Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka

[flybywire-E2C]

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?*

Good catches here. I'll fix the fleet lists and make a note about the AdMechs. Seprately, yes, the note about unlimited ships is supposed to say "Endurance" to differentiate it from the Endurance that is restricted in the Armageddon list. The Endeavor is already unrestricted so no mention is needed.

[BaronIveagh]

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

Hmm.. I've been mulling over this: the Endeavor should get a +5cm *purchasable* speed upgrade (+10?).  It would be more in line with how the ship was, *and* more effective at being thrown into the path of AC.  The way things are there rally isn't much reason not to take the Endurance over the Endeavor, so we'd be unlikely to actually see it much. 

[Valhallan]

on the tactical note (which really isn't what we're discussing here) the endurance is great! with 6+ prow you can squad it with other line cap ships and use it's crazy turretyness to defend against AC. meanwhile it pairs up well with other 30cm broadside ships:

lunar endur: 8 guns (1 extra dice from 6) and 4 lances
gothic endur: really,,, 6 lances... awesome
dominator endur: 14 guns, 2 lances. slightly better off than dom+endev (with the exception of close range closing)

I plan on picking up some dauntless hulls and converting 2 endurance....

Nate: glad i could help

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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

You better be able to back up your accusation. I've never said anything here which is contrary to what I believe IN should be which is a fleet which does not have easy access to AC among other things. I don't like hypocrites either. I hate people who make false accusations more though.

Ships wise:

Victory, am ok with or without changes though probably slightly overcosted.
Vanquisher, quite a cheap battleship. Is the points really accurate, only playtesting will show. Still very cheap if I use Smotherman by 33 points.
Jovian, still wouldn't want it in the list as well as in existence. It's not a matter of breaking the list. For sure, most fleets involving the Bakka list will have the ship as almost an auto include as with one ship, it can give the fleet the fighter protection it needs. Adding a Mars or Emperor (again, I feel Oberon would be better suited) after is basically a bonus.
Dominion, more apt ship to include over the Jovian as long as the LBs are fixed as well as given prow weaponry.
Mercury, am ok with it.

Changes to the Endeavors, I'll still have to think about it.

Escorts, am ok with them as before.

[Plaxor]

My theory was proven correct. Sig gets angrier the more that he talks, also his statements get shorter.
Horizon is Sigs tamer?

BaronI is insane.... then again I'm in this barrel too.

Admiral D is ridiculously conservative.

So far Zelnik is winning out of the most reasonable column, my evidence:

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. 

Oh, forgot about Vaaish, he's a decent guy.

[horizon]

Plaxor should not do popularity polls. This ain't highschool.

gLee! club BFG.


On Bakka,
in the version I d/l it still has the old FDT rule. Am I missing something?

The stats for the Dominion are WRONG.

Nate, it should be:

Prow torps str6
port bays str2
starboard bays str2
dorsal lance str2 @ 45cm lfr
port lance str2 @ 45cm
starboard lance str2 @45cm

///
I also think Emperor should be replaced by Oberon.
Jovian out imo.
Vanquisher/Victory, I like Victory more. Both ships kinda fill same role with all the lances...

[Plaxor]

Plaxor should not do popularity polls. This ain't highschool.

Popularity poll? What? I'm also confused if this statement is directed at me, or everyone else.

We can do popularity polls though.... BFG Idol 2011!

[horizon]

Aimed at you.
You made the list of posters and gave an opinion.

Should we rename dakkadakka website into bakkabakka?

[RCgothic]

I see I didn't even make the edit!

I think I agree with the others who've mentioned concerns about lists bleeding together. We already have a list that allows marines and IN together, and AM could already be taken as reserves.

I agree with Sig that FDTs should be kept to the AM list until it can be reviewed and then eliminated altogether.

The Turrets are too expensive. For the cost of upgrading 7 capital ships, I could get a Viper and a re-roll, and I know which will come in more useful. Perhaps as Plaxor said, a mandatory 5pt upgrade to every capital ship.

The Victory/Mercury's Torps: You're over-valuing the NC, and you should pay a premium to have a choice. The NC isn't worth 20pts. That's why you have to think before upgrading a cruiser with it - you pay a premium because it's a choice. If you're doing it the other way round, a -20pt upgrade to torps is like a gift. In the case of S6 Torps, I would happily lose the NC for -10pts - I'd seriously consider it for free. This is paying a premium for the choice. On the Victory, there could even be an argument that taking S9 torps should be MORE expensive than the NC - they're both equally valued, but the Torps are the option adn therefore command the premium.

On the Mercury: The battleship engines really are ridiculous. It doesn't utilise anywhere near battleship levels of power. Could this be changed to:

Mercury class battlecruisers are fitted with experimental engineering plants that increase its speed and
provide it with greater firepower at the expense of stability. When reduced to zero hits, it rolls 3D6 for
catastrophic damage (any roll greater than 12 counts as 12), and a Plasma Drive Overload or Warp Drive Implosion
result is based on a starting damage of 12Hp.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Admiral D is ridiculously conservative.

That's how I am. Doesn't mean I can't change my stance. Just have to prove to me that I have to. As with the Invincible thread, I am open to change but I do have my ideas how they should be as others have. Still, I always try to stick to the BBB fluff, the balance between races and the rules.

We have to remember this is a game where there has to be a semblance of balance even with the differences esp where in the fluff the tech is mostly stagnant (for IN anyway). If this were according to real life, we'd see advances in performance and efficiency so much that rules have to be updated every year. It's competition and having similar weapons as what the other guy has. We would be seeing all types of ship classes in all races with only small differences in weapons loadout. But then, that would be boring.

[Plaxor]

Sorry RC. I don't have any popularity comments for you.  You+Val are both on team Plaxor (god, I feel like I'm mentioning twilight.... ick....) Which auto-qualifies you as insane... according to Zelnik.

On topic: Second RC's thoughts on Nova Cannon. He is exactly right in this case.

Admiral D; I do agree with you. Fleets have themes, they shouldn't vary from these save for only in slight. Although, there are reasons for adding more vessels. You must see this?

[horizon]

I see I didn't even make the edit!

You got called a legend at warseer.

[Plaxor]

You got called a legend at warseer.

That is pretty win right there. You can add that to your title when you introduce yourself.

"Hi I'm RCgothic, Legend of Battlefleet Gothic, adamant Invincible supporter, turret applicator, hater of the Jovian."

As a note for you Horizon, people in my gaming group actually refer to 'Team Horizon' as people who support MMS.

[Eudaimon]

I think that the Dominion doesn't have the torpedoes because of the old "design rule" made by the creators of BFG, that was told us by the HA in the thread where there was the discussion about the Defiant:
"you will never see a ship with torpedoes and launch bays out of the Dictator! Muhahahahaha!! (resistance is useless)"

This rule is referred to all the ships, excluded the Tau, as was reported time ago in that discussion.

That really is a crime in my opinion 

The fact that it already is a battlecruiser limit this ship and, above all, if I want to do a fleet that only needs Reload Ordnances, I can already take all the Dictators that I want.
Giving the torpedoes to the Dominion wouldn't change that

[Sigoroth]

The Victory/Mercury's Torps: You're over-valuing the NC, and you should pay a premium to have a choice. The NC isn't worth 20pts. That's why you have to think before upgrading a cruiser with it - you pay a premium because it's a choice. If you're doing it the other way round, a -20pt upgrade to torps is like a gift. In the case of S6 Torps, I would happily lose the NC for -10pts - I'd seriously consider it for free. This is paying a premium for the choice. On the Victory, there could even be an argument that taking S9 torps should be MORE expensive than the NC - they're both equally valued, but the Torps are the option adn therefore command the premium.

This is correct, though I wish you hadn't pointed it out. I chose not to because the Mercury is already extraordinarily overpriced and the Victory needed the reduction too. As for actual value, I believe the NC would be pushing it to be on par with 9 torps, so therefore +10 pts over the standard 6 torps (as shown by Dominator and confirmed by the Apocalypse).

So this says that the option is what costs the premium and this is how I've always viewed it. Therefore if you were giving the Dom the option of torps it would -10 pts actual value +10 pts for the option which makes it a straight swap. [I very much prefer a 180 pt torp ship with a +20 pt NC option, to give parity between a WB gunship and the Lunar/Gothic, and so have argued for such a change to the Tyrant.] Similarly, a NC armed BB such as the Vic given the option to swap to torps would actually cost +10 pts.

However, there is another way to look at it. That is that the premium is not due to the option (or at least not wholly) but rather due to the option to spam NCs. So from this, somewhat slanted, point of view it is justifiable to apply a point reduction when swapping out the NC for torps, as you're reducing NC spam. This doesn't really sit well with me, but the ships in question here are overpriced.