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.