August 01, 2024, 01:24:01 PM

Poll

Please vote for including as is, including but working on, or not including the following ships in Battlefleet Bakka BFG:R.

Enforcer, include it as it is in BFGM 2.
2 (3.3%)
Enforcer, include it but it needs work.
8 (13.3%)
Enforcer, do not include it.
6 (10%)
Defender, include it as it is in BFGM 2.
1 (1.7%)
Defender, include it but it needs work.
8 (13.3%)
Defender, do not include it.
6 (10%)
Cardinal, include it as it is in BFGM 2.
2 (3.3%)
Cardinal, include it but it needs work.
9 (15%)
Cardinal, do not include it.
3 (5%)
Vanquisher, include it as it is in the 2010 Compendium.
5 (8.3%)
Vanquisher, include it but it needs work,
9 (15%)
Vanquisher, do not include it.
1 (1.7%)

Total Members Voted: 16

Voting closed: March 28, 2013, 04:52:27 PM

Author Topic: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships  (Read 34378 times)

Offline Bessemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 339
    • Loc: UK
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #75 on: March 27, 2013, 12:06:04 PM »

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

I think that may be the most level-headed option thus far. We can always get back to it later. Would I be right on thinking the Bakka fluff as we know it is fan made as opposed to official? If so, why the **** are some peple  arguing so vehementyt about what Bakka "should" be? It's a game involving toy spaceships, how the **** did politics even get in to it this far!?  Grow up.

Baron  appears to be the only one who has seriously used the Tempestus fleet  in any capacity, how about we give it to him? Would you be up for that Baron?


I refuse to be killed by something I've never heard of.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #76 on: March 27, 2013, 01:46:50 PM »
Baron  appears to be the only one who has seriously used the Tempestus fleet  in any capacity, how about we give it to him? Would you be up for that Baron?


I'd be happy to, but appointing me alone would not be acceptable to a number of the players.  If we go this way, I'd like to nominate a committee to assist me in addressing the issue:

Andrew, who does not seem to share my overall vision, but is reasonable and at no point has declared his undying hate for the list (having even, apparently, played the FAQ 2010 version a little) and maybe Tyberius, who has some love for the ships of the old list but also interested in balance.

The idea being that we put together what appears to be a working list, rather than try to compromise with a dozen competing visions of what it is supposed to be, and submit it to dan for voting.   This way the list works overall as a whole rather than focusing on individual ships.  Or, at least, that's the theory.


I'll throw in that it deflects the eventual blame (whether it works or doesn't) off the overall project.

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.

« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 10:38:18 PM by horizon »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #77 on: March 27, 2013, 02:32:20 PM »



I do like the idea of doing a committee to resolve the bakka issue though, it should cut down on the drama surrounding it.  Dragon Lord might also be a good member, I've been talking to him on DR and he seems fairly even keeled as well.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 04:25:51 AM by horizon »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #78 on: March 27, 2013, 03:38:35 PM »
This is my point. These are the types of unnecessary arguments that come out in proximity to Bakka. I'm going to move on. If someone has an issue with that, please message me.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #79 on: March 27, 2013, 03:45:45 PM »
Dan, I sent you a PM but your inbox is full.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #80 on: March 27, 2013, 05:58:31 PM »
Cleared some space. Please send again.

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #81 on: March 27, 2013, 06:36:19 PM »
Having a small group to work on the tougher nuts like this isnt a bad idea at all. It will allow the majority to continue on so were not bogged down like we are right now. One cohesive list with a clear background and a balanced fleet will be easier to do a final go over with everyone and determine what needs to be corrected if anything instead of trying to hash out one bit at a time.
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #82 on: March 27, 2013, 06:42:10 PM »
I sent the persons involved a link to a thread elsewhere where we can all discuss it with less drama.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #83 on: March 27, 2013, 06:57:42 PM »
I am going to recommend a different direction. Sorry if this sounds offensive Baron or Bessemer, but I think having Baron involved and not Sig is not fair or balanced, especially with Baron leading it. We are handing the forming of this list to one side of the debate. Not a good idea. I am not against it happening, but I won't include a document in BFG:R that isn't voted in. Voted on when it's done? That would be fine.

At this point, I am thinking it would be better to not have Bakka in it, considering the nastiness surrounding it. If you guys can make a Bakka list that passes then great!
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 07:04:02 PM by afterimagedan »

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #84 on: March 27, 2013, 07:03:36 PM »
Dan, I'll be blunt: I made a point to include people from the other side of the fence when I named the persons involved.  And as I said, we would be submitting the information to you for voting. 

Sig has never made any bones about his position being that there should be no Bakka list at all

 (Which is not exactly the opposite of my position.)
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 10:36:06 PM by horizon »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2013, 07:16:37 PM »
 I will also be blunt: you should not be leading the committee on Bakka and neither should Sig. If anything, someone like AndrewChristlieb should be leading it or we should just continue with the voting we have so far.

How many people would like to keep voting on things on this forum? How many people would just like to stop Bakka until later? How many people want to see a committee formed? If a committee is going to be formed, we should vote on the leader.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 10:35:15 PM by horizon »

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2013, 07:28:45 PM »
I will post my final proposal of what I think we need to change about Bakka (with the 2010 version as the base).
1. Add Dauntless with FDT option
2. Put a carrier restriction of 2 launch bays/full 500pts
3. Add Enforcer with fighters only.

That's all I think it needs and it can be totally done. Some of the old ships that lots of people wanted back, scaling launch capacity restriction, still primarily 2010 list.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #87 on: March 27, 2013, 07:35:06 PM »
If anything, someone like AndrewChristlieb should be leading it or we should just continue with the voting we have so far.

I have no problem with andrew chairing the committee, and as you know he was one of the first people I named to it.  I'll admit my views are a bit radical.  It's one of the reasons that I turned down the suggestion that I do it myself completely out of hand.

As far as being 'radical' being a reason not to participate in such a committee, however...

Let me put it this way: while I'm sure many of the voters may or may not like me, or agree with me, most of them will say that I'm honest and willing to admit when someone has a valid point (I've even agreed with Sig on occasion, though I will also try to punch holes in ideas I don't like).  I'll point to the fact that I was more than willing to vote for Andrew's idea for Defiant, which I fully admit was a more balanced approach than I took. 

non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2013, 07:45:07 PM »
If anything, someone like AndrewChristlieb should be leading it or we should just continue with the voting we have so far.

I have no problem with andrew chairing the committee, and as you know he was one of the first people I named to it.  I'll admit my views are a bit radical.  It's one of the reasons that I turned down the suggestion that I do it myself completely out of hand.

As far as being 'radical' being a reason not to participate in such a committee, however...

i never said you shouldn't be on it. I actually think you should. I would actually prefer the discussion and voting that's happening here but people don't seem to be willing to set aside long-tern grudges and baggage.

Let me put it this way: while I'm sure many of the voters may or may not like me, or agree with me, most of them will say that I'm honest and willing to admit when someone has a valid point (I've even agreed with Sig on occasion, though I will also try to punch holes in ideas I don't like).  I'll point to the fact that I was more than willing to vote for Andrew's idea for Defiant, which I fully admit was a more balanced approach than I took.

I agree with you on that Baron and I commend you for that. I have nothing against you. I just think you and some of the other members have deep-seated baggage that makes this difficult. I think most on this board have a hard time watching the same arguments happen time and time again. I value and you and Sig and others you may have had conflicts with. You all have a ton to offer. We are half way done and this is going great so far.

Personally, the process of Bakka has been draining and I have caught myself thinking "man, maybe I need a break from this whole thing." I took a break before but I don't plan to stop this process again. At this point, I am going to put up votes that will help those who are not willing to jump head-first into the arguments a voice in this process. If more people would rather see a committee, please express that here so we can make some plans.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships
« Reply #89 on: March 27, 2013, 08:00:46 PM »

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

BaronI, Sig and me should not be in that team. From various pov's, but we tree may shoot on any outcome as we like to. ;)
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 10:34:42 PM by horizon »