Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka

[Valhallan]

1st as pointed out: voss cl's with 20cm move and prows *should* have 90* turns. and DO in FS. (is anyone other than BI gonna take bakka to a tourny? i'm not). in free fall  (space) it matters less the mass of the object in respect to the force required to move it.

nids have aboats. extra turrets 86 bombers from being deadly. bakka was ripped apart by aboats. this seems fluffy to me. I like the idea of a free extra turret and a second at +10. i think that was RC or the Ad. good thoughts. though i still think aboats taking out weapons is the deadliest possibility to a gunship fleet. going from 2 ->3 turrets should 'protect' most CR's enough to throw them right into the storm of AC.
either FDT's back (meh...) or extra turrets for free/cheap (yea!). forces imperial phalanx movement with heavy gunships to provide B2B massing turrets ->good.

just cuz of the story in the beginning of the doc. people should stop comparing bakka ordy defense to Nid AC... nobody (sans tau maybe) can possibly counter bug AC... there is just too much of it.

FLUFF DOES NOT IMPLY CRAP.

already mentioned drop mars for defiant/enforcer.... won't continue on nates principle of 'not a good idea' despite my strongly disagreeing.

btw. I'd rather see rath on a fixed Ret!

[Sigoroth]

Also, on the topic of Rath, notice that half the ship refits are useless or next to it (leadership bonuses or +1 repair dice ... yay). And crew skills are typically crap all round, with the only gem in there being the ships AC counting as Eldar-light (Eldar rules, except hit by turrets on a 4+). Elite command crew is ok, if you intend to AAF into an asteroid field.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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).

Yup those points are correct though there would still be a difference in cost bet Ld 10 vs Ld9 and the the +1 to Boarding Roll when being boarded. My main point about Rath though is that even with his price, it does come with those perks and while he may be more effective on a ship without the +1 Modifier to Ld, I would still be willing to take him on an Emperor at that price and those perks.

[BaronIveagh]

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.

Why, turrets didn't work the first time. This is why the FDT fluff made a degree of sense as it was an attempt to improve existing defenses rather then heap on more of the same.  Remember that 'turrets' is a catch all for dozens of different weapons systems, basically an abstraction to make the game simpler.  Logically, since the existing systems did little to help, they'd look into something new.

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.

Maybe I'm missing something, but last I heard, one of the classic 'nid strategies was to use aboats and boarding torps to jack up your ships before using claws and feeder tendrils to eat them.  Particularly with the ability to suppress turrets for aboats.  

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.

Other then bombers, eldar ord is speed 30cm.  Granted, bombers are probably in trouble, but torps aren't, which is most of what I've seen eldar use.  

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.

Except if players are being penalized for playing a Bakka list, then that's not balanced, now is it?  Basically, your concern, in a nutshell is 'I don't want it better then IN is (fair enough) and don't care if I force it to suck in the process (which is where you and I do not see eye to eye)."

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 armed 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).

*sigh* except that the SC *IS* +6 all over, which means that no one particular section of the ship is under more stress then another.  It's like saying that just because a DC-3 can survive a particular maneuver, a PBY can too.  Doesn't work that way.  The SC's armor mass is evenly distributed.  In the case of a Daunt or Endeavor, it's not.  The armored prow on a lunar makes up a fairly small amount of it's total mass.  (small enough it actually shouldn't work, but due to abstraction, does).

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.

*sigh* Against most other races you might have a point, but against 'nids you're dead wrong, and we're going to see that with the turret suppression rules the way they are now.  Against IN and it's notorious short ranges, nids using aboats for launch a bunch of hit and runs before closing with claws and tendrils is about as basic as it gets.  

(is anyone other than BI gonna take bakka to a tourny? i'm not).

Then something is broken if it's a list no one other then hardcore fans would take.  It seems to be the point that everyone is avoiding.

in free fall  (space) it matters less the mass of the object in respect to the force required to move it.

Incorrect.  Inertia is actually the biggest factor, thus mass has a key role.  Further, you have to also have enough force to STOP it turning.

nids have aboats. extra turrets 86 bombers from being deadly. bakka was ripped apart by aboats. this seems fluffy to me. I like the idea of a free extra turret and a second at +10. i think that was RC or the Ad. good thoughts. though i still think aboats taking out weapons is the deadliest possibility to a gunship fleet. going from 2 ->3 turrets should 'protect' most CR's enough to throw them right into the storm of AC.
either FDT's back (meh...) or extra turrets for free/cheap (yea!). forces imperial phalanx movement with heavy gunships to provide B2B massing turrets ->good.

Um, where are you getting the free turret + a second one for +10?  Last I checked it was just 1 for +10.  

FLUFF DOES NOT IMPLY CRAP.

At least, on this point, we are in agreement.  The fleet should not suck to maintain fluff.

[Valhallan]

Quote from: Sigoroth on Yesterday at 09:21:40 PM
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 armed 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).

*sigh* except that the SC *IS* +6 all over, which means that no one particular section of the ship is under more stress then another.  It's like saying that just because a DC-3 can survive a particular maneuver, a PBY can too.  Doesn't work that way.  The SC's armor mass is evenly distributed.  In the case of a Daunt or Endeavor, it's not.  The armored prow on a lunar makes up a fairly small amount of it's total mass.  (small enough it actually shouldn't work, but due to abstraction, does).

Quote from: Valhallan on Today at 04:10:54 PM
in free fall  (space) it matters less the mass of the object in respect to the force required to move it.

Incorrect.  Inertia is actually the biggest factor, thus mass has a key role.  Further, you have to also have enough force to STOP it turning.

yes F=ma. easy in space. complex in the atmosphere. it would be easier for a 6+ prow 5+ else CL  to pull the turn than a 6+ all CL (strike CR.) stress-smesh. these ships are durable enough to TURN without reprocussions. besides. if a proper IN CR w/ 6+ prow goes 20 and turns 45*, then by your reasoning, why exactly should a lower mass CL with 6+ prow at 20cm move turn the same?

Quote from: Valhallan on Today at 04:10:54 PM
nids have aboats. extra turrets 86 bombers from being deadly. bakka was ripped apart by aboats. this seems fluffy to me. I like the idea of a free extra turret and a second at +10. i think that was RC or the Ad. good thoughts. though i still think aboats taking out weapons is the deadliest possibility to a gunship fleet. going from 2 ->3 turrets should 'protect' most CR's enough to throw them right into the storm of AC.
either FDT's back (meh...) or extra turrets for free/cheap (yea!). forces imperial phalanx movement with heavy gunships to provide B2B massing turrets ->good.

Um, where are you getting the free turret + a second one for +10?  Last I checked it was just 1 for +10. 

as it states earlier in my post. someone suggested it. I was just seconding the idea. it'd give enough turrets to stop bombers. but the pay-for-extra turret at premium would potentially make it so we could fight off aboats from knocking out our precious big guns.

Quote from: Valhallan on Today at 04:10:54 PM

FLUFF DOES NOT IMPLY CRAP.


At least, on this point, we are in agreement.  The fleet should not suck to maintain fluff.

Sweet. I'm glad we agree. I have this sneaking suspicion you and I are both the biggest proponents of Bakka. I like em as a concept, but some of these rules are meh (hence my discussing this so much).
also note. substituting in the FS ships by plax and the community really fixes a lot of issues with bakka.... like reserving in the expensive exorcist with 6LB... but that isn't what this discussion is about.

also...somebody...: no falchion needed. min/maxing for torps this list can throw out SO many torp salvos. (with t-bombs too!) cobras 86 other salvos and fighters quite easily.

basically it boils down to:
vicky <=345
vanq <=300
cheap/free access to extra turrets.
and IMO defiant/enforcer in place of mars.
even with 1:1 CR/CB this list is fun and different *enough* from the 'geddon list.

[Eldanesh]

I would WILLINGLY take Rath in an Emperor.

No Ld upgrade is worth an additional cruiser. Period.

Rath is a good deal if you compare him to a "regular" Solar Admiral, but as Admirals and rerolls in general are totaly overpriced it is still a bad deal.
Crap doesn't become a good option only because it is slightly better than other crap. It still crap.

Same goes for refits. Some are worth their points, but most are useless junk. Oh, and the IN shouldn't have radom refits - hell, they are no Orks, nether they are changing the layout of a ship every month nor do they built something without an intention
-> IN refits should have specific point costs and players should be able to take them directly (goes for AdMech as well). There are only two fleet which should have random upgrades: Orks and Tyranids, as their ships aren't build, they develop due to evolutionary pressure - it's ironic that tyras are the only race which can purchase reftis directly.

To make it short: if anyone brings Rath on an Emperor in a competitive play I consider this one not as an opponent, but as easy prey.
No bright player who wants to win would ever buy more than an ordinary Fleet Admiral with one or two rerolls. Bakka can't do that. Thats more than enough punishment. 

At the moment it is as Sig said: Someone taking a Bakka fleet will simply be penalised.
And People here work hard to make it even unplayable (or better: un-win-able  ). Can't understand that at all.

Oh and please: let out physics in such discussions. BFG is such a bad joke in scientific terms, be it the ship design or the game mechanics that you shouldn't build not any argument on technical plausibility.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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 armed 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).

*sigh* except that the SC *IS* +6 all over, which means that no one particular section of the ship is under more stress then another.  It's like saying that just because a DC-3 can survive a particular maneuver, a PBY can too.  Doesn't work that way.  The SC's armor mass is evenly distributed.  In the case of a Daunt or Endeavor, it's not.  The armored prow on a lunar makes up a fairly small amount of it's total mass.  (small enough it actually shouldn't work, but due to abstraction, does).

Dude, if they can make an all around 6+ ship turn on a dime, I'm pretty sure they can make a 6+/5+ armor ship turn on a dime. There's not much maneuver a DC-3 can do which a PBY can't seeing as the PBY is actually a similar in size to the DC-3 and is just as maneuverable as the DC-3.

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.

*sigh* Against most other races you might have a point, but against 'nids you're dead wrong, and we're going to see that with the turret suppression rules the way they are now.  Against IN and it's notorious short ranges, nids using aboats for launch a bunch of hit and runs before closing with claws and tendrils is about as basic as it gets.  

Why would I be dead wrong? Bakka is AC light but that doesn't mean they have no AC at all which can help against those Nid ABs. Adding turrets, they can now defend better than most IN lists especially if the ships use mass turrets. Bakka also has access to NCs which can also hit the ABs as long as they are still beyond 30 cm or shoot the ship with claws to help prevent the claws and tendril attack. If you want to let your opponent get to within really close range with all those ABs and claw ships without doing something about it, then by all means do so. I won't.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I would WILLINGLY take Rath in an Emperor.

No Ld upgrade is worth an additional cruiser. Period.

Rath is a good deal if you compare him to a "regular" Solar Admiral, but as Admirals and rerolls in general are totaly overpriced it is still a bad deal.
Crap doesn't become a good option only because it is slightly better than other crap. It still crap.

But it's not just an Ld upgrade. There's also the other perks. You agree that he's already a good deal compared to a regular Solar Admiral or other Admirals so it doesn't matter whether they are priced correctly or not. What matters is how they are comparatively priced. You can't avoid not taking them in games of 750 points even if you think they are overpriced.

If you don't want to use the Emperor because of Rath, fine. You can still have the Jovian+Mars combo which lets you have 10 LBs. Not bad considering and that's why the Jovian is really a problem ship.

[Zelnik]

Okay folks, I have given my two cents..
 I am going to duck out of this conversation. You all know my opinions, and my criticisms.  To reduce the cooks in the kitchen, I am going to sit and wait for the nest update. 

[BaronIveagh]

But it's not just an Ld upgrade. There's also the other perks. You agree that he's already a good deal compared to a regular Solar Admiral or other Admirals so it doesn't matter whether they are priced correctly or not. What matters is how they are comparatively priced. You can't avoid not taking them in games of 750 points even if you think they are overpriced.

If you don't want to use the Emperor because of Rath, fine. You can still have the Jovian+Mars combo which lets you have 10 LBs. Not bad considering and that's why the Jovian is really a problem ship.

Except the Jovian is out now because people threw a fit at the idea of a 3 lb per side BC in IN.  So, sorry, no Jovian + Mars combo.  You MUST take the overpriced officer to get the Emp.

Dude, if they can make an all around 6+ ship turn on a dime, I'm pretty sure they can make a 6+/5+ armor ship turn on a dime. There's not much maneuver a DC-3 can do which a PBY can't seeing as the PBY is actually a bit smaller than the DC-w and is probably more maneuverable than the DC-3.

Sorry, D'Art, size has nothing to do with it.  It's stress.  The wings tend to tear off a Catalina quite easily if you try evasive maneuvers because of how it's designed (and, yes, someplace, I have pictures).  The stength of the wings to the forces on them is so bad it's wings actually flap slightly in flight.  (Much to my Grandfather's horror when he went up in one as a emergency blister turret gunner)

A DC-3 however can execute much harder turns without being torn apart due to it's superior wing and fuselage design (not that either one is a good thing to be flying in a furball).

Why would I be dead wrong? Bakka is AC light but that doesn't mean they have no AC at all which can help against those Nid ABs. Adding turrets, they can now defend better than most IN lists especially if the ships use mass turrets. Bakka also has access to NCs which can also hit the ABs as long as they are still beyond 30 cm or shoot the ship with claws to help prevent the claws and tendril attack. If you want to let your opponent get to within really close range with all those ABs and claw ships without doing something about it, then by all means do so. I won't.

Well, first of all, that's some damn good NC shooting to hit those 2cm by 2cm markers.  And wow, D'Art, you make it sound like it's easy to kill all those cheap cruisers and hive ships before they close.  I wonder why I didn't think of that...?  Oh, it's because of those damn Kraken meat shields and the fact IN has crap lance range.  

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Except the Jovian is out now because people threw a fit at the idea of a 3 lb per side BC in IN.  So, sorry, no Jovian + Mars combo.  You MUST take the overpriced officer to get the Emp.

You're missing the gist of the discussion. The point was partly to reply to why the Jovian is wrong for IN, Bakka list or otherwise. Whether it's Emp+Jovian or Jovian+Mars in the Bakka list. This is why I and more than a few others don't like the Jovian in any IN fleet.

Sorry, D'Art, size has nothing to do with it.  It's stress.  The wings tend to tear off a Catalina quite easily if you try evasive maneuvers because of how it's designed (and, yes, someplace, I have pictures).  The stength of the wings to the forces on them is so bad it's
wings actually flap slightly in flight.  (Much to my Grandfather's horror when he went up in one as a emergency blister turret gunner)

PBY went into combat with a Jap bomber. Granted the PBY lost but point is it's maneuverable enough for that.

A DC-3 however can execute much harder turns without being torn apart due to it's superior wing and fuselage design (not that either one is a good thing to be flying in a furball).

And so we both agree they both suck at maneuvering. So it's completely irrelevant with the Dauntless and Endeavor discussion.

Well, first of all, that's some damn good NC shooting to hit those 2cm by 2cm markers.  And wow, D'Art, you make it sound like it's easy to kill all those cheap cruisers and hive ships before they close.  I wonder why I didn't think of that...?  Oh, it's because of those damn Kraken meat shields and the fact IN has crap lance range.  

Dude, you place the template then hope the scatter dice comes up with a hit or deviate only 1-2 cm. Wave gone. If ABs are really the problem. Which now it seems is something else.

Now you're introducing other elements. I never said taking out cheap cruisers and hive ships were easy but you do have to do something about them instead of what I keep getting from you that you just wait for them to get close and then get devoured by them. Aside from which, Horizon I think it was that said WBs perform better than lances vs Nids and IN has a lot of long range WBs with their heavier ships and even with the short range cruisers.

So what is really the problem for you? ABs or ships?

[BaronIveagh]

You're missing the gist of the discussion. The point was partly to reply to why the Jovian is wrong for IN, Bakka list or otherwise. Whether it's Emp+Jovian or Jovian+Mars in the Bakka list. This is why I and more than a few others don't like the Jovian in any IN fleet.

There's nothing wrong with the Jovian.  I have not seen one whit of evidence that the Jovian 'breaks' IN, or suddenly makes them unstoppable.  Frankly, the only thing it does do it make it so they can rival chaos for two types of AC, though they continue to not even come close for aboats.  The only thing it actually changes is it allows the possibility of an AC build that doesn't suck or involve SM ships.  Personally, I'd prefer to have a possible AC build using IN, maybe we wouldn't see +6 armor shooting around so much.

Dude, you place the template then hope the scatter dice comes up with a hit or deviate only 1-2 cm. Wave gone. If ABs are really the problem. Which now it seems is something else.

Now you're introducing other elements. I never said taking out cheap cruisers and hive ships were easy but you do have to do something about them instead of what I keep getting from you that you just wait for them to get close and then get devoured by them. Aside from which, Horizon I think it was that said WBs perform better than lances vs Nids and IN has a lot of long range WBs with their heavier ships and even with the short range cruisers.

So what is really the problem for you? ABs or ships?

D'Art, you obviously missed the point entirely.   It's the synergy between these two that spells trouble for this fleet  (coupled with the fact that nids can also spam boarding torps on top this).  You seem to be treating each stat as an individual item rather then looking at the overall playing field that they're used in.  On their own, with no other ships around, aboats do weak damage.  The problem is the over all strategy they're deployed in.  Against a tyranid fleet using aboats to execute large numbers of hit and runs against the fleet while they close, even against a cap ship, a lucky HnR will cripple it when the 'nid cruiser comes calling. 

And 'nids can pump these babies out by the dozen.  Remember that they launch twice their LB, and if properly screened by kraken, have little trouble closing to striking range.  if they keep their waves small, mix in some fighters to suppress, they're pretty much guaranteed a few successful hit and runs against you (not even factoring in if their escort meat shields are throwing boarding torps on top this).

On the NC hit: Congrats.  If you're lucky you have eliminated one wave of aboats.  Now about the other ten... and the boarding torps...

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

There's nothing wrong with the Jovian.  I have not seen one whit of evidence that the Jovian 'breaks' IN, or suddenly makes them unstoppable.  Frankly, the only thing it does do it make it so they can rival chaos for two types of AC, though they continue to not even come close for aboats.  The only thing it actually changes is it allows the possibility of an AC build that doesn't suck or involve SM ships.  Personally, I'd prefer to have a possible AC build using IN, maybe we wouldn't see +6 armor shooting around so much.

The point still being it's not a ship which should be available to IN. The problem with your rival argument is that one can only have the same amount of AC counters on the table as the LB they have. So there is no point to "not even come close to aboats" because whether one uses bombers or aboats, it's still the same number of counters on the table that both races have to deal with. Aside from which, bombers are more the threat than AB.

D'Art, you obviously missed the point entirely.   It's the synergy between these two that spells trouble for this fleet  (coupled with the fact that nids can also spam boarding torps on top this).  You seem to be treating each stat as an individual item rather then looking at the overall playing field that they're used in.  On their own, with no other ships around, aboats do weak damage.  The problem is the over all strategy they're deployed in.  Against a tyranid fleet using aboats to execute large numbers of hit and runs against the fleet while they close, even against a cap ship, a lucky HnR will cripple it when the 'nid cruiser comes calling.  

And 'nids can pump these babies out by the dozen.  Remember that they launch twice their LB, and if properly screened by kraken, have little trouble closing to striking range.  if they keep their waves small, mix in some fighters to suppress, they're pretty much guaranteed a few successful hit and runs against you (not even factoring in if their escort meat shields are throwing boarding torps on top this).

On the NC hit: Congrats.  If you're lucky you have eliminated one wave of aboats.  Now about the other ten... and the boarding torps...

And we know this is how Nids play. You seriously are telling me that Nids won't be able to harm an IN fleet which is heavy on the AC side? Is there really a difference is one fleet list has a bit more AC compared to another list which has more turrets when fighting against a Nid fleet with claws, acid or boarding torps, ABs and lots of escorts? 

So, say in a typical 1,500 point match, Gothic list can bring say 12 LBs while retaining gun efficiency. Bakka can bring 10 LBs using the Mars+Jovian combination while having a bit more turrets. Tell me the difference cause I am failing to see one at the moment other than one has more AC and the other more turrets.

So who is missing the point now?

[BaronIveagh]

The point still being it's not a ship which should be available to IN. The problem with your rival argument is that one can only have the same amount of AC counters on the table as the LB they have. So there is no point to "not even come close to aboats" because whether one uses bombers or aboats, it's still the same number of counters on the table that both races have to deal with. Aside from which, bombers are more the threat than AB.

I'm not clear why you think that crippling enemy ships has no effect on the game.  Granted, blasting things with bombers is effective, but taking Chaos Space Marines and doing hit and runs is a pretty effective tactic too.

And we know this is how Nids play. You seriously are telling me that Nids won't be able to harm an IN fleet which is heavy on the AC side? Is there really a difference is one fleet list has a bit more AC compared to another list which has more turrets when fighting against a Nid fleet with claws, acid or boarding torps, ABs and lots of escorts?  

So, say in a typical 1,500 point match, Gothic list can bring say 12 LBs while retaining gun efficiency. Bakka can bring 10 LBs using the Mars+Jovian combination while having a bit more turrets. Tell me the difference cause I am failing to see one at the moment other than one has more AC and the other more turrets.

So who is missing the point now?

Because you can't take that list now because you got Jovian thrown off the list, so now you only have the 4 on that Mars?  Somehow I don't think that having 1/3rd as much fighter coverage is made up for with those turrets.


Since people seem to be vague as to what can be taken at this time, IIRC:
Emp with Rath
Vicky
Vanquisher
Retribution

Cruisers-
Tyrant
Lunar
Gothic
Dominator
Endeavour
Endurance
Siluria

BCs:
Mercury
Mars
Armageddon

Escorts:
Sword
Havoc
Viper
Cobra


Now, how does this list feasibly take on an AC heavy list like 'nids?  (since they're going to be the foe that Bakka will think of when they look at acquiring ships.)

Reminder: we don't have any special rules, just +1 turrets for 10 points. 

Personally, as far as I can see, it's up a creek against an aboat list.  The extra turrets will help a lot against bombers, but against hit and runs it's pretty screwed.  Since fighters can escort aboats, turrets won't have as big an impact on how many hit and runs you take and nids can generate a lot. 

I hate to say it but at 1500 you're probably looking at 8 lbs max and making a decent gunline.  So, looking at fluff, let's take it in a different direction.  Let's ditch Rath, and take this as the fleet 'after' Circe. 

Looking at it from a AAR, Bakka lost due to two things.  Not being able to counter the large amount of 'nid ordinance, and not being able to get clear when things went south.  Both of these factors contributed to the fleets near annihilation at Circe.  Only due to a tremendous asspull by Rath did anyone get clear at all. 

So, we see a glaring weakness

The two traits we would logically see are increased AC defenses (or, if they had brain one, increased AC) and increased speed. 

Good candidates for this fleet:

Excorcist:  Has good firepower as well as LBs and would appeal to the big gun crowd as an old warhorse from the 'good old days'.  Many players have suggested it as a logical LB 6 ship, Bakka might be a good place for this variant.  It would draw less flack then the Jovian, and be explained as being war surplus from another sector.

Siluria: Good all around CL, makes Endeavor unnecessary. 

Vicky: Fast, long range BB. 

Mercury: Fast, long range BC.  Good flagship for CL squadrons. 

Cardinal: Heavy cruisers are an oddity in IN, but it's fast with good firepower, both making it attractive to the big gun lobby in the wake of Circe

So:

Retribution
Victory
Vanquisher

Cruisers:
Lunar
Gothic
Tyrant
Siluria
Schismatic

Heavy Cruisers:
Cardinal

BC:
Mars
Mercury
Armageddon

GC:
Exorcist

Escorts:
Havoc
Apostate
Viper
Cobra

I'm sure you're all wondering why the Apostate and Schismatic are in there.  (Or arn't because you already think I'm mad anyway) 

The Apostate fills in nicely for the absense of the Falchion and firestorm, though it's weaposn will need restatted, as stands it's too powerful, and is based off the same hull as the Havok. 

The Schismatic provides a high speed torp based CL that also carries lances, eliminating the need for the Endurance. 

[Plaxor]

My God Baron.... It's like you have some sort of gift for defiance.

What would 90' turns do to the Voss ships really? Logic, hell even fluff are both second to gameplay.

The Voss ships right now just feel like little shitty cruisers. They provide no real advantage other than being cheap. With 90' turns they provide some intriguing function, and a different playstyle for the voss including fleets. I remember you mentioning how you wanted to add more variety and different playstyles to the game.

90' turns aren't a big thing. In fact it won't make much difference in the long run unless someone chooses to actually build a fleet of voss.

Other than that, this thread has become a new SM rules thread.... We're not getting 90' turns on the Voss, so no sense in debating it.

I think I'm with Zelnik.... we should wait till another update, and not swamp this thread with irrelevant arguments.