BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships

[BaronIveagh]

////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.

Broadly: The heavy alterations of the fleet from previous versions.  The fleet went from being about rapid maneuvers with LC and escorts to a somewhat ham handed attempt to hammer it into the 'line IN' mold.  This lead to a 'loss of flavor' to the fleet.

Specifically: Too many special rules to try and make it balanced.  AdMech and Jovian being mandatory for a competitive list.  Jovian being in the list at all.  Voss instead of Dauntless.  Balance issues against torp/AC heavy lists.

The problem with spot fixes on this list is that it's a house of cards as stands.  Trying to change it causes failures elsewhere.  I think that it would be better to start over with the 'theme' and the fluff in hand and rebuild the list from there.  The committee could, in theory, do it right, with actual design and playtests rather than the sprawling arguments and drama that inevitably plague changing it on this board.

[Khar]

So.. if Bakka is still problematic on so many levels, maybe it should be skipped for now, instead of halting development of BFG:R? It's just a variant In fleet after all, while other fleets deserve finishing. It could be returned to after all core fleets are done, I think.

[BaronIveagh]

So.. if Bakka is still problematic on so many levels, maybe it should be skipped for now, instead of halting development of BFG:R? It's just a variant In fleet after all, while other fleets deserve finishing. It could be returned to after all core fleets are done, I think.

I think that it would be a good idea to hand it off to the Committee.  BFG:R is getting bogged down on the minutia of trying to fix Bakka, Dan has already admitted it's giving him a headache because the board really cannot seem to come to a consensus on it, and I think it would be more productive than everyone sitting around sniping back and forth at each other.

[afterimagedan]

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.

Thank you, Horizon. People seem to think that just because we want to make the Jovian available to this fleet means that we want it to be AC heavy or even AC normal. The restrictions I proposed allow for the Jovian to be used but restrict the fleet in a hefty way. It's not squeezable because it's specific. Call it artificial; I call it precise and unbending.

Baron, I think you are trying to use a few of my statements against my position. I am against the committee. I have no problem with you guys getting together and talking about the fleet and proposing a fix, but that's what has been happening on the boards already. Don't feel like you have been commissioned or nominated because Bessemer mentioned you are a possible committee leader of a possible committee. I like ya man, but it was quite weird how you took it and ran with it based on one subtle comment.

[Sigoroth]

If by 'crazy Bakka faction' you mean 'people who want a working Bakka list' then yes.

No, I mean people that want Defenders, Enforcers, Jovians, FDTs and any other lunatic idea they can fit into a fleet.

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.

This is not a good cross sections of views.

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.

And I still insist. One person insisting should be enough.

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). 

You want to know why I hate Bakka so much? It isn't because of the fluff. It isn't because IN don't particularly need another fleet list. I'm fine with that. It isn't because I don't want a balanced Bakka list. It's because there were sooooo many horrendous rules and stats released with Bakka that it was impossible to "fix". It needed to be started over and given that people see something they like and don't want to lose it it becomes impossible. FDTs for example. People see it, they want it, it's therefore impossible to fix. This rule, in either its original form or its AM redesign, should not be in Bakka. It's silly.

If we can get people away from the glut of terrible rules/ships then I would be very happy to see a working balanced Bakka list come out.

(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)

By my "AC restrictions" you actually mean none, right? I'm sure you'd include Enforcers, which would make a mockery of the "restrictions" I proposed.

[afterimagedan]

That's why hard restrictions are better if any of those carriers are included.

[Sigoroth]

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

/It would make a cool warp rift article.

You know, that wouldn't actually be a bad idea. This is the sort of AC heavy IN list I was talking about. Closed off, no reserve vessels to or from other lists. Load it up on Nemeses, Emperors, Mars, Dominions, Jovians, Exorcists, Dictators and Enforcers. Give it some token escorts and sod all else.

////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.

Actually the 2010 Bakka list was a big step forward. It still contained too many rules that made the list broken though. The Endeavour and Endurance had problems of course, since they did in any list, and the Siluria is really quite weak for its cost (don't know why they increased it), Rath is too expensive (a common problem with FCs) and the Mercury was ... odorous.

These were all small problems though. The major problems were: 1) the FDTs were still a part of the ruleset; 2) the Jovian was still allowed in this list (quarantined as it was) and; 3) the AM were too freely allowed in.

They did do some good though. There was no Defender, no Enforcer and no carrier below the level of CB. The Victory and Vanquisher profiles were better and the Viper was brought down in price from its adjusted cost of 45 pts previous. The Havoc was a nice addition, and I like the 2010 rules for it better than the BFG:R rules. They had the option to increase buy an extra turret on cap ships for +5 pts. Lastly, they also ditched the Cardinal and Daemonship of course. Their omission was a big addition to the list.

What I would do to fix the 2010 FAQ Bakka list is use the updated Endeavour/Endurance profiles, drop the Siluria's cost back down to 90 pts, ditch the Mercury in favour of the Overlord, drop the FDTs and AMs and also put the Jovian on the back-burner for some other appropriate list.

That fixes all the crappy rules and ships and self-limits Bakka's AC. The only thing left to address is their focus on anti-piracy rather than line of battle style. As suggested earlier, some sort of prow armour/speed trade-off is my idea for that. Something that can be done across the board and doesn't involve some oddball blow-itself-up ship like a Long Serpent/Mercury or the piece of crap that was the Invincible.

Having said that the BFG:R Invincible wasn't too bad, though I would leave the prow torps at 6, not 5. Don't get why it's 5.

[Sigoroth]

That's why hard restrictions are better if any of those carriers are included.

Not better, necessary. Of course, those ships are unnecessary to begin with, and so therefore so are hard restrictions. Bakka really really really doesn't need carrier colour. If anything they're a bit bland in their gunships, simply because the suggested options (Long Serpent, Mercury, Invincible, Cardinal) have all been just so bad.

[afterimagedan]

That's why hard restrictions are better if any of those carriers are included.

Not better, necessary. Of course, those ships are unnecessary to begin with, and so therefore so are hard restrictions. Bakka really really really doesn't need carrier colour. If anything they're a bit bland in their gunships, simply because the suggested options (Long Serpent, Mercury, Invincible, Cardinal) have all been just so bad.

Yes, better, because they cannot be sneaky gitted out of. Anyways, I am not arguing that your way of restricting is bad, in fact it works quite well for the most part. I am saying that if the Jovian and Enforcer are included, which the votes are starting to show, then the 2/500pt LB restriction limits their use. Exactly what you have been saying.

[AndrewChristlieb]

If we can get a group together to talk this through while we move on Im all for it. I agree with a lot that has been said here especially that Bakka needs a clear foundation and direction, not just a bandaid. No offense ment to anyone but I also agree that Sig and Baron have a bit too much interest in this to make objective decisions. Im not saying you guys wouldnt be a great help with your personal views and input, just that if anything you two would be best used as more of a sounding board on anything that may be objectionable or out of character for the list.

Dan I know your against this right now but this list doesnt have the benifit of the stability that the other lists weve been working on have. I dont think it will hurt anyones feelings if we step back from Bakka for the time being and focus on some of the other pieces and hopefully we can come up with some sweeping solutions that will ease the tensions when we come back to it for voting.
 

[horizon]

Good call. Just place bakka in the fridge for now.

[afterimagedan]

Alright, ,gets let these votes finish and then we can work on new stuff. Dark Eldar next.

[Sigoroth]

Yes, better, because they cannot be sneaky gitted out of.

Not better. Having a very strict 2/500 like you're saying will guarantee that the Bakka player takes 2 per 500. It makes for less play room and more identical lists. This sort of limit or something like it will be necessary if the out-of-character Jovian and Enforcer make it into the list. But people should be looking at themselves hard though if we're seeing those ships being voted into Bakka.

On the other hand, if we just had the Dominion and nothing else and the Bakka player used reserves to get upto 10 AC at 1000 pts then it's possible that the Bakka player will have more AC than their opponent, but it's not likely and they can't do it as well as other lists. This is pretty much what you'd expect, a left shift for the Bakka bell-curve such that there's still overlap, i.e., where the higher AC Bakka lists have more AC than the lower AC non-Bakka lists, but not as much on average.

This sort of flexibility should be allowed where possible.

[afterimagedan]

You point out the flaws in your own argument.  You acknowledge that a Bakka player can have 10ac at 1000pts, which is why your method is obviously flawed and you call it "flexibility." You are having to bully people out of allowing the Jovian and Enforcer to make it work and everyone sees it. I would much prefer to limit people to 2/500pts which they will most likely max out if it keeps them from squeezing the not so restricted version. I can't believe I am arguing against Sig for harsher restrictions and less flexibility for carriers in Bakka. 

[BaronIveagh]

And I still insist. One person insisting should be enough.

It that were true, you've have been banned on this board years ago.  So would I, come to think of it. 

It's because there were sooooo many horrendous rules and stats released with Bakka that it was impossible to "fix". It needed to be started over and given that people see something they like and don't want to lose it it becomes impossible. FDTs for example. People see it, they want it, it's therefore impossible to fix. This rule, in either its original form or its AM redesign, should not be in Bakka. It's silly.

Then read some of the things I have in mind rather than jump to conclusions.   Though I *do* support it having certain silly ships you do not like, Jovian is not one of them.

If we can get people away from the glut of terrible rules/ships then I would be very happy to see a working balanced Bakka list come out.

 

Well, it depends on what you mean by terrible rules/ships, but that is actually pretty close to what I had in mind.

By my "AC restrictions" you actually mean none, right? I'm sure you'd include Enforcers, which would make a mockery of the "restrictions" I proposed.

Actually that has not been decided yet.  We really need to look at what ships would go into it and how best to balance it.  I think that Jovian needs to go, but how to balance the AC issue I'm not entirely sure.  That was one of the reasons that I like the committee idea is that there are other people who have other takes on the idea.

No offense ment to anyone but I also agree that Sig and Baron have a bit too much interest in this to make objective decisions. Im not saying you guys wouldnt be a great help with your personal views and input, just that if anything you two would be best used as more of a sounding board on anything that may be objectionable or out of character for the list.

*shrug* Actually it should be apparent that I'm quite capable of making dispassionate decisions about the fleet list. 

What I can't make a objective decision about is suggestions and positions espoused by Horizon and Sig, because I feel that I absolutely cannot trust them in any situation that involves game design as far as Bakka is concerned.  No matter how innocuous, there's this nagging sensation that it's some sort of trap that I'm just not seeing.