BFG-R Bakka

[AndrewChristlieb]

Dan has asked me to post up the proposed Bakka changes. A little background here. Dragon Lord, Tyberius, Vaash and I have been working in the background to try and go through the several iterations of the Bakka list in order to get together a list that eliminates or fixes some of the many issues people have had while trying to steer the list towards the given fluff for the sector and create a unique twist on the standard IN fleet style.

Ship list and changes:

Escorts:

Havoc, Sword, Firestorm, Viper no change in stats

Light cruisers:

Siluria, 2 turrets instead of 1, remains 100 points

Dauntless, Endeavor, Endurance each receive +1 turret at 5 points over BFG-R base.

Cruisers:

Lunar, Tyrant, Gothic each receive +1 turret at 5 points over BFG-R base.

Battlecruisers:

Cardinal, 200 points.

8 hits, 25cm speed, 45* turns, 2 shields, 5+ armor, 3 turrets

Port/ Starboard 2 lances 45cm range r/l

Dorsal 2 lances 60cm range r/f/l

Prow 6 weapons 60cm range r/f/l

Mercury, 260 points.

8 hits, 25cm speed, 45* turns, 2 shields, 6+ front/5+ armor, 3 turrets

Port/ Starboard 8 weapons 60cm range r/l

Dorsal 2 lances 60cm range r/f/l

Prow 1 Nova 30-150cm range f

May replace prow nova with str 6 torpedoes -20 points. Equipped with targeting matrix base. Always counts their hits as 12 when determining the to hit dice for a plasma drive overload or warp drive implosion. The Fluff Idea behind this is that the ship is an advanced progression of the Overlord class fitted with battleship power reactors and all the fancy new doodads that the Overlord gets as optional upgrades (+1 turret, Targeting Matrix).

Battleships:

Retribution, Victory, Vanquisher all BFG-R base

Emperor, 0-1 and may only be included if Rath leads the fleet (removed the option to take an Emperor as reserves)

Fleet list:

Fleet Command:

Fleet Admiral, Admiral, Solar Admiral all per BFG-R.

Rath, BFG-R stats but restricted to fleets over 1000 points.

Re-rolls, Secondary commanders per BFG-R.

Capitol ships:

Battleships 1 may be taken for each full 750

Battlecruisers 1 may be taken for every 3 cruisers/light cruisers

Cruisers 1 may be taken for every 2 light cruisers

Light cruisers 0-12

Escorts:

standard, any number in groups of 2-6

Ordinance:

standard

Reserves:

Due to Battlefleet Bakkas relatively low priority they require 4 of any given ship type (battleship, cruiser, escort) to take 1 reserve.

Notes:

Imperial ships with 6+ prow armor may take a prow ram +5 points.

All Imperial ships may take an additional +1 turret for +5 points.


Admech, FDT, and any carrier options were removed from the base list.

Dan has mentioned allowing Admech reserves at the standard 1 for every three other ships and to keep it so they don't disengage when crippled.

[afterimagedan]

I like it. I think the 4:1 reserves thing makes sense considering Bakka's approval rating with Adeptus Terra... The 1 cruiser per 2 light cruisers hit me hard at first but really, you can take 2 light cruisers which allows you to take 1 cruiser, which altogether allows you to take a battlecruiser. Not so bad. Also, the 1/750pts battleship seems to encourage the battleships being taken and allows you to count escorts toward battleships. That's pretty cool. I plan on running this Bakka list with two battleships: probably a Victory and a Retribution.

One thing Andrew and I talked about through email is that cruisers can actually be taking 2 turrets more than the original vessels. That threw me off at first but honestly, it seems about right for so heavily restricting ordnance. You basically have to play some pretty big games to get 1 launch bay cruiser.

I like this list a lot and actually have nothing bad to say about it. You have my vote!

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

Looks great!

The one thing I will say though is the Battlecruiser selection seems limited, and one of them is a very expensive BC at that. What happened to all the Dominion Class? Though they distrust AC, the fluff has a bunch of these on Bakka. Maybe a 0-2 Choice?

Maybe add the Avenger or Vengeance GC as a choice in the Battlecruiser slot. They definately fit in with the Big Gun Lobby idea. The Imperial GC didn't exist at the time of the creation of the original BFB otherwise I think they would have been added. Think about it: Vanquisher BBs are old and were recommissioned to cover losses after the Battle of the Circle. Why would they not also reactivate old Grand Cruisers that had been mothballed. (maybe even make it a cruiser slot choice, as they may have been reactivated as replacements to cover losses for just basic cruisers) Could also be restricted 0-1 or 0-2... though now I am starting to talk about alot of special circumstances/restrictions

This list makes me wish I owned more light cruisers.

[horizon]

Hi,
The restrictions are a good idea. It will give you many light cruisers in a way to reflect a fast response fleet.
Just for clarity, this is a legal fleet:

2x Dauntless
1x Lunar
1x Mercury
<some escorts to make it at least 750pts for bb requirement>
1x Battleship

And with those 4 cruisers in place I can add a reserve vessel.


The Cardinal: am I missing a set of port/starboard weapons? Only 2 lances per broadside seems weird.

The extra base turret + optional turret will make good AC defence.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

Hi,
The restrictions are a good idea. It will give you many light cruisers in a way to reflect a fast response fleet.
Just for clarity, this is a legal fleet:

2x Dauntless
1x Lunar
1x Mercury
<some escorts to make it at least 750pts for bb requirement>
1x Battleship

And with those 4 cruisers in place I can add a reserve vessel.


The Cardinal: am I missing a set of port/starboard weapons? Only 2 lances per broadside seems weird.

The extra base turret + optional turret will make good AC defence.

The two per side thing on the cardinal is from the original. They swapped out the prow torpedoes for prow WB and the dorsal wb for dorsal lances, so overall roughly the same FP as the original IMO.

I would think the broadside would be stronger too though. A BFGR Slaughter outguns the Cardinal. Sure less range, but this is still 20pts more expensive and if it operates at range, it is harder to hit targets with the WB.

Looking though the Acheron is roughly equipped the same. Just different ranges. However, the Acheron is 10 pts cheaper and its lances are at longer ranges, which don't suffer from being at Range.

IMO the design concept for the cardinal is fine, but comparing it to the Acheron, it is overpriced.

[Vaaish]

Horizon, the Cardinal is 2 per broadside. The reason for this is that the ship ship is far inferior to the Armageddon which is priced at 235 and it shouldn't be lower than 200 since you run into IN cruiser territory. If you give the Cardinal three lances per broadside and split the dorsal lance strength you end up with a ship that is far superior to the gothic with 4 lances per side at 45cm and the dorsal WB.

Two lances gives you a ship that isn't as good as an armageddon and superior in range to the Gothic but that shouldn't make either useless.

On your list, I believe that is legal, however your reserve ship would still be subject to the restrictions in the list and you don't have a slot open for another cruiser or battlecruiser so you'd need to reserve in a CL or take two additional CL before pulling in the reserve ship.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ya the Cardinal swaps the 45cm dorsal/prow and the 60cm broadsides of the Acheron for 60cm dorsal/prow and 45cm broadsides. Ive found this actually complements it better in its primary support role. Of course its an anomaly having this ship in an IN list and I think that played some small role in the decision to price it @200.

I have had some pretty good luck running a core of 2x Endeavor supported by a Gothic and a Cardinal with 2x Silurias as a flanking/ support group. Playing around with this has really opened me up to the different options for combining CL groups and a cruiser for support.

I may have worded the battleship section incorrectly. We were looking at giving people the ability to have one battleship unrestricted per 750pts. So you could do say a battleship, a couple light cruisers and some escorts in a 750, or two battleships in a 1500, etc.

[horizon]

Ah so, so I could start off with a battleship, then start adding the others.

I need to run it in theory somewhat because this means it is very easy to field 2 battleships in 1500pts. I'll come back to that in how it relates to other IN.

///
Did a build of two battleships, with max cruiser:
Fleet Adm
Vanq+Vict
4x Siluria
2x Lunar

Dropping the Vict to a 2nd Vanq opens up some more space to upgrade Silurias to Dauntless.
///

no issues!!



Vaaish, thanks on the reserves, you are right. I approve of the list building in general (just checkin the bb some more.

[afterimagedan]

There seems to be some good consensus about this list so far. I will put up a vote for it within a few days.

[Vaaish]

I'm surprised Sig hasn't been by to rip it up yet, or perhaps he just doesn't even want to bother with it at this point
I'll be curious about his and baron's viewpoints.

Gothmog: the lack of carriers was 100% intentional. The line of thought was that any carrier added to the list would automatically be chosen in every fleet. Removing them entirely means you can only pull in carriers via reserve which seems more fitting to show the distaste for carriers in Bakka. That means you need 4 silurias before you can pull in a dictator or 800 points spent to pull in two. In higher point games this won't be quite as limiting but in low- standard point games you won't likely see many carriers unless your opponent REALLY wants them at the expense of just about everything.

You are correct on the price of the Acheron compared to the Cardinal, however the cardinal is in an IN fleet where it requires a different price point to fit as a cheap CB without it making other IN cruisers obsolete.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

That's okay.

As for the Cardinal though, it makes sense, but I still feel 190 would be a better price point. But I would still vote yes for this.

Any thoughts on the Grand Cruisers? Right now the only fleet that can take them standard are Bastion Fleets. And I don't think Corribra can take them either. I feel the Avenger and Vengeance fit in with the fluff as I described above and are a great choice for smaller games that may just not fit a BB (500pt) or Cruiser Clashes.

[Sigoroth]

Ok, I hate the Cardinal. I have issues enough with the Acheron being so undergunned, particularly as it should have at least 60cm range dorsal lances. This thing is an Acheron with bumped prow/dorsal ranges (fine) at a bumped cost (fine) but has even weaker broadsides. Not fine.

The Mercury is an Overlord with +5cm speed for 5 pts less? What? Oh, it blows up big. That's not a downfall. Park it in the middle of the enemy fleet and dare them to shoot it.

Overlord with targeting matrix and extra turret: 245 pts
Mercury with torpedoes: 240 pts

[horizon]

Gothmog: the lack of carriers was 100% intentional. The line of thought was that any carrier added to the list would automatically be chosen in every fleet. Removing them entirely means you can only pull in carriers via reserve which seems more fitting to show the distaste for carriers in Bakka. That means you need 4 silurias before you can pull in a dictator or 800 points spent to pull in two. In higher point games this won't be quite as limiting but in low- standard point games you won't likely see many carriers unless your opponent REALLY wants them at the expense of just about everything.

Yes, good job imo.


Grand Cruisers: I think adding the Vengeance and/or Avenger won't hurt the list. Perhaps they fall into the Battleship restriction (1 CG or BB per full 750pts).


///Acheron:
for 190pts you get the best mid-range gunnery cruiser Chaos has. Nothing undergunned about it. If it had 60cm the points should be upped to 200pts. But then it'd be a no-brainer in any Chaos fleet.

///Cardinal:
I see the design idea. But when Sigs says twice fine and once not fine it is +1 fine vs Acheron which I think is a great vessel. Not bad.

[Sigoroth]

///Cardinal:
I see the design idea. But when Sigs says twice fine and once not fine it is +1 fine vs Acheron which I think is a great vessel. Not bad.

Well I have a different system of scoring, whereby they have to be all fine. So one fail is a complete fail. However, if we're talking number of faults here, let me add another. The Acheron was supposed to be a unique design. Very rare. And yet this Cardinal is practically identical (slightly better actually). This is not fine.

As for the Acheron being the best mid range bruiser Chaos has, this is true. It is also a good ship for its cost. However, consider a Carnage upgraded to a CB (ala Lunar > Armageddon) through the addition of 2L@60cmLFR dorsal for +30 pts. Significantly better focusable firepower than the Acheron at 15cm, 30cm and 60cm, roughly equivalent at 45cm and superior offside firepower (offside range being negligible). Even at +20 pts it'd pretty much invalidate the Acheron (price being the only true advantage of the Acheron).

[Vaaish]

Sig: what would you propose about the broadsides on the cardinal then? Giving it three lances makes it a gothic with the torpedoes traded for WB.

The Mercury isn't any more likely to explode than any other CA now, it just has a bit stronger explosion if it does. I think you are exaggerating the effect of driving it into the middle of a fleet and having it shot up. There's a lot of things that have low probability of happening if you try to plan on the thing blowing up.  Price wise, I would see it more at 270 points.

Horizon: I don't think we really talked about CG in the list. Our goal was to focus it more on the CL and low AC. I don't think either the Vengeance or Avenger would be a problem, but would it be any better than as reserves now?