Hi all! I read the massed posts of feedback and made some fast-track changes for v1.4, which was just uploaded to the site (see my signature for the link). Once again there's too much to reply to individually so I'll just tell you the changes incorporated based on the collective input and toss in a bit of feedback as well.
1. The Cobra and Mars are gone. The Mars is pretty much made redundant by the slightly cheaper Dominion so its departure is not very impactful to this fleet list. I don’t agree with removing the Cobra, but the arguments for doing so were valid so leaving it in would only be for spite. The Sword was left in because it is truly a ubiquitous escort in ALL the fluff, and it offers a cheap way to start out with a two-turret escort before adding the Bakka+1. The Havoc is SUPPOSED to be really old so it’s staying as-is. The Viper fluff was adjusted slightly to make it more common in Bakka.
2. Speaking of “Bakka+1,†+1 turret is now +5 points and is still available to all Bakka IN vessels. The base price for a Bakka Endeavor/Endurance has been adjusted to reflect this.
3. A point was made that the Endeavor/Endurance +1 when defending against boarding actions should NOT be fluff-linked to crew proficiency. Keep in mind however that this benefit ONLY refers to
when defending against boarding and not all the time like Chaos or Orks. The point however is valid, and this has been changed to refer to unusual ship design characteristics, as it already is for Voss-pattern Endeavor/Endurance vessels.
4. Somewhere I read a post that the AdMech vessels still count as reserves. This was changed in 1.3 to where they DON’T count as reserves but can only be taken as battlecruisers. I made this much clearer in the v1.4 document by giving the AdMech their own section in the fleet list instead of appearing as a footnote.
Speaking of AdMech vessels, they will remain having access to FDT’s for +5 points instead of rolling their Mechanicus Gifts randomly if desired. This allows this fleet to have access to FDT’s without making them overpowering to the fleet as a whole, and those who totally detest FDT’s are not obligated to take them and can save the points by rolling randomly for something else.
It is agreed by the HA’s that FDT’s are one of the things that made Bakka especially characterful, and this provides additional balance for the fleet being relatively AC-poor compared to other fleets. Rather than invent a new mechanic, this uses a rule mechanic that has existed since 2000 in BFG Mag #2, has been approved by GW as official in the Adeptus Mechanicus rule-set, and does NOT expand the rule beyond AdMech ships so fluff and future-creep isn’t violated.
Keep in mind that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and nobody is obligating
YOU to agree, like this or even use this system on your ships. Please keep the vitriol to a minimum. Thanks!
![Grin ;D](http://www.specialist-arms.com/forum/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
5. There are some complaints about allowing the Space Marines to be used as reserves. While allowing the Ultramarines to work closely with Battlefleet Bakka is not entirely against fluff, it is a valid argument that allowing SC’s to be used as reserves has the potential to “break†the fleet list. Even by restricting reserves only to strike cruisers, I have managed to create a broken fleet list combination so this option is now gone. It sucks that I have to play like a munchkin to test the rules, but the reality is what it is.
To this end, before anyone gets in a fluff argument to tell me I’m wrong about the Ultramarines, please save it because with the rule removed, the argument is moot.
6. There have been some arguments that the Mercury isn’t “shooty†enough for the restriction placed on it for how it blows up, even though its explosion has been nerfed down to cruiser size and only the 3D6 remains different. The comparison made to the Overlord is that the firepower isn’t much better for being more expensive. The point is that first of all, the firepower IS better, so let’s compare the ship to the Armageddon, to which it is priced the same if you take into account the Nova Cannon, since the former comes with one that can be removed, and the latter doesn’t but can take it.
First let’s look at the 3D6 when blowing up. As it now blows up as a cruiser and not a battleship, this simply means the ship blows up more easily but otherwise dies exactly the same way as other ships. Even very conservatively, this is well worth a +5cm speed increase for an IN battlecruiser. If your taste gravitates toward using NC’s as artillery and the speed increase bothers you that much, take an Armageddon and put a NC on it. Save some points, put torps on the Mercury and let it chase your Vipers around. Of course, you can also just not use it if you hate it that much.
Now assuming the +5cm speed and the “goes pop easier†cancel each other out, we can compare this ship to the Armageddon based only on firepower to firepower. If we use Smotherman’s formula ONLY as a framework (did I mention how much I hate Smotherman’s formula?), 6x60cm + 4x45cm batteries is roughly equivalent to 12x45cm batteries. Since Smotherman also says a given lance is worth 3WB’s of the same range, we can say the Armageddon’s 6x45cm WB’s + 2x45cm lances are ALSO roughly equivalent to 12x45cm batteries. Thus, from purely an apples-to-apples standpoint, these ships are equal. “Yeah, but those meaty engines should let this thing SHOOT better!†you say. Agreed, but when it comes to something hard to quantify like broadside firepower, I would rather start cheap and allow someone to make a ship more expensive rather than vice versa, since that’s a paradigm that has existed in the game since the beginning (eg: Tyrant). That’s why the Mercury’s notes allow the batteries to ALL be 60cm for +10 points (changed from v.1.2), the same cost it takes for the Tyrant to upgrade all of its batteries to 45cm. Thus you can either have your Mercury for cheap, or for more points you can have a “fast almost-Retribution but smaller.†Once again, you can always just not use the Mercury if you hate it that much.
I know that these arguments assume a NC is worth +20 points. This is only for the sake of simplicity using well-established values, and I am NOT debating whether or not NC’s should be valued differently. Period.
That’s it. Try it out over the weekend and post what you think. By the way, by “try it out†I mean you do so on a table against an opponent before you summarily gripe and moan about this list and rule-set. Thanks and enjoy!
![Grin ;D](http://www.specialist-arms.com/forum/Smileys/default/grin.gif)