I tried to not say 'sussy bakka'. I really did. Follow me on Instagram: / captainzelnik Support me on Subscribe Star!:www.subscribes... Join the Discord Server! / discord
1. Carriers cost +5 for cruisers and below (makes small carriers decidedly uneconomical), +10 for BCs and GCs, and +20 points for BBs. 2. All carriers suffer -1 Ld under all circumstances. 3. No re-rolls may be spent on carriers for any purpose.
@NavisNobelite I'm thinking about reserve carriers as much as anything. Reserves can be abused, but they do exist to represent emergency aid from other fleets, as well as combined operations between Navy, Spehs Marins, AM, Inq, and so forth.
lol. Bakka, well, the first BFG magazine edition had some serious flaws as well. The current one is pretty okay if you ignore the noodles: The Jovian should be kicked, the Dominion should take that place to be reserved in. (The Dominion has become one of the most loved battlecruisers: 10-20pts to cheap, ace gunnery and good ordnance), The Emperor should be changed into an Oberon. The Vanquisher may stay but the Invincible fast battleship should be added. The AdMech integration is pretty neat. Craftworld Eldar: the shadowhunter change is daft, the hero option to unlock the flame instead of yriel a good one. Clanz: heavy worded but a good list in essence. Really hard to play against. Adeptus Mechanicus: great list Powers of Chaos: suitable for the narrative player. The Inferno is an ace addition. Marines: the hindsight fleet: strike cruiser bombardment should be more restricted, shield more expensive, lance begone Rogue Trader: It's a neat list. lots of fun options Tau CPF = great. yes, custodian should be a grand cruiser but that's minor Inquisition lol
In our local community, we experimented with homebrewing\"fixing" Bakka in 2015-2016. Granted, we had exactly 8 people in town playing BFG, so the testing wasn't comprehensive, but the results were quite fun. The changes to 2010 Bakka were: 1. Jovian went to hell, reserves were limited to grand cruisers, excluding Exorcist, Dominion was replaced by Mars. Emperor was still available, but Oberon was added as an alternative (you couldn't take both). 2. Carriers (including the Emperor) could only take fighters. Oberon could take bombers at +5 pts, but there were no assault boats. Basically, the idea was not "the fleet with an irrational aversion to carriers in any form" but "the fleet that uses carriers strictly as support assets". Since reconnaissance isn't really a thing in BFG, fighter support was the only thing left.
Ah, Battlefleet Bakka. The abortion that lived. _EDIT: I made a critical error in this next part. My numbers were off, and the point I was making is less compelling as a result. I have updated it to reflect the actual restrictions._ In Battlefleet Bakka, you can take 2 Endeavours, a Dictator, and a Dominion for 710 pts. Giving you 8 AC. You could take Rath and the Dominus Astra for 565 pts (gaining a ship & weapon refit for free). Giving you another 8 AC. So a 1500 pt Bakka fleet can have 16 AC. A 2k fleet can have 24 AC. A 2.5k list can have 28, and a 3k list can have 36 AC. This is fewer than a standard IN list could have, certainly, but by no means is it representative of an AC light sector. Nor are you penalised in any way for taking so many carriers. Yes, Rath is expensive, but you do get 2 refits included in his cost, which isn't terrible. The rest of the fleet is made up of quite capable craft. Dominions, Dictators, and Endeavours. And you still have the option to replace some of those carriers with other ships. Bakka is a silly list. The Jovian, abomination that it is, is actually so subpar and obsolete that you'd never take it. A Dominion/Dictator combo is just so superior to a Jovian/Lunar (+6 torps, +2 AC, +15cm rng on broadside lances for 40 pts). The Dominion itself is a good CB carrier option. A little overpriced (5 pts), but the Dictator and Mars are both overpriced by more, so it becomes an extremely good carrier for the IN. Which isn't a mark against it on its own, but it's native to a non-carrier fleet list. That's just silly. The Mercury is just an awful ship design. Terrible. Firstly, it's basically a CB version of a Tyrant, and Tyrants are awful. Secondly, the ranges on the broadsides should be swapped to match the Tyrant's (the _weaker_ guns should be the longer ranged ones). Not that that matters all that much, since you need to buy the range upgrade anyway to make it worthwhile in the first place (like the awful Tyrant). Third, why am I buying a speed upgrade on a single ship that has long-range guns and a Nova Cannon again? What's the point of that? Oh, that's right, I remember now. I don't want this thing anywhere near my lines when it (inevitably) explodes. So stupid. Aaand what does it do that an Overlord doesn't do? Or an Armageddon? Why am I buying this piece of poo again? Stupid stupid ship. Victory/Vanquisher: characterful mothball ships, but nothing to write home about. In smaller games, people will just take the, more reliable, Retribution. In larger games, they'll take Rath and the Emperor. The Havoc: great name for a Chaos line cruiser. This is what the Inferno should have been called (Inferno is a dumb name). This ship uses a Chaos hull. It should be a Chaos ship and be called the Heretic class or something (and no, there should be no Chaos CLs, so that's not a problem). And were all that true, then I wouldn't have any problems with the gunship heavy sector having access to old gunships like this. However, the Sword is just a better vessel, and if Bakka is going to have access to obsolete older vessels like this one and the Vanq/Victory, why not also the Vengeance/Avenger CGs? And why no Firestorms? Or Falchions? And what's with the Viper? In a (supposedly) AC poor list, it's less likely those torps are going to be effective. Falchions make a lot more sense for Bakka. You can use the single pip of torpedo strength to pop enemy torp salvos and clear fighter screens for your cruiser's torp salvos, all while still having significant guns left over to fire directly. And lastly, why the different Endeavour/Endurance statlines? These CLs already have a high base turret count, compared to, say, a Dauntless. And Bakka already has a +1 turret option, allowing them to go as high as 3 turrets on a CL. Why give them an extra turret? So they can get 4(!?!) turrets on a 120 pt CL? Madness. Everything about the Bakka list is wrong. It shits me no end. It is appropriately named: Battlefleet Idiot.
@kevinfogle7929 Thanks, though I believe I may have made a fundamental mistake in my above post. Dunno how I managed that, but oh well. As for the Jovian, it has some upsides. For example, it's relatively cheap for 6 AC, particularly for the IN. Secondly, it gets +2 Ld when the enemy is on orders, instead of +1. Not too bad. Now, we have to look at the upsides of having a 6 AC ship in the first place. What does it give that having more ships with fewer AC does not? Firstly, it will have a more specialised purpose than most other options. Meaning you lose less by choosing to RO as opposed to, say, LO. That's good. The other upside is that you can form those 6 AC into a single wave, allowing you to overwhelm enemy turrets. As opposed to other carriers having to either send out smaller waves, and thereby suffer greater attrition from turrets, or having to form squadrons to launch larger waves, therefore investing more points into that RO, and losing more if forced to brace. That is what you would usually get out of 6 AC ship. And if we were to look at the Styx, all of that applies. In the case of the Jovian, though, it does not. Why? Because the Jovian has: 1) less offensive capability (no a-boats); 2) doesn't have the speed to close to shotgun range when the opportunity presents; 3) only has long-range lances for direct fire (so doesn't want to be close anyway), and; 4) in a low AC fleet will only be sending out fighters anyway. Either to clear CAP or screen. A Styx, by comparison, has the speed, a-boats, WBs, and enough fighter support from other carriers to be used offensively. For the same price as the Jovian. The Jovian has 6+ prow armour (which it doesn't need), immunity to prow crits (because it doesn't have prow guns), and a slightly easier time reloading. Blah. Now, comparing the Jovian to the alternatives for the IN player, we can see that for the same CB and reserves slot the IN player can get a Dictator and a Dominion instead of the Jovian and another line cruiser. Let's compare the Jovian + a Lunar to the Dictator + Dominion. Both pairs have 6WB@30cm L+R (Lunar vs Dictator). Both have 2L L+R (30cm for Lunar vs 45cm for the Domion). Both pairs have 2L@60cmLFR (Jovian vs Dom). Both pairs have AC (6 on Jovian vs 4 + 4 on the Dict/Dom), and both pairs have torps (6 from Lunar vs 12 from Dict/Dom). 40 pts to get +2 AC, +6 torps, and +15cm range on 2 lances? That's a no-brainer. So if you have the capability to field the Jovian, then you would be far better served to spend the extra 40 pts to replace it and a Lunar for a Dictator and Dominion. Even if you had to lose a Viper to do so (still 2 AC & 3 torps up). The fact that the Jovian is a CB and a reserve means it directly competes with a Dictator/Dominion combo. If it didn't count as a reserve, you could take it instead of a Dominion. If it didn't count as a CB, you could take it instead of a Dictator. All of this is in addition to the fact that the _Big Gun_ fleet gets access to an almost pure carrier. No one else. And the fact that it has zero prow weaponry at all, which is annoying, and it only has +50% AC from double the launch bays of a typical line carrier, which is already annoying. It just fails in every regard.
Dominion is undercosted. It dominates (lol) other ships. All the good parts of the dictator with gothic improved gunnery. It has become a fan favourite over the years. And a lot of players have been adapting the Mercury as well. Loving narrative and idea over meta min-max.
>.>....looks at list with 2x Dominions and 4x Dominators all with extra turrets....I never said i was a good person....(just started playing with the remastered rule set lol)
Yep, the 2010 fleets are all awful. Bakka is an abomination. So much so that I had to devote an entire comment just for it. The Ork Klanz were terribly convoluted, contradictory, and overpriced. To the point of being unusable. Which is a shame, because there were some nice ideas in there. The Powers of Chaos were just awful. Incoherent statlines on the flagships, no fixes to the Marks of Chaos (price, function, or availability) or Daemonships, extra powers that are either too weak or too strong, and unclear inclusion rules. Blech. Hate them. The Inquisition and Rogue Traders were again a mixed bag of some nice ideas and complete unplayability. The SM list made the SC alternatives too strong. AdMech are ok, but some of the random refits are too weak (AE) or too silly (FDT) and over all too random. The ships are also a touch too expensive, and they have no ship that's actually worth putting the range upgrade on. [If they had access to the Dominator it would be a great candidate, but we couldn't let the AdMech get their hands on cheap, plentiful NCs, that wouldn't make any sense 🙄]. Even the CWE rules were garbage. We already had their rules after all, all the 2010 FAQ did was make some silly decisions. Such as the Shadowhunter rule change. Not making the SH Shadow Lance act exactly like the DE Phantom Lance. That was silly. Not expressly clarifying that the FoA counts as a native ship in whichever fleet it's being taken in. That was very bad. And the reserve rules were also just awful and useless. And the Tau ... the Kor'Or'Vesh ships should have been much more manoeuvrable. They should have reflected the Tau doctrine of warfare. The Kor'Vattra didn't do that, and for good resson, but these ships should have. Plus there were some other issues: profiles and points costs mainly. And the FAQ itself should have clarified that the Tyranid mutations could be taken in one-off games. And the prices should have been adjusted too. So, all in all, the 2010 fleet lists were quite disappointing. If there was development of those fleets, if this were a staging point for further refinement, they wouldn't be so bad. As they stand though, pretty awful.
Huh? The Commerce Protection fleet has 90* Emissary, Warden, Castellan and Protector. How could they be more manouevrable aside of making Custodian a grand cruiser. As it stands a balanced and great fleet to play with. Profiles reflect model designer intend as well.
My Playgroup has 1 Player Imperial Navy. He plays against, Space Marines, Chaos and Necrons. Out of 8 games so far, he's only won 1 and that was an escort mission where he was the raider and rolled a lot of bombers. Unless fighting a mirror match, Navy is rather weak in our experience. It can't kill as well or with as much range as Chaos, it doesn't board or crit as well as Space Marines and it for sure isn't as durable as the Necrons are. Bakka and more importantly, the carriers of that list, were the only things giving the guy a fighting chance, especially since Styxes for Chaos and Thunder Hawks on Marines are such a huge threat
You should bring your buddy to the discord and let me talk with him. I promise you, it is far more likely he is not using the fleet properly than it being underpowered. What are the points values and fleet lists you are using?
In my opinion, the rant is somehow missing the point: Why should there be a fleet without carrier support "fluffwise" at all? No real explanation is ever given, other than "Big gun lobby on Bakka". The Dominus astra is an Imperator because the fluff about it is older than this list. (also the Oberon is a conflicted design IMO). I only think the Dominus Astra and Battlecruisers make the list competitive. Because IMHO +1 turret alone (without a carrier) would be quite weak, because the Imps' pure gunboats are rather under-armed and/or too expensive. In order to get by without carriers, IMHO the profiles of the gunboats would have had to be upgraded (I don't know, e.g. full 6-gun salvos on 45/60cm instead of just 4-guns or no table shift on over 30cm or something like that), and apparently you weren't allowed to do that . I don't like the Bakka list either, but for other reasons: you have to take an overpriced admiral to get an emperor (characters are way too overpriced in the game anyway), you can't use dictators (like those things), the special battleships are hardly usable because it doesn't work without the Dominus Astra and for that they get rather questionable gimmicks. Only the Vipers are really a big deal. I mean a 9-gun salvo from 3 small, really fast destroyers...nice, very nice.
The list would be just as well suited if it were using the Armageddon and the Overlord. The inclusion of two useless designs does not make it better in any way. It just served as "hole filling" which dilutes the fleet list and serves to replace other patterns. I did mention the incredible cost of the admiral, and it IS valuable in very large games. I disagree about the ability to purchase turrets, it is a -very- powerful option that has very substantial effects, especially in boarding actions. Having just one more turret is the difference between a straight roll and the enemy getting a +1. You CAN use dictators through reserves, along with the jovian, mars, and Exorcist. Vipers are an interesting gimmic, but they again only serve to replace the Cobra, which is not necessary in this fleet. The Havoc for example is just a worse Sword. Bakka needs a lot of help.
Another final point: Fleets are not made to be competitive. Battlefleet Gothic is from an era where factions have distinct and glaring weaknesses. A decade and a half of homogenization of 40k has made people forget that weaknesses are not a bad thing, they are a thing that must be worked around as a means of skill. If you think that the only saving grace of this fleet is a single 0-1 battleship choice with a 200 point premium or a pair of extremely poorly designed battlecruisers, I may have to make a Bakka fleet just to prove a point.
@@NavisNobelite Sure, in large Games it is not that big Deal. But in the Common 1500p Range it is. The turret is not a big Deal, imho: if the enemy is specialiced in boarding (Khorne, Tyranids, Marines) they rip you appart anyway, and if not they don't that too often. And since turret suppression rule is in, its not sooo big for waves. Sure you bring in almost wverything via Reserve rules, but in my experience most people don't do use them. Kind of Gentlemans agreement, like not more 1 nova per 750 or not spamming a single class. Competitive: having weakpoints and being competitive is not mutually exclusive. But IMHO the Navy has a Design flaw ever since: gunships with more than 30cm are undergunned/overpriced by design. Overlord/Tyrant/Retribution are the underperformers of the IN A fleet only based on this classes wouldn't see Victory a lot of times, if everything they get is +1 turret. So if you want to do something like this, you need to improve the basic profiles of these Ships (e.g. Retribution with an additional S6@30cm Broadside or 6/6/6 @ 30/45/60cm Broadsides). Only then "big gun only" would be an alternative, IMHO.
Going by WW2 and the battleship rules the waves USA did focus heavily on battleships but had a few carriers at the start of the war , I think having the odd carrier would be fine , limit to one and no emp or silly 6 bay battlecrusiers just normal 2 bay cruiser of some sort
@@NavisNobelite yeah I agree with the emp battle should be changed to the Oberon If you don't take that then can take 1 cruiser with launch bay 2 each side no more
USN had more than "a few." 7 aircraft carriers, 1 "escort carrier," 17 battleships. The carriers were much more modern and effective than the average battleship. The two oldest carriers in service Lexington and Saratoga, were extremely powerful units. The construction program was also slightly biased toward aircraft carriers and decisions after the outbreak of war pushed most battleships into the background (the only class that was pushed forward with vigor were the Iowas, which were absurdly fast battleships that could keep up with the fast carriers.
@@ethanmckinney203 over twice as many battleships as carriers at the time the battleship was still thought as the super weapon that would win fleet battles l did also say at the start of the war i was just using it as a example of a peroid when battleships are the focus but there was still carries in most fleets i could of used the UK as a example
