BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships

[BaronIveagh]

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.

Are they longer range than 15 cm?  Because if they're not, it doesn't matter: ad Mech doesn't have Dauntless (in FAQ 2010) so there's no way for the FDTs to keep up with the light cruisers without defender, and even if they re-roll, most of them have a turret stat of 1-2.  I can reroll that all day and it's not going to reduce enough hits to matter against Tau, Eldar, Tyranids, Segmentum Solar or Chaos, even with turret massing.

The Enforcer Bomber trick is good, if they have just one carrier/heavy missile boat  (IE another bakka fleet that takes Dominus Astra).  If they have more than that, your version of FDTs will not keep this fleet in the game against an AC/Torp heavy fleet.

[horizon]

The Enforcer as is should be restricted to 1 per 10.000 points, only available in battles above 5.000 points... 

Ahem...
I mean, vs Dauntless: same points, same speed, same prow weaponry.
+1 turret (+5)
But where as the Dauntless has str4 broadsides who are only sparsely used the Enforce has two launch bays which are much more flexible, can strike in any arc, thus assisting prow on as well.

2 per 500? I'd take at least three of them.

Its point cost should clearly be at least 140 points.

[BaronIveagh]

I mean, vs Dauntless: same points, same speed, same prow weaponry.
+1 turret (+5)
But where as the Dauntless has str4 broadsides who are only sparsely used the Enforce has two launch bays which are much more flexible, can strike in any arc, thus assisting prow on as well.

2 per 500? I'd take at least three of them.

Its point cost should clearly be at least 140 points.

I was going with 3 per 1k.

And, again, if you're blowing your load doing a head on assault with it like you would a Dauntless, it's a good suicide attack, but it sacrifices WAY too much of your ability to deal with their ordinance in turn 2-3.

[afterimagedan]

Ahem...
I mean, vs Dauntless: same points, same speed, same prow weaponry.
+1 turret (+5)
But where as the Dauntless has str4 broadsides who are only sparsely used the Enforce has two launch bays which are much more flexible, can strike in any arc, thus assisting prow on as well.

2 per 500? I'd take at least three of them.

Its point cost should clearly be at least 140 points.

OK so make it a lance dauntless with LBs instead of WBs at 140pts and restrict 2/500pt LBs. That should do it for me.

[BaronIveagh]

Actually I just had a rather simple idea: limit it to Furies.  The Enforcer isn't in the fleet to be a striker, it's there as support FOR strikers.  It's even reasonably fluffy as it, in and of itself, is near zero threat to ships, but does provide 'big guns' cover from AC and allow them to close.

[afterimagedan]

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.

Are they longer range than 15 cm?  Because if they're not, it doesn't matter: ad Mech doesn't have Dauntless (in FAQ 2010) so there's no way for the FDTs to keep up with the light cruisers without defender, and even if they re-roll, most of them have a turret stat of 1-2.  I can reroll that all day and it's not going to reduce enough hits to matter against Tau, Eldar, Tyranids, Segmentum Solar or Chaos, even with turret massing.

The Enforcer Bomber trick is good, if they have just one carrier/heavy missile boat  (IE another bakka fleet that takes Dominus Astra).  If they have more than that, your version of FDTs will not keep this fleet in the game against an AC/Torp heavy fleet.

Um, they won't keep up of you don't let them keep up. Do you deploy all your ships on a line and then advance them all max, every turn? Then yes, you are right. You know better than that. 

All cap ships will have at least 2 turrets and if you squadron well, you can turret mass. FDT will protect the ship with the gift a bunch and and ship with 1 turret mass and the obvious +1 turret upgrade will kill at least 1.5 additional torpedoes or LC per attack. Um, that's better than 1 fighter on cap against bombers and can be very helpful against turrets. Against combined striker, you will have a couple fighters to deal with torpedoes and then FDT + additional turret + turret massing against bombers, or the other way around. That's plenty of defense.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Enforcer with access to only Furies? Ok I'll bite on that.

So remove the Endeavor/Endurance and add the lance and torp Dauntless and Enforcer limited to fighters only.

Give them either the same +1 base turret (and still can take the additional purchased +1) that the Endeavors got or allow them to take the current FDT.

What ships would be left that have less than 3 turrets available outside of destroyers?

And the big question, would this be enough for you to be comfortable with no AC or at the most a small group of fighters?

Alternativly I would be just as happy if the Endavours (and varients) can take +5cm speed and +1d6 AAF in place of their 6+ prow in Bakka.

[afterimagedan]

Enforcer with access to only Furies? Ok I'll bite on that.

So remove the Endeavor/Endurance and add the lance and torp Dauntless and Enforcer limited to fighters only.

Give them either the same +1 base turret (and still can take the additional purchased +1) that the Endeavors got or allow them to take the current FDT.

What ships would be left that have less than 3 turrets available outside of destroyers?

And the big question, would this be enough for you to be comfortable with no AC or at the most a small group of fighters?

Alternativly I would be just as happy if the Endavours (and varients) can take +5cm speed and +1d6 AAF in place of their 6+ prow in Bakka.

Enforcers with only Furies? I'm in. What price?
I'm fine with dropping the Endeavor and Endurance for the dauntlesses. If we just let them pay for FDTs and the +1 turret, that would be great. Just keep them at 1 turret in the list. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to have no AC so the current ships with AC would still be available. That would mix well with the 2LC/500pts limit too.

[BaronIveagh]

Enforcers with only Furies? I'm in. What price?
I'm fine with dropping the Endeavor and Endurance for the dauntlesses. If we just let them pay for FDTs and the +1 turret, that would be great. Just keep them at 1 turret in the list. Personally, it seems like a bad idea to have no AC so the current ships with AC would still be available. That would mix well with the 2LC/500pts limit too.

Not sure.  Current price is actually a bit steep for them in that case.  Hmm... 

How about.. Enforcers only carry Furies but Fury Squadrons launched from an Enforcer benefit from the Resilient Special rule?  Just a thought.

Endeavour and Endurance I don't really have anything against except that the +5cm speed boost is against current fluff (despite their original Bakka stats). 

[afterimagedan]

OK,
-include enforcer with only fighters (calculate points)
-keep endurance, endeavor.
-add dauntless, add FDT addition option for dauntlesses (calculate cost like it was in admech)
-drop defender
-LC limit at 2/500pts. +2 for Rath

[Sigoroth]

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

I have no objection to new gunships. I am perfectly fine with the Victory and Vanquisher. I have objections to stupid ships with stupid rules. Unfortunately the terribad list that is Bakka is packed full of retarded ships and rules. That is why I wanted to have this list deleted in the first place. If you removed the shit ships and rules I'd be happy to see a new IN list.

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.

That horrible FDT rule should be removed from the game not just Bakka. If we have to have it at all, leave it as a seldom used oddity of a fringe fleet, not use it as a crutch to make up for the otherwise craposity of an easily fielded main IN fleet.

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.

Admech are Admech and have nothing to do with what Bakka has access to. If someone wanted to have above the odds AC in a "Bakka" list and went to the trouble of buying and painting Admech ships then fine, let them. As for reserves, apart from them utilising a different paint scheme also, I had already accounted for them. In a 1000 pt game you can only get a maximum of 10 AC, assuming a 2AC Defiant and/or a 6AC Exorcist. Such lists are fairly gimped anyway:

FC + RR - 75
Dominion x 2 - 520
Siluria x 3 - 300
Defiant (reserve) - 105

1000 pts

OR

FC + RR - 75
Dominion - 260
Exorcist (reserve) - 260
Siluria x 4 - 400

995 pts

Given that an ordinary IN fleet has no problems outputting 16AC at 1000 pts I think that the restrictions currently in place are fine. There's no need for Bakka to have a Jovian/Enforcer/Defiant + AC restrictions. Just simply limit the carriers in the list to the Dominion. People can then either use it or go outside the list using reserves or Admech to get their AC. Either way it is self-limiting.

[Tyberius]

I insist to simplify all this nonsense...

allow 0-1 jovian on bakka and none on other fleets
allow 0-1 enforcer per 2 other non-carrier light cruisers on bakka and 0-1 on other fleets
allow 0-1 defiant per  2 endeavour/endurance on all fleets...

I'm ok to allow the enforcer to only carry fighters for 110 pts...
but the defiant should be able to carry bombers...

and yes, in bakka you should be able to take 1 jovian and 1 enforcer

[afterimagedan]

Simplest fix:

A Battlefleet Bakka fleet list is limited to 2 launch bays per full 500pts.

Done.

We don't need limits on ships (except Jovian per fluff). This version scales the best. It's simple.

Defiant: no needed in Bakka.
Enforcer: I like Andrewchristlieb's ideas on it. I would love to pursue that route. Tyberius, as a person who owns an Enforcer, I would like to hear more from you on it.
Jovian: just leave it how it is in 2010
Dominion: just leave it how it is in 2010
Dauntlesses: add them in just like they are in IN.
FDT: make it like the Admech version and allow it as an upgrade for a Dauntless like Andrew was saying.
Defender: not needed with the Dauntless FDT option.

[Sigoroth]

This Bakka discussion is, rather unfortunately, sliding in the direction of original Bakka. That is to say, EXTRAORDINARILY CRAP. I hope I'm not being too subtle there. Let's have a look at what made Bakka so detested.

Firstly, FDTs. These are a terrible idea. Why ships can get extra turrets that have long enough range to affect bombing attacks thousands of kilometres away with no loss of performance elsewhere is a complete mystery to me. If they can do this why aren't there FDTs on every single ship in every IN/Chaos fleet? Hell, why can't the more advanced races master this technology? Why do they only fire when the enemy ordnance is in its attack run and at its least vulnerable? Why can guns with this range fire numerous times per turn? Seriously, FDTs should replace main gunnery weapons and be fired in the shooting phase, once per turn, like every other gun (15cm, 1 shot per turret, hit AC on a 4+, no effect on ships, replaces a WBs on a point for point basis for no change in cost). Then it becomes sensible. As it stands it's a horrible horrible rule.

Next up we have the oddball Jovian. It's not all that bad in and of itself, but it does alter the interfleet AC dynamic a little, it alters the feel of the IN a lot, it's hard to justify in any current IN list (given the rarity of the vessel and the mindset of those lists as yet explored) and, most importantly it's a pure carrier specifically created for a battlefleet that eschews the use of carriers! This is just mind-bogglingly stupid. Without a doubt this should not be in Bakka.

If the IN were to come out with a "gun light/AC heavy" fleet list that included things such as the Nemesis and Enforcer, sure throw the Jovian in there, lock up the list so no reserves (either way) could be taken and it'd be fine.

Next we have the uber ship, the Enforcer. Objections to this one are very similar to the Jovian but with a further objection that the ship was just too good for its price. Broken, wrong list, stupid. Moving on ...

Finally, the gagworthy Cardinal. First off, this ship is based off a very poor ship for precedent. The Acheron has issues. Sure, for its cost it's not a bad medium range brawler. However, its broadsides are woefully under-gunned and its dorsal armament is inexplicably truncated. The former issue is hand-waivingly explained but the latter is not. I can see no reason why its dorsal guns shouldn't be 60cm range, particularly given its dearth of broadside weaponry. So, an odd ship to begin with. Not only does the Cardinal copy this design it goes a step further! Having even less direct fire weaponry it has even less range! This is just inexplicable. There's very very little reason the Acheron has only 2 broadside lances, even if they are 60cm range. The Cardinal having 2 at only 45cm is just waaaay out there.

On top of this, we're looking at a Chaos hull (i.e., old style IN) practically identical to every other Chaos hull and yet it has prow torpedoes.  Why don't any other Chaos cruisers have torpedoes? Is this supposed to be a hybrid hull that was simply incorrectly represented in the graphic? If so, why doesn't it have a 6+ prow? That aside, why should it have torpedoes at all given that the other crossover ships (Vengeance type CGs) have nothing at all?^*

On top of all of that the Cardinal has LFR torps. LFR. What the hell were they thinking? Why not have LFR torps on every torpboat since it's obviously doable. This ship is a great big stinking pile of "What!?!" It should not exist.

Then to further add insult to injury a good number of otherwise acceptable ships were simply unbalanced. The Victory was too expensive as was the Viper, albeit slightly, and the Endeavour was a bit on the "meh" side. And for a supposedly low AC fleet it had fairly easy access to it, with the Dictator, Enforcer, Jovian, an Emperor and later the Exorcist.

The legitimacy of Bakka was dealt yet another blow with the inclusion of the Invincible class BL which was, to all intents and purposes, simply an up-gunned Long Serpent, which nobody liked in the first place.

So to fix this list you have to make an awful lot of changes. These include:

• Ditching the vast majority of carriers from the fleet, including the Enforcer and Jovian.
• Ditching the horrible horrible FDT rules. Replace with option to purchase a turret on capital ships.
• Removing the Cardinal from all consideration so that your opponents aren't forced to bring a vomit bucket to game against you.
• Tweaking the remaining ships and including a few more pure gunships and escorts (Overlord, Armageddon, Havoc, Idolator, Firestorm, Dauntless).
• ... and maybe create a fast cruiser of some kind. One that isn't god awful would be a help. Which rules out the Invincible and the Long Serpent of course.

And for the love of kittens ditch the Cardinal! Just in case you were a little unclear of my opinion on this piece of garbage.



^*(Note: I don't think that this should be the case but to maintain consistency we should either give the Vengeance CGs prow torps or take them away from the Cardinal.)

[afterimagedan]

Firstly, FDTs. These are a terrible idea. Why ships can get extra turrets that have long enough range to affect bombing attacks thousands of kilometres away with no loss of performance elsewhere is a complete mystery to me. If they can do this why aren't there FDTs on every single ship in every IN/Chaos fleet? Hell, why can't the more advanced races master this technology? Why do they only fire when the enemy ordnance is in its attack run and at its least vulnerable? Why can guns with this range fire numerous times per turn? Seriously, FDTs should replace main gunnery weapons and be fired in the shooting phase, once per turn, like every other gun (15cm, 1 shot per turret, hit AC on a 4+, no effect on ships, replaces a WBs on a point for point basis for no change in cost). Then it becomes sensible. As it stands it's a horrible horrible rule.

Are you against the FDT the Admech currently have that was voted on unanimously?