BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships

[afterimagedan]

- warning...

Point taken. 

[horizon]

Eh, I just wanted to know what those 7 want to change on the Enforcer. 

[afterimagedan]

Eh, I just wanted to know what those 7 want to change on the Enforcer. 

Yes, but what's your point? I am aware of that.

[horizon]

Well, to me the ship is broken, bad and wrong and see no way to fix it. So, I'd like to know what the people who want to work on it think about it. Increase price, change stats, eg. These people have more hope for the vessel then me.

And now I am baffled I am really explaining this... 

[BaronIveagh]

Eh, I just wanted to know what those 7 want to change on the Enforcer. 

In my case it needs rebalanced point wise, and the current restriction of 3 per fleet should probably be looked at being balanced in another way (to avoid AC spam at lower point values).

But we're not arguing for a ship being removed, you're arguing for a ship to be included. Big difference. The onus is on you to prove that it is a necessary, viable and fluffy ship that does not alter interfleet balance. The latter 2 may be fine, but the first 2 certainly aren't.

I can vouch for it's viability in previous versions of Bakka.  As far as current goes....  I can see it working fairly well in the right context.  The real question will be how much different it is afterward. 

But why do we even need it? Sure it may appear in Bakka fluff or whatever, but why does this "sod all AC" Bakka list have so many new carriers? Give them gunships!

But not new gunships, because we just got done objecting to that!   

That's what they're all about. While I'm rather conservative when it comes to Bakka (the whole list should remain unofficial) if we have to ratify some extreme change I'd rather it be to crap like the Mercury/Long Serpent than yet more carriers. Not that I like that ship at all. It could simply be dropped in favour of an Overlord. Give Bakka the Dauntless, Siluria, Havoc, Viper and Dominion. Ditch the Jovian and replace the Mercury with the Overlord. The Vanquisher and Victory are fine but unnecessary. The Cardinal is complete smeg.[/color]

My thoughts are ditch Jovian (which I agree is taken too often) for Exorcist (which fits fluff more closely, and is six lbs now so it can stand in), add Cardinal, Dauntless and Enforcer (with limits), as well as firestorm and (maybe) iconoclast, and allow the 20cm ships to take a +5cm speed upgrade for a to be determined point cost increase.

Also, ditch the awkward admech rule and bring back the old FDT.  Your insistence on removing FDT from regular IN, Sig, is what lead to the admech rule and some of the more complicated rules juggling that has gone on.

The 2010 Bakka list has no access to Defiants, Enforcers, Dictators, Exorcists, Mars or Oberons.

Unless you reserve them in, or use the Admech rules to take them.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ok lets fix the Enforcer:

1 launch/side

2 prow torps

2 prow wbs

20cm speed

2 turret

6+ front/5+ armor

2/500 restriction

100-110 pts

Done

Now the Cardinal:

Fix the torps forward

Move the dorsal weapons batteries to a p/s mount

Add two dorsal lances @60cm

Give it a 6+ prow

Make it 235pts

Done.

If you want the option of a light carrier in Bakka then we should just allow the Defiant, were having enough trouble making it viable without bringing in another ship that similar and that is already so drawn.

If you want to add another battle cruiser then bring in the Armageddon for much the same reason.

[BaronIveagh]

If you want the option of a light carrier in Bakka then we should just allow the Defiant, were having enough trouble making it viable without bringing in another ship that similar and that is already so drawn.

If you want to add another battle cruiser then bring in the Armageddon for much the same reason.

Andrew, we have the Armageddon already under FAQ 2010.   (In, IMHO, could do without it)

This is one of those ongoing things that bugs me when people start talking about changing Bakka is how many of them have little to no idea what is on the fleet list, how it plays, or what needs work.

But all of them seem to think that it needs to play exactly like every other IN fleet, despite fluff and previous lists.


Edit: Minor fluff point, but the Armada fluff for Endeavour (and, logically this extends to it's variants) specifically states it's a poor choice for anti-pirate operations, something that the fluff for Battlefleet Tempestus states is their primary occupation.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Right then so why do you need another battlecruiser that is so close to it in function?

You have really got to stop making assumptions about people too man keep it to the game. No one is trying to make Bakka just like the other lists. Well maybe Sig...

Heh I checked the 2010 list, never realized you could take the Geddon, but then ive always taken the Jovian or Dominion, theyre both stronger choices and theyre more needed. Thats a problem there, When your making a Bakka list you shouldnt feel like you need any AC.

[Vaaish]

If enough people want to add it because they just like it, they can vote it in. They don't need to argue why it should be added. If you want to argue why it shouldn't be added, you may persuade people.

But how many is enough? In the case of the cardinal Baron half jokingly asked if putting in the cardinal was too much, you answered sure and now you keep wanting me to defend why it shouldn't be included. There was no discussion much less persuasion on why it should be ADDED in the first place! That's totally backwards unless you really don't care about balance.

Vaaish, do you think that is my intention? Power creep?

I can't judge your intentions, but I can judge your actions. If you truly want balance the default stance to every new idea or ship MUST be "no, now convince me why we should do this."

[BaronIveagh]

Right then so why do you need another battlecruiser that is so close to it in function?

Different fleet dynamic. 'geddons work great squadroned with Lunars in a slowboat line of battle, where as Cardinal is best used in conjunction with light cruisers like Siluria and Dauntless, with an escort hoard, since it can keep up with them and (atm) does not need to be prow on to fire torps.  But even without the torps is still pretty useful in a light cruiser and escort fleet.

But how many is enough? In the case of the cardinal Baron half jokingly asked if putting in the cardinal was too much, you answered sure and now you keep wanting me to defend why it shouldn't be included. There was no discussion much less persuasion on why it should be ADDED in the first place! That's totally backwards unless you really don't care about balance.

Vaaish, I going ot say that his reasoning is most likely the fact that bakka finalization vote ended in a draw.  By his logic, more work and discussion is required.  I think that this we can both understand.

So, how do we change Bakka for the better?  (Aside from escorting Sig to the door and locking him outside)

[Vaaish]

I would like to keep it how it is and discuss the point cost of it. Different enough from the other light cruisers. What do you mean by considerably?

Probably 150-160 points for it as it stands. Most of the time the lance dauntless doesn't get to use the side WB to best advantage  to use the prow lances. The enforcer lets you drop off AC inside of intercept range on a target of choice AND plonk them with 3 lances. 3x lance dauntless on LO have a fearsome amount of firepower. Now add 6x bombers to that. It's an extremely powerful combination.

[afterimagedan]

If enough people want to add it because they just like it, they can vote it in. They don't need to argue why it should be added. If you want to argue why it shouldn't be added, you may persuade people.

But how many is enough? In the case of the cardinal Baron half jokingly asked if putting in the cardinal was too much, you answered sure and now you keep wanting me to defend why it shouldn't be included. There was no discussion much less persuasion on why it should be ADDED in the first place! That's totally backwards unless you really don't care about balance.

I also proposed what I would like to see fixed and some people were in favor of it, so why not just vote to see where people are at? Notice, no one wants to keep any of the ships as is (maybe a few people of a couple ships) but there are a lot of people who said they would be interested to work on the ship so they can be included. Vaaish, I am not asking you to defend your claim. I don't care if you defend your view. Most of my posts including you have been responding to you. Don't play the victim here. We have a disagreement on what makes something worthy of adding to BFG:R in the first place. If the majority of people want a ship to be included, it will be. If they don't, they don't That's what the votes are for. People are not voting to just add it as-is. The votes show that a good handful want to fix those ships and include them.

Vaaish, do you think that is my intention? Power creep?

I can't judge your intentions, but I can judge your actions. If you truly want balance the default stance to every new idea or ship MUST be "no, now convince me why we should do this."
I don't know how my intentions can be interpreted as power creep. Notice, I was one of the people who was voicing that I want to make sure the new Defiant stats do not step on the Dictator's toes. I also do not want any of the other ships to step on any other IN ship's toes, but rather be a different ship.

Ok lets fix the Enforcer:

1 launch/side

2 prow torps

2 prow wbs

20cm speed

2 turret

6+ front/5+ armor

2/500 restriction

100-110 pts

Done

Why force the Enforcer to be a Defiant? Why does that have to be the fix? The Defiant is a different ship. Slower, more armored, totally different prow. I just don't see why we can't keep the Enforcer as it is or similar. Why do people automatically assume it's broken?

Now the Cardinal:

Fix the torps forward

Move the dorsal weapons batteries to a p/s mount

Add two dorsal lances @60cm

Give it a 6+ prow

Make it 235pts

Done.

I would say the same things here as I would for the Enforcer.

If you want the option of a light carrier in Bakka then we should just allow the Defiant, were having enough trouble making it viable without bringing in another ship that similar and that is already so drawn.

If you want to add another battle cruiser then bring in the Armageddon for much the same reason.

I will state my argument from earlier: " My point with the IN cruisers is that there are some ships that have other ships that do the same job or are very similar. That's no reason to throw something out."

To be honest, I am not overly attached to these ships, I just don't think they should be discarded so easily. I would personally like to see them worked on but I can compromise if anyone from the opposing side wants to propose something.

[BaronIveagh]

Thats a problem there, When your making a Bakka list you shouldnt feel like you need any AC.

This is as close to the major problem as anyone has posted so far. 

Previous, we had the FDT, etc, that could crank up the number of turrets high enough that we could get away with a hard limit of 3 enforcers and Exorcist as an option with the occasional Dominus Astra and still have a viable fleet.

Then 'someone' threw a fit during the FAQ 2010 process that he hated Bakka (in general) and FDT (In particular) and demanded that the HA remove it from the fleet.  And did so until members of the HA started to actually get pissed off, and gave him what he wanted. 

Sort of. 

(And let us be reminded of the old saying 'be careful what you wish for').

Personally I'd see Jovian AND Dominion AND the Ad Mech rule GONE in favor of Enforcer at a 3 per 1k limit, the occasional reserve Exorcist, and a return to the old FDT rules.  Enforcer is powerful, don't get me wrong, but with the old FDT rules it's not the mandatory selection that Jovian is.

[afterimagedan]

Thats a problem there, When your making a Bakka list you shouldnt feel like you need any AC.

This is as close to the major problem as anyone has posted so far. 

Previous, we had the FDT, etc, that could crank up the number of turrets high enough that we could get away with a hard limit of 3 enforcers and Exorcist as an option with the occasional Dominus Astra and still have a viable fleet.

In the new rules, there is a +1 turret option that helps crank up the turrets that happens to work well with the current FDT. The Admech ship brought in by reserves don't get the +1 option from Bakka, but they do get the +1 turret from Admech. FDT gives the reroll. I think that's a great mechanic.

If we end up including the Enforcer, I would like to keep it limited greatly, as I have proposed before in the 2/500pt LC limit.

Then 'someone' threw a fit during the FAQ 2010 process that he hated Bakka (in general) and FDT (In particular) and demanded that the HA remove it from the fleet.  And did so until members of the HA started to actually get pissed off, and gave him what he wanted. 

Sort of. 

(And let us be reminded of the old saying 'be careful what you wish for').

Personally I'd see Jovian AND Dominion AND the Ad Mech rule GONE in favor of Enforcer at a 3 per 1k limit, the occasional reserve Exorcist, and a return to the old FDT rules.  Enforcer is powerful, don't get me wrong, but with the old FDT rules it's not the mandatory selection that Jovian is.

I would be willing to drop the Defender if there is some way for Bakka to reliably get a FDT in the fleet. That's why I would like to give the Admech reserve ships that option.

I could see this as a possible resolution:
-drop Defender, add Dauntless (this is mainly to balance with the extra turret option being give to the Bakka fleet.
-keep Enforcer, add heavier restrictions for LC (2/500pts, +2 if you take Rath). I think this restriction is preferable to the current carrier restriction because it doesn't encourage people to take the Jovian or Dominus over the Dominion or smaller. 
-no FDT option in the fleet but allow it to be taken on Admech reserve vessels by choice instead of the regularly rolled gift (...the FDT version being the new FDT version). This new FDT mechanic works well with the +1 turret option of Bakka as opposed to the old mechanic. The old FDT allowed you to add turret amounts to the amount the target ship has. This FDT does not, but allows rerolls of turrets.

[horizon]

I always liked the original Ships of Mars FDT rule.