BFG:R Scrapping the Bakka list vote

[BaronIveagh]

The matter has been motioned and seconded that the current (FAQ 2010) Bakka list be scrapped in it's entirety and redone from the ground up.  The matter will now be put to a vote.

[afterimagedan]

I say no. Bakka, with the work we have put into it, has been going the right direction and will be a great fleet when we are finished with it. No need to scrap it. If there are elements of the original Bakka that people want to incorporate, let's talk about that. No, we should not scrap the current Bakka that we have been working on.

[horizon]

No need to scrap, only to refine. (and in the end the result of scrapping and non scrapping will be almost identical  ).

[BaronIveagh]

No need to scrap, only to refine. (and in the end the result of scrapping and non scrapping will be almost identical  ).

Sorry, some of us are optimistic that the reality of the last few years poor fleet performance and lack of use might out weigh the rampant politics that surrounded the first try and that education and people taking the time to play the original fleet list might lead to a more balanced fleet that is closer to the original than FAQ 2010.

If there are elements of the original Bakka that people want to incorporate, let's talk about that.

The fact that this can be said, in all seriousness, is a major part of the problem.  To indulge in a little hyperbole, it's reached the point of being so different that it'd be like adding 'Living Metal' as an optional upgrade to any Chaos ship (though, perhaps, less broken in balance).  The current list was shaped, largely, by a group of people who never actually used this list.  As we saw earlier in the other thread, even Horizon, otherwise guru in all things BFG, had no idea where to even find the original list (though, in his defense, he did know where the ship stats were, and has played the original fleet once (that we know of) with proxies).  Many of the posters were even less informed at the time.

The current list is very nice, but it's like Casino Royal.  On it's own, it's good.  But it's not James Bond.  This list is nice, but it's too radically different from the original bakka.

[afterimagedan]

If there are elements of the original Bakka that people want to incorporate, let's talk about that.

The fact that this can be said, in all seriousness, is a major part of the problem. 

Saying that someone encouraging more discussion is part of the problem is a little bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Most people here are familiar with the 2010 Bakka list. We have been working on that.  If you want to demonstrate why the older Bakka list is better, please do. I am perfectly content with where the Bakka discussion has been going so far and see no need to stop it.  If you come in and say you want to scrap the whole thing, please give some good arguments for it using the original list.

[AndrewChristlieb]

It seems to me that what your wanting to see is a few more ships added. If there is something else your looking for could you explain? Seeing how the IN is about a half dozen ships away from looking like the Nids (pick hull, pick weapons, rinse and repeat) i dont know that there is really much reason to add anymore.

[BaronIveagh]

Saying that someone encouraging more discussion is part of the problem is a little bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Most people here are familiar with the 2010 Bakka list. We have been working on that.  If you want to demonstrate why the older Bakka list is better, please do. I am perfectly content with where the Bakka discussion has been going so far and see no need to stop it.  If you come in and say you want to scrap the whole thing, please give some good arguments for it using the original list.

'Better' is the wrong word.  Different.

The previous list had 3 viable 25cm light cruiser options.  Current has 1.  The previous list had 1 25cm battleship option.  The current list has 0.  The previous had lance escorts, the current does not.  The previous list had access to all 3 Grand Cruisers as normal selections.  The current list has none.

7 Ship classes in common (4 of them being the near universal Lunar, Dominator, Tyrant and Gothic)
19 are different.

[afterimagedan]

'Better' is the correct word because you have to show why the older 'different' list is 'better' for BFG:R.

[BaronIveagh]

'Better' is the correct word because you have to show why the older 'different' list is 'better' for BFG:R.

Ok, since you put it that way:

Changing it back

1) gives IN more flavor and expands on existing play styles. 

2) Deals with the issue of the Jovian, which seems to be something a lot of players here grouse about.

3) Does away with the Admech rule, allowing ships to directly take FDTs again.


It also brings the fleet a little closer to being current with canon, as this edition stands the Garerox Prerogative on it's head, the 'Big Gun Lobby' would have been among those backing the Heretic Cardinal Bucharis (see Plague of Unbelief) and if they were not killed by the Space Wolves, purged by the Inquisition, regardless of the outcome of their throw down with the 'young school'.

(as well as explaining how certain Chaos battleships can be taken as VBBs by SM chapters)

As far as making IN like 'nids...  Personal opinion. that's not a bad idea.  A lot of current fluff actually leans that way, thanks to FFG.

[Sigoroth]

Oh, I voted yes to scrap the 2010 Bakka list, but my intent was not to support the original Bakka list. Rather, I think that all things Bakka should be scrapped. Failing that, under no circumstances should we return to the original travesty.

[BaronIveagh]

Oh, I voted yes to scrap the 2010 Bakka list, but my intent was not to support the original Bakka list. Rather, I think that all things Bakka should be scrapped. Failing that, under no circumstances should we return to the original travesty.

Yes, yes, you hate Bakka (mostly I suspect because I like it).  We've been over that before.

I had been tactfully leaving out the fact that in addition to the usual problems certain players also set out to directly and deliberately sabotage the list in FAQ 2010 as well (for a variety of reasons), and when that didn't get past the HA settled for demanding it be made as vanilla as possible. 

But since you brought it up...

[AndrewChristlieb]

Well if Sig doesnt like it there must be something right about it. 

I voted no. Not because I like or dislike either but because I think that theres the option to meet in the middle with this.

I totally agree that some Grandcruisers should be allowed in this, Exorcist is just no tho.

More light cruisers sounds fine to me and giving the Endurance/Endeavour an option to boost their speed +5cm or +5c, and +1d6aaf seems pretty reasonable and true to the fluff.

Fast battleship... I dont know about this one, with the Mercury I dont really see the point unless were talking an undergunned ship like the Vengance.

[BaronIveagh]

Well if Sig doesnt like it there must be something right about it. 

By Horizon's request I won't touch that with a ten foot pole.  I am not to antagonize Sig, no matter how many people agree or how much fan mail I get for it.   

I totally agree that some Grandcruisers should be allowed in this, Exorcist is just no tho.

Exorcist was what it had before it was saddled with Jovian.  Personally I think it makes more sense, from a fluff perspective, as grand cruisers are all older ships, possibly that predate current trends in a given fleets preferences.

More light cruisers sounds fine to me and giving the Endurance/Endeavour an option to boost their speed +5cm or +5c, and +1d6aaf seems pretty reasonable and true to the fluff.

Fast battleship... I dont know about this one, with the Mercury I dont really see the point unless were talking an undergunned ship like the Vengance.

The Invincible was the one that it had before.

For those without the stats:

290pts 8hp 25cm  2 shields 4 turrets +6/+5 str 12 60 cm wb p/s and str 4 60cm dorsal lance.  str 6 prow torps.

I usually screened it with a squadron or two of swords all loaded with FDTs.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ya Im not a fan of the invincible or its special rules, its really more of a screwed up grand cruiser. The idea of a fast battleship is fine but a glass jaw Retribution just seems horrible. A fast battleship to me would retain the 12 hits and exchange firepower/range for speed/durability.

[BaronIveagh]

Um, minor detail but fast battleships in history have always exchanged speed for durability as opposed to firepower.  In fact, the Iowa class fast battleship had comparable firepower to larger and better armored ships.