August 04, 2024, 11:23:07 PM

Author Topic: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka  (Read 89545 times)

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #120 on: February 08, 2011, 07:32:54 PM »
Sig: I think that the reqirement of the Apoc to achieve lock on to reach 60cm range is important. It adds another variable to the equation that means you may end up with the ship stuck at 30cm and even if you can shoot 60cm you've got the problem of that critical on the apocalypse. It basically means you trade 1-1.5 hits per turn for gaining more reliable ranged fire than on the apocalypse. To me that seems a pretty small price to pay for reliability.

You're right, it does have to be accounted for. Sometimes you may find yourself wanting to shoot over 30cm but can't because of a failed LO. Assuming that you can find no other targets within range that means you've wasted your firepower. This is why I assumed that you'd fail your LO one time in three. So, one time in three your Apocalypse fails to fire its lances. That means that the other two times out of three it fires 6 locked-on lances, for a total of 12 LO lances over 3 turns. The Victory in the exact same circumstances would fire 8 LO lances and 4 normal lances. This is flat out worse than the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse also has the advantage of focus. Those 12 lances only have to worry about 2 turns worth of shields, rather than 3. On top of which, the chance of failing that LO test is less than 1 in 3, given average leadership, and particularly given re-rolls. Then, on top of that, what about when the enemy closes to within 30cm range? The Apocalypse simply gains +33% focusable firepower and +50% off-side firepower.

As for the crit, since it no longer does damage to the ship it's a joke. The chances of getting through your end phase and then your opponents end phase without having repaired it are minuscule. Even then for it to matter your opponent would have to make sure he laid a BM in contact. Which means long range firepower wasted on a BB rather than one of your other ships, and still unlikely to pay off. And you only even suffer the crit for firing over 45cm anyway, not 30cm. Meaning you're not even going to always take the crit.

And then, on top of all of this, the Apocalypse is still unbalanced. People shouldn't have to pass a command check just to get the proper range on their BB. They should always get it. It should be that reliable, just drain engines and shields (hence the BM) in return for the extra range.

So, comparing the Victory to this version of the Apocalypse (ie, a balanced version), then it really comes up short. It comes up short against the proper Apocalypse, the proper Oberon, and even the flawed Retribution, let alone the proper one. So, let's say that the Victory becomes fully balanced against all the current profiles of all these ships, then that would mean we've produced yet another crappy IN BB. Is that what we want?

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #121 on: February 08, 2011, 08:04:33 PM »
It would be best if all the IN battleships got a review but seeing that won't happen, I'm not sure if it would be better to just balance them against each other or to create something new in hopes that eventually the others will be reviewed.
-Vaaish

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #122 on: February 08, 2011, 08:07:13 PM »
The Apocalypse is the hands down better ship.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #123 on: February 08, 2011, 08:23:20 PM »
Wait, you repair in your opponents end phase?

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #124 on: February 08, 2011, 08:31:16 PM »
Rulebook, P31, The End Phase > Damage Control, first sentence.

"Both Players may attempt to repair critical damage during the end phase."

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #125 on: February 08, 2011, 08:44:42 PM »
Well damn, I don't like that.  You knock out someones weapons and they shoot right back at you in their turn.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #126 on: February 08, 2011, 10:30:37 PM »
No, the reason FDT was eliminated was that 'some people' in this thread threw screaming tantrums about how much they hated it and the Jovian.  They never bothered to test it, or even post a battle report.  They just screamed until it went away.

Look, I'm getting sick of your shit. You act as if you've got the monopoly on how the game should be run. My objections, and those of some other people, were not balance issues. Therefore there was absolutely no fuckin need to playtest. Just because something may not be broken does not mean it should automatically be included (though the jury was still out on balance).

And how is it even any different from how you act? You scream to get things you want, such as lances on SM ships, despite how fuckin retarded that is. So unless you have an argument to make for or against something, shut the fuck up.

Okay everyone, ease up. Everyone here is entitled to disagree with each other. Lay the vitriol to rest.
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #127 on: February 09, 2011, 01:29:46 AM »

Look, I'm getting sick of your shit. You act as if you've got the monopoly on how the game should be run. My objections, and those of some other people, were not balance issues. Therefore there was absolutely no fuckin need to playtest. Just because something may not be broken does not mean it should automatically be included (though the jury was still out on balance).

And how is it even any different from how you act? You scream to get things you want, such as lances on SM ships, despite how fuckin retarded that is. So unless you have an argument to make for or against something, shut the fuck up.

Sig, this has been my list for years, as was.  Worked fine, was not unbalanced.  (occasionally blew up in my face against Necrons, but that's a side note)  Now, I don't mind changing my list if, for example, the HA deems a ship too powerful, or there's a legitimate balance issue.  I don't mind changing my list if a new BFG codex came out.  

I don't mind changing my list and how it works if the HA deems that point need altered, etc.  Due to the 'new' list, I have already had to change my line up.  Three times.  (I think that HA, however, for adding torps to the Mercury)  

I have never claimed to have a monopoly on 'how this game should run' however, I do think that a bunch of people, some of whom have insisted vehemently for years in several forums that this particular list must never become official, have set out to deliberately sabotage this list and/or convert it to a generic IN list.  (Thank you, google)

And, unlike some people, I try to site sources and bring evidence.  I don't have to scream and use profanity to get my point across.  

I also object to hypocrites.  Which, I might point out, you and, to a degree, D'Art, have been in this thread.  

To paraphrase D'Art over in the SM lance thread: When you've actually played with Bakka, you can come back and give your input.

Okay everyone, ease up. Everyone here is entitled to disagree with each other. Lay the vitriol to rest.

Nate: this list has already lost so much flavor it's not funny.  Of the original ships of BFB, only the Vicky, Viper, and the Dominus Astera are still in at this point.  I would suggest that this list be renamed, as it is no longer Battlefleet Bakka.  It's just Gothic with two Bakka ships reserved in.   At least if it gets renamed, those of us who do use the Bakka list can still use our old fleets and fleet lists.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 01:38:25 AM by BaronIveagh »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #128 on: February 09, 2011, 03:06:21 AM »
You're a fucktard BI, go fuckin kill yourself.

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #129 on: February 09, 2011, 03:40:06 AM »
the baron is a cylon, there are many copies. beware what you wish for...

on a completely different note, my reactions to bfb 1.2:

new fdt rules look solid. spend the same points (+10/ship), rock some extra turrets, massing within 15cm basically... should retain the flavor while appeasing everyone.

dominion: 2 LB per side. missing 6 prow torps. in BoN its dorsals were 45cm... but i'm not complaining about those.

mercury: thanks for torps. it can make one of the nastiest pounces in the imp navy now!... if only bfb had dauntless'

vanq: now feasible. v.cool. still listed at 320 in the fleetlist though.

the 4th turret option on the CL's might be a little OTT. playtesting will be required, though the concept of throwing one of them at a huge wave of a-boats to save a bigger ship has a very imperial feel to it ;)

i'm still not sure how to tell apart a vicky and an apoc (non voss prow) on the table... but other than that, no big problems. regardless of whats happening in FS, officially the vicky is the cheapest standoff BB (on par/stronger than empy or official ret or official oby in the 60cm band).

do crippled admec (in CB slots) have to disengage when crippled (as per admec reserve)?

in the fleetlist i'm still seeing that *Endurance* CL's are unlimited... isn't this supposed to be *Endeavors?*

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #130 on: February 09, 2011, 04:08:26 AM »
Eh, that comment should be edited sigoroth....

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #131 on: February 09, 2011, 04:20:13 AM »
You're a fucktard BI, go fuckin kill yourself.

*sigh* I don't even have to prove my points anymore, sig does it for me.  

the baron is a cylon, there are many copies. beware what you wish for...

on a completely different note, my reactions to bfb 1.2:

new fdt rules look solid. spend the same points (+10/ship), rock some extra turrets, massing within 15cm basically... should retain the flavor while appeasing everyone.

dominion: 2 LB per side. missing 6 prow torps. in BoN its dorsals were 45cm... but i'm not complaining about those.

mercury: thanks for torps. it can make one of the nastiest pounces in the imp navy now!... if only bfb had dauntless'

vanq: now feasible. v.cool. still listed at 320 in the fleetlist though.

the 4th turret option on the CL's might be a little OTT. playtesting will be required, though the concept of throwing one of them at a huge wave of a-boats to save a bigger ship has a very imperial feel to it ;)

i'm still not sure how to tell apart a vicky and an apoc (non voss prow) on the table... but other than that, no big problems. regardless of whats happening in FS, officially the vicky is the cheapest standoff BB (on par/stronger than empy or official ret or official oby in the 60cm band).

do crippled admec (in CB slots) have to disengage when crippled (as per admec reserve)?

in the fleetlist i'm still seeing that *Endurance* CL's are unlimited... isn't this supposed to be *Endeavors?*


LOL I wish I was that hot in a red dress.  Though I don't have A plan, I have The Plan.

Anyway, I didn't say it wasn't a fairly solid list.  But it doesn't feel the same.  You mentioned Daunts, which is interesting, since Endeavours used to be a 25cm ship in this list and could make for a strong synergy with Mercury if restored, but Silurian also works.  
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:25:26 AM by BaronIveagh »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline Valhallan

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #132 on: February 09, 2011, 04:36:34 AM »
on topic: the dauntless can rock torps too though making for some seriously fast ord deployment deep into enemy lines.

off topic: The Plan was seriously boring.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #133 on: February 09, 2011, 05:14:02 AM »
on topic: the dauntless can rock torps too though making for some seriously fast ord deployment deep into enemy lines.

off topic: The Plan was seriously boring.

Yeah, you could reserve them in, i suppose, with Silurias.  That would be a fairly good little fleet, as long as nothing big and AC comes along.

On the aside: Yeah, you're right.  It wasn't very exciting.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka
« Reply #134 on: February 09, 2011, 05:38:42 AM »
You're a fucktard BI, go fuckin kill yourself.

Come on, Sig. Really?
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate