BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships

[afterimagedan]

Please vote once per ship.

[afterimagedan]

I would like to include all of them but work on them. I voiced some of the changes I would make and I will think through it some more. Hopefully I can, within the next few days, propose my changes.

I think we should, instead of making restrictions to specific ships, we should make a blanket restriction to carrier for Bakka.

[Vaaish]

I see no point in adding any of these. They exist and people can take them with permission which is fine. Not every ship created has to be in this document, and even less so when the ships make official ones obsolete as in the case of the enforcer or add nothing to the game in the case of the cardinal. In the cardinals case, why not just use the 2010 reserve rules to pull in any of the chaos ships to fill the role?

Leave well enough alone, we have enough to discuss and far too many tweaks with just the official set, why further complicate things?

[Bessemer]

Changed vote to no for the Defender.

On further reading it mentions in 2010 Bakka that the systems for the FDT are too complex for the IN's crews to operate, so Admech only.

[BaronIveagh]

Changed vote to no for the Defender.

On further reading it mentions in 2010 Bakka that the systems for the FDT are too complex for the IN's crews to operate, so Admech only.

Yeah, they had to write that in after certain unnamed posters on this board threw a fit and demanded that they  removed the FDTs (and AC) from Bakka entirely.  This was sort of the compromise idea they came up with was the admech FTD rule and Jovian.

[afterimagedan]

Here are my proposed Bakka additions:
-Cardinal exactly like it is in BFGM#2 --> 190pts. It is a little overpriced but I believe this is to make up for the amount of combined firepower it has plus its maneuverability to be able to use that combined firepower.

-Enforcer. This ships should either be included as it is in BFGM#2 for 120pts or we can give it the same lance amount as a Dauntless (3 lances) and make it 110pts. Personally, I say just keep it as is at 120pts.

-Defender. It should be just as it is and making its FDTs just as the new Admech version, which, remember, will boost its turret about. I think it should be 105pts plus the cost of the FDTs.

-Vanquisher. I think the version in Planet Killer is a better option for players but also more fluffy at 20cm.  I think it should be at 320pts with those stats (basically, the same stats as 2010 Vanquisher but at 20cm movement and 4 turrets).

-Bakka carrier limitations. I think we should make Bakka restricted to 1 ship with launch capabilities per 1000pts or part thereof. This way, Bakka can have 2 launch bay ships in a 1500pt game. The other option would be to limit launch capacity by point level. We may want to make 2 launch capacity per 500pts. That would be a pretty harsh limitation, but this way, the Jovian won't be made into an almost obvious pick like it will be in the first option of LC limitations. This restriction will make it much less likely for a Jovian to be used in smaller games compared to Dominions or Enforcers mainly because many may see it as dangerous to have only one vessel with LBs. This restriction may look harsh, but the capability for every capital ship to take +1 turret at 5pts is a major incentive to play Bakka as opposed to the regular IN fleets.

-I suggest that we add the following to the Bakka Admech reserves section: "When used with Battlefleet Bakka, Adeptus Mechanicus capital ships may opt to take the Fleet Defense Turrets Gift instead of any other gift. Make this decision while distributing Gifts."  This will add to the low ordnance flavor of Bakka and encourage some of the Admech crossover.

[BaronIveagh]

Here are my proposed Bakka additions:
-Cardinal exactly like it is in BFGM#2 --> 190pts. It is a little overpriced but I believe this is to make up for the amount of combined firepower it has plus its maneuverability to be able to use that combined firepower.

I admit this ship I used extensively to add extra punch to fleets that revolved around Dauntless and Enforcer.  Horizon is right that she's a bit brittle in a prow on fight, but that's why you don't do that.

-Bakka carrier limitations. I think we should make Bakka restricted to 1 ship with launch capabilities per 1000pts or part thereof. This way, Bakka can have 2 launch bay ships in a 1500pt game. The other option would be to limit launch capacity by point level. We may want to make 2 launch capacity per 500pts. That would be a pretty harsh limitation, but this way, the Jovian won't be made into an almost obvious pick like it will be in the first option of LC limitations. This restriction will make it much less likely for a Jovian to be used in smaller games compared to Dominions or Enforcers mainly because many may see it as dangerous to have only one vessel with LBs. This restriction may look harsh, but the capability for every capital ship to take +1 turret at 5pts is a major incentive to play Bakka as opposed to the regular IN fleets.

Hmm... the second one looks like the better of the two, but I can see where it might still be too crippling and also means that you will never be able to take Dominus Astra unless Rath is granting an exception to this now.

How about: You cannot use the admech rule to bring in a carrier, but per 1k points or a fraction thereof you can take 3 Enforcers (the original fleet limit for them) or 1 Jovian or Dominus Astra (unless we're making Rath a Very Expensive way to get around this rule).  This makes it less of a clear cut choice depending on your play style. 

[Vaaish]

1. The cardinal has zero place in BFGR. please give me any possible use cases for this ship that present a scenario where a reserve Acheron would not be a better choice. It has worse maneuverability than IN ships due to the higher speed giving it a slightly wider turning arc and it has horribly conflicted weapons.

2. The enforcer at 120 is far too much of a power creep. It immediately makes both the defiant and lance dauntless obsolete due to providing an extra turret while retaining the heavy lances on the dauntless and removing the weapons batteries for LB. this gives it more firepower and speed than the defiant while giving it more firepower and better defense than the lance dauntless. Bad idea.

5-6. Didn't we already finish with the carrier limitations? Is there a problem with the current limits that requires a hard limitation? Second, lets not add more special rules for admech tied to a separate list. It adds complexity that quite frankly isn't warranted and creates exceptions to how admech works the can lead to confusion. I don't think we need to encourage admech here more than it is with the reduced reserve requirements.

[afterimagedan]

1. The cardinal has zero place in BFGR. please give me any possible use cases for this ship that present a scenario where a reserve Acheron would not be a better choice. It has worse maneuverability than IN ships due to the higher speed giving it a slightly wider turning arc and it has horribly conflicted weapons.

You are arguing against it's usability in the fleet and because of that, say it should be removed. Some people think it is more usable and would prefer more than you would. I have said this many times: you don't just argue for a ship being removed because you think it's crappy. I would also make the case for the Tyrant and the Gothic because I don't think the IN NEED any of those ships when they have Lunars but they add options to the game for people to use them if they prefer. It's the same with the Cardinal. It should be priced where it is competitive and not just throw out because some people don't like it.

2. The enforcer at 120 is far too much of a power creep. It immediately makes both the defiant and lance dauntless obsolete due to providing an extra turret while retaining the heavy lances on the dauntless and removing the weapons batteries for LB. this gives it more firepower and speed than the defiant while giving it more firepower and better defense than the lance dauntless. Bad idea.

I am certainly willing to have this discussion and making it the appropriate point level so that it doesn't trump the other light cruisers and is a competitive option but not overpowered.

5-6. Didn't we already finish with the carrier limitations? Is there a problem with the current limits that requires a hard limitation? Second, lets not add more special rules for admech tied to a separate list. It adds complexity that quite frankly isn't warranted and creates exceptions to how admech works the can lead to confusion. I don't think we need to encourage admech here more than it is with the reduced reserve requirements.

I am proposing what I think is a better way to restrict carriers in Bakka. Yes, I think I did mention why I think the current limitation system is weak compared to the LC number limit system mainly because it encourages people to use the Jovian pretty much every game. Side note: for Rath, I think it would be easy to just say that Rath adds +2 to the launch capacity limit.

[Vaaish]

Dan, if you think the cardinal has use, then give me the use cases for taking it. That's what I asked for and since you are advocating adding a ship we don't currently have in, the burden of proof is on you to prove the ship has any reason to be included. I posit that any use case you bring forward is already covered by the the Acheron using the reserve rules as per FAQ2010.

Discussion: the enforcer should not be added. Period. There is nothing else to discuss. This is exactly the kind of power creep that needs to be reigned in. There is good reason some ships never made official status. Leave them for friendly games with permission. We don't have to add everything.

[BaronIveagh]

Dan, if you think the cardinal has use, then give me the use cases for taking it. That's what I asked for and since you are advocating adding a ship we don't currently have in, the burden of proof is on you to prove the ship has any reason to be included. I posit that any use case you bring forward is already covered by the the Acheron using the reserve rules as per FAQ2010.

How about those F/L/R torps?    (Yes, I know that's the first thing that everyone wants to remove but they are what makes it different than an Acheron)

I don't see the Acheron listed anyplace in FAQ 2010 as being allowed as a reserve for IN and frankly do we want to load up Bakka with yet more reserves rules?

I can make a few fluff arguments (one of which being that the Cardinal Class Sebastian Thor is STILL listed among the survivors of Circe), but the fact is that IA X already did bring it in, in an 'official but totally forbidden' list (which I strongly recommend that we clean up into something that resembles sanity for BFG:R).

Bakka thematically revolves around speed.  The fluff for Tempestus states that line of battle fleet actions are rare there and they primarily focus on dealing with fast raiders, but do not use AC.  The only way you're going to deal with fast raiders without AC is either be fast yourself or have lots and lots of 60 cm wbs and lances. 

What this list currently has: Lots and lots of slow cruisers and few escort options, with a few slower battleships

What this list should have to follow fluff: lots and lots of escort options and fast light cruisers with a few slower battleships.

That's my two cents, anyway.

[Bessemer]

Yeah, got to love the multi-directional torps!

As it looks like the Cardinal will pass (pending revision, of course!), how would people feel about giving the side lances 60cm range? (+15/20pts?)

 This would make it a fully long range support ship. And this would help differentiate it from the mid-ranged Acheron.

[AndrewChristlieb]

The Acheron has 60cm port and starboard. This is an Acheron -15cm range on its port/starboard and adding (really stupid) l/f/r torps. Seeing how its a chaos hull it shouldnt have the option for torps at all and certainly not multi arc.

[Bessemer]

Was just about to edit before someone saw that particular brain-fart! Really should have checked that earlier!

But are Multi-arc torps really that controversial? The Schismatic and Havoc classes have them, and they passed the vote well enough.

Having played the Havoc recently, the torps were the only reason why I would even consider taking them, and I do actually want to make a couple of Schismatic's (Just want to test them first, whenever I can get the gaming in).

you could even argue that the Cardinal was the precedent for these ships in the first place.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Umm where did that profile for the Havoc come from? The Havoc doesnt carry Torpedoes it has 5 wb, 2 fixed forward and 3 lfr.

The Chaos light cruisers are  .

I could see an understrength Dorsal mount with an explosive detriment but what would be the mechanic on a prow mount?