BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships

[afterimagedan]

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.

I am aware you think it's crap but you also think the 2010 Bakka list is crap so that's nothing new.

[horizon]

@BaronI, that resilient rule is nonsense. Having a fighter only Enforcer is a good idea. Could be priced @ 100pts.

@ Afterimagedan, 2 lb per 500 pts is more then what I field in my Imperial Navy and AdMech list.

@ Sig, catch up, your concerns are valid but we are moving on and fixing crap (eg flr torps, enforcer).

[Sigoroth]

Simplest fix:

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

Done.

While I think that Bakka should definitely be carrier light, this strikes me as too artificial a limit. It's not terrible, but we have a more organic option available.

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

We don't need the Jovian. 

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.

A fighter only Enforcer ... meh. I mean, why is it limited to fighters? Why give Bakka another carrier at all? They have one. A nice lancie one. One's enough.

As for the FDT, well I would insert a step before adding the Admech FDT to Bakka. Firstly, delete the Admech FDT. Then you can add the Admech FDT to Bakka.

Defender - never needed at all.

[horizon]

Sig, perhaps you told us before but I have forgotten then, but what would be your alternate approach to FDT?

[afterimagedan]

@ Afterimagedan, 2 lb per 500 pts is more then what I field in my Imperial Navy and AdMech list.

I know and I like your style in rockin the IN with low AC. Respect. But i think this is an appropriate limit. It allows for some ordnance but that industry standard of 8 at 1500 can't be reached unless the Dominus and Rath are taken.

[afterimagedan]

While I think that Bakka should definitely be carrier light, this strikes me as too artificial a limit. It's not terrible, but we have a more organic option available.

I think it's actually pretty organic and simple. It's no more artificial than the limits on Defiants and Endurances, limits on Battlecruisers without a certain amount of cruisers, limits on battleships. This rule represents the limited AC ships that the Bakka fleet has and gives some control to the player to pick which ships he/she wants to take. It also scales well for very large games. Plus, it makes the Jovian unusable in games below 1500.

If people would be willing to allow for the FDT upgrade for the Dauntless, I would be willing to drop the Defender and Cardinal in this list. I support where the Enforcer is going with the fighters only setup.

[Sigoroth]

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

Yes, but it is nowhere near as bad as the old FDTs. In fact, it's more of a nomenclature issue. I don't think of these as FDTs, rather they're AA ships that have better tracking systems (a la Tau). They still shouldn't be given to Bakka though. That is AM tech. Just give Bakka cap ships the option to buy an extra turret at +5 pts per ship. It's a pretty standard sort of refit, easily imaginable for a subsector that detests carriers and very easily implemented. Certainly sufficient to requirements.

I am aware you think it's crap but you also think the 2010 Bakka list is crap so that's nothing new.

Of course I do but that's not the point. The 2010 Bakka list is still too close to the original. It still has horrible FDTs and that crappy Mercury/Long Serpent and the unnecessary Jovian.  The AM inclusion rules could also stand to be dropped. Not to mention that at its time of release the Endeavour and Endurance were not properly sorted, making it a terrible list. Still nowhere near as bad as the original. A few tweaks and it's good to go.

@ Sig, catch up, your concerns are valid but we are moving on and fixing crap (eg flr torps, enforcer).

The point I'm trying to make BH is that we're backsliding. There's talk of Defenders, Enforcers, Defiants, Jovians, original FDT rules (god help us), artificial constraints on AC to make up for the number of carriers, etc. There is really zero need for all of this. Simply leave the only natural carrier as Dominion. Rath's Emperor can stay, with the same restrictions. This means it'll only ever be a character ship when you buy a pricey admiral and can't be abused in smaller games anyway.

That way people can take whatever reserve ships they want and still be unable to go AC crazy. A maximum of 63% of what a normal IN fleet can get at 1000 pts. Natural cap.

And instead of mucking about with special FDT rules, just give them the option to buy another turret for cheap. Really simple.

That handles the Bakka innate hostility towards AC. The only thing left to do is grant them a bit of speed and some gunships. For that we can start with the Dauntless, Armageddon and Overlord. For a bit of extra speed we can try to do a fix to the Mercury or something.

Way too much unnecessary fluffing about.

[Sigoroth]

Sig, perhaps you told us before but I have forgotten then, but what would be your alternate approach to FDT?

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

I think it's actually pretty organic and simple. It's no more artificial than the limits on Defiants and Endurances, limits on Battlecruisers without a certain amount of cruisers, limits on battleships. This rule represents the limited AC ships that the Bakka fleet has and gives some control to the player to pick which ships he/she wants to take. It also scales well for very large games.

No, it's not organic at all. It's an artificial constraint. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as there are other such artificial constraints that work fine, such as CB restrictions, reserves, BBs, etc. But not having that limit and simply limiting the players choice of carrier is much more organic. Consider a scenario: you're a beardy git and you want to maximise the possible AC you can get in your 1k fleet list. Let's say you take an Armageddon fleet list with the new ship costs. Ok, so you grab an Emperor (365), 2 Dictators (420) and a Defiant (105) leaving you 110 pts for a FC and re-rolls. That gives you 18AC. Now, try it with a Bakka list. You can take 4 light cruisers and 2 battle/grand cruisers, with 1 reserve ship. So either 2 Dominions and a Defiant or 1 Dominion and an Exorcist. Either way the best you get is 10AC. That's actually only 56% maximum capacity. In an AC maximising war the Bakka fleet is shafted from the outset.

Plus, it makes the Jovian unusable in games below 1500.

The Jovian doesn't belong in the list in the first place. And if you're playing Battlefleet Bakka then you really shouldn't get to take your pick of which carrier you want. Your choices should be a) Dominion or b) reserve it.

If people would be willing to allow for the FDT upgrade for the Dauntless, I would be willing to drop the Defender and Cardinal in this list. I support where the Enforcer is going with the fighters only setup.

Ugh. Like talking to a wall. Right, so why do Bakka need a FDT at all? They have access to some AC, mitigating incoming bombers and they can have access to cheap and plentiful turrets, greatly mitigating enemy AC. Aaand they get to spend their points on more gunships, greatly blowing up enemy carriers. And again, the fighter Enforcer is problematic and really we don't need to be making Bakka immune to AC. All we need do is make playing a gun oriented fleet a viable option. Not give them an "I win" button against heavy AC fleets.

As for the Cardinal, my problems with it aside, I imagine that the call for its inclusion is due to the need for a fast attack cruiser in Bakka, to better represent the fluff, etc. Well how about this, allow bakka cruisers (not CBs) the option to drop their prow armour for -15 pts and give them +5cm speed. For Endeavours and Endurances it'd be at -5 pts and give them +5cm speed and an extra 1d6cm on AAF as well. Just a thought.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I dont think the core cruisers need to have a +5cm option but obviously Im in favor of the Endevour varients being able to do that or just replace them with the Dauntless varients.

I think your being a bit easy on the Cardinal. Its just all wrong, although it has some potential as scrap metal... or just different stats.

The FDT (or what ever you want to call it) is a solid mechanic and shouldnt just be trashed because you dont like the idea of it, actually now that its not the original idiotic version Im not even sure what your complaint about it is...

I do agree about the AC restrictions tho, theyre fine as is. The 2/500 idea is a bit of over kill.

[Tyberius]

I tend to agree with sig. in almost every point....a gun driven fleet shouldn't favour carriers.

I revised my bfg magazine #2 And the jovian doesn't even appear in the bakka fleet list...it appears in a small annex about ships of the corribra sector, along with the Orion Battlecruiser, emasculator and hecate cruisers, and apostate raider, so The jovian doesn't even belong to Bakka!!

So reviewing bakka fleet list

it has only access to 5 carriers in their entire fleet:
 1 emperor (dominus astra)
 2 dictators and
 2 enforcers (ships designed to operate solo as imperial colonial presence)


the fd turrets as sigoroth said should be modified long range turrets
and either shoot in the shooting phase or in the ordnance phase but not both... so a ship that fires their fdt to aid another ship cannot shoot them to defend itself in the same turn and is limited for defence to his normal turrets...


the cardinal Is crap... take out torps, give it 6 prow lfr wb's....nothing more to say
demon slayer................i really don't know what to say...

the enforcer is a good ship,I have one, I use one I love it and i have played with it several times in my regular fleet, no unbalance, no complains from my partners, it dies easy and soon, it does little more than a dauntless, I want it IN.....

Bakka could include the old version  non-voss endeavour 25cm speed no armoured prow but i don't see a problem on including the new endeavour- endurance but should leave out the defiant

[horizon]

the enforcer is a good ship,I have one, I use one I love it and i have played with it several times in my regular fleet, no unbalance, no complains from my partners, it dies easy and soon, it does little more than a dauntless, I want it IN.....[/color]

It is too good. However, I noticed it costs 130pts in BFG magazine and 110pts in the 2002 annual (later).
But...  you could make it happen in BFG:R if you sent some castings of your voss light cruisers. Bribery is a fine mechanic.

haha, lolz

[Tyberius]

the enforcer is a good ship,I have one, I use one I love it and i have played with it several times in my regular fleet, no unbalance, no complains from my partners, it dies easy and soon, it does little more than a dauntless, I want it IN.....[/color]

It is too good. However, I noticed it costs 130pts in BFG magazine and 110pts in the 2002 annual (later).
But...  you could make it happen in BFG:R if you sent some castings of your voss light cruisers. Bribery is a fine mechanic.

haha, lolz

in bfg magazine it had 4 prow lances that's an uber light cruiser!! and as soon i make some voss lc castings I will put them for sale in this forum first ,and maybe i could give away 3 for the price of 2

[afterimagedan]

Sig, perhaps you told us before but I have forgotten then, but what would be your alternate approach to FDT?

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

I think it's actually pretty organic and simple. It's no more artificial than the limits on Defiants and Endurances, limits on Battlecruisers without a certain amount of cruisers, limits on battleships. This rule represents the limited AC ships that the Bakka fleet has and gives some control to the player to pick which ships he/she wants to take. It also scales well for very large games.

No, it's not organic at all. It's an artificial constraint. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as there are other such artificial constraints that work fine, such as CB restrictions, reserves, BBs, etc. But not having that limit and simply limiting the players choice of carrier is much more organic. Consider a scenario: you're a beardy git and you want to maximise the possible AC you can get in your 1k fleet list. Let's say you take an Armageddon fleet list with the new ship costs. Ok, so you grab an Emperor (365), 2 Dictators (420) and a Defiant (105) leaving you 110 pts for a FC and re-rolls. That gives you 18AC. Now, try it with a Bakka list. You can take 4 light cruisers and 2 battle/grand cruisers, with 1 reserve ship. So either 2 Dominions and a Defiant or 1 Dominion and an Exorcist. Either way the best you get is 10AC. That's actually only 56% maximum capacity. In an AC maximising war the Bakka fleet is shafted from the outset.

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.

Plus, it makes the Jovian unusable in games below 1500.

The Jovian doesn't belong in the list in the first place. And if you're playing Battlefleet Bakka then you really shouldn't get to take your pick of which carrier you want. Your choices should be a) Dominion or b) reserve it.

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

If people would be willing to allow for the FDT upgrade for the Dauntless, I would be willing to drop the Defender and Cardinal in this list. I support where the Enforcer is going with the fighters only setup.

Ugh. Like talking to a wall. Right, so why do Bakka need a FDT at all? They have access to some AC, mitigating incoming bombers and they can have access to cheap and plentiful turrets, greatly mitigating enemy AC. Aaand they get to spend their points on more gunships, greatly blowing up enemy carriers. And again, the fighter Enforcer is problematic and really we don't need to be making Bakka immune to AC. All we need do is make playing a gun oriented fleet a viable option. Not give them an "I win" button against heavy AC fleets.

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.

As for the Cardinal, my problems with it aside, I imagine that the call for its inclusion is due to the need for a fast attack cruiser in Bakka, to better represent the fluff, etc. Well how about this, allow bakka cruisers (not CBs) the option to drop their prow armour for -15 pts and give them +5cm speed. For Endeavours and Endurances it'd be at -5 pts and give them +5cm speed and an extra 1d6cm on AAF as well. Just a thought.

Some might like that idea.

[Tyberius]

On the other hand...we can make a corribra sector fleet using:

nemesis fleet carriers
emperors
exorcists
jovians
marseseseseseses
dictators
defiants
enforcers

Just kidding..

[afterimagedan]

I do agree about the AC restrictions tho, theyre fine as is.

Is this with or without the Jovian in the list? What about the Enforcer? If we have the rule that carriers are taken as reserves, you are driving people to use the Jovian. You can drop the Jovian and go the Sig route, or we can keep the Jovian and have a different way to limit carriers, mainly the 2/500 limit. What we need to figure out is if people want to include the Jovian in the Bakka list and that will help determine the approach for finishing it. Alternately, we could just stop working on Bakka altogether. It seems to pull on too many emotion strings and has some deep seated arguments and grudges surrounding it.