Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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?

An extra turret shooting at Aboats does little?

[BaronIveagh]

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?

'like all Voss pattern ships, being unique to that forgeworld, it is not commonly distributed throughout fleets.'- Armada, pg 19.  While some leeway might be made for Bastion fleets, being relatively nearby and having a high demand for anything spaceworthy and armed, Bakka is halfway across the galaxy, and at the same time they would actually have a demand for these ships, Voss is entirely given over to the 3rd Armageddon war as far as production goes.  

An extra turret shooting at Aboats does little?

... in much the same way that firing three shots as opposed to two into an ork hoard does little.  Stop and think: they're experience that changed their tune about carriers was against the Tyranids.  Against aboat swarms, since fighters can suppress turrets for aboats the same as they do bombers, how effective will 1 extra turret be? 

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.

So the fact it nerfs bombers even further, making it broken against every fleet but 'nids and SM is of no concern?

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

The SC is +6 all over.  +6 in one location would put increased stress on the frame during tight maneuvers as well as pushing the limits of your thrusters.  Look at hte mass of most other ships with +6 prows compared to the prow itself.

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.

But they weren't, and never have been, so it's an upgrade.

[Zhukov]

Personally, I like the idea of giving the Voss CL stats to some Dauntless variants (so people can actually use them). BUT, you NEED TO CHANGE THE NAME!!!! It's NOT an Endeavor! It looks NOTHING like it. It only ACTS like it.

-Zhukov

[RCgothic]

There's a difference between Voss PATTERN and Endeavour CLASS.

Pattern is specific to a particular forge world. Pattern is what the ship looks like, the class refers to its functionality.

If a forge world produced a light cruiser with 6 hits, 1 shield, 20cm speed, 90' turns, armour 5+, 2 turrets, S2 broadside lances, FP2 L/F/R WBs and S2 forward torps, then that's an Endurance class regardless of what it looks like.

My Endeavour, Endurance, and Defiant class cruisers are not Voss Pattern. Interestingly, the ships depicted in the battlefleet Bakka fleet list aren't Voss pattern either.

[Vaaish]

Voss is entirely given over to the 3rd Armageddon war as far as production goes.

Are we sure about that? I mean that all of BFG falls under the realm of during the 3rd Armageddon war. With the retrofitting of all mars to use the targeting array and the ability to use upgrades on more than just the named ships I don't think we can assume that we are only referencing a particular galactic period so it's quite possible things have been exported or are just built as a different pattern elsewhere.

So the fact it nerfs bombers even further, making it broken against every fleet but 'nids and SM is of no concern?

We are running with few options here. With what Nate has said so far we are killing the FDT mechanic but aren't allowed to create a new mechanic. That limits us to adding more turrets to make up for the low AC. Unless his hands are tied by GW, I don't think that just adding more turrets is the best route for this since it's rather spotty in increasing the capabilities as a whole.

[Eldanesh]

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

This statement is nonsense. The Faktor how large damage is reduced depends on the wave size. The ordnonance system does not work in a linear way, so you can hardly make a useful statement about a single bomber.

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).

You got it: i can't field an emperor with a jovian. I can only field an Emperor, Jovian and an overpriced Fleet commander nobody would ever use willingly because his LD10 is completly wasted on an Emperor. To be honest it's a bit like the flame of Asuryan and the Pirate prince.

And you forget the main point: if I want to spam AC in an Imperial fleet (don't know why anybody should do that) I don't use Bakka. It doesn't matter if there is a jovian or not in the list, a powergamer won't use the Bakka list as almost any other fleet has more AC as well as a more effective general setup.

[BaronIveagh]

There's a difference between Voss PATTERN and Endeavour CLASS.

Pattern is specific to a particular forge world. Pattern is what the ship looks like, the class refers to its functionality.

If a forge world produced a light cruiser with 6 hits, 1 shield, 20cm speed, 90' turns, armour 5+, 2 turrets, S2 broadside lances, FP2 L/F/R WBs and S2 forward torps, then that's an Endurance class regardless of what it looks like.

My Endeavour, Endurance, and Defiant class cruisers are not Voss Pattern. Interestingly, the ships depicted in the battlefleet Bakka fleet list aren't Voss pattern either.

Um, RC, all three Endeavour hull based ships are refereed to as the 'Voss triumvirate' in fluff, and the classes are actually NAMED after the motto on the 'Shield of Voss'.  I think that would imply at least some connection between that forgeworld and these ships.  

"Above all else, Battlefleet Armageddon and, in particular, Voss forgeworld, is known for their light cruisers. Not only are these vessals characterized by thier distinctive prow, but by the midships sheilding they employ, in the form of huge plates mounted either side of an unusually narrow corridor'. - Armada, pg 115.  

So, have you given up your +1 against boarding or are they Voss ships?   Somehow the idea that 'extra training' has given them a +1 bonus seems absurd, since it's the same bonus that orks and khornate berzerkers get.

Are we sure about that? I mean that all of BFG falls under the realm of during the 3rd Armageddon war. With the retrofitting of all mars to use the targeting array and the ability to use upgrades on more than just the named ships I don't think we can assume that we are only referencing a particular galactic period so it's quite possible things have been exported or are just built as a different pattern elsewhere.

Well, as far as Voss' production goes it says so on pg 17 of Armada.

The Gothic War itself takes place almost 1,000 years before present.  1st Tyrannic War, about 150ish.

As far as how many and when... not clear.  The text for the Endeavour implies that ships that had been sent to other sectors were returned to Battlefleet Armageddon for the war.  Bakka suffered it's near annihilation only about a century before at Circe, and we know approx how much of what got clear of that debacle, so there are none predating that incident.  Since the lsit here is Bakka, thoguh wether pre- or post Circe is a good question.  It's rather muddled by the presence of the Jovian (which could ony have come post) and the Dominus Astra (which was destroyed at Circe).  

Arguably, there might have been a few examples from Voss pre-Circe that were destroyed, but getting them post 1st Tyrannic war is unlikely.

While, yes, we could drag out the Lord Daros example, that it only took 11 years to build it, I might also point out that the text talks about how remarkable this was that it was finished so quickly.  It implies it's a record rather then the norm, and even producing at that rate, the battlefleet would only have produced 10-20 cruisers since, meaning they're probably still understrength, even if they produced at speeds rivaling the IN record holder.  

We are running with few options here. With what Nate has said so far we are killing the FDT mechanic but aren't allowed to create a new mechanic. That limits us to adding more turrets to make up for the low AC. Unless his hands are tied by GW, I don't think that just adding more turrets is the best route for this since it's rather spotty in increasing the capabilities as a whole.

Well, I can say that my idea worked, it was not FDT enhanced as D'Art dismissively, and erroneously, called it, but We're up frak creek now, arn't we?



Nate: you know, it would be interesting to see what BFG is doing NOW as opposed to a thousand years ago.  All these fleets aren't just scattered in distance but TIME.  Only Armageddon seems to be a list from what is the 'present' of 40k.

[Vaaish]

As far as how many and when... not clear.  The text for the Endeavour implies that ships that had been sent to other sectors were returned to Battlefleet Armageddon for the war.  Bakka suffered it's near annihilation only about a century before at Circe, and we know approx how much of what got clear of that debacle, so there are none predating that incident.  Since the lsit here is Bakka, thoguh wether pre- or post Circe is a good question.  It's rather muddled by the presence of the Jovian (which could ony have come post) and the Dominus Astra (which was destroyed at Circe). 

Arguably, there might have been a few examples from Voss pre-Circe that were destroyed, but getting them post 1st Tyrannic war is unlikely.

While, yes, we could drag out the Lord Daros example, that it only took 11 years to build it, I might also point out that the text talks about how remarkable this was that it was finished so quickly.  It implies it's a record rather then the norm, and even producing at that rate, the battlefleet would only have produced 10-20 cruisers since, meaning they're probably still understrength, even if they produced at speeds rivaling the IN record holder. 

Thinking about it a bit more, it's probably immaterial since the Siluria is available and it's a proto-endeavour for all intents and purposes. That gives some credence to the idea that a proto-defiant could exist there or that several were acquired before the Pro-carrier group lost sway. Regardless of how you fluff it though, I think the defiant is the best fit of the IN carriers to represent a fleet that dislikes carriers with its load out and precedent for being limited in a list already.

Rereading that section on the Lord Daros the remarkable fact was that it was built in such a primative place making it an example that the uncomplicated nature of the design allows it to be built practically anywhere, not that it only took 11 years to build it. The time it took isn't even connected in any substantial means to the remarkable nature of building it there in the first place. Even if the timespan was what was being referenced, you'd have to conclude that such a production rate was, at the least, standard for any shipyard and not abnormally short given conditions.

[BaronIveagh]

Rereading that section on the Lord Daros the remarkable fact was that it was built in such a primative place making it an example that the uncomplicated nature of the design allows it to be built practically anywhere, not that it only took 11 years to build it. The time it took isn't even connected in any substantial means to the remarkable nature of building it there in the first place. Even if the timespan was what was being referenced, you'd have to conclude that such a production rate was, at the least, standard for any shipyard and not abnormally short given conditions.

Eh, the Brutal Interdiction was a sword class built at Cypra Mundi and took four years to compete the final activation and checks of the ships systems, despite being for all intents and purposes finished.  If, and admittedly this is based on an assumption, the ships construction was at the same scale as a modern ocean ships construction time, this means that Brutal Interdiction spent about 50 years on the slip. 

Cruisers are bluntly stated in some fluff to take centuries or longer to finish, implying that the Lord Daros is far from the 'average' amount of time that it takes.

[Sigoroth]

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

Let me start first off by saying you, BI, are a fucktard.

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?

Firstly, a-boats don't need nerfing. They're terribly weak already against cap ships and have been nerfed into the ground against escorts. Secondly, Bakka got mauled by ordnance, turrets shoot down ordnance, therefore more turrets. Perfectly logical reasoning. If you can't grasp that then there's no hope for you. Thirdly, what is attempted here is to make a low to zero AC fleet possible. Bombers are the biggest threat to your ships in-game. So if adding an extra turret to ships in a low AC fleet protects more against the dangerous bombers than the piss-weak a-boats then fine.

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'.

I wouldn't count on it.

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.  

Compare to a Lunar. Lunar more massive, yet has same turn rate and speed as the proposed swap. Compare to a Dauntless. Dauntless has increased turn rate and speed, but loses armour. The Voss triumvirate should straddle the line. They have Dauntless mass with line-cruiser armour, so they should have either 25cm/45° or 20cm/90° with the 6+ armour. The former makes them too fast for the rest of the line, the latter makes them able to redeploy to cover holes in the line faster, which would presumably be the point of the ship. Add to this the fact that they're all overpriced, then the addition of the armour with no other change would be a simple fix.

In short, this is not one ship adding armour and therefore losing something else, it is how the class should have been in the first place. If you want to think of it another way, consider that they had +5cm speed to match the Dauntless (25cm/90°/5+ prow) and then the armour can be added at a 'cost' of 5cm speed (20cm/90°/6+ prow).

[BaronIveagh]

Let me start first off by saying you, BI, are a fucktard.

My, such language.

Firstly, a-boats don't need nerfing. They're terribly weak already against cap ships and have been nerfed into the ground against escorts. Secondly, Bakka got mauled by ordnance, turrets shoot down ordnance, therefore more turrets. Perfectly logical reasoning. If you can't grasp that then there's no hope for you. Thirdly, what is attempted here is to make a low to zero AC fleet possible. Bombers are the biggest threat to your ships in-game. So if adding an extra turret to ships in a low AC fleet protects more against the dangerous bombers than the piss-weak a-boats then fine.

Sig, again, if anyone had bothered to read my post, my proposal didn't nerf one ordinance, or even one AC, over another.  That said: Sig, 'nids only have aboats, fighters, and boarding torps.   So, if they had bombers, I'm sure that would make sense.  But they don't.  In fact, they don't even have damage dealing torps.

And arn't you the one that sat around dissing this list anyway and insisting that it should just sink because it was unnecessary?  

After having said that, why should anyone listen to you on what should be done with this fleet?

I wouldn't count on it.

Indeed

Compare to a Lunar. Lunar more massive, yet has same turn rate and speed as the proposed swap. Compare to a Dauntless. Dauntless has increased turn rate and speed, but loses armour. The Voss triumvirate should straddle the line. They have Dauntless mass with line-cruiser armour, so they should have either 25cm/45° or 20cm/90° with the 6+ armour. The former makes them too fast for the rest of the line, the latter makes them able to redeploy to cover holes in the line faster, which would presumably be the point of the ship. Add to this the fact that they're all overpriced, then the addition of the armour with no other change would be a simple fix.

In short, this is not one ship adding armour and therefore losing something else, it is how the class should have been in the first place. If you want to think of it another way, consider that they had +5cm speed to match the Dauntless (25cm/90°/5+ prow) and then the armour can be added at a 'cost' of 5cm speed (20cm/90°/6+ prow).

While 25cm speed is fine, the problem is that the prow now has more mass.  To 'turn' a starship, the thrusters on that part of the ship have to fire, while the thrusters on the engine end of the ship fire in the other direction to turn it.  The problem is putting more mass on the bow means that more force is required to accelerate it to turn the ship.  Voss ships are, as the song says, 'little in the middle', therefor vulnerable to stresses on the center of the ship.  More mass = more stress in a sudden turn.  

It's not just the mass you're fighting to accelerate that much ship, it's the mass that you're fighting to 'turn' it.  

[Sigoroth]

Sig, again, if anyone had bothered to read my post, my proposal didn't nerf one ordinance, or even one AC, over another.  That said: Sig, 'nids only have aboats, fighters, and boarding torps.   So, if they had bombers, I'm sure that would make sense.  But they don't.  In fact, they don't even have damage dealing torps.

Seriously? You still don't get it? I'll try once more. Nids kicked their arses with AC. These were a-boats. How do the IN defend against AC (even a-boats)? Turrets or fighters. Fighters means carriers, they don't want carriers, that leaves turrets. So, fluff wise, how would they defend against AC? Turrets.

Now, let's move to game balance. This is not fluff. It's game rules now. Got that? Good. A-boats are weak (again, this is in-game) and no one needs a buff to their fleet to defend a gunfleet from a-boats. Normal gunships with no extra defence would do fine. So the fact that an extra turret doesn't do a hell of a lot against a-boats (-0.5 H&R attacks per wave) is neither here nor there. Mind you, it is extra protection. Anyway, the biggest worry for a zero AC fleet is enemy bombers. This is because unmolested bombers can do a lot of damage to 2 turret ships, which is what the majority of most fleets is made up of. Against 3 turret ships bombers become a lot less useful. So, in GAME terms, an extra turret will make the 0 AC fleet quite viable. In FLUFF terms increasing anti-ordnance defences because they got trashed by ordnance makes sense.

As for your "proposal" it was worse than FDTs in effect, though slightly more sensible in concept. As d'Artagnan said the FDS is more powerful in that it allows Eldar ordnance to be hit on a 4+ by what is, for all intents and purposes still a turret. As for the concept, I still have objections on the basis that it should require main-gun weaponry or at least resources to achieve this effect.

And arn't you the one that sat around dissing this list anyway and insisting that it should just sink because it was unnecessary?  

After having said that, why should anyone listen to you on what should be done with this fleet?

Because what I say makes sense. And my biggest concern is the balance of other fleets. With the Jovian sealed to Bakka I was satisfied. With FDTs removed I was satisfied. Therefore I am no longer concerned about negative impacts on the game. The rest, such as prices for BBs, etc, are just balance issues. Since the ships concerned are all too weak then it doesn't really matter if they stay that way. Someone taking a Bakka fleet will simply be penalised. I don't see why that should stop me from giving analytical feedback though.

While 25cm speed is fine, the problem is that the prow now has more mass.  To 'turn' a starship, the thrusters on that part of the ship have to fire, while the thrusters on the engine end of the ship fire in the other direction to turn it.  The problem is putting more mass on the bow means that more force is required to accelerate it to turn the ship.  Voss ships are, as the song says, 'little in the middle', therefor vulnerable to stresses on the center of the ship.  More mass = more stress in a sudden turn.  

It's not just the mass you're fighting to accelerate that much ship, it's the mass that you're fighting to 'turn' it.  

Except the SC is 6+ all over and can turn 90°. The Voss CLs are all lighter than line-cruisers and so it isn't unreasonable to suggest that this loss of mass makes the ship easier to manoeuvre. As a light cruiser of the line it makes sense that they should be able to turn to fill holes. This would be the point of building the ship. A lighter armoured ship (Dauntless) can move faster. Compared to Chaos, the armoured prows of IN ships reduces speed. So as a Lunar is to a Murder (+armour -speed) so is an Endeavour to a Dauntless (+armour -speed).

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

An extra turret shooting at Aboats does little?

... in much the same way that firing three shots as opposed to two into an ork hoard does little.  Stop and think: they're experience that changed their tune about carriers was against the Tyranids.  Against aboat swarms, since fighters can suppress turrets for aboats the same as they do bombers, how effective will 1 extra turret be?  

People have already pointed out that Aboats aren't as threatening as bombers. Orks are more dangerous in that they have Fighta Bommas. That 1 more turret will still be more effective than without it.

While 25cm speed is fine, the problem is that the prow now has more mass.  To 'turn' a starship, the thrusters on that part of the ship have to fire, while the thrusters on the engine end of the ship fire in the other direction to turn it.  The problem is putting more mass on the bow means that more force is required to accelerate it to turn the ship.  Voss ships are, as the song says, 'little in the middle', therefor vulnerable to stresses on the center of the ship.  More mass = more stress in a sudden turn.  

It's not just the mass you're fighting to accelerate that much ship, it's the mass that you're fighting to 'turn' it.  

Except the SC is 6+ all over and can turn 90°. The Voss CLs are all lighter than line-cruisers and so it isn't unreasonable to suggest that this loss of mass makes the ship easier to manoeuvre. As a light cruiser of the line it makes sense that they should be able to turn to fill holes. This would be the point of building the ship. A lighter armoured ship (Dauntless) can move faster. Compared to Chaos, the armoured prows of IN ships reduces speed. So as a Lunar is to a Murder (+armour -speed) so is an Endeavour to a Dauntless (+armour -speed).

Yup. Should be that way definitely (Spd 20cm,6+/5+ prow and 90' turns). I still can't understand what the issue is with Nate.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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

This statement is nonsense. The Faktor how large damage is reduced depends on the wave size. The ordnonance system does not work in a linear way, so you can hardly make a useful statement about a single bomber.

No, he is pointing out that an additional turret means bombers both can be shot down and their number of attacks reduced because of the nature of bomber attack rules and its interaction with turrets. Whether singly or in a wave, the turrets will still reduce the number of attacks a bomber can generate.

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).

You got it: i can't field an emperor with a jovian. I can only field an Emperor, Jovian and an overpriced Fleet commander nobody would ever use willingly because his LD10 is completly wasted on an Emperor. To be honest it's a bit like the flame of Asuryan and the Pirate prince.

And you forget the main point: if I want to spam AC in an Imperial fleet (don't know why anybody should do that) I don't use Bakka. It doesn't matter if there is a jovian or not in the list, a powergamer won't use the Bakka list as almost any other fleet has more AC as well as a more effective general setup.

The point was you were making comparisons about ships via points which I pointed out was a bit flawed since one can bring both an Emperor and a Jovian in a Bakka fleet. So let's say you don't want an Emperor and a Jovian. You can bring a Jovian and a Mars which can get you 10 LBs which is only 2 less than your Emperor+Mars combo and yet costs much less if you are comparing them in isolation to the other requirements. That's how effective a Jovian is. While Bakka may not be a good example for an IN AC spamming fleet, it is still viable especially in games of 1500 points level where we mostly play at.

As for Rath being overpriced and would not be used willingly, "Lord Admiral Rath is Ld-10 and comes with two re-rolls as part of his point cost. His crew is honored and inspired by the great man’s presence and will fight with great courage and pride; they add +1 to their roll when defending against boarding actions. Respect for him extends to the forge world of Bakka itself, and his flagship receives one ship refit and weapon refit (rolled randomly) as part of his point cost."

Those 3 items in bold would cost more than 50 points. So while his Ld might be wasted on an Emperor, the other stuff he brings are not, especially the second built in re-roll and ship and engine refits.

I would WILLINGLY take Rath in an Emperor.

[Sigoroth]

As for Rath being overpriced and would not be used willingly, "Lord Admiral Rath is Ld-10 and comes with two re-rolls as part of his point cost. His crew is honored and inspired by the great man’s presence and will fight with great courage and pride; they add +1 to their roll when defending against boarding actions. Respect for him extends to the forge world of Bakka itself, and his flagship receives one ship refit and weapon refit (rolled randomly) as part of his point cost."

Those 3 items in bold would cost more than 50 points. So while his Ld might be wasted on an Emperor, the other stuff he brings are not, especially the second built in re-roll and ship and engine refits.

I would WILLINGLY take Rath in an Emperor.

Eh, it depends. If you took a Ld 9 Admiral (100 pts) +1 RR (+25 ps) and 2 refits (+73 pts) this gives a total of 198 pts and is equivalent to Rath when on an Emperor. I would take a Fleet Admiral though and depend upon enemy being on orders to push his Ld to 10, saving 50 pts. So according to this Rath is at least 2 points overpriced (which could make a difference given that you're using refits - either in a campaign or by agreement). He is more likely 52 pts overpriced, since you'd not usually even bother with the Ld 9 admiral.

However, where Rath comes into his own is when you're playing a one-off game without normal access to refits. Then you can get something you'd normally not be able to. This is even more valuable on a different BB, where his Ld 10 will come fully into play (not that this was the point of the discussion, since we were specifically talking about the Emperor).