Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka

[RCgothic]

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. 

What possible reason could there be to escort assault boats with fighters? If they get intercepted by other fighters, 1 marker is removed whether the defender was a fighter or not. Might as well have been another assault boat.

Against turrets, they shoot down 1/2 a marker each whether or not the defender was a fighter or not. Might as well have been another assault boat.

[lastspartacus]

What possible reason?  If I'm one of the hundred dudes on board an assault boat, I sure as hell hope I got some fighter coverage

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

What has crippling enemy ships got to do with the availability of the Jovian in an IN fleet? Or even the availability of ABs in Chaos for that matter? IN will be launching fighters most of the time anyway. So what's the big deal about ABs critting which I think you meant instead of crippling.

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.

Well until Nate brings out the next draft, it's still in there. And even assuming so, since he did say it's out, you can still either take the Emperor+Mars option or the Mars+Mars option. If each of the Mars purchases another turret that would be 3 turrets per ship plus the possibility of massing turrets up to 6 with the help of other ships. So 8 fighters and 6 turrets to shoot up enemy ordnance. Will it be enough? Probably not. But still a whole lot better than not having the additional 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.  

See this is why I am still relying on the latest Bakka draft. because we still don't know the other changes which the HA will be incorporating. So as of now, use the 1.1 draft of Bakka first. Otherwise, conjecture is very difficult. I mean, how many points will each additional turret really cost? How many can one purchase? What is the final ship list?

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.  

And again, even with decent AC coverage, you will still have the same problems as Bakka with the amount of ordnance Nids can put on the table. Have you even gamed it yet? The problem is you're theoryhammering here. Which isn't really conducive.

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.  

All this is well and good but until we see what the HA have come up with for the next Bakka draft, let's leave probably lists out of the discussion for now.

And the funny thing is, as someone has pointed out, if Nids do win because of ABs then hey, it really follows the fluff. So what's your beef?

[Sigoroth]

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.

Would 2,000 turrets work? How about 100? 50? Yes. So the failure wasn't in turrets, it was in the numbers of turrets. FDT only adds an extra turret anyway, it just does it stupidly. It would be far easier and more consistent to just add extra turrets to ships.

The fact that Bakka got beaten by ordnance at one point in their history is not a reason to invent a convoluted and/or illogical rule. Simply adding a turret will do. This has the advantage of not spilling over to other IN lists.

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.  

What the hell are you talking about? How can turrets be "suppressed" for a-boats? If the Nids are able to spew forth so many a-boats to make up for their inherent weakness to a point where it becomes a viable strategy (certainly not overpowered) then that's fine. An extra turret will help against such a strategy.

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.  

You make out as if the ships themselves cannot move towards the ordnance to bring them into range.

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)."

Le sigh. My concern "in a nutshell" is that I don't want terribly crap elements of Bakka contaminating other fleets. The Jovian I like, and in Bakka as a one-off ship it's fine. When you allow it to be used as a reserve in other fleets it changes the shape of the 750 pt bracket of games. Its limitation to Bakka only was sufficient to alleviate this concern. As for FDTs, this was such a terrible rule that I also didn't want contaminating other lists. IF it were limited solely to Bakka and Bakka remained as crap as it currently is then I wouldn't care. This is because the rot would be contained, and anyone taking a Bakka fleet would be at a disadvantage.

Now that FDTs are gone, and a more sensible alternative in place and the Jovian is contained then I have no objections to the Bakka list in principle. The Mercury is still rubbish, and there are some other slight balance issues (Victory), but that's it. I don't know how you can suggest that I want Bakka to be worse, when my analyses of the Mercury has shown it to be tremendously overpriced and the Victory to be also to be weak. Therefore I'm actually suggesting improving the list.

*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).

You have got to be kidding me. You really think that this is an argument? Mass distribution is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in BFG. Look at the damn ships. None of them should work. 8 hits 6+/5+ 45° 20cm -----> 8 hits 5+ 45° 25cm ----> 6 hits 6+/5+ ? 20cm ---> 6 hits 5+ 90° 25cm. Fill in the blank. According to the physics of the BFG universe it should be 90°. According to the role of the ship it should be 90°. If it were the ships (End/End) would be balanced.

*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.  

What are you talking about? There's no such thing as turret suppression for a-boats.

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.

No, we're not avoiding it. There have been many posts from quite a few people saying how weak some of the ships are.

[BaronIveagh]

Would 2,000 turrets work? How about 100? 50? Yes. So the failure wasn't in turrets, it was in the numbers of turrets. FDT only adds an extra turret anyway, it just does it stupidly. It would be far easier and more consistent to just add extra turrets to ships.

The fact that Bakka got beaten by ordnance at one point in their history is not a reason to invent a convoluted and/or illogical rule. Simply adding a turret will do. This has the advantage of not spilling over to other IN lists.

The problem with that idea is that A) a turret can only defend the ship it's on, and B) it precludes the idea of creating a specialist flak ship which is soemthing that any sensible commander would start looking at.  

In Addition: using 'beaten' to describe the battle at Circe is sort of like saying that the Battle of the Tuetenwald was a 'setback' for the Roman Legions.  From the desc5ription, the majority of the sector fleet was wiped out.  

What the hell are you talking about? How can turrets be "suppressed" for a-boats? If the Nids are able to spew forth so many a-boats to make up for their inherent weakness to a point where it becomes a viable strategy (certainly not overpowered) then that's fine. An extra turret will help against such a strategy.

"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010

You make out as if the ships themselves cannot move towards the ordnance to bring them into range.

As you, yourself, pointed out in another thread, it's also not like the ord can't stay out of range until the best moment to attack.

You have got to be kidding me. You really think that this is an argument? Mass distribution is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in BFG. Look at the damn ships. None of them should work. 8 hits 6+/5+ 45° 20cm -----> 8 hits 5+ 45° 25cm ----> 6 hits 6+/5+ ? 20cm ---> 6 hits 5+ 90° 25cm. Fill in the blank. According to the physics of the BFG universe it should be 90°. According to the role of the ship it should be 90°. If it were the ships (End/End) would be balanced.

Personally, I've always felt that the turn wasn't the problem so much as the lack of speed.  They really should have been 25cm ships and the Defiant should have been LB 2 on a side.  But that's my opinion.

What are you talking about? There's no such thing as turret suppression for a-boats.

"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010

What has crippling enemy ships got to do with the availability of the Jovian in an IN fleet? Or even the availability of ABs in Chaos for that matter? IN will be launching fighters most of the time anyway. So what's the big deal about ABs critting which I think you meant instead of crippling.

God, I hate the term 'critting'.  It's a grammatical nightmare.  Since the ship can still move and shoot to a degree, it's crippled, and while I'm aware there is actually a rule where a ship is crippled, frankly, both uses pretty much describe the same thing, whether it came about from critical hits or just blasting it's superstructure to bits.

Well until Nate brings out the next draft, it's still in there. And even assuming so, since he did say it's out, you can still either take the Emperor+Mars option or the Mars+Mars option. If each of the Mars purchases another turret that would be 3 turrets per ship plus the possibility of massing turrets up to 6 with the help of other ships. So 8 fighters and 6 turrets to shoot up enemy ordnance. Will it be enough? Probably not. But still a whole lot better than not having the additional turrets.

Below 750 you could only take the Mars.  The Emp simply COSTS too much.  At 1500 you can take it, but it's more then 1/3rd of your fleet.  This is not anything resembling cost effective.

While, I grant that increasing the turrets would improve survivability, it probably won't make them survive. 

All this is well and good but until we see what the HA have come up with for the next Bakka draft, let's leave probably lists out of the discussion for now.

And the funny thing is, as someone has pointed out, if Nids do win because of ABs then hey, it really follows the fluff. So what's your beef?

D'Art, maybe I'm misinterpreting Nate's post, but it had a definite feel of 'Fine, you think you're so smart, YOU try it.' which more or less seems to me to suggest that hte HA is waiting for US to come up with something viable. 

I think that This list, with some tweaking, and the 'extra turrets' that everyone seems to think will save them, would be viable.

Retribution
Victory
Vanquisher

Cruisers:
Lunar
Gothic
Tyrant
Siluria
Schismatic

Heavy Cruisers:
Cardinal

BC:
Mars
Mercury
Armageddon

GC:
Exorcist (with option for +1 LB per side for +15pts)

Escorts:
Havoc
Apostate
Viper
Cobra


Other then the oddball Schismatic, it meets the requirements set forth, would not 'feel' drastically different from current IN, uses ships from BFGm, does not break fluff, and all more or less matches the 'theme'. 

The only things that will probably need changing would be to re balance the apostate's weapons and *maybe* reduce the Schismatic's speed to 25cm.  Nothing in this would 'break' or 'contaminate' IN if used in other lists, and it's viable against most threats.

[Vaaish]

"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010

You do realize that means you have no benefit to sending a fighter with them right? You'd get the exact same result if you sent 4 AB or 3AB and 1 Fighter. Why bother putting a fighter there when it does nothing to help you and could be better served on CAP or with bombers?

[Eldanesh]

You'd get the exact same result if you sent 4 AB or 3AB and 1 Fighter.

No, it's worse: if no turret hits you just have 3 instead of 4 hit&run attacks.

It MAY help if we had a race with resilent fighters and non-resilent ABoats, but as long as this isn't the case...

[BaronIveagh]

"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010

You do realize that means you have no benefit to sending a fighter with them right? You'd get the exact same result if you sent 4 AB or 3AB and 1 Fighter. Why bother putting a fighter there when it does nothing to help you and could be better served on CAP or with bombers?

'nids don't have bombers and cap is sort of pointless for them if using kraken's as a shield.  Since you can buy AC not in ships, and fighters cost less then aboats, it makes sense.  

Once you actually are launching ord, though, you're right.

You'd get the exact same result if you sent 4 AB or 3AB and 1 Fighter.

No, it's worse: if no turret hits you just have 3 instead of 4 hit&run attacks.

It MAY help if we had a race with resilent fighters and non-resilent ABoats, but as long as this isn't the case...

Like, if, say, you're playing a campaign against someone who's gotten the 'Excellent Pilots' crew skill?  Admittedly, not having any bearing on 'nids, but... just a thought.

[Sigoroth]

The problem with that idea is that A) a turret can only defend the ship it's on, and B) it precludes the idea of creating a specialist flak ship which is soemthing that any sensible commander would start looking at.  

Point A: so what?

Point B: No, it doesn't preclude the idea of creating specialist flak ships. I don't even mind the idea. However, a specialist flak ship should be using its main armament to fulfil its role. To say that your specialist flak ship is a normal ship that just has secondary weaponry so far beyond other ships capabilities is dodgy in the extreme.

"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010

Right, you know that's meaningless yes? There is zero benefit for sending in a fighter escort rather than just more a-boats. In fact, it's detrimental.

As you, yourself, pointed out in another thread, it's also not like the ord can't stay out of range until the best moment to attack.

As you know, that was a small closed example for one, and would not work across an entire fleet. Secondly, it is impossible with torps. Thirdly, given that the ships with the FDS would have greater speed than the SDM then bombers would be unable to pull off this manoeuvre. So the only one that potentially could would be a-boats. I thought your system was meant to be anti-A-boat ...

Aside from that though, if you did manage to force him to delay striking for a turn then that is still an extra turns defence. So if he hits you every 2nd turn rather than every turn then you've halved the effectiveness of his ordnance. So it either becomes too powerful (or rather just not worth going around) or it unfairly discriminates against Eldar ordnance while still being poor conceptually.

Personally, I've always felt that the turn wasn't the problem so much as the lack of speed.  They really should have been 25cm ships and the Defiant should have been LB 2 on a side.  But that's my opinion.

Well, the Dauntless has good firepower and is fast and agile. It's a large escort. These ships however are slower and have broadside focus. The lack of speed fits well with the speed of the IN line cruisers. The broadside focus makes them want to break the enemy line, so they can fire both sides. This means that they're really suited to act as line cruisers. For this role they really don't need that extra speed. They are light cruisers still, and they must have been built to fill some battlefield role. Since they're meant to be used in the line then being lighter must be an attempt to be able to redeploy quickly to fill holes in the line.

"Fighters can escort a-boats in a wave in the same manner that they can escort bombers, though they offer no bonus to a-boat attacks. Fighters escorting other attack craft are always removed first when attacked before resolving any other attacks." - FAQ2010

Again, this is not turret suppression. It's meaningless. If you sent in a wave of 3f and 5 a-boats against a 5 turret target you do less than sending in 8 a-boats. In fact, 1f & 7a-boats is still worse than 8 a-boats.

I think that This list, with some tweaking, and the 'extra turrets' that everyone seems to think will save them, would be viable.

Retribution
Victory
Vanquisher

Cruisers:
Lunar
Gothic
Tyrant
Siluria
Schismatic

Heavy Cruisers:
Cardinal

BC:
Mars
Mercury
Armageddon

GC:
Exorcist (with option for +1 LB per side for +15pts)

Escorts:
Havoc
Apostate
Viper
Cobra


Other then the oddball Schismatic, it meets the requirements set forth, would not 'feel' drastically different from current IN, uses ships from BFGm, does not break fluff, and all more or less matches the 'theme'. 

The only things that will probably need changing would be to re balance the apostate's weapons and *maybe* reduce the Schismatic's speed to 25cm.  Nothing in this would 'break' or 'contaminate' IN if used in other lists, and it's viable against most threats.

Screw the Schismatic. No Chaos CLs ever. The Cardinal is also terribad.

By "rebalance the apostate's weapons" I presume you mean make the prow torpedoes fire forwards rather than left. 

[BaronIveagh]

Again, this is not turret suppression. It's meaningless. If you sent in a wave of 3f and 5 a-boats against a 5 turret target you do less than sending in 8 a-boats. In fact, 1f & 7a-boats is still worse than 8 a-boats.

Achem:

Since you can buy AC not in ships, and fighters cost less then aboats, it makes sense. 

Once you actually are launching ord, though, you're right.

Again, I really wish people would READ the whole thing rather then just grab a random post and start bitching. 

Screw the Schismatic. No Chaos CLs ever. The Cardinal is also terribad.

By "rebalance the apostate's weapons" I presume you mean make the prow torpedoes fire forwards rather than left. 

Achem: the 'No Chaos CL's might have baring if this was a chaos list.  Since it's IN that would make it an IN light cruiser.  Or should we pull the Siluria off this list too, since it's very similar profile?

What's terribad about the Cardinal?  It's not OP, while it's lance is 45cm it's also fairly weak at str 2 and is fixed broadside rather then dorsal. 

On the Apostate: it's torp needs to be forward and it's lance to be 30cm.  Other then that...

[Sigoroth]

Since you can buy AC not in ships, and fighters cost less then aboats, it makes sense. 

Once you actually are launching ord, though, you're right.

Oh big deal.

Achem: the 'No Chaos CL's might have baring if this was a chaos list.  Since it's IN that would make it an IN light cruiser.  Or should we pull the Siluria off this list too, since it's very similar profile?

Yeah, except that if this distinctly Chaos looking ship became official for the IN there'd be clamours for it to be official for Chaos too.

What's terribad about the Cardinal?  It's not OP, while it's lance is 45cm it's also fairly weak at str 2 and is fixed broadside rather then dorsal. 

You're kidding right? This ship has terribly weak broadsides, as weak as the Acheron's, but without even the range to explain it. Its dorsal weaponry is also weaker than the Acheron's, and the Acheron already has substandard dorsal guns being too short ranged. And then, on top of all that, it has LFR torps! Crappola! Mind you, neither the Schismatic nor Cardinal suit the big gun idea of Bakka. If you were going to chose one of the Chaos CLs from BoN for Bakka it would likely be the Heretic or Unbeliever. As for the Cardinal, if you're going to allow Chaos hulls in the fleet then I'd just give them reserve fleet Murders.

On the Apostate: it's torp needs to be forward and it's lance to be 30cm.  Other then that...

Ya, and the torps gotta come down to 30cm. And it shouldn't be named 'Emasculator class cruiser' or cost 185 pts either. All simply cut and paste errors of course.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

God, I hate the term 'critting'.  It's a grammatical nightmare.  Since the ship can still move and shoot to a degree, it's crippled, and while I'm aware there is actually a rule where a ship is crippled, frankly, both uses pretty much describe the same thing, whether it came about from critical hits or just blasting it's superstructure to bits.

So you don't like critting. Still different from crippling. And no, they are different things. Stop this line of thought already.

Below 750 you could only take the Mars.  The Emp simply COSTS too much.  At 1500 you can take it, but it's more then 1/3rd of your fleet.  This is not anything resembling cost effective.

Of course below 750 one would most likely take the Mars. It would still limit a fleet to only 4 LBs though. So how does that help an IN fleet survive Nids? With a ship from the Bakka list at least you now can add turrets. With other IN lists, you can only take LBs. And yes, the Emperor in Bakka would cost too much. So bite the bullet or either take another Mars. One will lose 4 more LBs but if the argument is because of Nid ABs, 4 more LBs won't really be changing the dynamics of the game much because Nids will still have more ABs on the table than one has LBs in an IN fleet.

Personally though, I would change the fluff of Rath being in an Emperor to Rath in an Oberon and make that ship available without the mandatory inclusion of Rath. It makes more sense from a background perspective of the fleet being AC light and would be easier to change. Of course, I would also prefer the Oberon to get back the range on its WBs that it lost. Nate however...

While, I grant that increasing the turrets would improve survivability, it probably won't make them survive.  

And again, you think a fleet with only a slightly higher amount of LBs will survive?

D'Art, maybe I'm misinterpreting Nate's post, but it had a definite feel of 'Fine, you think you're so smart, YOU try it.' which more or less seems to me to suggest that hte HA is waiting for US to come up with something viable.  

You know, not to toot our own horn but I do think we can come up with something viable. Each of us CAN make a viable list, as you are trying to do. Each of us CAN collectively make a list which can be accepted, grudgingly or not, by most of us. Problem is Nate is shooting down a lot of the ideas we are presenting like the Endeavors (20cm speed, 6+/5+ armor, 90' turns). I don't know why because he won't disclose details because of his Non-Disclosure Agreement. I don't know why they won't incorporate changes that it would mean we are coming out with BFG Mk II when this would actually be a perfect time to do so with fixing the weapons on some ships and/or cost as well as polish up the fluff and timeline. It's the perfect time because another company wants to take the reins (or has already) and hopefully make it viable.

Many have presented ideas to help make Bakka viable and feel fluffy. The idea of additional turrets is already being considered. However, I do feel it might be lacking so I was proposing a left column shift for WBs or hitting on 5s instead of 6s for Direct Fire weapons or 3+ to hit with turrets. Personally I think the last is ideal but Nate has declared it won't be incorporated.

But really at this point, worrying about Bakka having problems with Nid Aboats and claws when even other IN lists which can have more AC will have the same problem is a pointless argument.

[BaronIveagh]

Yeah, except that if this distinctly Chaos looking ship became official for the IN there'd be clamours for it to be official for Chaos too.

While, I, personally, don't think that's a bad thing, it's a good ship and a good fit for the fleet as far as CLs go.  I'm gonna say that Grand Cruisers are Chaos Looking and they fit in IN fleets just fine.  I'll leave the issue of things people want but can't ever have alone as it's a separate issue.

You're kidding right? This ship has terribly weak broadsides, as weak as the Acheron's, but without even the range to explain it. Its dorsal weaponry is also weaker than the Acheron's, and the Acheron already has substandard dorsal guns being too short ranged. And then, on top of all that, it has LFR torps! Crappola! Mind you, neither the Schismatic nor Cardinal suit the big gun idea of Bakka. If you were going to chose one of the Chaos CLs from BoN for Bakka it would likely be the Heretic or Unbeliever. As for the Cardinal, if you're going to allow Chaos hulls in the fleet then I'd just give them reserve fleet Murders.

Meh, Murders wouldn't bring much to this fleet.  It needs some flavor.  Again: not looking to make superships.  We'll have to actually playtest the Cardinal to see if it needs buffed compared to other IN ships rather then compared to Chaos ships.  

I think that the Schismatic is a good choice based on it's variable combat profile.  It's ability to fire torps without being in a closing profile gives it a useful ability.  

Ya, and the torps gotta come down to 30cm. And it shouldn't be named 'Emasculator class cruiser' or cost 185 pts either. All simply cut and paste errors of course.

Yes, obvious errors are obvious.

Dunno, a 45cm torp might be interesting.  A little OP maybe, but there's nothing set in stone that says that every torp in the game must be 30cm.  (Nids have a speed of 15.  Short Burns have a speed of 40)

You know, not to toot our own horn but I do think we can come up with something viable. Each of us CAN make a viable list, as you are trying to do. Each of us CAN collectively make a list which can be accepted, grudgingly or not, by most of us. Problem is Nate is shooting down a lot of the ideas we are presenting like the Endeavors (20cm speed, 6+/5+ armor, 90' turns). I don't know why because he won't disclose details because of his Non-Disclosure Agreement. I don't know why they won't incorporate changes that it would mean we are coming out with BFG Mk II when this would actually be a perfect time to do so with fixing the weapons on some ships and/or cost as well as polish up the fluff and timeline. It's the perfect time because another company wants to take the reins (or has already) and hopefully make it viable.

LOL All I can suggest is that GW contracted out parts of the BFG property to a party or parties with some stipulations on both sides of the game table.

Where is Andy working, these days, anyway?

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Even with all the stipulations, why not change what needs changing? The game is long in the tooth. It needs changes in many areas like rules, weapons and fluff. The HA could get a pool of players who can present what really needs changing and then present them to the HA along with the reasons why things need changing and then the HA can approve/disapprove the proposed amendments and then present it to the new management.

There is no cost involved. There will be no salaries given out (except maybe some per diem for the HA). There is no paper book which needs to be printed in the thousands, just an online PDF. At best, they will just do a run with the BFG Starter Box if they still have the molds and they are still useable. They will get a better product. Everyone wins.

[BaronIveagh]

Even with all the stipulations, why not change what needs changing? The game is long in the tooth. It needs changes in many areas like rules, weapons and fluff. The HA could get a pool of players who can present what really needs changing and then present them to the HA along with the reasons why things need changing and then the HA can approve/disapprove the proposed amendments and then present it to the new management.

There is no cost involved. There will be no salaries given out (except maybe some per diem for the HA). There is no paper book which needs to be printed in the thousands, just an online PDF. At best, they will just do a run with the BFG Starter Box if they still have the molds and they are still useable. They will get a better product. Everyone wins.

Stop and consider though: is GW jeopardizing it's existing contract?  How much is that contract worth?  How far is GW willing to go to protect that contract?  GW is very conservative fiscally these days.  A bird in the hand really is worth two in the bush.