BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka

[BaronIveagh]

Vaaish, then you just have a super apoc. That's lame. Everyone who used an apoc will grumble about it because there is now just a better apoc in the bakka list. I would prefer having the apoc stay the best at long range lanced.

Yeah, now that the Jovian is out (which I call total bullshit on as I was not permitted to vote for some reason), I propose that the Bakka fleet list have the Nemesis.

You can't deny it would be both unique and in keeping with the 'one carrier' flavor of the fleet.

[afterimagedan]

Wait, it's not out dude. It just isn't open to other fleets other than Bakka.

[Vaaish]

Vaaish, then you just have a super apoc. That's lame. Everyone who used an apoc will grumble about it because there is now just a better apoc in the bakka list. I would prefer having the apoc stay the best at long range lanced.

It seems we are talking about different things. I'm still talking about a 4 lance +WB armed Victory.

Victory
365
12 hits 20cm speed 4 shields 6+/5+ 4 turrets
P/S lances  4  60cm
P/S WB   6 60cm
Dorsal WBs  6  60cm
Nova cannon (-10pts to switch to 9 torps)

The point behind the victory was to replicate the Apoc but take care of the problems with it. The apoc has the ability to fire it's lances out to 60cm but at a penalty. The goal behind the Victory would then be to maintain as much of the Apocs firepower as possible and fire out to 60cm without penalty.

The HA tweaked this to be the 4 lances per side and dorsal WB. Effectively a loss of 4x lances to allow the ship to move faster and shoot as far as the Apoc with no penalty. That gave the Victory 2/3 of firepower of the Apoc. Fits pretty well with the concept behind it.

Now, with the changes to the Apoc in place, the Apoc gets 6x lances and 9x WB to one side. Usually it doesn't fire both sides at once and certainly not at long range.  That gives the Apoc 27 WBE to a side.

With what I'm proposing earlier in the post, the Apoc still has more firepower than the Victory and much better long range firepower. It has three less dorsal battery strength and the two lances replaced with WB since it makes better sense visually and makes good sense if you are trying to conserve power to boost the range of your lances. That gives it 4x lances and 12x WB to a side at 60cm which translates into something like 24 WBE (it's basically an official retribution with an extra lance firepower wise).

If our victory is shooting at a capital ship abeam past 30cm, we traded the two lances from the apoc dice for zero extra WB dice. At best we gain one extra WB dice for our trouble past 30cm. Within 30cm we finally gain parity trading two lance dice for two battery dice albeit we now hit on a worse number and have to worry about BM.  Either way, I don't see you getting parity on dice rolls from the loss of the lances very often.

So, who's better off? I'd say the Apoc has it still and it is more cost effective doing it too. But, what the Victory DOES have is the apoc vibe which is what we should be looking for based on the fluff. Unfortunately this leaves the Vanquisher in a hard place since it's the same thing but cheaper and slightly less range and firepower.

[BaronIveagh]

Wait, it's not out dude. It just isn't open to other fleets other than Bakka.

Yeah.  But as it was not by a single vote, and it refused ot count my vote in favor of it being allowed....

[afterimagedan]

Ah, I see your point now, sorry about that. Well, let's continue the discussion then! A 50/50 vote indicates to me that more discussion is needed.

[afterimagedan]

Vaaish, I am going to bring up the vote for the Victory because I think we have 3 profiles that are the options that have come up: the 45cm 6 lance variant (that I proposed), the Vaaish version (4 lances @ 60cm + wbs), and the original version.  Things aren't really making any progress so let's vote!

[BaronIveagh]

One thing I see a lot of while I'm reading this thread, aside from a certain amount of confusion, is that we're mathhammering this rather than asking the most important question:


What is Battlefleet Bakka's feel? How is this fleet list actually different than, say, Segmentum Solar?

One thing that I had a serious problem with in FAQ 2010 was that the overall drive was to make battlefleet bakka 'More IN' when, previous to this point, it played very differently.  I know that a lot of posters have (overwhelming, blinding) preconceptions about what IN 'should' be, but frankly, most of them also rarely, if ever, played with or against this fleet list.

Point 1 that Bakka had:

Speed.

Not one light cruiser hull in Bakka had a speed below 25cm pre FAQ 2010.  Even the Endeavor had a speed of 25cm in the 2002 List.  The Long Serpent makes up, somewhat for the loss of the Cardinal heavy cruiser, but the removal of the Enforcer changed this fleet's play at a fundamental level, rather for the worse against ordinance heavy adversaries like Tau.

( But OMG SM lances will change the flavor of SM FOREVER! )

Point 2 that bakka had:

The Fleet Defense Turret.

While certain player voiced their extreme dislike for this option, it was almost mandatory for most competitive builds with this fleet.  I would recommend this restriction be removed again.

Bakka Point 3:

This isn't so much about what the fleet had as about the change in fluff that has the Big Gun Lobby kneeling before the Heretic Cardinal Bucharis with the rebel Young School backing the Imperium.  It rather takes a dump on the old Gareox Prerogative fluff.  The only reason I mention this is that I see Ray over there making 'newcron' fleet lists and giving necron ships shields to bring them into line with current fluff.



(For those that have asked: Mercury/Long Serpent originally exploded as a 12hp Battleship, but this was deemed exploitable in suicide attacks)


Personal thoughts on Bakka list changes:

The only IN battleship I used in this fleet was the Victory, due to it's speed.

Possible addition: Invincible Class Fast Battleship would fit well.

I think that non-escorts though should have a special rule where they may purchase +5 CM.  This should not be, however, allowed on bakka ships taken as reserves by another list.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I for one do not see the point in disallowing the Jovian as reserves for any IN fleet.

Point A: its a freaking spaceship in freaking outer space, whats keeping it locked in one tiny little section of the galaxy.

Point B: "Despite its success, the fleet lords of Bakka hold fast to their big-gun philosophy, and it is unlikely another ship of this class will be requisitioned be Segmentum Naval authority"

This says that Bakka probably wont get another, but once more mainstream fleets get word of its successes Im sure there will be others that push to see these into production.

Mind you i dont like this ship, but the restriction is absurd. 

I never played Bakka pre FAQ but i rather like the FAQ version, its a bit overpowered compared to standard IN in my opinion tho.

[BaronIveagh]

I for one do not see the point in disallowing the Jovian as reserves for any IN fleet.

Point A: its a freaking spaceship in freaking outer space, whats keeping it locked in one tiny little section of the galaxy.

Point B: "Despite its success, the fleet lords of Bakka hold fast to their big-gun philosophy, and it is unlikely another ship of this class will be requisitioned be Segmentum Naval authority"

This says that Bakka probably wont get another, but once more mainstream fleets get word of its successes Im sure there will be others that push to see these into production.

Mind you i dont like this ship, but the restriction is absurd. 

I never played Bakka pre FAQ but i rather like the FAQ version, its a bit overpowered compared to standard IN in my opinion tho.

It's because the FAQ's fluff is a mashup of the original fluff for the class from the three of them that took part in the Gothic War as part of Battlefleet Gothic and the Gareox Prerogative/Battle of Circe fluff.

[afterimagedan]

Hey Baron, do you happen to have any of those documents from the original Bakka stuff that would could post for us? I would like to read through them. And, I'm glad to have you as part of this discussion so please continue to contribute.

[Vaaish]

I would retract my version of the victory in favor of the original if that's on the table. Only necessary changes and I don't think the victory qualifies with the impasse here.

[afterimagedan]

Mention that in the Victory voting blog if you could and indicate which is your so people know about it. Either way, if people like it more, they will be able to vote on it. Definitely bring that up in discussion though so people know your stance on things.

I would even be willing to go for an option to choose between the original and the 45cm version, sort of like allowing the user to use the 60cm wb12 Ret OR the 45cm wb18 Ret. Something like that.

[BaronIveagh]

Don't have a link handy but I can tell you where to find them:

If you have the Battlefleet Gothic Magazine (or the pdfs of them on the internet wink wink) issues 

02 (original fleet list),

13 (they added the Invincible class fast battleship [a speed 25cm, 8 HP battleship] as a battleship option to it in this issue),

and Annual 2002 (for some reason they pulled all the battlecruiser and heavy cruiser options but the Overlord and added in all three Grand Cruisers) they're in print in those.


Interesting little notes about where some of these ships came from:

Jovian was in BFGM 01 and in the Corribra Sector LBgasm fleetlist in Planet Killer with SIluria (and the much ballyhoo'd Nemesis Fleet Carrier)

Dominion was from Book of Nemesis (From which we get the Chaos Fast Battleship.  Never mind the chaos light cruisers [which a lot of people fixate on], there's a speed 30cm Battleship in here with 45 and 60 cm wbs and lances)

[horizon]

This?

http://www.google.nl/url?q=http://yenlowang.free.fr/warhammer-forum/BFG/BFG_-_Additional_Ships_Compendium_1.4.pdf&sa=U&ei=oDU4UfT_M8KBOKTNgeAF&ved=0CB4QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHx7luxShBQcuYXJDLdxh7eG2FO3Q

(direct pdf)

[afterimagedan]

What's a ballyhoo and how do I get one.