BFG-R Bakka

[AndrewChristlieb]

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.

Its not ideal, but then it really shouldnt be an ideal pick. I could see it with shorter ranged and stronger strength but then its really getting close to the Gothic.

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

The "exploding" but isnt intended as a downfall just a nod to the fluff and the original rules. By removing the crap where the chances of it blowing are increased this drops right back to the standard equally bad for both players that catastrophic damage is anyway. The problem with the original rules was just as you said, it was far too easy to aaf this to the center of the enemy and let it die, chances were that it wouldnt be left as a hulk.

Good call on the Overlord, we had discussed it at a higher cost but it really doesnt seem worth an increase in price. I would be fine with dropping the torpedo option and leaving it Nova only. Overlord (220) + turret (10) + Matrix (15) + speed (~5) + non optional Nova (10). How does everyone feel on that?

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).

Vengance or Executor would be more fitting than the Avenger imo, if they were added I would want to lean towards allowing one for every three cruisers or light cruisers tho.

[Vaaish]

If we put the CG in, just put it in under the regular CB slots they normally take and be done with it. No need to get fancy with it

If you drop the torpedoes on the Mercury the issue should go away. Why were they there in the first place again?

[AndrewChristlieb]

I never liked how it broke the mould of a ship upgrading to the Nova, same for the Victory.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

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?

I get what Sig is saying. It isn't that the explosion is a big plus, it is that it is not a downside. However, his observation about it being the same cost as an overlord is valid. The BFG:R overlord is 220, 245 fully upgraded. The Mercury is 260. So it is 15 points more HOWEVER if you remove the Nova Cannon it is only 240, which is 5 points less for a ship with the same weapons and +5cm speed and no real disadvantage

I wouldn't remove the option to change out the NC for torpedoes since torpedoes are such a characteristic IN thing and this list actually hurts for them. If you did that it would be a lot of low torp CL and 2 BC with NO torpedoes, and even if you add GC they have no torpedoes. Maybe bump up the cost either 10 points. BUT if everyone is okay with having a IN fleet with a low torp count... It would justify the switch to vipers for escorts. Maybe drop the Sword for the Falcion as well, especially since you already have Havocs which fill that role AND falcions are suppossed to be similar to Endeavours, which the list is heavy on.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

As for the GC, not the exorcist. That would break the no inherent carriers. If that was the choice, why not just include the Dominion since it is in the original fluff anyways.

I would say Avenger, Vengeance or Executor. Vengeance is the best balanced of the choices, with the mix of weapons. I feel the Avenger and Executor are better fits though. Honestly, I think the Avenger is the best fit, but you could put both the Vengeance and Avenger in. Makes up for the lower than average ship selection options and 4:1 reserves rule without breaking the list. I would shy away from the Executor. While it would be nice and can make sense from a fluff perspective, it could be abused as a Native of the BFB list, and be taken as reserves in other IN fleets, without having to be subject to "Strange Happenings"

[Vaaish]

Gothmog, I'm not sure where exorcist popped up, if I mentioned it as a potential, it was my mistake. I would leave it at the Vengeance and/or Avenger. Lots of people have either of those two, but the executor isn't very popular being part of the chaos fleets where better options are available. With the lack of new models, lets not make it harder for people to use the list

[afterimagedan]

Bakka is fine with torps considering torpedo dauntlesses are readily available. Let's not forget the Viper.

[horizon]

I agree.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I rarely play bakka with out a few vipers, theyre super .

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

Gothmog, I'm not sure where exorcist popped up, if I mentioned it as a potential, it was my mistake. I would leave it at the Vengeance and/or Avenger. Lots of people have either of those two, but the executor isn't very popular being part of the chaos fleets where better options are available. With the lack of new models, lets not make it harder for people to use the list

I may have misread Exorcist when I read executor. Doesn't matter.

I would leave it at vengeance and/or avenger too. Preferably "and" IMO.

[Vaaish]

On further thinking about the CG, do we really want 4-5 turret CG running around? Bakka would have the natural +1 turret and the option for a second. At the very least you'd have 4 turret CG which might be a spec much in the CB slots where the other options are 200 points and 260 points.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

On further thinking about the CG, do we really want 4-5 turret CG running around? Bakka would have the natural +1 turret and the option for a second. At the very least you'd have 4 turret CG which might be a spec much in the CB slots where the other options are 200 points and 260 points.

Why do they need to receive the +1 turret benefit. They are quick reactivations to cover the losses after the battle fo the circle. They had no time to be refit with +1 turret. Leave them base as is.

[Vaaish]

The ability to add +1 turret is fleet wide for bakka, I'd rather see the CG not added than add exceptions to rules. Exceptions just breed confusion. If we think that 4 turret CG are too much, then leave the CG as reserves. It doesn't hurt the list for the CG to not be available naturally as part of the list.

[afterimagedan]

You can already get a 4 turret lunar. What's wrong with a 4 turret vengeance?

[Vaaish]

The extra shields hits and firepower make CG's a tougher nut to crack. Three turrets already makes them fairly resistant to AC, adding a 4th or 5th might be too much.