Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka

[Plaxor]

Oh, no thoughts on the Siluria@4hits? A lot of people like this idea.... I'll start up a new list here soon.

[horizon]

Nate,
it is the Dominion from the book of nemesis. I'll dig the stats later (or someone else).

[Plaxor]

Nate,
it is the Dominion from the book of nemesis. I'll dig the stats later (or someone else).

Ugh...

Cruiser Stats but with 3 turrets

2P/S launch bays
2P/S lances @45cm
2 Dorsal lance @45cm
6 prow torps.


I was thinking about it, and it would be kinda cool to put in a Firedagger escort. With 15cm wbs that hit ordinance on a 4+. Call them 'flak' batteries or something. Kind of a compromise between the two sides. Maybe even a mix of 15&30cm batteries, and the ship has the 'old' shadowhunter special rule.

[Eldanesh]

There seems to be some massive, vitriolic, almost prepubescent hate for the Jovian. Only one ship can ever be used in an entire fleet, it can only be used by Bakka, and yet people still absolutely HATE it. Okay, it’s gone, but what gives? Really?

Just for the record: I don't have any problems with the Jovian. I don't think its overpowered or "theme breaking". Asuming that every regular IN fleet would have at least a Emperor and a Mars or dictator (for a total of 12 AC), a Jovian/Mars in a Bakka list will still have less AC. And at all the Jovian is a good  bit overpriced, so I really don't see the problem.

I won't remove it: it''s a nice ship with a nice background and you did the work already. If people think that they'll see it in every list, simply make it more expensive. Say 280 Points. This way it is less attractive and if you desperatly want it, be it for style reasons or to add some more ACs, then you have to pay...and, 20 points isn't such a big deal..

Which equals to a total of 16 LB's in a 1500 pt fleet (360x4+50 pt fleet commander=1490)! That could be a problem

Can't really imagine that anyone plays that... and compared to a "hangar-maximised" Solar or Gothic fleet it is still less: a Gotic list can have up to 4 Dictators and 2 Mars in 1500 Points for a total of 24 AC - so a Bakka fleet is at 2/3...seem fine..

Number of BCs/BBs
OK, BCs 1:1 and BBs on the regular 3:1 rate seems fine, to me, but the problem why I wanted to lower limits on BBs stays: The Vanquisher is so underperforming that I can't see anybody using a "slot" for it.

So another suggestion: what do you think about allowing one (1) Vanquisher per full xxxx Points (maybe 1500) to be taken without the usual restrictions?

+1 turrets
I suggest 15 or 20 Points per Escort Squadron - it encourages player to take larger Squadrons, what is IMO a good thing.
Cruisers should pay 5 points, and BBs 10 Points.
Simply because 2 or three turrets isn't such a great improvment, but the step from 4 to 5 turrets is...

[RCgothic]

2-3 turrets is a MASSIVE improvement. It cuts the expected damage from bombers by 40%, even without factoring in the additional casualties!

-   Since this fleet is supposed to be AC-light, Defiants are absolutely, positively OUT. I know some people reading this have either min-maxed fleets at least once or played against people who have. Admiral Rath, three Defiants and an Emperor is NOT what I call a Bakka fleet. Period.

But nobody would take that list. Yes, it does have the potential for 14AC, but only the 8 that the Emperor has are actually any use offensively, getting more than double the attack runs of all the Defiants put together. Even with all the defiants squadroned and in base contact, they don't match the Emperor for offensive power, and gain quite a few significant downsides as well.

A standard list would demolish Emperor&3 Defiants! For that cost I could get a Retribution (Immune to bombers), and 3 Lunars. There can't possibly be any dispute over which would win.

Two Defiants aren't worth one Dictator, and they cost more. I can't think of anyone who would rather have the Defiants than a Dictator or Mars. The only reason you could possibly have for taking a Defiant is if you otherwise would have no AC - the exact situation in bakka. That's why Bakka is the natural home of the Defiant.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Just for the record: I don't have any problems with the Jovian. I don't think its overpowered or "theme breaking". Asuming that every regular IN fleet would have at least a Emperor and a Mars or dictator (for a total of 12 AC), a Jovian/Mars in a Bakka list will still have less AC. And at all the Jovian is a good  bit overpriced, so I really don't see the problem. s...

Try Emperor and Jovian instead of Jovian and Mars. Even then an Emperor (365)+Mars (275) for a total of 640 points is much more expensive than Emperor (365)+Jovian (260) for a total of 625 points, even if one must take Rath (just figure him as you want to take the highest fleet commander you can).

[RCgothic]

On the Mercury:
There's not enough difference between it and the Overlord. It doesn't outgun the Overlord, the nova cannon is meh, and the +5cm speed isn't excuse enough for it going boom so much. If it had an extra shield as well, that would be a strong reason for giving it a BB power plant.

Anyway, if battleship power plants are rare, why are you putting them in a cruiser?

On the battleships:
Note that the Retribution is not a good ship, and benchmarking other ships against it just make them rubbish as well. For gunships you should be benchmarking against the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse has 60WBe@60cm, not counting prow, and the handicap has been nerfed so much it doesn't matter. The Retribution has just 37.5 in the same slots. On top of that, you say a NC is worth more than 9 torps (I don't agree, but whatever). By any standards the Retribution is comically undergunned. The Victory joins it in its mediocrity.

The Vanquisher for 300pts is actually pretty cool, and at least has properly powered broadsides even if it isn't strong on top/prow. Still needs 20cm though, and you haven't explained why that's been nerfed from its BFMg stats.

[Sigoroth]

-   FDT’s seem to be causing the most hate so they are gone. They are NOT being replaced with a different odd, used-nowhere-else mechanic such as turrets that hit on 3+. However, something far simpler is acceptable, such as all Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points. Thoughts?

Perfect.

-   The 1.1 Bakka list (not yet posted) already has the Vanquisher for 300 points. This is as low as its going so arguments to drop the price further are moot. No, it’s not getting a speed boost.

Happy with this.

-   As I demonstrated using the Smotherman Rules everyone is so fond of, the Victory for its firepower is about equivalent to a Retribution, with a stronger prow compensated by weaker dorsals. Making this ship cheaper than a Retribution guarantees the Ret will never be used. As was pointed out recently, the Victory has several advantages over the Apocalypse, which is only 10 points cheaper. Speaking of which, I know everyone wants this ship to be 15cm because they want the Nova Cannon to be used as a stand-off weapon, but 20cm isn’t a handicap when used on cruisers. Again, the intent is to make this ship a Ret analogue. If the ship is still too confused or misguided for your tastes, don’t use it.

Ok, bit of discussion here. Let's first consider the torp version vs a Retribution. They have the same profile and prow weaponry. The broadside weaponry is equivalent up to 30cm, with the advantage going to the Victory above 30cm. This advantage makes the Victory more likely to be used as a stand-off ship. This is again true given that as a line-breaker you've got a good chance to pass within 15cm of the enemy, making the WB of the Retribution a better choice. So the Vic is a stand-off ship, the Ret a line-breaker. Each ship has wasted stats for their role, however the Ret paying for range it doesn't use is nowhere near as bad as the Vic paying for prow armour, torps and speed it doesn't use.

Throw on top of this that the Retribution actually has the same total stand-off firepower and superior line-breaking firepower (due to the weak dorsal weaponry of the Vic) then we have a ship that is flat out superior in all regards. So the Retribution, a conflicted ship with subpar weaponry, is superior to Victory in all roles. The Ret should be 18WB@45cmL+R for 355 pts and this is what we should be balancing the Victory against.

Comparing the NC Vic to an Apocalypse we have a ship with weaker broadsides and faster speed, which is crap on a stand-off ship. So I fail to understand how this is a favourable comparison for the Vic. If you're talking about the consistency issue of the Apocalypse, well it does suck, but not the penalty for shooting over 45cm (which isn't even a real penalty) rather the fact you've got to pass your LO. This rule for the Apocalypse should be changed. It should be 60cm range but if you fire over 30cm put a BM in contact (thus reducing shield strength and speed, but providing consistency at range).

So, if the Apocalypse only manages to successfully LO 2 out of every 3 turns, and so in the turns that it fails to LO it has no target to shoot at, then that means that the Apocalypse and the Victory would both have the same total firepower (more concentration on the Apoc though, which is better). So the Victory would be able to compare equally to a broken ship? Yay.

Now let's compare it to a proper Oberon (ie, 60cm range, 355 pts). The Oberon puts out equal stand-off firepower at same range, has +1 turret and leadership, doesn't move too fast and gives 4AC. Er.

Now compare it to the Desolator. It's the same, but trades speed for prow armour. The Desolator is 300 pts.

Summary: The Victory compares slightly unfavourably to what are pretty weak Imperial battleships. If they were fixed it would compare terribly. A fixed Ret, Apoc or Oberon would be far far better. A Desolator is far better. It is owned by the current crappy Retribution.

Fix: Up its dorsal weaponry to 9 (the Apoc should get this too).

-   The Dominion- has anybody actually playtested this against Eldar? I have- I own one but NEVER thought of making this official! It’s advertised as a pirate hunter, but its 260 points worth of strawberry jam against Eldar. We can put this in the Jovian’s place since so many people want it, but in my opinion it really is rubbish. By the way, strawberry jam goes great in ham sandwiches (sorry, couldn’t help it )

Well, yes, if the pirates you're hunting are Eldar then this isn't the ship for you. If they're escorts from any other race on the other hand ...

-   Allowing all Bakka ships to have Nova Cannons is insane. Period. It’s bad enough the fleet list already makes them pretty common. Were it up to me, Dominators would NOT be part of the fleet list, but only an idiot would suggest that Dominators (which originate from relatively nearby Kar Durniash) would not be a primary ship in a Bakka fleet list when the farther-away Gothic fleet list counts them as primary ships.

I don't think it's insane, but it would be inconsistent with the view that they're overpowered, cheesy or rare so I agree.

-   I don't mind giving the Mercury a torps option, but I will have to pass this by Bob. On that note, the Mercury is like the Overlord in that it is not an ideal gunship BC. Imperials don’t get an ideal gunship BC. Play Chaos if that’s what you want. Period.

Torps would be more sensible, though the ship is still waaaaaay over-priced and only fills a very particular niche of people that like stupid ships. Oh, and as for pure gunships CBs, well, firstly, surely this would be the list to create one since it's meant to be a gunfleet. Secondly the Armageddon is pretty damn close to a pure gunship, as close as IN get anyway. Thirdly, well even Chaos don't have a pure gunship. Give me a Carnage with 2 dorsal lances at 60cm range LFR for 210 pts and I'll agree.

-   Endeavor and variants are NOT getting 90deg turns AND 6+ armor. One OR the other. Argument ends.

It's strange that you say this, as there is no fluff, balance or logistic reason why they shouldn't, and there is fluff, balance and logistic reasons why they should. You position is untenable and smacks of pouting. Care to explain why they shouldn't get both?

[BaronIveagh]

-   FDT’s seem to be causing the most hate so they are gone. They are NOT being replaced with a different odd, used-nowhere-else mechanic such as turrets that hit on 3+. However, something far simpler is acceptable, such as all Bakka ships (incl escorts) can buy +1 turret for +10 points. Thoughts?

Perfect.

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger.  Doctor Smith here thinks it's perfect.

Let's stop and think about this for a second: this nerfs bombers, but does little about aboats.  Bakka is the fleet that got it's teeth kicked in by nids and is looking hard for a way to fight them.  Nids ONLY have aboats, not bombers.  HOW IS THIS LOGICAL?

-   I don't mind giving the Mercury a torps option, but I will have to pass this by Bob. On that note, the Mercury is like the Overlord in that it is not an ideal gunship BC. Imperials don’t get an ideal gunship BC. Play Chaos if that’s what you want. Period.

Torps would be more sensible, though the ship is still waaaaaay over-priced and only fills a very particular niche of people that like stupid ships.

If I get to take one to a tourney, and see you there, i will take great pleasure in melting your face with my 'stupid ships'.

 

-   Endeavor and variants are NOT getting 90deg turns AND 6+ armor. One OR the other. Argument ends.

It's strange that you say this, as there is no fluff, balance or logistic reason why they shouldn't, and there is fluff, balance and logistic reasons why they should. You position is untenable and smacks of pouting. Care to explain why they shouldn't get both?

Because it flies in the face of newtonian physics?  (not that other things don't anyway, but...)  remember that +6 armor comes from staping millions of tonnes of metal to the box.  The thrusters would have to work extra hard to turn her. 

[horizon]

Turrets, well an extra turret is extra protection.

Endeacour 6+ prow.
well, a cl, Dauntless base. Flies 5cm slower. Gains 6+ prow.
/debate.

[BaronIveagh]

Turrets, well an extra turret is extra protection.

"Where are the radiation protective suits?"
"We don't have any. The warehouse was out, so they sent us chemical protective suits instead."
"They might as well wear raincoats!"

Endeacour 6+ prow.
well, a cl, Dauntless base. Flies 5cm slower. Gains 6+ prow.
/debate.

Because a CL dauntless still has a speed of 25cm and doesn't have a +6 prow as written in BFGm?  

Personally, I think the Enforcer is the perfect answer to Bakka's CV dilemma.  It's a carrier, but it's 25cm 90 degree turns.  All it lacks is +6 prow armor.  (And wth are you doing needing +6 prows on a carrier ANYWAY?  Stop trying to use carriers as line ships...) and it's supposedly a Tempestus ship, so...

[horizon]

tssk, you're slipping.

Sigoroth adressed the Endeavour & friends.
Those have 20cm.

[BaronIveagh]

tssk, you're slipping.

Sigoroth adressed the Endeavour & friends.
Those have 20cm.

Sigoroth addresses the moon and calls it green cheese.  Personally, I think the Voss ships need pulled entirely.  Their presence breaks fluff.

[horizon]

The Moon is hollow, a starship or sumtin else
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-directories/7-moon/moon-directory.htm


What fluff do they break?

[RCgothic]

3 turrets is 50% better than 2 turrets against all target types. The fact that it also cuts bomber attacks by 40% is a flaw of the bomber system, not Ordnance as a whole.

The space marines Strike Cruiser is precedent for CL with 6+ and 90'.

Your argument that adding mass to a CL makes it less maneouvrable might be a valid argument if we were arguing for 6+ prows as an upgrade, but we're actually of the opinion that that's what they should have had right from the start.