiates Bakka from Vanilla IN? 

Horizon is Sigs tamer?

For some reason I just pictured Horizon throwing out a pokeball and yelling 'Sigoroth, I choose you!  Flame attack, now!'

[PugO]

I'm... puzzled.  There seems to be a lot of hate for the FDT but no one seems to be bothering to explain why?

[Valhallan]

FDT hate comes from fluff. its new and rare to Admec, but Bakka rocks the socks off FDT. hence a contradiction in story.

current bakka "FDT's" (cuz they're not fdt's really anymore) allow for massing 2 turrets when up to 15cm away (but only for 1 ship/ordy phase), and the optional purchase of +1 turret for any cap ship for +10 points. this aint too bad, and helps reduce ac problems, nobody is immue to bombers without paying out for it. and we can get T3 Cr's and some T4 Cb's... the potnetial for a T4 CL is interesting as a sacrifice ship... really being quite dauntless with respect to AC despite being endurances'/endevours'

--nearly everyone is famous on whineseer, even I, the humble Grom Hellscream, inventor and OP of the true 7th ed orc and goblin chariot spam has some recognition....

what exact objections does the baron have? (mind you I've never seen the Original 2000somthing Bakka list anywhere)
*we altered FDT (toned down a bit and made more consistent with fluff)
*put the jovian as reserve (appeasement of the population majority)
*reduced some BB prices (good)
*added the coolest IN carrier ever (v.good)
*gave the mercury a torp option (v.good)

and thats about it...

[PugO]

FDT hate comes from fluff. its new and rare to Admec, but Bakka rocks the socks off FDT. hence a contradiction in story.

current bakka "FDT's" (cuz they're not fdt's really anymore) allow for massing 2 turrets when up to 15cm away (but only for 1 ship/ordy phase), and the optional purchase of +1 turret for any cap ship for +10 points. this aint too bad, and helps reduce ac problems, nobody is immue to bombers without paying out for it. and we can get T3 Cr's and some T4 Cb's... the potnetial for a T4 CL is interesting as a sacrifice ship... really being quite dauntless with respect to AC despite being endurances'/endevours'

--nearly everyone is famous on whineseer, even I, the humble Grom Hellscream, inventor and OP of the true 7th ed orc and goblin chariot spam has some recognition....

what exact objections does the baron have? (mind you I've never seen the Original 2000somthing Bakka list anywhere)
*we altered FDT (toned down a bit and made more consistent with fluff)
*put the jovian as reserve (appeasement of the population majority)
*reduced some BB prices (good)
*added the coolest IN carrier ever (v.good)
*gave the mercury a torp option (v.good)

and thats about it...

Hmm... so Bakka is now Armageddon with Admech reserves?  I hate to say this, because reading these posts the Baron seems rather full of himself, but he does have two points.  Bakka does not play like vanilla IN, and this does not feel like Bakka.  As a Bakka player, I object to these changes.  FDT were very much a part of the flavor of Bakka, and as of now, reserving in ships from other IN is nearly impossible, due to the fact that you have to use most of your reserve slots to get your FDTs.

Other then the baron, myself, and the HA, have any of you played Bakka fleets previously?

[Vaaish]

The FDT talk made me look at the 1.2 list up on the server again and I'm a little confused. I thought the FDT was completely replaced by the ability to add one turret to a ships profile for +10 points.

Further reading seems to indicate that bakka ships have 2x FDT for free that basically act like massed turrets but can be used outside of base contact and only help a single ship per ordnance phase and that any mechanicus ships taken in the bakka fleet can take the upgrade for +5 points. In addition to this, it seems that IN ships also gain the ability to take an extra turret for +10 points.

Is this supposed to read that any IN ship may take an extra turret for +10 points and any Admech ship in the bakka fleet may take the FDT upgrade for +5 points? If it is, the information in the document seems rather complicated.

[BaronIveagh]

Hmm... so Bakka is now Armageddon with Admech reserves?  I hate to say this, because reading these posts the Baron seems rather full of himself, but he does have two points.  Bakka does not play like vanilla IN, and this does not feel like Bakka.  As a Bakka player, I object to these changes.  FDT were very much a part of the flavor of Bakka, and as of now, reserving in ships from other IN is nearly impossible, due to the fact that you have to use most of your reserve slots to get your FDTs.

*sigh* They don't WANT Bakka, they just want another IN variant list and Bakka happened to be a convenient name.  It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them 'why' Bakka is one of the more popular non-official lists and they're trying to shoehorn it in with the rest of IN.

The FDT talk made me look at the 1.2 list up on the server again and I'm a little confused. I thought the FDT was completely replaced by the ability to add one turret to a ships profile for +10 points.

Further reading seems to indicate that bakka ships have 2x FDT for free that basically act like massed turrets but can be used outside of base contact and only help a single ship per ordnance phase and that any mechanicus ships taken in the bakka fleet can take the upgrade for +5 points. In addition to this, it seems that IN ships also gain the ability to take an extra turret for +10 points.

Is this supposed to read that any IN ship may take an extra turret for +10 points and any Admech ship in the bakka fleet may take the FDT upgrade for +5 points? If it is, the information in the document seems rather complicated.

I read it as that Admech ships can choose to take it rather then roll for it.  But it is rather complicated.  Basically they're trying to alter fluff and rules o that both make sense and ended up with a complicated lump.

[Vaaish]

It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them 'why' Bakka is one of the more popular non-official lists

Then please tell us why in your opinion what makes bakka, bakka. It can't be just they have FDT because that really isn't all that much of a change from regular IN.

[Valhallan]

in addition: a link to the old bakka rules would be helpful for us 

[PugO]

It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them 'why' Bakka is one of the more popular non-official lists

Then please tell us why in your opinion what makes bakka, bakka. It can't be just they have FDT because that really isn't all that much of a change from regular IN.

Hmm... hard to describe.  It's... it's a fleet that is good at keeping your opponent guessing.  Endeavour used to be a 25cm ship with Bakka, with Dauntless, and Enforcer also available.  Rath was worth the points because you could CTNH in the battleship he commanded in the original list, though they changed that in Annual 2002 to the current, and IMHO less desirable, version.  Now he's price reduced for -1 reroll, but still something not worth taking.

While there were a lot of IN cruisers available, most people I know that used the list never took most of them, with the occasional exception of Gothic or Dictator.  The fleet really shone in it's fast reaction and rapidly closing with your opponent. 

It has a lot more in common with marine fleets then with Vanilla IN.  It's fast.  It's 'ded shooty'.  It had an anti-AC system that made sense, somewhat, but more importantly, worked.  Basically we've stripped away a lot of that to try and make it more IN-ish, and I think that really kills it. 

in addition: a link to the old bakka rules would be helpful for us 

Not too sure If we're allowed to do that or not.  I looked around online but the only one's I saw were illegal downloads of Annual 2002 and BFG Mag 02. 

[BaronIveagh]

in addition: a link to the old bakka rules would be helpful for us 

I don't think that the list itself is allowed, though most of them are in the 'Additional BFG ships' pdf floating around the Internet.  If they're IN from BFGm issue 2 or Annual 2002 they're probably from Bakka.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Admiral D; I do agree with you. Fleets have themes, they shouldn't vary from these save for only in slight. Although, there are reasons for adding more vessels. You must see this?

Uh, you do see my comments on the new ships in the Bakka list? Did you see in any one of them me saying delete the ship? I don't mind adding new ships as long as it's within the flavor of the faction in question.

[Plaxor]

Win! Admiral D is on the 'New ships' philosophy.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Note the term 'to a degree'.  You're calling for radical changes to how a list is played that's been in use for the better part of a decade and calling it 'conservative' 

What radical change? Because you're losing the FDT? Did you also note that in exchange, I wanted the IN ships in Bakka to have better direct fire weapons vs ordnance as well as other things to help balance it out?  Also note, Sig and RCGothic were the ones who really wanted it out. I am mostly silent on the issue even though I agree it's out of place and would probably be better replaced with better turrets or direct fire weapons which is simpler mechanics wise.

From the perspective of a player of this list: that would be like replacing the vanilla Gothic IN list's shields with holofields and calling it 'conservative'.  I was not really thrilled with the changes the HA made to the list in ver 1.0 and I'm steadily growing less happy with it as this has gone along. 

Bakka has *never* played like a generic IN list and frankly the efforts to make it 'fit in' have destroyed more of the 'feel' then they have preserved.  I find it bizarre that a group of people that have never played the list are complaining about 'feel' when not one of them has a damn clue what Bakka's fleetlist 'feels' LIKE because they've never played it.

That's why what you and a LOT of these other nice people are doing is hypocrisy D'Art.  If what *I* had to say about SM and lances has 'no merit' because 'go play space marines yourself and then you can tell us about it'  (your own words, IIRC) then then what possible merit does the view of ANY OF YOU who have never played the Bakka fleetlist have?

Really? Losing the FDT would be like giving IN holofields? You, sir, exagerrate.

Bakka still plays for the most part the same against other fleets. Bakka is not losing ships over it yet, even if I don't like the Jovian. Bakka is even gaining new ships vis a vis the other IN lists, most of which are part of the original Bakka. If you're losing those ships, you might have a point. Bakka plays differently against ordnance but it will play similarly for ship to ship combat, even with access to slightly faster ships because the stats for the main ships are not different with the existing ones nor that different with the new ones.

The difference bet the SM thread and this Bakka one is that in the former, lances are being introduced into SM capital ships which is more a threat to ships than any FDT will ever be. If you can't see that difference, then there's no point continuing this debate.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Win! Admiral D is on the 'New ships' philosophy.

Never said I wasn't. I've designed some ships already. Governor would be the more known. I also have my own Gothic BC which I call Conqueror, a DE BB called Sadistic. An Ork Brute-Writ-Large called Orkhram's Raza which I entered into an SG contest and won 3rd. For SM the LB heavy SC and BB.

I do think new ships are possible but preferably within the context of the fleet it is being designed for.

[Plaxor]

@Admiral,

I really do like the 'direct weapons hit ordinance easier idea'. Simple rule: Hunter, weapons on ships with this rule hit ordinance on a 4+

Which is why I proposed adding the Firedagger escort with this rule.

@Baron,

Just because we don't like something never meant that it was broken. Besides, you were already using a semi-official list, why not just keep using it?

@Sigoroth

Burn and purge. You'd make a good Arch-Arsonist.