BFG:R Vote 60: Battlefleet Bakka Launch Restriction

[afterimagedan]

Add this rule to the Battlefleet Bakka fleet list:

"A Battlefleet Bakka fleet list is limited to 2 launch bays per full 500pts. If Lord Admiral Rath is taken in your fleet, you may add 2 to this total."

[horizon]

What are the alternatives?
2 per 750?

[afterimagedan]

Are you thinking 2/full750?? 

[horizon]

It was half kidding as I know most will go by this or non-restriction, but yes 2 per 750, 4 per 1500. +2 with Rath is fine then.
But what about the Emperor then. 

[afterimagedan]

2/500 makes the Emperor possible with Rath at 1500.

[afterimagedan]

This is how the 2/500pt rules look in my mind as far as fluff goes:
"Despite the varying but limited carrier ships in Battlefleet Bakka's retinue, they rarely come together for joint combat actions. Because of this, a Battlefleet Bakka fleet may only have 2 launch bays in their fleet per full 500pts."

[Jimmy Zimms]

I'm confused about the Ralth rule. He allows 4ac per 500 is present?

[afterimagedan]

I'm confused about the Ralth rule. He allows 4ac per 500 is present?

Rath is only in 1500pt+ fleets and adds +2 to the launch cap limit.

[Dragon Lord]

I tend to think the AC restriction could be better implemented by restricting access to the carriers themselves rather than a direct launch bay limit.  Same end result I suppose though.

[Tyberius]

I don't agree to artificially limit launch bays on any fleet  I vote NO

not in bakka not ever.....

bakka's outcome is yet to happen... the fleet will auto limit its AC in a natural and uncomplicated way...so no need for this...

[afterimagedan]

It won't be limited enough with the Enforcer and Jovian passing. I don't want to rehash this Tyberius, so I won't continue to argue with you. Sig and I are trying to let the argument go, so please don't bring it back up with a post like that.

[horizon]

Hey Dan,
but voting is almost equal (and I didn't vote), you really call the discussion closed?
I know you want to move on, that's cool, it is in a way your protocols and call. Just say it is your decision to implement that way and done with it.

[afterimagedan]

Um, ok so I'm a little confused here. I am trying to end the discussion because we have been publicly reprimanded for arguing as intensely as we have been. That's why I am asking for the discussion to be over with. People can keep talking if they want; I'm not going to be a dictator. Don't I have the right as a board member, like everyone else, to ask for a discussion to be over with? I just felt like even with all this reprimand and me obviously trying to pull away from a debate with Sig, it was sort of crappy of Tyberius to burst into it again with such a potent post. I am not against him saying anything, but that post needed a response.

[horizon]

Shall we close this paticular voting thread then? All Bakka threads? The committee started its work.

[afterimagedan]

Leave them be. It may turn out that the committee's work isn't accepted, then we need these.

Also, since most people are on the same page with two lists, I am hoping to committee will be willing to work on the board so that everyone gets their voice heard on this.