Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka

[horizon]

For the record I agree on:
Mars out
Cobra out
Sword out


For the first time I'll start thinking about the FDT for Bakka.

[lastspartacus]

Agreed on dropping all but Cobra, unless the fluff on the Viper is changed a bit to them being more common.

Agreed that its wierd that Bakka gets admech and sm.  Unless the fluff makes it something like 'this fleet is really really tight with marines and admech', then most other battlefleets have ready relationships with forgeworlds and marine homeworlds.

[BaronIveagh]

Is there any fluff to suggest that the Bakka fleet has an unusually high number of AM or SM ships? Because if not, then they shouldn't have SM ships as reserves, and they shouldn't have access to AM ships as standard.

Also, why would you want to include the AM in order to field the FDT? This thing is a crap rule full stop. It should be dropped kicked out of the game. Also, it's just not that great a rule. Why would I take an AM ship, pay full price for the "random" upgrade and then pay 5 pts over the top to take the worst upgrade?

The RAW regarding FDTs still aren't clear either. According to them every ship in Bakka has 2 FDTs as standard. I doubt this is the intention, as you say that Bakka can't service and maintain FDTs later on. Delete the "two turrets on a ship are exchanged for FDTs".

Regarding those that want cheaper turrets, I disagree. Current IN fleets taking 1/4 of their fleet as carriers pay around +40 pts over what a straight gunfleet would. I see no reason why Bakka shouldn't pay the same in extra turrets to defend those 4 ships instead of AC, since it gets more guns in return and doesn't need to worry so much about RO. Particularly as they have the option of not taking the turrets. Also, shifting from 2 turrets to 3 turrets is a significant jump up in defence against bomber based fleets. If you were going to make it +5 pts it would have to be a mandatory purchase for every capital ship in the fleet, at the very least.

The Mercury is still overpriced and useless, and the Victory is still outclassed in all regards by the current Ret and soundly thrashed as a stand-off vessel by the Apocalypse (again, current version).

I would drop the Mars, Cobra and Sword from the list to reduce redundancy and confusion and to promote character. It seems more characterful if the list had to depend more on the older Havocs than the ubiquitous Sword. The Mars is just more NC spam given that there's a fine alternative in the Dominion. With the fleet having access to the Mercury, Dominator and Victory, we're already seeing a large amount of potential NC spam. Not that I particularly care, but it has been a stated goal of yours to reduce this type of thing. Besides, I like the idea of the list being forced off the beaten path slightly. This sentiment applies to the Cobra too, but this is more important, given they use identical models.

I agree with the Mars, Cobra, and Sword being removed due to being redundant. 

I don't agree with the the idea that the FDT is crap, though it's now definitely nerfed against bombers now.  The Mercury is not useless, though I feel it's new rule makes it less interesting.  I liked it better when it exploded like a 12 hp BB. 

As far as the Vicky goes, I could see it maybe being str 5 lances, but as is it's fine.   

As far as fluff goes: Bakka is a segmentum fortress.  None of the other fleets are, even the Bastion fleets.  Bakka in the past has aided the (very) near by Ultramar, which is, after all a peculiarity as the the Ultramarines chapter master is, effectively, both the Chapter master and the Lord Sector.  Which is rather humorous as it is a nice bypass on the whole Space Marin-lances thing.  As the Lord Sector, he technically commands the sector fleet and all PDF and Gaurd regiments.  As chapter master of the Ultramarines, he controls a space marine chapter.  Which, if you think about it, means that Guilliman wrote a big exception for himself, in the rules.  This was probably brushed off at the time as being to facilitate him being a SM commander AND the high lord of Terra in overall command of all the Imperium's forces.

As far as the admech, again,  this is a Segmentum fortress and the seat of most of IN's naval activity in the segmentum.  There's going to be a much larger admech presence and that presence will be much, much better equipped then, say, a forgeworld in the Gothic sector. 


HOWEVER.

What is the point of this fleet again?  It seems to be turning into a huge mass of ships that are only taken with weird rules to try and placate everyone AND make the thing work. 

It was a lot simpler when we just had FDT and a few ships people didn't like.  As is, we're stumbling into some very strange lists now and I'm getting to the point I'm doing almost as much book keeping to build the list as I do to play the list, with all the ships that are 'instead of', 'if you take x you may take y', and 'reserve only'

[Sigoroth]

So the upshot of that is that you think Bakka should be as SM/AM restricted as normal lists?

[BaronIveagh]

So the upshot of that is that you think Bakka should be as SM/AM restricted as normal lists?

No, I just think that there should be more ships to pick from in the regular list.  As things stand, we have a million reserve ships, and a handful of ones that we can actually pick from, most of which are the generic IN ships, except for the Siluria which is the old Endeavour -torps, The Victory which is the Apoc -weird rules and lance str, the Vanquisher which, as you yourself have said, no one will probably take, and now rules that pretty much ensure no one will ever take a battlecruiser because they're going to be spending their slots to get the FDT or reserving in SCs to back up ships like Mercury.

How is this list a viable big gun list if you have to use 'not reserves' from another list to make it work? 

The Reason FDT came into existence is that early on, it was found that balance was impossible by just increasing turrets.  Effectively, you end up with broken ships with 4 and five turrets that are nearly ord immune without focusing whole cruiser squadron's fire on a single ship.  Because at this point, sacking your escorts that normally run down ord for more points in turrets becomes viable.  180 points isn't much to spend on near immunity to bombers for a whole cruiser squadron and with turret massing, pretty good defenses against any other ord.  Rolling 7 or 8 dice, you're most likely going to shoot down something.

We won't even consider the absurdities that you get into with battleships under this.  Six turrets is almost a guarantee.

[Sigoroth]

No, I just think that there should be more ships to pick from in the regular list.  As things stand, we have a million reserve ships, and a handful of ones that we can actually pick from, most of which are the generic IN ships, except for the Siluria which is the old Endeavour -torps, The Victory which is the Apoc -weird rules and lance str, the Vanquisher which, as you yourself have said, no one will probably take, and now rules that pretty much ensure no one will ever take a battlecruiser because they're going to be spending their slots to get the FDT or reserving in SCs to back up ships like Mercury.

How is this list a viable big gun list if you have to use 'not reserves' from another list to make it work? 

You currently can use the AM ships in the list, you don't have to. As it stands, a no-AC IN list isn't all that powerful. This is because bombers tend to do well against 2 turret targets and the most effective way of stopping enemy bombers is you having fighters. Similarly, being able to clear enemy CAP makes your torps more valuable. Hence people prefer to have some AC.

Now if you increase turrets to at least 3 then bombers effectiveness tends to fall away, making them on-par with guns. Therefore you no longer need AC to defend yourself. Having some fighters to clear CAP for your torps is desirable though, and this Bakka list will have access to some. So that's sorted.

As for the feel of the list, if you took the Gothic list, removed the Dictator and Emperor and added the extra turrets then that would be sufficiently different to make the list feel more gun oriented. There's no need for Enforcers or Mercuries or whatever. You can add or subtract ships, but you don't need to. So the addition of Vanquisher/Victory does add some character, even if they're only slight variations. The Jovian/Dominion also add character. In the case of the Dominion this is again a variation on a theme (Mars). The Jovian I can understand from its fluff, and I can accept due to its rarity and the fact that it won't show up in other lists. Others don't like it, and I can understand their objections, they're valid.

The Havoc, Viper and Siluria are again just minor variations that just add a bit of character. The Endeavour/Endurance "flak ships" are another matter, but they're meant to help the fleet accomplish no-AC viability, for which I think they're overkill, but it's irrelevant.

What I don't get is the fast ship theme. The Mercury is just not called for in this list. Also fairly worthless too. With extra speed it'd be a line breaker. Why would I want long range in this role? If I used it as a stand-off ship the Overlord does better in the same role for cheaper. It goes faster than the rest of the fleet, making it harder to keep formation (both for the extra minimum move and the temptation to run it faster). You could make more fast ships, but, um, why? Isn't Bakka meant to be a gunfleet? Since when have they been a fast ship fleet?

So, sans fast ships and sans FDTs what other ships would you add to Bakka?

The Reason FDT came into existence is that early on, it was found that balance was impossible by just increasing turrets.  Effectively, you end up with broken ships with 4 and five turrets that are nearly ord immune without focusing whole cruiser squadron's fire on a single ship.  Because at this point, sacking your escorts that normally run down ord for more points in turrets becomes viable.  180 points isn't much to spend on near immunity to bombers for a whole cruiser squadron and with turret massing, pretty good defenses against any other ord.  Rolling 7 or 8 dice, you're most likely going to shoot down something.

We won't even consider the absurdities that you get into with battleships under this.  Six turrets is almost a guarantee.

Don't be ridiculous. There's no way that FDT was made because it was impossible to achieve balance otherwise. They were added because someone just thought "hey, cool, what about this idea?" and it turned out to be a bad one. As for the mechanic itself, how is being able to add turrets to other ships from afar any better than just adding turrets to their profiles? Increasing the standard turret value to 3 will greatly reduce the power of AC against the list. Combine that with the fact that you're getting more guns for doing this and an all-gun fleet becomes perfectly viable. The only thing I'd add would be falchions, to clear CAP. That way a no AC list would be quite viable. There have been some objections to this idea though.

[flybywire-E2C]

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!

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!  

[BaronIveagh]

Hmm... I'll try it out, but I do think that a stat corrected Apostate would be a good addition to this fleet.  It's built on the same hull as a Havok so it wouldn't look out of place.  Maybe as a rare variant or something.

[Sigoroth]

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!

So in the Bakka Sector fleet (not Segmentum force) AM ships pop up all the time? 'Cause I thought this was supposed to be the sector fleet. As for the FDT there is just so much wrong with this system. There's no way that turrets on one ship would be able to act just like turrets on another ship some 15,000 kms away. Apart from that, there is no explanation why no other race uses this extremely simple technology. It allows the turrets to gain so much range without sacrificing anything in return. The ship loses no speed or range from its main guns, nor any firepower or shield strength and, unlike Eldar, doesn't even have to shoot at the ordnance with main guns.

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!  

OK, you are missing a few things here. Firstly, I'll just make a comment about the range upgrade. It is good that you brought it down from its ludicrously high price, but I should just point out that it is still not on par with the Tyrant range upgrade. With the Tyrant you add +15cm range onto 6 firepower for 10 pts. Here you're adding +15cm range onto 4 firepower for +10 pts.

Anyway, you say the Mercury has more firepower than an Overlord. Well, let's look at an Overlord (220 pts) with the targeting matrix (+15 = 235 pts) vs a torp Mercury (235 pts). In the 45-60cm range bracket the Overlord shits all over the Mercury. With a left-shifted strength 8 firepower vs just strength 6. This makes the Overlords broadside twice as good as the Mercury in this range bracket. When we go to 45cm or less, well, the Armageddon is by far the best option. Since the Mercury has some 60cm range weaponry and the option to upgrade the rest to 60cm, and the Armageddon doesn't, we're obviously looking at the ships stand-off capabilities.

So let's assume fully upgraded range (so now it's 245 pts). Now it's FP 10 vs the overlords left-shifted FP 8. So in the 30-60cm range band the Mercury would get either 5, 4 or 2 dice, depending on circumstances. The Overlord will get either 6, 4 or 3(2) dice in the same circumstances. So the Overlord has either the same firepower or more firepower in the 45-60cm range band, even against an upgraded Mercury. In the 15-30cm range band the Mercury will get 7, 5, 4 or 2 dice, whereas the Overlord will get 7, 6, 4 or 3(2) dice, once again being superior. So from >15cm the Overlord purely owns the more expensive Mercury in terms of firepower. The only time the Mercury has better firepower is when the left-shift is useless, ie, when using the defences column.

So, the Overlord is superior as a stand-off ship, and outperforms the Mercury from >15cm. So you might assume that the Mercury comes into its own in the 15cm range band, since it does have the speed to get there. However then the Armageddon is generally on par or superior (depending on AV).

Now, you brought up the Smotherman formula, mentioning that 1L = 3WB, regardless of range. This is demonstrably false. Let us assume that the Lunar/Gothic comparison is fine, and that these ships are actually interchangeable in terms of overall value, so 1L = 3WB up to 30cm range. If this is true, and I think it's fairly hard to split the Lunar and Gothic in terms of value (apart from personal leanings), then you cannot argue that 1L = 3WB at ranges > 30cm. Therefore the 12WBe of the Mercury (more on this later) != to the 6WB/2L of the Armageddon. The Armageddon is superior.

So how to fix the ship? Well, let's assume that the speed is no detriment at all. So the ship is purposed around it, and leaving behind the rest of the fleet is no downfall. We'll even ignore the increased likelihood of going POP. So, since it has speed it's therefore designed to close quickly. So it'll be used as a linebreaker. So it doesn't need range. Bring its range back down to 30cm and drop its cost. Of course, you'll likely spout some nonsense about a CB not being below 45cm range or whatever. So what else? Well, you said the 6WB@60cm+4WB@45cm is roughly worth 12WB@45cm. Well, then how about this. Make the Mercury 12WB@45cm for current cost, and give the option to 'upgrade' this to 10WB@60cm for +10 pts. This way the ship would have a clear role as a line-breaker, trying to get to the 15cm range bracket and actually benefiting the player more if you did so than using an Armageddon.

[lastspartacus]

Advanced computer targeting accuracy on the turrets, Sig.  Not a fan of the way FDT works right now, but i can fluff-explain it rather satisfyingly, anyway.

I don't understand the readily available admechs.  Its cool to have something different, I'm just wondering what kind of special forge-world bond these guys have with the admech for the techno boys to readily participate their precious archiotech cruisers in common defense not based on admech gains.  I mean, other sectors have forgeworlds, right?

[Sigoroth]

Advanced computer targeting accuracy on the turrets, Sig.  Not a fan of the way FDT works right now, but i can fluff-explain it rather satisfyingly, anyway.

Right. But Chaos can't do it. SMs can't. Orks can't. Nids can't. Necrons and Tau can't do it. And for Eldar to be able to do it they need to use their main guns. Not to mention that half the time the targets will actually be in the shadow of the friendly ship, while also being at their most manoeuvrable and hardest to hit. Targeting accuracy my arse.

Bakka is supposed to be an AC light list. That is supposed to be their feel. They don't need the Ad Mech or some stupid special rule to achieve this. In fact, these inclusions make the fleet not an AC light list, but rather a FDT list, or a mixed IN/AM list, or a fast ship list, or whatever. Par it back to its essence. Take out main carriers, give extra turrets, and simply leave this as a gunship list. Bastion fleets have their feel, and they don't need all this crap to achieve it, and where they did have special rules (captains & unreliable) it is in fact these very rules that clutter the list and make it less attractive.

[Eudaimon]

In my opinion, Vipers have a big weakness: their utility depends only on an order (RO obviusly), BUT:
-I cannot backup their LD like I do with cruiser that are squadroned
-they don't have an option like the Cobra Widowmaker

I think that this escort should have the option to increase their LD like the Cobra (that is also dependent from RO )

otherwise, take this escort represents a huge risk to waste their points (that is very limited with Cobra)

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Any chance of including the Invincible?

[BaronIveagh]

Right. But Chaos can't do it. SMs can't. Orks can't. Nids can't. Necrons and Tau can't do it. And for Eldar to be able to do it they need to use their main guns. Not to mention that half the time the targets will actually be in the shadow of the friendly ship, while also being at their most manoeuvrable and hardest to hit. Targeting accuracy my arse.

Achem: SM can go 25cm with +6 armor.  Chaos and IN can't.  Chaos can lower your leadership by broadcasting magic porn...

Sig, if the idea of 15cm turrets burns your noodle, try this:  How does a targeting system upgrade only 'some' guns on a ship, when all the guns would have to be tied to the same sensor system, since, according to fluff, a ship only has a single targeting system?  If targeting was the problem, they would all have it.  

Bakka is supposed to be an AC light list. That is supposed to be their feel. They don't need the Ad Mech or some stupid special rule to achieve this. In fact, these inclusions make the fleet not an AC light list, but rather a FDT list, or a mixed IN/AM list, or a fast ship list, or whatever. Par it back to its essence. Take out main carriers, give extra turrets, and simply leave this as a gunship list. Bastion fleets have their feel, and they don't need all this crap to achieve it, and where they did have special rules (captains & unreliable) it is in fact these very rules that clutter the list and make it less attractive.

Sig, while I do agree with you that this list is getting pretty cluttered, I'll try it out first.

Any chance of including the Invincible?

Seconded

[Vaaish]

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

Nate, thanks for the updates and explanations it helps immensely! I have to say though that this is flawed. If you were comparing the pre-FAQ2010 Overlord then you would be quite right, but as Sig pointed out with the targeting matrix, the overlord has functionally the same firepower as the flying bomb that is the mercury. With options like the Dominion and Victory, it even makes sense to take the armageddon as a second battle cruiser choice or reserve in an overlord which fits bakka well using it's targeting matrix AND already having the option to upgrade it's turrets to 3.

On admech. Hows does this work for opening more CB clots? If you take say an admech gothic, it fills one CB slot in the bakka fleet but since admech ships aren't battlecruisers does it count as one cruiser for opening a second CB slot? In orther words would something like this be legal, ignoring points for the time being:

Siluria
Siluria
Admech Gothic
Dominator
Admech Gothic
Dominator
Armageddon
Jovian