BFG-R Bakka

[Sigoroth]

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.

I say take a leaf out of the Executor's book and go 2@45cm and 2@30cm. For a bit more character you could put the prow guns at 30cm ala Devastation/Slaughter. Make it a real mixed up design, explaining its lack of favour amongst current fleets.

As for the comparison to a Gothic, well we are also talking faster and without prow armour. This is an old style ship (ie, Chaos) ship after all. It would seem to fit with Bakka too, being a ship bristling with guns, focussed upon the broadside strike and with a hodgepodge of ranges. Strikes me as reminiscent of the chaos of ship design at the turn of the 19^th-20^th century when big guns were in vogue, ships were ever changing and often included a mixture of old and new weapons on the one ship and fleet tactics weren't yet nailed down.

Presumably in this case it would be the shorter ranged weapons that were the newer ones, rather than the longer ranged ones, since technology in the Imperium is on the decline, but the analogy is still sound.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Sig that sounds really cool.

I dont see a problem with the grand cruisers having 4 turrets, thats kind of the midline here, battleships can have 5-6 after all an they're much more imposing.

[Sigoroth]

Regarding CGs in Bakka, well I think that the Avenger would probably be ideal for this fleet, exemplifying both the big guns that the lobby was famous for as well as justifying the backlash against them (it's too slow, too short ranged, can be outclassed by AC, etc).

As for the turret issue, well I have always argued that the solution to having no carriers was to allow more turrets. Others have argued that this was not enough and we needed convoluted (and rubbish) FDT rules and dedicated fleet carriers (Jovian) and whatnot. It's strange to see the argument now that extra turrets is actually OP.

Nevertheless, it may be the case. However, I notice that you did not boost the base turret level of the battleships or escorts, only the cruisers and light cruisers. Presumably you could also elect to not boost the base turret level of the grand cruisers.

Also, you have the rule "all ships may purchase an extra turret for +5 pts". This seems to include escorts, which I would personally exclude from this. So I'd adjust it to read "all capital ships ...", etc. A further adjustment could be "all light cruisers, cruisers and battlecruisers may purchase ...", etc. This would further limit the Bakka dominance over ordnance if this is perceived to be too strong. Of course, it would allow for 4 turret cruisers and battlecruisers while allowing only 3 turret grand cruisers. Not to mention that battleships would have no further protection than cruisers against bombers in this case.

Alternatively, you could alter the rule to say that CLs, CAs and CBs can buy a turret at +5 pts and CGs and BBs can buy one at +10 pts. This would at least make those more durable ships pay for their protection.

[Vaaish]

I say take a leaf out of the Executor's book and go 2@45cm and 2@30cm. For a bit more character you could put the prow guns at 30cm ala Devastation/Slaughter. Make it a real mixed up design, explaining its lack of favour amongst current fleets.

As for the comparison to a Gothic, well we are also talking faster and without prow armour. This is an old style ship (ie, Chaos) ship after all. It would seem to fit with Bakka too, being a ship bristling with guns, focussed upon the broadside strike and with a hodgepodge of ranges.

You'd have no issues with an IN cruiser sporting 5x lances per side (splitting the dorsal)? I know it's an older design, but that seems a tad excessive when IN battleships barely support 6 per side.

Alternatively, you could alter the rule to say that CLs, CAs and CBs can buy a turret at +5 pts and CGs and BBs can buy one at +10 pts. This would at least make those more durable ships pay for their protection.

Sig, the CG's base turrets are 3, purchasing the extra turret would take them to 4 turrets and if we increased their base to 4 turrets, they would max out at 5. My primary concern is the extra turret on the vengeance. The extra turret would be less of an issue on the avenger since the ship is forced to get into 30cm range and lacks the prow armor.

[Sigoroth]

You'd have no issues with an IN cruiser sporting 5x lances per side (splitting the dorsal)? I know it's an older design, but that seems a tad excessive when IN battleships barely support 6 per side.

Weeeeell, the Executor sports 12 in total. We are talking mostly short ranged too.

Sig, the CG's base turrets are 3, purchasing the extra turret would take them to 4 turrets and if we increased their base to 4 turrets, they would max out at 5.

Yeeees ... what about my previous post makes you think I didn't know any of this? This is why I suggested not increasing their base turrets as you've done to the cruisers and either disallowing the purchasable turret or increasing its cost to 10 pts (for CGs and BBs).

My primary concern is the extra turret on the vengeance. The extra turret would be less of an issue on the avenger since the ship is forced to get into 30cm range and lacks the prow armor.

Right, the reason I suggested the Avenger is because of its shortfalls.

[Gothmog Lord of Balrogs]

I've been advocated primarily for the Avenger from the beginning as well. I think both would be nice, but not neccessary.

I agree wtih the +10 points for BB and CG to get an extra turret. And I don't think CG should have their base turrets increased either (it wasn't done for the BBs)

[Vaaish]

Weeeeell, the Executor sports 12 in total. We are talking mostly short ranged too.

The Executor is also a chaos CG with limited availability in the IN fleet. The cardinal is a full IN CB that any IN fleet list can use via reserves. IIRC i remember ages ago someone tried to do a CB version of the gothic and that proved a bit much, wouldn't that effectively be what you are hitting at?

Yeeees ... what about my previous post makes you think I didn't know any of this? This is why I suggested not increasing their base turrets as you've done to the cruisers and either disallowing the purchasable turret or increasing its cost to 10 pts (for CGs and BBs).

Your previous statement seemed to imply that 3 turrets was the max the CG could get after adding an extra turret.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Well the Avenger is about the furthest from a "big gun" grand cruiser you can get but if its the fan fave i say go for it, id still keep the Vengance too tho if theyre added.

On the turrets I would think keeping them all the same price would be best. At 10 points per ship or escort squadron theres only one ship i would feel is getting screwed and thats the Dauntless (125 pts just to get three turrets is O_o). I would not leave out the escorts tho, if anything theyre the ships that would be most commonly refitted in such a way.

[Sigoroth]

The Executor is also a chaos CG with limited availability in the IN fleet. The cardinal is a full IN CB that any IN fleet list can use via reserves. IIRC i remember ages ago someone tried to do a CB version of the gothic and that proved a bit much, wouldn't that effectively be what you are hitting at?

Yeah, pretty much. However, if I recall the putative Gothic CB was 45cm broadside. However, that aside (as I'd likely have objections even at only 30cm) I think the main difference is that this is an older style ship, not a newer one. It should even predate the Executor. I don't really have an objection to the IN getting access to this many lances. My only objections to this sort of thing lies in the current IN capabilities. Do you have objections based on faction rather than style?

Your previous statement seemed to imply that 3 turrets was the max the CG could get after adding an extra turret.

Ah, no, I was saying that if you opted for not autobumping the base turrets and not allowing an optional upgrade it would be a bit odd having 3 turret CGs and potentially 4 turret cruisers.

[Armiger84]

@AndrewChristlieb

I think the suggestion was that bonus turrets would be +5 pts for escorts/cruisers, +10 pts for grand cruisers/battleships since they're comparatively harder to kill.

I'd support bringing Avengers and Vengeances into Bakka out of mothballs with 3 turrets, upgradeable to 4.  4 upgradeable to 5 might also not be too bad, but it might be easier to test the lower quantity first, and see if they need more after some play-testing.

It would fit a late 41st Millenium plot point for lore, certainly; after Hive Fleet Behemoth, Bakka scrambles to rebuild their strength by mass-producing light cruiser hulls and bringing back their mothballed grand cruisers to fill in for lost battleships.

Edit:  I'm that case, I misunderstood you, and I understand your reasoning there now.  Didn't think it was worth adding another post to the thread to say that though.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ya i got that, still with the majority of the ships at 3 turrets I think the push to 4 would be fine at 10 for all of the capitols. This fits the established upgrade cost. 10 for an escort squadron also works well, 5/ escort is excessive for larger squads and fits the potential direction for escort upgrades in the other lists.

[Vaaish]

Do you have objections based on faction rather than style?

Partly faction and partly with regard to the other ships the IN has available. We'd discussed the Cardinal with three lances per side instead of two but I believe that too closely overlaps the Gothic while generally being superior due to the increased range and ability to focus firepower to a degree while offering basically the same armament. It also comes close to the armageddon and I'd prefer to see the ship fit between the gothic and armageddon rather than overlap.

With the stats you've put on it, I'd definitely go for a couple fast CB that can focus 10 lances per side total coring an enemy fleet on lock on. Anytime I see a ship like that I'd immediately put at the core of my fleet and take as many as I can, I get very wary of the ship being too strong. That's what those stats do for me.

It would fit a late 41st Millenium plot point for lore, certainly; after Hive Fleet Behemoth, Bakka scrambles to rebuild their strength by mass-producing light cruiser hulls and bringing back their mothballed grand cruisers to fill in for lost battleships.

Just a note, since Bakka is a big gun fleet, is there any indication they ever mothballed the CG? The might just have easily brought them against Behemoth and lost them.

regardless, despite my love for the Vengeance, I can't advocate pulling it into Bakka. I think it complicates the turrets more than necessary and the list doesn't NEED the ship. What I can say is that we can add the Avenger with the default turrets and leave the additional turret rules alone. 5 points seems to have worked for both battleships, cruisers, and escorts just fine since the 2010 list and the fleet now relies on them more than ever.

If everyone is happy with that, lets call the list good for the time being and vote on it.

[Vaaish]

10 for an escort squadron also works well, 5/ escort is excessive for larger squads and fits the potential direction for escort upgrades in the other lists.

I really don't think this is a good idea. Too variable. A full escort squadron gets 6 turrets extra for a little under 2 points each while a smaller squadron of three pays around 3.3 points for the same upgrade. less utility but more points is never a good route to go.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Isnt that better than paying 30 points for that same benefit in a group of six that an escort in a group of three pays 15 points for? Forgiving the odd torp salvo that might get multiple ships your only going to be using one extra turret at a time, its not like all 6 turrets are going to stack.

[Vaaish]

It is better in that it is CHEAPER, but no, it's not better for the game. A squadron of three should pay less because there are fewer ships that gain the benefit. You can't guarantee that a squadron will receive the exact same benefit regardless of the number of ships present. The whole situation is backwards to how the purchasing mechanics for BFG operate in ever other case I can think of.