August 01, 2024, 05:26:22 PM

Author Topic: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby  (Read 6265 times)

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
*deep cleansing breath*
I propose we drop all the stuff that is going on right now that relates to Bakka and we start again with two different Bakka fleets:
1. Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative
--bakka style but more open to carriers
--decent amount of carrier options (Emperor, Despoiler [per fluff], Dominion, Jovian, Enforcer, Dictator, etc).
2. Battlefleet Bakka: The Big Gun Lobby
--very gun heavy
--limited carrier options
--organic restrictions on carriers

This would allow both sides to influence the making of two different Bakka fleets, each with separate styles. I would like to call for a calmer, more patient and more kind approach this time around. So far, a few people have mentioned that they are interested in 2 Bakka fleets, and I think even those from more "extreme" ends of the argument will be in support of this venture. Who's with me?

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2013, 03:29:29 AM »
All carrier fleet.

No carrier fleet.

:D
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Tyberius

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2013, 03:37:00 AM »
Sounds like a great idea....I'm with ya

Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2013, 03:46:08 AM »
All carrier fleet.

No carrier fleet.

:D

Hmm, I'm thinking 80/20 with both. That seems a bit extreme to split them so heavily. For example. I think keeping the Dominion in both fleets is a good idea, and I also think putting one of the current Bakka gun ships in the Gareox fleet too, just to keep them both with some remnants of the 2010 Bakka.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2013, 06:26:11 AM »
But wasn't that the actual battle? Lances vs Attack Craft iirc.


Offline afterimagedan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
    • Loc: Chicago IL, USA
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2013, 06:48:01 AM »
Yes, but both Bakka lists in history functioned under the Big Gun Lobby and both had carriers so I figured that some carriers were acceptable.

The level I was thinking was for the Big Gun fleet, only Dominion and Rath/Dominus Astra if they pay for it. The rest can only be through reserves. 

Gareox fleet might be Emperor, Despoiler, Oberon, Despoiler, Exorcist, Mars, Dominion, Jovian, Dictator, Lunar (because of how common), Defiant, Enforcer, Bakka escorts.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2013, 10:00:26 AM »
A question for those of you who have read more extensively than I have on Bakka fluff. Is there any justification for Murders in a Bakka list? Because that seems like it would suit Bakka down to the ground.

The reason I say this is because I was thinking about a gun Imperial fleet against a carrier Imperial fleet and thought that it was unlikely that the gun fleet would get any real use out of its torps. That got me thinking that since Bakka like lances they could possibly replace their torps with lances (a la Dauntless). Then I thought that it'd likely forfeit their armoured prow though, which then got me thinking that that fits in fine with the idea I had of Bakka gunships swapping out their prow armour for an increase of speed. That left me with a fast, 5+ armour cruiser with prow lances ... Murder anyone?

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2013, 11:22:50 AM »
It fits the time period of the incident and it would make sense that there would be reserve vessels still floating around during the "modern Bakka" time, given the state of the fleet after the nid wars Im sure they would be tapping those reserves also which is why I sugguested (and I think Vaaish mentioned it also) allowing the Chaos reserves.
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Bessemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 339
    • Loc: UK
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2013, 12:24:51 PM »
Not a bad idea, actually.

From what I remember, the Gareox Perogitive thing happened around M36, and the majority of current Imperial designs came in from the back end of M37. That right?

The 2010 states the Hecate was used during the GP, Add it?

Letting the BGL take Chaos reserves fits too, covering losses from the smacking they got a Circe. Use the Strange Happenings from the Cadia list?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 12:40:15 PM by Bessemer »
I refuse to be killed by something I've never heard of.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2013, 01:20:48 PM »
Didn't Gareox Prerogative fleets use Styx's?

Offline Dragon Lord

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2013, 01:41:54 PM »
Re-posted since the Baron is having internet troubles:
Quote from: BaronIveagh
I'll point out that there's a slight problem with the one list: GW retconned the Gaerox Prerogative when they changed the fluff for The Plague of Unbelief.   Battlefleet Bakka was a bit busy at the time getting crushed by the Space Wolves, and then getting purged by the Inquisition to be engaging in any political grudge matches.

While siding with the 'Young School' would explain where the Space Wolves got their Emperor class battleship from, it doesn't explain Bakka's hate for AC...

I'll toss out that BFG has had an IN list for a while that has a large number of carriers: The Corribra Sector list.  (Yes the one with the Nemesis fleet carrier, Sig.)


Perhaps we could spin it as a long simmering rivalry (wars between sectors are not actually unknown in the Imperium.  In fluff a similar war almost happened between the Calixis and Ixnaid sectors) between  Battlefleet Ultima (which gets mentioned off and on in Carrier fluff, and here represented by Corribra) and Battlefleet Tempestus (here represented by Bakka).

I've been having a re-read through what we have in the way of background for Battlefleet Bakka/Tempestus and (as always with GW background ::)) there are some consistency issues.

What the Baron said is true, the timing of the Gareox incident clashes with the Age of Apostasy.  I suppose we can alleviate that by pegging it at one of the far ends of the 36th millennium, or we could tie the Gareox incident into the events of the Age of Apostasy (maybe Vandire supported the Gareox Prerogative?), but I think it needs to be borne in mind.

Also the whole 'Battlefleet Tempestus coming to the rescue of Macragge' thing doesn't really make sense as Ultramar is in Ultima Segmentum, not Segmentum Tempestus, were the Lords of Kar Duniash just sitting around twiddling their thumbs?

Fluff issues aside though, I like the idea of a Gareox Prerogative/carrier heavy list and a Big Gun Lobby/carrier poor list.  It is a bit of a change from the 2010 Bakka list, but one idea I had regarding carriers in the Big Gun Lobby list is to give them only Light Cruiser carriers (e.g. Defiant), with restrictions on numbers.  That would be kind of similar to the situation when carriers were first being introduced in wet navies, where they were generally smaller than other ships.  Anyway, just thought I'd put that idea out there, giving the Big Lobby only the Dominion (with restrictions on numbers), plus the Dominus Astra with Rath also seems reasonable.  Allowing Chaos reserves also seems like a sensible idea.

Dragon Lord

Offline Bessemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 339
    • Loc: UK
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2013, 03:16:46 PM »
@Sig- the Hecate entry in 2010 mentions it being use in the GP, but not to what extent. Just thought It'd be worth a mention seeing ad classes were being proposed.
I refuse to be killed by something I've never heard of.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2013, 03:23:06 PM »
YAY the massive lag that kept the site from loading is over!  Posted this to the DR site because I couldn't even get this one to load.  Lagtastic in Europe today:


Great big edit because I see that DL posted for me.


The issue is that Bakka is specifically mentioned, but the GW map indicates that, based on what vague info we have, Gaerox would have been (probably) on the Imperial side of the lines... so...

(For extra Heresy!  Vandire appears in the fluff of every design with FLR torps but Cardinal... LOL)

Ok, remember that for historical refights: Lunar and it's derivatives do not come into service with IN before late M37, or 1500 years after the current dates for the Perogative.  Mars is the only Lunar derived hull that predates that (so perhaps it's more accurate to call Lunar 'Mars derived' but that makes a few assumptions about hull design that are beyond the scope of this project) and replaced Styx in Obscurus and Ultima before that point.

Fluff point: Ultramar is NOT part of the Imperium.  Like Mars, Ultramar signed a treaty with the Emperor making it an allied state rather than be conquered.  The fact that the Ultramarines do in fact have their own private shipyards in fluff, possibly independent of the AdMech, as well as have thrown the Inquisition out of Ultramar, has lead to a great many arguments, so let's leave this go at that.

The reason that Tempestus and not Ultima came to Circe is simply that the fleet base at Bakka is closer in proximity, so Rath arrived first. 

@Sig: Styx could quite possibly have been a reserve ship. 

And I spoke too soon, seems to be lots of lag today.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 05:02:07 PM by BaronIveagh »
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2013, 06:21:14 PM »
So yeah, the Murder should be available. Even as the core.
Heh, this is starting top be a fun approach. Even more funnier that that one remark from me will probably lead to the most AC heavy IN f fleet ever, even if it is only available in historical scenarios.


Making a list of all available vessels at that time will be the best way to start.

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: BFG:R Battlefleet Bakka: Gareox Prerogative and The Big Gun Lobby
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2013, 07:13:08 PM »
Even more funnier that that one remark from me will probably lead to the most AC heavy IN f fleet ever, even if it is only available in historical scenarios.


Corribra has been around since at least Planet Killer.  Since the Perogative was more or less retconned, I still say we go with Corribra as the IN AC list.  It'd be one of the few IN on IN fleet wars, which is something we really have no had.

With Bakka it begs the question: Bakka post Circe or Bakka post Battle of Bakka 1 (Red Corsairs under the Tyrant of Badab) or Battle of Bakka 2 (Dark Eldar). 

Actually, scratch that, Bakka 2 pretty much ended Bakka as a fleet base for the remainder of M41 with the destruction of the fleet anchorage.
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium