BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships

[BaronIveagh]

Andrew + Vaaish + third person they want to include on it. Heck, I could hook them up with Bob (HA) for some additional backup.

So, We're seeing the following nominees for a Committee:

Myself (nominated by Bessemer)

Andrew (nominated by Horizon and myself and Dan)

Tyberius (nominated by myself)

Vaaish (nominated by Horizon)

Dragon Lord (Nominated by Myself)

Any other nominees?

[Dragon Lord]

I have been somewhat out of the BFG loop for quite some time, though I expect some of the older members like Horizon, Sigoroth and Vaaish will remember me, but I'm willing to help out if I'm wanted.

Dragon Lord

[Tyberius]

I'm honored to participate on this comitee, I will make sure the fleet will be balanced, logical, and fluff faithful. and I guess the final work will be submitted for voting as a whole, and it can be accepted or rejected by all the community so, I don't see a problem not including bakka detractors, cause they will vote against anyway if they don't like the fleet in question... we want bakka to be.... so you all have to like it to make it happen...

[afterimagedan]

That's why I think the voting method is better than committee, but be my guest!

[Sigoroth]

You are making a false dichotomy. It doesn't make any difference whether it is "organic" or "artificial." Who cares. There are those sort of restrictions all over this game. There is nothing wrong with a one sentence restriction, whether you want to call it artificial or not. There is no being a beardy git and stretching it. It's a cruel, hard, cold, unbending restriction; the best kind. The only reason your "organic" restriction works is because you are assuming the other carriers are not included. Either way, if you would like to put up a vote, or have me put up a vote, to keep or drop the Jovian, go ahead. That will help determine the direction of this anyways.

No, I'm making a TRUE dichotomy. You can successfully go either the artificial route with more access to carriers or the organic route with limited access. Artificial constraints do work, we see them all over the place in BFG. However an organic restraint is better. Two AC per 500 pts is more limiting, but this limit is being imposed in order to stop Bakka players using all the carriers they have access to. Fleet defence turrets are there to make up for the harsh restrictions. There is altogether too much happening here to force a very narrow path.

It is far easier to simply restrict carriers available to the list. No basic cruiser carrier, combined with limited access to the Emperor, does that perfectly. We know that even at its most beardy it's not an AC strong fleet. That's Bakka. No more constraints needed.

Yes, in your opinion. It's just this discussion all over again. Let's vote on it and get on our way.

Why does a carrier hating sector have the only pure IN carrier? I wish people would stop voting on this crap based upon what they want and start looking at what makes sense. Let's say that the Jovian was readily available to some other list, that IN players could currently get access to this vessel. So let's already assume that it's an official ship, and we're not voting on whether or not we think the ship is ok. Under that set of circumstances would anyone really suggest it for Bakka? I think not. People currently can't take this ship, they want to, so they use the Bakka list to bring it in, because that's where it's being voted on. Ridiculous.

Any discussion about Bakka we have had has been like talking to a wall. Don't think you are exempt from that Sig. I don't think the FDT addition is an "i win" button. In fact, you just demonstrated how you can work your own system to get much more AC than mine. If you want less of an "I win" Bakka fleet list, go with my "artificial" restriction. While you will be able to stretch your system to 10AC, mine will have the Bakka player at 4.

What you're doing is trying to make Bakka immune to AC, with the "trade off" that they can't take it themselves. Bakka shouldn't be immune to AC, they should simply take a different route to protecting themselves from it. Instead of "oh shit, the enemy have a lot of ordnance, let's fight fire with fire" it should be "oh crap, lots of ordnance, let's fight fire with water, bring out the hydrocannons". Obviously the FDT is an attempt at this, but why have a special rule upgrade for certain ships based upon a restricted level of tech (we're talking Admech stuff here) when a really really simple +1 turret upgrade is all that's needed?

In short, you're being overly complex. Carrier hating Bakka has lots of carriers (why?), but oh don't worry, they're severely and artificially limited (why?) and have superior tech (why?) to make up for it.

Compare that to mine. Carrier hating Bakka has few carriers, self limiting, and get a simple defensive upgrade to make up for it. Surely that's more desirable. Surely it's more internally consistent and requires less explanation.

[Sigoroth]

For Admech I would replace the FDT with another upgrade entirely. For Bakka I would simply give them another turret.

Sig, you suggested that to the HA for FAQ 2010 and they shot it down because when they playtested it, it caused the list to fail utterly against certain other lists.

They didn't playtest it at all. They simply ignored it and moved on. There is no way that having an extra turret on all their capital ships would be insufficient to make Bakka playable. I have played low AC fleets without an extra turret and they're perfectly viable.

[Sigoroth]

Committee? This seems like an attempt by the crazy Bakka faction to ditch opposition by cutting out reason. If there's going to be a Bakka committee then it has to be balanced. Either put me on the committee or take Baron off it. He's a complete nutter and shouldn't be let anywhere near the business end of rule making. He'd give SMs lances ffs.

[horizon]

He feels the same about you.


So both of you won't be in the committee.
Me neither.

But all three of us may shoot at the outcome.

[Sigoroth]

He feels the same about you.


So both of you won't be in the committee.
Me neither.

But all three of us may shoot at the outcome.

That's fine by me.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I agree about the Jovian, it shouldnt be an option for the Bakka list but thats where its at right now. Unfortunatly 2010 opened the door for it and now were stuck trying to reason it out. Have we considered just removing it from Bakka and moving it to another list? The Gothic sector has plenty of good options for AC and this would be a small ripple in the pool there plus someone had mentioned that originally the fluff had one of these there near the end of the Gothic war.

[horizon]

Or a Gareox Initiative Fleet List. Oh shizzles, the AC swarms. With historical scenarios.

/It would make a cool warp rift article.

[BaronIveagh]

Committee?

If by 'crazy Bakka faction' you mean 'people who want a working Bakka list' then yes.  As far as 'cutting out reason' goes, as I've said, I have no issue with everyone Horizon has named thus far (we both unanimously named andrew to the list, and I feel he would make a good chairman), who I like to think are a pretty good cross section of views, and even Dan had to admit that me being on the committee was acceptable,  just not in charge of it.  Which I am fine with.

The only people that have insisted that I not be on it are you and Horizon.  Which is hardly surprising, all things considered.  I had considered turning down bessemer's nomination, but this post has definitely changed my mind.

As far as why you, personally, were not invited: obvious conflict of interest (you have repeatedly stated that you want there to be no Bakka list, which Dan has threatened if this board cannot come to some sort of consensus, meaning if you sabotage everything you get your wish). 

(Though it might amuse you to learn that I actually would like to propose to the committee something like your AC restrictions, I'm not a big fan of the way the AC limits are handled either)

That's why I think the voting method is better than committee, but be my guest!

You and I and Vaaish have discussed the issues the process has had though, as well, though.  This side steps some of those issues, at least in the design phase, while still allowing the community to vote on the finished product.

The Gothic sector has plenty of good options for AC and this would be a small ripple in the pool there plus someone had mentioned that originally the fluff had one of these there near the end of the Gothic war.

Yeah, originally Jovian was a Gothic Sector ship.

"the first of these Jovian class ships, the Revenant, came into operation just before the outbreak of the Gothic War and quickly made good account of itself' - BFGM 01

[horizon]

and even Dan had to admit that me being on the committee was acceptable,  just not in charge of it.  Which I am fine with.

Dan actually said more along the line of: if BaronI is on board, so should Sig. Thus it is either both of you or none of you according Dan.

And I actually think the latter would be the best. I mean, the first would be ...ehm... a difficult proces. 

[BaronIveagh]

Dan actually said more along the line of: if BaronI is on board, so should Sig. Thus it is either both of you or none of you according Dan.

That's if I was in charge.  Which I'm not.  (By you, me,and dan's unanimous decision, I might also add).

And I might also add that you suggested Vaaish as a viable member instead of Sig.  Which seems that everyone has also agreed with. 

I can't picture anyone MORE opposed to doing something 'radical' with the list than he is. 

Let's look at our proposed members:

Tyberius: Has generally been above the squabbles and petty bickering of this board, and likes the old school bakka ships, but is also willing to vote against them if he feels there's a lack of balance.

Dragon Lord: Is something of an outsider to both factions, and is known to a few of us on both sides of the fence.

Vaaish: is opposed to any serious changes to the status quo.

Andrew: is a moderate and has come up with some interesting compromises in the past and is generally respected by both sides.

Myself:  (we all know how I am, but...) The polar opposite of Vaaish, I like to change things, but I also think that Bakka needs to be a balanced low AC fleet.

None of the above have any baggage with one another they would be taking into the discussion, and they represent most of the posters that have experience with one form of this list or another.



Horizon, if you have a better solution to the issue of Bakka being something of a berserk button around here, I'm listening.  This way every faction has a voice at the table, and it had decent odds of no one using blunt instruments on each other or storming out in a huff.

[horizon]

also think that Bakka needs to be a balanced low AC fleet.

And this is something everyone agrees on.   
Not a single person in here wants Bakka to be unbalanced & high on AC.
It is just that there are different paths leading to the thing everyone wants.


////In a hindsight: what is actually wrong with the 2010 Bakka list? What have been the 'mistakes' by the HA?
BFG:R is about fixing. If the mistakes are localised it be easier to fix.


edit:

Horizon, if you have a better solution to the issue of Bakka being something of a berserk button around here, I'm listening.  This way every faction has a voice at the table, and it had decent odds of no one using blunt instruments on each other or storming out in a huff.

The committee is a good idea for this. And Andrew is surely capable of making it fine.

But we need also to look at this by taking a step back:
What we are doing is creating (BFG:R) a fine document that has the goal to fix points & stats regarding the main rulebook, Armada & FAQ/Compendium 2010.
But it is also unofficial. And in the end one might decide to only use parts of BFG:R and not use other things.
And if someone prefers Bakka 2002 and his opponents agree: that is fine!

As for tournaments: I guess these will stick tot Rulebook-Armada-2010 anyway.