The Specialist Arms Forum

Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: flybywire-E2C on August 22, 2010, 03:06:10 AM

Title: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on August 22, 2010, 03:06:10 AM
Please review the attached draft rules for the Tau Kor’or’vesh and Demiurg Fleet List. We would like to hear any thoughts about these before we try to get them cleaned up and pushed past GW. Any thoughts, comments, complaints, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

-   Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on August 22, 2010, 08:12:58 AM
Custodian : cool. Pretty strong, finally defense.

Protector: 190pts was good for that vessel. Especiaaly with Tracking Systems!!!
I mean this vessel eats equal prized Chaos/In vessels in 1:1 duels most of the time.

Emissary: URGR & ok. Ok=finally grav hooks. URG = still too slow and ponderous. It needs 25cm and/or 90* turns. Otherwise it remains half a$$Ed useless.
edit: Oh noes! 15pts for Prow Deflector! eeek, bad.

Castellan: URG! Too expensive!!! 50pts is already high. Change weaponry. 1 battery is crap. Make this thing no Ion (doesn't have Ion on the model anyway!), 2wb @ 45 or 3wb @30.

Demiurg Citadel.... did someone read this file before GothiComp?

Other aliens: Later.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO fleet list:
you kept that horrible thing that is called a fleet list. When the HA released the FW list (the one that got removed on FW request) we community burned the list mostly on the korór'vesh fleet list.

Protectors must be taken without restriction. Really. They aren't as good as Hero's. Who have a design flaw (fluff says weaker then Lunar, stats say much much better then Lunar, restictions are half a$$ed solutions.

Fleet wise: Tracking Systems are cool.
Stat wise: I still hoped for a faster/manouevrable fleet. I mean, this models are so different to the GW ones they warrant different stats not the same. TS doesn't count in that regard.


All in all: I would not play with this list, preferring FW one. Mainly because of the fleet list. To be honest: Because of the fleet list!!!! Castellan is also fail. Emissary SHOULD change.

I mean, I got good results with my FW list.


Oh, if you want spicy things, check this: Project Distant Darkness. Tau with flava (too much, but stats resemble the models. :)

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/ddarkness.html

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on August 23, 2010, 04:08:55 AM
Custodian : cool. Pretty strong, finally defense.

Protector: 190pts was good for that vessel. Especiaaly with Tracking Systems!!!
I mean this vessel eats equal prized Chaos/In vessels in 1:1 duels most of the time.

Emissary: URGR & ok. Ok=finally grav hooks. URG = still too slow and ponderous. It needs 25cm and/or 90* turns. Otherwise it remains half a$$Ed useless.
edit: Oh noes! 15pts for Prow Deflector! eeek, bad.

Castellan: URG! Too expensive!!! 50pts is already high. Change weaponry. 1 battery is crap. Make this thing no Ion (doesn't have Ion on the model anyway!), 2wb @ 45 or 3wb @30.

Demiurg Citadel.... did someone read this file before GothiComp?

Other aliens: Later.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO fleet list:
you kept that horrible thing that is called a fleet list. When the HA released the FW list (the one that got removed on FW request) we community burned the list mostly on the korór'vesh fleet list.

Protectors must be taken without restriction. Really. They aren't as good as Hero's. Who have a design flaw (fluff says weaker then Lunar, stats say much much better then Lunar, restictions are half a$$ed solutions.

Fleet wise: Tracking Systems are cool.
Stat wise: I still hoped for a faster/manouevrable fleet. I mean, this models are so different to the GW ones they warrant different stats not the same. TS doesn't count in that regard.


All in all: I would not play with this list, preferring FW one. Mainly because of the fleet list. To be honest: Because of the fleet list!!!! Castellan is also fail. Emissary SHOULD change.

I mean, I got good results with my FW list.


Oh, if you want spicy things, check this: Project Distant Darkness. Tau with flava (too much, but stats resemble the models. :)

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/ddarkness.html



I will give lots of consideration to what you wrote here, and I will bring it up with the other HA's. The problem is that IMHO the FW fleet list was created to sell models. The FW fleet list isn’t simply better than the GW Tau ships, they were better for the points than anything out there! No wonder everyone loved them- for the points, they couldn’t be beat!

What happened was FW produced a fleet list having little experience with BFG and without input from the HA’s. Why we had to pull the fleet list was before FW’s version was released to the masses, they already put it in print in IA#4, again without talking to any of the HA’s or even with Andy Hall or Matt Keefe for that matter. We obliged them by pulling the list, but FW’s list is rubbish, not because it isn’t powerful enough, but precisely because it is TOO powerful. A fleet that could evolve this quickly in so short a time will be able to take on the Necrons in about another 2k years and win!

No, the solution is NOT to make the models more expensive- these are not Necrons! The solution set is to bring the stats congruent to what the fleet should have been: much better than the GW Tau but not yet as good as Imperials, with models that were slightly cheaper than or at most equal to Imperials as far as point cost was concerned. 60cm weapons should be absent. 45cm weapons should be rare and reserved for the battleship. There is NO WAY the Custodian with its enormous gaping maw and huge, prow-facing hangar bays should have a 6+ prow.  If anything, the deflector is the only thing keeping the prow from being 4+!

To be honest, the Warden and Castellan were made hopped up versions of the Orca and Defender on purpose, mainly for simplicity’s sake. If there’s a lot of flak in this regard, we can look into changing them, but we were trying very hard to avoid any prolonged playtesting, which would be required if we started tinkering with the profiles to any great degree. 

I wasn’t at GothiComp so I didn’t get the significance of what you said concerning the Demiurg. The Demiurg Citadel was created because if the Demiurg are going to exist as a pure fleet, they need a cheap ship that can be purchased for 185 points in order to fit into some of the more limited scenarios. Because nobody is ever going to make new models for the Demiurg in particular and BFG in general, we had to design a profile that fit the models that already exist.

Now for the good news: for the Kor’o’vesh fleet list, I don’t have a problem eliminating Protector restrictions. They’re passable cruisers but not overpowering enough to require a restriction, as long as they are NOT turned into super-Heros, which they shouldn’t be. I don’t have issues with tweaking other aspects of the fleet list as well. What else do you not like about it besides the fact that you hate it?

I don’t have an issue re-examining the Emissary. I want this to be neat, but NOT so neat it’s able to kill Space Marine strike cruisers!  For the Tau and this ship, I think 25cm speed is more realistic than 90deg turns, but I will have to bring that up with the other HA’s.

Smile, game on and enjoy!

-   Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on August 23, 2010, 04:56:37 AM
Hi,
ah, a setting for a cool discussion. :)

Do you really think the FW list is all that powerfull? In battles under 1000pts the list is pretty okay, but once you go over 1250pts the GW Tau fleet is much stronger! Yes, GW Tau won adepticon 2008-2009. If you want do something about strong things the GW list is to fix first.

The Protector as stands is a capable vessel, better then Lunar on attack (what you pay for +10pts) but less then the Hero. The Hero wins against both. So there logic fails, as said, background said weaker ship, stats make it better. Restrictions to size down problems is not a good solution. The Hero should drop weaponry all around.

The FW list isn't as over-powered as you say. I have won with them numerous times but I have also beaten them. They are on the fragile side. The Explorer is a better carrier then the FW Custodian. Now, this new Custodian by the HA is better then the Explorer for what it needs to do. Going from 2 to 3 shields, adding Tracking Systems. You give it 45cm Ion Cannon.
On the prow deflector: it are shields that are formed that way, not the hull. So a prow deflector could be mounted on any vessel. But, alas, with all improvements giving no deflector won't matter tbh because you just created a beast. ;)

I think, as it stands with powerfull, the FW list is fine. Not too strong, not to weak. A fleet like Imperial Navy & Chaos. Fine with me. It needs some finesse to play with.

The GW list, harder to learn, but in the end much better in larger battles. A list already capable of running down Necrons!

GothiComp = running paiting competition and one entry is called a Commerce Citadel vessel, first time I heard it and now it is in a list. Coincedence. Funny.


Playtesting : the FW list is used by everyone around and has seen many playtesting by now as far as I see. The main complain is that the Emissary is useless. Everyone screams 90* at least. It is a sitting duck and easy victory points to any opponent.
And the Emissary cannot kill a Marine cruiser as it stands, even with 90*. The whole fleet par Custodian should be 90* ;)

The fleet list: if you keep this list, which means, limited Protectors, everyones FW fleet will become a fail. Everyone has more Protectors then Emissaries and now this list means you need more Emissaries. You are urging players to spend money. I do not have that money for example. ;)
So that is a NEEDED fix.

cheers!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on August 23, 2010, 09:18:31 AM
Only a short replay fornow, i think ill come back later when i have more time (ave to got to work).

I cant see why the FW-Tau List should be that much overpowered... The Emissary is mostly useless, Costodian you only can have 1 in a meduim sized battle, therefore you can never bring more that 3 wardens. The only ships that were good are the castellan (even though quite expensive for 2 torpedos, nevertheless useful) and the protector (that for me cant stand his ground against many other cruisers with only 6 hitpoints).
Having less hitpoints (all capital ships) and in some cases shields (Custodian) is a HUGE disadvantage in the BFG system.

So i mixed the GW and FW fleets, what means to me that the FW fleet cant be so much better, why would i use GW models anyway if they were so bad?

In some games i even thought my pure GW-Fleets were stronger.

Btw a problem for all Tau fleets was: Yes they do have a lot of weapons but every singe ship needs to reload to make use of them thus you cant use lock on at all without losing other firepower.
The next problem ist, that Bombers are "pure luck weapons"...

Overall i had pretty even games with Tau, some i won some i lost. I didnt feel they wree too strong in some cases even felt they were weak due to some of the descibed problems (one early failed Leadership roll can be far more fatal than for other fleets).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on August 25, 2010, 07:01:08 AM
Hi,

made a run through of all vessels (of the pure Tau fleet, no allies) compared to the FW list (especially since you called it overpowered) :
(thus this list vs FW, when I say +20 that means this list is more then FW list).

Custodian
+20pts
- prow deflector
- 1 turret
+ 1 shield
+ better boarding
+ tracking systems
+ 15cm range on Ion Cannon
The extra shield compensates for the loss of prow deflector (only front arc and useless vs lances) and is better then the Prow deflector. The loss of the turret is compensated by tracking systems. Tracking systems make batteries by a good percentage better. Ion Cannon improved. Overall I think +20 is not enough for all the improvements.

Protector
- 5 points
+ better boarding
+ tracking systems
So quite a better ship now for less points!

Emissary
= 0 pts
+ better boarding
+ tracking systems
- 4 weapon batteries @ 30cm
+ 2 ion cannon @ 30cm
- prow deflector
Hm. when 2 lances = 6 batteries (rough count) then the ship gains +2wb, thus better. Taking Grav Hooks is cool. Thats a given. However, it still remains an easy target, especially with prow deflector gone. 130 for the taking!


Castellan
+ 5pts
- 2 weapon batteries
+ 1 ion cannon (= + 3 batteries)
I dislike ships like this with 1 wb. Useless. The Warden is the lance ship. Not the Castellan, it isn't even represented on the model. The ship got significant less attractive. Escorts are vulnerable, 55 is easy taking for enemies. less flexible fire arc means vulnerable prow on position.

Warden
= 0pts
+ 5cm speed
The fire arcs changed. Pity, liked the FW approach.

So:
Custodian = stronger
Protector = stronger
Emissary = stronger on attack, weaker on defence.
Castellan = weaker
Warden = slightly better
Heh, so this list is stronger per ship then FW list on average. :)

The fleet lists:
FW gave 1 Custodian per 750
No restrictions on Protector, Emissary & Castellan
3 Warden per Custodian
Nice & Clean. With straight forward allies/reserve rules.

HA fleet list: (pure kor'or'vesh)
Custodian = 1 per 3 cruisers + Kor'o required.
Protector = 1 per 2 other ships
Emissary, Castellan = unrestricted.
Wardens per grav hook (3 on Custodian and/or 2 on Emissary).
And just like the Armada Tau list the fleet is "fixed" in the fleet selection. That is just a pity.
You, see, if you keep your stats and apply FW fleet list this fleet will be very very strong!!! You are thus reasoning wrong way around.


so
I think FW list is fine. Restricting Protectors is bad. Most, like everyone, owns a lot of these vessels which would be rendered useless in your fleet list. This is the main stay ship like Lunars.
The FW list gives a good raider feel on an overall level with the Protector-Castellan core.

Yet, the FW list does not create an unique fleet. Just ammended Armada, just like your new Tau list. Nothing new. The Integrated Tracking Systems are cool but not enough to create an unique feel.

Compare FW & Armada ships. Entirely different. Use that.

Like Project Distant Darkness. Really, read it and check out. It works.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on August 28, 2010, 10:56:48 PM
Hi everyone! You may not believe so, but I am listening. Horizon, I have looked at the comparisons you provided, but I'm not entirely convinced the profiles need to be tweaked any further. The Protector was dropped in price for no really good reason so I bumped that back up. I did look at your Dark Horizons article, but the Protector there is even more powerful than this one, except that the Ion Cannon range is -15cm. Also, your use of a keel launch bay would have necessitated the need for a new critical chart or a "counts as" note, neither of which I thought was warranted. Alo, I know you are worried about what one ships are more powerful than the other, but as a whole the Forgeworld ships are intentionally more fragile than their Imperial counterparts. That being said, I did note some significant problems with our list, which I hope is somewhat addressed here. How is this for a proposed fleet list? I hve not yet brought this to the HA's so do NOT take this as gospel!


CAPITAL SHIPS

Battleships
Your fleet may include any number of Explorer battleships. If your fleet is worth more than 750 pts it must include at least one Explorer. Your fleet may ONLY include one Custodian per FULL 750 points of Tau vessels. In other words, if your fleet is equal to or more than 750 points, it may then include one Custodian, but it cannot include a second unless it already includes 1,500 points of Tau vessels, etc.

Custodian class starship . . . . . . . . . . 330 points 
Explorer class starship . . . . . . . . . . . 230 points

Cruisers
Your fleet may include any number of Merchant or Emissary class starships. It may also include up to one Hero or Protector class starship for every Merchant, Emissary, Explorer or Custodian in the fleet.

Protector class starship . . . . . . . . . . . 190 points
Hero class starship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 points
Emissary class starship . . . . . . . . . . .130 points
Merchant class starship   . . . . . . . . . .105 points

ESCORTS
Your fleet may include up to one Messenger class starship per 500 points.

Messenger class starship . . . . . . . . . . .50 points

Your fleet may include any number of Defender and/or Castellan class starships.

Castellan class starship . . . . . . . . . . . .55 points
Defender class starship . . . . . . . . . . . .45 points

You may not have more Orcas and Wardens than the gravitic hook capacity of the fleet. Much of the cost of these vessels is included in the value of the parent ship. 

Warden class gunship . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 points
Orca class gunship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 points
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on August 28, 2010, 11:36:18 PM
I have just had a small game using the draft list - I couldn't build a legal list as I don't have enough cruisers, so I had 2 Protectors, 2 Emissaries and 4 Wardens at 750 pts v a Dark Eldar fleet with 2 cruisers and 4 escorts (I think). I posted this on Warseer:

Well - that didn't go well. Emissaries each died to one concentrated shot from a DE cruiser despite being braced. At least one had the good sense to blow up and almost cripple the cruiser. It was good to have the option of taking grav-hooks and the Wardens did well, but the Emissaries are left so under-gunned that they are pointless. I missed the deflector and having Fire Warriors was also pointless as a 4 HP Cruiser isn't going to board anything.
Protectors did well enough, the change in fire arcs for the Ion Cannons is very useful, but are not overpowered at 185pts. I can see no point in restricting them. If I had followed the fleet list restrictions I would have had to taken Castellans and they would have died even quicker.
Tau ships are under gunned anyway, so the built in Tracking System was useful, but against DE I was only rolling 1 or 2 dice most of the time any way, but without it it could have been 0.

So I suppose my fleet was legal in the new list, but 10 points over.

A few thoughts from the game.

Emissaries - what are they supposed to do? I like the grav-hooks, but could they not drop the launch bays for them. Could you not drop the Fire Warriors and keep the deflector.

Protectors seem fine for the points, just not against Dark Eldar (or Eldar either) as they don't have enough rail guns to hurt them and they dodge everything else.

Wardens are fine.

Castellan - what is going on with the weapons? A bit of everything and not enough of any of them. Make it into a Hunter or just go for 2 Ion Cannons and make it a Cylon Raider :)

I don't have a Custodian, but it looks fine, if a bit undergunned for a battleship.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on August 29, 2010, 01:32:22 AM
@ flybywire-E2C

sry but i dont see what this channges help to do against the main problems they even make them more obvious. Its simply the same layout from GW list taken over to the FW ships.

Taking in a restriction for Protectors wont do any good. Both the Merchant and the Emissary are more or less dead points (who wants to play them if not for "fluff"?) as 4 Hitpoints on a Capital ship is simply nothing, even more with the one shield they have.

Like tinfish pointed out Castellans focus on no weapons but are one of the most expensive escots out there. And we all know that escorts are destroed quite easily. My way of using them would be to keep them out of trouble and use theri torpedoes, but i dont think the missile system boosts them so much to be worth having 2 torpedo ships for 55p. If they fly into the infight and try to use their other weapons i see them reloading their topedoes all the time not beeing able to get into good positions or get lock on because they cant use special orders then. (they remind me a bit on corsair eldars hellbores which seem pretty useless to me as for only 5 points you can have 2 escorts with the same weapons but far more survivability). So if you want lances you would go for orcas/wardens.

I dont think any but the heroes are overpowered ships in comparison to other fleets and still tau has one of the most restricted fleet lists, i dont really see why.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on August 29, 2010, 09:08:36 AM
Hi Nate,

first Project Distant Darkness : the phase iii Protector (thus not the special one). Has Forward fixed batteries only, lesser range on Ion Cannon, fewer missiles and less ordnance, More nimble (like model should), shootier then normal Tau but less ordnance. Hey an unique Tau fleet while still being Tau. :)
(Heck, the keel bay can be entered as dorsal if it fits the chart).


Your fleet list approach still invalidates my and other Tau list. Protectors unlimited. Really really.
It is also a mix list where GW ships are needed. So, that'll be off as well with all the sole FW Tau fleets out there.

Agreed on Castellan, like I pointed out before too expensive and daft weaponry. Make it an all battery escort.

And Emissary is, indeed, not worthwhile as a mainstay ship.


Tinfish? Custodian isn't undergunned persé. It has 8 batteries with no right shift and 2 Ion Cannon. Add in a lot of bombers & missiles, plus its still cheap-ish on the overall field of battleships for what it can do.
It is stronger then the FW version.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on August 29, 2010, 03:10:53 PM
Something has to be done about Emissaries before anyone would want to take them in any numbers. They are too light for the main battle line, have practically no weapons if they take grav-hooks and are far too slow. All of the CPF ships look sleek and fast, but aren't, I can't understand that at all.

The Emissary could maybe some sort of heavy escort/escort hunter, but it needs to be faster and more manoeuvrable (as Horizon said in his first reply). I wan't to take grav-hooks, but not at the expense of the ion cannon, if they stay like this I would rather have a 6 HP Merchant, at least it is more resilient in the second line and still has 6 RG batteries.
At 25cm & 90 deg turns it would operate more like the Dauntless. It would still be fragile, but at least it would have a use in the fleet. The option to loose launch bays for grav-hooks would also fit this role.

I still can't see why Protectors are being restricted like this. Even with the changes to the Emissaries I wouldn't want to take more than a couple of them.


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Harrypotter on August 29, 2010, 05:34:41 PM
OK, time for me to add my 2 pennies worth.

I freely admit I do not play Tau, but am right on the brink of pulling the trigger on a FW Fleet, although the pending / proposed rule changes are making me hesitate.

I'm (hopefully) wise enough / old enough to not want to see a killer fleet list, but equally I don't want to see things nerfed to such an extent that they'd be unplayable, the current proposals almost have that feel.

IMHO (and that of a few non forum using BFG Tau veterans that I've been discussing the proposals with) there is very little wrong with the FW fleet list, mainly because point for point you can achieve a more effective build using the GW list.

I have no problems with the relative fragility of the FW list as this (for me) is offset by it's offensive capability.

If it were me, and I were tasked with changing the FW list I would possibly consider something along the following lines:

Go with your limit of one Custodian per full 750 points as I agree these should be (fluff wise) relatively rare vessels and 2 in a 1500 point list feels wrong, but drop all the requirements for ethereals etc. if people want the re-rolls etc. they will take them. I'd also leave it's stats (and that of the Protectors) as per the FW list.

From a fluff point of view (and if you were determined to limit the numbers of Protectors) I'd be happy to see a limit of one Protector per Emmisary, but you'd first need to fix the Emmisary, it may have a place in the fluff but has no place in combat, it should get the h*ll out of there as it stands once the shooting starts (i.e. not appear in a fleet list), as others have observed, it has no role, like the much maligned Voss light cruisers it's to weak to sit in the battle line and too ponderous to go escort hunting - it either needs 6 hits or 2 shields to sit in a battle line (even in a secondary role) or needs to get a heck of a lot faster and more agile (speed boost and an increased turn rate) and maybe get Mantas to go hunting, if that's not feasible then the restrictions should be dropped.

All in all, IMHO the FW list could maybe withstand a tweak but doen't need the major rewrite that's being proposed, the kind of 'don't fix it if it aint broken' mentality.






Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Don Gusto on August 29, 2010, 11:01:52 PM
I'm postively surprised at the effort the HA is putting into this whole rules revision. :)

My major concern with the Tau Draft are the Integrated Tracking Systems.

In the original lists theres only 1 ship mounting a tracking system. For 50 pts the Messenger can provide a substantial advantage to the big ships but this is balanced by the fact that it is quite vulnerable itself and its lack of effective weaponry.
A true support ship. I find the concept tactically interesting.

But I've always frowned on the idea of having tracking systems on all the big ships (e.g. Project Distant Darkness and the Tau CPF Article).
Fluff-wise the argument seems to be that tracking systems are the pinnacle of current Tau-tech and each and everyone of the next generation of warships just has to get one. I don't really want to go into a fluff argument here but I disagree on this. By that logic every US navy carrier would have its own aegis air defense system but they don't.
Imho more important is balancing and gameplay. The advantages offered by tracking systems are easily worth two refits. That's +20% in points value and none of the ships in the draft go anywhere near that. It's also boring to have the tracking system on every ship with 45cm railguns and 3+ turrets. Essentially turns it into a race bonus.
There was some overall balancing in the fleet lists that maybe accounted for the added benefits of the Kor'or'vesh but you already made it less restrictive and I wouldn't go that way anyway.

Suggestion:
Give the Emissary the option of carrying a full tracking system and leave it at that. The Emissary seems to fill a somewhat similar role as the messenger and that would make it a lot more attractive without forcing it into every fleet list.

The Protector was dropped in price for no really good reason so I bumped that back up.
A friend of mine (my Tau friend ;D) pointed out to me, that the basic Cruiser Clash Scenario has an upper points limit of 185 for each cruiser. Maybe that was the reasoning for the 5pt reduction.

Custodian 3 shields, 4 turrets: Well a change that balances itself out but I would rather leave it specialized versus ordnance (2/5).

Demiurg Citadel, Kroot Warsphere and Nicassar Caravan: Very Nice :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on August 30, 2010, 06:30:16 AM
Basic cruiser scenario ; ey, that could be it. Doh.... lol


I think tracking systems is cool and conceptual within the line of a new Tau fleet. And yes, that means extra costs.

AND I WANT PORT MAW back since I made EXACT calculations on how much a TS costs per ship

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on August 30, 2010, 09:58:13 AM
We all want Port Maw back.

Another thing I noticed in this new list - You must take an Explorer if the fleet is over 750 pts, you may take a Custodian Blah, Blah...

This means that in a standard 1500 pt fleet, if I want a Custodian I need to spend 560 pts on Battleships, at least 60 pts on Commanders, so 620 pts leaving 880 pts for the rest of the fleet. I can hardly spam Protectors under these restrictions...

Surly it should be - If the fleet is larger than 750 pts you must take a Battleship. You can include any number of Explorers, but can only include 1 Custodian per full 750 pts - i.e. 1 if the fleet costs 751 - 1500 pts, 2 if it costs 1501 - 2250.

I can still only take 5 Protectors with these restrictions, but if the Emissary was more attractive I would take some of them and Escorts instead of one or two Protectors.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on August 30, 2010, 10:09:28 AM
On the Nicassar: I'd like to see modelling options or alternative models. Especially because of the fact the Nicassar Dhow is no longer being sold.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on August 31, 2010, 08:20:49 AM
 Much of what i'll say has already been said, but i shall add my voice to the mix :)

Overall, i'd like to see prow deflectors on everything but the warden. The prow deflector was meant to be used in FTL travel to help the ships dive into the warp. It just happens to give a combat bonus as well. So anything that can do extraplanetary travel ought to have one (i.e. everything ;) )


Custodian
Seems fine, would have to play test to comment fully on the cost.
(Prow Deflector)

Protector
Needs to be more nimble, 90* turn. Otherwise ok, though i would prefer a drop in ordinance for either a drop in cost or a boost in weaponary (drop to 1 LB 4 Torps for +1 port/starboard/prow Batteries ?)


Emissary
Not a ship of the line at all. Not even designed as one.
Too expensive, not nimble enough, way too fragile.
Give it a prow deflector too :)

Castellan
Jack of all trades, master of non,
Drop the ion cannons for weapons batteries and reduce the cost. 50 points was pushing it even before.
With a prow deflector its almost worth the 50
Maybe drop 1 torp (so that it is 4 WB, 1 Torp, Prow deflector) to help keep cost down.


Warden
I still want to see this as a 2 IC ship. It just looks cool and since it is quite restricted, it's not that bad as one!


Fleet list.
There's no need for the restrictions at all. Especially not forcing players to take an explorer (?!??!?!) and emissaries due to fluff reasons.

The CPF isn't meant to be a exploratory fleet but a battlefleet so no need to take an explorer.
The emissary is a diplomacy vessel, and so would not be seen in great numbers in any fleet, certainly shouldn't be outnumbering protectors, the mainline cruiser.
Protectors shouldn't be limited. They're not overly powerful and are meant to be the mainstay of the fleet, designed to replace the hero class.
Quote from: article
In subsequent decades, this vessel has been encountered in ever-increasing frequency, not only in defense of Tau home worlds but abroad outside of Tau-controlled space, operating in pairs while accompanying colonization fleets or as deep space patrols reminiscent of the operations common to the Imperial Navy.

How can it act as a deep space patrol if it has to be accompanied by a pair of diplomacy ships. ?
You should be able to build a patrol fleet ... 750ish with protectors and castellans.

If you really want to limit protectors, then go for 1 protector per 2 castellans or something similar.

To be honest. The fleet list smacks a fair bit off "You must buy GW ships if you want to play a FW fleet." Plenty of people have just the CPF fleet with no GW Tau ships and this fleet list pretty much eliminates them all.



As to the comment about playtesting, you have a wealth of play testers here at TacComms, we've been play testing epic lists for several years and have come up with several balanced and unique lists :) Use us to help with the play testing, allowing you to vary the weapons load outs more :D :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on August 31, 2010, 08:52:08 AM
Hi Kivarn,

Quote
Protector
Needs to be more nimble, 90* turn. Otherwise ok, though i would prefer a drop in ordinance for either a drop in cost or a boost in weaponary (drop to 1 LB 4 Torps for +1 port/starboard/prow Batteries ?)
Heh, here is the Project Distant Darkness variant:
points: 190
hits: 6
speed: 20cm
turns 90*
shields 2
turrets 3
armour 6+/5+

Prow Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Port Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Starboard Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Port Ion Cannon - 30cm - str.1 - L / F
Starboard Ion Cannon - 30cm - str.1 - R / F
Dorsal Launch Bay - manta 20cm/barra 25cm - str.1 - NA
Prow Missiles - 20-40cm - str.4 - F

Prow Deflector + Integrated Tracking Systems

Quote
Castellan
Jack of all trades, master of non,
Drop the ion cannons for weapons batteries and reduce the cost. 50 points was pushing it even before.
With a prow deflector its almost worth the 50
Maybe drop 1 torp (so that it is 4 WB, 1 Torp, Prow deflector) to help keep cost down.


Warden
I still want to see this as a 2 IC ship. It just looks cool and since it is quite restricted, it's not that bad as one!
Funny enough your ideas are as shown in the Tau CPF fan list by Xisor/Shinnentai.


Agreed on the fleet list and all.
Especially on the Protector Hunting Squadrons.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on August 31, 2010, 08:57:38 AM
I like the DD protector, though a 5 point reduction might be necessary for the cruiser clash scenario ;)

I've historically used the Xisor/Shinnentai list which is where my views on the Castellan came from :).

And i've wanted the Warden as 2 IC from the very start.. it just reminds me of the defiant :D

I'd be happy with the Castellan as 2IC, 1/2 Torp, PD but i think it'd be a bit too strong at 50 points! (and too fragile for anything more!)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on August 31, 2010, 10:53:06 AM
Kiv i dont think you will see an escort with 2 ICs in any fleet.

Castellen for me always was the escort with the Missiles for Tau. For 2 Missiles 50p was already expensive but 55 is simply too much. So my point of view would be to make it a 3T/Missile Ship for 50p with any amount of Batteries that could be included in the costs. Or to make it a 2Missile 2Battery 45p.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on September 01, 2010, 12:21:52 AM
The Defender has 3 WB, 2 Torps for 45pts.

The Castellan needs to be different, especially in a combined fleet list. IC & WB rather than Torps? More of a Firestorm equivalent.

It could do with a bit more speed as well, Wardens move 25, so it would be nice if the Castellan did - it would separate them from the GW ships as well.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 01, 2010, 02:16:31 AM
I'm postively surprised at the effort the HA is putting into this whole rules revision. :)

My major concern with the Tau Draft are the Integrated Tracking Systems.

In the original lists theres only 1 ship mounting a tracking system. For 50 pts the Messenger can provide a substantial advantage to the big ships but this is balanced by the fact that it is quite vulnerable itself and its lack of effective weaponry.
A true support ship. I find the concept tactically interesting.

But I've always frowned on the idea of having tracking systems on all the big ships (e.g. Project Distant Darkness and the Tau CPF Article).
Fluff-wise the argument seems to be that tracking systems are the pinnacle of current Tau-tech and each and everyone of the next generation of warships just has to get one. I don't really want to go into a fluff argument here but I disagree on this. By that logic every US navy carrier would have its own aegis air defense system but they don't.
Imho more important is balancing and gameplay. The advantages offered by tracking systems are easily worth two refits. That's +20% in points value and none of the ships in the draft go anywhere near that. It's also boring to have the tracking system on every ship with 45cm railguns and 3+ turrets. Essentially turns it into a race bonus.
There was some overall balancing in the fleet lists that maybe accounted for the added benefits of the Kor'or'vesh but you already made it less restrictive and I wouldn't go that way anyway.

Suggestion:
Give the Emissary the option of carrying a full tracking system and leave it at that. The Emissary seems to fill a somewhat similar role as the messenger and that would make it a lot more attractive without forcing it into every fleet list.

I like this Emissary suggestion a lot, but this will cause some “back to the drawing board” issues so give the HA’s a few days to digest this. Incidentally, the FW capital ships tracking system mechanic was not designed to be used by anything but the host vessel. Only the Messenger (still!) has the ability to extend that effect beyond itself.


The Protector was dropped in price for no really good reason so I bumped that back up.
A friend of mine (my Tau friend ;D) pointed out to me, that the basic Cruiser Clash Scenario has an upper points limit of 185 for each cruiser. Maybe that was the reasoning for the 5pt reduction.

Custodian 3 shields, 4 turrets: Well a change that balances itself out but I would rather leave it specialized versus ordnance (2/5). [/quote]

The intent was to create a more balanced and effective true battleship as opposed to the Explorer, which is a very highly (almost exclusively!) specialized attack craft carrier.

Quote
Demiurg Citadel, Kroot Warsphere and Nicassar Caravan: Very Nice :)

I’m glad you like the Xenos inputs. The Kroot really needed a better profile for that ENORMOUS model while still affording the opportunity to have a 145-point “Tau Rok” for people who wanted one. The Demiurg Citadel was created so that the Demiurg could have a cheap “Cruiser Clash” cruiser in a pure Demiurg fleet. Oh, and the Protector is back to 185 points for the same reason.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 01, 2010, 02:19:28 AM
The Defender has 3 WB, 2 Torps for 45pts.

The Castellan needs to be different, especially in a combined fleet list. IC & WB rather than Torps? More of a Firestorm equivalent.

It could do with a bit more speed as well, Wardens move 25, so it would be nice if the Castellan did - it would separate them from the GW ships as well.

Based on feedback, we're hashing about having the Castellan drop the Ion Cannon for 45cm L/F/R WB's. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 01, 2010, 02:43:27 AM

Protector
Heh, here is the Project Distant Darkness variant:
points: 190
hits: 6
speed: 20cm
turns 90*
shields 2
turrets 3
armour 6+/5+

Prow Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Port Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Starboard Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Port Ion Cannon - 30cm - str.1 - L / F
Starboard Ion Cannon - 30cm - str.1 - R / F
Dorsal Launch Bay - manta 20cm/barra 25cm - str.1 - NA
Prow Missiles - 20-40cm - str.4 - F

Prow Deflector + Integrated Tracking Systems

Warden
I still want to see this as a 2 IC ship. It just looks cool and since it is quite restricted, it's not that bad as one!
Funny enough your ideas are as shown in the Tau CPF fan list by Xisor/Shinnentai.

[/quote]


I made a few snips above, but otherwise, here’s the part where Ray and I make Horizon happy! It’s not exactly Horizon’s version, but this is a proposal for an alternate Protector variant that can be used as often as other Protectors for the same 185 point cost. Thoughts?

TYPE /HITS   SPEED   TURNS   SHIELDS   ARMOR   TURRETS
Cruiser/6                20cm   45°   2   5+   3
ARMANENT                RANGE   FIREPOWER/STRENGTH   FIRE ARC
Port Railgun Battery   45cm   4                            Left/ Front
Starboard Railgun Battery   45cm   4                            Right/ Front
Prow Railgun Battery   45cm   4                            Front
Port Ion Cannon                30cm   1                            Front
Starboard Ion Cannon   30cm   1                            Front
Prow Launch Bays                Mantas: 20cm
                                       Barracudas: 25cm   2               N/A
Prow Gravitic Launcher   Speed: 20-40cm   4              Front


As for the Warden, a 2-IC ship with nothing else sounds and looks cool but would be complete junk against Eldar. What’s wrong with making the Warden a faster Orca, or maybe even a Tau Cobra?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 01, 2010, 04:19:33 AM
I miss the turn rate on the Protector, but it is a step in the right direction (if it is an unrestricted ship ofcourse ;) ).

Castellan Project Distant Darkness = 25cm speed. 2 missiles. 2 weapon batteries @ 45cm. So yeah, I'll support 45cm batteries on them.


Wardens with 2 Ion Cannon: as much as I love the concept there is a flaw in it. And it has nothing to do with Eldar (I mean, the Cobra is useless against Necrons it still exists).
If the Emissary brings 2, the Custodian 3. You can have 5 Wardens. 5x30=150points.
These 150 points will be equipped with 10 lances! Get it? 10 lances for 150pts. That's insane.

So, I like the FW variant with lfr Ion Cannon and f weapon batteries. Slightly different but still a pure gunship within the Tau fleet.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 01, 2010, 05:44:38 AM
I miss the turn rate on the Protector, but it is a step in the right direction (if it is an unrestricted ship ofcourse ;) ).

Castellan Project Distant Darkness = 25cm speed. 2 missiles. 2 weapon batteries @ 45cm. So yeah, I'll support 45cm batteries on them.


Wardens with 2 Ion Cannon: as much as I love the concept there is a flaw in it. And it has nothing to do with Eldar (I mean, the Cobra is useless against Necrons it still exists).
If the Emissary brings 2, the Custodian 3. You can have 5 Wardens. 5x30=150points.
These 150 points will be equipped with 10 lances! Get it? 10 lances for 150pts. That's insane.

So, I like the FW variant with lfr Ion Cannon and f weapon batteries. Slightly different but still a pure gunship within the Tau fleet.

I'm glad you like the Castellan, and I don't think the FW Warden will be a hard sell.

Horizon, how’s this for a compromise: 2 Protectors for 500 points. That’s tantamount to saying,” for one escort squadron, I get 2 Protectors!” It’s not unrestricted, but it’s pretty generous.

I'm sorry, but we're never going to buy off on unrestricted Protectors. They are so much better for the price than the other models, that's all people will play with. More importantly, a fleet of just Protectors isn’t fluff-true. I know many gamers couldn’t give a snot about the fluff, but as HA’s we’re tasked with keeping a fine balance between the storyline, game balance and fairness. There are a hundred reasons why someone could justify a fleet of just Protectors using specific scenarios or particular battles, but as a whole it wouldn’t be fluff-true for the Tau race, and it wouldn’t be balanced when compared to how the Tau fleet was designed to behave.

- Nate

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 01, 2010, 06:49:01 AM
Huh? What? ;)

You read Kivarn's excerpt from your document? That Protector's are hunting in pairs.

I will agree with you that the FW fleet should be a raider fleet.

On the 2 Protectors per 500pts = 380 pts from 500pts = 120pts = 2 Castellans.
What in the common 750 setting? 1 per 250?
2 per 500 means 6 per 1500.
I have 3 per 1500, most common is 4 per 1500 so the restriction will work I think.

NOTE: I am in favour of making escorts a MUST take in every fleet (par CWE fleets not defending Craftworlds). :)

If you read all my things (pdd, starblade, ke) you'll know I am a fan of fluff-true. :)


On how Tau fleet was designed to behave? Go back to Armada and erase everything regarding Tau. That is a really bad designed fleet.

Hero = much better then Lunar (and Protector!) but same cost. Should be weaker ship.
Explorer= cheap carrier spam
Merchant = useless

This is thé 1500pts tournament fleet:
3x Explorer
2x Hero
9x Orca
3x Defender

But I am intrigued: how is the Tau fleet designed to behave? And what is fluff true?

A different note:
Why not replace Manta's with Tigershark (figher?)bombers.
Then make Manta's buyable in the fleet list. mini-escort. 4+ armour, attacks as a bomber. Interaction like standard ordnance (gunnery table etc). 5pts per Manta - restricted per nr. of launch bays in fleet.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Harrypotter on September 01, 2010, 07:43:10 AM
But while it's in work, is somebody going to 'fix' the Emissary?

As it stands it's a waste of a beautiful model :)

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 01, 2010, 07:58:14 AM
Like this:
Emissary
points 130
hits 4
turrets 2
shields 1
armour 6+/5+
speed 25cm
turns 90*

Prow Railguns - 45cm - str.2 - F
Port Railguns - 45cm - str.2 - F
Starboard Railguns - 45cm - str.2 - F
dorsal launch bay - barracuda 25cm - str.1 - n/a
Prow missiles - 20-40cm - str.3. - F

prow deflector, integrated tracking systems.
may swap port/starboard railguns for grav hooks (-> wardens).

Thus a diplomacy vessel which can actually outrun raiders & pirates. Plus some decent defences vs raids.
20cm & 45* nowhere reflects a diplomacy vessel in hostile territory.


Oh Nate,  ;)
I did look at your Dark Horizons article, but the Protector there is even more powerful than this one, except that the Ion Cannon range is -15cm. Also, your use of a keel launch bay would have necessitated the need for a new critical chart or a "counts as" note, neither of which I thought was warranted.
You clearly did not read the Project Distant Darkness link I posted here:  :)
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/ddarkness.html

Phase II Protector (one of a kind) and phase III Protector (mainstay) in that article do not have keel launch bays (both dorsal). You are referring to the old PDD pdf from the SG site. Phase II is an update of that ship.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Harrypotter on September 01, 2010, 08:07:03 AM
Yeah, that's more like it, I'd even pay a few more points and have 2 shields to offset the low hull rating.

If the ship became workable I (personally) wouldn't mind (too much) a fleet restriction along the lines of 'for every Emissary in the fleet you may take up to 2 Protectors'. As in if diplomacy fails we have a pair of bigs sticks ready to beat you with :)

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 01, 2010, 08:24:11 AM
But then the raider fleet is no longer possible, like the fluff says. ;)

Taros Campaign was all about Castellans & Protectors harassing the Imperial Navy.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Harrypotter on September 01, 2010, 09:22:48 AM
I think I was more thinking out loud about how to reconcile the fact that we'd like no fleet restriction with the HA's determination to impose one.

You could pretty much argue a mild Emissary restriction fluff wise if you needed to, but then you'd be straying away from 'established' canon.

I think what's most important is that whatever gets pushed through isn't left feeling broken, useless and unworkable because then we'd have a fleet that nobody would play in a game system that will not be seeing any new 'legal' races (for the foreseeable future - fingers crossed and all). But again this is me thinking (allegedly) out aloud again :D
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on September 01, 2010, 09:25:28 AM
Arg! too much to reply too!

I'm pretty happy with the defender going to 45cm batteries, it gives it a single purpose then and is a bit different from other escorts too :)

With the protector i'm in the same boat as Horizon, it's a step in the right direction, but 90* turns would really add to the ship. It is pretty much a upgunned dauntless afterall.

Quote
As for the Warden, a 2-IC ship with nothing else sounds and looks cool but would be complete junk against Eldar. What’s wrong with making the Warden a faster Orca, or maybe even a Tau Cobra?
Does it have to be good against every other fleet? The Gothic class cruiser is pretty rubbish against eldar.. do we need to change that too? [/devil's advocate]
It's a bit unique and powerful, but not overly so due to restrictions

If you do take 5, then you must also take neutered emissary to be allowed to take them. Yes you are getting 10 lances for 150. But you are also getting a 2Wb 1 LB 3Torp Cruiser for 130 (using horizon's example)

Which gives us... 10 lances 2 Wb, 1 Lb, 3 Torps for 280. I can get 7 Lances 14 weapons batteries for the same price in an IN fleet (which is approx 10 lances 5 WB.. not that far off really!). Still don't see it being a massive problem, however play testing is the way to find out :) (as i'm aware that you could just spam emissaries and wardens... see later about restricting emissaries...) What about if they had 4+ armour??

Restricting the protectors to 2/500 (1/250) is fine by me... That's pretty much not a restriction anyway. My 750 fleet is 2-3 protectors and custodians to make up (usually 2 Protectors 8 Castellans), And one of My 1500 is similarly built, 1Custodian, 2 Protectors, 1 Emissary, 5 Wardens, Castellans for the rest. (I play very fluffily)

From your background/fluff point of view however the ships that should be restricted are the diplomacy vessels. I don't see a vast number of those being used in fleet engagements, nor would there be much point in having more than 1 or 2 in a fleet. I've already commented on the hunting pairs of protectors. I completely agree with you that you shouldn't have fleets of only protectors... but similarly, you shouldn't have fleets of only cruisers and battleships for the IN,.. Chaos... etc. Escorts should be a must in every fleet, and more common than cruisers to boot! :D



Just a side note... The 4 cruiser class scenario would be 2 Protectors, 2 Emissaries with a limit on protectors. Is this compatible with your fluff/gameplay/fairness measuring? Would 1 Protector per 250 or part there of be a better answer? Would allow for 3 Protectors, 1 Emissary in the Cruiser Clash.. Bit more fluffy etc
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on September 01, 2010, 10:30:34 AM
45 cm ion cannons on the castellan seem a bit much and would really define tau with their tracking system as the anti eldar fleet
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 01, 2010, 11:07:49 AM
45cm railgun batteries, not Ion Cannon.

With the overall speed mediocre, and absolutely pathethic broadside they are still easy pie with Eldar.
The Armada fleet is better vs Eldar with all the individual bombers zipping around.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on September 01, 2010, 11:48:29 AM
There is still the "You most take an Explorer if the fleet is over 750 pts" problem - can't build a pure FW fleet. As I asked before, can it be changed to 'You must take a Battleship' with the other restrictions for them.

Protector looks fine.

Castellan looks a lot better. It would be nice if it was fast enough to catch other escorts.

Emissary - How about going the build your own route, like a lot of Eldar ships?

Like this:

Emissary
points ?
hits 4
turrets 2
shields 1
armour 6+/5+
speed 25cm
turns 90*
prow deflector, integrated tracking systems.

Prow Railguns - 45cm - str.4 - F (is L/F/R too powerful?)

May take 2 of the following:

2 Grav Hooks

(One option)
Port Ion Cannon - 45cm - st.1 - L/F
Starboard Ion Cannon - 45cm - st.1 - R/F

dorsal launch bay - barracuda 25cm - str.2 - n/a

Prow torpedoes - 20-40cm - str.3. - F

Mix and match works for other fleets - variable costs stop you having to design a 130 pt ship.


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on September 01, 2010, 01:19:09 PM
45cm railgun batteries, not Ion Cannon.

With the overall speed mediocre, and absolutely pathethic broadside they are still easy pie with Eldar.
The Armada fleet is better vs Eldar with all the individual bombers zipping around.

Meant 45 cm battery rather than 45 cm ion cannon lances
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 01, 2010, 02:42:01 PM
Emissary:
I think as being an advanced new technology fleet, the emissary indeed could get 2 shields (still having, 4 hull) i think thats about the only thing that would make this ship interesting for me. Having 130 points in 4 hull and 1 shield is just like thowing it away. Its only 3 dmg and the ship is crippled, there is almost no way to protect it...
Find a weapon combination that works with 2 shields and 90* turn (and or 25cm) thats what i think the emissary should be... you were working on the weapons but the fail for the emissary is beeing a capital ship with very low defensive abilities.

Castellan:
2wb (45cm) and 2 torp, seems ok for 50p?

Protector:
The "problem" for me with the 500 per 2 protectors is as horizon pointed out you must have escorts then, and most of the other fleets are allowed cruiser only fleets.
But after all it seems ok nevertheless. In addition i would support horizons opinion that all fleets should have to take escorts, as it simply adds to the gameplay when playing with escorts. But many fleets out there are just better without escorts as escorts are easy to destroy in comparison to the spent points. (i think assault boats instantly destroying escorts is one of the main problems).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Harrypotter on September 01, 2010, 03:14:29 PM
Giving the Emissary 2 shields would work well, and make it different and interesting.

Weapons wise I'd make it an escort hunter - Maybe 2 or 3 30cm IC's (or 1 L/F and 1 R/F IC) and a 30cm LFR Str4 WB (sort of Dauntlessesque).

I'd also give it a fighter capacity of 2 squadrons and no missiles and keep 2 turrets, this should allow it to survive against a moderate ordnance attack.

Basically (with 25cm speed and 90* turns) it should (with exceptions) be able to outrun anything it can't outgun if it needs to.

Is that about right for 130pts?

I'd certainly play them in my fleet like that, even if they cost a little more than 130 pts.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Don Gusto on September 01, 2010, 04:38:18 PM
... Incidentally, the FW capital ships tracking system mechanic was not designed to be used by anything but the host vessel. ...
I'm well aware of that. The point I was trying to get across is that this is not much of a limitation when it is mounted on every capital ship.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 01, 2010, 08:48:41 PM
I like tracking systems = improvement, :)

HarryPotter,
an Emissary with 2 shields, 2 turrets, 2 ion cannon 4 weapon batteries, 2 fighters with that speed and turns is overpowered for 130pts. It'll blast all equivalents out of the sky.
I am no fan of 2 shields to be honest.

The Emissary should not have Ion Cannons. These are not modelled on the ship.

I still like my proposal to the vessel.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on September 01, 2010, 09:44:17 PM
I like tracking systems = improvement, :)
The Emissary should not have Ion Cannons. These are not modelled on the ship.

I still like my proposal to the vessel.
Agreed :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 01, 2010, 10:47:17 PM
@horizon

why not 2 shield? (as i said the weapons should be made fair for a certain price than)
I dont see many variants of this ship that would make it worth its points with only 4hull and 1shield. As pointed out before, it is a capital ship and will get dmg rather easy. Even 6hull ships are pretty easy to destroy but with 4 it simply has no survivability. Who wants to sent points in something that if lucky will be on the field for 2 rounds... (in avarage) as any enemy will know it is an easy target.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Harrypotter on September 01, 2010, 10:59:32 PM
I like horizons stats, what I scribbled (on reflection) is waaaaaaay too powerful, but I really
 think it needs the 2 shields just to give it any measure of survivability.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 03, 2010, 06:41:00 AM
Hi Caine

2 shields plus 4 hits
can be more survivable then
1 shield plus 6 hits

If I score 4 hits boths ships are crippled!

If I score 3 hits Emissary has 3 hits left, Dauntless 4.
sub: If I score 2 hits Emissary has shields down, 3 hits left, Dauntless loses hitpoint -> crippled

So the Emissary will only suffer more under very heavy barrage, eg lots of dice.
With pod shots the Emissary will last a lot longer.



Hi Nate,

back on restricting the Protector, the core warship. I am not denouncing the imposed restriction 1 per 250 ;) but you should consider the following:

in the Imperial Navy it is possible to create a fleet of only Lunars. Or only Gothics. Or only Dictators. You said fluff/background was important to you in this Tau list. Not wanting all out Protector fleets. However an all out Lunar fleet is just as offensive against the background.

The Imperial Navy is a widely spread machine. Small border patrols (eg Lunar with some escorts) or deep space exploration (eg lone Oberon). Battlegroups are hastily formed. Thus almost impossible to get a 1500pts fleet with 8 Lunars. However the fleet list still makes this possible.

Same applies to Chaos of course. Being Chaos I'd say same types of ships are rather restricted. eg 2 times the same per 1500.

And Orks, you know Deadshane won Adepticon twice in a row with an Ork fleet. How? By taking a core of 4 Terror Kroozers and NO escorts. unfluffy but effective (ordnance is Ork key to victory). Our Ork opponent goes by same 3 Terror core but adds escorts just because.
So for Orks also a stretch to get 3 times the same ship in a fleet.

So what I am saying is that this restriction you propose is more desperately needed in other fleets!!! As background dictates. :)

A sole Protector fleet is actually better possible then a sole Lunar fleet.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 03, 2010, 01:44:48 PM
@horizon

I know it can last longer with 2 shields, i would be happy with 6 hull as well but this wont happen as the protactor has 6. It is more expensive than a dauntless then but it costs 130 point not 110. And again the quiestion would the mass of tau players really use this ship having 1shield 4 structure? It will be the same dead fleet enrty as before no matter if you slightly increase the weapon power.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on September 03, 2010, 11:12:16 PM
At least if it has grav-hooks it can bring Wardens. If it has the firepower to destroy enemy escorts to allow Wardens/Castellan's to attack it may be some use.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Harrypotter on September 04, 2010, 10:09:43 AM
2 shields does give added survivability most of the time, but as mentioned it is a little more expensive than a Dauntless, equally it would be fair to say that with 4 HP's it's more vulnerable to ordnance (although with 2 turrets and a fighter squadron is better able to defend itself against said ordnance).

If we took Horizons suggestion as the base model for the Emissary then taking the wardens would result in 190 points for 2 wardens and a ship that is roughly 2-4 escorts worth in terms of capability, In my (not very carefully thought out) opinion that may render it a choice not worth taking.

Giving it 2 shields would kinda tip the balance back towards it being a choice I'd be more inclined to take (and if you kept the wb's with the tracking system it would be quite meaty against eldar :D).

I also like the 2 shields from a fluffy practical sense, as a diplomacy vessel I'd expect the emphasis to be on survivability rather than offensive capability (that's what I'd bring in the Protectors etc. for).

For me, Horizons stats with 2 shields feels kinda right.

Better post this now before the battery dies :-s
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 04, 2010, 07:37:24 PM
No Tau ship needs to worry about enemy ordnance, not even Castellans or other Tau escorts. Enemy fleets will have to worry about Tau ordnance first.

Dunno, for me the 2nd shield isn't needed with my stats. If it would get a 2nd shield I would increase points to 140.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 04, 2010, 07:53:07 PM
I would rather play it with 140 points and 2 shields than for 130 and 1 shield.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Harrypotter on September 04, 2010, 07:59:24 PM
I'd not mind a points increase to make it a ship I'd actually choose to take.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on September 06, 2010, 02:03:07 PM
I will probably manage a 1000 - 1500 pt game this weekend. Which incarnation of the Emissary should I try?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 06, 2010, 07:02:12 PM
Dunno. Ray didn't reply.

But if we get positive feedback on our ideas it might be persuasive. :)

Thus variant I proposed and perhaps a 2nd shield for 140pts.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Harrypotter on September 06, 2010, 07:16:50 PM
I'd be interested in seeing how that would perform in a game.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on September 06, 2010, 09:48:37 PM
I have a 1500 pt game set up - probably Necrons :( as he hasn't had a chance to try a Tomb ship yet. On the bright side it may be Marines...

I am happy to try any Emissary - they can't do worse than the last game.

<edit>

Is it this one with 2 shields?

Emissary
points 130
hits 4
turrets 2
shields 1
armour 6+/5+
speed 25cm
turns 90*

Prow Railguns - 45cm - str.2 - F
Port Railguns - 45cm - str.2 - F
Starboard Railguns - 45cm - str.2 - F
dorsal launch bay - barracuda 25cm - str.1 - n/a
Prow missiles - 20-40cm - str.3. - F

prow deflector, integrated tracking systems.
may swap port/starboard railguns for grav hooks (-> wardens).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on September 10, 2010, 10:12:50 AM
Just checking what I'm trying out tomorrow.

Castellan - 2RB @ 45cm
             - 2 Grav Launchers

Protector - 12 RB @ 45 cm (on several mounts)
              - 2 IC @ 30 cm
              - launch bays & Grav Launchers
 
Horizon - your Emissary has pretty weak weapons. The original FW one has 8 RB's, the draft one 4 RB + 2 IC. Speed and manoeuvrability are good, but I don't see it shooting down many escorts. I will give it a go and see what happens.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 10, 2010, 10:27:28 AM
Castellan : cool (which speed?)
Protector: I guess the Nate variant with 45* turns?

Emissary [Distant Darkness]
Yes, as said it is the design philosophy. 6 railguns might not shoot down many escorts (though it is not impossible when getting 2-4 dice.
Keep in mind it has tracking systems. Thus above 30cm 6 railguns are almost on par with 8 non-tracked railguns. Under 30cm 8 will have the edge.
The Nate/draft variant also loses above 30cm but gains impressive under 30cm (1 lance/ion equals 3 railguns/batteries) as it has an equivalent of 10 weapon batteries
in the front arc assisted by fighters and missiles.
(A Dauntles can either bring down 9 wb in the front or 4 to the side. Endeavours can do a 8 strong broadside @30cm).

So the Darkness variant is faster, turns better and has an edge in long range gunnery. Perfect for diplomacy & trade. I do not see it as an (escort) hunter.are
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on September 10, 2010, 01:26:22 PM
Definitely fighting Necrons - with a Tomb ship, so only 3 cruisers to worry about.

If I use your Emissary then the Castellan will have to move 25cm to keep up.

I was planning on the latest Protector a few pages back. It has double the firepower of the draft version, so it is on par with most other cruisers.

I understand what you are saying about the DD Emissary - with 2 shields it may survive longer, but it might not hurt much. If I am lucky he will shoot at it and leave the escorts alone.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on September 12, 2010, 12:34:00 AM
I took:

Custodian,
4 Protectors,
Emissary,
2 Castellans,
3 Wardens &
Kor'O.
I couldn't afford the second shield on the Emissary.

Necrons

Tomb ship
2 Scythe
Shroud
2 squadrons of escorts

Highlights - 2 squadroned Protectors hulked a Scythe in one round of shooting - they are now vicious to the front. They spent the rest of the game being chased around by the Tomb ship with one eventually being destroyed, the other crippled.
Another locked on Protector crippled a Scythe (despite it being braced).

Lowlight - most of the escorts died in one round of shooting. Ordinance and Necrons don't mix.

The extra speed and manoeuvrability of the Emissary was good, but I think it caused one point of damage the whole game (counting those saved) I would prefer the draft one with 25cm speed and 90 turns, + 1 shield optional. It survived the game unharmed, but afterwards he said that it wasn't worth shooting at, so he ignored it.

Protectors are powerful to the front, but the broadsides are pretty weak to make up for it. As soon as the Necrons got past me I had a lot of trouble doing any damage. 90 degree turns or 25cm speed would be nice, but I doubt we will get that on a sub 200 pt ship - and I wouldn't want to spend more on a 6 HP ship.

Didn't get a chance to try the Castellans as they died too quickly - heroically saving the Protectors from the Tomb ships attention for one round.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 12, 2010, 07:47:19 PM
Heya,
to be honest that game had one problem: The Tombship is considered by many a heavily broken (overpowered ) ship.

The cool thing about not shooting at the Emissary is that it free to roam. It still a 130pts things. And missiles can be vicious, the barracuda good at removing cap... (although vs Necrons useless).

The Protector with 20cm and 90* is Distant Darkness phase 3. Fix all weaponry front and it works.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on September 13, 2010, 07:31:56 PM
Nix the whole Citidel crap, and keep the bastion rules and you should be OK.

What part of "you don't have the authority to make new ships in an official document" don't you people understand?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 13, 2010, 07:54:07 PM
@Zelnik
Who else but the official holders of the rules for a game should have the authority in your opinion?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 13, 2010, 07:55:25 PM
Zelnik, please understand the HA makes and made all rules!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 14, 2010, 03:14:44 AM
The Tau Commerce Protection Fleet had some misspellings and other minor errors corrected concerning the Emissary and the Demiurg cutting beam. The files are updated and stored in the same place here:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1&hl=en

By the way, just in case there's some confusion, the Citadel doesn't replace the Bastion, it is a new addition. The purpose was to create a cheap Demiurg cruiser that can be used in scenarios with cruiser point restrictions, a necessity when creating a "pure" fleet list. Game on, have fun and enjoy!

Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on September 14, 2010, 03:52:27 AM
yeah yeah i conceded the point

However there is NO reason to add the citidel, the bastion is already in the game, and fulfills the same role.  I am not sure the change to the cutting beam is necessary either. Yes it is absurdly short range, yes it is only useful in specific situations, but it's still a potent weapon when used properly.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 16, 2010, 10:21:46 AM
Can you please clarify the functionality of a Nicassar Caravan?
"A Nicassar Caravan in motion has its Rig and Dhows as a single entity that does not separate during the course of a battle" ???
So would i play the 5cm moving thing with the addition of 4 Dhow`s Weapon? Or how is that meant?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Don Gusto on September 16, 2010, 11:18:56 AM
I think the 'Nicassar Caravan' for 220 points represents a rig with four docked dhows. The weapon batteries are from the dhows as the rig doesn't have any. It's Rig+4dhows in one compact package.
Maybe the 'Gravitic Hook' entry is misleading here and should be removed.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 16, 2010, 11:29:19 AM
So 8 WB for 220 points that hardly cant get anywhere on the battlefield?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 16, 2010, 12:00:10 PM
Something has to compensate for the overpowered Protector & Custodian.  ::)


I am a bit worried by the lack of replies in this thread by Nate and/or perhaps Ray.  Or am I just to impatient?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 16, 2010, 12:20:54 PM
I dont think that the Custodian is too overpowered, it is good yes but first af all in most games you can only have one and second it still has 3shields and 10hits and is a jack of all trades, what has his advantages but in some cases lacks raw firepower (e.g. to the broadsides or when failing the reload, compared with other BBs). So i think the Custodian is ok.

BTW the Protector still has the same problem, if it failes reload or uses lock on (not beeing able to reload) it lacks half of its firepower. As you only have such ships in a Tau fleet some of them will fail their reloads...
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 16, 2010, 12:48:35 PM
Quote
I dont think that the Custodian is too overpowered, it is good yes but first af all in most games you can only have one and second it still has 3shields and 10hits and is a jack of all trades, what has his advantages but in some cases lacks raw firepower (e.g. to the broadsides or when failing the reload, compared with other BBs). So i think the Custodian is ok.
As said I tested the Forgeworld fleet a lot and it is balanced.

This new Custodian is +20pts for (values roughly on smotherman as a basic:
Drops Prow Deflector (-15pts)
+1 shield (+10pts)
+ 15cm on Ion cannons (+15pts)
+ 2 missiles (+10pts)
Tracking Systems is turret re-roll, say 1-2 extra (+5pts)
Tracking Systems is no right shift above 30cm = +4 batteries above 30 (+10pts)
-15 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 5 + 10 = + 30 pts.
310 + 30 = 345.

Personally I think the prow deflector is weaker then an extra shield. An extra shield is a huge improvement. Much less need to brace vs fleets with lances.
6 missiles + 8 bays is much better synergy then 4 missiles and 8 bays.
45cm Ion cannons to assist tracked batteries is excellent.
At 45cm the ship now has an equivalent of 12 wb => 16 wb + 6 (2x3ic) = 22 batteries.

365 Emperor = 16wb broadside + 8 bays
345 Retribution = 21 wb broadside + 9 torps
300 Desolator = 18 wb broadside + 9 torps
330 New Draft Custodian = 22 wb broadside + 6 missiles + 8 bays
310 FW Custodian = 18 wb broadside + 4 missiles + 8 bays (shorter ranged ions)
335 Oberon = 22 wb broadside + 4 bays
etc

See?

Also, most players use 1 Custodian in 1500pts, not 2 so to them not being able to take 2 isn't a problem. Though getting exact 1500 pts is possible.

Quote
BTW the Protector still has the same problem, if it failes reload or uses lock on (not beeing able to reload) it lacks half of its firepower. As you only have such ships in a Tau fleet some of them will fail their reloads...
Compared to the balanced FW Protector the new one = -5pts for:
Left/Right arcs added to 45cm Ion Cannon
Tracking Systems (extra turret)
Tracking System + 2 wb above 30cm

If you now tell me that a kor'o and aun and point restriction is needed for a Protector to balance the ship I will eat this thread ;). A ship needs to be balanced, not afterwards in the fleet list (aka the Hero mistake).

You must not compare to other fleets, you must compare to the FW fleet.

This new Tau fleet excells at gunnery & ordnance. Previously is was average at gunnery and excells at ordnance.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 16, 2010, 01:16:44 PM
I just wanted to keep in mind that those tau ships have their disadvatages as well.

- The custodian with the added shield can still take a lot less dmg than a BB with 12hits and shields. The tracking systems for the turrets wont do a lot as it is simply stupid (in most cases) to attack battleships with 4or5 turrets with ordnance.
- The weapons ARE strong but only to the front, most times battleships arent agile enough to chose their positioning.


Dont get me wrong, i dont say it is weak, but it is only one ship (most of the time) and has its weaknesses in comparison to other battleships as well.

I completely agree that a ship has to be balanced not only the fleet list correcting the ships. But after all the complete array of ships and style of playing decides how strong a fleet is. I just wanted to remind that tau still only have standart leaderships but almost every single ship needs to reload ordnance to have his full potential.

And overall i already said several times that from the FW list perspective the small ships (most of all the emissary) shouldve been reviewed not the custodian (though i like that the battleship got at least a 3rd shield) and protector they were ok.

And i too have the fear of beeing overheared here in some aspects. To say something positive in that direction, i really like the castellan and that all of these updates are even happening ;-) Now lets make them good.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 16, 2010, 02:02:24 PM
Agreed on the last remark ;)

To stir a little I posted a link to these threads at the Yahoo group.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on September 16, 2010, 02:34:26 PM
Quote
The custodian with the added shield can still take a lot less dmg than a BB with 12hits and shields. The tracking systems for the turrets wont do a lot as it is simply stupid (in most cases) to attack battleships with 4or5 turrets with ordnance.
- The weapons ARE strong but only to the front, most times battleships arent agile enough to chose their positioning.

For all intents and purposes the custodian is a grand cruiser that can't CTNH and way more turrets and weapons. Having fairly extensive experience with the Vengeance class, I can say that the statline is still fairly difficult to take down. I disagree with the tracking system. While it might stupid to attack battleships with bombers given their high turrets, it's still worthwhile to use torpedoes and this greatly increases the tau capabilities against even regular sized cruiser salvos. Beyond that, there is absolutely no trade off for using the tracking system. If you are insistent on them having it on all capital ships for whatever reason, at least make the column shift only happen for ships locked on and the turret rerolls only for ships that are braced. That at least forces some tougher decisions about what to do rather than the current shoot the crap out of them and then bomb the target into submission.

Also, for all intents and purposes the agility of BB is irrelevant. I can count on my hands the number of times CTNH has been needed and good positioning at the start of the game lets them keep a fairly large swath of the table in the forward arc as they move. 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 16, 2010, 05:56:19 PM
Making the tracking systems different advantages only active when having special orders would be even more special rules.

Imagine mixing it with a Messenger Escort... enemies of the tau fleet who dont know them that well will be completely lost when they can use their tracking systems and what part of the tracking system is active at a certain time...

I cant remember what ur favorite fleet was at the moment but i guess it has some advatages of its own who arent only ative at special orders. (btw im not a tau fanboy, i play tau, eldar, imp, admech, sm and soon tyranids as well so i really like to have balanced fleets) How often in a fleet engagement can you shoot exactly at the range of 30-45cm? Of corse tracking systems are usefull but other fleets have even longer ranges or other boni.



Your last point with the agility has its disadvanteges as well. Yes you can try to position your battleship to only move slowly and keep closing in but first of all that keeps your toughest ship out of the battle and second this taktic is far easier to use with a ship that has a strong braodside (as u simply move sidewards instead of closing at least 7,5-10cm each round). With "only" 45 cm range how often can u move slowly towards the enemy until you come into their range? (maybe two or maximum 3 turns, so how could you keep them in your front arc for a long time?)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 16, 2010, 06:46:39 PM
Vaaish plays Imperial Navy mostly.

Caine, which fleets have longer range?
Chaos = longest ranges allround.
The Marines are equal only on their barge. (Marines will suffer badly vs this Tau fleet).
Imperial Navy = some ranged weapons on their battlecruisers. More on the battleships. Tau missiles & ordnance outshine Imperial Navy ordnance.
Eldar short ranged
Necrons short ranged
Nids some range on Hiveships.

I can keep my enemy pretty long in the front arc, especially if they stay abeam.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on September 16, 2010, 07:01:51 PM
Quote
Making the tracking systems different advantages only active when having special orders would be even more special rules.

why so? it's still a single special rule with two parts both of which are easily explained and simple to understand(LO=no shift over 30cm, BFI=reroll turrets). In any event, I don't think there is anything fluff wise to justify it as a fleet wide passive bonus in the Tau naval forces. I'd be fine with the tracking rule as it is now IF it was granted by the messenger alone as it is in the Armada list.

Quote
I cant remember what ur favorite fleet was at the moment but i guess it has some advatages of its own who arent only ative at special orders.
It's called the Imperial Navy... we don't get special rules to give us advantages.

Quote
How often in a fleet engagement can you shoot exactly at the range of 30-45cm? Of corse tracking systems are usefull but other fleets have even longer ranges or other boni.
Depends on several factors, but it's not uncommon. If we are talking about other fleets having longer range or shooting bonuses as justification, I'd like to see a fleet wide increase on the IN shooting capabilities as this is now acceptable reasoning for Tau to receive it when such changes aren't needed for their fleet to be balanced.

Quote
Your last point with the agility has its disadvanteges as well. Yes you can try to position your battleship to only move slowly and keep closing in but first of all that keeps your toughest ship out of the battle and second this taktic is far easier to use with a ship that has a strong braodside (as u simply move sidewards instead of closing at least 7,5-10cm each round). With "only" 45 cm range how often can u move slowly towards the enemy until you come into their range? (maybe two or maximum 3 turns, so how could you keep them in your front arc for a long time?)

I never said anything about the movement speed, although, with the launch bay capabilities and gravetic launchers of the Custodian, there isn't much reason to move fast to close. Let your ordnance do the heavy hitting while the fleet creeps forward and then use your boosted shooting to lock on and decimate the wounded fleet. My point was that the custodian is a grand cruiser whose only disadvantage is the no CTNH order which rarely comes into play because smart positioning at the onset of the battle will give you the flexibility to keep enemy vessels in the forward arc without resorting to special orders to bring weapons on target.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 16, 2010, 07:22:57 PM
"why so? it's still a single special rule with two parts both of which are easily explained and simple to understand(LO=no shift over 30cm, BFI=reroll turrets). In any event, I don't think there is anything fluff wise to justify it as a fleet wide passive bonus in the Tau naval forces. I'd be fine with the tracking rule as it is now IF it was granted by the messenger alone as it is in the Armada list."

On their own all rules are easy to explain.


"It's called the Imperial Navy... we don't get special rules to give us advantages."

So nova cannons are no special equipment/rules? Btw. i think except in large engagements imperial ships are on the weaker side, so dont get me wrong and of course some fleets are rather standard, imps is one of them.
Btw. i only wanted to say that tau have disadvantages an advantages not only advantages.

@ranges

Ok it might be that i had chaos ranges in mind, at least for cruisers. On battleships 45cm is standard or several ships even have 60cm.


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on September 16, 2010, 07:37:11 PM
Quote
So nova cannons are no special equipment/rules?

Special weapons and special rules are two separate beasts. We are discussing fleet wide special rules, which the IN has none. The NC is limited in availability and capability; furthermore it is expensive to add outside of the Dominator. [The NC] falls into a realm completely outside of the scope of the current discussion, [the tracking system doesn't] because it affects the performance of the entire fleet with little, if anything, sacrificed.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 16, 2010, 08:03:09 PM
Caine,
yes Tau have advantages & disadvantages.

My biggest gripe with this fleet is that the advantages are kept, a disadvantage is gone ((boarding) plus all turrets means it is a no-go to board them..)), a reasonable aspect of them is increased a lot (more range on Custodian, Protector variants to synery gunnery maxing, plus tracking systems).

It is only + + +, no - - -

If the FW fleet was weak then okay, but the fleet is as everyone supports: balanced.
To add to the confusion it was Nate who stated that the FW fleet was overpowered!
So, I am flabbergasted to be honest.

And I hate fleet list fixes regarding balance.

/edit
I am not opposed to tracking systems on the Tau but this should incorporate:
No Ion Cannon @ 45cm
Railguns only front arc (45cm allowed)
Boarding weakness kept
Fewer ordnance (less bays on Custodian & Protector).

See, that's adding tracking systems and keeping balance. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Shinnentai on September 16, 2010, 09:52:24 PM
Ooh, didn't realise that SG forums had found a new home - and the Tau rules wrestled away from those well meaning dullards at Forgeworld! Hurrah! Also good to see some things never change even after 4 years - Blackhorizon still pushing the whole 'sleek models = fast and maneuverable' line ;D

Lessee - comments on the proposed list. You'll forgive me if I use a lot of comparison to the list I helped make (henceforth referred to as the 2006 list), but while it was very much design by committee (and so a bit of a hodgepodge of compromises) I think it did manage to get some interesting concepts in.

Custodian - One of the concepts I really liked in the 2006 list was the command and control element of this ship in the form of it's umbrella of tracking systems - I think it really fit with the model (that big disc-like section just screams fleet-coordination to me), was a very Tau-like concept and elevated the Custodian from being just a big carrier (boring!).

Warden - Ah my favourite little ship! Well needless to say I'm sticking to my guns and going with the 2006 list's ubercool twin ion-cannon on fixed mounts. I would however, include a special rule stating that the Ion cannon require a successful reload ordnance to fire again (ignoring doubles), the intention being that such small craft simply don't have the power to charge the Ion Cannons as swiftly as larger vessels. I think this really fits in well with the Tau military thinking too, with players encouraged to consider where that first powerful full strength ion cannon volley from their Warden sqns will have the most impact, knowing that any follow-up strike next turn will have to do without lock-on at best (not to mention the inevitable casualties!).

Emissary - Great to see the grav-hook option! Limiting Wardens to Custodians in all-FW fleets would be pretty foolish. Definitely a tough ship to get right this one though, when you try to pack in the Tau's typically diverse weapons systems into such a small ship they end up looking individually weak for their points. That plus light cruisers are always tough to justify compared to regular cruisers which are obviously should be better suited to the battle-lines. I think the 2006 list's Emissary was overpowered for its points and a little too tough with the 2nd shield.

The proposed Emissary is getting there although I'd still drop a launch bay to keep points down - vital given its fragility (yeah there's two on the model but they're pretty small!!!). I still say yes to 45° turns - Tau have their multiple fire-arcs so making it too easy to turn takes away some of the challenge in playing Tau. (lols you know there's been too much BFG forum discussion when you still remember the alt-numpad shortcut for the degrees sign 4 years later). Keeping the points down is another reason I think the Custodian Tracking Systems of the 2006 list work so well : it allows you to keep the points in the big Custodians while stripping as much as possible so the fragile Emissaries are better balanced. Plus the Emissaries sticking close to the Custodians while Protectors are assigned a prowling hunter-killer role is a fairly cool image.

Orbital City - Cmon give it grav-hooks! Wardens and Orcas make great little planetary defense ships.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 17, 2010, 04:04:25 AM
Oh noes! Shinnentai!

LET THE ... discussion arise. ;)

Yes, I am still pushing the manoeuvrable fleet and seen this thread some people (more then expected) agree with me.

Have you read Project Distant Darkness (not the fanatic online article but the full fleet list)?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/ddarkness.html

Why did you leave out the Protector?

Also, I think it was in one of the latest Xisor threads at the former SG site that you two started to change some things to 'your' cpf list?
iirc, increasing Custodian point values (oh yeah, in comparision to this new draft Tau your Custodian was cooler with its 6 launch bays).
Protector changing from Ion Cannon boat to Railgun vessel.

On the Emissary? wait... you need to download the new draft Tau list the HA made, here:
http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/forum/index.php?topic=1730.0
an update to the list mentioned in this thread. With 2 Protector variants, 3 Emissary variants....

Also 45* with swinging arcs (your Emissary comment) yeah but since the Railgun mounts are fixed forward on all vessels they should be Front only and thus warranting a 90* turn. I still deny Emissaries with 45*. ;)

Welcome back!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on September 21, 2010, 05:02:31 PM
Okay, I am clarifying this now.  Is this proposed rules to officially replace the forgeworld BFG rules?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 21, 2010, 07:34:07 PM
lol, yes.

Less we pray GW just forgets about BFG... oh wait.. foot shot.

No really, if these Tau rules become official.... I fear the most for the upcoming Craftworld Eldar update.


Problem is that the Forgeworld rules are not downloadable at the Forgeworld site, but they are here:

http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/
issue 75
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 22, 2010, 04:04:16 AM


Orbital City - Cmon give it grav-hooks! Wardens and Orcas make great little planetary defense ships.

Ray and I both wanted the Orbital City to be the Tau's version of the Space Station on p.145 of the rulebook. Even +2HP, tracking systems and an extra shield didn't seem to make up for what we took away compared to the Imp station for the same cost. Grav hooks are cheap- a lot of the of the cost is in the extra models that are paid for separately. Two hooks for no price change seems quite doable.

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 22, 2010, 07:15:52 AM
Space Stations are rather poor anyway. I would start from scratch with all of them.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on September 22, 2010, 10:14:36 PM
Space stations in general should have higher weapon ranges than ships. They are easy to evade (except in a invasion). I wonder who would buil such space stations as they are weaker than having mobile ships in almost any cases.

An exception to this is the GW-Tau-Modules as you can give them a lot of shields and turrets saving them from attacks that dont focus on them. (Still having low range and simply can be avoided)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on September 23, 2010, 03:17:04 AM
lol, yes.

Less we pray GW just forgets about BFG... oh wait.. foot shot.

No really, if these Tau rules become official.... I fear the most for the upcoming Craftworld Eldar update.


Problem is that the Forgeworld rules are not downloadable at the Forgeworld site, but they are here:

http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/
issue 75

Right now there is no plan to update the Craftworld Eldar. We are concentrating our efforts on what GW didn't codify before handing the game off to the HA's. This way everyone will have reasonably balanced rules for every model that's out there. We were looking to codify some of the Bakka models and other ships that made it in the BFG magazine while we were at it, if the opportunity or interest presents itself.

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on September 23, 2010, 04:16:00 AM
All right... I think I know what you are doing.  But every model out there? I do not think I am such a fan of making every model ever appeared in a magazine official. Bakka wasn't made official back in the days for a reason.

Can you give examples on which models your aiming at?

So far we have different ideas about balance though. ;)

And since the Forgeworld Tau do have balanced rules there will be no need to update them. Right? ;)
And as far as I know there is only a couple (I encountered two, one being in the original article, around the global forums) of Seditio Op... out there. Does it really need official rules?

With all the FAQ2010 changes to the CWE I think a pdf update would be easy though.

But then.... what is this....?
I'd rather update the CWE pdf's ;)

We're working on that as well. If you happen to have a self-printed copy of the BFG living rulebook, you will be happy to know the final copy of the FAQ will be in landscape format with lots of BFG-themed graphics and backgrounds (GW artwork, not fan-made).

Good times!

- Nate
:)

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 07, 2010, 10:24:29 AM
Is the " Final " draft of the tau rules actually the Final version? as the discussion of this fleet seems to have stalled somewhat...

There were a few issues that hadn't been settled, one being the slightly obscure necessity for the Aun on the Custodian, (though i can kinda see this from a background POV)

Another being the 2/500points limitation for protectors, this seems to be an unnecessary and cumbersome rule. As it only truely affects a 1000 point fleet (as you'll almost certainly be taking a custodian or more above that) (i made a full choice comparison of this in a different thread...)

The wording of the limitations of the custodian is also somewhat confusing as the rule and the example seem to imply slightly different things.
Similarly as Horizon pointed out it is still very easy to get 2 custodians in a 1500 point fleet which is something Nate disliked about the forgeworld rules.
Would a 1 per 1500 points or part there of rule not suit the custodians better?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 07, 2010, 01:01:17 PM
1 Custodien per full 1000pts, or part of.

I agree on the above post by Kivarn and am still very concerned the fleet is overpowered (Protector, Custodian).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 08, 2010, 01:43:30 AM
1 Custodien per full 1000pts, or part of.

I agree on the above post by Kivarn and am still very concerned the fleet is overpowered (Protector, Custodian).

I have given this some thought. How about we take away tracking systems from all ships except the Custodian, make the Custodian's tracking system behave like a Messenger starship, then otherwise leave the Protectors as-is for points but raise the Custodian's cost a notch?

I personally don't want to revisit the ship profiles anymore. We have burned several weekends and other days playtesting those things to get them tweaked just right against Imperials, Chaos and Orks both before and again after the forum tore our original draft to shreds. They are priced and outfitted well, regardless of what the slide-rules might say. I do find tracking systems a bit of a kick up, but I would rather remove them from Protectors than raise their price.

Wardens are absolutely not getting 2x30 ion cannon. I don't have any idea how Forgeworld even invented this profile. Well, actually I do, but that's beyond the scope of this post. When the Tau were first being developed and the Games Workshop models weren't even out of the design stage yet, we tested 2x30 ion cannons for the Orca. They were complete and absolute junk against Eldar, and the points they soaked up made the Tau the Eldar's punching bag. On the other hand, it was absolutely ridiculous what they did to Necrons. Anything cheap that turns a fleet into junk against one opponent and poison against another is broken. (Funny side note- because there were no models yet, I used my Space Marines fleet to simulate the Tau. Yes, I know- blasphemy!!)   ;D

Horizon, I know you hate it, but Emissaries are NOT EVER going to get 90deg turns. They are NOT Tau Dauntlesses. In fluff and our background notes, they were the first of the new Kor'or'vesh designs and are thus less polished than the later Protectors. Even with their evolved tech, Tau are STILL supposed to not be as good as Imperials. Their weapons fit makes them seem like they are, but their weapons are prow heavy, which means they are closing on Imps and Chaos to be effective, while Imps and Chaos are crossing their T to shoot back at them. In actual gameplay, the Tau need all that prow firepower just to stand up to the beating they get against Imps and Chaos.

It has come up in several e-mails that the Warsphere should not be allowed more than 16HP max. I'm thinking the same thing, but I haven't run that by Bob yet.

I know a lot of people feel like we're just force-feeding rules to the fans. I promise the opposite is true- we made a LOT of changes based on feedback from the forum (gravitic hooks on the Orbital City was particularly well-received). It's just that we put a LOT of effort into making this right while keeping to the designer's intent and true to fluff, and juggling all that is never easy. I want the fans to be happy, but we aren't scrapping this to start from scratch because some people want the Kor'or'vesh to represent something the designers never intended, regardless of how fun it is to play, etc.

I know we don't agree on everything, but I still want to hear your comments, complaints, etc.

- Nate


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 08, 2010, 01:56:55 AM
I like the upgrade options posted for the warsphere thus
And I agree with much of what you said that is why I am looking for "downgrade" options for 4-6hp spheres

It makes sense, but one of the guiding principles we were given was "no new ship designs that can't be modeled right out the box." That gives us the green light for things like the Titan from the Nemesis Fleet from Warp Rift, but the red light for things like the Govenor grand cruiser that has a profile that can't be anything but scratch-built.

A downgraded Warsphere makes complete fluff sense. Heck, Ray in particular wants a downgraded Warsphere so bad, he can taste it! He and I tried to get GW to sell a model using the current kit but leaving out the outer ring shell, but there was no way for them to do it economically without making a new mold, which was out of the question. Because there's no kit for it, it HAS to be scratchbuilt, and we can't make legal a model that only experienced model builders can make.

"What about Roks and Space Hulks!" Yes, I know these are official models that can only be scratchbuilt. However, in all honestly my daughter can grab a pebble off the street, smear glue on it, drop it in my bitz bin, pull it out and call it a Rok. A Warsphere is nowhere near that simple to make and you know it!    :D   Nonetheless, I will bring it up with the HA's. I know Ray will like the idea a lot.

I am re-posting this in the Tau thread.

- Nate

 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on October 08, 2010, 03:30:55 AM
why would you need a new model?
sell the sphere as is and let the players build down and up as they want

i suspect that there will be customized models soon enough

like the endeavor model doesn't really exist per GW but there are still rules
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 08, 2010, 04:32:14 AM
I kind of like the idea of the custodian having the targeting system and having it operate like the messenger. That alone makes me feel better about the other stats but I'll need to do more thinking on it.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 08, 2010, 04:36:23 AM
1 Custodien per full 1000pts, or part of.

I agree on the above post by Kivarn and am still very concerned the fleet is overpowered (Protector, Custodian).

I have given this some thought. How about we take away tracking systems from all ships except the Custodian, make the Custodian's tracking system behave like a Messenger starship, then otherwise leave the Protectors as-is for points but raise the Custodian's cost a notch?
Not opposed.

Quote
I personally don't want to revisit the ship profiles anymore. We have burned several weekends and other days playtesting those things to get them tweaked just right against Imperials, Chaos and Orks both before and again after the forum tore our original draft to shreds. They are priced and outfitted well, regardless of what the slide-rules might say. I do find tracking systems a bit of a kick up, but I would rather remove them from Protectors than raise their price.
So you ignore the wish for a fast turning, fixed forward firing (mainly) unique fleet using how the models look like? ;)

Quote
Wardens are absolutely not getting 2x30 ion cannon. I don't have any idea how Forgeworld even invented this profile. Well, actually I do, but that's beyond the scope of this post. When the Tau were first being developed and the Games Workshop models weren't even out of the design stage yet, we tested 2x30 ion cannons for the Orca. They were complete and absolute junk against Eldar, and the points they soaked up made the Tau the Eldar's punching bag. On the other hand, it was absolutely ridiculous what they did to Necrons. Anything cheap that turns a fleet into junk against one opponent and poison against another is broken. (Funny side note- because there were no models yet, I used my Space Marines fleet to simulate the Tau. Yes, I know- blasphemy!!)   ;D
First the 2 Ion Cannon Warden is not from Forgeworld. Fanmade design (even I find iffy ;) , go figure, lol).
Secondly the problem in your playtest was noy the 2IC Warden but the rule system for Eldar. Necrons fear batteries (psychology) as much as lances.

Quote
Horizon, I know you hate it, but Emissaries are NOT EVER going to get 90deg turns. They are NOT Tau Dauntlesses. In fluff and our background notes, they were the first of the new Kor'or'vesh designs and are thus less polished than the later Protectors.
Not only me. Look, the ship is smaller then the Dauntless. It has big engines, it has a wing design that even in low orbit it can turn on a dime. Background dictates it is maneouvrable. Background dictates it can run away. Background says it MUST be 90* and 25cm.
As long as the ship stays at 45* it'll be relegated to a gimmick vessel someone takes if he wants to show of a cool model, not for effectivity.
I will continue this crusade, shupported by everyone in this forum (I hope). ;)

The Dauntless tonnage is much higher then the Emissary. The Dauntless is nearly cruiser sized, the Emissary more of an escort.


Quote
Even with their evolved tech, Tau are STILL supposed to not be as good as Imperials. Their weapons fit makes them seem like they are, but their weapons are prow heavy, which means they are closing on Imps and Chaos to be effective, while Imps and Chaos are crossing their T to shoot back at them. In actual gameplay, the Tau need all that prow firepower just to stand up to the beating they get against Imps and Chaos.
Then tell me Nate, from Armada:
* Tau have the best carrier force. A cheap battleship, 230pts, that launches 8 resilient bombers. No Imperial Ship can match that. Yes 1:1, but in a fleet duel...
* Tau have better missiles. Faster and Turnable.
* The Tau have the Hero that in a 1:1 duel beats a Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, Murder, Carnage etc. The fleet limit is just bad rule design to fix this problem.
The Hero costs the same as a Lunar but has much better weaponry. With this ship background and stats go completely false.

As it stands the GW Tau Armada fleet is better then the Imperial Navy by a longshot. Only weakship is the Merchant but it can be avoided to be taken. The only thing Tau might fear is Nova Cannon spam.

Check this, Adepticon winner, twice:
3x Explorer (iirc one was the torp variant, not sure), 2x Hero, 9xOrca, 3xDefender, command.

At warseer a lenghty discussion was applied on what fleet the IN should take in such a tournament setting and both be able to deal with such a Tau fleet, roaming Eldar (non-powergamed as it seemed) and some Chaos. Conclusion was that almost no Imperial Fleet would be able to deal with above Tau list and at the same time have a good day vs Eldar or Chaos for example.

The Prow on weaponry comes only late as the ordnance does the job. And even then : Fighting prow on is much easier then abeam for beginning players.

Short Story: Armada Tau is better then the Imperial Navy.  shocker!

This Tau draft will do the same I fear. Certainly as it loses two "weaker" points compared to Armada:
* shooting
* boarding
Both are filled now.

I would rather see the FW Tau fleet as a gunnery fleet overall being light on attack craft (but not so on missiles). Agressive first strike fleet with horrible broadside (unlike draft Tau). Custodian with 4 launch bays, 8 missiles (as per High Admirality original design, yes yes).

Quote
I know a lot of people feel like we're just force-feeding rules to the fans. I promise the opposite is true- we made a LOT of changes based on feedback from the forum (gravitic hooks on the Orbital City was particularly well-received). It's just that we put a LOT of effort into making this right while keeping to the designer's intent and true to fluff, and juggling all that is never easy. I want the fans to be happy, but we aren't scrapping this to start from scratch because some people want the Kor'or'vesh to represent something the designers never intended, regardless of how fun it is to play, etc.
So you deny fun and balance to stay in the designer's favour so to say. One could ask themselves if the designers weren't wrong. That might be the case. Designers are never 100% correct. Some even not reaching 10%. ;)

Quote
I know we don't agree on everything, but I still want to hear your comments, complaints, etc.

Complaints (with tracking system to Custodian):
* The Aun is still needed on a Protector or is that a typo?
* Aun on Custodian, iffy, not needed.
* As Kivarn pointed out the Protector restriction is a gimmick not doing anything useful
* The 12str battery Protector variant still is better then the 'normal' variant, surely when in companion with Custodian. I advocate a lowering to 8 or max 10 batteries.
* The Railgun Stubs on all models are Fixed Forward, how can I explain to someone they are swivelling?
* I am not opposed to tracking systems on Protectors if the firepower is reduced on the str.12 battery variant to 8. The normal variant has no issues as mighty.

As said, per latest draft the Warden & Castellan are approved of.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 08, 2010, 05:01:08 AM
So you think, Horizon, that GW Tau are too powerful?  Correct me if im wrong, but Tau shouldn't be able to stand up ship to ship to Imperials, but make up for it with good and cheap ordnance.  Isnt that what is accomplished?
Will the new fleet list reflect the flavor of Tau better?  IIRC, its been awhile, but I came away from reading the FW Tau thinking 'They are trying to Imperialize them'
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 08, 2010, 05:10:37 AM
The Hero eats Imperial Navy cruisers for breakfast 1:1

A Hero + Explorer (410pts) will eat enemy battleships for dinner.

The above Tau fleet will eat enemy fleets as a desert.

GW Tau are too powerful because the way Gothic plays ordnance can be a key factor, especially en masses. GW Tau are too powerful because the 'weak' ship does not need to be taken. Even better to add Demiurg then.

Cheap ordnance is one thing, cheap ordnance being better then their expensive equivalents is not.

The Manta should not be ship/bomber it is now.

I would replace this by Tigershark Bombers (20cm normal bomber).

quick mindmelt
The Manta should be a selection in the fleet list: 5pts per Manta.
Following ordnance rules and all but having a 4+ save vs everything.
Acts as a resilient bomber otherwise.

The FW Tau are indeed Imperialized if you say so. But isn't that just how it should happen? In the Litesh war the Tau got a surround beating by the Imperial Navy, so obvious, when building new ships you learn from that. Use your own strong points etc but adapt things useable from the main enemy. Thus...

But the FW Tau are more GW Tau then the FW Tau are Imperial.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 08, 2010, 06:41:07 AM
Quote
In actual gameplay, the Tau need all that prow firepower just to stand up to the beating they get against Imps and Chaos.

This is nice in theory, but the inbuilt Deflectors or cheap options to take them makes the Tau just as hard to damage as the imperials or chaos sitting abeam. Combined with the all forward weapons and extended ranges and advanced ordnance options, this makes it much more probable that tau will be the ones doing the beating rather than taking it. This is especially true when you consider that their imperial adversaries will have little to retaliate with since Imperial ships heavy rely on 30cm weapons.

After thinking it through more, I think the Custodian is alright. Maybe slightly underpriced at 330 (ok, so the actual cost is 360 which is 5 points under the Emperor). It seems interesting with the proposed changes to the tracking system and the deflector makes sense on it and are probably paid for by the reduced rage and weapons strength compared to the empy. Restrictions probably won't come into play since most fleets only take a single BB in 1500 points anyway.

The Protector feels too good for the points. It brings a ton into the battle and the only trade off is it has 6 hits and front arcs for most of it. It has more firepower than a Tyrant or a dominator if you take the variant, can still drop two mantas, and has better defenses than either. Perhaps make the deflector a paid option rather than standard?

I would agree with Horizon on the emissary getting 90 degree turns... BUT I would also reduce the variants of this that you have listed and only allow the improved turns on a variant that cannot take wardens and can't take the deflector (Ok, so I think the emissary shouldn't have the deflector option period because it's too small).

I think things get much dicier with the added armada ships too so that could throw things. Why not just let them come in under reserve rules instead?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 08, 2010, 06:51:46 AM
Hi,

Reserve rules? The FW Taufleet option worked nicely. None confusing. Real reserve rules would be odd for one fleet within one race.

Prow Deflector,
so funny. Some people think all vessels should have it, including Castellans.

Prow Deflectors are a special technique of layering shields to the prow. Making for better warp dives as well. This shield technique, thus, has nothing to do with the size of ships.

One could argue that this option is only available to ships with at least 2 shields. 1 shield cannot be layered.

The Protector should have a prow deflector per standard.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 08, 2010, 09:02:47 AM
I have given this some thought. How about we take away tracking systems from all ships except the Custodian, make the Custodian's tracking system behave like a Messenger starship, then otherwise leave the Protectors as-is for points but raise the Custodian's cost a notch?
I wouldn't be averse to it, though as Horizon has said i think i'd leave the neutered version on the protector as well.

Quote
Wardens are absolutely not getting 2x30 ion cannon. I don't have any idea how Forgeworld even invented this profile. Well, actually I do, but that's beyond the scope of this post. When the Tau were first being developed and the Games Workshop models weren't even out of the design stage yet, we tested 2x30 ion cannons for the Orca. They were complete and absolute junk against Eldar, and the points they soaked up made the Tau the Eldar's punching bag. On the other hand, it was absolutely ridiculous what they did to Necrons. Anything cheap that turns a fleet into junk against one opponent and poison against another is broken. (Funny side note- because there were no models yet, I used my Space Marines fleet to simulate the Tau. Yes, I know- blasphemy!!)   ;D
I think it's just me wanting these ^ ^ and that's mainly from a would be so cool point of view  :D. As they currently are i think they're fine. I have no problems in either them of the castellans. They both are perfect :)

Quote
Horizon, I know you hate it, but Emissaries are NOT EVER going to get 90deg turns. They are NOT Tau Dauntlesses. In fluff and our background notes, they were the first of the new Kor'or'vesh designs and are thus less polished than the later Protectors. Even with their evolved tech, Tau are STILL supposed to not be as good as Imperials. Their weapons fit makes them seem like they are, but their weapons are prow heavy, which means they are closing on Imps and Chaos to be effective, while Imps and Chaos are crossing their T to shoot back at them. In actual gameplay, the Tau need all that prow firepower just to stand up to the beating they get against Imps and Chaos.
If you are loath to changing the stats on the Emissary to give 90* can you change the background in that case to say that it doesn't have the manoeuvrability to escape from pirates and they regularly are destroyed by them and random escorts ;)

As long as the ship stays at 45* it'll be relegated to a gimmick vessel someone takes if he wants to show of a cool model, not for effectivity.
It's long been relegated to heavy transport for me... I'd rather take a few more escorts if i have the left over points
Quote
I will continue this crusade, shupported by everyone in this forum (I hope). ;)
Yep ;)

It has come up in several e-mails that the Warsphere should not be allowed more than 16HP max. I'm thinking the same thing, but I haven't run that by Bob yet.

He and I tried to get GW to sell a model using the current kit but leaving out the outer ring shell, but there was no way for them to do it economically without making a new mold, which was out of the question. Because there's no kit for it, it HAS to be scratchbuilt, and we can't make legal a model that only experienced model builders can make.
You could always make a bigger warsphere using the left over centre sections to bolster the size ;)

Quote
I know a lot of people feel like we're just force-feeding rules to the fans. I promise the opposite is true- we made a LOT of changes based on feedback from the forum (gravitic hooks on the Orbital City was particularly well-received). It's just that we put a LOT of effort into making this right while keeping to the designer's intent and true to fluff, and juggling all that is never easy. I want the fans to be happy, but we aren't scrapping this to start from scratch because some people want the Kor'or'vesh to represent something the designers never intended, regardless of how fun it is to play, etc.

I know we don't agree on everything, but I still want to hear your comments, complaints, etc.

- Nate

We do appreciate your willingness to work with us in making a unique, good and balanced fleet list :D

Stuff Horizon has said
I agree with pretty much everything he says with the changes to the fleet

Quote
Complaints (with tracking system to Custodian):
* The Aun is still needed on a Protector or is that a typo?
* Aun on Custodian, iffy, not needed.
* As Kivarn pointed out the Protector restriction is a gimmick not doing anything useful
* The 12str battery Protector variant still is better then the 'normal' variant, surely when in companion with Custodian. I advocate a lowering to 8 or max 10 batteries.
* The Railgun Stubs on all models are Fixed Forward, how can I explain to someone they are swivelling?
* I am not opposed to tracking systems on Protectors if the firepower is reduced on the str.12 battery variant to 8. The normal variant has no issues as mighty.


Just checked the PDF and the Aun is not required on a protector, this must have been corrected and we missed it ;D

If we're wanting a nicely unique and colourful fleet then this
Quote
* The Railgun Stubs on all models are Fixed Forward, how can I explain to someone they are swivelling?
Would be pretty good coupled with 90* turns on everything give a powerful alpha strike but then a need to reorganise for another strike as they will always lose a broadside battle.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 08, 2010, 09:16:25 AM
Quote
After thinking it through more, I think the Custodian is alright. Maybe slightly underpriced at 330 (ok, so the actual cost is 360 which is 5 points under the Emperor). It seems interesting with the proposed changes to the tracking system and the deflector makes sense on it and are probably paid for by the reduced rage and weapons strength compared to the empy. Restrictions probably won't come into play since most fleets only take a single BB in 1500 points anyway.

Minor point, but the Custodian doesn't have a prow deflector...

Prow Deflector,
so funny. Some people think all vessels should have it, including Castellans.
Yep, me :D  well all vessels that are capable of warp dives, aka not the warden

Quote
Prow Deflectors are a special technique of layering shields to the prow. Making for better warp dives as well. This shield technique, thus, has nothing to do with the size of ships.
One could argue that this option is only available to ships with at least 2 shields. 1 shield cannot be layered.
One could also argue that the wedge needed for the smaller castellan doesn't need to be as strong as for the larger vessels and so doesn't particularly give any benefit against weapons.

Either way the custodian ought to have it. :)

Quote
The Protector should have a prow deflector per standard.
well... yes kinda goes without saying ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 08, 2010, 02:11:45 PM
Quote
Prow Deflectors are a special technique of layering shields to the prow. Making for better warp dives as well. This shield technique, thus, has nothing to do with the size of ships.

I understand that, my reasoning is that the emissary is so small that it just doesn't have access to the power required to boost the deflector enough that it enhances the protection on the ship. Currently that seems to be the case but you can upgrade to get the deflector for 15. I would just drop that option and move it up to the protector. Just because you layer the shields to help with warp travel doesn't automatically make them strong enough to have an effect in combat and I think there needs to be a trade off with having all your weapons facing forward. Having the deflector neutralizes the disadvantage for the Tau fleet needing to present a closing aspect to get the most out of their shooting.

hmmm.... I was sure I read that the custodian had the deflector last night when I was posting. My mistake.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 08, 2010, 04:37:25 PM
For helping the GW Tau, would weakening the Hero, increasing Explorer cost, doing the bomber change you mentioned, and possibly increasing the str of the light cruiser slightly, be sufficient?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 08, 2010, 07:28:41 PM
Mostly, yes.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 08, 2010, 09:00:40 PM
Mainly simply because I like the idea of the original rules the best, and I was surprised no one has tried to modify them, rather than FW Tau.  Has anyone endeavoured to do this, or is FW Tau seen to be the real deal.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 08, 2010, 09:35:54 PM
What?
Armada Tau is about the metal ships sold by Games Workshop.
FW Tau (and this draft) is about the resin ships sold by Forgeworld.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on October 08, 2010, 11:07:39 PM
GW Tau isn't broken so why fix it?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: commander on October 08, 2010, 11:12:27 PM
GW Tau not broken??? Don't get me started! Hero anyone?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 08, 2010, 11:20:28 PM
So? You need a Merchant for every Hero you want included anyway. Comes out effectively to an expensive 285 points (180+105). I don't mind.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 08, 2010, 11:37:32 PM
Apart from you don't have to take a merchant... you can take an explorer.... 230 points and 8 resilient bombers! Yes please!!

Anyway, that's another discussion for another thread ;) The FW ships and CPF rules are an alternative fleet to the Tau rules in Armada, similar to the Armageddon fleet in comparison to the Gothic fleet. 2 Different fleets with different ships, both same race :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 09, 2010, 12:02:36 AM
I only mention Merchant bec its the cheapest. Yes you can bring an Explorer. Comes out now to an effective 410.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 09, 2010, 12:06:30 AM
The explorer is a much better ship than the merchant though, In 1500 points you can have 3 Explorers, 3 Heros and a spattering of escorts. That gives you a lot of ordnance each turn as well as 3 very strong cruisers!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 09, 2010, 12:19:59 AM
Yes so no major problems I would say.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on October 09, 2010, 12:43:05 AM
All fleets can field very competitive combos against some
But not all opponents
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 09, 2010, 06:03:18 AM
Really don't like these rules. Some of the ships are a little off, but some are pretty majorly wrong. The Emissary and Protector, for example, should be more agile (90° turn!). I don't mind the large straight guns representing lances (unlike horizon and the model designer), but I would drop the AC compliment down to 1 for both of these, in fact, I'd halve the Custodians AC too. For the Emissary 1 AC, 3 torps, 2 prow WBs (F), deflector, 25cm speed, 90° turns, 4 hits, 1 shield, 2 turrets. The P/S weaponry could either be 2IC@30cmF, 2RG@45cmLF+RF or 2 grav hooks. Also optional 2nd shield.

The Lar'shri've T'olku is far more powerful than the base version. When in normal range 1 lance is worth roughly 3 WBs, and since Tau WBs don't suffer range penalties then the 12WB@45cm of the T'olku is equivalent to the 6WB+2L@45cm of the standard model. The 2L@30cm is much better than the 2TT and teensy weensy bit of extra sideways capable firepower. Mind you, if you drop the AC down to 1 and increase turns to 90° I don't think that the T'olku is all that bad. Most firepower forward, mainly guns and manoeuvrable. Make this the base Protector. Perhaps reduce the P/S railguns by 1 or 2.

I don't mind the 45cm range on the Custodians IC, but it should count as a cruiser to shorten its turn radius (it will still be the least manoeuvrable ship, since it's 45°) and, of course, reduce the AC.

The Warden should be 2IC. Love the 2IC Warden. If for some reason that is considered too powerful, even though escorts aren't considered all that powerful and to even take them you'd need to sacrifice firepower (Emissary) or invest a lot of points into the Custodian, then you could reduce their armour to 4+ or something. Not that I think they'd be too powerful.

The Castellan is ok.

As for the Citadel class commerce vessel I don't see how it could be the exact same model as the Bastion. It loses 2L@60cmL+R and 2 hits. That's a massive loss for no change of model. While I do think the Bastion is woefully overpriced, since I prefer the mixed AC/torps bay and don't like the proposed cutting beam changes I'd much rather just see the cost of the Bastion reduced than have the Citadel.




Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 09, 2010, 07:48:33 AM
Admiral & Fracas,
you do not see the problem, that GW Tau fleet I posted is almost ubeatable. The problem is that the Hero is MUCH to good. Background vs stats anyone, especially you admiral considering your marine discussions!
The Explorer is too good in masses, the Merchant to poor.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 09, 2010, 08:03:31 AM
Really don't like these rules. Some of the ships are a little off, but some are pretty majorly wrong. The Emissary and Protector, for example, should be more agile (90° turn!). I don't mind the large straight guns representing lances (unlike horizon and the model designer), but I would drop the AC compliment down to 1 for both of these, in fact, I'd halve the Custodians AC too. For the Emissary 1 AC, 3 torps, 2 prow WBs (F), deflector, 25cm speed, 90° turns, 4 hits, 1 shield, 2 turrets. The P/S weaponry could either be 2IC@30cmF, 2RG@45cmLF+RF or 2 grav hooks. Also optional 2nd shield.


The HA’s have already decided unanimously that as a rule, Kor’or’vesh ships would be slightly faster vs. more agile when it comes to incorporating improvements. The Emissary was made faster, but it will not be a 90deg ship. A Tau Dauntless it is not. A LOT of playtesting went into making that thing right (it was the crux of the most complaints), and I am loath to revisit the thing yet again.

You think you and I disagree on everything? Ray and I really butt heads over the Custodian, with him wanting it to have 6 bays and me wanting it to have 8. Even after all the playtesting, Bob broke the tie on that one. By the way, the Smotherman formula is a good baseline tool, but playtesting is how we decide how much things cost.

A LOT of people have been saying they would prefer the Custodian to be more shooty than be yet another big carrier. I for one am hung up over how many flipping launch bays are on the model! However, Horizon has been poking me in the forehead over the Tau ever since we stapled the list closed, and I don’t mind re-visiting this for a more shooty, slightly more ordnance-poor Custodian. Caveat: absolutely NO 60cm weapons.

Quote


The Lar'shri've T'olku is far more powerful than the base version. When in normal range 1 lance is worth roughly 3 WBs, and since Tau WBs don't suffer range penalties then the 12WB@45cm of the T'olku is equivalent to the 6WB+2L@45cm of the standard model. The 2L@30cm is much better than the 2TT and teensy weensy bit of extra sideways capable firepower. Mind you, if you drop the AC down to 1 and increase turns to 90° I don't think that the T'olku is all that bad. Most firepower forward, mainly guns and manoeuvrable. Make this the base Protector. Perhaps reduce the P/S railguns by 1 or 2.



Protectors were carefully playtested before the variants were codified. I don’t mind revisiting this again to incorporate small tweaks to any or even all the variants, but we will likely NOT be re-doing these from scratch yet again. One serious proposal is to get rid of all the ship-internal tracking systems, give it to the Custodian as an external system like the Messenger and call it done. Protectors are NOT getting 90deg turns.

Quote


I don't mind the 45cm range on the Custodians IC, but it should count as a cruiser to shorten its turn radius (it will still be the least manoeuvrable ship, since it's 45°) and, of course, reduce the AC.



The Custodian is a battleship. I am willing however to revisit trading launch bays for more firepower. :) Again, no 60cm weapons, but I’m sure we agree on this last one.  :)

Quote



The Warden should be 2IC. Love the 2IC Warden. If for some reason that is considered too powerful, even though escorts aren't considered all that powerful and to even take them you'd need to sacrifice firepower (Emissary) or invest a lot of points into the Custodian, then you could reduce their armour to 4+ or something. Not that I think they'd be too powerful.




Sigoroth, this is actually a good point, but this isn’t going to happen. Hold on, don’t shoot me yet- there is actually a very valid reason for this one. Way back when the GW Tau were still being designed and we didn’t even have models for them yet, we tested 2IC on the Orca. This little ship in squads beat up on Chaos and absolutely massacred Necrons. On the other hand, it was complete junk against Eldar, and the points they soaked up turned the Tau into the Eldar’s punching bag. Playtest six of these and see what you get. If a model is absolute poison to one fleet and complete garbage to another, it is unbalanced and broken.

Trivia note- because Tau models didn’t exist yet, I used my Space Marine fleet to simulate them. How’s that for blasphemy!!  :D

Quote


The Castellan is ok.



OMG- Sigoroth approves of something!!!    :o <faints>  :D

Quote



As for the Citadel class commerce vessel I don't see how it could be the exact same model as the Bastion. It loses 2L@60cmL+R and 2 hits. That's a massive loss for no change of model. While I do think the Bastion is woefully overpriced, since I prefer the mixed AC/torps bay and don't like the proposed cutting beam changes I'd much rather just see the cost of the Bastion reduced than have the Citadel.[/color]




Sigoroth, on this I cannot agree with you more. That’s right folks, you heard it here first- Sigoroth and I agree on something.

Here’s our intent with the Citadel. In order to make a “pure” Demiurg fleet viable, they need a ship we can price at 185 points. This is gospel, call it one of our guiding principles to the HA’s. The biggest problem is that Forgeworld simply is NOT making any more ships for BFG, much less for the Demiurg in particular. What the means is that we need to create a ship that’s much cheaper than the Bastion but looks just about the same, kind of like the difference between a Mars and a Dictator, which except for two dorsal turrets and a prow bit is exactly the same model.

Here’s where it gets sticky: Another guiding principle is that we can fix the game however necessary as long as we don’t break any of the core profiles in the rulebook or Armada. That came directly from Jervis himself. THAT’S why we’re so resistant to wiping the slate on entire fleets, like you suggested for the Orks and Space Marines, but that’s beyond the scope of this post. The immediate problem is that we can’t dump the Bastion, but we need a cheaper Demiurg ship so the fleet can be realized.

Here’s where it gets really sticky (as a side note). You know who to blame for the Bastion profile in Armada? Me. After the Stronghold was codified and hit the market, Forgeworld had a lot of initial success selling the model and without warning made a smaller one. Really- even Andy C didn’t get the word until just weeks before it hit the street! He wrote me to basically say “quick, make a Demiurg cruiser profile!” After some basic guidance from him, I did some playtesting and figured out what it should look like, then sent in the profile. I didn’t hear anything for two months, during which time I received a few free samples for my time. My first thought? “Oh crap, this model is TINY!!” It didn’t fit the profile at all, so I sent in another profile that more befit the model. Unfortunately, the first profile I sent in already hit the press for BFG Magazine, and that’s what the Bastion became. Because the Bastion profile had no complaints, it was kept for Armada, and my second profile was relegated to the dustbin. That second, smaller profile is what the Citadel is now.

You’re right that there’s no way to model the Citadel. The best thing I can tell you is to not glue the rear antennas on, snip off some of the side and rear hull and call it a Citadel. The Bastion isn’t going away, and we need a cheaper Demiurg ship to round out the fleet. IF giving it a different stand isn’t good enough to tell the difference, snipping some of the hull and tail is a simple-simon way to generate a model that otherwise is never going to exist.

-   Nate

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 09, 2010, 08:11:50 AM
Hi,
playtesting and feedback around the globe on many forums showed that a 45* Emissary is not worthwhile taking in any incarnation.
There, said it ;)

Custodian has only 4 Manta Launch bays, not a single more. Dropping bays is something I heavily favour. The old list by the HA had the Custodian at 4 launch bays!!! and 8 missiles. I approve (check project distant darkness). 60cm not allowed is given.

The problem with 2 ion cannon is not the ion cannon but that Eldar in official rules are bad-broken ;)

I really do not understand your aversion towards 90* Protectors with fixed forward weapons. Emissary as well 90* fixed forward. Custodian as a grand cruiser.

aaah, just a lovely concept of an unique fleet.

I cannot imagine how your playtesting could approve of the current difference between the 2 Protectors.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 09, 2010, 08:12:07 AM
Admiral & Fracas,
you do not see the problem, that GW Tau fleet I posted is almost ubeatable. The problem is that the Hero is MUCH to good. Background vs stats anyone, especially you admiral considering your marine discussions!
The Explorer is too good in masses, the Merchant to poor.

Horizon, I'll admit that the Hero is pretty good, but it isn't all that spectacular. A Devastation is only slightly more expensive, and it will clean its clock. That's saying a lot- I believe Tau were tailor-made to mash on Chaos. That's one of the reasons why I don't mind revisiting the Kor'or'vesh list. Well, that and I'm tired of you pounding divots into my forehead!

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 09, 2010, 08:27:55 AM
Hi,
playtesting and feedback around the globe on many forums showed that a 45* Emissary is not worthwhile taking in any incarnation.
There, said it ;)

Custodian has only 4 Manta Launch bays, not a single more. Dropping bays is something I heavily favour. The old list by the HA had the Custodian at 4 launch bays!!! and 8 missiles. I approve (check project distant darkness). 60cm not allowed is given.

The problem with 2 ion cannon is not the ion cannon but that Eldar in official rules are bad-broken ;)

I really do not understand your aversion towards 90* Protectors with fixed forward weapons. Emissary as well 90* fixed forward. Custodian as a grand cruiser.

aaah, just a lovely concept of an unique fleet.

I cannot imagine how your playtesting could approve of the current difference between the 2 Protectors.

Oops, we cross-posted. Here’s some fast-passes before I go to bed:

-   I will talk to Bob again about the Emissary, but this will need a lot more playtesting before it gets 90deg turns. However, that doesn’t mean it can’t be revisited, but I really hate how it goes against fluff for this model. That being said, if the model is just plain junk, we can look at it, but judgment will be made by playtest, not by slide-rule formulas.
I’ll be honest- I use four of them in squads of two, and I’ve been pretty happy with them, and I NEVER use them as Warden towtrucks. I HATE that rule, but EVERYONE wanted that one so I relented.

-   The Custodian will likely NOT be brought down to just 4 bays, but 6 sounds reasonable. Man, Ray’s going to like that. Make sure you tell him you got me to see the light- he came to the USA just to kick my butt in person over the Custodian and didn’t get me to bend over the launch bays. That and something about one of his blokes in a wedding or something like that, but mainly his visit was for BFG!!  (that’s the story I’m sticking too anyway!)   :D

-   Protectors will NOT be 90deg. I can waffle on the Emissary, but Protectors turning 90deg will make them insane! Have you playtested that?? As for revisiting their profiles, like I said, I’m fine with that.

-   The Custodian will be a battleship. The very idea of the Tau having a grand cruiser is anathema to the fleet design notes. Like Eldar, grand cruisers make for cool homebrew models but nothing that should ever be made official.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 09, 2010, 08:35:49 AM
Horizon, I forgot to mention that we CAN'T allow a ship design based on the opinion that another unrelated fleet is broken. I know you feel the 2IC Warden not working is an Eldar problem, but we're not trying to fix Eldar right now, we're trying to fix Tau.

Note that this thing also punished the Necrons. I know it's easy to say "Well, that's a Necron problem," but can you imagine what six of these locked on did to a battlebarge? Is that a Space Marine problem? You see how this logic quickly starts to turn on itself?

NOW I'm going to bed.   ;)

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 09, 2010, 08:39:08 AM
You're weird, haha. What background books do you read? ;)

Chaos vs Tau? On a galactic scale Chaos is the enemy Tau will face the least. Tau have to worry about Orks, Tyranids and Imperial Navy foremost.

The Hero eats Imperial cruisers for breakfast. Tone down the Ion Cannons for a starter.

The Emissary 90* has been tested, just like the 45*. The first gets a chance to do something, the 45* just is victory points for the enemy.
Per your own background it should have 90*. ;)

The Emissary needs to tow Wardens because that is how FW sells them plus they have hooks modelled.

4 bays was Ray's idea iirc on the Custodian. Heh. Good to see you agreeing on the lowering of bays. Yay. I'll sent him a mail right away. :)

4 Emissaries in a squad: juicy target.

Protecor's 90 have been tested. Works. They can die, they can win. How it supposed to be. Still crap at boarding ;)

Grand Cruisers: there is always a first time : Eldar Battleship, Eldar light cruiser, escort with 2 shields (Dhow), etc.
Also, technically, modelwise, the Flame of Asuryan is a Grand Cruiser to the Eldar. As the model was first shown on the web it was classified as a Void Dragon nonetheless.

warnz
Necrons are punished by batteries as well, you just need to see the trick.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 09, 2010, 09:56:12 AM
Firstly, Stop posting while I sleep!!! :P It means i have loads to read through ;)

Horizon, I forgot to mention that we CAN'T allow a ship design based on the opinion that another unrelated fleet is broken. I know you feel the 2IC Warden not working is an Eldar problem, but we're not trying to fix Eldar right now, we're trying to fix Tau.

Note that this thing also punished the Necrons. I know it's easy to say "Well, that's a Necron problem," but can you imagine what six of these locked on did to a battlebarge? Is that a Space Marine problem? You see how this logic quickly starts to turn on itself?

NOW I'm going to bed.   ;)

- Nate
Yes it is a space marine problem ;) any way averages say it'll only do 5 points of hull damage (assuming it gets bumped up to 4 shields) and that's when it doesn't brace! It's not too bad... is it?... Maybe it is... Anyway :D

No Tau 60cm weapons - This was a given :D

Custodian Dropping LB for weapons - Yep, all in favour of this

Getting the Custodian to be more manoeuvrable is easy, let it take the 'come to new heading' order, or as horizon suggested grand cruiser.

With the protectors going to 90* turns, yes they would be powerful... however we'd also want the stats adjusted to compensate
Something more along the lines of the Le'shi'vre but with railguns fixed forward and a drop in LB and TT, That gives it a prow attack of a similar level to a lunars broadside... and would only be able to attack once (unlike the lunar who has 2 broadsides) I really can't see how that would be too powerful.

Sleep well Nate ;)

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 09, 2010, 10:05:40 AM
Weeeeell, you can call the Custodian a battleship if you want, just give it a rule allowing it to turn after just 10cm. I mean, a xenos race could have a corvette sized vessel as their battleship with their cruisers and escorts being no bigger than attack craft of other races. What a race calls a battleship and what the rules call a battleship are different things.

The thing that gets me is the size of the ships. They're smaller than their IN/Chaos/whatever counterparts. Hell, they're smaller than their own precursor ships. So their BB is 10 hits, rather than 12, their CA is 6 hits instead of 8 and their CL is 4 instead of 6. Why is this so? Well the answer to that is ... Forgeworld have no idea of scale. They made the models too small. So we can't justify giving them the regular amount of hit points. Fine. However, while we know what the REAL reason is for why they're smaller, that doesn't mean that we can't give a design oriented reason for it.

In other words, why did the Tau take the successful design of the Hero and then make it less durable? If Forgeworld had have made the model larger it would have been 8 hits, but since they didn't, why did the Tau make it smaller? Well, a reduced mass should be easier to turn. Tau philosophy of war is to try to outmanoeuvre their opponents. They have skimmer technology and try to remain mobile rather than holding ground. Sure, they're not as fast as any of the Eldar races, but they're pretty much on a par in terms of agility.

Of course, this is all on the ground stuff. You could make the argument that they're not as advanced in space. Well, that was true, and hence we got the SG Tau fleet out of it. Now however, we have had some sort of revolution in Tau technology. This must be the case since they've gone to all the trouble of making an entirely new fleet rather than just modifying their old one. Where their old ships were bulky and blocky, much like the alien ships they were copying, this new fleet is so advanced that the Tau are even able to input their own aesthetic into the design. If they have advanced so far as to produce ships that are quintessentially Tau then it stands to reason that these ships should be able to fulfil the Tau war doctrine too. Why bother making an entirely new kind of ship if you're just making it look nice?

Of course, some argue that it's just the new warp dive technology at play. However, that's still no reason to make their ships smaller. They have to be getting something back for doing this. It had to be by design. If we were talking about another race then it would be a no-brainer to say that since they're lighter they have greater agility. For some reason just because it's Tau we don't make that same connection?

The SG fleet was not a "Tau" fleet. It was a "new guy" fleet. That was fine. I liked the SG fleet for that reason. However we should not stop the FW fleet from becoming a "Tau" fleet on the basis of some nostalgia for the "new guy" feel. It's not as if we're going to get a new Tau fleet of models released any time in the next 10 years for us to fully give them all the rules they need to become a proper Tau fleet.

So the argument for greater agility rests on 3 things:

1) Tau doctrine of war.
2) Basic premise of mass/agility trade-off
3) Tau imperative for making smaller ships

The Tau want to be more agile. Making lighter ships should make them more agile, assuming technological capability. They did make their ships lighter, they did stamp their aesthetic on their ship designs, they did make an entire new fleet. This suggests they did have the technological capability.

As for balance, well, the Dark Eldar are as agile or even more so and much faster, are you saying they're overpowered? Surely it would be best just to give them the 90° turn and balance their guns accordingly. With predominantly forward-only facing firepower this added agility is not as deadly as it would be for the broadside armed races.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 09, 2010, 01:57:17 PM
Like, I agree with Sigoroth and Kivarn. That's a given. lol


Project Distant Darkness arises. :)

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on October 09, 2010, 02:22:10 PM
Nate

Let the players fiddle with the models as they see fit
Based on you comment I will use the forge world small demiurge model for the citadel and will bulk it out some for the bastion
Similarly I will debulk the kroot sphere for a 4-6 up "battle sphere" if you make the rules


Re: GW tau
The hero is good, the explored decent, and the merchant is poor
They average out ok
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 09, 2010, 02:25:34 PM
Not so Fracas,
the Merchant can be left out. And I don't think the Explorer is decent.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 09, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
Oh, and regarding the 2IC Warden and specific fleets, well, if the armour was dropped to 4+ then just about any fleet would be as dangerous to them as they are in return, even Necron and SM. As for being useless against Eldar, well they could be equipped with 10 WBs and still never get a shot off! Unless we're talking tournament terrain of course, in which case the Eldar player is scrooo ood anyway. Besides, a squadron of 6 Wardens would actually average 1.83 hits against a squadron of 6 non-braced Eldar escorts. Goes up to 2.25 if locked on! Peh!  :P
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on October 09, 2010, 08:05:18 PM

"For every Nicassar Caravan in the fleet, there must be at least four detached Dhows in the fleet. The Dhows that make up the Caravan don?t count toward this total. You may not have more Dhows than the gravitic hook capacity of the fleet."

do you have to buy 4 dhows for every nicasaar rig?
or is it every rig allows you to purchase up to 4 dhows? or did you really mean a caravan with four attacked dhows may only be bought after you have 4 free dhows, which required a rig as well?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 09, 2010, 08:24:57 PM

"For every Nicassar Caravan in the fleet, there must be at least four detached Dhows in the fleet. The Dhows that make up the Caravan don?t count toward this total. You may not have more Dhows than the gravitic hook capacity of the fleet."

do you have to buy 4 dhows for every nicasaar rig?
or is it every rig allows you to purchase up to 4 dhows? or did you really mean a caravan with four attacked dhows may only be bought after you have 4 free dhows, which required a rig as well?

We can clarify this in the write-up, since it appears we're pulling the staples out of this document. The rule's intent is that if you buy a Caravan, your fleet has to ALSO include four detached Dhows, but they can be "attached" to any ship in the fleet that has gravitic hooks. Meaning if your fleet has a Caravan, two Merchants and an Explorer, the Explorer can tow whatever it wants, but the two Merchants are tied up supporting Dhows.

Basically, the Nicassar (and the Tau for that matter) will NEVER willingly let a Nicassar caravan fend for itself in a firefight. The difference between a rig and a caravan is that the rig is stationary because the Dhows have detached to fight, whereas the caravan is still hooked together and the Nicassar are trying like heck to get their families, homes, etc. away. The Caravan profile represents a rig and four Dhows that remain hooked together for the duration of the battle and for all intents and purposes are treated as a single vessel.


When defending a caravan, the detached Dhows do not have to come from a rig. They can come from ships capable of towing Dhows. In other words, an absolutely minimalist fleet containing a Nicassar Caravan can consist of a Caravan, four detached Dhows and two Tau Merchants, if desired. Of course, it is also legal if desired to have nothing but a Rig, four Dhows and a Caravan, I guess to represent the Nicassar all alone and making the decision to abandon one rig to at least ensure the other gets away, for example, but that would represent a pretty small battle!

This was a flavor and seasoning issue so if there is a great deal of hate involved with making the fleet take four extra Dhows, this can be changed. We would prefer that it NOT be zero ("prefer" doesn't mean "damn well gonna be,") but I think two would be fine. Thoughts?   :)

- Nate 

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 09, 2010, 08:38:58 PM
Since Dhows are no longer being sold by GW I have totally no opinion on the subject. I'd rather see some modelling tips added on how to represent them in the game. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on October 09, 2010, 08:49:54 PM
i have 6 dhows
can i get more than one rig?

caravan: can be only taken for every 3 dhows (because an explorer can take up to 3)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 10, 2010, 04:41:48 AM
i have 6 dhows
can i get more than one rig?

caravan: can be only taken for every 3 dhows (because an explorer can take up to 3)

If you have 6 Dhows, then you want it to be "no more than 2" because you need four for the Caravan.

Horizon is right about the greater travesty that these models are gone. It's actually an unusually cool and different model as well: hollowed-out footballs with sails.  :-\ <sigh>

Scratchbuilt Dhows should be perfectly legal as long as they all look the same. I would say get them from another vendor, but you won't be able to use another brand of models at Games Day or at many tourneys, not that many companies are even left out there selling spaceship minis!  <sighs again>

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 10, 2010, 05:27:28 AM
Weeeeell, you can call the Custodian a battleship if you want, just give it a rule allowing it to turn after just 10cm. I mean, a xenos race could have a corvette sized vessel as their battleship with their cruisers and escorts being no bigger than attack craft of other races. What a race calls a battleship and what the rules call a battleship are different things.

The thing that gets me is the size of the ships. They're smaller than their IN/Chaos/whatever counterparts. Hell, they're smaller than their own precursor ships. So their BB is 10 hits, rather than 12, their CA is 6 hits instead of 8 and their CL is 4 instead of 6. Why is this so? Well the answer to that is ... Forgeworld have no idea of scale. They made the models too small. So we can't justify giving them the regular amount of hit points. Fine. However, while we know what the REAL reason is for why they're smaller, that doesn't mean that we can't give a design oriented reason for it.

In other words, why did the Tau take the successful design of the Hero and then make it less durable? If Forgeworld had have made the model larger it would have been 8 hits, but since they didn't, why did the Tau make it smaller? Well, a reduced mass should be easier to turn. Tau philosophy of war is to try to outmanoeuvre their opponents. They have skimmer technology and try to remain mobile rather than holding ground. Sure, they're not as fast as any of the Eldar races, but they're pretty much on a par in terms of agility.

Of course, this is all on the ground stuff. You could make the argument that they're not as advanced in space. Well, that was true, and hence we got the SG Tau fleet out of it. Now however, we have had some sort of revolution in Tau technology. This must be the case since they've gone to all the trouble of making an entirely new fleet rather than just modifying their old one. Where their old ships were bulky and blocky, much like the alien ships they were copying, this new fleet is so advanced that the Tau are even able to input their own aesthetic into the design. If they have advanced so far as to produce ships that are quintessentially Tau then it stands to reason that these ships should be able to fulfil the Tau war doctrine too. Why bother making an entirely new kind of ship if you're just making it look nice?

Of course, some argue that it's just the new warp dive technology at play. However, that's still no reason to make their ships smaller. They have to be getting something back for doing this. It had to be by design. If we were talking about another race then it would be a no-brainer to say that since they're lighter they have greater agility. For some reason just because it's Tau we don't make that same connection?

The SG fleet was not a "Tau" fleet. It was a "new guy" fleet. That was fine. I liked the SG fleet for that reason. However we should not stop the FW fleet from becoming a "Tau" fleet on the basis of some nostalgia for the "new guy" feel. It's not as if we're going to get a new Tau fleet of models released any time in the next 10 years for us to fully give them all the rules they need to become a proper Tau fleet.

So the argument for greater agility rests on 3 things:

1) Tau doctrine of war.
2) Basic premise of mass/agility trade-off
3) Tau imperative for making smaller ships

The Tau want to be more agile. Making lighter ships should make them more agile, assuming technological capability. They did make their ships lighter, they did stamp their aesthetic on their ship designs, they did make an entire new fleet. This suggests they did have the technological capability.

As for balance, well, the Dark Eldar are as agile or even more so and much faster, are you saying they're overpowered? Surely it would be best just to give them the 90° turn and balance their guns accordingly. With predominantly forward-only facing firepower this added agility is not as deadly as it would be for the broadside armed races.


Okay everyone, you’re all going to want to sit down for this one. You ready?

Are you sure?

Okay, here goes.

For the most part, I agree with Sigoroth.   :o  <gasp!>

That’s right, there, I said it. The reason why this response took so long is because first I broke out all the fluff and materials, then spent several conversations on the phone with Bob, then we pushed some models around, then I spoke with Bob some more, then we traded e-mails, then I once again pushed some models around. Here are the very valid points Sigoroth brought forward, including some points that have come up earlier (mainly form Horizon) that didn’t come up here:

1.   He is right- the new Forgeworld ships are physically a lot smaller than the GW ships. The fluff for this is that the new ships were built from the Tau aesthetic instead of the clunky, modular older designs based on recovered technology. The larger problem is this- how do we interpret the size change in fluff? The largest combat experience they have is against the Orks, which is another prow-heavy fleet, which explains a lot about their design philosophy, and why they were so poorly prepared for the Imperials.

2.   Making ships faster as at least as difficult as making them more maneuverable if not more so, and the biggest problem with this fleet is maneuverability so the smaller size of the fleet can actually be justified quite nicely by saying “Tau made them smaller so they could be more maneuverable.” Sigoroth brought forward an argument too valid to ignore. The whole point of the Forgeworld fleet is exactly the point he makes above- The Tau moved away from the clunky, modular ships they made (because it was all they knew how to fabricate at the time) to create starships more in keeping to the way they actually fight.

3.   What Sigoroth doesn’t address here is Horizon’s biggest argument- the Custodian has too many launch bays. Ray is of the same mind, and I fought it tooth and nail because frankly, it was part of the Tau fleet’s design theme that they be ordnance-heavy, which I was trying to stick to. However, Their older fleet was ordnance-heavy because Mantas and Barracudas were the very first space-based weaponry they perfected, with Explorers being little more than their name suggested, giant trade and exploration carracks that were so poorly defended, the fast and dirty solution was to gut some the cargo bays to create Barracuda and Manta hangars. The Hero was an intermediate solution as the first purpose-designed warship, but it was with the Emissary that the new design philosophy was perfected. Though the Emissary itself was never designed to be a purpose-built warship, the technology perfected in its design later brought about the Castellan, Protector and then the Custodian.

4.   This impacts the entire fleet in a way far greater than anyone addressed here, which only came about when I started building a test fleet to push models around. By making these changes, the more Kor’or’vesh ships you take, the more ordnance-poor and gun-rich the entire fleet becomes. This may not be themeful for the original GW fleet design, but it makes PERFECT sense if the Tau have evolved enough that they no longer need Mantas to defend their ships because they created a true fighting force in its own right, which is what the Kor’or’vesh is supposed to be.

5.   So what? Well, the Tau’s biggest problem is how ordnance-reliant they are, and how overpowering the Kor’or’vesh ships made the fleet based on the original fleet list from Forgeworld. Following the guidance we have always been working under, our intent was merely to tweak the insanity that was the Forgeworld list to something more bearable. I for one have strongly resisted completely re-doing the Forgeworld fleet list because I believed it to be beyond our mandate, but the reality is this- the Forgeworld fleet list from Imperial Armor #4 was broken, and in any case it was never official anyway. As it was never official, there really is no reason why we can’t simply toss the whole thing in the bin and start from scratch.

6.   We are not going to incorporate all the suggestions here. Once again, the goal is to make ALL the players happy, which means game balance and fairness against ALL fleets will always trump cool ideas and fluff-accuracy. However, here’s our solution set that I will work on this weekend:


I should have all this ready by Monday night.

-   Nate



Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 10, 2010, 05:46:42 AM
Sigoroth brought forward an argument too valid to ignore.

I do this all the time. It's just that everybody tends to think that they can just go ahead and ignore it anyway ...  ::)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 10, 2010, 05:58:51 AM
This interests me greatly. I have previously not been all that excited about the tau fleet outside of the look of the nice FW models because they were so ordnance heavy that it really felt kind of boring. I will be curious as to how this unfolds.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 10, 2010, 06:45:45 AM
Well... <restrained> and all.

:)

I think those phone calls Nate and Bob had were really good ones.

I'll be looking forward to when the new list is online.

* Walks away, to let the 'restrainment' go away. *

;)

Thanks Nate, for listening and all.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 10, 2010, 06:51:02 AM
The flavor of tau is that it is a carrier fleet, I always thought.  I look forward to seeing how this turns out, and if it manages to keep the unique feel of tau from other fleets
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 10, 2010, 06:57:48 AM
LS,
there will be no changes to the Armada Tau fleet, that will remain to be a carrier fleet.
The FW fleet will finally become the gunnery fleet is intended to be. It'll still be Tau. Tau ground forces are also a shooty force with mobile assets. It'll still be Tau through missiles and attack craft.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 10, 2010, 07:06:47 AM
Right, I just always liked the idea that tau had advantages, but were new to space.  And all the ancient tech the imperials had still overmatched an advanced alien race, was kind of nice to think about.  Its commonly understood that space fleets dont operate like they do on the ground, always, right?  Look at necrons and space marines, its night and day.  Just my two cents.  Definitly don't have any experience beyond fluff enjoyment.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 10, 2010, 07:51:38 AM
I'm really looking forward to how this turns out :D

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on October 10, 2010, 11:37:15 AM
I would scratch build the caravan without using any free dhow attached
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 10, 2010, 01:30:36 PM
Sleep is for squares!

After marathon BFG on the brain, I uploaded three files to the BFG repository
Link: http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*

Space Marines v3.2
Only difference here form v3.1 is the updated Fortress Monastery, minor spelling and other errors, etc.

Rogue Traders v1.7
Only difference here from  v1.6 is expanded Rogue Trader cruiser choices, minor spelling and other errors, etc.

Tau Commerce Protection Fleet v2.0
This one's a biggie. No big changes, but a whole bunch of small changes and adjustments all over the place like Easter eggs.

I'll let the fans digest this for a few days. As for me, I'm going to bed.   

- Nate


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 10, 2010, 02:38:44 PM
Custodian : I'm liking the look of the custodian weapons layout though i still think (as it's the most advanced ship) it should benefit from the prow deflector ;), seems like it might be a little under priced too.

Protector : YAY!!! 90* turns. Is this meant to be on both ships or just the first? (I assume just the first else the seconds weapons load out is waaaaay off ^ ^ )

Emissary : Again, are they all meant to be 20cm/90* slightly puzzled there,  :)

Castellan, Warden : All good :)

Fleet selection : Almost all good here, the custodian limitations is still slightly ambiguous otherwise this seems fine :)

Overall This is a vast improvement :D nice work, now go sleep :P
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 10, 2010, 04:17:06 PM
I like the new file overall.

Finally there are 90° on low hp ships and/or faster versions with 25cm.

As far as i see it not all Capital ships have Tracking Systems now, but the Custodian provides it for others like the Messenger.

For the Emissary versions i would rather switch the first and the last 90° wise. It would be nice to have a Gravitc launcher version with 90° to have it with Castellans.

With the reduced costs of 110 i maybe would risk using Emessaries even without a second shield (what i wanted to have ;-) Still the are very fragile targets, you still have to use them out of a distance i guess.

Nevertheless i think this could work already, of corse playtests would be nice to verify the balance.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 10, 2010, 04:47:23 PM
I like the custodian and the default emissary, but there are a couple of configurations that stuck out as odd to me.

Protector VIOR?LA: The firepower on this one is very close to the Custodian and it can be taken without restriction for the same cost as an IN tyrant. I would think that it should cost a bit more to get that kind of firepower on a 90 degree turn platform with 3 turrets or it should have the second profile as default with the ranges adjusted. Right now this just feels too good.

Emissary IL?PORRUI SA?CEA: I think that, according to your post earlier, the emissary shouldn't have access to ion cannons at all.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 10, 2010, 05:00:33 PM
On the 90° Protector you have a lot of Front only weapons plus still a mix of weaponry (reload or lock on? or bad luck with the many necessarry LD checks in the fleet?). So closing it may be impressive but as soon as you pass the two even sides of an imp ship have their advantages as well. Yes with 90° it can turn towards to the other ship but still has to move the 10cm of a cruiser first so you wont be able to shoot all the time with the lances.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 10, 2010, 05:16:52 PM
Simply fluff question.  What 'even more ancient race than themelves' do the Demiurg cultivate a relationship with that has the pull to stop a whole WAAAGH?

Edit:  It occured to me, as a Warden is an Orca replica, why the price hike?  Especially since gravitic hooks are needed to bring them in on a parent vessel.

And so the Protector doesnt have 3 prow hardpoints on a 6 hull ship, why not move the launch bay to dorsal?
Also keeps it from being completely boned by losing 3 systems and prow armor on a prow critical.

Would anyone care to see the emissary gain more variety on the protector more than gaining another 3 on the prow weapons  and losing 1 torp?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 10, 2010, 08:58:59 PM
Hi,
first LS, ancient race: necrontyr or Eldar... make your pick ;)

Custodian: approved; labelling it as a Grand Cruiser at the expense of 2 missiles would make it excellent :)

Warden: @LS, the Warden has swivel ion cannon, orca swivel battery. Is worth something. Warden also pays for looking cool. :) approved.

Protector Lar'shi'vre vior'la: YES! Moving launch bays to the abstract dorsal (they are keel) is an idea.
(eg even Distant Darkness has no 45cm Ion Cannon on the Protector).

Protector Lar'shi'vre tol'ku: ? Make it 90*, all railguns fixed forward and missiles to str4.

Emissary Il'porui, give'em all 90*. all firepower fixed forward. Drop missiles to 3. Out of principle I would always take the 90* variant if the others don't change. ;)

Castellan, approved. Perhaps a 5cm boost?

Orbital City/Orbital: approved (under the current defences overall seen),

Fleet list: Yes.


Overall: iron out the variant options for Protectors and Emissaries with 90* turn rates and consider it done.

Same as for Marines, make official with above changes and a revision in two years.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 11, 2010, 02:24:29 AM
Hi,
first LS, ancient race: necrontyr or Eldar... make your pick ;)

Custodian: approved; labelling it as a Grand Cruiser at the expense of 2 missiles would make it excellent :)

Warden: @LS, the Warden has swivel ion cannon, orca swivel battery. Is worth something. Warden also pays for looking cool. :) approved.

Protector Lar'shi'vre vior'la: YES! Moving launch bays to the abstract dorsal (they are keel) is an idea.
(eg even Distant Darkness has no 45cm Ion Cannon on the Protector).

Protector Lar'shi'vre tol'ku: ? Make it 90*, all railguns fixed forward and missiles to str4.

Emissary Il'porui, give'em all 90*. all firepower fixed forward. Drop missiles to 3. Out of principle I would always take the 90* variant if the others don't change. ;)

Castellan, approved. Perhaps a 5cm boost?

Orbital City/Orbital: approved (under the current defences overall seen),

Fleet list: Yes.


Overall: iron out the variant options for Protectors and Emissaries with 90* turn rates and consider it done.

Same as for Marines, make official with above changes and a revision in two years.




Actually, I am posting the 2.1 Tau right now. The 45deg turns are a product of a bad cut and paste. ALL Emissaries and Protectors are supposed to be 20cm/90deg turns. Sorry about the confusion.

- Nate

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 11, 2010, 03:51:01 AM
Protector: I see no reason to ever take the T'ol Ku variant of the protector. You gain one extra dice with your batteries under most circumstances and you loose the range on the lances as well as a point of torpedo strength. I think that the T'ol Ku should be the primary variant with a limit to the number of Vior'la allowed to make 45cm ion cannons on a fast turning craft more rare than 30cm ion cannons.

Emissary: Both the Bork'an and Sa'Cea variants are much better than the default with no points increase to take them. I also think that the Emissary is a bit underpriced for what it nets you since it seems a rough equivalent to the IN Endeavour class light cruisers but pack as much greater punch AND can upgrade to 6+ armor making it the same cost as an Endeavor.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 11, 2010, 04:08:10 AM
Hi,
Nate, cool.

Vaaish, the tol'ku would benefit from staying close to the Custodian I guess. A fix? On both missiles to 5.

the Emissary, agreed, the 4 strenght missiles are a much better pick then 1 fighter bay.
What would you say about 2 str.fighter bay versus str3missiles? Little less difference?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 11, 2010, 05:19:00 AM
Quote
Vaaish, the tol'ku would benefit from staying close to the Custodian I guess. A fix? On both missiles to 5.

The problem is the Vior'la configuration will benefit just as much if not more from staying close since it also has 45cm ion cannons that match the range of the custodian. The tol'ku just loses out on all fronts and I don't think dropping the missiles to 5 will help either. The problem stems from the very small upgrade to the batteries for the loss of range on the lances. With both being the same price, there just isn't any reason to take the Tol'ku because the Vior'la can do everything it can, just better..

I would swap the profiles and then allow the 45cm ion cannon version as an upgrade for X points rather than an even swap. Perhaps even limit the number of 45cm ion cannon version in a similar way to the IN Endeavour family.

Quote
What would you say about 2 str.fighter bay versus str3missiles? Little less difference?

I don't think that more AC is the way to go. This thing is tiny and it already can tote two wardens Adding another bay would give it more than the larger protector which I don't think works logically. All in all the Sa'Cea config outclasses the other two by providing a cheap capital class lance platform by dropping the gravhooks for no additional charge. I think that this config is just too powerful for the 110 point price tag and should either pay a premium for such heavy firepower or be dropped all together leaving the Bork'an as a paid upgrade to the default profile.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 11, 2010, 05:30:47 AM
Ok, just read the updated Tau list and was about to have a go at the mixed turn rates of the variants but saw the correction while typing my reply. Overall, I like the direction the fleet is heading. I'll give my thoughts on a ship by ship basis. Apologies for the length, but it was a loooot longer before I saw the cut/paste error notice.  ::)

Custodian: Ok, this is really almost there. There are 3 changes I'd like to see made to its profile, 2 upgrades, 1 a downgrade. I would like to see it come with a prow deflector as standard, or at least include an option for one like the Emissary. This is not as big a deal as the 90° turns on the Prot/Emissary. If it didn't get a deflector I could live with it, though I predict that it would get picked on by batteries something fierce. Maybe this is a good thing since it means your lower hit point vessels will have a reprieve. Still, with this sort of incoming fire then I'd like to see the fleet restrictions lightened a touch. Maybe 1 per 750 pts or part thereof. This would mean it would be possible to throw in 2 at 1k points and 3 at 2k points. At 1k it'd be pretty much a straight Custodian fleet, but come to think of it, an all Custodian fleet would be cool. 8)

Secondly I'd like it to be able to turn after 10cm. The Custodian is the only ship in the new fleet with a 45° turn. So, having the equal slowest speed, the worst turn rate and then on top of that an extra 5cm before being able to turn as well as no CTNH makes it a massive oddball of the fleet. I'd say that it should get something back for its loss of hits (10 instead of 12). In this case it would be to count like a cruiser as far as turning is concerned (i.e., it's a grand cruiser). Hell, if you don't want it to be able to form squadrons with Explorers you could just count it as a grand cruiser via the rules. This way it'll only be able to form squadrons with other Custodians. Can still call it a Custodian class battleship if you want, just make its rule classification different.

The downgrade I'd like to make is the AC down to 4. I think Horizon said the torps down to 6, but I'd prefer the AC to go down myself. Tau have a very strong AC fleet already, so I don't mind this Tau fleet only having incidental carrier capacity.

Protector: The base cruiser I really quite like. I would either tweak the cost up a bit or drop the turrets down to 2 myself, but otherwise this is fairly good. I'd also drop the torps down to 5 as well. On the variant, again I'd drop the turrets down to 2 or bump the cost a little. but the trade-off of 3 RBs for IC range isn't too bad. A bit much if you throw in the loss of the torp (keep both at 5).

Emissary: This is the ship I have the most trouble with.  I really don't see why the Emissary can't be 25cm/90°. Let's look at the role of the ship. It is to safely deliver and return envoys of the Tau empire to their scheduled meetings with alien races. It also has to be able to defend itself from, and actively hunt, piratical raiders (i.e., escorts). Weeell, to keep up with, catch, or defend against enemy escorts requires both manoeuvrability and speed. Again both are called for to be able to avoid larger threats. On top of that, this ship gives up 2 hits and 1 shield compared to the Protector. I would imagine that this is a fair trade-off in return for the extra speed.

As for the weapon loadouts, I personally think that this little ship has way too much firepower. Firstly I'd like to see the 1 fighter + 3 torp variant, rather than 4 torps or just 1 fighter (btw, that is way underpowered compared to the torp variants). For defending against pirates (i.e., escorts) I imagine that the 3 torps would be more than sufficient, possibly the perfect number to take out a single enemy ship. Also, the fighter would come in extremely handy to defend against return torpedo fire or, if talks go bad, to cover the Emissary's retreat. Besides, the model has fighter bays and those 3 torp tube holes. I know, I know, that could represent any strength of missile salvo, but 3 fits both the role and model.

Apart from that we're looking at 8RG@45cm and 2IC@30cm firepower on top of the 4 torps. That's an extraordinary amount for such a little ship, designed to defend itself from pirates and as a taxi for some peace or trade negotiations. It should be noted that a Dauntless total firepower equivalent is 17WB@30cm. An Endeavour or Endurance is also 17WB@30cm (only 12 for a Defiant). This is worked out using the formula that 1 lance = 1 AC = 2 torps = 3 WBs. I would halve the RGs of the Emissary at the very least. These are what I think are the reasonable requests. I know that it's unlikely that the 2 shield variant would get approved.

So, keeping that in mind, here's my preferred Emissary design:

Emissary - 110 pts

Hits - Cruiser/4
Speed - 25cm
Turns - 90°
Shields - 1
Armour - 5+
Turrets - 2

Prow Torps 3
Prow Fighter 1
Port RB 2 45cm F/L
Stbrd RB 2 45cm F/R
Port IC 1 30cm F
Stbrd IC 1 30cm F

Options: May take a prow deflector for +10 pts

Only variant I'd make would be to replace the IC with hooks.

The above gives the Emissary a total firepower equivalent to 16 WBs, assuming that the fighter-only launch bay makes up for the Tau torp rules. However, 4 of those WBs are at +15cm range, so it's still better than the average and focuses more fire than any of the IN CLs. An alternative to the above would be to drop the P/S railguns and instead have dorsal railguns (3RG@45cmLFR). This would give another system available to crit and slightly reduced firepower.

Now, the only thing I can see against giving the Emissary 25cm/90° is that the Castellan is only 20cm speed. I think that the Castellan is designed to sit back and ping from afar, supporting Custodians and Protectors. Therefore there was no need to make it go fast, indeed this would be detrimental given momentum (i.e., minimum movement requirements). So the Tau would've tried to keep its power to mass ratio low for this very reason.

Castellan: I have no problems with this ship, except that it's very expensive and I'd probably never take it. Others would no doubt but I find escorts to be generally overpriced Particularly so for this and the Defender. Lower both costs by 5 pts and I'd use them. As it stands I only put Defenders in if I have exactly 45 or 90 points to fill. I suspect that in the case of Castellans I'd likely attempt to either fill remaining points with fleet commander upgrades or, if they're maxed, reduce my fleet commander upgrades and by another capital ship.

Warden: I know that most people are satisfied with this Orca clone, but I'd much rather the points break that the Orca provides than the speed boost and swapped fire arcs of the Warden. That's not to say that the Warden is un-Tau'ish or anything, just that I don't find it as attractive in the Kor'or'vesh as I do the Orca in the Kor'vattra. This is a shame, since I've got so many of the little blighters. I would much rather the 2IC version, even if the armour had to drop down to 4+. This is apropos as they are tiny; at least as small as the Cobra. However, I know that there is significant opposition to the way way waaaaaaay cool 2IC version ( ???), so as an alternative, why not 1IC & 3RG at 4+ armour? This would make the ship significantly different from the Orca (faster, more powerful, more expensive but more fragile) as well as provide the game with another 4+ armour escort and the Tau with something other than a clone.

There is also something a little confusing about the Warden. The Orca can only be taken by Kor'vattra vessels and its leadership and squadron size is tied to its parent ship/squadron. Since the Warden could be taken by Kor'vattra or Kor'or'vesh ships its leadership is not tied to the parent? I don't see why, but anywho, pushing on. So, unlike the Orca, the Warden is allowed to form squadrons freely? Presumably for the same reason. So if you take 2 Custodians or Explorers with 6 Wardens you could form them into a squadron of 4 and one of 2, regardless of whether the parent Custodians/Explorers were in a squadron? More, you could form them up with Castellans, but not Defenders, Orcas, Dhows or Messengers? Speaking of squadron rules, Castellans can squadron with anything right? What about Orcas? I suspect not, but it's not exactly clear.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 11, 2010, 05:34:32 AM
Hmmm.
the vior'la, I somehow missed that it had 9 batteries in the first run. (3-3-3). I would advocate to be it 3 on prow and 2 on both sides. Still a total of 7. Or even the more logic 4-2-2 (due brace/crippled status).

I wouldn't mind all ion cannons to be 30cm anyway.
I'll add a more thought out concept later.


Emissary,
well, no one wants to listen but I say that the vessels has no Ion Cannons. I also think 4/4 batteries is too much. 3/3 to be better. Thus then sa'cea would in my mind be a gun vessel with :
3+3 standard batteries, 2+2 on wing tips (30cm!). Still a total of 10 but large margin lower then 4+4+3+3 = 14 it currently has (1 lance = 3 bats).

On missiles, str.4 is high sided, agreed?

warnz,
reading saved for later :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 11, 2010, 05:58:46 AM
Horizon has pointed out a problem with the 3/3/3 protector. It doesn't do so neatly for brace/crippled calculations. 4/2/2 would be better. The short range IC could be 4/4/4 instead.

Also something else I just noticed, if you're going to limit the tracking system to the Custodian only then you might want to extend its range to 20cm at least. It was painfully short on the small based small model Messenger. I doubt very much that anyone is going to get much of their fleet close enough to the much larger Custodian.

Edit: Oh, maybe as an alternative to the 1IC/3RB 4+ armour for 30 pts idea we could go 1IC/1RB 4+ armour at 20 pts instead ... it's a tiny model.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 11, 2010, 06:00:18 AM
So far, the only thing that I dont see that hasnt been adressed is the Warden.  
Its a great 30 point escort, sure.  But not a great escort enough that you want to take grav-hook variants, is it?
Wish it had another point of weapon battery strength tacked on, but overall, this is a great, unique fleet.

Now that I have looked it over more in detail, it really does not feel imperial, and maintains its tau-ness.

I kinda miss half boarding actions, but I guess it makes sense.  At least no teleportation.
Also, no tau specific rules?  No reroll turret shots or anything like that?
Fine by me, since the fix seems to be just giving more turrets, but just wondering if i missed it somewhere.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 11, 2010, 06:05:55 AM
So far, the only thing that I dont see that hasnt been adressed is the Warden.  
Its a great 30 point escort, sure.  But not a great escort enough that you want to take grav-hook variants, is it?
Wish it had another point of weapon battery strength tacked on, but overall, this is a great, unique fleet.

Hey hey now, you obviously didn't read my post! Was it because it was so long? I bet it was, you're lengthist aren't you!  ::)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 11, 2010, 06:43:39 AM
Sigoroth, Did you catch Nate's earlier post about the new Tau weapon schema?

Quote
Caveats: 45cm ion cannons will be L/F/R only on the Custodian, prow-only on the Protector and no other ship gets them (it will be an exceedingly rare weapon in general). NO 60cm weapons whatsoever.

Based on that I'm not sure there should be a variant of the Emissary that has access to Ion Cannons (even though they obviously decided to put one in) Oddly, for an exceedingly rare weapon, Ion Cannons seem fairly plentiful in the new Tau fleet with nearly every class of ship having some access to them.

I am in favor of reducing the weapons strength of the Emissary though and I like the idea of the LB being interchangable with the grav hooks. In any event, I think that your stats are much more acceptable than its current load out.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 11, 2010, 06:57:59 AM
Hella hi again,

lenghty postings are for wuzzies. ;)

LS, tracking systems = re-roll turrets.

Quote
The downgrade I'd like to make is the AC down to 4. I think Horizon said the torps down to 6, but I'd prefer the AC to go down myself. Tau have a very strong AC fleet already, so I don't mind this Tau fleet only having incidental carrier capacity.
Well, throughout the thread you can see that I would favour a 4 launch bay / 8 missile variant as well. Although if we meet in the middle on a 6/6 value I can live with that. Would make Xisor/Shinnentai have a smiley to. ;)
It also leaves room for the Distant Darkness variant.

Quote
Protector: The base cruiser I really quite like. I would either tweak the cost up a bit or drop the turrets down to 2 myself, but otherwise this is fairly good. I'd also drop the torps down to 5 as well. On the variant, again I'd drop the turrets down to 2 or bump the cost a little. but the trade-off of 3 RBs for IC range isn't too bad. A bit much if you throw in the loss of the torp (keep both at 5).
Agreed. 5 missiles. And as you post later 4-2-2 on vior'la. Plus the range on IC, could be done as 30cm if it was for me.

Quote
Emissary: This is <zap>

Emissary - 110 pts

Hits - Cruiser/4
Speed - 25cm
Turns - 90°
Shields - 1
Armour - 5+
Turrets - 2

Prow Torps 3
Prow Fighter 1
Port RB 2 45cm F/L
Stbrd RB 2 45cm F/R
Port IC 1 30cm F
Stbrd IC 1 30cm F

Options: May take a prow deflector for +10 pts

Only variant I'd make would be to replace the IC with hooks.
I would play that version with the exception that I prefer Railguns str.2 F 30cm on the wingtips.

Quote
Castellan: I have no problems with this ship, except that it's very expensive and I'd probably never take it. Others would no doubt but I find escorts to be generally overpriced Particularly so for this and the Defender. Lower both costs by 5 pts and I'd use them. As it stands I only put Defenders in if I have exactly 45 or 90 points to fill. I suspect that in the case of Castellans I'd likely attempt to either fill remaining points with fleet commander upgrades or, if they're maxed, reduce my fleet commander upgrades and by another capital ship.
To me Castellans have become a key factor in my Tau victories.
Mobile enough to protect my Protectors whenever the enemies close. 45cm railguns to fly along Protectors. 2str missiles are ideal cap removers. When combined lethal for any ship.

Quote
Warden: I know that most people are satisfied with this Orca clone, but I'd much rather the points break that the Orca provides than the speed boost and swapped fire arcs of the Warden. That's not to say that the Warden is un-Tau'ish or anything, just that I don't find it as attractive in the Kor'or'vesh as I do the Orca in the Kor'vattra. This is a shame, since I've got so many of the little blighters. I would much rather the 2IC version, even if the armour had to drop down to 4+. This is apropos as they are tiny; at least as small as the Cobra. However, I know that there is significant opposition to the way way waaaaaaay cool 2IC version so as an alternative, why not 1IC & 3RG at 4+ armour? This would make the ship significantly different from the Orca (faster, more powerful, more expensive but more fragile) as well as provide the game with another 4+ armour escort and the Tau with something other than a clone.
4+ armour for a 30cm 4 railgun version ;)

I say leave as is.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 11, 2010, 07:25:13 AM
Sigoroth, Did you catch Nate's earlier post about the new Tau weapon schema?

Quote
Caveats: 45cm ion cannons will be L/F/R only on the Custodian, prow-only on the Protector and no other ship gets them (it will be an exceedingly rare weapon in general). NO 60cm weapons whatsoever.

Based on that I'm not sure there should be a variant of the Emissary that has access to Ion Cannons (even though they obviously decided to put one in) Oddly, for an exceedingly rare weapon, Ion Cannons seem fairly plentiful in the new Tau fleet with nearly every class of ship having some access to them.

I am in favor of reducing the weapons strength of the Emissary though and I like the idea of the LB being interchangable with the grav hooks. In any event, I think that your stats are much more acceptable than its current load out.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he meant the range aspect of that. So Custodians can have multi-arc 45cm range ICs, but Protectors can only have locked forward 45cm ICs. Nothing below a Protector can have 45cm ICs. Everything else is limited to 30cm range for their ICs.

@Horizon: yeah, I could live with the RGs being locked forward on the Emissary. As for Castellans, yeah, I'm resigned to the fact that they'll never come down in price. I know that some people play escorts no matter what their cost. Since reducing them would make them better than the overpriced Defender I know it won't happen, no matter that the Defender should also come down.

As for the 4RG 4+ armour Warden, I know you jest but I think that at 20 pts it would be definite goer. It becomes the Tau Sword, the Orca is the Tau Firestorm and the Castellan is the Tau Cobra. Nice. Much better than an Orca clone.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 11, 2010, 07:31:46 AM
Yeah, maybe bring the range of the 4/2/2 variant IC to 30cm and make the variant Protector 4/4/4 at 45cm range. Then keep the turrets at 3.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 11, 2010, 08:32:15 AM
Minor Changes are good, most comments have already been said by sigoroth or horizon,

Minor alterations to Protector to even out the choices, Minor changes to emissaries for the same reason (i'm very much in favour of the 4/2/2 proposal too :) )

One thing that's still bugging me (and to some extent I feel i'm being ignored about) is the wording of the custodian selection criteria.

2 Things, Firstly it's ambiguous

Quote
Your fleet may only include one Custodian per FULL 750 points of Tau vessels.
This could mean i could take one custodian at 750, or i would have to take a 750+330 = 1080 point fleet to be allowed to take one.. Lets check the examples..

Quote
In other words, if your fleet is equal to or more than 750 points, it may then include one Custodian,

Ok, so it's 1 in a 750 point fleet 2 in a 1500 point fleet

Quote
but it cannot include a second unless it already includes 1,500 points of Tau vessels, etc.

Wait??!?! So i can't take 2 in a 1500 point i've got to wait till I have 1830 or more points to spend?!

If the intention is 1 per 750 then
 
Quote
Your fleet may only include one Custodian per FULL 750 points of Tau vessels. In other words, if your fleet is equal to or more than 750 points, it may then include one Custodian, you may only include two when your fleet is equal to or more than 1,500 points, etc.

If the intention is 1 per 750 + 330, then just leave it as 1 per 1,000

If this is just me having issues reading.... then please say i'm being a muppet !

Either way, we come to my second point...

Originally you (Nate) said that you disliked forgeworlds ease of access to Custodians, yet still you can take 2 in a 1,500 point fleet (assuming 1/750 not 1/1080)
would not the limit be better raised to 1/1000.

Also could it not be 1/1000 (or 1/1500) or part-there-of as this would allow for some more interesting fleets at lower points. Such as Custodians being caught alone as all their protectors have gone off on missions etc... (Yes I know how rule fleets etc could do this anyway)

Cheers, Tim
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: commander on October 11, 2010, 08:37:21 AM
Don't know, but still bothering me is that there is so much crammed in on those platforms. Almost every cruiser has 5 weapon hardpoints. How many are there on the Tau cruisers? A lot more. Same point cost as the Tyrant. Way more manoeuvrable. And that race is still a little behind the IN?
It doesn't 'feel' right. And I am repeating myself  ;D
I know it's not going to change but keep it in mind?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 11, 2010, 08:39:15 AM
@Emissarry

Yes they have a lot of weapons but still only 4HP. I often said give them the 2nd shield and 25cm and not that much firepower (fits better fluffwise as well). Who transports a diplomat with a ship that cant take even one shot from a cruiser and at the same time cant outrun the cruiser.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 11, 2010, 08:42:38 AM
Heh, just figured out that I could make an exactly 3000 point Tau fleet using only FW models.

Kor'O + Aun'O - 155
2 x Custodian + 6 Wardens - 840
4 x Protector - 740
2 x Emissary w/ deflector + 4 Wardens - 360
6 x Castellan - 300
Stronghold - 350
Bastion - 255

Total = 3000   8)

Not that I would mind you. Bastion is over costed and I wouldn't take the Castellans either, and not anywhere near so many Wardens. I'd just throw in six Heros instead.  ::)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 11, 2010, 08:51:03 AM
Don't know, but still bothering me is that there is so much crammed in on those platforms. Almost every cruiser has 5 weapon hardpoints. How many are there on the Tau cruisers? A lot more. Same point cost as the Tyrant. Way more manoeuvrable. And that race is still a little behind the IN?
It doesn't 'feel' right. And I am repeating myself  ;D
I know it's not going to change but keep it in mind?

Well, each of these Tau hardpoints is actually very small. The IN hardpoints are worth between 1 to 2 times the value of the Tau hardpoints. Not to mention that IN ships can use a 6th hardpoint (dorsal), they just don't usually. Also, the Tyrant, which is a rubbish ship, has 20 WBs and 6 torps. The Dominator, Lunar and Gothic have more firepower. We're talking 14 WBe + torps/AC here. As for being more manoeuvrable, well, they're lighter. If there was a 6 hit Lunar I'd hear a case for making them 90° too.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 11, 2010, 08:51:38 AM
Hi Commander,
Quote
Don't know, but still bothering me is that there is so much crammed in on those platforms. Almost every cruiser has 5 weapon hardpoints. How many are there on the Tau cruisers? A lot more. Same point cost as the Tyrant. Way more manoeuvrable. And that race is still a little behind the IN? It doesn't 'feel' right. And I am repeating myself  I know it's not going to change but keep it in mind?
You cannot compare an Imperial ship to a FW Tau vessel regarding hardpoints, though a Lunar has 5 and an IN battlecruiser 6 ;)

The race is not behind the IN. Doh. This fleet feels really as it should.

Lunar vs Protector
180 vs 185
8 hits vs 6 hits
Same armour but Tau prow armour to be taken offline in case of critical
2 turrets vs 3 turrets
20cm vs 20cm
45* vs 90*
2 shields vs 2 shields.

So in the basic we trade off resilience vs manoeuvrability.

When comparing tactics one has to keep in mind fleet tactics. 1 launch bay won't overwhelm the Lunar. 5 missiles won't break it. Neither would 6 torpedoes break the Protector.
8 batteries plus 2 lances @ 30cm from the Protector does out-edge the 6 batteries plus 2 lances @30cm from the Lunar. The Protector also has extended range.

Once the Lunar makes it past the prow, even 90* won't help the Protector to keep it up.

8 vs 6 hits is a big deal.

In essence both ships have simple doctrines.

I see balance, especially as the Protector is more expensive.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 11, 2010, 02:22:40 PM
Quote
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he meant the range aspect of that. So Custodians can have multi-arc 45cm range ICs, but Protectors can only have locked forward 45cm ICs. Nothing below a Protector can have 45cm ICs. Everything else is limited to 30cm range for their ICs.

Quite possible he did mean that, but what of 45cm Ion Cannons being extremely rare? With the fleet list as it is I can bring a custodian and 5 protectors which gives me 45cm ion cannons on every capital ship. Granted it might not be the most efficient, but if we are following what Nate said, shouldn't there be a limit on how many 45cm ion equipped protectors one can take?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 11, 2010, 02:30:15 PM
True,
therefor I would go by 45cm Custodian only, all Protectors 30cm.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 11, 2010, 02:38:33 PM
As its supposed to be different from the orca, and its 5 points more expensive, I would up the warden's wb str by 1.
It is a 'warden' afterall, it feels more like a overpriced orca, as is.  In the Armada fleet, I feel joy at taking hook options over lance slots, but this is a much tougher pill to swallow.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 12, 2010, 08:53:48 AM
Quite possible he did mean that, but what of 45cm Ion Cannons being extremely rare? With the fleet list as it is I can bring a custodian and 5 protectors which gives me 45cm ion cannons on every capital ship. Granted it might not be the most efficient, but if we are following what Nate said, shouldn't there be a limit on how many 45cm ion equipped protectors one can take?

Yeah, I see what you mean. So one variant with 4/2/2 railguns at 45cm + 2 ion cannon at 30cm and the other with 4/4/4 railguns at 45cm and no ion cannons? This would be very very similar to the firepower of the Hero. One variant would have identical direct fire and the other one would be half way between the two Hero versions. The Protector would trade hits for manoeuvrability. The Protector would lose 1 AC and 1 torp (assuming 1 AC 5 torps is accepted) but gain ease of access and better boarding value. Given all this I'd say these profiles are fine at 180 pts

As its supposed to be different from the orca, and its 5 points more expensive, I would up the warden's wb str by 1.
It is a 'warden' afterall, it feels more like a overpriced orca, as is.  In the Armada fleet, I feel joy at taking hook options over lance slots, but this is a much tougher pill to swallow.

This was my solution also, given that there's opposition to the 2IC Warden on the basis of the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of all lances against certain fleets (SM/Necron & Eldar). However, there's also a balance issue that this ship would be more powerful and faster than the Orca for 5 pts. The model itself is tiny. So I'm not against 4+ armour for it as a balancing factor.

However, given its small size I actually like Horizons 4 RG version. And at 4+ armour we could actually pull the cost down to 5 pts less than the Orca. I'd accept either version.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 12, 2010, 02:03:52 PM
Ya, just...Something.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 12, 2010, 02:40:18 PM
Quote
Yeah, I see what you mean. So one variant with 4/2/2 railguns at 45cm + 2 ion cannon at 30cm and the other with 4/4/4 railguns at 45cm and no ion cannons? This would be very very similar to the firepower of the Hero. One variant would have identical direct fire and the other one would be half way between the two Hero versions. The Protector would trade hits for manoeuvrability. The Protector would lose 1 AC and 1 torp (assuming 1 AC 5 torps is accepted) but gain ease of access and better boarding value. Given all this I'd say these profiles are fine at 180 pts

If I'm following you right, I think that would work. Do you think that +4 batteries would be enough to make the no ion cannon version worth taking? It's not much of a trade for a little more firepower at range.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 12, 2010, 07:33:53 PM
2 ic @ 30 vs 4rg @ 45.

Isn't that the Hero trade-off as well?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 13, 2010, 12:03:08 AM
2 ic @ 30 vs 4rg @ 45.

Isn't that the Hero trade-off as well?

I'd prefer the 2 ic.  gravhook escorts need to good enough for your opponent to look twice at the points.

Honestly though str3 batt and an IC at 30 would be perfect for it, imo.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 13, 2010, 04:21:13 PM
If I'm following you right, I think that would work. Do you think that +4 batteries would be enough to make the no ion cannon version worth taking? It's not much of a trade for a little more firepower at range.

As Horizon mentions, this is the same value trade-off the original Hero variants have. You could nestle up next to a Custodian to give those 4 batteries no column shift for long range, making it a better swap. Of course, if you're going to run a mixed fleet you could do this with the variant Hero instead, since they have the same speed/turn rate as the Custodian and would also have 12RG.

Well, maybe this variant isn't so great. How about a 6IC@30cmF variant?  :P Well, the SG formula trade off is 2IC@30cm for 4RG@45cm after all ...
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 13, 2010, 06:56:02 PM
I am just gonne say no.... 6 lances.... really Sig. That ship requires less tactics then a ...something. ;)

On variants:
Heck, how do I model this anyway? :(
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 14, 2010, 09:07:55 AM
I am just gonne say no.... 6 lances.... really Sig. That ship requires less tactics then a ...something. ;)

Heh, what's wrong with 6 lances?  ::)

Quote
On variants:
Heck, how do I model this anyway? :(

Yeah I know. I think that it's pretty easy to just stick some cannon in the round spots on the underside of the Emissary to represent lances, leave as is to represent hooks. Or you could have the wing tip cannon represent lances and just clip them off for a hook version. With the Protector however I think maybe we're just adding a variant for the sake of it. Just about any major weaponry refit is going to be hard to actually model.  :-\
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Don Gusto on October 14, 2010, 10:11:06 PM
With 90° turns the Protectors look overpowered to me.

In comparison with the Hero (Tolku configuration) the Viorla trades:
3 batterys for a lance,
1 launch bay for another lance,
2 hits for twice the turn rate.
The Hero also has better broadsides.

This may look balanced but it is not.

While the Hero's broadsides are good its full firepower is front only. Combined with a standard turn its effective field of fire is 180° to the front. This is a disadvantage.
The Protector has its firepower concentrated even more to the front. But with a 90° turn its effective field of fire is 270°. Now that front concentration is an advantage. With 90° turns the Protector doesn't need broadsides, it can point ALL its weapons at 75% of its surroundings without special orders. BC firepower on a light cruiser frame.
So far there's also not a single capital ship in the entire official range that combines 2 shields with 90° turns!

@horizon
You compare it to a Lunar, 1on1 a Lunar won't stand a chance against this beast. It will be lacking in every department. I would be surprised if it could win 1 out of 5.
Bad example I guess since a Lunar on its own isn't that good. This Protector on the other hand can take on any cruiser.
Note: The odds to disable the prow deflector with a regular hit are tiny.

How will a Dictator with a regular cruiser fare against 2 Protectors? Points-wise they should be on top but I doubt it.

The Emissarys don't seem any more reasonable, but at least they didn't get another shield.
8 batterys and 2 lances to the front for 110 points? With range to boot and missiles on top of it??? I can't believe people are still bitching about them.

@Nate
You say you test these designs. Please do it thoroughly. I will try some testing myself but won't have time for it until the end of next week.
Out of curiosity: How much lobbying is required to get such crazy ideas past your better judgement? You felt the FW list was too strong but this is supposed to be balanced? I'm simply shocked.

No one shared my concerns with the SM SC'S so I'm probably wasting my time here as well.
Kudos to the Tau Engineers for fitting more guns on smaller frames but I fear for the worst.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 15, 2010, 04:32:00 AM
Ah, Don Gusto, finally someone who opposes to 90* Protectors. Saw this coming. ;)

One note: for me they could fix all weapons in the forward arc (thus no swivelling) on a 90* Protector.
We also replied to Nate/HA that missiles should be 5, Ion Cannon 30cm, 8 railguns (422) instead of 9 (333).

But it is just NOT overpowered. Project Distant Darkness showed this. The turn rate I mean. So before you dismiss it try it. With the adds I pointed out.

One of the first playtests I did was using 2 Protectors vs a A Devestation and Carnage. Chaos won easily.

You underestimate the effect of 6 instead of 8 hits.

Protector Hero vs Hero Vash'ya.
6 vs 8 hits
90* vs 45*
9(8) vs 4 railguns (prow on)
3 vs 4 railguns (broadside)
2 vs 4 Ion Cannon
That is 2 Ion Prow on only, while Here can do 2 to left, 2 to right as well).
1 lb vs 2 lb
6(5) vs 6 missiles

So Prow on Hero can do: 4 RG + 4 IC = 4 + (3x4) = 4 + 12 = 16
So Prow on Prot can do: 9RG + 2IC = 9 + (3x2) = 9 + 6 = 15
With our adviced 8RG, and range drop on IC we will have 14 RG in total.

Broadside Hero (focused) 4RG + 2IC = 10
Broadside Hero (split) 2RG + 2IC = 8
Broadside Protector (focused/split) = 3

Then the Hero has a Launch bay extra = bombing run options.

Seriously... the Hero still outedges the Protector largely as a fleet engagement ship. More firepower prow on, even better broadsides (off setting the lower turn range) and more ordnance. PLUS more hits.

The Lunar has much more firepower then a Protector. But 1:1, yes, the raider Protector will have the alpha strike advantage. The Lunar gets better in larger engagements. The strength of the IN.

Dictator + Lunar
vs
2 Protectors.

IN cruiser shoulds drive at the Tau.

There is a note: previously, the FW Protector, could attempt bombing runs with 2 launch bays and 6 missiles as a backup. 1 Launch bay is hardly worth using offensive. So it mainly be fighter.
2 Protectors will have 2 launch bays instead of 4.

This is a mayor change in ordnance warfare. Perfectly fitting for these ships.

90* MUST BE.
90* MUST BE.
90* MUST BE.

But Don Gusto, please test. Keep in mind the changes I advice (5 missiles, 30cm Ion Cannons).

For the Emissary: the 8wb/2ic version you point we also commented on as being too much.

I guess Nate is checking if we are right. ;)

It wasn't lobbying, it was facts. Compared to FW you are no longer an ordnance fleet. Ah, so much more fun to play gunnery.

Have you read Project Distant Darkness? Even less ordnance and more restricted fire arcs :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 15, 2010, 04:49:24 AM
5 missiles is just so wierd to me.

Forgive me for not keeping up with the pages of dialogue.  Where are we at on more variety in the protector variants, and the warden?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 15, 2010, 04:51:42 AM
Why is 5 missiles weird? Make it 4 then. ;)

Nate hasn't replied so I think we are in the waiting room right now.


This
Quote
So far there's also not a single capital ship in the entire official range that combines 2 shields with 90° turns!
Before Armada there were no:

Eldar light cruisers, battleships.
Ork battleships, hulks, orks
Imperial Navy Grand Cruisers
Nicassar Dhows (escorts with 2 shields)
Tracking Systems

Before Doom of the Eldar there were no:
Eldar ships with 5+ armour

Before Ships of Mars there were no:
light cruisers with 3 turrets and 45cm weapon range.

The list is endless.

My main point being, your argument like that is one that has no merits.


ps... The Strike Cruiser with 6 hits has 90* and 25cm and 2 shields.
Oh wait...you hate that as well ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 15, 2010, 06:32:57 AM
@Don Gusto

Let's face it, the whole point of broadside oriented firepower is to get enemies on either side so that you can fire both broadsides. In this case the Lunar has 12WB + 4L, much more than either the Protector or the Hero. Of course, this isn't terribly easy to do and you have to deal with the extra shields of the second target. Still, it's not too much to assume that a fleet is going to shoot at at least 2 targets per turn, making dealing with the 2nd lot of shields rather moot. But the difficulties associated with getting targets into each broadside do lessen the effective firepower of the ship. A handy rule of thumb is to halve the offside firepower when deciding it's overall contribution. So a Lunar is sitting on 9WB + 3L worth of focussed fire. At least whenever firing at 2 targets is viable.

So, 1 on 1, sure, a Protector beats a Lunar. But the Lunar is a fleet vessel. In fact, the reason why the IN ships work so well is that they do break the enemy lines and use their offside fire. Chaos ships are widely regarding as being better individual ships, and to this I agree, but the vast majority of the time they only fire one of their broadsides, due to their strengths and weaknesses. Which is why the IN are able to compete.

As for 90° turns with fixed forward firepower getting an effective 270° coverage, well, a broadside oriented fleet with only 45° turns gets a full 360° coverage. If you sit directly behind a Protector then he can't reach you unless he goes on CTNH orders. Do the same thing to a Lunar and he can still hit you with a full broadside.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on October 16, 2010, 02:39:52 AM
I really like the new fleet, but I do have a few comments.
(i assume we're talking about the 2.1 draft here?)
1) Why have the two Protector variants? Trading 1 missile for 3 batteries isn't really very interesting.
2) No come to new heading orders on the Custodian seems odd. I don't think its that big a ship, and with everything else in the fleet on 90* turns having one incredibly unmanoeuvrable ship could see it completely left behind.
3) What about the option of adding additional Ethereals to the Emissary? Given they are  diplomatic vessels I think it would be quite fitting if they carried around an Aun'el for additional re-rolls.
4) The custodian restriction wording still seems a little.... wordy... to me.
Perhaps explaining it with a table could be bette?
0-749 - 0 Custodians
750-1499 - 1 Custodian
1500-2249 - 2 custodians
5) The reduction in the number of launch bays worries me slightly as it seriously changes the threat levels of the Ordnance phase. - my typical fleet loses 6 launch bays (down from 16) - 37% reduction. The increase in torpedoes from the Custodian IMO doesn't offset this as the torps can easily be downed by a single fighter. Maybe thats intended balance, now that the explorer is an option, but just pointing it out.

6) How 'official' is this list? Some members at my club are opposed to using anything unofficial (ie, anything not appearing on the GW site is a no-go)

7) Would it hurt to reprint the rules for Tracking Systems, Mantas and Missiles in this fleet list, to consolidate everything?

thats all for now
Trasvi




Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 16, 2010, 10:07:48 AM

2) No come to new heading orders on the Custodian seems odd. I don't think its that big a ship, and with everything else in the fleet on 90* turns having one incredibly unmanoeuvrable ship could see it completely left behind.

Well as it stands the Custodian counts as a battleship, therefore it's only able to execute a turn after moving 15cm straight. It would take some extraordinary circumstances to boost the Custodians speed to the 30cm necessary to make this a concern anyway. I would like to see it count as a cruiser as far as turning is concerned at least. Then it could turn after 10cm, making the CTNH thing an issue. At which point I wouldn't mind if it could not CTNH.

Quote
3) What about the option of adding additional Ethereals to the Emissary? Given they are  diplomatic vessels I think it would be quite fitting if they carried around an Aun'el for additional re-rolls.

Well Ethereals aren't actually diplomats. It is the water caste (Por) that handle diplomatic matters. Ethereals are more like the Tau's holy men. They can inspire great acts but the Tau suffer their loss greatly.

Quote
4) The custodian restriction wording still seems a little.... wordy... to me.
Perhaps explaining it with a table could be bette?
0-749 - 0 Custodians
750-1499 - 1 Custodian
1500-2249 - 2 custodians

Or it could just be worded: 0-1 per full 750 pts.

Quote
5) The reduction in the number of launch bays worries me slightly as it seriously changes the threat levels of the Ordnance phase. - my typical fleet loses 6 launch bays (down from 16) - 37% reduction. The increase in torpedoes from the Custodian IMO doesn't offset this as the torps can easily be downed by a single fighter. Maybe thats intended balance, now that the explorer is an option, but just pointing it out.

This is intentional. The idea behind this fleet is as a mobile gun platform. The Custodian is more powerful than the Explorer and the Protector has comparable direct fire to a Hero but is unrestricted in the fleet. The Emissary (currently) has enormous firepower for its size (this has to come down!). The Custodian and Warden are faster than their Kor'vattra contemporaries and the Protector, Emissary and Castellan are more agile than their counterparts. Mobile gunships, rather than slow carriers.

Quote
6) How 'official' is this list? Some members at my club are opposed to using anything unofficial (ie, anything not appearing on the GW site is a no-go)

Presently these rules are still in the formative process. They're draft only rules, and therefore open to feedback. So feel free to playtest. Once finalised they'll become official.

Quote
7) Would it hurt to reprint the rules for Tracking Systems, Mantas and Missiles in this fleet list, to consolidate everything?

That actually sounds like a good idea.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 16, 2010, 11:43:37 AM
Hi Trasvi,
1) as you can see we are giving feedback to see the variant tweaked a little. You should also notice the range change on the Ion Cannons

2) Well, Sigoroth and I are advocating to see the Custodian classified as a Grand Cruiser to adress the issue you describe. So it is nice to see you are on the same wave.

3) mmm

4) 1 per full 750 ;)

5) Intentional! Best thing of this raider fleet: becoming a mobile gunnery fleet not relying on ordnance. Will make for more tactical battles for sure. Heck, I would even drop the launch bays on the Custodian to 4 (8 missiles) to advance the theme.

6) It will go to the GW site in time. So it will be at a time official. Now it is time to test and give feedback. A true good development thing. :)

7) Good.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 16, 2010, 06:19:55 PM
Yes, the salvo can be stopped by one fighter.  I am considering a house rule where fighter markers remove d6 torpedos when they hit. 

I do love tau torps, and would love to have the option to spam them as much as possible, if i wanted.


Finally, I agree with what someone mentioned about mantas not really being bombers in role.  Why not normal tigershark nonresilient bombers?
Give the carriers a 5 or 10 points break if need be.  Or make tigersharks 25cm, they look like fast bombers ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 18, 2010, 03:46:50 AM
I took a hard look at all the Tau feedback from the SG forum, and I play-tested the ideas I was presented with in several games (with several iterations per game)  to make sure we were going in the right direction. Because of time constraints, I was unable to get as much play time in as I wanted so the Ork FB rule tweaks will have to wait another week. However, it turns out some of the remarks were valid, and both the Emissary and Protector have been tweaked and had their variants balanced against each other a tiny bit.

Here’s the biggest thing about these ships that came out in gameplay over the weekend. Yes, they have a lot of firepower for their size, but it is for all intents and purposes all coming out of one arc, the prow. Even with their better turns, they still move only as fast as Imperials, and because all their firepower is essentially in their prows, they ended up spending a LOT of time getting their T’s crossed. The best response to this is keeping them line-abreast, but even then Imperials as often as not ended up in a better firing solution than the Tau, and the 6+ deflector ended up being of less utility than one would think under the circumstances. Even against Orks the FW ships are not overbearing fleet killers, precisely because we purposely dialed down their ordnance compared to the GW models. While their firepower is much better than Orks, it turns out their fragility compared to Ork ships turned into a significant balancing factor.

After spending more time with these things in actual gameplay. I would be very careful in complaining too much about how the new Tau ship profiles make them better than Imperials. I will post the new file on-line sometime tomorrow after I get all my notes collated, and I think this one will really allow us to staple this document shut. Even so, I will leave it in draft form for another week so everyone can review and comment.

Separately, I understand the argument about Tau ordnance, but at this time we're not entertaining any changes to the fundamental rules of any fleets. Once all the smaller projects are complete, maybe we will get to that, but right now there's a lot on our plate just with the unfinished materials we're working on at the moment.

-   Nate

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 18, 2010, 04:15:36 AM
Good with me.
And I told you it was balanced, those turns. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 18, 2010, 04:25:46 AM
sooo.... when do we get to see the changes? :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 18, 2010, 05:48:19 AM
When you say changes to tau ordnance, do you mean mantas becoming tigersharks and not being resilient?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 18, 2010, 06:37:27 AM
I took a hard look at all the Tau feedback from the SG forum, and I play-tested the ideas I was presented with in several games (with several iterations per game)  to make sure we were going in the right direction. Because of time constraints, I was unable to get as much play time in as I wanted so the Ork FB rule tweaks will have to wait another week. However, it turns out some of the remarks were valid, and both the Emissary and Protector have been tweaked and had their variants balanced against each other a tiny bit.

Here’s the biggest thing about these ships that came out in gameplay over the weekend. Yes, they have a lot of firepower for their size, but it is for all intents and purposes all coming out of one arc, the prow. Even with their better turns, they still move only as fast as Imperials, and because all their firepower is essentially in their prows, they ended up spending a LOT of time getting their T’s crossed. The best response to this is keeping them line-abreast, but even then Imperials as often as not ended up in a better firing solution than the Tau, and the 6+ deflector ended up being of less utility than one would think under the circumstances. Even against Orks the FW ships are not overbearing fleet killers, precisely because we purposely dialed down their ordnance compared to the GW models. While their firepower is much better than Orks, it turns out their fragility compared to Ork ships turned into a significant balancing factor.

After spending more time with these things in actual gameplay. I would be very careful in complaining too much about how the new Tau ship profiles make them better than Imperials. I will post the new file on-line sometime tomorrow after I get all my notes collated, and I think this one will really allow us to staple this document shut. Even so, I will leave it in draft form for another week so everyone can review and comment.

Separately, I understand the argument about Tau ordnance, but at this time we're not entertaining any changes to the fundamental rules of any fleets. Once all the smaller projects are complete, maybe we will get to that, but right now there's a lot on our plate just with the unfinished materials we're working on at the moment.

-   Nate

Good stuff, good stuff.

Huh, if only I had've predicted that 90° turns wouldn't be overpowered with fixed forward fire and lower hits ... oh wait ...  ::)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 18, 2010, 01:27:37 PM
Meanwhile i had an idea:

What if we take the tracking system from the Custodian to the Emissary. With only 10cm range od the system the Custodian would have problems following/staying close to the Cruisers. The Emissary on the other side is perfect for both staying with a Protector or supporting Castellans.

This way you could make the Emissary a much more needed ship and would avoid Custodian & Protector only fleets the same time as you give a Tau player more options how to use the tracking system. in addition it gives the easy to destroy Emmisary at least a small defence backup against ordnance.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 18, 2010, 01:36:04 PM
Except fluff wise the emissary is really not a required ship. it's a diplomatic vessel, at most 1 or 2 in any fleet. You'd either have 1 plus it's escort of protector/castellans or a couple in a larger fleet. However more often than not, I doubt you'd see one in a fleet.

How it is currently portrayed is fine IMHO :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 18, 2010, 01:45:24 PM
I dont think that the one sentence that describes the Emissary as a diplomatic vessal should be an argument against a variety of fleet options. If you insist on that you could as well simply drop the whole ship and say its not used as a combat ship.
What i mean is that fun in the game should have a higher priority than one sentence written as a fluff description of a certain vessal.
Thus the above suggested use of the Emissary shouldnt be declined by that one sentence if it created more depth for a tau player/fleet list.

Anyway i would like to hear more opinions on my suggestion.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Don Gusto on October 18, 2010, 03:05:47 PM
I suggested the same thing on page 1 of this thread.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 18, 2010, 03:24:58 PM
Cool didnt remember that. So we are already two who think it might work well ;-)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 18, 2010, 05:10:06 PM
Meanwhile i had an idea:

What if we take the tracking system from the Custodian to the Emissary. With only 10cm range od the system the Custodian would have problems following/staying close to the Cruisers. The Emissary on the other side is perfect for both staying with a Protector or supporting Castellans.

This way you could make the Emissary a much more needed ship and would avoid Custodian & Protector only fleets the same time as you give a Tau player more options how to use the tracking system. in addition it gives the easy to destroy Emmisary at least a small defence backup against ordnance.

Thumbs up.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 18, 2010, 05:20:52 PM
I think that moving the tracking system to the emissary would make it far to plentiful in the Tau fleet.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 18, 2010, 06:25:45 PM
Perhaps.  Final things that need doing.

add 1 to the battery strength of the warden.

Iron out, as has been said before, the variant options.  Some are too 'same and vanilla'

Looking it over again, the Castellan really seems 5 points overpriced.  50 is a bit too steep for this guy.

Otherwise, I really like this fleet a whole lot more than I thought I would.  Im not a fan of resilient mantas overall, but this looks like it will be alot of fun to play, different but not better/worse than GW Tau, and flavorful.  Well done :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 18, 2010, 07:43:22 PM
Hi LS, lets wait what Nate does.

For now I do not see a change needed to the Warden. Its weapon arcs are different to the Orca and speed is higher. And I tested it in a lot of battles.

Tracking Systems on the Emissary? Not so fan. If majority decides then as +15pts upgrade.

Castellan is priced perfectly, again tested many times. The FW variant had 2 missiles/3 railguns @ 30cm for 50pts and it was an essential ship to my fleet. In Project Distant Darkness is has 2 missiles/2 railguns @45cm just like in the draft heh heh and it works perfect.

Keep in mind that the Castellan in a squadron supported by a Custodian or Messenger gains extra dice above 30cm now. 3 Castellans have 6 railguns but under tracking systems it is 8 above 30cm.
Plus it can keep more distance = good for escorts and fly along Protectors.

50pts is spot on.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 18, 2010, 07:53:42 PM
switching the l/r/f on the orca and giving it a 5cm boost is worth 5 points?  Im not saying the Warden is an awful escort by any stretch.  I just have high expectations on towed escorts.  You know, make me really want to lose the ion cannons on my emissary to bring more of em, kind of thing.

When I see the Castellan, I cant help but compare to the 30 point cobra.  Lose 5cm movement and gain another 1 point in battery, turret, and armor.
Worth 20 points?  Granted, Tau torps are nice, but I dunno If I would take a 2/3 increase, when I could take an Emissary for just a bit more than 2 castellans.  But yes, I havnt playtested.  If you readily reach for them, then you must think they are worth it.

In my opinion on balancing, if theres a ship thats a no-brainer not to include, it needs to be better :)
Aka, all great choices.  If thats the case, then yay.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 18, 2010, 08:06:21 PM
Hi once again,

Castellan vs Cobra:
4+ armour vs 5+ armour
+1 battery + 15cm range
+ missile range
+1 turret
-5cm speed

is worth 20pts to me. :) The armour is a biggie. The Range and missiles as well. Really, you'd learn to love this vessel.

Better match is versus the Infidel:
same armour, +1 turrets, boarding torps vs missiles, -10cm speed, +15cm range.

Warden, yes 5pts warranted. 5cm means it can overtake the Custodian. So I can keep it a little further back.

I can present an abeam target to shoot with 1 lance, which is better then 2 batteries.


Look, I have my flying hours with this Castellan and Warden and I would not, never, increase them in strength. Nor lower points.

Perhaps you think on paper that they look perhaps a lesser choice but they truly aren't. They can win games. (From experience...).


ps the 4RG Warden variant for 25pts would be cute to be honest.

edit:
Firewarriors on the ships
Since the ships in the draft all have firewarrariors aboard to get normal boarding values what is the status of Merchants, Heroes and Explorers taken in this fleet. In a joint fleet operation I can see Firewarriors stationed on all vessels. Would it be an idea to add Firewarriors to mentioned ships for +15pts if a Kor'O & Custodian is present?

If Firewarriors was dropped completely I would have nu qualms about it either.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 19, 2010, 08:56:01 AM
Dropped completely from both Tau lists you mean?

I almost suggested that when I first read the PDF.  But I just dont know.  My only thought is that being less of a carrier fleet, they will be deep into the enemy, right?  How would they ever survive against tyranids or other close range fleets? (Granted, if you are boarded by nids it doesnt matter what your boarding value is.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 20, 2010, 03:25:27 AM

edit:
Firewarriors on the ships
Since the ships in the draft all have firewarrariors aboard to get normal boarding values what is the status of Merchants, Heroes and Explorers taken in this fleet. In a joint fleet operation I can see Firewarriors stationed on all vessels. Would it be an idea to add Firewarriors to mentioned ships for +15pts if a Kor'O & Custodian is present?

If Firewarriors was dropped completely I would have nu qualms about it either.

Fire Warrior cadres are included on the Kor'or'vesh ships because they are actual combat warships, designed to survive in a close-range firefight against orks, which will be trying to board them. What came up in play-testing was leaving them half-boarding along with their reduced HP's made Ork tactics against them simplistic: AAF until you are in their guns range, BFI until you close the distance, board them and watch them pop like soap bubbles.

The intent is that the Fire Warriors mechanic is reserved ONLY for Kor'or'vesh ships. Kor'vattra ships are more a merchant fleet than true warships, which is why their primary defense is their ordnance, which they have much more of compared to Kor'or'vesh ships (especially now). In game terms, allowing Kor'vattra ships to be ordnance-heavy AND take away the half-boarding value (not too large a burden because they are turet-heavy, which was intentional) removes the Orks one real advantage against them and would swing the pendulum too far against the greenskinz.

When selecting a Tau fleet, the current fleet options mean you have to pick how you want to play: Do yo want lots of hard-hitting ships, or do you want much flimsier vessels protected by lots and lots of ordnance? Of course you are also allowed to mix and match, but the more Kor'or'vesh ships you take, the less ordnance you will have for a given total points.

- Nate

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 20, 2010, 07:15:27 AM
Fine with me. I just wanted to point it. Still flufwise I could see an unofficial house rule being like what I said (+15-20pts for Firewarriors on 'old' vessels).

I am just waiting for the new draft. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 20, 2010, 10:47:26 AM
Wasnt that new draft promised yesterday? :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 20, 2010, 02:12:02 PM
Fine with me. I just wanted to point it. Still flufwise I could see an unofficial house rule being like what I said (+15-20pts for Firewarriors on 'old' vessels).

I am just waiting for the new draft. :)

Sure, of course they can! Like I said, WR is going to be awesome! I certainly don't mind at all this being a house rule and I have a whole slew of house rules I use. However, because this disturbs the balance we are trying to program into the fleet, we can't acually make it official.

Yes, I know the new Tau draft is late. Unfortunately, real life got in the way of me getting it done last night. I should have both this and the new Rogue Traders draft out today. Sorry!  :-\

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 20, 2010, 02:18:51 PM
Fine with me. I just wanted to point it. Still flufwise I could see an unofficial house rule being like what I said (+15-20pts for Firewarriors on 'old' vessels).

I am just waiting for the new draft. :)

Sure, of course they can! Like I said, WR is going to be awesome! I certainly don't mind at all this being a house rule and I have a whole slew of house rules I use. However, because this disturbs the balance we are trying to program into the fleet, we can't acually make it official.
I agree. :)

Quote
Yes, I know the new Tau draft is late. Unfortunately, real life got in the way of me getting it done last night. I should have both this and the new Rogue Traders draft out today. Sorry!  :-\

- Nate

You have a real life? lol. What's a real life?
Just kidding. Take it easy. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 23, 2010, 08:46:44 AM
Hi everyone!! Okay, the latest Rogue Traders Draft Rules and Tau Kor'or'vesh draft rules are on the street. Please review, comment and complain.

These are DRAFTS so make your complaints known of something is really broken. Rogue Traders in particular has a LOT of good easter eggs in it!  Make your comments known!

I also posted the Space Marines final in the same place. They can be seen here:

http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*

Now I'm going to bed!   8)

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 23, 2010, 09:04:16 AM
Looks pretty good. I'll probably not bother using the 45cm ion cannon variant of the protector for 2 reasons though, i'd only be fielding 1 at most (3-4 protectors => 1 45cm IC protector max) at so i'd employ the KISS principal :D

Good change on the wording of the custodian. Much clearer now. (though still feel it's a little too common... but that's by the by)

Then there's the long standing wishes...
cruiser turn rate on custodian... maybe at cost of 2 wb >_>
25cm speed on emissary (and 90* turns - though 90* turns and 20cm is better than 45* and 25cm - so please don't go back ;)


Elsewise, looks pretty good :D
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 23, 2010, 10:42:10 AM
Ok, low on time:

Custodian fine: one might consider to extend TS to 20cm. But Grand Cruiser status is to be adviced.

Vior'la Protector : eeeeek, 12 batteries + 2 IC at 30cm possible, that's too much. We in this thread adviced to give it 4 prow 2/2 on the sides. You just increased it with an extra 4. Too much imo. 30cm IC is what we also said, so good.

Tol'ku Protector : I like it, 5 missiles should be it.

Thus: Vior'la seems too strong. Both should have 5 missiles.

Emissary: launch bay variant is ill adviced. 3 missiles is much better. I still am against Ion Cannons on the model. Now we have 6 RG + 2IC = 6 + 6 = 12 is a lot. ;)

No, really, can we sway you in dropping the main railguns to 2/2 and give the vessel a speed of 25cm? But otherwise I can live with 3/3. The launch bay needs upping to 2. And 4/4 railguns is too high imo.

Oooh, Castellan. Nice. Don't change a thing. Yay yay yay. 25cm...

Fleet list okay.

Good step in the right direction. I think the Vior'la Protector is the only main issue at the moment as I see it as too strong.

The Emissaries could need a test run, though 1 lb is not enough.


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 23, 2010, 11:33:36 AM
I don't like the extended cutting beam range. Is it for this ship only or all Demiurg cutting beams?

To me Castellans are too expensive and Wardens are just not on a par with the Orca, but I might throw in a couple of Wardens to fill points when using a pure fleet. Otherwise I'd just use Orcas. Not terribly fussed about the Castellan, but it's a shame that none of the variant Wardens discussed were used (2IC, 1IC+3WB, 1IC + 1WB @ 25 pts, 4WB @ 25 pts or 4WB w/ 4+ armour @ 20 pts).

I think the Protector variants are much closer in value now, but I don't like the difference in torp values. I think they should both have 5. Apart from that it would require some sort of conversion work to represent the sort of variation we see between these ships.

Emissary - Again, why is there a fighter variant? Personally I think that the other variants should just have the fighter included, but assuming this isn't the case, then why would someone chose 1 fighter over 3 torps? I wouldn't chose 1 full launch bay over 3 torps, let alone a cut down bay.

I would just have 2 variants. 3 torps, 1 fighter, 3/3 p/s WBs and either hooks or lances. I'm not sure about upping the firepower of the hooked variant to 8 total.

My problem with the Custodian is an oldy but a goody. Drop AC and gain cruiser turn rate (turn after 10cm). Also, extend range of tracking system. At least double. Should be a better C&C ship than a little escort.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on October 23, 2010, 02:25:57 PM
I just noticed the custodian entry no longer specifies Prow deflectors. Did I miss the discussion on this earlier?
Edit: lol, first page. Following the reasoning there I agree with you, however it seems slightly illogical that the largest ship in the fleet has a different defence system. I like being able to play opponents who haven't seen tau and say 'all capital ships have 6/5 armor'. Keepin it simple.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 23, 2010, 04:51:17 PM
There is NO WAY the Custodian with its enormous gaping maw and huge, prow-facing hangar bays should have a 6+ prow.  If anything, the deflector is the only thing keeping the prow from being 4+!

Having just read Travsi's post I checked out what he was talking about and saw the above. I must say that I disagree with the notion. That "gaping maw" is a hole. Any shots going into it will miss the ship. They won't hit some critical internal component or anything. Also, on the prow facing hangar bays, well the Despoiler has prow facing bays and yet has 5+ armour. Sure, you could argue that the stats don't say prow bays, but they should. Also, even without the stats saying that, the model still has that gaping maw, much more so than the Custodian. That's just the Despoiler of course. There's also the strike cruiser and battle barge which both have "gaping maws" and prow facing hangar bays. They've got 6+ armour without the virtue of Tau deflector shielding.

So I see no reason why the Custodian couldn't have it. Given this then perhaps it should, as I suppose the Tau would certainly try to protect it. It is still a primarily forward facing ship like the rest of the fleet, but suffers much much worse manoeuvrability (only 45° ship in the fleet and the only one that requires 15cm move before turning). This would make it both desirable to get the target into the front arc and also very hard to prevent the opponent from getting to fire at the prow. Given how ponderous this ship is compared to the rest of the fleet one would think that it should get the 6+ prow. It is, after all, merely a function of their shield/drive technology, not one of actual armour (for which a precedent has been set possibly in the Despoiler and certainly in the SC/BB).

Still, I don't mind them having 5+ prow armour. I figure it'll divert a lot of firepower away from Protectors and Emissaries into a ship that could possibly handle it better. Still, you might want to look at who is supposed to be protecting whom. If Custodians are so precious that they can't be left unescorted then it would seem that the Tau would prefer fire to be directed at the Protectors and escorts. In which case maybe the 6+ prows are appropriate.

An option to give them the prow might be the easiest fix.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 23, 2010, 06:53:43 PM
On the Custodian without the prow deflector: I don't think it is missed but the reason is wrong. I mean, prow deflectors is a shield layering technique to make better warp dives and a better protection. Thus has absolutely nothing to do with how the ship looks.
But yeah, 5+ doesn't ground it.
(I do still like 2/2 launch bays + 8 missiles more, then the current but alas. Grand Cruiser status is more important ;) ).

I don't think the HA will do a change to the Warden and they have tried 2IC versions so I guess we'll need to adapt to a variant which plays really well.

The Castellan now has 25cm speed Sig, so increased. Thus it now has the greatest range on the whole Tau fleet! Cool. (25+45 = 70cm). 50pts is fitting.

Sig's right on the Emissary with the weapon layouts.

Sig, no problem with the Vior'la Protector as being to strong?


edit
page 2 : the picture of the Custodian is to large.
special rule page: Tracking Systems: mentioning of Custodian would be good (like boarding is changed as well).

On the fluff part.... since we went 90* I think a special notion must be made to:

Fio'O Ly'tan
Por'el Wt'ail
Kor'o Ry'zon

:)
Project Distant Darkness key figures.  ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on October 23, 2010, 08:01:23 PM
excellent changes  to the Kroot sphere! :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 23, 2010, 10:13:40 PM
From Nates last battle report i dont think the protector is too strong, you should always keep in mind that it only has 6hp and most weapons are only front arc so that you have to be closing to the opponent to be most effective.
And you dont have the possibility to use twice the firepower as imp ships if they have opponents on both sides.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 24, 2010, 03:05:25 AM
Where is that batrep located?

Thoughts:
Custodian: seems alright, 6+ isn't required. I would also advocate increasing the range to the tracking system, if anything, based on just the practicality of placing the models physically. It is for all intents and purposes a grand cruiser, but I guess the Tau could happily call it a battleship based on its weapons load out.

Protector: Agree with most comments, the T'olku does seem rather strong in battery strength. S16 equivalent isn't so bad though, it brings it brings it on par with the hitting power of a Carnage. I would feel more comfortable with a little less batteries, but I'll reserve judgment for more battle reports on how this fares. Agree with missile strength set to 5.

Emissary:  The Sa'Cea is still problematic. You think that two gravhooks and two points of battery strength equals two lances? That seems a stretch to me. The grav hooks let you take wardens, sure, but it takes an extra 100 points to fill them out and not taking the wardens means they effectively give you nothing. The other two don't really have much difference. Missiles are better than the fighter, and that's makes the Bork'an a better choice.

Maybe give the Dal'yth the deflector standard since it seems much more defensive oriented, make the Bork'an pay for it, and drop the Sa'cea entirely?

Castallan is an interesting beast. Expensive, but man, that's some nice firepower and maneuverability. It's even LFR so it can hit pretty hard from abeam and fire those nice guided torpedoes. Should it really get 45cm batteries though for how small this guy is? Have Tau really advanced enough to get 45cm range on an escort chassis with few drawbacks? Should it have some limit to how many can be taken?



Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 24, 2010, 05:24:54 AM
Ya, id definitly never ever take a warden over an orca, if given the chance.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 24, 2010, 08:03:21 AM
Orca : port or starboard fire strength = 2 weapon batteries.
Warden : port or starboard fire strength = 1 ion cannon = 3 weapon batteries.

Squad of 3 will be 6 vs 9.

Being in an abeam position is an advantage. Warden is also faster. It is good.

Vaaish, Castellan should have 45cm batteries as it stands. Though in PDD I fixed them forward. But leave 'em as is. They die and are playable. ;)

Caine-HO : If you don't think that 12 railguns + 2 ion cannon as focussed weaponry is too much, plus 5 missiles to add. Then I'm numbed. ;)
The essence is the scenario & tactician who uses the turn rate. In a sluggish fleet engagement a well played IN/Chaos fleet will be on top after the Tau did their alpha strike and failed it by a medium margin.

Vior'la 12+2 = 12+6 = 18 (medium-short ranged)
Carnage = 16 (long-medium ranged)
Slaughter = 22 (short ranged)
Lunar - Gothic - Dominator = 12 (short ranged)

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 24, 2010, 09:13:54 AM
Orca : port or starboard fire strength = 2 weapon batteries.
Warden : port or starboard fire strength = 1 ion cannon = 3 weapon batteries.

Squad of 3 will be 6 vs 9.

Being in an abeam position is an advantage. Warden is also faster. It is good.

So, let's say you have 5 Warden, and went abeam to get as much survivability as you could. That gives you 15WBe firepower. Now let's say you had 6 Orcas (same cost) but didn't give a rats about survivability because you have an extra hit/shield. In this case you get 30WBe firepower. So, an extra hit/shield & twice the firepower for the same cost. Only thing you lose is going survivability due to being prow on rather than abeam. If you limit the number of prow enemies to just your target, he'll likely be braced or crippled anyway. So, with more firepower and more hits for the same price, I don't see the prow/side argument holding any weight.

So, if the Wardens are going to be prow on so that they're not at such a disadvantage compared to Orcas then the slightly better swinging firepower is merely the most incidental of advantages. That simply leaves the extra speed vs the cost. Speed is good, and useful for escorts to get into that prime position. All other things being equal though the speed simply is not worth the increase of 20% cost. 6 Orca > 5 Warden for same price. Therefore 1 Orca > 1 Warden at current prices.

While it does require another hook to take the 6 Orcas over 5 Wardens in the former case wherever there are hooks I'd be inclined to take Orcas. In the latter case I feel no such compulsion. They're for left over points only.

The problem is that they're so much like an Orca. There were a tonne of other options given. The 2IC one is popular with a lot of people. There are objections to that. Rejected. The 1IC+3RG variant overcomes most of those objections. I can see people not liking so much firepower in such a small ship though, so reject that. That leaves 1IC+1RG or 4RG. The former is a bit of an odd duck so I'd prefer the latter. This option would give Tau a Firestorm version (Orca), a Sword version (Warden) and a couple of Cobra versions (Defender/Castellan). This could either be implemented as 4RG@25pts each or, my preferred, 4RG&4+ armour @20pts each. Seriously though, pick any damn option that isn't an Orca clone.

As for the 25cm speed on the Castellan, well, as a ship designed to sit back and pepper from afar this increase to minimum movement doesn't seem like an advantage to me. 20cm was fine for the ship. Much rather the Emissary go to 25cm.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 24, 2010, 10:48:50 AM
@horizon

its just different how these front arc weapons work out on a cruiser with 90°. Can we really say how it will work out from the paper comparing it with Imp cruisers who gameplaywise work totally different?

Of corse 90° and many weapons are an advantage, still  it is a big disadvantage to have only 6hp. The slaughter is short ranged and has 22  but its also 15points less for more HP AND a faster ships. I just want to point out that thoase ships are all very different in how you have to play them so the raw WB numbers wont tell you much if the weapons on the protector are too strong.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 24, 2010, 11:07:59 AM
True true. But the 90* is already an excuse for many players to scream overpowered so you certainly would not add other 'things' to give em a reason to scream. I mean the 90* is the essence of all that is cool. :)

I am a conservative. And at lease no one can scream at Project Distant Darkness being overpowered since these vessels have all less gunnery and more fixed fire arcs. :)

Sigoroth,
well, we ofcourse should make the note that Orca's & Wardens have their part in the cost of the Motherships.

Now on the Custodian I estimate the value of Grav Hooks at 5pts, for a total of 15pts.

So that is 5+30 = 35 for the Warden. A ship with weaponry comperable to the costlies firestorm, slightly more firepower then the Sword (which has more flexibility but at the same cost).
So, in that regard I call the current Warden very balanced.

Of course, then what is the issue? The very cheap Orca. Now we aren't changing Armada but I think maybe the fix should be there then? At least if we do not go Warden/25pts/4 railguns fixed forward.

Or does the Explorer / Merchant pay more for its Grav Hooks? This should be at least 10pts then.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 24, 2010, 02:18:39 PM
I ont think making Escorts more expensive is wise under current rules. We all want to see fleets with escorts as Cruiser only are boring, so let the alreay restricted orcas be what they are, i mean they have 20cm speed for escorts that like a tractor...
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 24, 2010, 07:01:30 PM
I am not saying point change, more like weapon change.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 24, 2010, 08:34:49 PM
Sigoroth,
well, we ofcourse should make the note that Orca's & Wardens have their part in the cost of the Motherships.

Now on the Custodian I estimate the value of Grav Hooks at 5pts, for a total of 15pts.

Agreed.

Quote
So that is 5+30 = 35 for the Warden. A ship with weaponry comperable to the costlies firestorm, slightly more firepower then the Sword (which has more flexibility but at the same cost).
So, in that regard I call the current Warden very balanced.

This is where I vehemently disagree. Not with your costing, that is obviously correct since I stipulated to the cost of the hook. Rather, on the use of the word "balanced".

Firstly, hooks present the Tau player with a problem. Since you've part paid for the escort already you have a vested interest in taking them. If you don't take them you've wasted points. So you're almost forced to take them. This is not the case for the IN.

Secondly, escorts are underpowered in general. I know you like them but that's neither here nor there. I like the Voss ships but they're not balanced at all. I rarely take escorts in my IN fleet and when I do it is either for defensive utility such as the 1 torp Falchion, or for exploitable offensive power, such as Cobra (cheap + capability to run a combined torp salvo down someone's line). Since there isn't this easy freedom of choice with the Tau escorts they're given a price break of 5 pts (maybe it should only be 3.5~4 points, but gotta round). In other words, since hooking is a straight downfall a hooked escort should always cost less than an identical non-hooked escort to compensate.

The Sword is an OK escort. Not a must have (unless you play against MSM Eldar) but not something that will terribly damage you if you take a few. If you take too many it will of course, because escorts are junk mostly. The Firestorm however really is an overpriced hunk of crap. Unlike the Sword its weaponry is diverse, making it not especially good against any particular fleet. It is also not very versatile in that to get maximal firepower (which you need to do to justify paying the 5 pts over the Sword) you must be prow on, which means it is not as defensible as the Sword and also means you have to manoeuvre more so can LO less. So since the Sword is only 'OK' when you have some spare points, the Firestorm is really lame and expensive.

The Warden is pretty much a carbon copy, except you have to take it. Sure, if the Firestorm were only 35 pts I'd contemplate taking it with left over points. I wouldn't take 6 in a 1500 pt fleet though! Let alone the optional choices for hooked Emissaries. To make matters worse the Warden isn't even as good as a Firestorm. It has only 1 turret. Given how much AC hurts escorts in general this is a pretty big deal for once. The swapping of the lance vs WBs being able to swing is negligible.

Quote
Of course, then what is the issue? The very cheap Orca. Now we aren't changing Armada but I think maybe the fix should be there then? At least if we do not go Warden/25pts/4 railguns fixed forward.

Or does the Explorer / Merchant pay more for its Grav Hooks? This should be at least 10pts then.

No, the Explorer only pays 5 pts. There's a case that maybe the Merchant pays a touch more compared to the alternative, but it's hard to say since it's so expensive to begin with. But anyway, the problem is not the Orca. It's got exactly the same armament as the overpriced Firestorm but lacks in speed and turrets. It costs only a total of 30 points actually paid (25+5), but hook compensation value takes this to 35 pts, which is not too cheap given the Firestorm is not really worth 40 pts, is faster and has an extra turret.

Anyway, the biggest problem is that the damn thing is so easy to compare to an Orca. In doing so people find it lacking. It confuses me as to why it hasn't been changed. I think that where the Orca was a (usable) Firestorm clone the Warden could become a (likewise usable) Sword clone. I'd pay 25 pts for 4RG@30cmLFR. Compared to an Orca it'd be like a Sword vs a Firestorm but instead of being cheaper it'd get speed/utility as the trade-off for firepower (if the Firestorm did that it'd be useful). When comparing it to the IN Sword class frigate it'd be 5 points cheaper in total but balanced by being hooked and having 1 less turret (ouch).

So I'd go with that. However, I'd prefer the even cheaper 20 pt option with 4+ armour. This would further separate it from the Orca, making direct comparisons harder, as well as represent the tinyness of the model and give another 4+ armour destroyer to the game. It'd also mean you can get a Custodian and 3 Wardens for under 400 points. Definitely my preference.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 24, 2010, 09:15:21 PM
Ok, low on time:

Custodian fine: one might consider to extend TS to 20cm. But Grand Cruiser status is to be adviced.

Vior'la Protector : eeeeek, 12 batteries + 2 IC at 30cm possible, that's too much. We in this thread adviced to give it 4 prow 2/2 on the sides. You just increased it with an extra 4. Too much imo. 30cm IC is what we also said, so good.

Tol'ku Protector : I like it, 5 missiles should be it.

Thus: Vior'la seems too strong. Both should have 5 missiles.

Emissary: launch bay variant is ill adviced. 3 missiles is much better. I still am against Ion Cannons on the model. Now we have 6 RG + 2IC = 6 + 6 = 12 is a lot. ;)

No, really, can we sway you in dropping the main railguns to 2/2 and give the vessel a speed of 25cm? But otherwise I can live with 3/3. The launch bay needs upping to 2. And 4/4 railguns is too high imo.

Oooh, Castellan. Nice. Don't change a thing. Yay yay yay. 25cm...

Fleet list okay.

Good step in the right direction. I think the Vior'la Protector is the only main issue at the moment as I see it as too strong.

The Emissaries could need a test run, though 1 lb is not enough.




Fast pass on this one:

Vior'la Protector had a bad cut and paste. missiles fixed, and I adjusted the batteries downward slightly to keep the two variants balanced. I'm not doing anything else to this because it playtested very well like this. Keep in mind it essentially has one quadrant: prow. In a manner of speaking, even the Orks have better broadsides than this thing, which is a factor in and of itself.

I know it seems like the Emissaries are gunned pretty toughly toward the prow, but these ships are otherwise junk, and a 4Hp vessel with primarily prow weapons really doesn't do as well as the profile suggests in a fleet setting. Keeping this ship properly balanced has proven to be one of the biggest challenges we faced with this entire fleet.

Emissaries aren't getting more than one launch bay. The whole point is that this fleet is supposed to be poorer for attack craft than the Kor'vattra. Think like a munchkin: if we give the cheapest ship more launch bays, there's nothing keeping a Tau player from buying a bunch of these, and if we add a second launch bay, we will have to compensate the rest of the variants somehow. This is themeful and balanced as-is, and it play-tests well. There are three variants, and only one has launch bays. People who want more fighters will take it. Those that don't, won't. 

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 24, 2010, 11:19:32 PM
As you are mentioning it urself i want to ask again.

Is the Emissary worth its points even now? Wouldnt be the better way to have it get the 2 shields (even strike cruisers can get 2 now), as 4 HP are nothing to work with for a capital shp.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 25, 2010, 10:44:58 AM
Emissaries aren't getting more than one launch bay. The whole point is that this fleet is supposed to be poorer for attack craft than the Kor'vattra. Think like a munchkin: if we give the cheapest ship more launch bays, there's nothing keeping a Tau player from buying a bunch of these, and if we add a second launch bay, we will have to compensate the rest of the variants somehow. This is themeful and balanced as-is, and it play-tests well. There are three variants, and only one has launch bays. People who want more fighters will take it. Those that don't, won't. 

- Nate

I don't think anyone is suggesting extra launch bays. Merely saying that it is simply not worth 3 torps and this variant needs more to be competitive. No one would take it as is ever. It can't even launch a bomber. Even if it could it wouldn't be worth as much as the 3 torp variants.

I recommend dropping the variant altogether and adding a fighter bay to the other 2 variants.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 25, 2010, 11:41:33 AM
Quote
I recommend dropping the variant altogether and adding a fighter bay to the other 2 variants.
Would be easy & quick fix.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on October 25, 2010, 04:13:07 PM
Quote
I recommend dropping the variant altogether and adding a fighter bay to the other 2 variants.
Would be easy & quick fix.

It is a consensus of all the HA's that the Emissary will NOT have both torps and fighters. In reality, the ship was always supposed to have torpedoes. The fact that it has fighters at all is to appease those who want them (mainly inspired by the Fire Warrior videogame). If we make any more changes to the Emissary, it will be to remove fighters entirely rather than get rid of the variant.

In the larger scheme of things, when play-testing, there are multiple factors to consider. For example:
1. How does the ship behave if a player takes a fleet of ONLY this ship?
2. How does the ship behave in a normal fleet setting?
3. How well does the ship behave when compared to how the designers intended the fleet to behave as far as strengths/shortcomings?

It's a LOT to try and keep balanced, which goes a lot deeper than the weapon fit of this ship vs. that ship or this fleet vs. that fleet, etc.

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 25, 2010, 04:29:41 PM
Nate,
I think the point was to remove the fighters not give it both. The thing is, if you take out the fighters you end up with two variants that are essentially the same so it makes sense to drop one and only have two variants of the Emissary. One which has torpedoes and swaps out the gravhooks for ion cannons and one which has torpedoes and gravhoooks.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 25, 2010, 07:41:37 PM
Nate,
You really think that 1 fighter bay + 3 missiles (what we advice) will unbalance it all?

Look at the FW Emissary:
130pts

hits 4
shields 1
speed 20
turns 45
armour 6+/5+
turrets 2

prow railguns str4 @ 45cm - F
port railguns str2 @ 30cm - LF
starboard railguns str2 @ 30cm - RF
prow missiles str3 @ 20-40cm - F
port launch bay - fighters
starboard launch bay - fighter

-------------------

Now your proposal:
Sa'cea
120pts (incl prow deflector)

hits 4
shields 1
speed 20
turns 90
armour 6+/5+
turrets 2

port railguns str3 @ 45cm - LF
starboard railguns str3 @ 45cm - RF
port ion cannon str1 @ 30cm - LF
starboard ion cannon str1 @ 30cm - RF
prow missiles str3 @ 20-40cm - F

--------------
So what do we have:

differences

FW vs Sa'cea
130 vs 120
45 vs 90

4 RG@ 45cm vs 6RG @45cm
8 RG@ 30cm vs 12RG @ 30cm
2 fighters vs o fighters

HAAA! ;)
The FW Emissary was crap. Sa'cea certainly isn't/

So, yes, I believe you if the Sa'cea should not get a fighter bay. A changed Sa'cea should.
My gunnery Sa'cea:

Sa'cea
120pts (incl prow deflector)

hits 4
shields 1
speed 25
turns 90
armour 6+/5+
turrets 2

prow railguns str2 @ 45cm - F
port railguns str2 @ 30cm - LF
starboard railguns str2 @ 30cm - RF
prow missiles str3 @ 20-40cm - F
dorsal launch bay str1 fighters

Variant:
may swap port/starboard railguns for a grav hook.

Done.
Not much difference to your creations but more manageable and cooler. :)




And I still do think there should be more fixed forward gunnery.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 26, 2010, 07:15:44 AM
It is a consensus of all the HA's that the Emissary will NOT have both torps and fighters.

I would really like to know the reason for this. If it is purely a reason of balance I think that can be easily remedied. If the reason is tied to one of the 3 considerations you've listed in balancing fleets, I'll address each of those in turn in a bit.

Quote
In reality, the ship was always supposed to have torpedoes. The fact that it has fighters at all is to appease those who want them (mainly inspired by the Fire Warrior videogame). If we make any more changes to the Emissary, it will be to remove fighters entirely rather than get rid of the variant.

Eh, well the model was inspired by the Fire Warrior game (which is a good game btw). Further to the point, I think that the addition of another fighter would really suit the putative role of this ship. In fact, I'll paint the stats of this ship as I see it apropos to fluff.

Right, so, this is a diplomatic vessel rather than a warship. Doesn't mean it couldn't be a warship, just that it has got to be able to fulfil the role of diplomatic vessel too. So for a diplomats ship one would expect it to be tough, in case things go wrong (since we can't increase hits, 2 shields) but fast so as to get out of trouble ASAP (25cm). It should be able to defend itself from pirate attacks (90° turns, 2 turrets, fighter screen and torps to hunt them down) or boarding parties (fighter screen). Oh, and it'd usually be escorted (hooks for Wardens).

That would be pretty much it, from the diplomatic side. This ship is meant to be a bit more than that though, it's meant to be an active escort hunter (as opposed to a reactive one) and also be able to fit into a battlefleet (at least some incidental weaponry). So here's the profile I'd have:


Code: [Select]
Emissary (Diplomatic)  - 120 pts
4 hits, 6+/5+ armour,  90° turns
25cm speed, 2 shields, 2 turrets

Armament      Range    Str   Arc
Prow torps   20-40cm    3     F
Prow bays     25cm      1F    -
P+S RGs       30cm     2/2    F
P+S hooks      -       1/1    -

Code: [Select]
Emissary (battlefleet) - 120 pts
4 hits, 6+/5+ armour,  90° turns
25cm speed, 1 shields, 2 turrets

Armament      Range    Str   Arc
Prow torps   20-40cm    3     F
Prow bays     25cm      1F    -
P+S RGs       30cm     3/3    F
P+S ICs       30cm     1/1    F

The fighter may not be needed for the fleet version but I'd rather it kept it so that the ordnance remains consistent between the 2 variants (this is the hardest thing to model). As for the other changes I think that the hooks + 2nd shield is a good trade-off in terms of energy requirements to the 2IC + extra 2RG. So the fleet support ship would pack some more punch.

These rules seem to me to be on the one hand quite fluffy and on the other fairly easy to model. This is just the sort of ship I'd prefer for feel purposes. Just adding a fighter to each of the current torp variant Emissaries and upping their speed to 25cm would be fine too (maybe drop a little firepower). Then boot the current no torp variant.

Quote
In the larger scheme of things, when play-testing, there are multiple factors to consider. For example:
1. How does the ship behave if a player takes a fleet of ONLY this ship?
2. How does the ship behave in a normal fleet setting?
3. How well does the ship behave when compared to how the designers intended the fleet to behave as far as strengths/shortcomings?

It's a LOT to try and keep balanced, which goes a lot deeper than the weapon fit of this ship vs. that ship or this fleet vs. that fleet, etc.

- Nate

Ok, on point 1., I don't think that adding 1 fighter bay to the Emissary will make the Tau player say "zomg! I'll take 12!". A fleet of Emissaries without the extra fighter on board wouldn't be all that impressive. With the fighter ... well, let's say we're approaching minimum threshold for viability. Certainly not OP.

As for poing 2., if it were simply a FW Tau fleet then 1f per Emissary, 1 f/b per Protector and 6 f/b per Custodian. To me not that big a deal. Of course, if you really really didn't want it to be overpowered you could drop the Custodian down to 4 AC ...

Onto point 3. Well, presumably we're talking a low AC fleet. So this seems to contravene that notion. However, it's only a fighter, which is purely defensive. Also, if you dropped the Custodians complement down to 4 then you'd lose 1f/b for every 115 pts of Custodian you spend and gain 1f for every 120 pts of Emissary you spend. Since this is more expensive, in a less attractive ship and reduces the Custodians maximum potential all at the same time I'd say this is a better option than the 6 AC Custodian 0 fighter Emissary.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 26, 2010, 08:31:02 AM
Onto point 3. Well, presumably we're talking a low AC fleet. So this seems to contravene that notion. However, it's only a fighter, which is purely defensive. Also, if you dropped the Custodians complement down to 4 then you'd lose 1f/b for every 115 pts of Custodian you spend and gain 1f for every 120 pts of Emissary you spend. Since this is more expensive, in a less attractive ship and reduces the Custodians maximum potential all at the same time I'd say this is a better option than the 6 AC Custodian 0 fighter Emissary.[/color]
Minor point, but Custodian is 330, so looses 1 AC per 165 pts you spend.... :) Less expensive, but you are only gaining the defense side of the bays, so may as well call it 82.5 pts, at which point the emissary's AC are definitely more expansive by +50% for purposes above...
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 26, 2010, 05:49:37 PM
@sig

the first version doesnt look bad to me. btw i think its more of a battleflied version then to others because the 2nd shield is so much more than 2 more WBs.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 26, 2010, 07:11:39 PM
Minor point, but Custodian is 330, so looses 1 AC per 165 pts you spend.... :) Less expensive, but you are only gaining the defense side of the bays, so may as well call it 82.5 pts, at which point the emissary's AC are definitely more expansive by +50% for purposes above...

Right you are, right you are, bit of a slip up there. In reading over it I also spelt "point" as "poing" once too.  :P

@sig

the first version doesnt look bad to me. btw i think its more of a battleflied version then to others because the 2nd shield is so much more than 2 more WBs.

Oh, of course, of course, the 2nd shield is worth more than the 2 extra RGs. But on top of this we have the hook swap. So the hooked variant is less offensive on its own and more defensive. The lance variant more offensive less defensive. This is to compensate for any perceived imbalance between the hooks and lances, making the hooks slightly more attractive.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 26, 2010, 07:52:43 PM
Ah ok, didnt realise the IC.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 28, 2010, 01:53:50 PM
So, hey, on 1500exact:

Kor'o + Aun'el
Custodian
3* Warden
Custodian
3* Warden
3* Protector
=1500

or

Kor'o + Aun'el
Custodian
3* Warden
Custodian
3* Warden
1* Protector
1* Emissary
5* Castellan
= 1500

1 Emissary [pd] + 5 Castellan = 2 Protectors
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 28, 2010, 02:38:37 PM
or

Kor'O & Aun'El
Custodian
3x warden
3x Protector
2x Emissary
4x Castellan

(Though personally i'd dump the 2 Emissary's for 4 more Castellans :) )

or

Kor'O & Aun'O 130
Custodian
3x Warden
Emissary
2x Warden
Emissary
2x Protector
6x Castellan

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 28, 2010, 04:19:18 PM
Or:

Kor'el + Aun'el
Custodian
Protector x 3
Hero x 3
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 28, 2010, 07:28:06 PM
I just made a list that had 2 Custodians. My normal fleet would look different. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Xisor on October 28, 2010, 07:57:25 PM
Greetings!

A few quick suggestions and comments:
- I think the fleet restrictions are generally needless. Availability of battleships, good. Mandating them? Not good.
- Demiurg escorts. Flip the RT Xenos Escort around and use the Defence Monitor Hull with a few bits clipped off and you have two perfectly sensible looking Demiurg escorts. One is a slightly bulkier one, one is a much smaller and more skeletal one. In my Demiurg list I denote them Rampart and Buttress classes.
- There's a few options for the Cutting Beam. Personally, after years of considering it and examining bits, I see very little reason to think that it shouldn't simply be a short ranged Bombardment Cannon or Lance. I favour the BC interpretation because it adds excellent critical hit opportunities, but requires a bit of odd rationalisation for effectiveness versus ordnance. I don't mind this because it makes it much simpler and 'neater'.
- There is still a trouble with the Castellan in which it is conflicted. This runs parallel to the problem with the Hellebore for the Eldar. That is: use of special orders. With a strong Torpedo/Missile component, you lose effectiveness mightily without reloading ordnance. But with a heavy/formidable 'other weapon' complement anyway, you really should be looking for opportunities to Lock On. Balancing the cost for this uncertainty/indecision is something I find is most easily solved by simply diversifying the role of the escorts: Warden for proper weapons, Castellan for Missiles. This allows the costs to come down and the force to be streamlined for efficiency by the players and designers. Given the Tau's willingness to use allied ships, I see no trouble with this except for those who are very keen to use 'Tau only' fleets, but I find that a difficult audience to cater for, mainly because it doesn't add anything.

Anyway, that's just a quick rehash of the long-standing troubles I've personally had with the fleet reformed to consider this list particularly.

I'll add more in detail when I can! It's really nice to see peeps working on it!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 28, 2010, 08:20:50 PM
Horizon, I don't think you could pull 2 custodians in 1500 points. You have to have at least 750 points of tau vessels in the fleet to take the first one and then the second can be taken once you hit 1500 points of ships. That would make it a minimum of 1910 points to have two custodians once you include the Kor'O.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 28, 2010, 08:30:29 PM
This has been cleared up in the examples of the fleet list (custodian entry)... 2 in 1500 is fine.

Also i believe that the don't apply restrictions  untill you have the whole fleet list mantra applies...

ie,  my 1500 point fleet list is blah blah blah... is it legal?

1500 of tau ships... check so 2 custodians allowed
2 custodians + x other grav hooks allows 6 wardens plus y other grav hook needing thingies... so long as y=< x, this is fine
etc

I think i've just made this an overly complicated example/explanation XD i blame my cold >_>
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 28, 2010, 08:56:40 PM
The Castellan would be awesome if it slowed down and lost whatever was needed to gain another missile.  Just because I love Tau missiles, and a truly dedicated beefy missile boat would be grand.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 28, 2010, 09:10:17 PM
The Castellan with 2 RG@45cm and 2 missiles is NOT conflicted. It is a GRAND design in the Tau fleet and should be kept. Do NOT mess with it.

Veto from me. (Like that counts... ;) ).

Perhaps Nate should chip in of the list I posted is legal or not. Just to avoid future confusions.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 28, 2010, 09:30:02 PM
The wording seems like the same as the Void Stalker one or similar, but I agree clarification would be nice. Given the list isn't final having the restrictions as clear as possible can only be a good thing!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 28, 2010, 11:12:00 PM
Its just that 3 torps would be so grand.  Cant we make it happen? ^^
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 29, 2010, 11:22:03 PM
To be honest, the idea of having to have exactly 750 pts of ships to be able to field 1 is demented. It should just go by your point limit, not how close you get to it. If you were playing a 3000 point game then this should be a perfectly legal list:

Kor'el
Custodian x 4

It's not like there's any advantage to doing this, so it can't be abused. And before you say something like "the Tau wouldn't leave their battleships unprotected", blah, blah, well the other ships got lost in transit. Destroyed a priori. Called away to answer an emergency that the slower Custodians couldn't reach in time. Accidentally flew into a minefield. Was lured away by a crafty enemy leaving the Custodians vulnerable. Etc.

If you're gunna start doing crap like saying it has to be exactly 1500 pts to get 2 Custodians, then you need to put in 5 pt upgrades.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on October 29, 2010, 11:26:45 PM
weeeeell, i'd argue that it should be

4 x Custodian
Kor'O
Aun'el/O

but i get your point ;)

i think the idea behind it is to avoid 2 custodians and multiple bastion/stronghold etc ships.


Personally i'd rather see 1 per 1500 pts or part there of (could be 1250 or 1000, nothing lower though)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on October 29, 2010, 11:32:43 PM
For me its more the point how many points we play in a game than how many points are in the fleet.

So if we say we make a 750 points match its one custodian even if i got only 720 points with what ships i chose. I dont think this should ever be an problem when you play with friends.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on October 30, 2010, 08:42:14 AM
^^ agreed on the 'or part thereof' restriction. Like in (old) Fantasy, where you got 1 Lord choice at 2000pts.... that was if you were playing a 2000pt GAME, not if your army came to >= 2000
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 30, 2010, 11:32:17 AM
Void Stalker has the same 'issue'. In WR and FAQ now clarified that strict rules is:
If your fleet is 999points no Void Stalker allowed. If fleet is 1000-1999 one Void Stalker is allowed. 2000-2999 two is allowed, etc.

Custodian would then be:
0-749 = 0
750-1499 = 1
1500 - 2249 =2
2250 -2999 = 3
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on October 30, 2010, 05:27:19 PM
Void Stalker has the same 'issue'. In WR and FAQ now clarified that strict rules is:
If your fleet is 999points no Void Stalker allowed. If fleet is 1000-1999 one Void Stalker is allowed. 2000-2999 two is allowed, etc.

Custodian would then be:
0-749 = 0
750-1499 = 1
1500 - 2249 =2
2250 -2999 = 3

This still isn't "clear". If I am playing a 1000 pt game then you could argue that I have a 1000 pt fleet regardless of whether or not the total points of the models that constitute that fleet add up to exactly 1000.

It doesn't make sense anyway. If my fleet came to 995 pts including a VS and I really had to have 1000 pts worth of models in order to take it then I'd just pay 5 pts more for one of my ships. What, you're going to argue that I can't spend points on nothing?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on October 30, 2010, 05:45:42 PM
Perhaps then just use similar wording to the Marine battlebarge? that seems clear enough that I've not seen anyone post contrary to the limitations. IIRC the point of the VS wording is to prevent the ship from being taken in a 1k game.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on October 31, 2010, 02:07:30 PM
I was thinking.  Would anyone else fine the Castellan better at 20cm, with the missil duty?  I find myself wishing my Infidels were slower at times, want them to hang back and fire as much as possible.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on October 31, 2010, 07:19:17 PM
Hi Sigoroth.
nope HA has clarified that in an issue of WR plus it is FAQ2010 stuff now. However both Bob & Ray stated they wouldn't mind playing an opponent with 990 pts and a Void Stalker.

So I am with you regarding the rule but the officials tell us differently yet do it like us.

LS,
No, keep em at 25cm. Please. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 31, 2010, 08:36:40 PM
So I am with you regarding the rule but the officials tell us differently yet do it like us.

That's just so wrong.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: clintv42 on November 01, 2010, 04:35:38 AM
So I'm posting this without reading through all 18 damn pages of this marvelous thread (although I will read through all 18 by the end of the week).  I had an idea about the emissary and wanted to hear your thoughts if its not too late.  As the emissary is a diplomatic vessel and while geared to defend itself its not a true warship, what if you went a higher defensive route.  Something along the lines of these additions (weapon load out may need to change depending on how many goodies they get).

All WB suffer a negative column shift when shooting at them.
Increased turrets by 1
Networked Turrets such as the Messenger
adds +1 turret to any vessel within 10cm if not going with the Messenger ability perhaps?
Automatically passes BFI?
All FW vessels within 10 cm get targeting matrix? (that's positive column shift right?)

Just some suggestions.  I use my emissaries but they do like to blow up....a lot, they love that sh*t.  This could give them a bit more survivability without trying to add more fire power to justify their point.  I don't know, just some ideas, what do you guys think?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 01, 2010, 06:23:36 AM
Uhm. no. Sorry. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 01, 2010, 09:34:29 AM
I was thinking.  Would anyone else fine the Castellan better at 20cm, with the missil duty?  I find myself wishing my Infidels were slower at times, want them to hang back and fire as much as possible.

Yep, it was 20cm speed earlier then got changed. This might have been because I bemoaned the cost and generally find them unusable. I don't know if anyone else had similar complaints. Maybe the HA thought, "what small boost could we give them without lowering the cost?". It should be noted that my objection was a general one against the high cost and general uselessness of escorts. In this case I think the Castellan would be better served with 20cm speed, since it's a torp boat with long range guns. Would be ideal for escorting Custodians (which is strange since that duty falls to the Warden).

All WB suffer a negative column shift when shooting at them.

This is an Eldarish type defence, and I couldn't see how the Tau could manage it, nor why they'd only put it on the Emissary.

Quote
Increased turrets by 1

So 3 turrets? Hmm, I don't think so.

Quote
Networked Turrets such as the Messenger

Yeah, I could see a turret re-roll working.

Quote
adds +1 turret to any vessel within 10cm if not going with the Messenger ability perhaps?
All FW vessels within 10 cm get targeting matrix? (that's positive column shift right?)

These are fleet defences, and don't really support the notion of being a diplomatic vessel. Of course, the Emissary is a dual role ship, but I suppose it depends on what you consider its primary role to be and how easy it is to refit for its secondary role.

I see the Emissary as a diplomatic vessel that could be slightly modified for a fleet support role.

Quote
Automatically passes BFI?

Again, not really.

Quote
Just some suggestions.  I use my emissaries but they do like to blow up....a lot, they love that sh*t.  This could give them a bit more survivability without trying to add more fire power to justify their point.  I don't know, just some ideas, what do you guys think?

Yeah, their survivability is a bit of an issue. I've suggested in this thread a 2 shield variant with hooks. I imagine this vessel to be the diplomatic variant. There's a 1 shield up-gunned fleet version (squadron for extra survivability).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: clintv42 on November 01, 2010, 04:19:05 PM
Uhm. no. Sorry. :)

Is that in reference to the my ideas?  If so give me your thoughts on them.  I'd love to hear why you don't think they'd work.  Just so we're clear those are just ideas that I pulled out of the air so any number of combination could be applicable, not all of them certainly.

Thanks for your feedback Sigoroth.  
Eldarish type of defense maybe, but I could see it being implemented on a ship that may have to pull itself out of some hot spots.  The design of the Emissary always screamed stealth tech to me, just my opinion.

3 turrets no, I must not have gotten to the point were you guys decided it would be 2 turrets (I've only played fw list with them thus far).  2 works fine, particularly if it gets the messenger ability.

Yeah my thoughts of the Emissary tend to take me to a support/diplomatic roll.  Don't know if anyone else agrees but I can definitely see it supporting other ships as opposed to relying only on its firepower in a battle.  

I never really thought of running squadrons of Emissaries, particularly if they have 2 shields I think that may be the way to run them assuming they stay relatively the same as the current fw list.

***

And I just got done reading everything.  Sounds like you guys have the emissary in a decent enough spot now so take or leave my suggestions as I don't think they're valid since you guys have rounded the emissary out a bit.  Thanks for the feedback though Sig
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 05, 2010, 08:41:44 PM
Besides what others have mentioned, Id just like to refresh that I wouuld actually find the Castellan much more useful at 20cm.  As in better.

Edit: Off topic, but saw your forgeworld tau on dakkadakka, Horizon.  Love the paintscheme.  Im going to be getting some FW tau, and was wondering how you got such a nice bold white while keeping every 'crack' in the hull dark and defined.  Patience I assume, I'm a lousy painter :)


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 05, 2010, 09:19:54 PM
Thanks. (It did participate in GothiComp 2009 as well, ended forth or fifth, my Craftworld Eldar 2nd just behind Caina-HoA's Tau FW/GW fleet).
The Custodian won the painting competition in 2007. Yay for me. :)

Sprayed them white.
Used black ink (thinned down black will also work) going through all lines. Tedious, yes. Then using thin layers of skull white to fix mistakes I made and enrichen the white over all parts. Then very thinned space wolf grey for the blue ish parts. Thinned down white (very watery) on the edges to highlight. That's about it. White looks cool. But a tedious colour.

Lord Chronos made even better ones though took a more daring off-set colour (purple), check GothiComp 2008.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on November 05, 2010, 11:51:15 PM
Besides what others have mentioned, Id just like to refresh that I wouuld actually find the Castellan much more useful at 20cm.  As in better.

I'm desperately trying to think why castellans at 20cm would be any better... you don't have to move your maximum speed, and it doesn't affect minimum distance to turn....
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 06, 2010, 12:04:28 AM
It does affect minimum moves though.  Its a rather unique long range support escort.  The further away, the better.
I cant think of any advantageous reason to include 5cm. 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on November 06, 2010, 12:12:03 AM
yup, so it does... been too long since i've played  :-[

It's only a small change to the minimum distance (2.5 cm) iin any case :)

There are some benefits though, getting into weapons range faster, getting behind ships etc
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 06, 2010, 02:07:42 AM
Perhaps in some cases, though given their long range nature I dont know why you would have them going out any distance past the normal fleet.

Honestly, Id rather em be 15 cm, but Im sure they wont give us that ^^

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 07, 2010, 03:14:26 AM
The Castellan with 2 RG@45cm and 2 missiles is NOT conflicted. It is a GRAND design in the Tau fleet and should be kept. Do NOT mess with it.

Veto from me. (Like that counts... ;) ).

Perhaps Nate should chip in of the list I posted is legal or not. Just to avoid future confusions.

I've been out of Internet access for more than a week now. Which list are you talking about?

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 07, 2010, 08:05:52 AM
A list with 2 Custodians at TaEXACT 1500pts.
Allowed or not?

Kor'o + Aun'el
Custodian
3* Warden
Custodian
3* Warden
3* Protector
=1500
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 07, 2010, 10:53:59 PM
I have a question about something I just noticed, now looking more in detail at the PDF as I intend to start a FW tau fleet :)

The Custodian only has 4 shields.  Now, its battleship priced, and already has 2 less hits than other battleships.  Why no 4th shield?

Also, could we please have a 3rd cruiser variant?  I like purist fleets, and I just want some more variety for the base ship class is all.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 07, 2010, 11:49:43 PM
I have a question about something I just noticed, now looking more in detail at the PDF as I intend to start a FW tau fleet :)

The Custodian only has 4 shields.  Now, its battleship priced, and already has 2 less hits than other battleships.  Why no 4th shield?

Also, could we please have a 3rd cruiser variant?  I like purist fleets, and I just want some more variety for the base ship class is all.

In essence the Custodian is a grand cruiser. I think it should be labelled as such so that it benefits from a cruisers turning circle (leave it unable to CTNH). At 45° turn rate and 15cm minimum move to turn this will be a tremendously sluggish vessel compared to the rest of the fleet.

A Protector could move go on CTNH, move 10cm, turn 90°, move 10cm and turn once more to be facing directly backwards (14.14cm "back" from where it started, at a 45° angle). Even if the Custodian was granted grand cruiser status it would take 4 turns for it to turn around fully (unassisted by gravity wells). As it stands however it would finish 39.2cm away from its starting point (15cm back, 36.2cm to a side). With a cruiser turning circle it would only be 26.13cm away from its starting point (10cm back, 24.14cm to a side). Hell, it wouldn't even be too much to allow it to go on CTNH, since when using CTNH it would still have a wider turning circle than a Protector that didn't use the order (though it would make it much easier to keep up).

As for extra Protector variants, to be honest I don't think we should have any variant at all. This is simply because the model is non-modular and therefore makes it harder to convert. The Emissary on the other hand is fairly simple. If you consider the 2 wingtip guns to be lances then the hook variant would have these clipped off. If not, you could simply put a turret on the round sections on the wings (top or bottom) for the lance variant. So a lance or hook variant would be fine for the Emissary, but I don't see the fighter or torp variant happening.

If it weren't for model considerations I'd have no objections to multiple Protector variants.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 08, 2010, 03:24:23 AM
I'd be happy converting honestly.

Taking away battleship status would be a boon to the Custodian.  I'm just noticing it now that I plan on buying them, like I said, but the Custodian is like a totally different ship compared to the rest of the fleet, like a holdover from GW Tau.

My main issue is that the Custodian has battleship mobility, battleship price, and grand cruiser weapon ranges and defenses.

I don't see why I would ever take a Custodian, or see it as a real asset to my fleet compared to other choices.  Id rather take many Protectors.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 08, 2010, 04:13:16 AM
Official pdf's should only give models which are "out of the box or blister", so no conversions needed.

The Custodian is cool & good. Grand Cruiser label to it and done with it.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 08, 2010, 05:46:49 AM
145 point increase, almost double cost, and for that cost you gain 5 attack craft and 3 torpedos, almost identical weaponry (!),
durability increase and becomes much more immobile.  Just meh.  Not even battleship grade weapon ranges.  It would be cool if it could at least have its weaponry go to 60cm.  2 more batteries on each side would be dandy as well.  60cm would really synergize well with targeting systems.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 08, 2010, 06:37:58 AM
wtf...

No 60cm weapons on Tau. We do not want codex creep!!

Now, you need to sway your view. With these Tau rules the FW fleet has no attack carriers. Only Attack cruisers with gunnery and a launch bay to clear fighters for missiles.
The Custodians fills a role and has a place. To be the only carrier.

I dish out 330 with pleasure. As a grand cruiser. lol
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 08, 2010, 05:20:21 PM
I didn't mean at the expense of the ordnance.  I just dont understand why this thing costs as much as a Retribution, and is far weaker in its offense in defense.  

I'm trying to like it, really.

Edit:  And the variant protector really doesnt simply lose 4 batteries for another torpedo.  Thats a typo, right?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 08, 2010, 06:53:16 PM
Well, it did but Nate promised to fix the Protector (both 5 missiles).

The Custodian can win against a Retribution (which costs 15pts more).
The Retribution can win against a Custodian (which costs 15pts less).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on November 08, 2010, 06:59:33 PM
The gained torp is a typo, both should be 5

You are gaining weapons batteries and fire arcs at the expense of ranged ion cannons

The custodian is a carrier - better than weapons batteries... has resilient bombers, better torpedoes, tracking systems. It is also THE carrier of the fleet, the retribution is just an over large tyrant - doesn't add as much to the fleet as a whole.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 08, 2010, 07:17:20 PM
The Custodian beats a Retribution, Horizon? 0.o
If one on one, what about 2 on 2?  I ask because of the Ret's more powerful all around weaponry.
I just think the Custodian is overpriced by a bit, is what I'm saying.


On the Protector, I see the subtle difference now.  Is it really an option to lose str4 battery power and turning option on your lances to increase said lances by 15cm?  Sounds pretty weak to me.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 08, 2010, 07:24:15 PM
On the Protector. Yes it is. I would take them on a 1:1 basis. That extra punch from lances above 30cm can be annoying to any attack plan.

The Custodian can do a slow approach, the Retribution needs to come close to make use of its batteries. The torps from the Retribution are ill suited in the duel. The Missiles can turn plus the Custodian can overwhelm with Manta's (+fighters for suppression) + Missiles. The Retribution has no defence vs that.

The Custodian can do 8 batteries + 2 lances @ 45cm. Given the tracking systems it is more like 10 batteries + 2 lances @ 45cm. So, in the gunnery it is only 2 wb @ 1 lance weaker then a Retribution in the 31-45cm range.

You should also remember that the Custodian has the cost of 3 Wardens in it. The 330 pts include at least 15pts for Wardens.



Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 08, 2010, 07:44:20 PM
So you would lower your overall hitting power and firearc for the chance to reach out an extra 15cm with your lances?
I have always especially found the 45cm band to be situational in the flow of movement.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 08, 2010, 07:50:26 PM
True, you need to plan ahead to make full use. But the Tau fleet best engagement range is 40cm. Flow of the moment. First wave of gunnery needs to make an impact.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 09, 2010, 07:17:01 PM
Not a fan :3  But if its actually been playtested and deemed well worth the firepower sacrifice, well, so be it.  :)

I had a thought while at work for the Custodian, a lightning bolt really, that could be better than having it lose battleship status.
I was looking at the fleet, and I realized two things they shared.  Ships built horizontal along the axis, and 90 degree turns.
Now, this is something that makes the Kororvatra unique, standard level speeds but tight manouverability.  The fleet changes direction rapidly like a school of fish in the ocean.  One can logically say it is due to the layout of the ship design, simple science would dictate that turning thrusters would be much more efficient running out perpendicular to the ship's forward thrust.  So, give the Custodian a 90* turn.  It is curently the only military vessel in the kororvatra without it, and the fleet synergy would be a cool and flavorful thing.

Edited a bit.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 09, 2010, 07:20:15 PM
Quote
..... even..... Ly'tan.....never ..... dared..... too ..... build.... that.....




If you get it official thumbs up...
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 09, 2010, 09:44:46 PM
Don't know if that means you approve or strongly disagree horizon :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 09, 2010, 10:11:58 PM
Sometimes the small words tell the most....
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 10, 2010, 02:16:18 AM
With barely greater arc-based hitting power than the Protector, and having to travel further to turn in the first place, I would like to see a good argument as to why not, or how it would overpower the ship :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on November 10, 2010, 03:32:58 AM
Ok, even as a grand cruiser there is no precedent for giving a ship that large 90' turns much less a BB as it is now so HOW are you even justifying that?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 10, 2010, 03:55:09 AM
Magic.

Joking.  But there is no need for a precedent.  The Tau ships are built for tight turns.  The greater mass of the Custodian means it just has to slide further before being able to move in the new direction.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 10, 2010, 09:09:33 AM
Weeeell, I'm not opposed in principle, and I can see the argument for it, but trying to get any extra manoeuvrability out of the HA is like pulling teeth! We can't even seem to keep the 90° on the Voss CLs. I think it would be much easier to try to aim for the CG status. However, if they come out of left field and agree to this then I'd be fine with it.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 10, 2010, 12:23:07 PM
Lets not gve up hope on the Voss now :)

Sure, going to GC status is an improvement, but keeping it at battleship and adding 90 turns has many benefits. (I know you dont disagree just stating.)

1.  As mentioned, its got barely more firepower than a Protector, with much more difficulty maintaining a frontal fire arc.
2.  It makes perfect fluff sense and gives the fleet character as a rapid redeploy fleet, very tau-like.
3.  Helps it keep up with the fleet in a way that gives the kororvesh a unique trait.
4.  Having it as a battleship follows with the Tau principle of 'smaller mass for like ship roles' aka 2 less hits.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 11, 2010, 12:26:29 PM
Some more thoughts while we wait on HA comments.

In playtesting, how have the Protectors stacked against, say, Lunar cruisers.  Its 5 points more, and I don't see how it wins its engagements.
One thing I vote on, because a cruiser with 90* still has difficulty getting that front arc after the pass, is to take 4 of the Protector's frontal batteries and move 2 to each l/f f/r battery.  It currently has pitifully weak broadsides, the emissary's are stronger.
Thats all I can think of right now, just want some play knowledge.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 11, 2010, 01:13:27 PM
I tested (weaker, more restricted firearcs) Protectors against a plenthora of opponents and holds it own very good. It can die, it can win. So balanced.

The broadsides need to be weak otherwise the ship would be overpowered. The old FW Protector only had 2 weapon batteries to shoot port/starboad. And it held its own pretty good!

I dunno what Nate'up to with the RG strength I still would do 4/2/2.

It is balanced. Thrust me. Having more will gunnery, be, ehm... balanced as well.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 12, 2010, 12:36:57 AM
Oh I believe you, no thrusting required  ;D

I'm surprised it can equal a Lunar, really.  But I'll trust those who have playtested it.  With ships in the mail, I just care so much ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 13, 2010, 12:23:16 AM
Also, this may have been discussed before, but, 1 fighter bay competing with 3 tau torpedoes on the emissary?  Is this like the Protector variant and I just cant see the awesome here as well? ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on November 14, 2010, 04:32:26 AM
Not every ship has to be completely optimal - having a fighter is just a bit fluffy and good for anti-torpedo protection. Especially as the fleet is going to be way down on AC comparatively, a few fighters on CAP might be good.
I'd still take the missiles because the model shows them much more prominently than its fighter bays.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on November 14, 2010, 04:06:17 PM
any chance to remove the restriction on kroot ships?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on November 15, 2010, 01:08:24 PM
Playing around at the moment with making some lists from the new fleet, and I'm finding that the Merchant class is now 100% worthless.

The Emissary, for 5pts more, gains 5cm speed, 90* turns, 2 WB and a fighter bay. The other two emissary variants are similarly better equipped.

The merchant is upgradeable to have an extra 2 HP, where the emissary can have front armour, which distinguishes them a little, but otherwise they are a little too similar.

Similarly the Defender vs Castellan, and Hero vs Protector are similar choices, but slightly more differentiated to make the choice a little more interesting. It would be a bit better, in this new joint fleet list, the ships were a little more differentiated into separate roles, rather than having essentially a 8hp 45* and a 6hp 90* version of the same ship.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 15, 2010, 01:19:45 PM
Hey,
I would not compare anything to the Merchant as it is a noted poor vessel.

Hero is much more of a brawler then the agile Protector.

Defender is also better then the Castellan in a heavy fleet engagement when the fleet engage at short range.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on November 15, 2010, 04:55:04 PM
The merchant should be given option for +1 shield rather than +2hp
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 15, 2010, 05:49:38 PM
And I still dont get why the Protector costs more than the Hero.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 15, 2010, 06:09:39 PM
Because the Protector is not limited and because the hero is the only front line ship gw tau have.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 15, 2010, 06:51:56 PM
We all know GW tau are the most powerhouse fleet.  Hero's may be limited, but its exactly what you want anyway.  It comes up to the perfect balance of carriers and frontline ships.  Its an irrelevant restriction.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 15, 2010, 07:11:35 PM
If GW Tau had more nice options ppl wouldnt always take explorer/hero combinations, but where are the alternatives?

The only thing you could try is an almost only defender Fleet. Orcas are restricted and Merchants are useless.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: commander on November 15, 2010, 07:20:44 PM
Hero must be tuned down.
The merchant, I believe, was forced to give one module over to missile storage for its launcher. Why not the Hero???
Old discusion, I know  ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 15, 2010, 07:21:50 PM
Merchants with 1 shield over 2 hits? Not a bad idea. Seen the Merchant model it should be 6 hits anyway. With optional 2nd shield.

LS,
Under 1000pts the FW fleet will be a great raider fleet due unrestricted Protectors. From 1500 on the GW fleet becomes stronger.
1000-1500 will be even.  The point value most of our battles are placed at. :)

Also: we should not create a Protector from the Hero. Since the Hero is overpowered in design, toned down through selection. I think the Hero should also be unrestricted but lose a lot of gunnery to be weaker as a Lunar. As it stands the Hero eats multiple Lunars. That is sadly enough against fluff.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 15, 2010, 08:21:59 PM
Agree with last point.

Sadly, I play big games.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 15, 2010, 08:24:15 PM
Yes the hero is strong but chaos has a lot of strong cheap cruisers. Tau only have one and this one is only strong if it uses reload ordnance always, as almost all tau ships have to. Thats their disadvantage. So if you make their only cruiser bad now i would be really disappointed.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on November 15, 2010, 10:55:12 PM
A second shield option would go a long way to make the merchant more competitive and popular as alternative fir a gunship tau fleet

Heck even prow deflector option would help
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on November 16, 2010, 12:12:15 AM
I'm just more concerned that the Hero and Protector are essentially the same ship with slightly different numbers.
They both have: Launch Bays, Torpedoes, Forward WB's, Ion Cannon.
True the Hero has a little more of each, but its not really a different ship in the same way that say a Gothic and a Dictator are.

As Caine says, Tau *need* to get Reload Ordnance off nearly every turn, and having only a single (well, now 2) gunships, it needs to be pretty decent.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 16, 2010, 02:07:55 AM
When the Merchant stats came out everyone looked at the model, looked at the stats, looked at the model again, and then scratched their heads in confusion. At the barest minimum, even with the notion that as a merchant vessel it is not very durable, everyone thought it should be 6 hits. Given how weak it was we thought that just adding 2 hits without increasing cost would be a good balance fix. So we screamed and screamed and the HA finally added an option of +2 hits for extra points ... talk about missing the point.

The Merchant should have the same profile it has, at the same cost, but with 6 hits. The option to add another 2 hits for +15 points could be removed, or it could stay. After all, the ship is clearly an 8 hit model and it's not terribly fantastical to suggest that some might be refit with extra internal bulkheads and damage control systems, etc, to make them more combat worthy. After all, this is obviously the rationale behind the current option. It would just mean that the ships stats would be more balanced and more believable.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 16, 2010, 04:35:38 AM
Trasvi.... you really think a ship with
8 hits -- 45* turns -- 4 Ion Cannons --  2 launch bays -- 6 missiles -- 4 railguns

is the same as a ship with
6 hits -- 90* turns - 2 Ion Cannons -- 1 launch bay -- 5 missiles --- 12 railguns (or less)

???
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on November 16, 2010, 05:13:25 AM
I know they're  sufficiently different from each other in the amount of armament, but they do have identical types of armament: ion cannon, launch bay, missiles, railguns. A jack-of-all-trades ship and his little brother.
Perhaps i'm playing the wrong fleet, or hoping for another expansion supplement, but I think Tau's fleet could be given more variety by having ships which were more focussed on one particular role.
Also a non-carrier battleship, we can all dream...


On second thought, the Hero does fit the role of 'lance cruiser' better than I thought. Still new to this game :/
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 16, 2010, 06:48:16 AM
I don't agree. Not every fleet should have everything.

The Tau fleet has enough variety with Armada and all its variants 9 (two Explorers/Heroes/Merchants, Draft2010 (two Protectors, three Emissaries) and all xenos allies.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 16, 2010, 07:59:52 PM
Its nice to see that trasvi has the same opinion about the hero, nevertheless with the new protector profile it plays completely different to the hero (except from still having to reload to be most effective).

@Merchant
Sry but to fix this ship it needs more than +2 hits. It can take no role letstake a look ...  15cm combined with 45° 1 shield 6wb and 4 hits thats it and now to the pros: ... ... wait there have to be some let me look again ... ...

Come on guys, be honest who would take such a ship in any fleet? Fluff is nice but senseless if gameplay wise this ship is nothing but a waste of space in the rulebook.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 16, 2010, 08:04:21 PM
Just before Port Maw was down there was a player who used Merchants in a non-standard Tau fleet. He called it the best Tau could do. It was an interesting discussion.

He went for the maximum gunnery fleet, with gun Merchants iirc. Using Messengers to create a devestating 45cm barrage.

Perhaps we should try to take the Merchant out of that ideal setup and make it more worthwhile in a Tau fleet of ordnance-doom.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 16, 2010, 09:56:59 PM
Thoughts on Custodian:
The Kororvesh fleet has some unique flavor traits.  Equal shielding to its counterparts in other fleets, -2HP due to lighter more efficient construction, 90* turns, and a greater concentration of turrets.  These things set a tau vessel in whatever ship class it falls into.
Thus, the Custodian needs a 90* turn, and at least the option for an extra shield and turret at a points increase.
This is for flavor and fleet cohesion, but it also goes a good deal towards perfecting the ship at its role in the fleet, as a more hands on carrier than the Explorer.

Thoughts on Protector:
If it were up to me, Protector battery layout would be 4/4/4 and become 3/4/3 and forward locking lances for the variant.
Still feel its overcosted, 170 point ship at the high end.  All systems firing forward, slightly surpasses the single broadside of some cruisers.
-2 HP is a big disadvantage to other line cruisers.  Nature weapon positions means its almost always going to suffer the closing column on gunnery chart.  Try and reconcile that with 5 points more than a Lunar.

Thoughts on the Emissary:  I guess its accepted that the fighter bay variant is purely for fluff and fun, so be it.  2 and it would be a fine alternative.  Otherwise, probably the best capital ship for its points in the fleet, great example of a good ship.
Option for extra hull points or extra shield would be appreciated.

Thoughts on the Castellan:
Pricey but solid escort.  Wish it had a tad something more for 50, as Id much rather pay the 10 points for an Emissary over 2 Castellans, for many reasons.  Wish it had an extra weapon battery, and lost 5cm of speed, at such a premium points level.  Those huge escorts also LOOK like they pack more firepower.  Lose the 90* turn if its overpowered, the thing feels and should function like a long range artillery piece.  Or make em 55 points.

Thoughts on the Warden:
I've come to accept the little fellow.  Not quite Orca levels of cost/effect, but the slight improvements make it still a great steal for 30 points.
Don't change a thing :)


And for fun, anyone seen this yet?
http://forums.tauonline.org/other-gw-games/61732-tau-bfg-experimental-ships.html

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Don Gusto on November 16, 2010, 11:10:45 PM
I like the way the Kroot Warsphere is developing in the draft, v2.2 is even better than 2.1.

Regarding the Citadel - what the Stronghold and Bastion have in common is that once crippled their leadership is 5. The Citadel is different here because its leadership starts 'too high' for its 6 hits. I think it would make more sense to give it a starting leadership of 8 instead. 8 would be ok for the smaller cruiser and the wording could be the same for all 3 ships.

The Protectors however are still totally over the top.

I've tested two v2.1 Viorl'la Protectors in several cruiser clashs against a Carnage/Devastation team. They easily dominated all games and beat the shit out of the chaos cruisers. The chaos ships superior speed and range could only delay their doom but not cripple a single Protector. This didn't really surprise me as I had feared as much.
What did surprise me however was their reception by my Tau opponent who was outright disgusted by the cheesy nature of their profile. He said they felt more like dogfighting jets than spaceships.

I agree that with 6 hits they will have a harder time in bigger engagements where more fire can be concentrated on selected targets. But even then I hardly see them on the receiving end. If you find the current (v2.2) design balanced in a 1500 straight-out clash/fleet engagement I suggest you try the same fleets in an escalating engagement. That should tell you something of their capabilities.
I have to admit here that I don't see 1500pts tournament play as the measure of all balancing. Over the last two years I've mostly played campaigns with scenarios ranging from 500 to 1500 points, the majority being 750. Here the Protectors will clearly dominate.

The advantages of a front-firing ship of this size with 90° turns are so blatantly obvious. Just to name one, with CTNH it can turn 180° in a single round. Only light ships can do this in BFG. The Protector is NOT a light ship.
Indeed as has been pointed out before it has a 90° 'blind spot' to the rear - But how will you get there to exploit it? How is this supposed to be a liability?
Has anyone ever tried to get behind a Dauntless?
...
No?
...
Well why bother when you can just blow it up!!!
Won't work on the Protector though.

I find the change of the Castellan to 25cm speed very interesting. A design that hadn't changed for several revisions suddenly gets a speed boost. Well of course! Who would take 20cm Castellans over these awesome protectors?

On a further note:
Reducing the missiles from 6 to 5 is cosmetical at best.
It doesn't change their deployment, it doesn't change their threat, it changes nothing on BFI/crippled and sure doesn't justify this madness.

EDIT:
Forgot to mention this:
From v2.2: "T'olku configuration Protectors must outnumber those of the Vior'la configuration in a Tau fleet."
Now theres a sliver of sanity in all this.
If the T'olku had less firepower overall or 45° turns it would go a long way to balance this design. As it stands though both configurations are roughly equal. Not nearly enough.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 16, 2010, 11:20:13 PM
Hah, its funny how two people can have such different takes on a ship :)

Don, do you have access to vassal?  Id love to test out that combo clash with you.
2 Protectors vs a carnage and a devastation?  Firstly, thats not a great combo at all vs protectors, who have just enough bays and turrets to render the devastation's ordnance obsolete.  2 carnages, now thats the ticket.  Or 2 devastations, both stronger in pairs than one of each.

Even so, would you mind telling me how each player handled the battle?  It sounds a bit funny to me.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 17, 2010, 05:20:25 AM
Hey,
that's indeed funny. I am a bit on the middle ground. As the Protectors certainly are not to weak as LS says but I wouldn't call them over the top either.
However, in the latest draft I will admit that the Protectors should lose prow gunnery (4/2/2 is still my call on best balance).

LS, 90* Custodian will like never happen. Push the Grand Cruiser crew. ;)

Don Gusto, with Project Distant Darkness that matchup is exactly what I used to playtest the PDD Protectors. Chaos won a lot of times...above 50% to be honest but I felt fine with that.
Calling it madness is off limits. 90* is to stay. I'll veto it. ;)

Keep in mind the cheaper phase III PDD Protector variant has this layout:

points: 190 (I don't care about cruiser clash limits ;))

hits 6
shields 2
turns 90*
turrets 3
armour 6+/5+
speed 20cm

Prow Railguns @ 45cm strength 4 - F
Port Railguns @ 45cm strength 2 - F
Starboard Railguns @ 45cm strength 2 - F
Port Ion Cannon @ 30cm strength 1 - L/F
Starboard Ion Cannon @ 30cm strength 1 - R/F
Dorsal Launch bay @ 20/25 strength 1 - NA
Prow Gravitic Missile Launcher @ 20-40cm strength 4 - F
with Tracking Systems

So Don Gusto, questions / advices:

i) detailed battle report please :)  (I am curious how a Carnage & Devestation failed to do something. I always had a hard time getting close not being crippled. :) )
ii) You play with draft2010 Tau versus Chaos (so switch roles)
iii) You play against and with Project Distant Darkness phase 3 Protectors using same setup.

On the Castellan: 25cm is like good, it is a friggin expensive escort. Keep that in mind!

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 17, 2010, 10:08:16 AM
As the Protectors certainly are not to weak as LS says but I wouldn't call them over the top either.
Which of my points on the Protector weaknesses were false? :)

Quote
LS, 90* Custodian will like never happen. Push the Grand Cruiser crew. ;)
Why not?  Fits the fleet so much better than simply going to cruiser status.
As stated before, its got Protector level gunnery, so what does 90* turns break?

Quote
On the Castellan: 25cm is like good, it is a friggin expensive escort. Keep that in mind!
I was voting for a buff for it.  I want to see it at str3 batteries. Only drop to 20cm if its deemed OP at 50 with all of that, though as I said, I don't think it suffers anything from going to 20cm.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 17, 2010, 10:18:07 AM
Because, really, ships with 10 hits, non-Eldar, should turn 90*. Grand Cruiser status is enough.

Protector has more focusable direct firepower + missiles + attack craft in one arc then most enemies.
This mounted on 90* turn radius makes a good enough offset for lesser hits and weakened broadsides.

Check back to the FW Protector:
6 railguns, 2 ion, 2 launch bay, 6 missiles on a 45* radius for 190pts. And it was balanced (yet boring).

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 17, 2010, 08:30:15 PM
Custodian:  Why?  It would allow it to better keep up with the rest of the fleet, and be very flavorful.  And forward firing focus makes 90* a must just to even match the smaller Protector.  The size and design of the battleship means it has to move further before its momentum catches up to move in a new direction, but can turn easier.  The design screams turning ability.  It takes zero flavor from the Eldar, who function must faster and agile than the tau.  Tau just get tighter turns and Imperial level speed.

Protector:  You forgot to mention always having to be closing as a negative.  Also, after the initial battle-run pass, the Tau actually struggles more to bring its weapons to bear again.  Its like cramming a lunar's broadside on its front arc, losing the other broadside altogether, giving it a small strength increase and tighter turning, taking away a fourth of its staying power, and having a 5 point increase 0.o]

In other news, I'm curious, for a pure kororvesh fleet, are messengers still considered a must?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 17, 2010, 08:35:27 PM
I would not be opposed in principle to the Custodian getting 90° turns. This would make the Tau the most agile fleet apart from Eldar, though not as fast. This is a reflection of their 40k feel, so that's fine.

However if the Tau are able to put 90° turns on a 10 hit ship then what reason would there be to downsize their Hero replacement? Obviously the Custodian, Protector and Emissary have 2 less hits than normal for their roles because FW has no idea of scale. However I think that we established that the fluff reason they did this was to get more manoeuvrability. So Prot is 6 hits instead of 8 to go from 45° to 90°. This suggests that they can't do 90° turns on ships more than 6 hits.

If this were not the case, and the Tau have the ability to go to 90° turns on any size hull, up to 10 hits at least, then why are the Emissary and Protector undersized? They could be bigger ships (6 & 8 hits respectively) and still have 90° turns to go with their greater survivability.

If these two ships were made large enough to be given normal hit values then I could see a 90° fleet. Mind you, if they were we'd probably be stuck with 45° on them instead. So the only question left is "why is the Custodian so small for a BB, given that it can't get 90° turns?" to which my response would be that it should gain some extra agility, in the form of a cruiser's turning circle. My preference would be that it should even be allowed to go on CTNH. That way it could keep up (to a degree) with the rest of the fleet by using orders.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 17, 2010, 09:13:16 PM
I always saw the kororvesh design philosophy as very efficient ships.  Less tonnage than similar class vessels in other fleets, but packing alot of firepower and using the less tonnage and splayed hull design for tighter turns.

I don't see it as 'nothing over 6 can turn 90'  I see it more as 'kororvesh hull design, which means slighter builds, required to achieve turning ability'
So you sacrifice the hits for the turning ability.  Which the Custodian does as well. 
The other design philosophy of good shielding for its size is lost in the Custodian as well, and I hope the option for a 4th is included, if not an extra turret.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on November 17, 2010, 09:17:27 PM
Even as a slighter build, it's a grand cruiser masquerading as a battleship. Grand cruisers shouldn't be spinning around with 90' turns.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 17, 2010, 11:22:06 PM
We aren't talking about Imperials here.  We are talking about an unprecedented new fleet, essentially.
There are perfectly valid flavor, fiction, and balance reasons to include it.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on November 17, 2010, 11:33:12 PM
Not a fan of the idea.
Problems arise when fleet stray too far from standard conventions
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 17, 2010, 11:36:27 PM
What problems? 

Every alien fleets strays from 'convention'  because convention is human fleets.

Tau don't have NEARLY the dramatic variations that other fleets do.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 18, 2010, 01:24:05 AM
I always saw the kororvesh design philosophy as very efficient ships.  Less tonnage than similar class vessels in other fleets, but packing alot of firepower and using the less tonnage and splayed hull design for tighter turns.

I don't see it as 'nothing over 6 can turn 90'  I see it more as 'kororvesh hull design, which means slighter builds, required to achieve turning ability'
So you sacrifice the hits for the turning ability.  Which the Custodian does as well. 
The other design philosophy of good shielding for its size is lost in the Custodian as well, and I hope the option for a 4th is included, if not an extra turret.

This idea is flawed. Firstly, the idea of being "more efficient" by having less tonnage is a false economy if it makes them less survivable (which it does). So this, by itself, cannot be the reason for the change. If we're talking a sacrifice of survivability for some upside, say increased speed or manoeuvrability, then it becomes a viable proposition.

Now, if the Custodian is able to achieve 90° turns with 10 hits then surely the Tau could've made the Protector larger, keeping it at 8 hits, while still maintaining 90° turns. In this case we're back to sacrificing survivability simply for the sake of it. Senseless.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on November 18, 2010, 02:17:29 AM
Perhaps there are other factors. With engine size A used on Protectors/Emissary the thrust/mass ratio is enough to give the desired 20cm of speed and 90* turns. If the ship was heavier, they couldn't get the required speed out of it, and engine size B are too enormous to fit on even a size 8 hull. However then you move up a class to the Custodian; with its larger size it can fit the size B engines, which again gives the required thrust/mass ratio to allow for higher speed and turns. A paradox which means that size 8 ships can't fit the required engines for 90* turns.

Maybe its an economy of production thing; they can produce thousands of engine A but not nearly so many of engine B, leading them to fit engine B only onto the larger, more important ships.

I disagree with fracas that this is too big a change from the standard. Tau are probably the MOST conventional out of any xenos fleet, the only 'rule breaker' they have is turning torpedoes, and even those are analogous to standard rules.

I'm fairly sure that custodians turning 180* would be pretty damn rare, considering that on nearly every game turn they will be wanting to reload ordnance. I'm jusLa little concerned with its 12WB 2L 8Torp  front armament it would become far too mobile and get turned into some kind of super gunboat, rather than a agile carrier.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 18, 2010, 04:12:14 AM
By efficiency I meant they were able to get systems of a certain class on smaller vessels, thus the -2hp.

The hull designs that allow the 90* don't fill up the cubic tons that standard long ship hulls do.

There is no set tonnage that makes a good space ship.  Every race has different standards.

Tau Kororvesh design finds the best balance of durability and firepower in the sizes they build, that happen to be smaller than other race's equivelant ships.  The ship designs allow greater manouverability and firepower than other similar vessels.

Its not a matter of 'they could make it bigger' its 'this is what we consider to be a worthwhile balance for our cruisers' or whatever class we are talking about.  And the ships they have made, have the aforementioned advantages.

As an example, the Imperium is all about size and grandeur.  If they could make a bigger battleship work, they would.
The sizes they use are what is deemed balanced and efficient for their technology.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 18, 2010, 04:35:15 AM
And to clarify, the Custodian won't be 'spinning around'  as it  can't go on CTANH.

Besides fluff reasons, The Custodian needs it because it is not a support carrier, it is more of a front-line carrier, and should be designed to make the same course corrections as the rest of the fleet.  Its essentially a Protector with more bays, so it actually does a worse job as a gunship with all its weapons pointing front than the Protector does if left at 45*

As I said before, the Kororvesh remind me of a school of deadly and agile fish changing direction in the ocean all of a sudden.  Their speed is not increased by this at all.

As Sigoroth said, it also fits the flavor of the Tau as a mobile shooty force.  It would make the fleet feel very unique and complete.


In a seperate issue, directed mostly at the HA's:  Is there any chance of getting a third WB on the Castellan?  I got some in today, and they sure are big, imposing escorts.

And finally, is there any reason why the Custodian does not have a 4th shield?  If it is a fluff issue, such as Tau do not have the technology for that shield strength the same as they don't have 60cm weapons ability, then so be it, just make that clear.
If its something else, an option for an extra shield primarily would be appreciated, and also an extra turret.
If its not a fluff thing, then theres no reason the Custodian should not follow the flavor of its smaller brethren of 'Less HP but equal shielding'
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 18, 2010, 05:15:17 AM
No third RG on the Castellan. As that would invalidate the Defender. 2 RG at longer range is cool & good enough. As the 45cm can be used for Tracking System, making 2RG effectively 3RG in the 31-45cm range.

LS, am I right in thinking you want to improve, upgun and make ships better over the whole line? (Not only Tau) ;)

Custodian has +2 shields over Explorer. That's a lot. 4 turrets with tracking systems is fine enough.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: clintv42 on November 18, 2010, 06:34:31 AM
From my experience playing the FW tau fleet so far I gotta agree with everyone who is for the Custodian getting 90* turn.  It fits the feel of the fleet, the fluff, and I can't see how it is an imbalance to the ship, nor do I see the addition of its 90* turn giving the overall fleet an overwhelming edge. 

As far as fluff goes we can all argue until we're blue in the face why or why not the custodian can/can't have the 90*.  This argument, (while I feel that its fluffy) can be put aside for the time being.

 So lets go to the feel of the fleet.  Yeah, the fw fleet has made a good step into maneuverability but is still not a "fast" fleet.  These 90* turns which will most often be used to put you on a barrel run towards the enemy will also put you in the most disadvantageous firing WB table.  I tell you what, Space Marine SO gets ahold of any tau ship/unit of ships, BFI or not, all that's going to be left is debris.  This is a good balance.  The FW ships must put themselves in danger in order to make maximum use of their weaponry while having 2 less hits than other ships.  That's fair right?

The Custodian doesn't have an exorbitant amount of fire power.  Its a good ship, I enjoy using it but I personally have had a hard time making it count once my opponent and I close ground.  Every other battle ship is different.  They all have nasty broad sides.  They go past you, make their 45* turn and they're fine.  You're still in a side arc.  Tau ships are quite different as you all know.  Once your battle lines pass, if you don't have the extra maneuverability on a front arc only ship its over.  Yeah, it has a couple shots to the left or right but we're talking about a battleship equivalent here. 

As mentioned before its not a top, it's still only going to be able to make the 1 turn.  As far as why this is an impossibility, I just can't agree with the logic behind that statement.  I've been reading through all of the threads you guys have been doing on these balance issues (which I will note I really appreciate all the hard work you folks are doing) and there have been a couple times now where "this can't work" has been revisited and found to be a valid change.  I believe this is one of these cases.  It will most definitely give the fw fleet a unique feel, not over power the ship, and give the overall fleet more cohesion which is right up the Tau's ally in terms of tactics.

I'll be using it with 90* turns tomorrow and I'll let you know who it goes.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 18, 2010, 06:42:30 AM
...another one pushing this...? heh

Then the Custodian MUST go down to 4 (2/2) launch bays.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 18, 2010, 12:38:16 PM
Definitly not for upgunning everything, Horizon, only making things worth playing and competative.
It IS my goal and belief that all fleets should be roughly equal in competative level.

I simply challenge a rebuttal for the questions and statements I put forth.

Why would the Custodian need to lose bay strength, the one weapon that would be uneffected by the proposed 90* turn?

Custodian, a battleship, of battleship cost.  No battleship weapon's range, no battleship powerful broadsides.
So as opposed to being able to keep abeam and at a distance, circling, The Custodian must reach firing range more directly, while closing on the gunnery chart.  While having 2 less hits than the standard battleship.
Not allowing said ship to have at least the option for comparable shielding to a normal battleship with previously mentioned advantages is madness.
Denying it the ability to come to grips with the enemy before getting blowed up after the first pass is icing on the cake of madness :)

After thinking it over, I will concede that the philosophy on the Castellan makes sense, but asthetically its just such a much more impressive looking escort than the Defender.  And it is 5 more points.  And in its current build it just doesnt seem to compare well in role with the Emissary.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 18, 2010, 12:52:40 PM
Not trying to upgun every ship for sure, I'm usually a big downplayer.  But the kororvesh as a fleet needs some help to make it competative, not just as a raider fleet.  Thats just a sad thought for me, as I'm now invested in them.

I realized the potential weakness of the fleet when I compared a 2k point chaos list I ran a couple weeks ago to my future 2k point kororvesh fleet.

Desolator
Max command
2 Murders
1 Hades
2 Carnages
2 Slaughters
5 Idolators
4 Iconoclasts

Custodian
Max command
4 protectors
3 Emissaries of the torp and Warden variety
9 Wardens
4 Castellans


I realized that the chaos capital ships seemed severely intimidating, having superior speed, firepower, range, 4 shields and 22 (!) hull points over the Tau counterparts, lacking only ordnance superiority.  A massacre waiting to happen, getting even worse after the initial pass.

5 Idolators and 4 Iconoclasts will also beat 9 Wardens every time.

That leaves 4 Castellans in the Tau's favor.  Far, far from enough to swing towards balance.
Assuming players of equal skill, the outcome is almost predetermined.

That, Horizon, is why I am fussing about the Kororvesh :)

I love the feel, and wouldnt change it.  The answer lies in some small buffs and more accurate points costs.





Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 18, 2010, 12:54:15 PM
FW Tau was well balanced & competitive.

Custodian is good. I advocate lesser LB also on the Grand Cruiser level! I think you are underestimating it heavily.
Only time my Custodian blew up was because I wanted it to become fire magnet. Otherwise it survived all battles.... even a close brawl with a (good) Ork fleet! Marines couldn't kill it either. Only Chaos managed to do so.

The Defender is more impressive then the Castellan. The Defender is the size of an Emissary (almost) and would one of the escorts to deserve an unique 2 hitpoint status.
It is an escort: turn on a dime. Enough of a role. 2 missiles goodiness.

....your assessment...later

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 18, 2010, 01:08:34 PM
Quote
Not trying to upgun every ship for sure, I'm usually a big downplayer. But the kororvesh as a fleet needs some help to make it competative, not just as a raider fleet. Thats just a sad thought for me, as I'm now invested in them.
I do not agree completely. Same as Marines will never be for fleet engagments, like Dark Eldar the Tau Kor'or'Vesh pure fleets shouldn't be engagement elites either. It's their role: raiding, assisting the main battle line.

Quote
I realized the potential weakness of the fleet when I compared a 2k point chaos list I ran a couple weeks ago to my future 2k point kororvesh fleet.

Desolator
Max command
2 Murders
1 Hades
2 Carnages
2 Slaughters
5 Idolators
4 Iconoclasts

Custodian
Max command
4 protectors
3 Emissaries of the torp and Warden variety
9 Wardens
4 Castellans
Heavy fleet engagement level. Bring it down to 1500 for proper comparision. ;)
Also: 2000pts should be 2nd Custodian imo.
Also: Chaos fleet should have carrier otherwise they die missile death.

Quote
I realized that the chaos capital ships seemed severely intimidating, having superior speed, firepower, range, 4 shields and 22 (!) hull points over the Tau counterparts, lacking only ordnance superiority. A massacre waiting to happen, getting even worse after the initial pass.
Did I tell you about that time my 1250 Tau fleet utterly crushed a 1500pts Chaos fleet? Well, now I did, the point difference was a mistake by opponent...lol. Fleet Engagement scenario. After four turns two death Chaos Cruisers, two crippled, escort squad destroyed, fleet braced &  disengaged. I had only 1 crippled Protector,,,!

Quote
5 Idolators and 4 Iconoclasts will also beat 9 Wardens every time.
You're sure? 345pts vs 270pts. 22 batteries + 5 lances (37) vs 18 batteries + 9 lances (45)
I think the Chaos escorts are in dire problems in a direct duel. Wardens level Iconoclast with batteries, lances for Idolators.

Quote
That leaves 4 Castellans in the Tau's favor. Far, far from enough to swing towards balance.
Assuming players of equal skill, the outcome is almost predetermined.
I don't agree.

Quote
That, Horizon, is why I am fussing about the Kororvesh
You are underestimating:

* Tau Alpha Strike
* Tau Missiles
* 90* turns (this is a real biggie when used well)
* Tau gunnery @ 45cm.

So, I do not agree on your fuzz. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 18, 2010, 01:13:31 PM
The BatRep:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163117
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 18, 2010, 01:49:08 PM
I do not agree completely. Same as Marines will never be for fleet engagments, like Dark Eldar the Tau Kor'or'Vesh pure fleets shouldn't be engagement elites either. It's their role: raiding, assisting the main battle line.
I agree certain fleets should be better and worse and certain things, absolutely.  Being at a dire disadvantage though, not so much.

Quote
Heavy fleet engagement level. Bring it down to 1500 for proper comparision. ;)
Also: 2000pts should be 2nd Custodian imo.
Also: Chaos fleet should have carrier otherwise they die missile death.
Weren't the Kororvesh created to be a true military arm of the fleet dedicated solely to combat?
They shouldn't be so disadvantaged in my favorite size battle :)
Fighters I'm sure you know is not the only way to deal with ordnance, though that was the one advantage I acknowledged to the Tau.

Quote
You're sure? 345pts vs 270pts. 22 batteries + 5 lances (37) vs 18 batteries + 9 lances (45)
I think the Chaos escorts are in dire problems in a direct duel. Wardens level Iconoclast with batteries, lances for Idolators.
Greater speed and Idolator's longer firing range.

Quote
That, Horizon, is why I am fussing about the Kororvesh
You are underestimating:

* Tau Alpha Strike
* Tau Missiles
* 90* turns (this is a real biggie when used well)
* Tau gunnery @ 45cm.

So, I do not agree on your fuzz. :)
[/quote]

I did acknowledge that Ordnance was the one thing Chaos lacked in this case.  This isn't even my optimal Chaos list, it was at the time a 'lets see if I can win without ordnance' list.
The Tau will do damage with the missiles and AC waves, but it will be mitigated until around 45cm because of chaos shooting.  You say tau has alpha strike, when that actually belongs to the Chaos fleet.  Once it hits 60cm, its as scary as the Tau fleet when it hits 45cm.  90* turns simply help the Tau come to grips after the Chaos ship passes and brings its broadsides to bear again.  So, to summarize, out of those final points you made I only see the one about missiles being valid.

I challenge anyone to schedule a game with me on vassal to change my mind :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 18, 2010, 01:56:10 PM
Read the battle report.  You have been playing BFG long enough that I feel confident you are a skilled player, Horizon.  Your opponent...well, just going by his ship selection and choices in squadroning, it was pretty horrible before he set model to board :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 18, 2010, 02:02:01 PM
Read the battle report.  You have been playing BFG long enough that I feel confident you are a skilled player, Horizon.  Your opponent...well, just going by his ship selection and choices in squadroning, it was pretty horrible before he set model to board :)
Hey,
he's a good player, the squadron wasn't bad (Ld issue), he didn't play bad plus the selection isn't far away from my Chaos fleet to be honest. Even better I think to face Tau. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 18, 2010, 06:32:10 PM
The carnages should have been together, as well as the murder and hades.  And with all that long range firepower, the Tau player still managed to get the alpha strike?  Either poor planning or horrible dice.  Sounds like your dice were amazing as well, with such damage and critical hits in one turn.  Hulks drifting around and exploding at the right spots.

Sounds like it was a very fun game, but I wouldn't take anything from it on the competativeness of the kororvesh.  Seriously, someone face me with the guys.  I want a volunteer :)

Either way, they should still stand a chance at higher points.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 18, 2010, 07:07:28 PM
They do stand a chance under draft 2010.

And, I, never ever squadron vessels. Unless a Protector might end up with Ld 6. Even with 7 I keep them single vessels and non squadroned.
Though with Tau may balance win-loss ratio is pretty good.

Yup, dice, went my way. Normally I roll one critical on 10 attempts, now I had 1 out of 3. I managed to do the alpha strike because I planned it all well. At the right moment moving ships into the 40cm-45cm zone.

Oh, look at the date, that was 2008 with the FW Tau rules (45* degrees and all), under draft 2010 my alpha gunnery strike would even been better.

I think you and Don Gusto should face off. Both 1500pts, Chaos vs Tau. Same fleets. Vica Versa matches.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: clintv42 on November 18, 2010, 07:47:48 PM
Hey Horizon,
So you're against the Custodian having 90* turns.  If it does have 90* turns you would like to bring it down to 4 (2/2) bays.  What do you see as the fundamental problem with a Custodian turning 90* without loss of weaponry?  I guess what I'm asking here is an answer beyond, "its a Battleship and battleships can't do that" or "because its not balanced".  Not saying that has been your reply in the past but I'm after a little more substance to why not.  So give me some logistics on why the Custodian becomes a Juggernaut of battle with with the addition of 90* turns <--- Do I end that sentence with a (.) or a (?)...
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 18, 2010, 08:29:25 PM
It is a Grand Cruisers. Only Eldar Grand Cruisers turn more then 45* heh heh.
A Grand Cruiser Custodian can do CTNH.

One should keep in check that a opinion on Tau kor'or'vesh could be that 90* for a Protector is already too much. See Don Gusto.
Pushing a 10 hit vessel which in essence is the same strength as an Imperial or Chaos equivalent battleship is very tricky. It can be pretty off balancing in game play.

Perhaps not the answer you'd like. As I said earlier if 90* is accepted then hey, cool with it. But my 'feeling' is that a 90* will reduce the general acceptance of draft 2010. People will scream murder. Trust me, I've seen such things happen...

In Project Distant Darkness my proposal was quite weaker then the current draft.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 18, 2010, 09:57:50 PM
So give me some logistics on why the Custodian becomes a Juggernaut of battle with with the addition of 90* turns <--- Do I end that sentence with a (.) or a (?)...

You use a full stop (or a period as the yanks say), since it wasn't a question. As for the 90° Custodian, if the Protector and Emissary were larger then I'd be fine with it (in principle). Since these two ships are not at the proper size then I don't see it as plausible, and there's been no argument here that was in the least bit convincing. Production efficiency, engine size A vs B, Tau preference for smaller hit ships, blah.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on November 19, 2010, 12:02:17 AM
Sorry Sigoroth, but I really don't understand our argument. You're saying that if Tau can build a 10 hit ship with 90*, why don't they build an 8hp with 90*? Maybe they just didn't feel like it; Why don't the imperials have more 4 or 6hp ships? Maybe the Tau high command feels that it is more tactically sound to have all ships being able to move as one, with the same speed and turns, rather than having fast ships that eventually get too far away to support the bigger ones.

As for the engine size thing I was talking about... imagine we're talking about cars. You can get tiny cars with small engines, and they're fast because they're light. But they're too light to fit a V12 monster in there, so you need to increase the size of the car until you can get that bigger engine.

I guess that, like nearly all rules, the fluff justification is secondary to the game. Really, the protector's model size indicates it should have been 8hp from the start, and we're only now having to retcon story to cover up FW's lack of imagination.

HOWEVER, I am in agreement with Horizon... even if the 90* turns isn't unbalancing (I don't think it is), it might reduce the general acceptance of the list just because it is unusual.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 19, 2010, 12:11:42 AM
Fluff justification should not be secondary to the game. They should go hand in hand with the rules. If it was secondary then heck, I'd just make up ship rules which shouldn't be allowed in a faction.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on November 19, 2010, 12:17:12 AM
I was busy for 6 weeks, couldn't face reading pages of replies, so I didn't. Some people will like the changes, some will hate them, that's what forums are for.

I like the v2.2 draft, lost integrated tracking, gained more guns & manoeuvrability - I can live with that.

I will give them a spin on Saturday and see how I get on.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 19, 2010, 02:49:34 AM
Sorry Sigoroth, but I really don't understand our argument. You're saying that if Tau can build a 10 hit ship with 90*, why don't they build an 8hp with 90*? Maybe they just didn't feel like it; Why don't the imperials have more 4 or 6hp ships? Maybe the Tau high command feels that it is more tactically sound to have all ships being able to move as one, with the same speed and turns, rather than having fast ships that eventually get too far away to support the bigger ones.

As for the engine size thing I was talking about... imagine we're talking about cars. You can get tiny cars with small engines, and they're fast because they're light. But they're too light to fit a V12 monster in there, so you need to increase the size of the car until you can get that bigger engine.

I guess that, like nearly all rules, the fluff justification is secondary to the game. Really, the protector's model size indicates it should have been 8hp from the start, and we're only now having to retcon story to cover up FW's lack of imagination.

HOWEVER, I am in agreement with Horizon... even if the 90* turns isn't unbalancing (I don't think it is), it might reduce the general acceptance of the list just because it is unusual.

The reason the Tau models from FW are all given 2 less hit points than other fleets and even their previous incarnation is because the models are small. We can't justify full hits on them. That leaves us in the position of trying to justify why they (the Tau, not FW) made them smaller. The ideas of "that's how Tau like it" or "production efficiency" just don't cut it. It is a flat out disadvantage tactically. There had to be some tactical gain from doing this. Therefore we lit upon the idea of extra manoeuvrability as the trade-off, which is very Tau-ish.

Now, since it is Tau-ish, I would be inclined to agree that the Custodian should get 90°. At least, the Tau would want their Custodian to be so agile. However, if they had to sacrifice resilience on their Protector in order to get 90° turn rate, then there's no way they'd be able to achieve the feat on a 10 hit ship. We've already established the trade-off of resilience for mobility in the case of the Protector. The same thing can be done for the Custodian (since it has 2 less hits than a true BB) but it cannot emulate the gain acquired by the Protector and still have what the Protector sacrificed. So it has to be a different form of mobility.

Since grand cruisers are 10 hits and count as cruisers as far as turning circle is concerned then this alone might be reason enough for the Tau to have made their BB smaller. To get the same sort of performance out of their BB as Chaos get out of their CG. After all, we have only established the Tau as having equivalent technology as the Imperium regarding movement.

If the Protector and, to a lesser extent, the Emissary were bigger then the entire fleet could have 90° turns. However, this would presuppose a greater level of technology than the Imperium and we'd likely have been stuck with a 45° fleet anyway.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 19, 2010, 03:54:09 AM
Sig, I think you need to campaign for larger hulled designs, if you want it.

As it is, it makes perfect sense for a forward firing ship to be able to turn to bring said weapons to bear. 
Making your battleship do it worse than your cruiser is just silly.

Tau hull design allows for 90* turns.  Tau build their ships at the size they do, because they do.  Smaller size means less cost, and an agile and light alternative that can hold its own against bulkier vessels of the same class is deemed a plus.  Its no stretch at all.

It has always been against tau battle doctrine to go for brute force and size.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 19, 2010, 05:09:48 AM
No, Tau doctrine is agile & swift deployment of guns.

Sig does not want large hulled designs as that is not how the FW models look like.

And the Custodian is not worse then the cruiser. It is the only carrier in the fleet which can use its ordnance on the attack (larger waves).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 19, 2010, 10:56:46 AM
I don't get the issue. Will the Tau GC really suffer if it can only turn 45'? Is it really hard to get targets in its front arc if it can only turn 45'?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 19, 2010, 02:19:32 PM
The battleship will suffer trying to maintain fire concentration after the first pass.  Think about it.  Its at least two turns until he is shooting with anything besides the meager broadsides.  And it is a battleship.  Has the power and look of a battleship, don't take away the Kororvesh's battleship :)

I realize due to its ordnance the Custodian is superior to the Protector in that regard.  My point is the Custodian is not a support carrier.  It has 45cm guns and frontal fire arc.  If its going to be using half its purpose, it can't be skirting the battlefield.

It already has enough disadvantages currently.  I'll state them again if anyone cares to disagree.

Battleship cost.
Subpar battleship weapon's range.
Forced to close to be of best use.
Subpar battleship shielding means its no more resilient to closing-chart batteries than the armored prow Protector.
45* turns prevent coming to terms after the first fleet pass.
Weak HP for a battleship.

That said, I love most of how the Kor is now, I really do.  The more agile, more flimsy ships fit the fluff perfectly, and I hope the Custodian soon is corrected to match.  Just a few tweaks are needed.

90* turn and the missing 4th shield for the Custodian

Less certain but really feel Protectors are too expensive for what they do.  Certainly not 75 points more valuable than an Emissary, feels more Slaughter value.
Negatives of Protector variant is a bit too harsh.  Could use just a smidge more broadside strength.  Str4 and a lance is still paltry for a cruiser's broadside.

Castellan feels like a 45 point ship.  Its an Idolator with less gauranteed ignoring of right shift and trades a lance for torps, and slower.

Thats all I can think of thats not close to perfect.  Basically, the Tau are kind of like Eldar.  Fragile ships, only with less speed, a bit less manouverability, and less devastating firepower.  This leaves them in a delicate position to be something great and unique, but with careful loving :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on November 19, 2010, 02:33:15 PM
LS: have you tried playing with the stats as they are against multiple opponents? I really don't think the custodian needs the 4th shield or 90' turns especially not both. The targeting array grants it a column shift @45 (Look at the mars, that column shift makes it just about the same as s10 batteries on the tyrant) and better defenses than any other ship it's size outside of eldar and necron with the capability to project that to friendly ships (I think the range needs to be a bit larger because of the model size). That means you are getting superior firepower on the first pass and higher equivalent broadsides with the capability to launch missiles without needing the target in teh prow arc. The custodian isn't weak by any stretch for not having 90' turns and CG's don't need BB level shields to survive. I know this because I nearly always field two vengeance when I play.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on November 19, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
You should have tried a few games with the Custodian in the August version. The current one has 2 extra RB's, LB's & torpedoes. The previous one was underpowered, this one should be able to cause some damage closing then use bombers to protect itself while turning. If it keeps some Wardens close they can provide some covering fire as well.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 19, 2010, 08:44:43 PM
The battleship will suffer trying to maintain fire concentration after the first pass.  Think about it.  Its at least two turns until he is shooting with anything besides the meager broadsides.  And it is a battleship.  Has the power and look of a battleship, don't take away the Kororvesh's battleship :)

A lot of the battleships will suffer concentration after the first pass and even then with the Tau ordnance, I wouldn't think this would be a problem. The last 2 tourney winners would seem to indicate that.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 19, 2010, 09:24:58 PM
I'm confused Admiral, what to GW tau have to do with it?  Do GW tau fancy running their Explorers on the front line?  The Custodian is a mixed purpose ship, I'm assuming in these scenarios you are using it to its full potential.  With forward firing weapons it cant even stay at a distance and support at long range like other carriers, it cant properly defend itself besides ordnance unless it is closing.

How would a typical battleship suffer after the first pass more than any other ship?  The Retribution, for example, is much more durable a battleship, and much more able to keep the enemy at a distance while maintaining effectiveness.
The Custodian is a down and dirty front line ship, theres no way around it.  Frontal weapons and left shifting nearby vessels means its going to be right there with the Protectors as your main backbone.

Alternatively, as previously suggested, prow deflectors would somewhat solve the problem as a 4th shield if that was a more desirable route.
The Tau theme of 'less hits but equal shields' would be reconciled with a 4th shield.  But if you see the model dead on, most if the main part of the ship is actually hollow, you would think they could justify heavy shielding over the ship's innards too.  One or the other.  I'd prefer simply a 4th shield.

I'd still appreciate a better argument than 'nah' for 90* turns and an extra shield on the Custodian.

Castellan was only a niggling issue, if its seen too powerful for 45 points then so be it.  Would just help it compete with the Warden, I feel, but I guess the point is to not have a good reason to take, say, hook-less Emissary's

I assume the advocates of the Protector feel firm that the modest vessel is actually worth a bit more than a Lunar or Hero?
My vote is 170 points.  Str4 broadsides.  Protector variant either losing str2 battieries or 4 but keeping its ion cannon broadside potential, not both negatives.  

I realize I've made a few points, try to address each one individually :)


As to playtesting, I sincerely wish I could.  I could proxy models on the rare occasions I get to play with my playgroup, but I was wanting to surprise them with a full FW tau fleet.  I'd love vassal volunteers, come put your money where your mouth is :)
I really really want to play, really!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 19, 2010, 09:43:50 PM
I'm confused Admiral, what to GW tau have to do with it?  Do GW tau fancy running their Explorers on the front line?  The Custodian is a mixed purpose ship, I'm assuming in these scenarios you are using it to its full potential.  With forward firing weapons it cant even stay at a distance and support at long range like other carriers, it cant properly defend itself besides ordnance unless it is closing.

Being FW or GW has nothing to do with it. Tau is still reliant on ordnance to do a lot of the dirty work. That is the basic Tau doctrine. You cannot expect this ship to go toe to toe with guns esp since it is a mixed purpose Tau ship, meaning ordnance reliant. You don't have to put it up forward unless there is really some pressing need to do so. Put your other ships ahead of it and then use it to catch what the others miss. Then follow up with ordnance.

How would a typical battleship suffer after the first pass more than any other ship?  The Retribution, for example, is much more durable a battleship, and much more able to keep the enemy at a distance while maintaining effectiveness.

Retribution doesn't compare to Tau's first pass attack unless it decides to turn and expose the broadsides. If it does, swing away towards the rear arc of the Ret. It will have a hard time trying to swing around to meet the targets in the rear. Aside from which Tau ordnance will usually mean the Ret will be in for a tough time.

The Custodian is a down and dirty front line ship, theres no way around it.  Frontal weapons and left shifting nearby vessels means its going to be right there with the Protectors as your main backbone.

Well, can't really have everything. I really can't see any justification for Tau to have 90' turn on their GCs and still remain balanced with other races. Tau, whether FW or GW can already reliably, if not easily whip the IN which is the race which one should really be playtesting against. They're not really Eldar or even Dark Eldar which has the ships that come closest to turning on a dime. So why should Tau get a 90' turning 10 HP ship?

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on November 19, 2010, 10:01:38 PM
Having used CG extensively (and the custodian is basically that) I can tell you that a 4th shield or 6+ prow armor isn't needed to make them effective ships. You can't have your cake and eat it too which is what you are trying to do by adding 90' turns and a 4th shield. Custodians already have exceptional 45cm firepower and are backed up by a good number of AC as well as torpedoes which lets them do a synergy strike far better than the Dictator could hope to accomplish. The current CPF list is a flavorful and unique fleet approach that may need a tweak here or there, but nothing so substantial as you are suggesting to the Custodian without some fairly extensive playtesting.

You have to justify changes like these and it's been pointed out several times why the changes are unwarranted from fluff perspective and there have been few remarks about the capabilities on the board. Test the ship as it is before theoryhammering buffs on it. My experience with similar ships says this one is fine as it stands stats wise but it might warrant a slight reduction in price.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 19, 2010, 10:09:36 PM
Being FW or GW has nothing to do with it. Tau is still reliant on ordnance to do a lot of the dirty work. That is the basic Tau doctrine. You cannot expect this ship to go toe to toe with guns esp since it is a mixed purpose Tau ship, meaning ordnance reliant. You don't have to put it up forward unless there is really some pressing need to do so. Put your other ships ahead of it and then use it to catch what the others miss. Then follow up with ordnance.
Ah, but it has everything to do with it.  Its been the stated purpose since page 1 that the intent of FW tau is that of a mobile gunnery fleet.
The korvattra uses loads of AC because they are essentially mostly merchant ships converted to war, with lots of room for AC and little weaponry.
One battleship with good AC capacity does not an ordnance fleet make, FW tau are officially mixed arms.  
By putting it forward, I don't mean the very front.  I mean even if its 10cm behind the rest of the fleet, its still heading towards the enemy in the same direction as the rest of the ships.  Point of impact will happen, and its way too easy to destroy.  90* turns will help it at least present an abeam if it needs to try to get out of there, otherwise all it does is let it bring its weapons to bear effectively.  45* turn and all frontal weapons is a poor choice for anything.

Quote
Retribution doesn't compare to Tau's first pass attack unless it decides to turn and expose the broadsides. If it does, swing away towards the rear arc of the Ret. It will have a hard time trying to swing around to meet the targets in the rear. Aside from which Tau ordnance will usually mean the Ret will be in for a tough time.
Abeam is much more desirable than closing.  Of course its going to 'expose' its broadsides, as that is the point of most battleships?  In closing or abeam, of course, The retribution has the advantage over the Custodian in survivability even before shields and HP are considered.
This is just an example, not saying the Custodian should have Retribution stats.
'Swing away toward the rear' is a nice sounding idea, but it doesn't work that well in BFG.  Assuming your manouver goes perfectly, do you realize that any ship with broadsides and a 45* turn can easily hit a target behind it?
I'm not comparing the two ships one on one, just noting the design flaw in the Custodian.

Quote
Well, can't really have everything. I really can't see any justification for Tau to have 90' turn on their GCs and still remain balanced with other races. Tau, whether FW or GW can already reliably, if not easily whip the IN which is the race which one should really be playtesting against. They're not really Eldar or even Dark Eldar which has the ships that come closest to turning on a dime. So why should Tau get a 90' turning 10 HP ship?

The justification is in the above posts, in many different points.  If you choose to disagree, or feel it is imbalanced, reasons or examples would be great :)  I'd say you should explain at least why the Custodian would lose its balance with other races if it gains a greater turn radius, Tau have been on my brain alot these days, I'd at least appreciate some real, less vague statements.
Is there any point I have made that someone feels is incorrect?

And its not like a 90 degree turning, 2ocm, 10hp battleship is anywhere close to Eldar speed or agility, lets be reasonable now :)
It simply fits with Tau combat doctrine, sacrificing hits for agility.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 19, 2010, 10:12:39 PM
Having used CG extensively (and the custodian is basically that) I can tell you that a 4th shield or 6+ prow armor isn't needed to make them effective ships. You can't have your cake and eat it too which is what you are trying to do by adding 90' turns and a 4th shield. Custodians already have exceptional 45cm firepower and are backed up by a good number of AC as well as torpedoes which lets them do a synergy strike far better than the Dictator could hope to accomplish. The current CPF list is a flavorful and unique fleet approach that may need a tweak here or there, but nothing so substantial as you are suggesting to the Custodian without some fairly extensive playtesting.

You have to justify changes like these and it's been pointed out several times why the changes are unwarranted from fluff perspective and there have been few remarks about the capabilities on the board. Test the ship as it is before theoryhammering buffs on it. My experience with similar ships says this one is fine as it stands stats wise but it might warrant a slight reduction in price.
I'm sorry, what is the CG?  Does it cost 300+ points?  I have attempted to justify these changes in multiple points, in the fluff and in the game.
I'm just waiting for a good argument besides 'nuhuh!' :P

Believe it or not, I'm a huge conservative.  I just want the CPF to be as 'tau-ish' and flavorful as possible, while staying competative and balanced.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on November 19, 2010, 10:25:13 PM
Ah, but it has everything to do with it.  Its been the stated purpose since page 1 that the intent of FW tau is that of a mobile gunnery fleet.

And if we go by that statement, does Tau not have this maneuverability even with 45 cm turns on one of its larger ships?


Abeam is much more desirable than closing.  Of course its going to 'expose' its broadsides, as that is the point of most battleships?  In closing or abeam, of course, The retribution has the advantage over the Custodian in survivability even before shields and HP are considered.
This is just an example, not saying the Custodian should have Retribution stats.
'Swing away toward the rear' is a nice sounding idea, but it doesn't work that well in BFG.  Assuming your manouver goes perfectly, do you realize that any ship with broadsides and a 45* turn can easily hit a target behind it?
I'm not comparing the two ships one on one, just noting the design flaw in the Custodian.

It's still a problem with the Retribution or any battleship as I point out. The Ret isn't even the typical IN battleship. Put BMs on the Apoc, Emperor and Oberon and you basically prevent them from shooting you if you get to the rear arc.

The justification is in the above posts, in many different points.  If you choose to disagree, or feel it is imbalanced, reasons or examples would be great :)  I'd say you should explain at least why the Custodian would lose its balance with other races if it gains a greater turn radius, Tau have been on my brain alot these days, I'd at least appreciate some real, less vague statements.
Is there any point I have made that someone feels is incorrect?

Nope, having read through the posts, justification is just not there. You still have not proven why they need such an advantage. Again, the Tau already have an advantage in front firing guns supported by AC. Giving them almost the maneuverability of Eldar on a large ship would allow them to quickly turn and shoot again as well as bomb or torp the opponent again.

And its not like a 90 degree turning, 2ocm, 10hp battleship is anywhere close to Eldar speed or agility, lets be reasonable now :)
It simply fits with Tau combat doctrine, sacrificing hits for agility.

I would agree with the speed but where's your proof it would not be close to Eldar agility? DE still do not have their equivalent of GCs or battleships. I can see the DE GC or BB getting the 90' turn and 10 HP. The only difference would be the base speed which will most likely be faster by 5 cm at least.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 19, 2010, 11:46:40 PM
LS - Let's pretend that FW made the Protector and Emmisary models larger. So they could be given 8 & 6 hits respectively. In this case we can give the Tau 90* turns as a racial rule. Doing so however would presuppose a level of technology higher than that of the Imperium, at least in drive tech. Current fluff does not support this notion however. So they'd have had 45* turns instead. Therefore we're left with the Tau having to make their ships smaller to gain extra mobility, just like the IN would. So going from 8 hits down to 6 gives CL levels of manoeuvrability, ie, 90* turns. Dropping from 12 hits down to 10 should give cruiser level mobility, ie, 10cm min move instead of 15cm.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on November 20, 2010, 12:42:10 AM
CG= grand cruisers. They cost around 230-255 points. Only the Repulsive has near the level of firepower that the custodian has with the tracking system and only has weaker strength dumbfire torpedoes to say nothing of completely lacking in the AC realm. None of them have the defensive turret strength or the rerolls granted by the tracking system. In terms of hits, armor, shields, and speed they are exactly the same as the Custodian.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 20, 2010, 09:06:32 AM
@Admiral:
Its not my statement or opinion in this case, its a fact.  Tau does have this manouverability in all but its largest ship, which is why I'm not discussing it otherwise.

I'm confused how the idea that broadside battleships having difficulty hitting things behind it helps the case of the battleship that has even more trouble hitting things behind it.

As to me not providing justification...sigh.  I've made multiple points if you care to argue against them.  Once I sleep I'll convert them all in bullet points once I sleep, for your dissection.

Eldar ships can turn on a dime and move faster.  A ship with 90 turns and frontal fire can't even get an enemy directly behind them like broadside based ships can.  It just helps even the playing field after the first pass.

@Sig:
I just see it as the Tau designed their ships in that 'squashed' design their hulls have, allowing tighter turns but more fragile superstructure.

@Vaaish:
I don't think its too much to ask to have a battleship with 100 more points or so on the typical grand cruiser to have the normal levels of battleship shielding.  At least the option.  I dunno, 15 points.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on November 20, 2010, 03:48:45 PM
I'd love to pay 15 points for the option to give a grand cruiser 4 shields. The thing is Grand cruisers are already supposed to be built at what is arguably the high point of technology for the imperium. They don't have the capability to make them anymore and since Tau are supposed to be behind the IN tech level of the 40th millennium, I don't see how you can justify them making a ship of the same size much better than the imperium close to it's height. If the IN couldn't fit 4 shields on a CG hull and had to use the standard BB hulls to pull it off then why should Tau be able to do it now?

Gameplay wise it would probably break the CG. 4 shields is tough to crack. Even more so when you options to ignore the shields put you up against 4 rerolling turrets.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 20, 2010, 05:20:41 PM
Then is the Emperor broken?  It has a far higher ability to engage at a distance as well.  The Custodian is a battleship, not a grand cruiser.  Its a battleship with battleship level weapons, hampered by tau limits to weapon ranges.  The tau in general have not yet reached imperial levels of technology in general, but have obviously equaled or succeeded them in certain fields.  The Custodian has 10 hits because its bloody hollow on the inside, with the kororvesh manouver favoring hulls, but it is absolutely a battleship.

I don't understand the argument that paying for a battleship that has even less ability to evade danger than other battleships and expecting only equal shielding of other battleships will break the class.

As to the 90* turns, there are far, far harder fluff/rules factors to justify in the setting.
The simple fact is that a capital ship with forward weaponry and 90* turns has a more difficult time bringing those weapons to bear than a broadside based ship.  Having it at 45* instead of 90* makes it exponentially more difficult.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 20, 2010, 06:43:34 PM
I can support LS on this:

There is NO attacking from the back agle wise when we talk about a broadside ship beeing attacked.

The only way to do it is having it get out of range by its 10cm movement requirement.

For a front focussed 90° vessel und the other side there is this blind spot. (why cant i upload even a picture with 30kb, ive drawn a picture to show you what i mean)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 20, 2010, 07:10:29 PM
Hi LS,

the Custodian is a Grand Cruiser (according Vaaish as well), not a battleship. We just need to convince Nate about that bit.

A Grand Cruiser with 6LB which can do CTNH with guns. No other (non-Eldar) heavy weight ship (+300) can pull that of.

I have a lot of experience with many Tau incarnations, even with the preFW HA Tau list with the Custodian I like most (4lb) on a 45* turn. It works. It is good enough. 90* is opening a can to keep closed.

Furthermore: Protector at 170points? That's insane. The draft 2010 version is to me more like a 190-200pts vessel!!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 20, 2010, 07:49:19 PM
Hi LS,

the Custodian is a Grand Cruiser (according Vaaish as well), not a battleship. We just need to convince Nate about that bit.

A Grand Cruiser with 6LB which can do CTNH with guns. No other (non-Eldar) heavy weight ship (+300) can pull that of.
Horizon, I do respect your opinions on things.  We are just looking for different ways of allowing more mobility for the Custodian.  You think it should be able to do a complete 180 at half weapons strength.  I think it should be able to move 15 and turn 90, because it makes it less powerful after the pass, and fits the theme of the rest of the fleet.  I really can't justify classifying the thing as a grand cruiser, with its weapons power, cost, and model size. (Its a delicate looking frame, but its still much bigger looking than grand cruiser models.)

Quote
I have a lot of experience with many Tau incarnations, even with the preFW HA Tau list with the Custodian I like most (4lb) on a 45* turn. It works. It is good enough. 90* is opening a can to keep closed.
For heaven's sakes, WHY?! :)  I've been asking this for pages >-<

Quote
Furthermore: Protector at 170points? That's insane. The draft 2010 version is to me more like a 190-200pts vessel!!
Where are you getting this from?  I have listed the reasons I think it should be cheaper.  What makes it so pricey? 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 20, 2010, 08:04:25 PM
The Custodian has perhaps indeed more then CG weaponry but I am looking at it from a modelling stance & hitpoint value which classifies something as a Grand Cruiser. Mass wise it is less then a Repulsive.

Well, it is 45* so you need to convince a majority why it should be 90*. So far you didn't succeed. ;)

Protector: because I know this vessel by heart. Name me one ship at 185pts that can do a alpha strike like the Protector.
It has 12 Railguns (or even 10 or 8) with 2 Ion Cannons as direct fire.
The Lunar can only do 6wb+2 lances at shorter range.
The Murder only has 10wb at same range.

You underestimate the 90* turn by a very large margin. This is an effect already taking place long before the lines come to pass. Especially in certain scenarios.In escalating engagement that turn rate is so friggin effective to regroup.

A cheaper Protector at 170 makes it only 60pts more then an Emissary without prow deflector. You think that's fair? By a large margin: No.
What then? Making Emissary better or cheaper?
The Custodian will even get less more then a Protector per point which you already complain about.
You see the problem?

Then the fact I tested a weaker 90* Protector very often and it worked good & balanced.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 20, 2010, 08:51:37 PM
The costs of the protector are ok.

Nevertheless even if the protector has a surperior alpha strike you can brace with one ship and after that alpha shoot him down a lot more easy that other first line cruisers. 6hp plus the need to be closing is a big deal. So the 90° have their disadvantage as well as long as the rest of the ship is almost only front focussed.

Im not sure what would be best for the custodian (GC or 90°) but he has the tracking systems and they are somewhat senseless if the custodian is in front line but cannot follow up with the protectors. So its possible to easily get slit up in close combat for the new tau fleet.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 20, 2010, 08:57:37 PM
You realize that you are also trying to change something, yes?  I'm just suggesting an alternate that I feel is better for many reasons.
1. is flavor
2. the Custodian being able to CTANH is actually stronger than simple 'move 15cm and 90* turn, and it increases the ship's mobility when its crippled with BM touching.

You really think its smaller than the repulsive?  I held them up side by side, and the repulsive is obviously smaller when looking down at them, and no thicker really.  IMO.

Protector:  I can name you a ship that does better for 5 points cheaper.  Its called the Carnage.  Manages to do it for cheaper, with 2 more HP, while abeam.  From further away, or with higher fire output.  Thats just hilarious :)

For 60 points less, and the option to be either an impressive gunship for its cost, or a decent support craft that can bring in more wardens, yes, 60 less points than a Protector feels just right.  I think the Emissary is an excellent ship for its points, the best in the fleet.  Its what makes me wish the Castellans were 45, but thats an issue I won't press.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 20, 2010, 09:02:03 PM
Caine posted a split second before I did.  Wow, how did I miss that up until now?
  I had actually never even considered that negative about the tracking systems, thats a very good point.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 20, 2010, 09:08:25 PM
Lets not overestimate the power of the Emissary. Its lack of hits and shield still make if VERY vulnerable. Many weapons dont mean anything if your on brace or destyoed ;-)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 20, 2010, 09:11:48 PM
Well, ya, but, id rather have it than 2 castellans, and uh...Wardens! :) :p 

I'm not trying to overestimate the fragile little thing, just say that at the dramatic cost reduction of 60 points, assuming a 170 point Protector,
 it CAN be worth it over the Protector for the versatility it brings.  Even has stronger broadsides :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on November 20, 2010, 11:02:31 PM
The Emissary is an accident waiting to happen. The original draft one was worse than useless, we managed to persuade the powers that be to give us a few more weapon options and increase the speed (which they have now lost for 90 turns). The manoeuvrability helps, but I think it is just a poor ship design. It is supposed to be an armed diplomatic vessel, so for some fun scenarios it is good, but as a fleet ship it is best used to bring more wardens, shame they cant keep up with them as a heavy escort.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 21, 2010, 12:46:32 PM
You realize that you are also trying to change something, yes?  I'm just suggesting an alternate that I feel is better for many reasons.
1. is flavor
2. the Custodian being able to CTANH is actually stronger than simple 'move 15cm and 90* turn, and it increases the ship's mobility when its crippled with BM touching.

I don't disagree that the Custodian needs work. One thing it desperately needs is an increase to the range of its tracking systems. Given the shear size of the model it's extremely unlikely that you'll ever get to use it at its current range. It needs to be at least 20cm radius. Maybe more.

As for 90°, I think that there are too many inconsistencies to justify it. I also don't think that the HA will buy it. Hell, we don't even have 25cm on the Emissary yet.

I don't think that cruiser turn rate plus CTNH makes the Custodian stronger than a 90° turn either. Sure, if you're crippled and have BMs, you can still manage a turn without having to go on BR. On the other hand, in order to be able to execute a 90° turn you would have to use an order and move a full 20cm. So you can't do it at all when crippled or have a BM in your path.

So either impediment will stop the 45°/CTNH cruiser from turning 90° and even if successful it halves firepower when doing so. On the other hand it would require both impediments to stop the 90° BB from doing the same, and even in these circumstances a SO can allow it to do so.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on November 21, 2010, 05:46:53 PM
I agree that the tracking system needs a larger range. With the large base and model on it you get what, 5-6cm to place models which is barely outside of base contact. If that's the case you might as well drop the range just say any ship has to be in B2B to use the thing.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 21, 2010, 11:45:01 PM
@Tinfish:
Are you saying the Emissary is underpowered or overpowered?

@Sig:
Increasing tracking range is a good idea that I had not considered.  I hadn't realized until Vaaish did the numbers how impractical 10cm was on a large based model.  By 45 and cruiser being stronger than 90 and Battleship i meant that it would potentially give the Custodian the ability to get behind a closing vessel in one turn.  Both options do have strengths and weaknesses regarding how the rules play out though.

I want the 90* just because otherwise it won't be able to keep up with the fleet.  I'm still waiting on what is OP about it, because you can justify it in fluff if you wanted to, even if you aren't personally fond of the answers.

Can we agree that it at least deserves a 4th shield option?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 22, 2010, 12:49:03 AM
@Sig:
Increasing tracking range is a good idea that I had not considered.  I hadn't realized until Vaaish did the numbers how impractical 10cm was on a large based model.

It's even worse than Vaaish pictured. The Custodian model overflows the base a good margin. On top of which the Protector model is also fairly wide and so to get the stems within 10cm of each other makes for an extremely crowded battlefield.

Quote
By 45 and cruiser being stronger than 90 and Battleship i meant that it would potentially give the Custodian the ability to get behind a closing vessel in one turn.  Both options do have strengths and weaknesses regarding how the rules play out though.

I'm not sure what you mean here. How does a 5cm tighter turning circle with only a 45° turn make it easier to get behind a closing vessel in one turn?

Quote
I want the 90* just because otherwise it won't be able to keep up with the fleet.  I'm still waiting on what is OP about it, because you can justify it in fluff if you wanted to, even if you aren't personally fond of the answers.

I do not see any fluff justification at all. I see rationalisations, extremely unconvincing ones at that, but no justifications. I don't think that 90° is overpowered, but rather that cruiser status is more justified and consistent.

As for keeping up with the fleet, well if it is allowed CTNH then it could potentially keep up with the fleet. This seems to me to be the best scenario. It fits that since the Protector is the fast response ship of the fleet that a larger fleet support vessel would have a harder time keeping up. What the Protector does effortlessly the Custodian has to work to achieve.

Quote
Can we agree that it at least deserves a 4th shield option?

Well, as has been established, I have a preference for viewing this ship as a CG, so 3 shields would be apropos. However, even if it does get 'official' CG status, that does nothing to stop the Tau from viewing it as a BB and trying to give it comparable defensive capabilities as other races BBs. I do believe that some defensive increase is warranted, but I would prefer a prow deflector. This is pretty much the same as adding a 'Tau' shield.

I know that others have argued that other CGs have only 3 shields, and they also have the soft 5+ nose, so the Custodian shouldn't get an increase. On the other hand the Custodian is a good deal more costly than any other CG and its weaponry is prow based, forcing it to point its soft nose at the enemy, whereas the other CGs can take a more circumspect approach.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 04:20:41 AM
Protector:  I can name you a ship that does better for 5 points cheaper.  Its called the Carnage.  Manages to do it for cheaper, with 2 more HP, while abeam.  From further away, or with higher fire output.  Thats just hilarious :)
You really think so?

Carnage, abeam focusable:
10wb @ 60cm, will have a hard time against the 6+prow of the Protector.
16wb @ 45cm, hey nice.

Protector Vior'la, focusable prow:
0rg @ 60cm, but missiles with far reach
8rg + 2ic @ 60cm = 8 + (6) = 14rg eqv @ 45cm
5 missiles
1 attack craft

The Carnage only has 2 turrets vs the Protector ordnance. The Protector can go abeam or prow on. It'll be same amount of dice & chance to be hit mostly. So Protector can dictate flow of battle.
Yes Carnage has +2 hits + little more firepower (2wb), this is offset by 90*, prow armour and ordnance.

I'd say: Cool balance regarding Protector being more expensive.

The Tol'ku per draft2010 (I want less rg)
60cm 0
12rg @ 45cm (so -4)
12rg + 2ic = 12 + (6) = 18 rg eqv at 30cm.

So at 30cm the Tol'ku has more firepower then the Carnage + ordnance + prow armour + better turns.


Custodian: true stories on the tracking system. Increase it.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 22, 2010, 07:00:58 PM
While the Carnage has abeam vs. closing going for it, huge deal in firepower terms.  It also has 2 more hits, big advantage.
It can lockon while Protector is forced to RO to maintain maximum hitting power, and creates BMs to hamper itself, huge deal.
Odds are without lockon the Protector will struggle to do any hits besides ordnance hits with its weapons, as it won't make it past the shields.

Carnage also does better on the pass, with fewer blind spots, and also is 5 points cheaper.  Better turns simply means it has better ability to keep those forward firing weapons targeted on the enemy ship, though its still not as good as 45 and broadsides.  With lockon, the Carnage actually has much better firepower at 30cm, getting even more juicy once it hits 15cm over the Protector.

Really big disadvantages that shouldn't be overlooked.  And you think the Protector is underpriced 0.o

I think we all agree the tracking systems on the Custodian should increase.


@Sig:
You may not be convinced, but that doesn't mean the fluff justification isn't convincing, you just don't personally like it.  Its still rational, and I'm curious what doesn't make sense to you.
Also, why do you see this ship as a GC?  It is clearly battleship grade, for the reasons of cost and fire output.

I like the idea of 4 shields.  But I find prow deflectors an acceptable substitute as a head-on ship.  You could say Tau don't have the technology for full battleship grade shielding while powering their 90* thrusters (see what I did there? ;) )  and also that cavernous maw looks like it would indeed need to be heavily shielded.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 22, 2010, 07:28:38 PM
Or not, you want the enemy to shoot through the hole missing the hull. Haha. I would just look out for enemy vessels hiding within (Wing Commander trick!! heh heh).

Protector can reload for sure once as it does not need to brace on the long range gunnery. Given it is still a 'negative' in this case, but when succesfull a winning aspect in the engagement.

A locked on Protector with 12 railguns & 2 ic  or 8rg & 2ic will certainly do damage beyond the shields.

If the Protector fails reload it can do a quick turn to increase distance. The Carnage will be going one direction on its abeam course and unless CTNH is used it'll have difficulties keeping up with the Protector manoeuvring.

It'll be an interesting battle (5pts is not much). But I really do think the Protector is more worth then a Carnage. Especially when numbers are added.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 23, 2010, 03:14:44 AM
Warning Warning Danger Will Robi er, I mean, long post. I got carried away with explaining categorisation and the post ended up longer than anticipated. Sorry all.

@Sig:
You may not be convinced, but that doesn't mean the fluff justification isn't convincing, you just don't personally like it.  Its still rational, and I'm curious what doesn't make sense to you.

Er, the fact that I'm not convinced does mean that it's not convincing. At least, to me. Anyway, it isn't a justification, it's a rationalisation. There's a difference. A justification is a reason why something should be a certain way. In this case there is justification for granting the Custodian cruiser status as far as turns are concerned. It goes like this:

p1 - Tau have achieved at least parity with the Imperium in regards manoeuvrability/speed, as demonstrated by the Hero and ratified by the Protector.

p2 - The Custodian has the same displacement as an IN/Chaos grand cruiser.

C - Therefore the Custodian should be able to turn like a grand cruiser.

This is a justification. On the other hand a rationalisation is a reason why something could be a certain way. It would go something like this:

p1 - We don't know that Tau aren't limited in such a specific way such that they are unable to make 90° turns on a regular 8 hit cruiser but could still do so in a larger 10 hit ship

p2 - We know that Tau like manoeuvrability

c - Tau could be able to have a 90° turning Custodian.

The first argument is a lot stronger than the second argument. If you accept the premises of that argument then there is a strong case for accepting the conclusion. In the second argument you might accept the premises and still reject the conclusion. Also, the first argument establishes a minimum base capability and argues what should be based upon that. The second argument assumes a higher level of ability for the Tau. Even people that don't think that Tau have advanced all that much in space engineering would have to account for the first argument. On the other hand they could reject the second argument fairly easily by rejecting the premise that Tau have the capability to put 90° on their battleship.

My preference for the first argument lies not only in its added strength, but also in its consistency. It was this argument that established a 90° turn on the Protector and Emissary in the first place. It is with this argument that I hope to achieve extra speed on the Emissary, extra manoeuvrability on the Custodian and a retention of the 90° turn on the 6+ prow Voss CLs.

Lastly, the second argument seems wishy washy to me. The specificity of the Tau's abilities to produce 90° turning 6 hit cruisers and 90° turning 10 hit BBs while being unable to produce 90° turning 8 hit cruisers sits poorly with me. It is too much to swallow.

Quote
Also, why do you see this ship as a GC?  It is clearly battleship grade, for the reasons of cost and fire output.

When it comes to ship classes I see two distinct categorising factors. One is the mechanistic category, the other is the role. Neither has much to do with the other. As far as I'm concerned the game looks at hull size to determine the ships mechanistic category. What the fleet decides to call the ship or in what role they use it is neither here nor there. It is possible for a race to produce a ship a mere 800 meters long and call it a battleship, the pride and joy of their fleet. To other races it'd be an escort. To the game it'd be an escort.

There is a caveat to this mechanistic categorisation. That being that there has to be a comparison fleet. In this case it's the IN. So, since the Custodian has 10 hits, and we know the Tau are at least as good as the IN, then it's a grand cruiser. It may play the role of a BB in its fleet, but it's a CG for categorical purposes as it pertains to the games rules.

You may ask what this means for other races that have 10 hit battleships, such as Eldar or Demiurg. Well, in the former case since the differentiating stat (minimum move before turning) is irrelevant because the Eldar so far surpass IN engine tech the point becomes moot. The game treats an Eldar BB in the exact same way as it would treat an Eldar CG. Therefore there is only the role element left, and in which case it counts as a battleship.

In the case of the Demiurg however, the fact that this 10 hit ship (the Stronghold) counts as a BB suggests that either the Demiurg as a race are incapable of matching the INs standards or that they simply haven't bothered, since manoeuvrability is not a high priority for a mining and factory ship.

If the Custodian were to count as a BB as far as rules categorisation were concerned then it would have to be demonstrated that they don't have the capability to equal the IN's achievement in this regard, since we know they have the inclination. This is unlikely since there is evidence to suggest that they do have parity with the IN. Also, it becomes hard to justify why they sacrificed resilience if they do not gain some extra mobility out of it.

Quote
I like the idea of 4 shields.  But I find prow deflectors an acceptable substitute as a head-on ship.  You could say Tau don't have the technology for full battleship grade shielding while powering their 90* thrusters (see what I did there? ;) )  and also that cavernous maw looks like it would indeed need to be heavily shielded.

Heh. Ah sor wot yu dun thar.  :P To be honest I don't really care whether it gets the deflector or an extra shield. The deflector would make it a capable line ship that needs very little support. An extra shield bolsters protection but still leaves its soft nose very vulnerable to a pummelling from multiple enemy Carnages. Something I don't really mind.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 03:41:05 AM
Edit after seeing Sig's post:
The only thing I can say to the first part, Sig, is that I think you are seeing something that is not there and assuming it means an inability to produce it, when it just as well could be the case that it was intent of design and purpose for the fleet.  Also, for means of completion, the Nids battleship is a base 10 hits as well.

As to the Hero, I consider it a failed translation of fluff to rules.  According to its fluff, it is a grossly overpowered vessel.
Comparing to the korvattra in general I think is a mistake, as it was based on a totally different design philosophy.
*End Edit*

Half of what you wrote doesn't even make sense to me Horizon.  One can't simply 'move away' from an engagement with slower speed and hope to gain an edge from it, and the Carnage will always have the positioning advantage.

But we have both submitted our best points for the HA to review. (whenever they get around to commenting)
And, correct me if I'm wrong, this is what we have so far, that everyone at least mostly agrees on.
I beg with dignity the HA to playtest the following, as I will. (Someone PLEASE pm me so we can game!)


Custodian:
Tracking system range increase a must.
Needs either cruiser status or 90* turns.
Prow deflector or 4th shield, option or standard.



And the issues we DON'T agree on:
Points cost of Protector
Strength of broadsides on Protector and Custodian.
Points cost of Castellan.
Worth of Viorla variant.

Thats all I can think of.  Another Protector and Custodian variant would be give some fun and diversity, but I guess that could be left to house rules.  I know I will certainly be playing the Kororvesh the correct way, either way ;)
*intentional assery*
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 04:11:11 AM
The Carnage abeam and moves east. The Protector, normally prow on, has an iffy day and decides to do a quick turn to move west. Now the Carnage can only do CTNH to catch up, a normal turn would see the Protector moving away fast.

Quote
As to the Hero, I consider it a failed translation of fluff to rules.  According to its fluff, it is a grossly overpowered vessel.
Comparing to the korvattra in general I think is a mistake, as it was based on a totally different design philosophy.
*End Edit*
In all essence the Hero will always be a cruiser with 8 hitpoints and a 45* degree turning capability. This has nothing to do with too much or too less weaponry.


Sigoroth's post explained the Custodian status really well. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 04:45:51 AM
Are you sure that was his point about the Hero?  The Tau's first true military vessel, attempting to mimic Imperial strengths before they realized it would be best to play to their own strengths? 

The kororvesh is a newer and more advanced fleet with an entirely different design philosophy, not militarized merchants.

As to the Protector scenario, how would that help the Protector at all?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 23, 2010, 05:00:08 AM
Are you sure that was his point about the Hero?  The Tau's first true military vessel, attempting to mimic Imperial strengths before they realized it would be best to play to their own strengths? 

There are 2 points regarding the Hero. Firstly that it establishes mobility parity with the IN. Even though it is probably too powerful for its own fluff, this is likely a fault of too many weapons, not anything to do with its size or mobility.

The other point is that even though it shouldn't be so powerful as it actually is, it was still a successful design and their most potent warship. I agree that the new fleet is a radical paradigm shift towards a more Tau-centric way of approaching battle, but there is zero reason to take a successful design like the Hero and replace it with a less resilient ship, unless that loss of resilience was a by-product of achieving a desired goal, i.e., 90° turns. This strongly (very strongly) implies that the Tau cannot get 90° turns on anything larger than a 6 hit ship. If they could, they'd have simply made the Protector 8 hits. It would essentially just be a more manoeuvrable Hero.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on November 23, 2010, 05:18:26 AM
Sigoroth, you seem to be looking at it a very different way to other people.

You see: Protector has 90* and is 6 hits, then infer that the limit for 90* turns is 6 hits.
Other people are seeing: Protector has 90* and is 2 less than Hero, then infer that to have 90* you must be 2 hits less than the equivalent of your class.

Imperial and GW Tau designs have limited turning because of their hull shape; long narrow and straight, with the engines in a cluster down one end.
The FW Tau ships (could) get greater turning, because their hull design is short and wide, with less overall mass, and engines spread out along the length of their 'wings'. They generate much more turning than other ships simply by firing their port engines but not their starboard :); coupled with a lower mass which is closer to the engines due to short fat hull, makes for tighter turns. The tradeoff of course is that, with short sides, tau can't get good broadsides and must mount all their guns on the front of the ship.


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 23, 2010, 05:54:19 AM
Sigoroth, you seem to be looking at it a very different way to other people.

You see: Protector has 90* and is 6 hits, then infer that the limit for 90* turns is 6 hits.
Other people are seeing: Protector has 90* and is 2 less than Hero, then infer that to have 90* you must be 2 hits less than the equivalent of your class.

Imperial and GW Tau designs have limited turning because of their hull shape; long narrow and straight, with the engines in a cluster down one end.
The FW Tau ships (could) get greater turning, because their hull design is short and wide, with less overall mass, and engines spread out along the length of their 'wings'. They generate much more turning than other ships simply by firing their port engines but not their starboard :); coupled with a lower mass which is closer to the engines due to short fat hull, makes for tighter turns. The tradeoff of course is that, with short sides, tau can't get good broadsides and must mount all their guns on the front of the ship.

Yep, the difference being that the way I see it makes sense. The other way does not. Don't mistake me here, it is not that I choose to see that my way makes sense and other peoples ways do not, but rather I choose to see it the way that it does make sense. So, while I might like the idea of Tau having a 90° turning Custodian, I cannot reconcile that with the state of play.

Let us pretend that FW made the Protector model physically larger. So much so that it was given 8 hit points. Well, you could say that Tau like to be agile, this is how they'd develop their tech, let's give them a special rule saying that they can all turn 90°. OK, this would be internally consistent and as such a fine proposition. Of course, there could still be disagreement from those that don't believe that the Tau could surpass the IN in such a short amount of time, and this camp would propose that both the Protector and Custodian get only 45° turns. Aaaaaand this is what we'd be stuck with, since it was like pulling teeth to just get 90° on the Emissary and Protector.

The reason is because the proposition (fleet-wide 90°) depends upon the Tau having more advanced drive tech than the IN. Now, maybe they do (or should). It's not impossible. It's not even terribly implausible. However, the powers that be have decreed that it isn't.

On the other hand we did have enshrined in doctrine that they did at least achieve parity with the IN (thanks to the Hero, bless its little overpowered hull). So, since the Protector is lighter than the Hero, and there'd be no reason for the Tau to do this if not for some gain, and since IN ships with only 6 hits have 90°, and since Tau have parity with the IN, and since this fleet isn't just a rehash but a complete paradigm shift, and since they have no doubt advanced to such a stage in the intervening time as to be capable of doing so (as evidenced by the ships themselves) THEN the Protector is allowed 90° turns.

This one little paragraph sums up an entire line of reasoning that took years (literally) to convince the HA of its merits and is based in very hard to refute logical steps. Now, adding 90° to the Custodian not only pre-supposes a greater level of drive tech than the IN (which we have never been able to establish in all our progress) but also directly contradicts one of the key foundations for the argument that got the Protector the 90° turns in the first place. Namely that the extra mobility was achieved solely through sacrificing mass, as per IN capability, which strongly suggests that the Tau didn't have the capability of putting 90° turns on an 8 hit cruiser (since the IN didn't after all).

Now, the premise of sacrificing mass to gain mobility is still fine. We can use that for the Custodian. However, if you make it 90° turn rate then the sacrifice of mass from the Protector didn't seem necessary at all, since the Custodian can do it and it's even bigger. On the other hand, we could categorise it as a Grand Cruiser, which turns just like a cruiser and so therefore the Custodian would be gaining mobility by sacrificing mass. This lines up with their doctrine and does not break their established IN drive parity nor does it make the Protector's sacrifice redundant. Therefore best solution. Only problem that then arises is one of being able to keep up with the fleet. If we allow it to go on CTNH then it could, with some effort, still keep up with the fleet. Makes sense that it should take such a large ship some effort to keep up with the smaller fleet mainstay.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 06:43:13 AM
See, the key Sigoroth says =

if Tau can build a 90* 10 hits vessel with lots of guns and ordnance.
Why build a "light"  Protector which can turn 90* with less weaponry if they have the tech to do a 7,8,9 hits vessel as well with 90* turns.

The key = that the maximum advancement for agile movement IS the Protector with 6 hits @ 90* turns.
Their advancement (has for the moment in time and past that) halted their. They COULD not design a vessel with 7,8,9,10 hits that could turn 90*.

Because if they had designed a 7,8,9,10 hitpoint vessel with 90* turns the Protector would make no sense in the doctrine.

... Next to that is the kor'or'vesh HA/player development. Both Sigoroth and  I have been the most profound advocates of the agile Protector (=the KEY vessel in the fleet) with 90* turns. BEFORE Forgeworld released their rules or the HA their old (banned by FW) rules. (This led to the creation of the unofficial Project Distant Darkness [revival] rules as to my surprise quite a bunch of players used my pdd design I submitted to fanatic online back in the days).

It was now Nate who finally understood and we are glad for this. Very ! yay Nate! :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 23, 2010, 07:07:20 AM
Yep, he's right. We've been working on this argument for literally years.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on November 23, 2010, 12:33:30 PM
I disagree totally with the logic that 'if they can build bigger, they would'. There are a multitude of reasons why you might want to build a smaller ship that have nothing to do with maneuverability. Having lots of small ships over a few large ships is a valid strategy. Technological restraints on power systems, weapon sizes, construction methods or materials could all force smaller construction. Limited supply of resources, components or crew may also necessitate low HP ships. The physics of their construction, the relation of their moment of inertia to their wingspan and distance from thrusters to center of mass, might dictate a specific mass to thrust ratio to maintain relatively quick turns.

I would much prefer to see a gameplay reason why 90* is overpowered on the custodian rather than some arbitrary, retconned fluff that is no more true or logical than any other fictional reason.

Just to clarify, I'm not coming at this from the point of view that custodians need/deserve 90* turns; I just want to find out why you think why not. Although if you still believe that your explanation is the only possible one we may just have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 12:37:05 PM
A platform with:

* 6 launch bays
* 8 missiles
* 12 Railguns @ 45cm
* 2 Ion Cannons @ 45cm

* 3 shields
* 4 turrets
* 10 hits
* 5+ armour
* speed 20cm

Will be overpowered with 90* turns.


Because we look at Excorcist, a capable vessel:
10 hits, 3 shields, 3 turrets, 5+ armour, speed 20cm

* weapon batteries: two x strenght 8 @ 45cm
* 4 launch bays

Has 45*.

Why should this ship not have 90*?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 01:17:53 PM
Because it has broadsides.  Duh.  :)

Broadside and 45 has an easier time bringing its weapons to bear than 90* and forward firing, as has been stated before.
How will it be overpowered horizon?  Man, feels like I've written that question out alot 0.o

Sig, I really can't say anything more to the 'I'm right because I am' idea of logic, but I'll repeat what I and others have said in previous threads have said, for progeny:

The kororvesh is a completely different fleet from korvattra.  There is no reason to ever compare the two except to show the dramatic directions tau have gone away from it.  It is newer, more advanced, might as well be almost a different 'race'.
The entirely new hull designs, as travsi and myself have said, are a unique hull design that is more fragile but is better suited for turns.
I shouldnt even use the phrase 'more fragile' because it implies that they had to sacrifice something.  By your logic, why don't we fight the game using all battleships?  Its because that is not practical, in a fluff or gameplay sense.  Tau built their kororvesh ships for a purpose, not to set them on weight scales with their counterparts of any specific race.  'Tau have a cruiser called the Protector, it is of lighter build than what the Imperium dubs as their own cruisers' is all that needs to be said of the comparison. 

Its all about the hull design.  There is nothing convoluted or faulty in that statement, except that it doesn't seem to be to your liking, for some reason.  It gives a cool racial trait to the Tau.  The Custodian still has to move 50% further than the Protector to execute its turn due to larger mass.  Its lovely in its layout.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 01:25:23 PM
On other random things:

I'll never buy that such a specialized ship as the Protector, that suffers from a variety of factors going against it, the only positive being, yes, an impressive long-ish range alpha strike for a vessel its size, on one target, will ever be worth or equal to the cost of a Lunar or carnage.

On the viorla, any thoughts on either locking the lances and subtracting 2 from the battery, or 4 from the battery and not locking the lances?
Both seems really harsh.

The launch bay is a fun little thing on the Protector, but was it costed with the thought in mind that it was much less effective in singles besides CAP protection?  Honestly, if losing it made the ship cheaper, I'd go for that variant in a heartbeat.

What else...would 30cm tracking systems be OP on the Custodian?  20cm sound about right?

Purely fluff related here, to the HA's or anyone who knows:  What is the disc function on the Custodian?  My first thought was a rotating wheel for fighter craft, but it was suggested that perhaps it is the tracking system.  If the HA can confirm its the former, I want to model some FW craft on it :)

It may be too late in the draft to turn some hearts to the idea, but I'm certainly for the inclusion of tigersharks over mantas in the kororvesh.
Gives it some more diversity from korvattra, and tigersharks are much more military aligned vessels in general than mantas.
A manta wouldn't even fit through the Custodian's launch bay! :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 23, 2010, 01:28:49 PM
I disagree totally with the logic that 'if they can build bigger, they would'. There are a multitude of reasons why you might want to build a smaller ship that have nothing to do with maneuverability. Having lots of small ships over a few large ships is a valid strategy. Technological restraints on power systems, weapon sizes, construction methods or materials could all force smaller construction. Limited supply of resources, components or crew may also necessitate low HP ships. The physics of their construction, the relation of their moment of inertia to their wingspan and distance from thrusters to center of mass, might dictate a specific mass to thrust ratio to maintain relatively quick turns.

Every single one of these points fits the Custodian just as well as an 8 hit Protector. Also, we could just as easily say that due to specific technological restraints the Custodian can only move 10cm and turn every 2nd game turn. You could explain just about any fucked up ruling with rubbish like this. The point is that there is a justification for cruiser status turning circle. There is no justification for 90° Custodian turns.

Quote
I would much prefer to see a gameplay reason why 90* is overpowered on the custodian rather than some arbitrary, retconned fluff that is no more true or logical than any other fictional reason.

Of the two arguments I highlighted earlier, the one in favour of the CG status is by far the more convincing and logical. It is the harder one to refute, because it is made from connecting logical statements and demonstrable premises. The argument for 90° turns can be dismissed by simply saying they (the Tau) simply don't have the technology to do that, sorry. Denied.

Quote
Just to clarify, I'm not coming at this from the point of view that custodians need/deserve 90* turns; I just want to find out why you think why not. Although if you still believe that your explanation is the only possible one we may just have to agree to disagree.

Well, it isn't the only possible one, just the only reasonable one. My argument doesn't require that the punter swallow some horseshit about how the Tau can do 90° in 6 or 10 hits but not 8, or the even more laughable notion that the Tau really don't want to have good ships. I mean, come on, they want 6 hit ships? What a croc. With less hits they'll lose combat effectiveness quicker, and get destroyed easier. They'll lose more lives and have to build more ships and train more personnel. Where's the efficiency there?

Now, AGAIN, if the Protector were 8 hits then the rationale for giving the fleet 90° would not necessarily have to sit with a mass trade-off. It could simply be a Tau technological ability. However, this WOULD presuppose a level of drive tech greater than that of the IN. In which case I put it to you that no capital ship in this fleet would have a 90° turn at all. This is because a good deal of people did not buy the idea that the Tau could have progressed to a superior than IN level in such a short time. These doubters included the HA. So that 'retconned fluff' as you called are what got the 90° turns on the Protector and Emissary in the first place (along with a good deal of persistence from many people). Now you want to dismiss that out of hand as being of no more value than the off-the-cuff rationalisations you spout here?

Now, this is an important point to remember. The difference between justification and rationalisation. A justification is a reason why som[ething should be a certain way. A rationalisation is a reason why something could be a certain way. A justification is stronger than a rationalisation. Rationalisations aren't always bad, though when offered as an argument for something in the face of reasonable reasons against that thing then they are bad.

So far no justifications have been offered as to why the Custodian warrants 90°. That doesn't mean that none exist, but so far the cruiser turning circle is by far the stronger argument.

Assuming that there is some justification for the 90° Custodian that is not accounted for here (such as a mention of Tau space ships astounding manoeuvrability in some GW codex without excepting the Custodian) then both arguments would become equal in value. Each would require some rationalisation and each would have some justification. Now, under that scenario, upon reflection I would prefer a 45° Custodian. This is because I prefer the notion that the largest ship in the fleet struggles to keep up with the lithe agile Protector and must take specific action (ie, special orders) to do so.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 01:32:06 PM

Quote
Because it has broadsides. Duh.
Crap reason. The Custodian has better broadsides then the Excorcist (6RG + 1IC = 6 + 3 = 9RG/WB)
(I made a mistake in above post, the Custodian has 12 RG in the latest draft, not 8!

Quote
Broadside and 45 has an easier time bringing its weapons to bear than 90* and forward firing, as has been stated before.
How will it be overpowered horizon? Man, feels like I've written that question out alot 0.o
Prow on firepower ships are easier to use then broadside ship on the attack run. Skilled players will equal this.
If you do not see the overpowered factor of it I am lost. ;)

Quote
Sig, I really can't say anything more to the 'I'm right because I am' idea of logic, but I'll repeat what I and others have said in previous threads have said, for progeny:

The kororvesh is a completely different fleet from korvattra. There is no reason to ever compare the two except to show the dramatic directions tau have gone away from it. It is newer, more advanced, might as well be almost a different 'race'.
The entirely new hull designs, as travsi and myself have said, are a unique hull design that is more fragile but is better suited for turns.
Ha! It is different and it doesn't need 90* on a Custodian to show so! It is still Tau by all means. Please. :)

Quote
I shouldnt even use the phrase 'more fragile' because it implies that they had to sacrifice something.
They did!! They sacrificied mass on their ships!

Quote
By your logic, why don't we fight the game using all battleships? Its because that is not practical, in a fluff or gameplay sense. Tau built their kororvesh ships for a purpose, not to set them on weight scales with their counterparts of any specific race. 'Tau have a cruiser called the Protector, it is of lighter build than what the Imperium dubs as their own cruisers' is all that needs to be said of the comparison.

Its all about the hull design. There is nothing convoluted or faulty in that statement, except that it doesn't seem to be to your liking, for some reason. It gives a cool racial trait to the Tau. The Custodian still has to move 50% further than the Protector to execute its turn due to larger mass. Its lovely in its layout.
But the Grand Cruiser status is enough! Go on, propose the Custodian design with 90* on warseer, dakka dakka, yahoo, librarium online, TacCom, etc and see what comes out of it. If you get a 70-30 positive feedback I shake ya hand. :)


--warning---
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 23, 2010, 01:38:46 PM
Sig, I really can't say anything more to the 'I'm right because I am' idea of logic, but I'll repeat what I and others have said in previous threads have said, for progeny:

Oh, I'm right because I am. Right. So, it has nothing to do with carefully drawn minimum equivalencies, extrapolative reasoning and a reasoned and progressive argument that is hard to refute in either its premises or conclusion. Oh yes, I can see how "I want a 90° Custodian! I want it I want it I want it! Gimme!" is just as valuable. Sure, what was I thinking. Why did I even bother putting in so much time and effort to connect all the dots and come up with an argument. Silly me.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 01:39:14 PM
Quote
I'll never buy that such a specialized ship as the Protector, that suffers from a variety of factors going against it, the only positive being, yes, an impressive long-ish range alpha strike for a vessel its size, on one target, will ever be worth or equal to the cost of a Lunar or carnage.
Your loss. I'll whip a Lunars *** any day with any of the Protector variants.Give me one key point on which the Lunar could win. The Carnage will be a more balanced battle, but the Protecor wins, in 2 vs 2 match even more.

Quote
On the viorla, any thoughts on either locking the lances and subtracting 2 from the battery, or 4 from the battery and not locking the lances?
Both seems really harsh.
I call one variant with 4/2/2 railguns and 1/1 IC (swing arcs @ 30cm or 45cm locked).

Quote
The launch bay is a fun little thing on the Protector, but was it costed with the thought in mind that it was much less effective in singles besides CAP protection? Honestly, if losing it made the ship cheaper, I'd go for that variant in a heartbeat.
I wouldn't. Perfect Raider layout. 1 fighter to eliminate enemy cap! No cap present, Manta harassment.

Quote
What else...would 30cm tracking systems be OP on the Custodian? 20cm sound about right?
20cm is fine. :)

Quote
Purely fluff related here, to the HA's or anyone who knows: What is the disc function on the Custodian? My first thought was a rotating wheel for fighter craft, but it was suggested that perhaps it is the tracking system. If the HA can confirm its the former, I want to model some FW craft on it
Email the designer (I did ;) ).

Quote
It may be too late in the draft to turn some hearts to the idea, but I'm certainly for the inclusion of tigersharks over mantas in the kororvesh.
Gives it some more diversity from korvattra, and tigersharks are much more military aligned vessels in general than mantas.
Fine.

Quote
A manta wouldn't even fit through the Custodian's launch bay!
Uhm.. yes they would. The Custodian has 4 launch bays for Manta's modelled on it. The large squares.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 02:02:52 PM
Oh, do those fit mantas out of em?  They look big on the FW site, I don't own any mantas yet. 
I actually propose, for tigersharks, they use the fighter bomber rules that Horizon directed me to, posted by Ray B.
I don't THINK that would warrant a points change, but that depends on how people value resilient bombers.  From the space marine thread, apparently alot.

Who exactly is the designer, Horizon?

I forgot that yall are still using the standard torp rules.  My group plays on the assumption that a fighter squadron will not always be able to take out 9 equal speed football-field sized objects that dont stop to engage ;) (d6 torps removed per fighter marker)
But ya, I'm not denying its handy, just not the main focus, ya know.  I can be a min/maxer sometimes.

As to the other points, I don't think I can state my points any clearer, and the replies are on a steady degradation of anything beyond slander and fallacy.

So I really will just leave it to the HA's to decipher and pick through, and please respond so we can decipher and pick you apart :)

And once again, someone please come put their money where their mouth is and schedule a game against me.  I can be swayed with results.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 02:48:11 PM
Not so, the Custodian could do a broadside duel with Excorcist. It would win due more ordnance. Prow on the Custodian will be much more effective, and thus avoid the broadside duel.

Mind you: I would agree with a prow deflector on the Custodian (pd has nothing to do with hull shape!).

The Custodian main focus would be to support vessels with TS, yes. But not all the time.

Reasoning that it should do a 90* turn to maximise it TS is like reasoning to give the Emperor BB 20cm speed so it will be able to keep up, and turn along, with attendant cruisers, if it has blastmarker on it.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Trasvi on November 23, 2010, 03:10:53 PM
^^ Sorry, i deleted my post because I took so long to post it it had become irrelevant.

For those who missed it; Custodian's full firepower probably won't be brought to bear against any target that can cross it's T, because of the weak front armor compared to protector. Protector doesn't care if it's abeam or closing to the enemy, the damage it takes will be roughly the same. Custodian takes twice the damage if closing than abeam because it lacks 6+ armor.
And, the Custodian should be able to kill the Exorcist. Its 100pts more expensive!

Sigoroth: why does the Emissary exist? By your reasoning, every race should always build ships as big as they possibly could and still get the same maneuverability. The emissary doesn't fit that profile. I believe the Tau's design philosophy simply dictates 2 less hits than equivalent imperial ships in exchange for additional turns: a Kor'o'vesh Grand Cruiser would be 10HP, 90*.
Also; don't the Tau have better technology? The Tau codex seems to imply this. Perhaps not in the area of Warp travel, but otherwise (pulse rifles, railguns, ion cannon, widespread use of grav tanks, better plasma).


Perhaps 90* turns would be overpowered, but I don't think it is an impossible design for the Tau.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 03:11:17 PM
Gah, why do you tempt me back with such statements?  I didn't know I was a fruit tree, but my cherries sure are being picked! :)

Hey, focus on the real questions I had, help me out.  The ones not having to do with the big debate. :p

And if an Emperor had tracking systems, which it doesn't and is a wierd comparison, then you might want to go on burn retros.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 23, 2010, 04:31:38 PM
Sigoroth: why does the Emissary exist? By your reasoning, every race should always build ships as big as they possibly could and still get the same maneuverability. The emissary doesn't fit that profile. I believe the Tau's design philosophy simply dictates 2 less hits than equivalent imperial ships in exchange for additional turns: a Kor'o'vesh Grand Cruiser would be 10HP, 90*.
Also; don't the Tau have better technology? The Tau codex seems to imply this. Perhaps not in the area of Warp travel, but otherwise (pulse rifles, railguns, ion cannon, widespread use of grav tanks, better plasma).

Why do BBs exist? If they're not better than 8 hit or 6 hit ships, why bother with them at all? Of course they're better. They are not, however, as manoeuvrable or versatile as cruisers. The Hero is a great line cruiser. Why would the Tau mess with that? Because they want more manoeuvrability. Why isn't the Custodian bigger? Because they want manoeuvrability. Why is the Emissary the size it is? Well, here there are obvious fluff reasons (as a diplomatic vessel it shouldn't be too threatening nor represent a tremendous investment of resources, etc), but a more pressing reason that I can think of would be that it would sacrifice mass to gain speed. This ship should be 25cm. Makes sense. If something goes wrong then you'd want it to be able to bug out as fast as possible. It is even lighter than the Protector and so presumably it gains something for this loss, even as an incidental gain.

As for better technology, I can see how someone might argue that they do have better, or rather, how they could have surpassed the IN in the amount of time given (what, 400 odd years?) considering that they're a precocious race that develops unnaturally quickly. However, not everyone will buy that argument. It's a judgement call. Some may believe that they're that advanced, others that they're not. The argument for CG status does not rely upon such a judgement call. It relies upon demonstrable parity. In other words, this is what the Custodian should get at the very minimum.

Now, let's say that you're of the opinion that Tau have advanced beyond the IN. Well, you could then suggest 90° for the Custodian. But you would have to overcome the hiccup that is the 6 hit Protector. In other words, why didn't the Tau just make a 90° Hero (very successful ship design) instead of a lighter ship. Rationalisations just don't cut it here. But OK, I'll offer an alternative (this is the sort of thing the 90° Custodian camp should have been proposing). So, instead of the Protector trading hits for increased turn rate (since we know the heavier Custodian can do this it would already have 90° at 8 hits) it trades hits for speed. Give it +5cm speed. Make the Emissary 30cm. Huzzah, we have an internally consistent 90° advanced Tau fleet.

Right, now with that sort of suggestion my consistency argument falls away. However, the argument for CG status is still easier to accept since it doesn't depend upon the idea that the Tau are advanced, therefore more people are likely to accept it. We don't know that they're not more advanced, but we don't know that they are. We do know that they're not less advanced, and this is all the CG argument requires.

Now, assuming that there was no general opposition to the notion that the Tau are more advanced, so people are either ambivalent or split down the middle or would just want a coin toss to decide, etc, my own personal preference, after some consideration, is for the 45° CG status.

Three different things here. One is an internal consistency argument, one is a plausibility argument and one is personal preference. Obviously only the first 2 need to be addressed by reasoning.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 23, 2010, 07:56:26 PM
Quote
For those who missed it; Custodian's full firepower probably won't be brought to bear against any target that can cross it's T, because of the weak front armor compared to protector. Protector doesn't care if it's abeam or closing to the enemy, the damage it takes will be roughly the same. Custodian takes twice the damage if closing than abeam because it lacks 6+ armor.
And, the Custodian should be able to kill the Exorcist. Its 100pts more expensive!
First you got to cross the T.  Enjoy your unopposed walk there...

Quote
Sigoroth: why does the Emissary exist? By your reasoning, every race should always build ships as big as they possibly could and still get the same maneuverability. The emissary doesn't fit that profile. I believe the Tau's design philosophy simply dictates 2 less hits than equivalent imperial ships in exchange for additional turns: a Kor'o'vesh Grand Cruiser would be 10HP, 90*.
By all means you did not understand a single word mainly Sigoroth and I said regarding the design philosophy.

Quote
Also; don't the Tau have better technology? The Tau codex seems to imply this. Perhaps not in the area of Warp travel, but otherwise (pulse rifles, railguns, ion cannon, widespread use of grav tanks, better plasma).
Ypu forget that the Tau are only new to space. Yes, they made advancements. In some areas they surpassed the Imperial Tech, in other areas they are behind (eg teleports). But they are still a young race in the space race.
In space Railguns are the same as Weapon Batteries, Ion Cannon the same Lances.

The 90* on the Protector (miniaturization advancement) is a major Tau leap in the Space Race.

Quote
Perhaps 90* turns would be overpowered, but I don't think it is an impossible design for the Tau.
Yes it would be at this point in time (999m41), in a future it might be possible (add hundreds of years).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 23, 2010, 10:56:03 PM
A wizard did it.  Seriously though, I hold to the simple 'the hull design does it' philosophy, and looking at the models, it works in my mind.

Your compromise though I have no real objection to, I was just trying to change as little as possible, for the purists.
To clarify, you are saying 90* turns and +5cm?

I agree with this for the same reasons I'm ok with the ridiculous Eldar speed, who are essentially Tau taken even further down the path:
Kororvesh are a fragile, alpha strike fleet.  They need to deliver their payload first and hard, or face retribution.  Aka, you want alot of braced or crippled ships, or it will be trouble.  Currently, there are fleets that can bring tougher and cheaper ships to alpha strike range faster.
So yes, I could accept faster kororvesh ships.  Synergises with the Castellans as well actually, now that I think about it.
And yay, Emissary is  a real diplomatic vessel, 2 birds with 1 stone.  Prolly should go up 10 points though.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 24, 2010, 02:39:51 AM
A wizard did it.  Seriously though, I hold to the simple 'the hull design does it' philosophy, and looking at the models, it works in my mind.

Your compromise though I have no real objection to, I was just trying to change as little as possible, for the purists.
To clarify, you are saying 90* turns and +5cm?

I'm saying that this would make your argument for the 90° Custodian internally consistent, thereby removing that objection to it. I still believe it to be the weaker argument though, since it requires more latitude from everyone. If there was general consensus that the Tau really have surpassed the IN in this regard, and I don't hold that it's impossible, then your position would gain strength.

I don't maintain that it would be impossible for the Tau to have advanced to this state and I might even suggest that, while it's a little dubious, we allow it anyway since it isn't likely that we're going to get a third Tau fleet showing them at their pinnacle. The look of the FW Tau fleet is very much akin to that of the 40k Tau, so having them play at their pinnacle seems fine from that regard.

However, there are many people that do not concur. They're not a "little" dubious they're a LOT dubious. Let's face it, if we were going to make this fleet epitomise the feel of Tau we'd give it a lot of 60 to 90 cm weaponry as well as 90° turns and average to decent speeds (ie, Chaos level).

So, while we have the look of the models, a desire to have at least one Tau fleet truly reflect their 40k feel and a fear that this is the only opportunity to achieve that on the one hand, on the other hand we have the notion that they really aren't there yet, in the time frame we're given. We could maybe say that this isn't actually the current Tau fleet, but rather one that they'll come up with in a few hundred more years ... so it'll become playable just as soon as the fluff has caught up ...

Either way, the CG status Custodian is the minimum buff that it should get, even if you assume that the Tau only have parity with the IN. Therefore less opposition, and fits in with the 'bridging' fleet feel, which is what we're going to get anyway, given that we're limited to 45cm guns after all.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 24, 2010, 03:02:37 AM
Just looking at the pictures of the ships, Sig, what do you find faulty about the statement 'The way those ships are laid out, they look less thick, but also look like they would be really good at turning'?

I believe its a matter of design philosophy over available technology.  I don't believe the Imperials, based on their brute tactics, would ever dare to alter their hulls to produce a more elegant and efficient layout if it meant less bulky vessels.  That isn't the same as not having the technology to theoretically do so.

That said, I actually like the idea that the humans, with their stagnant dark age technology, have advantages that few races can match, despite their horrible misuse of what they have.  I'd be happy if Tau never figured out how to shoot at 60cm and the like, give those know-it-all blue boys something to fume about :)

Thats why I don't expect the fleet to play like the army, just as many BFG races function very differently in space.
I just know how Tau would want to operate, and I see their ability to making it happen.

@Horizon, using the Lunar was a bad example, will stick to chaos.  Chaos have better individual ships, imperials win with team work.
My math doesn't support the Protector statistically winning, but 25cm speed would at least mean the Carnage didn't always have the initiative.
And I have through the math come to believe it is a bit better than I initially thought, but rather than a 170 point ship, a 175 or 180 point ship.
Just a smidge pricey. 

Things so far we are agreed on:
Custodian needs 4th shield or prow deflector (I've come to like the prow deflector idea better myself.)
Cruiser status or 90* turns (As much as I think it would be a missed oppurtunity, cruiser status is certainly better than current.)
Tracking system increase to 20cm on Custodian.
Viorla variant negatives a tad harsh.
Speed buff on one or two vessels.

Think thats it right now.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 24, 2010, 03:28:39 AM
Just looking at the pictures of the ships, Sig, what do you find faulty about the statement 'The way those ships are laid out, they look less thick, but also look like they would be really good at turning'?

I think I have been very clear. There is an internal consistency problem with the Custodian having 90° turns unless you give the Protector something else (like speed) for its lost mass. That is not to say that I don't think that they shouldn't get a turning bonus. I've argued that the Custodian should turn like a cruiser, not a BB (which it is in role). So I don't have a problem with Tau having better turns. And assuming a 5cm speed boost to the Protector (10 to Emissary) I don't even have a consistency problem. I don't even think that these changes taken together (+10cm Em, +5cm Prot, 90° Cust) are terribly unreasonable or even unbalancing (with proper points costs).

I do however think that it is a harder case to make than the cruiser turn status and +5cm Emissary, and would require convincing a lot more people on both fluff grounds (to which there are considerable objections) and on balance grounds (which are a separate set of objections). Therefore the cruiser status is the stronger case. As for personal preference, I just like that the Tau's main response unit is the Protector, and that the Custodian has to really work to keep up with this nimble predator.

Quote
Things so far we are agreed on:
Custodian needs 4th shield or prow deflector (I've come to like the prow deflector idea better myself.)

Agreed.

Quote
Cruiser status or 90* turns (As much as I think it would be a missed oppurtunity, cruiser status is certainly better than current.)

Definitely needs a buff.

Quote
Tracking system increase to 20cm on Custodian.

Yes, I think 20cm should just be enough. Perhaps some play testing is required.

Quote
Viorla variant negatives a tad harsh.

I say drop the variant altogether. The Hero has a variant because it's possible to easily model one. The Protector is a one piece resin ship. Modelling a variant would be difficult, so not fair on the consumer and not modelling it would make them indistinguishable, so not fair on the opponent.

Same sort of argument for the Emissary, though I believe it would be easier to model a hook variant versus a lance variant. Either way, I think that this should be modelled by one of the HA and a picture (or at least schematic) included in the pdf. The fighter variant is rubbish anyway (I'd go 3 torps + 1 fighter for each anyway).

So I think no variant for the Protector, and only a lance or hook variant for the Emissary.

Quote
Speed buff on one or two vessels.

I believe the Emissary really needs to be 25cm and 90°, not the either/or that the HA loves. This ship is really really small. It sacrifices more than the Protector in terms of mass. It really is more like an escort (ala Dauntless). It would merely have parity with the IN, not even that actually (Dauntless is heavier and quicker on AAF) and as a diplomatic vessel speed and agility really fit the bill.

If we're looking at a (basically) free 90° for the fleet as a Tau rule then I think the mass loss needs to be picked up elsewhere, so a further 5cm speed increase to the Emissary and Protector.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 24, 2010, 03:52:36 AM
Oh, I forgot.  TIGERSHARKS! :D

Anyway.  Are you saying a Custodian is like a GC or BS in roll, I'm not sure.  Assuming speed increases for the Emissary and Protector, the Protector would be a more nimble vessel than the Custodian, with a 25% higher top speed and needing to travel only 66% as far before executing a turn.
If that still doesn't set well with you, the only other thing I can offer is that the Custodian is the pinnacle of Tau design, currently, and may have more loving care in its workings than the Protector.

Just holding a measuring tape between the bases, looks like there is about 13cm of breathing room possible between bases of a protector and custodian when stems are at 20cm.  I don't think the Custodian should just sweep the battlefield with tracking benefits, but it still seems a bit tight, as in purist fleets it will be the only thing offering the TS support the fleet seems to depend on. 
Maybe 20cm with a 30cm option at cost?

I understand your argument for the aesthetic side of dropping the variant.  On the other hand, I do want versatility in my fleet, even if it means kitbashing.  One cruiser gets boring after awhile, if we want a long term enjoyable fleet.
Thats why I'm in favor of just offering balanced variants, and leaving it ultimately up to the individual how to represent it.  He always has the choice afterall not to do so, and stick to normal Protectors.  A Custodian variant would be cool too.
I was thinking a more dedicated gunship, or a more support style vessel.  But thats just fun-time wishlisting.
I do understand the viorla in concept.  45cm is the 'gold' point of the Protector.  I just think the penalties are too harsh to warrant it, as you essentially don't gain much if tracking systems are around, at the loss of great 30cm firepower and broadside lances.

I can see the Emissary being a 30cm ship, at least from the picture angle, the engines look darn big on such a small ship.
Made for getting water and ethereal caste members places, or escaping in a hurry with precious cargo, at the expense of great frailty in a cruiser, but enough integrity to usually take a volley that would blow an escort.
Harmonizes with the slower escorts as well, castellans being gunboat support and wardens being towed in close fleet support.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 24, 2010, 04:03:04 AM
Custodian = CG by category, BB by role.

The problem with allowing players to kitbash different 'official' variants at their own discretion is that a few (a lot?) will invariably just not bother with the conversion and point to one ship saying "this one is a standard Prot" and then point to an identical model and say "this one is the variant". Not good.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 24, 2010, 04:17:20 AM
I understand that, and I trust the competancy of playgroups to weed out bad rules and come up with fun house rules of their own.
It just becomes an issue when playgroups cross, and it just helps to have it in an official/semi-official pdf from other people to confirm that its not just you that thinks the ship is balanced.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on November 24, 2010, 04:20:15 AM
Hey, if the pdf comes with a picture of an easily converted Prot, or a schematic of one at least and has appropriately strong wording admonishing that any variants must be converted as shown then I'd be down with variants. I'm not against them in principle or anything. More variety is better.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 24, 2010, 05:14:48 AM
I have no clue yet on how to resemble variants since the weapon layout is the same in modelling, yet different in function.

I EVEN NEED TO WORK OUT HOW THE RAILGUNS CAN BE CONVERTED SO THEY CAN SHOOT LEFT/RIGHT INSTEAD OF FRONT ONLY.

heh heh.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 24, 2010, 12:35:41 PM
Which are the railguns on kororvesh ships, the holes along the front rim?  Yes, that would be difficult to shoot sideways.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 24, 2010, 12:41:57 PM
Nein.

The stubs are railguns. (so port 1, starboard 1, prow 5).
5 round Holes in prow: missiles
keel square is Manta Launch bay
large turrets dorsal (1 port/1 starboard) = Ion Cannons
small turrets = anti AC = covering whole ship (= TS).
small square holes in front of wings = shuttle bays = size of Orca dropship (40k, not the escort ;) ).

That's what the model designer from FW answered me.


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 24, 2010, 01:05:11 PM


And once again, someone please come put their money where their mouth is and schedule a game against me.  I can be swayed with results.

I travel a lot courtesy of my job and am always looking for an excuse for a game. Whereabouts are you located? Have models, will travel!

- Nate

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 24, 2010, 01:23:23 PM
Europe for me :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 24, 2010, 09:18:30 PM
Nate, have you ever tried to use vassal?  Great in a pinch for a good game.  Excellent for BFG actually.

And I love your depth of comment when you finally answer this thread -_-



Although, Do you ever travel near Memphis, TN?  Itd be a real treat to get a real game with you.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on November 24, 2010, 09:20:49 PM
I quite dislike vassal/other online version of BFG. I really miss the 3D view my tabletop has. I dunno. Oddnes I know.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on November 27, 2010, 08:09:29 AM


Although, Do you ever travel near Memphis, TN?  Itd be a real treat to get a real game with you.

I'll keep this in mind the next time the Navy sends me to Millington. I have a conference out there about every 18 months or so.

- Nate

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Caine-HoA on November 27, 2010, 11:27:51 AM
Im from Europe as well, so no chance either.

Horizon i know what you mean about the 3d look, i tried vessal once but its just not the same as using your models.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on November 27, 2010, 12:15:25 PM
I'm a hop, skip, and jump away from there :)

Look forward to it.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Oqlanth on November 28, 2010, 02:07:47 AM
Turkey here :D ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on December 03, 2010, 04:35:03 AM
Hi everyone!! There’s a big set of updates today!  If you want to get to it, click the link below.

http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*

Tau Commerce Protection Fleet 2.5: Not much changed here from what has been posted for awhile except formatting and some very minor tweaks.


- Nate


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 03, 2010, 04:48:29 AM
Protectors: ok. Both are equal now.

Custodian: should be a Grand Cruiser. Tracking System upgrade = ok

Emissaries: issues remain. 1 lb =/= 3 grav missiles. Drop that variant and add 1 lb to other 2 variants.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 03, 2010, 06:02:15 AM
Grateful for the tracking system change.

I believe the Custodian needs 90cm turns.  But if not, for heavens sake, at least cruiser status.
Has a single person been against both options on this board?

Protectors:  Actually took a nerf.  Amazing.  House rules inevitable.

Pretty much agree with Horizon on the Emissary.  But I just see it as having 2 variants, the real problem is its lack of speed or shielding, one or the other.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 03, 2010, 06:07:42 AM
Better, good to see the tracking system range increase.

I don't mind the custodian getting CG status but I'm opposed to 90` turns on anything that large that isn't eldar.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 03, 2010, 06:35:11 AM
Quote
Protectors: Actually took a nerf. Amazing. House rules inevitable.
First try them out. The nerf was asked for (by me ;) ). They are now BALANCED. I LIKE them. No change needed.
You underestimate them by a LARGE margin. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 03, 2010, 07:12:41 AM
in YOUR opinion ;)

I understand it from the size of the vessel, but its too pricy, moreso now than ever, for the same old reasons.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 03, 2010, 07:33:04 AM
Yeah, and from anyone else in this forum. Your supposed to be conservative as well LS ;)
Remember that Don Gusto even found them much to cheap & overpowered.

Quote
I understand it from the size of the vessel, but its too pricy, moreso now than ever, for the same old reasons.
I'd play it at 190pts without blinking my eyes.

You underestimate: 90* and focusable firepower + ordnance support. Same old reasons. ;)

Draft Protector with 45cm IC compared to FW Protector:
-1 missile, -1 launch bay
+  2 RG (better arcs), +Turn Rate
For 5pts less. (FW = 190)

The FW Protector was good for its points (lots of experience from players around the world and personal use).

I totally agree with the changes made.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 03, 2010, 08:33:56 AM
Oh come on, I can't remember anyone besides me and you discussing points costs, but maybe thats the codeine talking.

Id love to test it out, but until someone helps me out on here I'll have to wait till my fleet arrives in full.
(Shipping takes FOREVER, but due to a deformity in my first Custodian, I'm getting a second one shipped free :) )

I'm not underestimating the focused fire, I do realize it is an advantage.  I also realize its all the ship has, and theres advantages to duplicate broadsides.  Also, I think its been stated and proven enough that 90* and forward guns actually give you less fire options than 45* broadside ships, though being able to shift direction in general certainly is an advantage.

So what that leaves us with is a ship that has the total firepower of a focused chaos cruiser broadside, with the added benefit of throwing in a torp salvo in the same arc and a squadron for ordnance protection.
The negatives being the above-mentioned and -2 HP, which is a big deal.

Positives, negatives, like any ship.  I just don't see what puts it past 175 points, with the negatives weighing it down.




Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 03, 2010, 08:36:36 AM
Oh, forgot another thing nobody seemed to disagree with.

Ok Nate, 2 things generally the community as a whole was fine with, that weren't addressed one way or the other:

Greater mobility for Custodian.

Greater defense on Custodian.

You've got options.  Cruiser status or 90* turns.  4th shield or prow deflectors.  Get to the coin flipping, or however yall decide over there ;)

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 03, 2010, 08:55:26 AM
Oh come on, I can't remember anyone besides me and you discussing points costs, but maybe thats the codeine talking.
Codeine. Others gave up on easing your mind. ;)

Quote
I'm not underestimating the focused fire, I do realize it is an advantage.  I also realize its all the ship has, and theres advantages to duplicate broadsides.  Also, I think its been stated and proven enough that 90* and forward guns actually give you less fire options than 45* broadside ships, though being able to shift direction in general certainly is an advantage.
If you really think that 45* broadside gives more options....

Quote
So what that leaves us with is a ship that has the total firepower of a focused chaos cruiser broadside, with the added benefit of throwing in a torp salvo in the same arc and a squadron for ordnance protection.
That is massive (5 missiles)

Quote
The negatives being the above-mentioned and -2 HP, which is a big deal.
-2 hits is the only negative.


Custodian: prow deflector, ok. Grand Cruiser should be.

Positives, negatives, like any ship.  I just don't see what puts it past 175 points, with the negatives weighing it down.





[/quote]
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 03, 2010, 09:12:35 AM
Ya, as much as I'd like a universally more useful 3rd shield, I think prow deflector more and more is the fluffy option.
As the ethereal surveyed the cavernous bays of the prototype Custodian, he motioned to the commander beside him, pointing towards the vast expanse of space that opened in front of him.  'Commander, you will need something to cover that..."

Yes, the Protector can manouver where it needs to go faster, but -2hp isnt the only disadvantage of the class, though that alone should cause a nice points break.

90 degree and front fire means greater blind spots than a 45 and broadside ship.
-2 hit points.
Mixed ordnance/gunnery stats mean theres less solid advantage to LO/RO.
Third of firepower negated by a fighter marker.
Advantage in focused firepower but less overall firepower than a Lunar.
AC slot that while handy, bumps the price up without doing much by itself.
(Can you squadron markers from squadroned ships if in btb like torps?  Maybe that would be a nice suggestion for the next FAQ if not.)

And thats everything I can think of as a reason why they Protector shouldnt be 185.  And I like the ship, I really do.
Its mainly a 'I could fit another Castellan in this list if those damn Protectors didnt have such a strangely high opinion of themself' kind of thing :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on December 03, 2010, 02:45:04 PM
Protector should be fine. When I playtested an earlier version (more wb's 45 turns) they did a lot of damage on the way in, but were generally crippled before they could make another pass. More maneuverability is always good (still like them to be faster though).

I don't think there is any point in keeping arguing for 90 turns for the Custodian, if the HA were going to do it they would have by now.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 03, 2010, 07:22:04 PM
Nor have they given it cruiser status or more protection.

More manouverability and better protection, in general, are 2 things that many people want and no one has objected against. 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 03, 2010, 09:42:54 PM
It shouldn't get both. If it gets anything it should be CG status which only allows it to use the CTNH order.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Don Gusto on December 04, 2010, 02:01:12 AM
Well I guess I'm done with this draft. The Tau ships keep getting worse with every revision.

So far the Custodian was the only capital ship that looked like a balanced design. But just barely with the tracking system included.
Imho the Custodian is the wrong ship for a tracking system. Ironically the numerous complaints here just prove this to be true.

But instead of correcting your mistake, you force it to work by doubling its range.
20cm - HOLY SHIT! - that's a 40cm diameter. 40cm of Tau uberness and not one additional point to pay for it. Forgeworld will just love this list.

Fluff- and gameplay-wise the tracking system was already pushing the limits. This is bad.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 04, 2010, 02:20:37 AM
well, 10cm is too small with the size of the models to make the tracking system much use when measuring from the stem so an increase was a practical need, though 20cm might be a bit large. It mainly just needs to be enlarged enough to counter the effects of a larger model blocking more space so perhaps 15cm.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 04, 2010, 07:36:43 AM
lol @ Don Gusto & Last Spartacus.

Who both fail to see the good balance in different directions.

Very funny.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 04, 2010, 03:50:07 PM
Oh, I'm correct.  Dunno what hes smoking :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 04, 2010, 08:40:55 PM
Holding my shiny new Custodian in my hand, I can agree on many things.

If that big circular thing is indeed the tracking system, I fully understand it being 20cm range.  
The TS on the Custodian is the size of an entire Messenger!  Add on years of refinement no doubt to the tech, and fluffwise its easily 20cm.

For the protector variants, at least internally they are much more balanced now, so thats good.

Besides the strengths and weaknesses I see in the Protector, I would think that it being the only line cruiser option, at 6 hp, would give it some kind of points break for being a less reliable backbone.

For the Custodian, I'd love to hear at least some design principle from Nate or another HA about the logic behind not giving better manouverability or endurance to the ship.

I'd love to see some kind of character prototype Custodian.  Every fleet needs an expensive centerpiece ;)

Don:  This fleet is no where even approaching the power of the korvattra.

Fluff question:  I'm guessing, but I don't know exactly when Farsight defected.  Would the Enclaves have access to Kororvesh ships?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 04, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Nate posted a while back that the deflector was the only thing keeping the Custodian from 4+ armor because of that gaping hole in the middle.

My current concern about the 20cm range on the tracking system is that it might be a little too large and we haven't accounted for the geniuses who will pop all their models off the stands to fit everything in range of the system. If we drop it back to 15cm this will be somewhat harder to do and make everything there NC/Armageddon Gun/ Torpedo bait which should discourage over clumping.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 04, 2010, 09:50:07 PM
15cm...wouldnt be horribly opposed.  But I am totally against base popping :)

As to the prow deflectors, as its been said before, has nothing to do with frontal armor.  If it has to go to 5+ and 4+ prow with a prow deflector to make it balanced, so be it.  Thatd be kind of interesting actually.

If the Emissary cant get above 1 fighter bay, drop it entirely for another couple batteries or a short ranged lance?

Final thing I noticed when looking at my shiny new Custodian, 'Damn, this thing does NOT look like it would move like a battleship!'
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on December 05, 2010, 12:45:11 AM
Holding my shiny new Custodian in my hand, I can agree on many things.

For the Custodian, I'd love to hear at least some design principle from Nate or another HA about the logic behind not giving better manouverability or endurance to the ship.


Okay folks, here it is. We have a framework “theme” for how every fleet is supposed to behave, what it’s supposed to be good at, and what it’s supposed to be bad at. Tau’s “theme” is that they suck at building true warships, and their propulsion, energy and shield tech is nowhere NEARLY as good as the Imperium. Take the Explorer for example. It has absolutely monstrous drives, yet it moves only 15cm and can barely juice more than one shield. Even their background fluff illustrates their WB fire is a carefully choreographed ripple-fire of their railguns because they don’t have the power to fire them simultaneously.

Without getting into the mechanics of how or why Forgeworld came about with producing the Kor’or’vesh, they just did. GW’s immediate (and present) policy is that all the models are just “counts as” models using the current GW rules (Custodian=Explorer, Emissary=Merchant, etc.), which is why GW never produced a ruleset for them.

Forgeworld came out with their own rules for them, the first iteration of which were an abomination and duly butchered by the HA’s when we were given a sneak-peek. Forgeworld came out with a second set of profiles they didn’t even show us before putting them in print (Imperial Armor 4). Their Kor’or’vesh rules were put on their online resources site for awhile but it’s been gone for several years now. Unfortunately IA#4 is an expensive book most BFG-only fans will probably never buy because though it has more than a hundred pages of WH40k rules and materials, only 4 pages are dedicated to BFG. This isn’t too much of a tragedy- the new FW profiles are still a bit buggy, though I suppose anyone who wants to use them can as long as their opponent doesn’t mind.

Anyway, regardless of how shiny the new models look, the fleet “theme” hasn’t changed. Tau starship tech (which is so vastly scaled up to anything in WH40k, an analogy would be pointless) was barely better than that of Orks and far behind Imperials before the Damocles Gulf Crusade. By the time of the Taros Campaign (which is an entirely Forgeworld-generated contrivance) several decades later, the Tau fleet is completely different thanks to Forgeworld, but GW’s underlying theme hasn’t changed. Should Tau tech be better than it was several decades earlier? Of course it should- the crucible of war does wonders for advancing technology, especially when you have a three-front war (Imperium, Orks and Tyranids) threatening you with annihilation. However, desperation only gets you so far regardless of the resources at your disposal, and with only several decades between two wars, there is NO WAY the basic theme of the Tau morphed from “barely better than Orks” to “better than the Imperium.”

How do we represent this in rules? Easy: Kor’or’vesh starships are purpose-designed warships built to the Tau’s combat philosophy instead of the re-packaged Air-caste colonization vessels they were using pre-Damocles. Because Tau drives still suck (bigger does NOT mean better), their warships have to be smaller so they can move like warships. They still can’t go fast, but their small size lets them turn better. However, the smaller size benefit only condenses down to a point: their flagship 10HP vessel is still battleship-sized as battleship-mass vessels apply to the Tau, and their drives aren’t advanced enough yet to let the Custodian behave like anything besides a battleship. This means NO Grand Cruiser movement and NO 90 degree turns. This is also why they aren’t getting a 4th shield, though a deflector is still under discussion.

Just because something feels good doesn’t mean it is right for the fleet’s theme. If we keep making new ships and rules to program out the shortcomings of every fleet, we will eventually come full-circle and make all the fleets exactly the same. Then we would have nothing but a game of battleship-chess, and nobody would have to figure out how to fight to a fleet’s strengths and not merely try to fleet up its shortcomings. 

Quote

I'd love to see some kind of character prototype Custodian.  Every fleet needs an expensive centerpiece ;)



This sounds like a good idea, say a one-off vessel. Back at you- what should it look like, leaving the above constraints unchanged?

Quote

Don:  This fleet is no where even approaching the power of the korvattra.


It’s easy to say considering Explorers are cheap, no-limit carriers. Like everything else in the game, smart tactics can overcome this. One of our play-test battles was actually a pure Kor’vattra fleet against a pure Kor’or’vesh fleet, just to check for balance. It was exceedingly close.

Quote


Fluff question:  I'm guessing, but I don't know exactly when Farsight defected.  Would the Enclaves have access to Kororvesh ships?


Commander Farsight defected before the Taros Campaign and thus wouldn’t have access to Kor’or’vesh ships. For flavor, imagine him as the Abbadon of the Tau, and you wouldn’t be far off. We have declined to make it official canon that a Farsight fleet can’t have Kor’or’vesh ships because in the greater scheme of things there isn’t enough reason to make the distinction (there can always be defections, of course), but ideally a fluff-true Farsight fleet wouldn’t have any Kor’or’vesh ships at all.

-   Nate

   
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 05, 2010, 02:12:22 AM
Thanks for the response, Nate.

It's pretty clear you and the HA are not Tau fans, and if GW gave you that opinion.. they are Tau haters :P

One of the defining features of the Tau was always their rapid technological development, and their ability to adapt to new threats. Ironically, they also had several MacGuffins roll in and save their small empire from complete obliteration (the Demiurg deletion of a waagh, the warp storm that allowed them to even survive, Shadowsun's 'flawless victory' against a splinter fleet)

I hate to say this, but you are making them out to be not worth playing. in that post, you said "Ignore the shiny exterior, they are the technological equivalent of a bottle rocket with a pea-shooter"

So i have to ask, do you have a conflict of interest in making these rules? There are a LOT of rabid tau haters, who would do anything to hamstring them as hard and violently as they could, even if it was in a dying medium.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 05, 2010, 02:16:46 AM
Thanks for the response, Nate.

It's pretty clear you and the HA are not Tau fans, and if GW gave you that opinion.. they are Tau haters :P

One of the defining features of the Tau was always their rapid technological development, and their ability to adapt to new threats. Ironically, they also had several MacGuffins roll in and save their small empire from complete obliteration (the Demiurg deletion of a waagh, the warp storm that allowed them to even survive, Shadowsun's 'flawless victory' against a splinter fleet)

I hate to say this, but you are making them out to be not worth playing. in that post, you said "Ignore the shiny exterior, they are the technological equivalent of a bottle rocket with a pea-shooter"

So i have to ask, do you have a conflict of interest in making these rules? There are a LOT of rabid tau haters, who would do anything to hamstring them as hard and violently as they could, even if it was in a dying medium.

It has to do with the rules the HA is working under that GW saddled them with.  One of  them is that 'Nothing may be more advanced then the Imperium' and the other one that I think is absurd is that 'any new ship must be based on an existing ship'.  You can see how this conflicts with a lot of fluff AND common sense.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 05, 2010, 02:51:13 AM
Not that I'm a tau hater, but seriously, aesthetics are not equal to technological advancement. Just because a race whose known for fluid aesthetics makes a ship that looks fluid doesn't mean that it's super advanced under the hood. It just means that they made it fit within their own aesthetic framework.

If Tau drive technology and weapons tech are below the imperium in space according to the fluff, it doesn't freaking matter what they are capable of on the surface. There is a huge separation between having railguns and making the large enough and effective enough at the ranges in space against targets that are far more powerful and armored than Titans. Tau doesn't translate into magic technology wild card. There just isn't enough time for them to advance farther than they have.

That being the case, I'll accept that the Tau are calling the custodian a battleship and that it has the mass of a battleship grade ship but inferior materials and technology degrading it to CG status. I guess that makes it a big ship and the pride of the Tau navy, but in the galactic scope, not much better than a grand cruiser.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 05, 2010, 03:59:03 AM
Hold on just a second, lets not forget that the fluff has a huge bias. Since most fluff is told from the imperial perspective, EVERYTHING is inferior technology compared to them.   
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 05, 2010, 04:35:43 AM
to the front line troops perhaps, but I highly doubt the Imperium would survive long if those in charge didn't have more factual intel. In this case, I'd be inclined to believe that the imperium is more advanced given the weight of evidence in Imperial cruisers capabilities vs the tau of any flavor. Things such as higher hits with the same speed tell me that Imperial drives are capable of propelling higher mass with equal capabilities as lighter tau vessels. Lack of 60cm weapons tell me that Tau haven't been able to match Imperial weapons technology in space either.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 05, 2010, 04:39:45 AM
Trust me I understand that. I just never viewed it as "They are cavemen attacking spetznaz"

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on December 05, 2010, 05:57:14 AM
Trust me I understand that. I just never viewed it as "They are cavemen attacking spetznaz"



This comment suggests the Tau have a tattered, worthless fleet. Protectors are extremely hard-hitting for the point cost, their ordnance is great, and many of the fixes people wanted for the Custodian happened. The Tau are NOT a magic fleet. Not having an Eldar battleship (which is what a lot of people here seem to want) is NOT the same thing as "Tau suck- thanks Nate!"

I happen to love the Tau and have a huge fleet of them, nearly 6,000 points between GW models, FW models and Demiurg/Kroot. This fleet is well-balanced against every fleet it was play-tested against, which is why making this document "final" is taking so long. A LOT of tweaks have happened along the way. Play with the thing, maybe even two, and you will find this ship is actually really good for the point cost.

The deflector is still under discussion, but making this thing a grand cruiser is dead. That being said, house rules are a beautiful thing. If this rule set still sucks in your opinion, PLEASE feel free to tailor it any way you want. Considering the current official rules have Custodians count as Explorers, what we have here is a definite improvement.

Thread ends

- Nate

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Plaxor on December 05, 2010, 07:17:35 AM
Thanks Nate, as an HA your knowledge of TAU fluff is good. 200 years after 'better than orks' doesn't mean better than imperial.

Sure Tau have only been spacefaring for 1000 years so far, it took them 700 years to go from just the explorer to their first true warship (Hero class)

And yes the Tau have a lot of issues holding them back from competing with imperial tech in a lot of ways. Namely warp drives (I love the fluff about the tau reverse engineering an ork ships drives, its amusing and true to how life would go. Reminds me of a tv show where a person who time travels leaves behind his camera sparking a tech revolution). As well as the power issues, through the entirety of 40k fluff maintaining engines and shields are extremely power-costly endeavors. As well tau ships were forced to be of larger size than the imperial equivalents due to their poorly designed warp drives.

Tau are only supposed to invent tech about 2-3x as fast as humanity, I remember the fluff on how they went from a feral, tribal race to spacefaring in 5000? years. About twice as fast as humanity. Probably within the next 250-500 years they will surpass impie tech, if they don't die before then, those tyranids are problematic.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on December 05, 2010, 09:53:13 AM
Thanks Nate, as an HA your knowledge of TAU fluff is good. 200 years after 'better than orks' doesn't mean better than imperial.

Sure Tau have only been spacefaring for 1000 years so far, it took them 700 years to go from just the explorer to their first true warship (Hero class)

And yes the Tau have a lot of issues holding them back from competing with imperial tech in a lot of ways. Namely warp drives (I love the fluff about the tau reverse engineering an ork ships drives, its amusing and true to how life would go. Reminds me of a tv show where a person who time travels leaves behind his camera sparking a tech revolution). As well as the power issues, through the entirety of 40k fluff maintaining engines and shields are extremely power-costly endeavors. As well tau ships were forced to be of larger size than the imperial equivalents due to their poorly designed warp drives.

Tau are only supposed to invent tech about 2-3x as fast as humanity, I remember the fluff on how they went from a feral, tribal race to spacefaring in 5000? years. About twice as fast as humanity. Probably within the next 250-500 years they will surpass impie tech, if they don't die before then, those tyranids are problematic.




According to Zachary's Theorem of Adaptive Divergence (AdMech32/XEN583), the Tau are estimated to approach and possibly exceed Imperial tech in about 1,000 years, with their conflict against the Tyranids being the current "rapidly changing environmental conditions" precipitating their rapid advancement. For some inexplicable reason they are evolving at about 2.5 times the rate of humanity. A total of 6k years to exceed Imperial tech is not a lot of time considering it took the Imperium 30k years to get there!


- Nate

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 05, 2010, 11:36:40 AM
Let me be specific!  I agree with everything you have done in the fleet list! Great job!  I may confess that I will miss the full st2 lc or st 6 torps on the protector, but I am getting much needed firepower in response. 

I never wanted gc rules on the custodian!  I just wanted my first and favorite fleet to not get scrubbed out of usefulness because someone is screaming "weeaboo"
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 05, 2010, 01:44:56 PM
Nate.  Any magic fleet accusations are ridiculous.  Even with the changes we have proposed, The Custodian comes NOWHERE CLOSE to an Eldar battleship in agility.  The changes proposed only bring the Custodian CLOSE to normal battleship levels, not there, but close.

You can talk all you want about fluff, but with hundreds of years of development and shaving 2 hits off your battleship, I in no way believe it would be unreasonable to up the forward firing flagship's manouverability.  Especially because the kororvatra is a complete upgrade and redesign.  Its a ship design issue, not technology, as stated before.  Its just a different model car, with better technology as well.  That ship is grand cruiser size, with wide drive dispersal.

You can state design intent if you want, but dont use fluff on this one.  The Protector needs greater manouverability to keep up with the fleet its supposed to support.  At this point, its the nimble Protectors adjusting to the advancing gunline, while the Custodian is left behind, its soft nose closing straight into the enemy.  Very bad, man.

Its a ship that doesn't gel with the fleet, and you are forcing houserules on me.  Its a big mistake on your part, I believe that more than any other ship model discussed.

I'm happy to hear a prow deflector is being considered.  Means I may only have to houserule one thing in the fleet, and possibly Protector costs, but only after playtesting.

Let me be clear.  I like a balanced fleet, with weaknesses.  Kororvesh Tau have those weaknesses.
I'll be very happy if they never gain the durability or long range of other fleets.  What I am proposing is simply quite rational, balanced, and fluffy character in the fleet.  Magic fleet my ass.  *mumbles crankily*
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 05, 2010, 02:18:36 PM
All it means to me is that I'll have to kill ridiculous numbers of Tau battleships, which really isn't any different from what I do now.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 05, 2010, 02:50:26 PM
last, get over yourself.

I always determined battleship strength by firepower, and considering how much the custodian is throwing out it's prow (which is always the most efficient and effective arc to fire from), it lands in the battleship zone soundly. The huge ordnance it's launching only compounds it's battleship status.

And no, the Protector will never have a 90 degree turn, not with it's strength. It's no light cruiser.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 05, 2010, 03:04:57 PM
You get over me first ;)

I have very strong feelings about this, with reason behind my thoughts.  We are talking about a game we both enjoy, thats all.
 
Man up and don't take it personal.

So, could you please explain why you see prow as the most efficient and effective arc?


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 05, 2010, 03:13:43 PM
perhaps because all of the weapons are capable of focusing in the forward arc?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 05, 2010, 03:22:45 PM
That's not really hard to consider. allow me to make some supporting statements first.

1. since your not on an infinite table, you typically are always moving TOWARDS your opponent (this is a game about blowing things up, not dancing.)

2. Since your opponent tends to close on you, you will have the advantage of 'closing' arc more often.

3. Concentration of fire is MUCH easier when you do not have to worry about turning to fire on a ship. Also, with this strength, you have the capacity to break up enemy phalanxes (sometimes violently)

4. Simplicity. You don't forget to fire your other arc :P

If you want to see this perfected, look at an eldar fleet.. everything goes to the
front arc.

Lets be honest, how often do you use BOTH arcs of an imperial cruiser and greater? not frequently.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 05, 2010, 03:28:48 PM
I'll reply to this more in depth after I sleep, but I will say 2 things.

Eldar have rockin' front fire, yes.  Imagine Eldar with only one 45cm turn after 15cm.

Do you not get a double-broadside oppurtunity every game?  Its not the majority, but I'd say about 20% of the time im using both broadsides.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: BaronIveagh on December 05, 2010, 05:48:37 PM
That's not really hard to consider. allow me to make some supporting statements first.

1. since your not on an infinite table, you typically are always moving TOWARDS your opponent (this is a game about blowing things up, not dancing.)

2. Since your opponent tends to close on you, you will have the advantage of 'closing' arc more often.

3. Concentration of fire is MUCH easier when you do not have to worry about turning to fire on a ship. Also, with this strength, you have the capacity to break up enemy phalanxes (sometimes violently)

4. Simplicity. You don't forget to fire your other arc :P

If you want to see this perfected, look at an eldar fleet.. everything goes to the
front arc.

Lets be honest, how often do you use BOTH arcs of an imperial cruiser and greater? not frequently.

Um.... *points to self*  But then, that's why Horizon calls it a BaronI sized table.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 05, 2010, 05:54:51 PM
the table i built is tournament standard 6x4... it's the maximum size that could fit :P
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 05, 2010, 11:53:37 PM


Heh, just occured to me:  Even if we go on the ridiulous assumption that Tau are still anywhere close to Orkish level drive tech, Orks have 10 hit ships that have cruiser status, and Tau can't manage it with turn encouraging hulls?  Thats hilarious.

That's not really hard to consider. allow me to make some supporting statements first.

1. since your not on an infinite table, you typically are always moving TOWARDS your opponent (this is a game about blowing things up, not dancing.)

2. Since your opponent tends to close on you, you will have the advantage of 'closing' arc more often.

3. Concentration of fire is MUCH easier when you do not have to worry about turning to fire on a ship. Also, with this strength, you have the capacity to break up enemy phalanxes (sometimes violently)

4. Simplicity. You don't forget to fire your other arc :P

If you want to see this perfected, look at an eldar fleet.. everything goes to the
front arc.

Lets be honest, how often do you use BOTH arcs of an imperial cruiser and greater? not frequently.

Right.  Initially.  But once you reach weapons range its sometimes best to stay at distance and abeam.

2. Same thing.

3.  Prow weapons has nothing to do with phalanxs.  It matters not from what arc the firepower comes from, only that it comes :)  And broadsides are muc more devastating at that.
Also you can get closer to the enemy fleet without directly closing.  Or do all of your opponents advance nose-towards and then pull a tun to fire weapons?  Prow has nothing to do with concentration of fire, though it does ensure, on the first shot, that you are less likely to have to turn, but positioning helps alot either way.

4.  Oh you just wanted a point #4 didnt you? ;)

And otherwise, first two questions still stand.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 06, 2010, 12:22:31 AM
with tau I don't see any conceivable way you could decide that their broadsides are more devastating than their forward arcs.

Custodian, side arc, 1 lance and 6 WB... less firepower than the Lunar.
Protector, side arc,  1 lance and 2 WB... about as much as a firestorm.
Sa'Cea, side arc, 1 lance and 3 WB.... see previous.
All other emissary configs, side arc, 4wb... same firepower as a dauntless.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 06, 2010, 12:33:20 AM
Hmm, I definitly didnt mean to ever imply that thought, don't know where you got it.


Oh, forgot about character Custodian.  How should that look I wonder?  4 bays and killer guns?  More torps?   Hmmm.

If its ok with you Nate, I'd like to see how the normal Custodian ends up before I give input on that :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 06, 2010, 12:57:13 AM
Then you typed what you mean rather poorly.

Quote
It matters not from what arc the firepower comes from, only that it comes Smiley  And broadsides are muc more devastating at that.

We are in the Tau thread talking about the Tau list and you make the statement that broadsides are more devastating. Without qualifying that in any way and in reference to Zelniks post that the prow was the most efficient arc in relation to the custodian followed by his attempt to clarify why he believed that way, it stands to reason that your comment was related to the tau broadsides firepower.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 06, 2010, 04:23:15 AM
Character Custodian: the secret Stealth Custodian!!

Also: if you read the unofficial art of command supplement to project distant darkness you wil notice


spoiler


that Farsight received a kor'or'vesh based fleet. :)



Anything else I missed?


Ah yeah, through Tracking Systems we'll see that overlapping from FAQ2010 is again a very bad idea. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 06, 2010, 04:34:18 AM
Hmmm a Character Farsight Flagship...a Custodian with +2 boarding value and can launch assault boats? :D
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 06, 2010, 04:48:16 AM
No, Farsight first had a merchant equipped as a heavy warship (unofficial AoC) and now he zips around in a



spoiler





Stealth Emissary (different profile).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 06, 2010, 04:56:03 AM
Your humor eludes me :)

Farsight would probably be in an Explorer, not a Custodian Id guess.  Beyond this thread, but Ill certainly keep that in mind :)


Hmmm, it was an open invitation.  What would make a good character Custodian...or would I rather see a character Protector...or Emissary...hmm.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on December 06, 2010, 02:22:19 PM
Farsight would use shielded-up explorers and merchants.
His ships would use full boarding values rather than halved
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on December 09, 2010, 05:42:08 AM
Farsight would use shielded-up explorers and merchants.
His ships would use full boarding values rather than halved

The Farsight Enclaves are regressed and have little support from the Tau Empire. In fact, judging from the new Tau Codex, they are considered cut off entirely. While I can see them getting Kor'or'vesh defectors, they wouldn't be many, and I doubt they have the resources to be refitting their vessels the way you describe. On the other hand, the boarding modifier makes perfect sense.

I can see this as being a cool scenario-based theme, but Commander O'Shovah as leader of a single renegade fleet and strapped for resources in my mind doesn't constitute something that needs to be adddressed in BFG terms. I know you weren't asking for such treatment, I'm just saying.

- Nate
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 09, 2010, 07:08:46 AM
It would be a cool warp rift article. :)

Also, Nate, custodian for grand cruiser?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on December 09, 2010, 10:55:34 AM
Nate

Farsight fleet may have been specifically refitted for his expedition. As he lost ships he could salvage shield generators for his remaining ships. The point though was that his fleet is based on older ships.
Just fluff talk not for rules addition. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Plaxor on December 09, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Well one thing everyone is forgetting is that the farsight fluff takes place in the mid 700's of M41, where most other fluff takes place in late M41.

At this point in time it's shortly after the damocles gulf crusade, and heros have just been developed. So chances are they would be exceptionally rare in his list.

Farsight is one of those people that we're wondering what happened to, even though 200 years have kinda gone by. 40k isn't linear in time however, and fluff can be developed as though it were the present for multiple points in history.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 09, 2010, 12:25:50 PM
Ya, especially since, isn't old for a Tau like 40?  I see a ragtag and desperate fleet of cool hardened veterans.  Assault boats (What do we call them besides orcas? damn you GW!) and full boarding values.  I know its very small compared to the Tau Empire, Nate, but aren't the Enclaves a collection of systems?  It would be a fleet of at least some notable size, methinks, though with limited repair and construction ability.

And ya, still wondering about the other stuff.  Custodian as is is poop if it wants to use its forward guns.  POOP I SAY!
And you ain't got the fluff to back it, sonny, no you don't! :P

And ya know, Protectors too expensive.  Outgunned by similarly costed and more durable chaos cruisers, and Imperial ships could just ram the little bastards.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 09, 2010, 01:03:03 PM
Quote
And ya, still wondering about the other stuff. Custodian as is is poop if it wants to use its forward guns. POOP I SAY!
And you ain't got the fluff to back it, sonny, no you don't!

And ya know, Protectors too expensive. Outgunned by similarly costed and more durable chaos cruisers, and Imperial ships could just ram the little bastards.
Don Gusto will start hitting you with a brick if you continue your trending.

I just disagree on the Protector. It is balanced. Must be: if person x says it is overpowered and person y underpowered, the average is balance. HA!

The Custodian is ok, but would be more inline with CG status.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 09, 2010, 05:42:09 PM
Guys, the A-boats will be mantas'.  It just means they use the troop transports instead of the missile bombers that the rest of the Tau use in fleet engagements.

The only problem is, each manta carries an INSANE number of troops, and probably would warrant special rules.

How about this.

Manta Transports: Instead of acting as bombers, these gigantic troop transports are filled with stealth, crisis and fire warrior teams trained specifically for boarding enemy vessels. When a squadron of these attack craft attack a target, roll a d6 for each strength, on a 2+ it initiates a boarding action (to be resolved in the end phase).  Every Manta transport in the squadron counts as having a boarding value of 2.  If a 1 is rolled, the crew of the defending ship manages to storm the manta and kill the crew, permanently making the parent ship lose one launch capacity (think Dark Eldar impaler).  Do not halve the launch capacity for the transports for being Tau.  
Manta Transports are Resilient.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 09, 2010, 06:08:18 PM
Crisis suits are too large for boarding actions they won't fit into corridors. Second, look at the FW tau manta. It only holds 48 firewarriors but I guess you could do standing room only and pack them in in place of the hammerheads. Either way there isn't an easy exit to the manta since it requires the craft to either land, or maneuver backwards into the target and then figure out some way of sealing the void off while they bore in unlike the dedicated AB other races have.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 09, 2010, 06:29:19 PM
It only holds 48 warriors IF you carry tanks. If not, the number grows much larger.

Considering how BIG the interiors of a lot of these ships are, I don't see how crisis suits are not effective, but even still, stealth teams would wreak havoc.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: commander on December 09, 2010, 06:57:04 PM
IF they can get to the inside, that is.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 09, 2010, 07:07:17 PM
Thinking,,,
ah yeah. I still remember the idea to replace Manta's with a Tigershark bomber variant (normal bomber of fighter bomber, I prefer the latter).
Then Manta's to be bought at 5 / 10pts a piece. 4+ armour, but can only be hit on the ordnance gunnery table and have a 4+ save vs everything but no shields.

iirc... that is...
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 09, 2010, 07:18:13 PM
Terminators have difficulty moving through corridors on ships, crisis are much larger and wouldn't be able to fit through them. There might be a whole lot of interior in these ships but 90% is going to be corridors which the Crisis won't be able to use.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on December 09, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
stealth suits will work fine for boarding and likely the preferred suit
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 09, 2010, 07:39:46 PM
Its all kinds Vaaish.  Arteries, veins, and capillaries.  Terminators are made for boarding actions and tight situations specifically, and BFG ships have massive and probably ridiculously sized cathedral rooms and large access ways in addition to normal hallways.  I'd say a portion of the ship wouldn't fit crisis suits, but there is fluff of carnifex's rampaging down hallways, so just send the firewarriors down the tighter spaces.
Stealth teams would be so brutal in a boarding action though! 0.o

Ya, Tigershark fighterbombers make a whole lot more sense than mantas in the kororvesh, a whole lot more.  Mantas are still not entirely military vessels.  Question is, would it be worth equal points?  It'd just be more flavorful and fun.

Idea of a freestyling buy-for-points manta is strange to me.

Idea of assault boat mantas, of course, it would be what Farsight used.  Space assault variant.  I KNOW they at least have the resources to rig breach charges and an exit on the nose ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 09, 2010, 08:36:31 PM
I believe I mentioned that, but it just wouldn't be practical to use crisis suits in boarding actions if you have good probability of getting the thing trapped in a hall it can't get through and bunch of angry crewers shooting lascannons at you with no place to go. I just don't see a pragmatic race like the tau using them in a boarding action.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 10, 2010, 03:02:37 AM
I just remembered a big reason why Vaaish is right.  When a terminator or space marine gets trapped in a sticky situation, they have the advantage of being able to be teleported (at some risk) back to their ship.

Tau do not have this technology.

However, I am making this clear: The Taros campaign book is clear, the Tau Manta IS a military vessel, used for rapid and MASSIVE troop movements, as well as modified for space combat. Also, it has the ability for limited FTL... It would NOT be wise to compare it to, say, a Thunderhawk.


Considering that it also describes in the section about it's two massive railguns that it's sub-munition round is used against larger ships, the drone controlled ordnance finding weaknesses in the enemies armor, so blowing a hole to dump troops into should not be an issue, it's also why i added the possibility for them to fail (costing the parent ship one of it's mantas)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 10, 2010, 11:40:17 AM
Mantas could totally do assault boat duty, after some redesign and crew training, no doubt.  The idea of what vacuum fire warrior suits would look like is very cool in my mind, coincidentally.


I have a question.  What would the Protector be worth if it lost the LB?  (Where is that thing on the model anyway?)
The reason I ask this is 3 fold.

1. It would lower the cost of the ship, since we can't come to an agreement that its overpriced as it is.
2. Gives the Custodian even more of a needed linchpin role, as well as a fighter bay based Emissary.
3. Gives the Tau their first true warship that doesn't at all rely on AC, a thought that I like a lot.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 10, 2010, 11:55:11 AM
Launch bay on Protector is very clearly visible -> Keel.

Quote
1. It would lower the cost of the ship, since we can't come to an agreement that its overpriced as it is
.
You are the only one who thinks it is overpriced. Don Gusto thinks undercosted. And all others see it as okay.

Quote
2. Gives the Custodian even more of a needed linchpin role, as well as a fighter bay based Emissary.
But you forget the pre-dominant raider scenarios to which the kor'or'vesh where no Custodian is present. These raids/border patrols are executed by Protectors/Castellans.

Quote
3. Gives the Tau their first true warship that doesn't at all rely on AC, a thought that I like a lot.
A Tau warship without launch bays would be nice but not the Protector as model has a launch bay.

A friend of mine has Tau ships in the picture without Launch Bays. Perhaps a WR article (31/32).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 10, 2010, 11:57:41 AM
What picture?

I was mainly asking for my own personal play and playtesting.  Perhaps a 'stripped down' Protector variant.
Whats an LB worth, 10, 15 points?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 10, 2010, 07:37:28 PM
Stop calling it an assault boat!!!

Have you ever seen this vessel compared to a thunderhawk? It is in a class of it's own when a troop transport alone can take on, and destroy warlord titans :P
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 10, 2010, 07:41:43 PM
Ah semantics :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 10, 2010, 08:30:19 PM
Don't you mean warhounds? Taros didn't have warlords deployed and that's the only fluff I can think of where the Tau took on Imperial titans.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 11, 2010, 02:00:55 AM
I am going by stats, Vaaish, warlords were released in a recent imperial armor... and the manta still wins against it.

And those warhounds were one-shotted by a Tigershark AX-1-0.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 11, 2010, 02:36:27 AM
eh.. I wouldn't put much weight behind stats as proof of that. In epic the stats would have the warlords win. I do realize it was the AX1-0 that took down a single warhound, but that was the only fluff I've seen of Tau vs Titans and they'd mentioned that, previously, the only thing that the Tau had capable of hurting the titans was the manta.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 11, 2010, 03:16:19 AM
Then you should look at the Taros campaign, the AX-1-0 changed that.

There is a reason why the Titan legions don't assist in attacking the Tau often.  Also, I strongly suggest you look at the Aeronautica rules for the manta (as they are more updated and at epic scale).  It's literally the best ship in the game.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 11, 2010, 04:11:39 AM
That fluff is poo.  Sure tactical bombers will knock out lumbering warmachines.  But its 40k, where the old sacred shielded titans should have the advantage, cuz they are titans.  I choose to believe! :P
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 11, 2010, 05:01:18 AM
I was taking that directly from the Taros campaign in imperial Armor III, I don't have access to the the aeronautica books though to look it up.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: commander on December 11, 2010, 10:29:45 AM
Yes, used its missiles to bring down the Warhounds shields (easy thing to do AV12) and than shot it with its guns, offcourse direct hit, penetration, rampaging damage and reactor going critical.
But yes, they have something to hurt a titan. How effective it would be, lasting effectiveness that is, is to be seen.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 12, 2010, 01:17:31 AM
It was enough to break the offensive on Taros, and eventually won the planet. It's easy to say "oh lets see how they will do in the future", but if you actually read the rules and the book, they are forces to be reckoned with.

In Aeronautica, the Tigershark ax-1-0 is the principle tau bomber and can wreck a target with better accuracy and at better range then any other unit in the game. Just because it isn't a giant humanoid mecha doesn't mean it's effective.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on December 12, 2010, 03:27:20 AM
It didn't actually break the offensive. The Titans and marines had already accomplished the objectives and they pulled back the titans to keep from losing any more for no tangible gain. I still think they were a bit too cautious with the titans though, just bring up some hydras and you're golden since it seems that it needed the missiles to take down the shields before the railguns were effective.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 12, 2010, 04:05:33 AM
yeah.. I never understood that.. since a railgun off of a hammerhead or broadside is far greater in strength..

And back then the rules roll would be slightly different, since they still had the "titan killer" rule... which is WAY better then Strength D.

Either way, quit hating on the tau just because they won :P
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 12, 2010, 05:39:06 AM
I mostly discount that fluff, because it seems to have been written by a Water caste member ;)

But it is a good example of that while the Tau have not reached general IN levels, it is obvious that they have surpassed them in some fields.

I'm still awaiting a good response to my post calling the reasoning for the Kororvesh manouverability a pile of BS :)
Lookin at you Nate.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Plaxor on December 12, 2010, 06:42:01 AM
Some fields maybe. They do have a better version of the plasma gun! Otherwise, 40k stats aside, the standard firewarrior weaponry is worse than a bolter, (then again gauss flayers are better than bolters in the fluff).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 12, 2010, 07:31:39 AM
I know they are better on the tabletop, is it really mentioned that the bolter is actually stronger?

Its pretty obvious from looking at the two armies that the tau have alot of tech and much more freely than the Impies do.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: commander on December 12, 2010, 08:47:39 AM
Yes, sometimes the writers get confused and forget to write consistent fluff. Books tend to make this even worse.
 :o
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 12, 2010, 03:55:59 PM
buddy, in every piece of fluff, and every set of rules, the pulse rifle outstrips a bolter in EVERY WAY. Don't even start with that! I would mention things like "small enough to carry as a rifle without power armor", "better strength and range", and "able to be given to all the fire warriors without issue", but that would be beating a dead horse. There ARE areas where the tau have surpassed the imperium, but they mostly reside in their agricultural, infrastructure, and ground combat areas. We all know and accept that the Tau have some ways to go before grasping a better technological grasp in space. It has been established in the fluff that the Tau's greatest hurdle is not warp travel (they have been gradually increasing the speed of the ether drive at an amazing rate), but power generation.  Several realms of fluff show that their generators struggle to power the massive weaponry on their ships, and a LOT of their resources go into finding more powerful sources of power generation.



But to get back to the point: Manta transports are in a league of their own. When used as manta bombers, each token counts as a single manta (when every other fleet has a token count for an entire squadron of attack craft to do the same job).  

I liked Horizon's idea of making them their own ship, if extremely small.  But if used as an assault craft, they are simply bigger, and has such a massive troop capacity that can be dedicated to boarding actions, that it would be absurd to consider it "just an assault boat"

The Thunderhawk, which is the space marine assault boat in the game, has a transport capacity of 30(30 space marines, 15 assault marines, bikes or terminators, 5 dreads)  in 40k, and a transport: 6 rating in Aeronautica.

The Manta transporter has a transport capacity of 188! and whats worse, a stealth suit has the same transport load as a fire warrior!! thats 188 stealth suits causing havoc in an already dark and ominous imperial vessel!  in 40k, and in aeronautica has the transport: 20 rating!

see my point here?


I just realized something though, The Farsight enclave are mercenaries, shouldn't they be listed with the mercenaries? A farsight explorer vessel with manta transporters would be an awesome surprise for an enemy fleet :D
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 12, 2010, 04:17:52 PM
Here is an idea:

Mercenary Farsight Exploer

The Farsight enclaves are known mercenary forces, trading their combat prowess for resources and money to the highest bidder. Unlike the greater Tau Empire, the Farsight enclaves focus on the arts of close quarter combat, just as much as they focus on ranged war. While their vessels are far fewer, and are all 'aquired' examples of the old second sphere expansion, they are still a force to be reckoned with...or paid for. 

A Farsight explorer cannot be purchased by Orks, Tyranids, Tau or Necrons.

Points: 250.
Battleship:12. speed 15cm, turns 45, armor 5+/4+ rear, shields 2, turrets 5.
Armament
Prow Rail guns st 6 FLR 45cm
Port Launch bays: Barracuda fighters/Manta transporters st 4
Starboard launch bays: barracuda fighters/ manta transporters st 4

Special rules:
Mercenaries: While many factions may purchase this vessel, or ones like it for a steep premium, they are not loyal to any faction but their own. if crippled, they will attempt to disengage every turn, unless they are fighting Orks, in which they will not attempt to disengage until they are reduced to 3 hits or less. This ship may not be taken if the opponent is Tau!

Grizzled Veterans: This vessel does not halve it's boarding value like normal tau ships, and gets a +1 to leadership when rolled.

Manta Transporters: Instead of loading the iconic Manta with the standard missile loadout, the Farsight Enclaves tend to not reduce their troop movement capacity, and use these instead of the more common Missile bomber varient.  Filled with fire warriors and stealth teams, they are trained for fighting in both narrow corridors, and large open areas which are common in many ships. The Manta transporter has a movement of 20, and counts as resilient.  When a squadron of manta transporters comes into contact with a vessel, the following happens:
After turrets have been fired, a boarding action immediately is initiated, and resolved in the end phase. each manta counts as having a boarding value of 2. (do not halve boarding value for being tau, nice try!). 
If an enemy ship is destroyed as a result of the boarding action, the player does not gain bonus victory points for the hulk (as the Farsight enclaves claim any vessel they have taken over, to be broken down for scrap and building components). 


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 12, 2010, 07:59:58 PM
Hi Zelnik,
you and the others are onto something. Perhaps it won't be in the draft but a Farsight fleetlist with funky additions like that would make a cool WR article.

Perhaps a competition? Coolest Farsight fleet list wins?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 12, 2010, 08:08:17 PM
I just don't see the farsight enclaves having much OF a fleet.. if you know what i mean. They would spend most of their time fighting for other people :P
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 14, 2010, 05:04:43 AM
Hi,
in response to my mail at Forgeworld several years ago on what the weapons the Protector are Forgeworld mailed me this:

Hi

I just managed to catch the sculptor Will before he left the office.
Apparently the turrets are Ion cannons and the stubs on the front are Rail Gun batteries. He also told me that the large launch bay underneath is for ordnance and the little ones on the front are for shuttles etc and possibly Orca Drop ships.

Regards
Dean Winson
Forge World


(I had to post because of the all gunnery Protector idea).
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 14, 2010, 06:34:23 PM
....Wait.. your telling me the big bay under the protector.. is for torpedo's, despite the fact that it looks like a manta launch bay... and the five little holes on the front, which look perfect for torpedo tubes... are for fighters and orcas? Or was he referencing the wing bays?

Or am I mixing this up?

Also, I never saw that coming, I always thought the two big fixed weapons were Ion cannons (it even shows this in the taros campaign book) and the three barreled turrets were rail guns...
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 14, 2010, 07:18:26 PM
Hi Zelnik,

no, the launch bay underneath he called ordnance = attack craft. The square holes along the wings are for shuttles (wing bays, to show size Castellan has them too, which fits with escorts being able to launch small crafts like personell shuttles etc). The five round holes in the prow are missiles (which I stated in the mail to them as that are the ones I found obvious, heh).

You see, that mail has always been the key for me (since 2006/2007) to state all Railguns should be fixed forward (total of 9 stubs/barrels = fp 8 or 10). Thus making the 90* even more obvious. The Ion as 1 per side LF / RF.
Small turrets being anti-ordnance (which fits the description about Tau anti AC turrets in Armada).

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 14, 2010, 09:44:12 PM
Like i asked before, purely theoretical.
But with the weapon batteries now at str10, and if you dropped the launch bay, would the Protector be balanced at 170.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 14, 2010, 09:53:09 PM
Wow, suddenly my protector is a LOT more intimidating... I always knew the number of actual physical rounds fired was far less then that of the Imperial navy or Chaos, this means that to match said firepower.. they must be incredibly accurate...

*hugs his tau fleet* i wuv you guys..

From what i remember, the strength currently was at 12...

Either way, i don't see the point in reducing the torpedos to 5 and the Launch bay to 1.  It just seems like they are trying to whittle the strength down in any way they can, while nearly destroying the ship's usefulness.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 14, 2010, 10:29:13 PM
Sshh Zelnik, there are some here with a serious godhead view of the Protector, they will hang you for treason ;)

Yes they dropped the str to 10, same points cost -_-  Torps are 5 cuz thats on the model.  Id actually love a tau warship that has no reliance on AC, so im fine with fewer bays, or none.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 15, 2010, 12:06:37 AM
Okay, normally i am a stickler for WYSWYG, but that is UTTER TRASH!!!

So, does that mean that the Armageddon only fires two torpedos? it's picture only has two torpedo tubes?
Does a lunar get strength 4 batteries?

It says -clearly- in the rules for tau Missiles that they launch on average ten missiles for every one imperial torpedo. The number of tubes has -no- bearing on how many are actually launched!

The same goes for the strength of the battery for that matter.

Flybywire. your being dumb, stop it. If your playing the WYSWYG game, then i expect you to show it for EVERY OTHER FLEET. Including the corsair eldar (who have way more guns on their ships then are in the rules)

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 15, 2010, 04:55:56 AM
Hey man,
my Tau are even weaker then his and still balanced. If you get a chance to do WYSIWYG and keep a balanced fleet you must and should follow that path.

IN cruisers have 3 torps slits per side on the prow = 6.

And IN battery module is str6. You know, where the Desolator fires staggered, battery modules fire doubled.

This:

Protector
turns 90*
hits 6
armour 6+/5+  (PD)
turrets 3
shields 2

prow battery str 4 @ 45cm - F
port battery str 2 @ 45cm - F
starboard battery str.2 @45cm - F
port Ion str.1 @ 30cm - LF
starboard Ion str.1. 30cm - RF
1 Keel Launch bay (but to no rewrite crit hit table it is dorsal).
4 prow missiles.*

- Internal tracking systems

* PDD rules has it at str4 missiles on phase III variant, but 5 we'll be good as well.

That is weaker then the draft Protector, and yet at 190 pts balanced (I used it tested it played it).

If you raise gunnery on the ship, LB has to go down, since there is only 1 LB on the ship it makes sense anyway.

So I fully support Nate/flybywire and the HA on the Tau route. It is great!!!

Yes, tweaks needed, but not on the Protector.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 15, 2010, 12:32:20 PM
your protector variant has tracking systems?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: KivArn on December 15, 2010, 12:34:23 PM
zero range tracking IIRC, it only affects the ship itself, not any other vessel nearby
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 15, 2010, 12:36:33 PM
Yes, Project Distant Darkness has them. ITS = Internal Tracking Systems = ship only = no range.
Makes the str8 gunnery str10 in effect above 30cm.


warnz
correct
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 15, 2010, 05:13:39 PM
Again, I am sticking with flybywire's opinion and thinking 90o  on a protector is just too much... giving it to an Emissary is a different story.  I just don't want to see my st 6 torpedo salvo go the way of the dodo..

--edit

I just realized that both the emissary AND the protector now have 90 degree turns...

my face:  :o
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 15, 2010, 06:59:59 PM
Hi Zelnik,

yes 90* on the Protector is kind of the best thing since limited ordnance in the game. ;)

So, you see, 90* (background supported, yes it is, Sig made his best post ever on it) means that more gunnery/less ordnance is warranted for balance.
It makes sense as raiders. Also it makes a more unique Tau fleet and less a carbon copy of the GW list. But it still feels Tau (like their ground warfare).

:)

Me happy.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 15, 2010, 10:13:26 PM
Yes, Project Distant Darkness has them. ITS = Internal Tracking Systems = ship only = no range.
Makes the str8 gunnery str10 in effect above 30cm.


warnz
correct

Actually, thats a pretty cool idea, especially in smaller games without Custodian support.  As a matter of fact, that could be a variant Protector right there, the LB space not unexplained, but taken up by an internal tracking system.  You could do it to the current Protector and not even have to change the cost, even though I still like the idea of just a stripped down one.

@Zelnik.  Ya its cool, but I still wish the Emissary had more.  If it had options for 2 fighter bays, it would be perfect for smaller games, not HAVING to rely on the Custodian and make non LB Protectors easier to field.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 16, 2010, 03:52:16 AM
Non-lance protectors is totally against the feel of tau, since they believe in flexibility. Unlike the imperium, they don't have the luxury of having lots of specialized ships, they have to be expected to perform against all enemies.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 16, 2010, 04:09:18 AM
LS, wants a non-launch bay variants. Not a non Lance variant.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 16, 2010, 05:24:04 PM
...madness...
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 16, 2010, 07:36:41 PM
Oh and FYI, Zelnik.  '10 missiles for every imperial torpedo' means that each marker represents 10 smaller missiles, not that they can pack more punch out of their torpedo bays.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 16, 2010, 08:29:56 PM
I agree with Zelnik that a variant with 0LB is just weird. 1 Launch bay is good and sufficient.

And yes, LS is right on the missiles.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 17, 2010, 02:47:48 AM
I don't question that, but since SO MANY are launched, it's not a stretch for assume that it could be a full strength 6.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 17, 2010, 03:59:35 AM
But if 5 retains balance better then 6 no harm done. Good.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 19, 2010, 12:05:21 AM
Its been awhile.

Nate, I challenge you to make a better argument for the Custodian.  I understand the idea behind your fluff reasons completely, but there is zero reason to be so hardline about something so foggy as whether or not the kororvesh could have a manouverable battleship.  It would help the gameplay immensely, so going on gut feeling when there are perfectly good fluff reasons is, I think, the biggest mistake in the entire PDF series.

Also, I have a character Custodian for you.  But I need to know if the Custodian is 'Final' or not, before I submit it.  Deflector fields and the like.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on December 19, 2010, 02:41:09 AM
Okay folks, here it is. We have a framework “theme” for how every fleet is supposed to behave, what it’s supposed to be good at, and what it’s supposed to be bad at. Tau’s “theme” is that they suck at building true warships, and their propulsion, energy and shield tech is nowhere NEARLY as good as the Imperium. Take the Explorer for example. It has absolutely monstrous drives, yet it moves only 15cm and can barely juice more than one shield. Even their background fluff illustrates their WB fire is a carefully choreographed ripple-fire of their railguns because they don’t have the power to fire them simultaneously.

Without getting into the mechanics of how or why Forgeworld came about with producing the Kor’or’vesh, they just did. GW’s immediate (and present) policy is that all the models are just “counts as” models using the current GW rules (Custodian=Explorer, Emissary=Merchant, etc.), which is why GW never produced a ruleset for them.

Forgeworld came out with their own rules for them, the first iteration of which were an abomination and duly butchered by the HA’s when we were given a sneak-peek. Forgeworld came out with a second set of profiles they didn’t even show us before putting them in print (Imperial Armor 4). Their Kor’or’vesh rules were put on their online resources site for awhile but it’s been gone for several years now. Unfortunately IA#4 is an expensive book most BFG-only fans will probably never buy because though it has more than a hundred pages of WH40k rules and materials, only 4 pages are dedicated to BFG. This isn’t too much of a tragedy- the new FW profiles are still a bit buggy, though I suppose anyone who wants to use them can as long as their opponent doesn’t mind.

Anyway, regardless of how shiny the new models look, the fleet “theme” hasn’t changed. Tau starship tech (which is so vastly scaled up to anything in WH40k, an analogy would be pointless) was barely better than that of Orks and far behind Imperials before the Damocles Gulf Crusade. By the time of the Taros Campaign (which is an entirely Forgeworld-generated contrivance) several decades later, the Tau fleet is completely different thanks to Forgeworld, but GW’s underlying theme hasn’t changed. Should Tau tech be better than it was several decades earlier? Of course it should- the crucible of war does wonders for advancing technology, especially when you have a three-front war (Imperium, Orks and Tyranids) threatening you with annihilation. However, desperation only gets you so far regardless of the resources at your disposal, and with only several decades between two wars, there is NO WAY the basic theme of the Tau morphed from “barely better than Orks” to “better than the Imperium.”

How do we represent this in rules? Easy: Kor’or’vesh starships are purpose-designed warships built to the Tau’s combat philosophy instead of the re-packaged Air-caste colonization vessels they were using pre-Damocles. Because Tau drives still suck (bigger does NOT mean better), their warships have to be smaller so they can move like warships. They still can’t go fast, but their small size lets them turn better. However, the smaller size benefit only condenses down to a point: their flagship 10HP vessel is still battleship-sized as battleship-mass vessels apply to the Tau, and their drives aren’t advanced enough yet to let the Custodian behave like anything besides a battleship. This means NO Grand Cruiser movement and NO 90 degree turns. This is also why they aren’t getting a 4th shield, though a deflector is still under discussion.

Just because something feels good doesn’t mean it is right for the fleet’s theme. If we keep making new ships and rules to program out the shortcomings of every fleet, we will eventually come full-circle and make all the fleets exactly the same. Then we would have nothing but a game of battleship-chess, and nobody would have to figure out how to fight to a fleet’s strengths and not merely try to fleet up its shortcomings. 

Rubbish.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 19, 2010, 05:28:53 AM
Well, I think mine was more diplomatic, but yeah, what Sig said.

It already irked me how light handed the HA was being on the other fleets, but THIS is a completely original fleet.  Screw GW's opinion, there is no precedent to have to stick to.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 19, 2010, 06:29:13 PM
I am not upset about the rules, but the idea that the tau "suck" is just a sign of tau bashing. With all the glitter that all the other fleets are getting this update, I find the hard and heavy handed manner the HA is using to be very suspicious. 

Marines getting new cruisers and a ven barge... three new fleets, four new battleships, a new cruiser and a hulk for chaos... nova cannons being sprinkled throughout the navy and new rules for the light cruisers...

What do tau get? Mostly weaker ships loss of ordnance power for a moderate weapon growth, and a special character.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 19, 2010, 06:51:38 PM
The CPF is a pretty cool fleet, just needs a little more love, I love what they have done so far. 
But you are right, it does seem heavy handed.  I wonder if it comes from fear of making another Korvattra?

What really needs to happen is for the true primitive fleet, the korvattra, being nerfed slightly.
The kororvesh is new and improved.  I am completely happy with tau not sharing Imperial advances.  No 60cm weapons ever, weaker ships for the points you pay.  But there is no reason for them not to have some cool and balanced racial uniqueness after centuries of honing the fleet to how they want it to operate. 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 19, 2010, 07:50:16 PM
So, Zelnik, LS failed, but try to persuade Don Gusto first. He says this new Tau fleet is too strong.

The current is playable to me.

The Custodian is MUCH cooler then the FW variant. It only needs a Grand Cruiser status and a prow deflector.

The Protector has more gunnery then my well tested Project Distant Darkness variants. Balanced.

The Emissary, problem here is the variant issues (not all equal).

Escorts are fine/good.

I am happy to see less ordnance in this fleet.

cheers,
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 19, 2010, 11:26:45 PM
Don Gusto needs to get over himself then.

How do you justify calling the fleet overpowered?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 19, 2010, 11:55:16 PM
Yeah, I was never really trying to convince Don about it, if he thinks its omgwtf then theres not really any debating it, one way or another.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Eldanesh on December 20, 2010, 01:48:30 AM
Just an idea: allow the Tau capitals to make theirs turn with reduced minimum movement. e.g cruisers after 5cm and BB's after 10cm.

- I haven't tested this in any way, but  I believe it should help tau a lot, due to their front-orient weapons (e.g. protectors can turn 180° on CTNH even if under fire...)
- it's still in line with the "inferior to the Imperium" -philosophy (which I share), as this is more an expression of another philosophy ("make them more agile if we lack the rare power") than one of superior technology
- it's a kind of racial special rule-something that most people seem to like
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Asmodai on December 20, 2010, 06:03:05 PM
Just an idea: allow the Tau capitals to make theirs turn with reduced minimum movement. e.g cruisers after 5cm and BB's after 10cm.

- I haven't tested this in any way, but  I believe it should help tau a lot, due to their front-orient weapons (e.g. protectors can turn 180° on CTNH even if under fire...)
- it's still in line with the "inferior to the Imperium" -philosophy (which I share), as this is more an expression of another philosophy ("make them more agile if we lack the rare power") than one of superior technology
- it's a kind of racial special rule-something that most people seem to like

What if we did a middle-ground solution and gave them a rule that said you can either do a reduced move and a 45* turn, or a regular with a 90*?  

- This sticks with the fluff - As they are lighter, more agile ships, it seems to figure that they can turn a little with less inertia.  This will also help with the forward arc in certain situations.  However, I have not play tested it, I thought it wouldn't hurt to hear the group's view on this.  Maybe we can apply it only to limited ships?  or we make it an upgrade (e.g., lighter bulkheads +10 pts and gives this rule and represents the fact that they are always evolving their tech towards their fighting style, but have not gotten to the point where they include it on all their ships)

Sorry it took a while for me to post, I had to go through this whole forum thread!  I love the work you guys are doing!  Thanks :)

One question I did have is are there any current plans on the emissary variants?  I agree with Horizon....the 1 lb kinda seems out of place, I feel like all of them should have a lb (or none of them...heck maybe make a variant that actually never needs to reload ordinance! That would be a change for Tau).  But thats just my two cents.  I'm trying to find reasons to take emissaries. I REALLY want to for their wardens, but I feel like it may need just a bit more oompf, (speed, or firepower, or something).

EDIT:
Actually, now that I think about it!  Why not do the upgrade or the agility rule for the Emissary?  It makes complete sense.  I understand you don't want to make them faster, but this allows them to have "necessary mix of firepower and maneuverability"  It distinguishes them from the rest of the fleet in that they get that little extra oompf of mobility that may be needed to protect the dignitaries.  So the emissary could maybe lose the launchers all together and get the ability turn 45* at 5, or do their regular 90.  Gameplay-wise, it means you can leverage them as a gunboat thats a little easier to get into position and thus makes them really worth taking.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 20, 2010, 08:18:34 PM
What?
Keep Protector/Emissary at 90* turns. ALWAYS.

:)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Asmodai on December 20, 2010, 08:29:17 PM
Well, you can get more mobility/flexibility out of 45* at 5 if you are also allowed to retain the 90 at 10.  Don't you agree?  Or are you just saying that you should keep it the same for simplicity purposes?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 20, 2010, 09:00:30 PM
I think your over-complicating the matter..
Personally, I don't see a need for 90o turns on the protector, it being a ship of the line.

The emissary? that can have 90 degree turns, though it's variants need balancing. Lets face it, the lance boat is CLEARLY the best choice, but i think all of them need a standard st 3 grav launcher.. since it's clearly placed on the model.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 20, 2010, 09:16:02 PM
Id like a 2 fighter variant actually. 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on December 21, 2010, 10:29:44 PM
For ********************'s sake. Will some of you try playtesting the fleet instead of shouting for changes to the changes to the changes that we spent months arguing for. Some of you are now going back on what you said a few pages ago. Drop the theorygothic, get some figures out and play against the other fleets and see how you get on.

They aren't going to please everyone with the fleet, but the current (draft)version is fine. The Custodian isn't going to get 90 turns, the Protector needs them and the Emissary is never going to be a good ship with 4 HP's. The odd torpedo or LB isn't going to break a ship.

Just let them finalise the list and you can house rules it to your hearts content afterwards. I am happy with the list, I'd still like some changes, but they weren't adopted (probably 20 pages ago) so I dropped it. Hint, Hint.


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on December 21, 2010, 11:06:31 PM
I agree the Custodian won't get 90° turns, but it should get cruiser status. And by "should" I really mean they should. It makes no sense that they don't. If they're going to have BB status then give them 12 hits. They're large enough to warrant it. If they're going to lose hits then they ought to gain something from it. That spiel that Nate spun is utter drivel.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 22, 2010, 12:52:15 AM
Well, you know my stance on it.  90* turns would be great, but it absolutely needs something.

Cruiser status and 6+ prow, that'l do it.

2 fighter bays on the emissary variant.  Stripped down no-bay Protector variant.  Or, as the theme seems to be keeping the variants the same cost, Protector with normal stats but replaces bay for Internal Tracking System, like Horizon's idea, I really like that.
It makes pure Kororvesh fleets great at smaller games, and less reliant on the Custodian.  Emissary's providing fighter cover, and Protectors doing pure gunship duty.  Great potential build.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 22, 2010, 03:57:17 AM
But not the truth Tau spirit: take on all.
Which the Protector should.
:)

And Tinfish is correct. Sig also.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 22, 2010, 04:51:00 AM
So the idea is that every Tau ship must be balanced to take all comers?  I don't remember ever reading that.  I always assumed it was because Tau ships couldn't hold their own as warships, and relied on their attack craft, something they were actually good at, to win the day.

Oh, and I don't think the Custodian should have 12 hits, but a prow deflector, of course.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 22, 2010, 05:47:52 AM
Quote
The Protector is theTau’smain fighting vessel, designed and built solely for the purposeof engaging and destroying the enemy in fleet actions. It is heavily armed and versatile, carrying a full array of different weaponry to best meet any foe. A Protector is designed to meet Imperial cruisers on even terms, and whilst lacking the great bulk and structure of a cruiser, packs comparable firepower.
Imperial Armour 3.
Yes, the FW rules we are replacing to give the kor'or'vesh fleet more 'Character'.

So you might denounce it from that pov, perhaps not. Your call.

However, to add, from the current draft:
Quote
While it does not have the same bulk and durability as comparable Imperial vessels, it is the first Tau design capable of meeting Imperial cruisers on nearly equal terms
Meeting Imperial cruisers on nearly equal terms. Now given that the IN uses carriers & gunships it is in the line of reasoning that such a warship, being able to face IN cruiser has a carrier capacity of its own.

Also because of the fact the Custodian is fewer in numbers, more precious to the Tau and less likely to be present in small engagements. Thus the Protector should have its own attack craft, hence a single bay is needed: enough to thwart enemy AC (as every Protector has one), plus to assist its missiles and also to engage small targets during raids (transports etc).

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 22, 2010, 06:07:44 AM
Hold it, should the void stalker be a cruiser? it has 10 hits.. what about the stronghold battleship? it has 10 hits too.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 22, 2010, 06:53:05 AM
Not only because of mass, but also because of doctrine and fleet build.
The only difference from BB to CG for the Custodian is that it could turn after 10cm and do a CTNH. In line of the rest.

Eldar are Eldar and different. Void Stalker CG or BB status wouldn't change a thing. Stronghold could be 12 hits from my pov.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 22, 2010, 07:22:02 AM
Honestly, it SHOULD be 12 hits, considering how MUCKING BIG IT IS!

I don't mind CG for Custodian, but i DON'T know why the Stronghold is only 10! it's not built under the constraints of the youthful tau, but the much older and more experienced Demiurg.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 22, 2010, 07:27:00 AM
Agreed. I will go to that other thread. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 22, 2010, 12:00:45 PM
A Protector is designed to meet Imperial cruisers on even terms, and whilst lacking the great bulk and structure of a cruiser, packs comparable firepower.
Imperial Armour 3.
Yes, the FW rules we are replacing to give the kor'or'vesh fleet more 'Character'.

So you might denounce it from that pov, perhaps not. Your call.

Also because of the fact the Custodian is fewer in numbers, more precious to the Tau and less likely to be present in small engagements. Thus the Protector should have its own attack craft, hence a single bay is needed: enough to thwart enemy AC (as every Protector has one), plus to assist its missiles and also to engage small targets during raids (transports etc).


[/quote]
I don't denounce it, I agree it is an ok idea.  But I wouldn't quote doctrine behind it, because Tau are all about different caste systems and working together, if anything they would have radically different ships filling specialist roles.  All I'm saying is a non-LB would be a cool variant.
With your ITS idea filling the space of the LB, actually.

And indeed, the Protector is obviously more manouverable than the typical battleship by pure hull design.
Eldar are Eldar, and I agree the Demiurg ship could use more hits.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 22, 2010, 12:05:56 PM
Only one Caste in space:
Air Caste.

The FireCast is asked for the Kor'or'vesh to improve boarding.
The Envoy (?) caste asks the air caste to be transported.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 22, 2010, 05:49:21 PM
what is this envoy cast you speak of? i think you mean Ethereals.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: commander on December 22, 2010, 06:17:44 PM
Diplomats are water caste.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 22, 2010, 08:25:02 PM
Ah yes, that's the name. Thnx.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: spaint2k on December 29, 2010, 03:45:42 AM
I must apologize if this has already been addressed in this thread, but in the Demiurg and Kroot Xenos Fleet List, why are we limited to only fielding Endeavour-class light cruisers? I'm asking mostly because I happen to have Endurance and Defiant-class light cruisers ready to go with my Rogue Trader cruiser and the restriction in the list seems arbitrary.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on December 29, 2010, 03:53:40 AM
1. there has been serious discussion regarding the endeavor class and its two variants and what they should be like

2. uncoupling was also discussed

3. did you see the rogue trader pdf?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: spaint2k on December 29, 2010, 06:23:04 AM
1. there has been serious discussion regarding the endeavor class and its two variants and what they should be like

2. uncoupling was also discussed

3. did you see the rogue trader pdf?

1 & 2. Not in this thread, I guess. :)

3. Yeah, but I'd have to have a ridiculous amount of vessels to get my three  Demiurg ships on the table.

The xenos list just looked like a nice way to run a combo Xenos/Rogue Trader fleet - which is how it was undoubtedly intended. It's just a shame that this part of my personal model collection (RT cruiser, defiant- and endurance-class light cruisers, three escorts, three Demiurg ships) won't be playable without ignoring the restrictions - which I will anyway, I suppose.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 29, 2010, 12:45:10 PM
If you like Demiurg, I suggest using Xizor's Demiurg rules, and bothering him to update them :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 31, 2010, 01:01:22 AM
Bumping this.  Nate, please help us out here.  The Tau fleet is so close to perfect that I'd hate to have to homebrew one little thing, seriously.

The current Custodian is unacceptable in gameplay and fluff with the rest of the fleet.  It is so close Nate, so close!

I think at this point the Cruiser status and 90* turn crowds would settle for either if it meant the choice between that or straight battleship status.
I know I would, seriously, just make it cruiser status.  Its not how I feel it should be, but I'll play it that way without making homebrew.
If you make it stay the way it is, I'll be forced to homebrew if I want a ship that has can participate at all with the rest of the fleet.
Please, just make it Cruiser status.

Cruiser status and deflector shield.
2 fighter bays on emissary variant.
PERFECT!  You're in the home stretch now buddy, just overcome whatever GW brainwashing gave you those fluff ideas and we will all feast in Valhalla! :p
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 31, 2010, 03:59:08 AM
I am so torn about that 'cruiser' status.  I really could go either way.  As long as it gets a prow deflector, i am golden (there is no reason why it should not have it)

Two fighter version of the emissary? I am good with that. 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 31, 2010, 04:20:51 AM
I do want Grand Cruiser Custodian as well but I cannot brand it as unplayable at the moment to be honest. Just not totally right

The Emissary: variants need te be condensed I think.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 31, 2010, 08:29:47 AM
mmmh... Again, I am really pounding my head against the wall..
Sure i would LOVE to see 12 hits on that SOB... i really don't know why they would design DOWN in ship toughness all together, considering the progressive nature of their society, without some significant enhancements to firepower.
Though admittedly, a Custodian can mop the floor with an explorer on general principle. 

We are pounding our heads on a razor edge. Do we give the Custodian the power of cruiser level maneuverability? Or do we call it a battleship and insist on increased toughness?

If i had my say, it would share a standard battleship carrier profile. (12/battleship, 20cm,  45 turn, 4 shield, 5 turret, 5+ (6+grav prow). While retaining it's Launch capacity 8.  This would force it's point cost to increase to close to 400 points, but so what? I fail to see that as a problem, because even with this profile, it is still a weaker choice then the Chaos or Imperial battleships, while rightfully outstripping Gorbag's revenge.

Currently, it's stats are impressive for a grand cruiser hull, costed at a battleship's price. With none of the benefits. While I understand the need to clarify their current inferior status to Imperial technology, new and old, at it's current position it is WORSE then it's equivalent Ork battleship, Gorbag's revenge. 

Gorbag now will have access to LOTS of new gubbin's, already outstrips the custodian's current position in hits, launch capacity, can take the new boarding torpedos, better firepower all around, can upgrade it's turrets to match, can upgrade shields to match... How do you justify this? Tau are supposed to have superior technology to orks, but inferior to Imperial Navy and chaos.

Here is my compromise, as both a battleship, and a grand cruiser.

Battleship 350 points
12/battleship, 15cm speed, 45 turn, 5+ armor, 4 shields, 5 turrets
Armament
Port and starboard st 6 weapons battery, 45 cm FL and FR respectively
Port and starboard st 1 Ion cannon 45cm, FL and FR respectively
Ventral grav hooks for 3 wardens
Port and starboard st 4 launch bays for mantas and barracudas, resulting an a LC 8
Prow gravitic launcher st 7

special rules: tracking system, grav prow, cannot CTNH

This makes the vessel a TRUE battleship, not as good as the emperor (which can load assault boats, has a much better weapons battery, and has a leadership bonus which usually results in huge points savings for an IN commander) or the Despoiler (which always has a-boats, is faster, has better lance strength and flexibility, better torpedo strength OR even better lance strength and is better in boarding actions).  While still being a true 'battleship' and is not subject to the usual "nova cannon doom barrage" which is quite common when these are fielded.

Here is the grand cruiser version.

Take the exact armament from the current draft.
10/g.cruiser, 45 turn, 20cm speed, 5+ armor, 3 shields, 5 turrets.

Special rules.
cannot CTNH, tracking systems, grav prow

What this does is make it clearly a "not quite" battleship.  The tau being so close to true battleship level, but unable to really put the mass into the ship to give it durability.  They do benefit from a slightly better maneuverability, but the ship is too heavy to CTNH properly.  You get the best of both fluffy worlds. 


Remember... you need to be able to beat Gorbag in order to make this ship properly fluffly. 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Plaxor on December 31, 2010, 08:41:08 AM
Remember... you need to be able to beat Gorbag in order to make this ship properly fluffly. 

I hear from a credible source that if someone beats Gorbag, he takes revenge on you. Massive 12 hit revenge.

I don't think it has to be better than Gorbags 'can' be. Remember this is tau, not Orks, your ordinance is better and Leadership, which is great on carriers. Also the Gorbags according to Faq 2010 got worse (thanks nate...) due to a combination of the fact that you roll for the random launch capacity of its dorsal launch bays every turn, instead of when you launch (used to be that you would just count the maximum of your random launch bays as the maximum that you could have in play) and the decision to make every random launch bay have to pay maximum price for any upgrades (such as torpedo bommerz).

The Torpedo bommerz thing was especially a punch in the groin, as not only are they worse (as they will disappear) but they are more expensive. Averages always works better for determining how much something is worth. Most people see D6+4 and think 10, not 7, it's a strange phenomena.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on December 31, 2010, 08:47:35 AM
It just needs to ditch the "cannot CTNH" and drop to cruiser status.

The Castellan is crap. Just a bunch of VPs to the opponent.

The Warden is OK, but not as good as the Orca. Also, the model is tiny. If that thing has 5+ armour then Eldar ships should have 6+ armour.


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 31, 2010, 08:51:39 AM
Castellan is good. :/ (played it, tested it, yakihaki).

Well, they tell us Necron armour values represent stealth. Perhaps Wardens have 5+ armour because they are hard to hit due size?
lol

4+ on them would not be off limits tbh. It is better then the Orca though!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on December 31, 2010, 09:07:13 AM
Castellan is good. :/ (played it, tested it, yakihaki).

Well, they tell us Necron armour values represent stealth. Perhaps Wardens have 5+ armour because they are hard to hit due size?
lol

4+ on them would not be off limits tbh. It is better then the Orca though!

Play tested the Castellan, they were rubbish. Easy VPs. The Warden was good, but the extra speed and swapped weapon swing (lance swinging vs WBs swinging) never once came in handy. Therefore having an extra 50 pts to spend (on 2 more Orcas) would have been much better.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on December 31, 2010, 09:45:32 AM
Castellan.

Compared to an Infidel.
Same weapons but Castellan has +15cm range on batteries (per smotherman that would be around ~ 2-3pts.
Castellans has +1 turret, again per smotherman around 5pts.

Then the missiles, same strength but longer reach (faster) and has turns. But can burn out. Lets say +1-2pts

Total (low end): +2 + 5 + 1 = 8pts
Total (high end): +3 + 5 + 2 = 10pts

40+8 = 48 --> 50

Castellan has a reach of 40cm with all weapons, thus can be farther away from enemy which is a good thing for escorts.
With the dropping of ordnance on Protectors (-1 ac & -1 missile) the missiles on the Castellan become more important.


But, hey, if you can sell it for 45pts I am all for it. ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on December 31, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
it's better then the orca due to the lance firing FLR!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on December 31, 2010, 07:59:13 PM
I wanted it at 25 points, but I'm happy enough with the warden at 30, its still a bit of a discount I guess.

I complained about the Castellan pages ago, but I figured it wasn't going to change.  45+ point escorts need to be good.  I mean its got Eldar escorts that are way better than it in the 50 point category.

But the main problems are what I listed.  When I said perfect, it meant 'then I can live with it' not 'I now think Protectors are perfectly priced and such' :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on January 01, 2011, 06:02:11 AM
it's better then the orca due to the lance firing FLR!

If you're ever in a situation where absolutely cannot put a target in your front arc then it's better. It isn't better than, say, a Sword, which can always present an abeam arc and put out more firepower. Like the Orca, Idolator and the Firestorm, you want to point your prow at the target. Only then do you get more firepower than a Sword equivalent.

Therefore the benefit of the swapped swinging weaponry of the Warden over the Orca is miniscule. The speed is nice, but not fantastic. If the Kor'or'vesh hooks were capable of taking Orcas I would take them every single time. That says that the Orca is a better ship for its cost.

Also, in our own efforts to fix the broken or imbalanced ships from the IN list we dropped the Firestorm down to 35 pts; no more than a Sword. I do believe that this is all it's worth. If everyone else was serious in their estimations then they have to believe it too. Now, comparing this Warden to the adjusted (ie, worthwhile) Firestorm we have in the favour of the Warden the swapped swinging weaponry. Miniscule upside. The downsides are that it has 1 less turret, you have a limit in the numbers you can take and you must take one for every hook in your fleet or else you're wasting points.

If you removed hooks from your fleet, reduced the cost of hook ships by 5 pts per hook and then were able to take as many or few Wardens as you liked for 35 pts each they still would not be as good as a Firestorm!

So it's not worth it's actual price, it's certainly not benefiting from the points break it's supposed to receive for being hooked and it's not as good value as an older ship very similar in profile.

Mind you, I think it should only be 4+ armour. I think there should be more 4+ armour in the game, and I don't see it being better armour than Eldar escorts. It's a tiny model and I don't think that "stealth" cuts it (else DE should be able to increase their armour to 6+ with Nightshields).

Castellan.

Compared to an Infidel.
Same weapons but Castellan has +15cm range on batteries (per smotherman that would be around ~ 2-3pts.
Castellans has +1 turret, again per smotherman around 5pts.

Then the missiles, same strength but longer reach (faster) and has turns. But can burn out. Lets say +1-2pts

Total (low end): +2 + 5 + 1 = 8pts
Total (high end): +3 + 5 + 2 = 10pts

40+8 = 48 --> 50

Castellan has a reach of 40cm with all weapons, thus can be farther away from enemy which is a good thing for escorts.
With the dropping of ordnance on Protectors (-1 ac & -1 missile) the missiles on the Castellan become more important.


But, hey, if you can sell it for 45pts I am all for it. ;)

OK, now factor in that the Infidel should have the 2nd turret free and even then it's still not as good as the more role-clear Cobra*. Also, the Castellan really doesn't need the speed. It wants to escort the Custodian. Drop it down to 20cm at 45 pts.

*When choosing between 4 Cobras giving 4 WB + 8 torps on 4+ armour, 1 turret hulls with 4 hits/shields versus alternatively 3 hits/shields, 1 turret, 5+ armour, 6WB + 6 torps the former seems to be the preferred, at least by usage. I imagine that upping it to 2 turrets on the Infidels would only slightly alter this.


By the way, anyone else with me on a 25cm speed on the Emissary? Tiny ship, mostly engines, role as light fleet support suggests the need, role as a diplomatic envoy ship suggests the need and sacrifice of mass compared to a Protector suggests the gain.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 01, 2011, 09:40:33 AM
What? And let the tau have a single claim to fame? A ship that moves 5 cm? Nonsense!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 01, 2011, 06:05:15 PM
Happy New Year's everyone! Now that the BFG FAQ/Errata is finally out, we're looking to wrap up the rest of the projects we haev in work. The Kor'or'vesh Fleet list has been pretty static over the last few weeks so this is one that will probably be the next one pushed over the top.

I'm aiming for next Wednesday (Jan 5th) as the date we push this over. While I know there's lots of things people wanted to see that didn't get added to the list, at this point I'm looking for things that are actually broken, NOT "I think it should be this and not that," and so on.

The goal at this point is to produce a useable rule-set that doesn't need a follow-on FAQ to make it work, not a line-by-line assessment on how each ship relates to fluff, how this ship or that ship needs this added or subtracted, etc. Anything you have to bring to the table will be greatly appreciated.

The Tau Kor'or'vesh Fleet list can be found on the BFG repository page by clicking the link on my signature. Again, thanks for everything you all do.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 01, 2011, 08:59:54 PM
I agree completely Sig, about the Emissary.  Otherwise, it would be much better to transport a diplomat on a Protector, or even a Courier, if the goal is to GTFO more rapidly.

Nate:
It is a big deal.  If you don't want to change the status of the Custodian's movement, you will be ruining the whole flow of the fleet.  Your fluff examples are personal opinion, and as it is you have a flagship that stumbles about while the rest of the fleet is forced to stay with it if it wants mutual support.  Thats broken to me.  Oh and deflector shields, willing to take a price increase for that. 

The community as a whole wants this Nate, please give us a better reason if it just cant be.

Otherwise, its just personal feeling.  Except the Emissary, the main variant should have 2 fighters, to be balanced with the other variants.  It doesnt make sense for the torp options to be more desirable than what is obviously the main build.  25cm makes sense on it too.
Great job on a great fleet.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on January 01, 2011, 11:12:06 PM
If the Emissary could keep up with the Wardens it would help - as I said many many pages before, they would then act more as a heavy escort.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 02, 2011, 12:38:43 AM
I has come to my attention that because of how closely the Tau Kor'or'vesh rules interrelate with the Rogue Traders rules, it is best that these be released together. I'm still aiming for next Wednesday (Jan 5th) as the date we push over these two rule sets. Like I posted before, I know there's lots of things people wanted to see that didn't get added to the list, but right now we have to focus on things that are actually broken. Please note that "i]"broken"[/i] means "provides tactically unfair advantage" or "so over-priced it is essentially unusable" or "the rules as written don't make sense or are too vague." Something that presents a tactical challenge to use does not in and of itself mean that it is broken unless it "breaks theme" with the fleet, like putting Abbadon the Despoiler in charge of a Tau fleet or allowing Necrons to be used as reserves for Imperials, or something equally absurd. Being too slow or not turning as well as we want does not fall into this category.

The goal at this point is to produce a useable rule-set that doesn't need a follow-on FAQ to make it work. The Kor'or'vesh ships are not being re-visited at this point. This does NOT mean we aren't listening- the Custodian is getting a deflector for no added cost. However, we have fielded so many contradictory complaints, demands and other such rants like "make it like this or I'm going to smash all my models and never play this game again" (that was an actual e-mail) that at this point I'm happy with 90% right just as long as we can reach an end-state that is more or less fair for everyone. Keeping that in mind, anything you have to bring to the table concerning Rogue Traders and the Tau will be greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: clintv42 on January 02, 2011, 01:13:06 AM
Hey folks,
I ran across a conundrum in the 2.6 draft

The rules in the gw tau download state this about torps:
..."However, you must roll a dice for each point of missile strength at the start of each ordnance phase, after the first.  The salvo is reduced by 1 point for every 6 rolled."

The rules in the 2.6v draft state this:
"Roll a d6 for each torpedo strength in the salvo at the start of each ordnance phase, removing one for every 6 rolled". 

There's no mention of "after the first" which completely changed the way it would work.  If it stays that way in the draft that means that you'd launch and then immediately roll for all your torps to burn out which would really suck.  I wanted to know if that was the intention or not and if not obviously wanted to bring it to ya'lls attention. 

Once again, thanks for all your hard work on the tau commerce draft.  I've been playing it and have really liked the changes!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on January 02, 2011, 01:41:42 AM
the demiurge & kroot list should clarify leadership for the non-demiurge ships
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 02, 2011, 06:59:02 AM
the demiurge & kroot list should clarify leadership for the non-demiurge ships


Hey folks,
I ran across a conundrum in the 2.6 draft

The rules in the gw tau download state this about torps:
..."However, you must roll a dice for each point of missile strength at the start of each ordnance phase, after the first.  The salvo is reduced by 1 point for every 6 rolled."

The rules in the 2.6v draft state this:
"Roll a d6 for each torpedo strength in the salvo at the start of each ordnance phase, removing one for every 6 rolled".  

There's no mention of "after the first" which completely changed the way it would work.  If it stays that way in the draft that means that you'd launch and then immediately roll for all your torps to burn out which would really suck.  I wanted to know if that was the intention or not and if not obviously wanted to bring it to ya'lls attention.  

Once again, thanks for all your hard work on the tau commerce draft.  I've been playing it and have really liked the changes!

Thanks- these are both good catches! These are good examples of broken. I've incorporated a number of other small tweaks and will be posting the v2.7 draft very soon after replying to this. Barring any other significant catches, this is pretty much what the Final will look like come Wednesday, 05 January.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 02, 2011, 09:52:16 AM
So, Custodian got its prow deflector = good. And for the sake of +/- I can understand that they do not want to make it a Grand Cruiser (yet).

Dal'yth Emissary is broken. 1 laucnh bay (fighter only) =/= 3 missiles.

Solution = add 1 fighter bay to the other Emissarier, drop dal'yth.
Solution2 = increase bays to str2 (Or 4 lol). Drop cost on Dal'yth by ~10.

Page 2 = the image drops over the text.




/// if this is the to be official list = me pretty happy. Distant Darkness ahoy!

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on January 02, 2011, 10:33:29 AM
I has come to my attention that because of how closely the Tau Kor'or'vesh rules interrelate with the Rogue Traders rules, it is best that these be released together. I'm still aiming for next Wednesday (Jan 5th) as the date we push over these two rule sets. Like I posted before, I know there's lots of things people wanted to see that didn't get added to the list, but right now we have to focus on things that are actually broken. Please note that ""broken" means "provides tactically unfair advantage" or "so over-priced it is essentially unusable" or "the rules as written don't make sense or are too vague." Something that presents a tactical challenge to use does not in and of itself mean that it is broken unless it "breaks theme" with the fleet, like putting Abbadon the Despoiler in charge of a Tau fleet or allowing Necrons to be used as reserves for Imperials, or something equally absurd. Being too slow or not turning as well as we want does not fall into this category.

The goal at this point is to produce a useable rule-set that doesn't need a follow-on FAQ to make it work. The Kor'or'vesh ships are not being re-visited at this point. This does NOT mean we aren't listening- the Custodian is getting a deflector for no added cost. However, we have fielded so many contradictory complaints, demands and other such rants like "make it like this or I'm going to smash all my models and never play this game again" (that was an actual e-mail) that at this point I'm happy with 90% right just as long as we can reach an end-state that is more or less fair for everyone. Keeping that in mind, anything you have to bring to the table concerning Rogue Traders and the Tau will be greatly appreciated.

All right, brokenness. First up, the Custodian. Manoeuvres like a pig, gets left behind by the fleet, does not have the hits or shields to justify this. This is not just a fluff/common sense argument here. The ship really really needs the upgrade. At the very least give it cruiser status. That is not to say that the Tau don't view it as their battleship. For fluff, see the many previous posts. Not only is it I think justified by fluff but warranted. But you don't want those arguments and that's fine. I'm just saying it's not an impediment. The ship really needs it. If you're looking for some sort of balancing offset, then the only thing that I can suggest is lowering the tracking system to 15cm radius. 10cm is useless and it did need the upgrade, but 20cm seems to be very useful and any 2 Custodian fleet has a fairly easy time keeping the entire fleet in range. I know, I know, I'm the one that said 20cm in the first place, but I think that 15cm is "doable".

The Protector is a nice ship, and I have no qualms with their profiles, even the variant is fine (though how to represent the difference is another matter). However, having played them, I just have to agree with LS, they're not worth their cost. Nice ship, but 185 pts they aint. At 6 hits they are just too fragile. I would suggest a value of 170 pts.

The Emissary is a strange one. I like the look and the idea of the ship and I like the firepower difference with the hooked and non-hooked version. The profile is nearly there too, and the option of the prow deflector is good. However it still sucks. It is too slow for its size, it should really be 25cm so it can run with the Wardens in a fast attack wing (not to mention the fluff and common sense reasons for the increase). I would suggest that it should also get its 1 fighter bay on top of the 3 torpedoes (so drop the variants down to 2, hooks or lances). This would free a squadron of Protectors that are in BtB contact launching a salvo of 10 torps to also put out a squadron of 2 bombers to harass the same target (shoot at torps or bombers) or take care of an escort. The Emissary is an extremely fragile vessel and these changes might make it worth its points.

Castellan. Okies, this one is truly crapola. Expensive escorts should really be worth their points. Now, I can see where you might conclude that this is a 50 pt ship when you compare it to say, an Infidel or an Idolator. However, both those ships are overpriced. On top of which, if you brought their costs down they'd still just be mediocre. If you're paying 50 pts for an escort it can't be mediocre, it has to be great. This is because of just how tempting a target they are. As it happens, the Castellan is rubbish. I would firstly drop its speed back down to 20cm. This is because with its long range low strength (compared to cost) weaponry it wants to really use its range, and not close. Also, since it wants to stick with a Custodian to make use of the tracking system it wants to go no faster than the Custodian, which is 20cm. Then drop its cost to 45 pts. At this price I still hold that it's definitely a mediocre ship, and taking a fleet full of them wouldn't be broken. If you're worried about it being the same price as the Defender, don't be. The Defender is over-priced too.

The Warden. Two things here. The differences between it and the Orca do not warrant the price increase. I know it's a bit hard to do otherwise, since it has improvements, but it's not worth an Orca. If I could take Orcas with my Kor'or'vesh hooks I would every time. It's a bit silly that the older version of the same ship is the better value for money. Apart from that, the model is tiny. It should really have no more than 4+ armour. This could allow you to bring it down to 20-25 pts. The way the points sit at the moment, I am being slightly penalised in taking it. If it were free of the hooks at 35 pts and hook ships came down in price by 5 pts per hook (basically removing the hook mechanic for no other change) and I was able to take Wardens freely, then I'd round out my list with them using left over points. Being forced to take 3 per Custodian because of the wasted points in hooks is a downfall not adequately compensated for (and the comparison to the Orca doesn't help either).



So seeing all the above and how I'm recommending a change for all the Tau ships in this fleet you might think that I hate the fleet. I don't, I quite like it. But it isn't anywhere near as powerful as the Kor'vattra, which is odd but fine, but on top of which it also isn't very competitive against other fleets too (Eldar and Chaos that I know of personally).

In this fleet we're paying full BB cost for the Custodian, full CA cost for the Protector and full CL cost for the Emissary, and yet we're missing 2 hits from each ship. It's a very fragile fleet. The Prot gets +turn rate for the loss, but also loses broadside arcs making the +turn rate necessary in the first place. Too much lost for too little gain. Not to say I'd have it any other way, just that it doesn't warrant full cost (this is from experience, I was a little unsure till I really got a chance to see them in action).

It gets worse for the Custodian and Emissary though. They don't actually gain anything for their loss of hits. I see no reason that the identical Custodian profile couldn't be given 12 hits. Since it doesn't have 12 hits, and is more fragile as a consequence, then it needs something, and the shorter turning circle seems the perfect trade-off [going by the looks of the model, the logic of the lower mass making for easier turns, the feel of the fleet and the Custodians place in it as well as Tau doctrine].

Similarly, the Emissary could have 6 hits for no loss of speed or turn rate or shields or weapons. So why doesn't it? Well the obvious reason is because the model doesn't bear it out, but there's no game reason. It's such a fragile ship that it really needs the boost, and I can't see why it couldn't go as fast as a Dauntless.

So what do I find good about the fleet? Well I do like the vast majority of the profiles. The Custodian is nice, particularly with the prow deflector, as is the Protector. The Emissary just needs a tiny tweak or two (+1 fighter, +5cm speed) and I think the Orbital city is pretty good too. Though I think the Orbitals themselves are a little weak and could maybe do with a strength 2 torp launcher in addition. The feel of the fleet is good for the most part.

I don't really like the Castellan's feel that much, but with the changes I listed (slower, cheaper) I'd be willing to sign off on them. I really dislike the Warden having the same firepower as the Orca, though looking at the model I can understand why you went with the LFR lance and the F WBs. It's pretty representative. But if you're going to be representative to that degree, at the expense of an opportunity to make it notably different to the Orca then I don't see why you don't go representative in terms of its armour. It really should be only 4+.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Asmodai on January 02, 2011, 06:02:57 PM
Thanks for the hard work Nate!  I appreciate the work you have put in to making a good list for the Tau.  I have re-written this post several times trying to figure out how I could get you to at least consider one last look at  something.....I figured it would be just best to just be direct. I agree with Horizon, we have a playable list that has its strengths and weakness, which is how it should be.  However, I dont think that any list should be hurt in such a way that you don't want to take one of their ships.

I have really only three comments that will result in a request for you to just look at one of them:

1.  The ability to get my Custodian where I want it due to its turn rate and no CTNH.  I feel like it needs to stay with the protectors and rest of the fleet to maximize use of the tracking systems and 45cm range benefits, but it has a hard time doing so.

2. I have play tested the heck out of the emissary, but I have come to the conclusion of just not including if it can be helped.  The 1 shield and 4 hit REALLY hurts and I dont think that it really gives you enough time to reap any benefits from its offensive capability.  It goes pop once its in range to use its lances.

3. I think Castellans are probably worth their points.  I think as a personal preference though, I avoid taking them because they are at half strength when you fail a leadership test by the time you get them to reload (this fleet needs a lot of tests).

So if I had to pick just one thing to make me happy, it would be doing something so that I could REALLY want to keep the Emissary in my list!!!  I think its an awesome model and I really want to play with it, but I would like to request if you could take one last look at it and see if there is anything that can be done to tweak it so its more playable?

Thanks!  and Happy New Year!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 02, 2011, 06:44:13 PM
Sig, I feel like I wrote that post myself.  I agree exactly, strongly, one hundred percent with every word, which is shocking! :)

I can't write much, you described it all perfectly.  I logged on here to talk about how some things, especially the Custodian, were actually broken and were counterintuitive with the flow of the fleet.  If you are listened to, the kororvesh will be a perfect fleet.  Not korvattra level, but damn fine and balanced.

Give the damn Custodian cruiser status or 90* at 15cm.  Its stupid not to. (But the prow deflector is a good first step) :)
Biggest issue.  If nothing else changes, this must, as its a fat pelican in a fleet of sparrows.


20 points and 4+ armor on the Warden is a neat idea, it certainly needs something.  It additionally makes the hook Emissary versions underpowered because they bring an overpriced ship at the cost of no lances.  It would be fine at 25 points and be just an ever-so-slight Orca improvement.

25cm is a big duh, and 'why not?' on the Emissary.  It aint getting emissaries around in a hurry as it is.  Deflector option is neat, good idea.
2 fighters on the main variant, or what Sig suggested.  I think it was 2 torps and a bay.

Protector is overpriced.

45 and 20cm on Castellan.

Perfect fleet, dream fleet.  
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 02, 2011, 07:39:56 PM
LS, drop that Protector remark. If it is something it is undercosted by 5 points (they made it 185 so it could fit into the Cruiser Clash scenario!).
Really Protector is fine.


Castellan,
wel I think the Infidel has a good place in the Chaos fleet, even at 40pts. Lot of people do, even though Chaos it the cruiser fleet.
So we also know they won't change profiles in the rulebook for a long time (??), thus do we make the Castellan cheaper to be a tad-ish more balanced or do we keep it fair vs the other escorts? If we can update Infidels etc it is easy to chip in a Castellan at that point for a change,

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 02, 2011, 07:44:00 PM
What?  Obvious LS hatred, not telling Sig to drop it too ;)
 170 point ship though.  Dropped 2 points in battery strength even, and you want to increase the points.  Hilarious.
I won't drop it, because its true. Its not the biggest issue in the fleet though.  The Custodian is, which is why I wasn't going to mention it until Sig did.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 02, 2011, 08:04:52 PM
There's a lot of talk about the custodian needing to keep up with the fleet and it seems to center in part on the tracking system, but why does the custodian HAVE to do this? I don't think the protector is that much faster that it can't slow down to stay with the Custodian if you feel the need to keep the fleet clustered and there's nothing saying you have to take the custodian if you want a faster and more maneuverable fleet. I understand people want to use particular models, but can't you adapt your tactics to a slower battleship if you bring it? For that matter you are facing the same problem the IN and Chaos has had for ages with battleships that are slower and take longer to turn than the rest of the fleet. True there are a couple that make up for it like the Desolator and Retribution, but by and large, at least you can still turn after taking a BM.  
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 02, 2011, 08:27:05 PM
Heh, I just noticing Sigoroth posted 170 for the Protector as well. Just didn't register it I guess.

Why? Because it is UTTERLY overpowered if it came at 170pts. At 185 it is fine.

I cannot imagine why people think 185 is too much. In Distant Darkness the pIII variant had less firepower, but tracking systems (thus equal in a way). It had more restricted arcs. It costed 190pts and it had seen a lot of play test and it was fine.

Dropping a Castellan to 45 I can see but do not feel as necessary.
Making the Custodian a Grand Cruiser is something I advocate since the beginning (DD)
The Emissary variants densen @ 25cm ok with me (in a diplomatic way it is given).

But dropping the Protector in value: No Friggin Way.

So LS and Sigoroth ;)
No point drop on the Protector.


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 02, 2011, 08:31:46 PM
Guys, Nate made it clear.

He does not give a damn. He wants to paint and polish the crap so he can sell it. He does not want to actually fix them.

He is looking for the broken, not for the improvement.  Consider him an underpaid auto repair man for this thread.  He is not paid for this, He does not give a damn, and he has a deadline.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 02, 2011, 08:39:05 PM
What's broken then Zelnik?

I mean: really broken?

We shall keep in mind we forum people are not the only ones. Other forums have sayings. The HA gets personal mails as well.

Back in da days people where friggin shocked, outraged when Sigoroth and I kept pushing 90* degrees on the Protector. Look how far we came now. :)
We are friggin discussing a Custodian to have better turns (CG). heh heh
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on January 02, 2011, 08:52:40 PM
As Horizon said - there can't have been more than 10 people in this discussion - it needs more input than that to re-write a fleet and there has been, between many forums and the Yahoo Group.

Zelnik - I think that's an unfair statement you have made, the HA have re-written the FAQ as well as several other fleets, they have done a lot of work and we should be grateful that they persuaded GW to let them do it. GW would probably have been happy to let the game die as they have no intention of promoting anything outside the 3 core games. Just because you aren't happy you don't need to throw a hissy fit. Don't like it - house rule it in your own group.

I am pretty happy with it - with the one exception of the Emissary's speed. If something is done then great, if not, I will live with it.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 02, 2011, 09:01:19 PM
It was mostly sarcasm, but his last post did not help his case. They are not taking suggestions anymore, they just want us to make sure they didn't screw up the rules as they wrote them.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: fracas on January 02, 2011, 09:21:49 PM
i agree with Nate

fix what needs to be fixing first.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 02, 2011, 09:36:27 PM
I don't think we are here to be a glorified spellcheck. 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 02, 2011, 11:25:41 PM

[quoteI cannot imagine why people think 185 is too much. In Distant Darkness the pIII variant had less firepower, but tracking systems (thus equal in a way). It had more restricted arcs. It costed 190pts and it had seen a lot of play test and it was fine.[/quote]
If you improve poop, it doesn't mean its quite fertilizer yet :p  
Seriously though, thats not nearly as important as the other issues, so I'll personally leave it alone.  I havn't had the same experiences playtesting it though.
Quote
Dropping a Castellan to 45 I can see but do not feel as necessary.
Couldn't hurt! :p
Quote
Making the Custodian a Grand Cruiser is something I advocate since the beginning (DD)
The Emissary variants densen @ 25cm ok with me (in a diplomatic way it is given).
Nate, if you keep up with the various threads, the very fact that all the vocal members strongly agree on a point seems about as rare as a solar eclipse.  That should tell you something.  If you want more proof, take it to other threads.  I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this.
Quote
So LS and Sigoroth ;)
No point drop on the Protector.
Thats more like it ;)

@Vaaish:
I think it is important, because its not the speed but the manouverability of the Custodian that is the issue.  What is the point of 90 degree turns when your flagship cant keep up? It causes a big fork in the fleet's road.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 02, 2011, 11:58:31 PM
possibly because you don't have to make a full 90 degree turn.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 03, 2011, 12:20:51 AM
Quote
I think it is important, because its not the speed but the manouverability of the Custodian that is the issue.  What is the point of 90 degree turns when your flagship cant keep up? It causes a big fork in the fleet's road.

It's no more of a fork than an empy supported by dauntless faces and I don't see complaints than IN BB need to have better turning. It's no more a fork than a Marine BB supported by SC faces either and again I don't see people clammering for the BB to get better turns since it makes the 90` turns on a SC useless. My point is despite not getting CG status it doesn't break the fleet. It means you have to work a bit harder to use the fleet but I can't see the fleet or the Custodian as worthless unless it has better turns.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Asmodai on January 03, 2011, 02:57:40 AM
/agree

I can live without Castellans.  But REALLY want the Emissary to be worth it, and if it was faster, then I can see taking it in my fleet even if it is almost balsa-wood-like (at least then there is a reason)...and the extra squadron comment actually would make it worth it too, because then I could change how I use my protectors.

As for the Custodian....yes, its more about your flagship being able to keep up with your fleet.  I have had to not do 90 degree turns a lot of the time because then I would be leaving my custodian out for fodder....in a place where its not getting many of its shots and ships out of its range.  However, it doesnt kill the entire fleet if it doesn't work...thats why I REALLY would like the emissary fixed the most.  Great model, would love to play with it.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 03, 2011, 03:14:17 AM
Okay folks, here's the scoop on the Custodian so we can lay this to rest once and for all. Forgeworld says its a battleship. GW says it officially is nothing but an Explorer in a different hull, thus a battleship. In the end, what makes all this work official is when GW goes over it, blesses it and posts it to their website.

Whatever improvements we are trying to make absolutely HAVE to fall inside the constraints we are given. If the HA's decide to go outside the constraints because we want to or even if EVERYONE wants to, GW will simply decide to stick all this work in the round file. Then not only is all this time and effort wasted, but in the end all we get is a really pretty Explorer along with an entire fleet which is little more than re-hulled versions of the Tau fleet we have now, along with a really pretty fleet list no more official than any other homebrew list out there.

This brings me back to the "90% right" outcome I spoke of earlier. The Custodian is not what everyone wants, but it is a WHOLE LOT BETTER than an Explorer. The Kor'or'vesh is not what everyone wants, but it is a fine addition to the current Tau fleet. Now you have to ask yourself what is more important: having an official Kor'or'vesh Fleet List where the Custodian is a battleship, or having a Custodian Grand Cruiser on a fleet list that is just one more fan product? Many people have stated, "I'm going to ignore it and make it a homebrew GC anyway."  That's fine! In fact, that's gaming! I have plenty of homebrew ships that will never be official, ships that will make EXCELLENT Warp Rift articles when our rule projects are complete. That doesn't mean they should or even can be made official.

Remember folks, we're fans just like you. We're not just sitting up here making arbitrary decisions to hurt the fans' feelig just because we can. Heck- we're not even getting paid! In the end, these projects are probably the most fan-involved of any set of rules in the history of Games Workshop. I said from the outset that we weren't going to make everyone happy, but at least recognize that 90% success is a lot better than 100% failure.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Plaxor on January 03, 2011, 03:26:52 AM
Nate has the best arguing chip of all. A big GW hammer.

I don't think ships should be ideal, or even work together like clockwork, this is a GW game, bureaucracy abounding, even in the rules!

We had a similar argument about the effectiveness of the Tyrant, and how it would be perfect if it had 12wb@45cm. Even I notice that most IN/Chaos ships that are homebrew designs are essentially just a current ship with one weapon swapped out, such as a dictator with the wbs swapped for lances in the case of the dominion.

Having the Custodian with extra turning power makes it perfect for its intended function, sitting around and giving tracking systems to all the ships around. However the quirk is that since it doesn't have this, it makes you have to sacrifice something when turning, either the tracking systems, or your other vessels 90' turns.

That said, I do think that it should be balanced for what it does, and I think that both parties could be satisfied if it were given 90' turns and maintained it's battleship-ness.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 03, 2011, 05:15:22 AM
Quote
I think it is important, because its not the speed but the manouverability of the Custodian that is the issue.  What is the point of 90 degree turns when your flagship cant keep up? It causes a big fork in the fleet's road.

It's no more of a fork than an empy supported by dauntless faces and I don't see complaints than IN BB need to have better turning. It's no more a fork than a Marine BB supported by SC faces either and again I don't see people clammering for the BB to get better turns since it makes the 90` turns on a SC useless. My point is despite not getting CG status it doesn't break the fleet. It means you have to work a bit harder to use the fleet but I can't see the fleet or the Custodian as worthless unless it has better turns.

The Emperor is a much better support ship.  It has 60cm threat range and, more importantly, broadsides. 
I'm not saying its a completely worthless option.  But its an ordnance support ship that can only support with its weaponry in the front arc.  And once locked into that front arc, its forced to go right through the close range broadside fire while the rest of the fleet can be more mobile.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 03, 2011, 05:33:10 AM
Nate.  That sounds really nice.  But do you really honestly think that GW will stop the project, that already has so many changes from the original, because the Custodian is made into what it should be, even if the players, the group that supports BFG entirely, want it in vast majority?

I call bologna :)

Edit:  So I guess a 45 point Castellan or 25cm speed 4hp light cruiser is against the proscripted fluff as well?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 03, 2011, 06:03:18 AM
Quote
The Emperor is a much better support ship.  It has 60cm threat range and, more importantly, broadsides.
I'm not saying its a completely worthless option.  But its an ordnance support ship that can only support with its weaponry in the front arc.  And once locked into that front arc, its forced to go right through the close range broadside fire while the rest of the fleet can be more mobile.

That's debatable. The empy doesn't have a tracking system, 6+ prow, resilient AC or guided torpedoes and the vast majority of it's broadsides are on the prow and dorsal mounts effectively limiting you to one side for engaging with the slow speed ensuring that you won't be turning when the shooting starts. Regardless, the effect is still the same in terms of maneuver especially with the marine example since it only has 45cm batteries.

The custodian's no more forced to go through that close range fire than any of the other IN, Chaos, or Marine battleships so why should Tau be different? TBH, if you are going through head on and taking broadsides you're likely presenting an abeam aspect which is one of the better places to be and if you aren't, the 6+ prow is giving almost the same effect.

Now, while I think the Custodian should have CG status because of its stats, it certainly doesn't break the fleet or hamper it any more than any other fleet outside perhaps eldar or necrons taking a BB.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 03, 2011, 06:16:01 AM
But we weren't comparing the Custodian and Emperor ship to ship.  I was just saying that the Emperor is much better able to support Dauntless squadrons, because it is better able to stay at range and moving away from the enemy, while keeping anything the Dauntless' are firing at in its fire arc as well.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 03, 2011, 09:25:08 AM
guys, that distinct booming sound was Nate slamming down the GW gavel.  No more changes are going to be made because If any more are made, GW will pitch this in the trash.

YES they would can this project, why? because if we give too many other people glitter, and not enough to their darling little space marines (who got buko insane shit), steam shoots out their ears, fire out their noses, and napalm out their ass. We should be happy with what we have. Drop your arguments, they are extremely weak at this rate and we should focus on getting this stuff out and stamped official.

So instead of arguing over the turn power of the ship, you should look for rules flukes or typos. We can worry about making the Custodian better in the next set of FAQ's. 

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: tinfish on January 03, 2011, 10:59:03 AM
All I will say is remember BloodBowl LRB 6 and the Great GW legal IP purge. If we want anything done we unfortunately have to dance to their tunes, or they will take away all the toys.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 03, 2011, 04:37:51 PM
guys, that distinct booming sound was Nate slamming down the GW gavel.  No more changes are going to be made because If any more are made, GW will pitch this in the trash.
Well, then that was all a huge waste of our time, from the moment we started commenting on the PDF, rather than just figuring out what needed changing and houseruling it ourself.  Its what I'll be doing.  Pitiful situation, whoever's fault it is.

Its fine really, I'm totally happy within my playgroup.  I was just rather excited that there was potential I could have another fleet besides chaos for official events at the GW Bunker that didnt need houserules to be fun.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on January 03, 2011, 05:17:40 PM
@Vaaish

The Emperor sits back, goes abeam, uses long range guns and doesn't close with the enemy. The Custodian on the other hand has shorter ranged weaponry and it's forward firing. This means it has to close with the enemy. This means the Custodian will have to turn far more often than the Emperor to keep targets in its fore arc, and have a harder time doing so. This increased turning circle causes a heap of trouble keeping targets where they belong, particularly when the Custodian becomes crippled.

Okay folks, here's the scoop on the Custodian so we can lay this to rest once and for all. Forgeworld says its a battleship. GW says it officially is nothing but an Explorer in a different hull, thus a battleship. In the end, what makes all this work official is when GW goes over it, blesses it and posts it to their website.

Whatever improvements we are trying to make absolutely HAVE to fall inside the constraints we are given. If the HA's decide to go outside the constraints because we want to or even if EVERYONE wants to, GW will simply decide to stick all this work in the round file. Then not only is all this time and effort wasted, but in the end all we get is a really pretty Explorer along with an entire fleet which is little more than re-hulled versions of the Tau fleet we have now, along with a really pretty fleet list no more official than any other homebrew list out there.

This brings me back to the "90% right" outcome I spoke of earlier. The Custodian is not what everyone wants, but it is a WHOLE LOT BETTER than an Explorer. The Kor'or'vesh is not what everyone wants, but it is a fine addition to the current Tau fleet. Now you have to ask yourself what is more important: having an official Kor'or'vesh Fleet List where the Custodian is a battleship, or having a Custodian Grand Cruiser on a fleet list that is just one more fan product? Many people have stated, "I'm going to ignore it and make it a homebrew GC anyway."  That's fine! In fact, that's gaming! I have plenty of homebrew ships that will never be official, ships that will make EXCELLENT Warp Rift articles when our rule projects are complete. That doesn't mean they should or even can be made official.

Remember folks, we're fans just like you. We're not just sitting up here making arbitrary decisions to hurt the fans' feelig just because we can. Heck- we're not even getting paid! In the end, these projects are probably the most fan-involved of any set of rules in the history of Games Workshop. I said from the outset that we weren't going to make everyone happy, but at least recognize that 90% success is a lot better than 100% failure.

Firstly Nate, I do not believe that GW would bin the file on the back of changing the way the game classifies it. In fact, I do not even think they'd notice. Secondly, I very much dislike the notion that you're so afraid of them that you won't even try to pass something that makes a difference in real terms to the way the fleet plays as well as makes sense. I would rather you tried and failed than wimped out.

Now, assuming that you're sure that giving it "cruiser" status is definitely out of the question, despite it only being a game mechanic, not an actual role or function distinction, then you could give it BB status and just write a note saying how its reduced/better distributed mass allows for it to manoeuvre better and so it automatically gains the effects of the manoeuvring thrusters refit.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 03, 2011, 05:23:04 PM
90* turns lets it keep BB status as well, if thats so important.  (Dumb)
Itd be the only ship in the game that both had to move 15cm to turn and made a 90* of it, kinda neat.  
(goes back to formatting pdf for correct houserules.)

Edit:  Sig's idea works too.  Easy fixes.  Methinks I see someone hiding beind the GW banner because of his own fluff view ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 03, 2011, 07:26:28 PM
I think GW can be an **** and Nate is walking a safe path.
Who's the blame in a business model where BFG is sooner axed then relived?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 03, 2011, 07:55:18 PM
But what does it hurt to ask?  surely a quick email such as 'hey, we have a lot of stuff and I really think the Custodian needs a change in how it moves, but wanted to clear it with you before i went ahead with it' would verify it if he for some reason thinks that that change out of all the rest of the changes to the core rules of the fleet would send GW (no greater contempt could be held for a gaming company) over the edge.
My personal thought: Using GW as cover because he wants something different with the fleet/has different fluff ideas than all the other players ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 03, 2011, 08:03:52 PM
Go ahead.

d/l the FW pdf (it is on this site) about the kor or vesh.

d/l the old shinnentai/xisor tau kor or vesh (massive forum support years ago!)

Then check the draft.

Nate has done a great job. :)
Sigoroth will approve of that in the light of the past.

Nate does not want something different. He isn't the only HA member! Bob & Ray need to accept it as well. Especially Bob is really conservative! Good on balance and reality check but not a wild shooter like Nate or Ray.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 03, 2011, 08:12:42 PM
I'm not arguing he does a great job.  One issue cannot be taken to reflect all the work gone into this.  But as the very first reason he gave was a fluff one, it just leads me to suspect that the second reason came only after no one agreed with the fluff explanation.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 04, 2011, 01:09:57 AM
Um. A battleship should never really have a 90 degree turn unless it's dark eldar... just sayin.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 04, 2011, 02:34:30 AM
Sure it could, if it has 10 hits, slower speed, less shielding than your typical BB and has to move 15cm before doing so.  Not exactly DE quality.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 04, 2011, 04:40:50 AM
no it couldn't. Nothing in the game outside of eldar and necrons have the tech to pull that kind of turning on a bb. Ten hits is grand cruiser level and those can't even do it. You have to drop to 6 hits or lower before anything else can pull turns like that.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 04, 2011, 05:07:34 AM
And like Sigoroth explained:

If the Tau can build a 90* 10 Hit vessel it would invalidate the 45* 8 hit vessel (Hero).

As in: why don't the Tau improve the Hero to 90* as well as their tech can do it if they can do a 90* Custodian.

So with a 90* Custodian you create fluff mess.


Grand Cruiser otoh won't do that. Plus 10 hits = Grand Cruiser within IN / Chaos.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 04, 2011, 05:46:02 AM
Also, they don't update the hero because it's outdated technology, and not suited for the task they designed it for. It's a good warship, but nowhere near as good as the new protector design.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 04, 2011, 06:46:04 AM
The Hero:
has more ordnance, more Ion (as it stands), more resilience (higher hp) = more ship of the line.

A Hero vs Protector match would be interesting.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 04, 2011, 09:12:55 AM
I would put my money on the Protector.. 90 degree turn trumps the Hero.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 04, 2011, 09:38:00 AM
You know what's funny? Sigoroth & LS wanting a cheaper Protector and you saying it trumps the (undercosted imo) Hero.
Funky!


Okay base profile:
Protector vs Hero
6 hits vs 8 hits
20cm vs 20cm
90* vs 45*
6+/5+ vs 6+/5+
2 shield vs 2 shield
3 turret vs 3 turret

Weapons Protector (base)
5 missiles
6 F Railguns @ 45cm
2 LF Railguns @ 45cm
2 RF Railguns @ 45cm
1 LF IC @ 30cm
1 RF IC @ 30cm
1 launch bay

Weapons Hero
6 missiles
4 LFR Railguns @ 45cm
2 LF Ions @ 30cm
2 RF Ions @ 30cm
2 launch bays


So ordnance:
Hero has +1 missile & +1 LB
Now the Hero will have the attacking advantage here. The Prot wil need its lb to thwart the missiles or 1 Manta. So advantage Hero

Gunnery:
prow on @ 45cm the Protector has an advantage of 6 more railguns.
Prow on @ 30cm both are equal  /// (4+(3x4)  vs (10+(3x2)  both = 16
The Hero being better at prow deflector "cracking" due more Ion Cannons.

When abeam the Protector only has (2 + (3x1) = 5 versus (4 + (3x2) = 10 of the Hero.

In a 1:1 duel the key will be how the Protector creates & plans its first attack run making use of better turns & 45cm railguns. If the Hero manages a 'grip' it'll win due better resilience and more abeam f/p.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 04, 2011, 12:00:32 PM
But thats not using the 'correct' Hero that we will be using, the one with just 2 lances? ;)

Like I said before, I greatly support cruiser status over the current mess.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Plaxor on January 04, 2011, 12:24:58 PM
But thats not using the 'correct' Hero that we will be using, the one with just 2 lances? ;)

Like I said before, I greatly support cruiser status over the current mess.


The Hero is an amazing ship for 180 points (in official rules) and probably would cost at least 200 points if it weren't restricted.

Protector doesn't need a cost reduction. It's fine as an unrestricted ship.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 04, 2011, 01:14:00 PM
Well the way I see it.. the manta's are not going to take much part in the match. Odds are both will be focusing on fighter support to defend against torpedo attacks. The Hero has greater protection in this situation.  The Protector, however, has a far greater weapons battery, and will not have to suffer the problem of firing 'abeam'  ever. A clever approach with a clever AAF move can doom the Hero.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 04, 2011, 06:37:07 PM
LS,
Hero with 2 IC would be unrestricted and still be able to thwart the Protector due ordnance & resilience.

Zelnik,
The Hero will always have one free attack craft. Now not much but still an annoyance.

But you say it: it is all about the approach (the Hero can AAF first for a suprise). The Protector will fall or be down due this. Which asks tactical thinking. Thus good. :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 04, 2011, 10:37:10 PM
And yet the Hero is 5 points cheaper?

I think the best use of the extra manta would be torp removal so the Hero could get a full salvo in.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Asmodai on January 04, 2011, 11:46:34 PM
Don't touch the Hero....its an awesome ship!  And so is the Protector!  Both are AWESOME! :)

Emissary where are you!? :o)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on January 05, 2011, 01:28:01 AM
The Hero won't have +1 Manta in the duel, it'll have +6 torpedoes. In opponents ordnance phase, send 1 fighter out to remove CAP, reload, put 2 CAP out to defend against Protectors torps & fighter, then torps are free to attack.

Also note, this sort of 1 on 1 duel is the best that the Protector gets. The larger the engagement the less the 90° turn is worth and the more the +2 hits is worth. Try playing the Protector in a 2k+ game.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 05, 2011, 01:58:43 AM
Supposedly the kororvesh isnt meant for over 1500, but that doesnt make much sense as its the most militant and advanced of the Tau fleets.

If the Custodian gets better movement, with the addition of more armored prows in the fleet, and a few tweaks, I can see it being more competative in full blown battles.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 05, 2011, 03:27:05 AM
I will confess, the current rules lack any sort of capacity for longevity. Something i fear Nate has completely overlooked.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 05, 2011, 04:16:16 AM
How do you mean?

What is the difference with the old FW Tau fleet list in that regard?


I see the fleet as being competitive. Perhaps that is because I never go above 1500pts/1750pts?
As background wise our 1500pts battles are extremely rare. :)
In the entire 40k universe!
Most likely the most common battle would be around 100-500pts.

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on January 05, 2011, 04:25:33 AM
How do you mean?

What is the difference with the old FW Tau fleet list in that regard?


I see the fleet as being competitive. Perhaps that is because I never go above 1500pts/1750pts?
As background wise our 1500pts battles are extremely rare. :)
In the entire 40k universe!
Most likely the most common battle would be around 100-500pts.

Yeah, and fist fights are likely more common than full scale battles, but who wants to play that? I'm more interested in fleet engagements, rather than minor skirmishes.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 05, 2011, 04:33:32 AM
lol.

500pts can be pretty cool battles.

:)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Xyon on January 05, 2011, 04:44:36 AM
Ok,  with 44 pages of stuff, I dont feel like reading through them all before posting my comments on the current draft of the tau fleet.     By no means am I an expert on tau, I dont have a tau fleet, nor do any players in my area have one that I'm aware of.  

Now then, on to my main point.   It has been pointed out before by myself,  and maybe others in this thread.  but is it really necessary to call their lances ion cannons and their batteries  rail-guns?  Does it add anything by making this distinction if they're just going to have the same rules as what everyone else uses?   Is the extra two short paragraphs really needed?  And do they need to be called gravitic launchers?   Can't you just put in a note about tau torpedoes without coming up with a new name on how they're launched.

By all means please answer my questions about the naming seriously, I want to know.  I'm willing to accept a good explanation, and if one has been given all ready, tell me what page of the thread and I'll look for it.  Otherwise, there's a whole lot of wording being used telling us how apples taste when we've all ready been told how they taste in other places.

Putting all of that aside, the ships seem pretty versitile and good for their points.   Its late right now for me though, I can go more in depth into my opinions later on once I've had some sleep.



Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 05, 2011, 04:58:47 AM
lol, these have been the exact same names as in the Armada book (the GW Tau fleet).  That was a printed book. With an established pdf. So .... ofcourse this Tau draft uses the same name.

Furthermore: it sounds cool.
And Gravitic Missiles is something different then torpedoes.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 05, 2011, 11:54:11 AM
I will confess, the current rules lack any sort of capacity for longevity. Something i fear Nate has completely overlooked.

You're mostly right.
The issue with the Tau fleet, and primarily the Kororvesh, is they suffer a kind of 'Eldar-Envy Syndrome'.

The same method of attack is there, but the things that make it work arent.
At the core of both: Alpha strike fleet with fragile ships, that rely on hitting hard and first.
So neither are attrition fleets by any stretch.  What the Eldar have going for them that make this work are great speed,
insane maneuverability, and great damage denial.
Tau have to get by at the same game plan with less maneuverability, devastating weaponry, speed, and damage denial.

More armored prows at least helped the damage denial part.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 05, 2011, 12:03:37 PM
Eldar MMS I guess?

Well, Eldar have less weaponry (but better) then similar hulls in the Tau fleets. Most of the time less ordnance. More turrets as well. Less expensive ships available. Better armour overall. Tau have longer reach on their weapons (wb/lances/missiles).

Oh, Zelnik thinks the Protector owns the Hero in small games. What about that.... lol.
A toned down Hero would even be less victorious against a Protector by Zelnik's approach.

Now if Sigorot & LS think the Protector should be 170pts what would Zelnik make the Hero?

:) Whoa!


Nah, 185 is fine for Protector.
180 is fine for a restricted unchanged per profile Hero.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Xyon on January 05, 2011, 02:39:35 PM
lol, these have been the exact same names as in the Armada book (the GW Tau fleet).  That was a printed book. With an established pdf. So .... ofcourse this Tau draft uses the same name.

Furthermore: it sounds cool.
And Gravitic Missiles is something different then torpedoes.

Yeah, I know,  I have my copy of Armada, remember from that warseer thread? :D

Grav are different than torpedoes because they have special rules, but they're basically guided or homing torpedoes that can go at different chosen speeds.  It could easily be sumarized as such.

Torpedoes.
Tau torpedoes can go between 20-40cm each time they move.  The tau player can turn the torpedo wave 45 degrees in either direction before moving the torpedo wave. Every time you move the torpedo wave, not counting the turn they launched, roll a d6 for each pt of strength, for each 6 reduce the strength of the wave by 1.


There,  you don't have to bring gravitic into it at all.   I know that things are given a special name in Armada, but that doesnt mean we need to keep that trend?

  I think the deflectors could probably be gotten rid of as well, just give the ships that have it front armor 6+.   And add a note that replaces the deflectors entry.   Tau ships that suffer a prow weapon damaged critical  result will reduce front armor to 5+ until repaired.


Just about the only thing I'd keep 'special' that has been given special names would be the tracking system and the grav hooks.  There's no need to keep the other special things to try and make tau seem more special than they actually are.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 05, 2011, 02:50:38 PM
C'mon. Your creating a dull background and all.

What's next? Pyro-Acid Batteries deleted eg weapon batteries with special rule for Nids?

Prow Deflector =/= prow armour.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 05, 2011, 03:42:34 PM
Quote
I know that things are given a special name in Armada, but that doesnt mean we need to keep that trend?

I'd say yes we do need to keep the trend going. It adds interest and variety to the background which is a good thing to have. Removing that would be a mistake.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Xyon on January 05, 2011, 05:00:42 PM
So why are eldar weapon batteries still called weapon batteries?  Kroot have weapon batteries that are called weapon batteries.  So do demiurg.  Tyranids are the only fleet I'd say would deserve the special names because they're biological weapons and not mechanical weapons.  Necrons have special names because their weapons actually do different things.

Either give each fleet a different name for the same type of weapon (weapon batteries, lances, torpedoes) because you want to keep things "interesting"    or give them the same name.   Only giving some fleets different names to keep things "interesting" has the opposite effect.  And quite frankly if you need to name weapons something different to keep things interesting,  you're not having all that much fun in the first place. 

So far it seems to be a difference in opinion however,  and no actual substantial reason why they're named different.   If no substantial reason can be given, then I'm willing to agree to disagree, but I also strongly suggest just changing the names back, if tau are not interesting enough on their own without having to be given special names for mundane WB and lances, then the fleet needs rethinking.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 05, 2011, 05:22:38 PM
Fine, you can call everything WB if you like but fluff defines all that makes the 40k universe what it is. The more diversity the richer the universe and the more compelling it is. Take that away and you just have generic items in a generic world populated by generic people. In this case, Tau always use Ion Cannons, Railguns, and Guided Missiles. That's who they are. When they call these weapons that that every time they show up, both in fluff and games, why on earth would you just call their weapons by the generic WB descriptor?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Xyon on January 05, 2011, 05:28:35 PM
Because,  in the main rulebook, under the section for weapon batteries, it says.

"weapon batteries form the main armament for most warships, ensuring that much of their hull is pock-marked by gun ports and weapon housings.  Each bettery consists of rank upon rank of weapons: plasma projectors, laser cannons, missile launchers, rail guns, fusion beamers, and graviton pulsars."


The very definition of weapon batteries presented in the blue book is that you've taken all the specific weapons from the 40k universe and diluted them into a generic terminology.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 05, 2011, 05:45:09 PM
What is your point? That because the first rulebook written lumps everything into a single WB category you can't ever name individual weapons that function as WBs? There is no contradiction here, just more precise terminology.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Xyon on January 05, 2011, 06:14:17 PM
Then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree,   I personally think it wont make things boring if they just changed it to WB and lances in the tau profiles.   And if you wanted to make things more interesting, there would be special names for each fleet's WB and Lances.    Possibly grouped as  generic imperial, generic chaos,  tau, ork, generic eldar, necron, tyranid.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 05, 2011, 07:17:47 PM
Agreed to disagree.

Generic is like not cool. I hate generalizing in general. lol
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 05, 2011, 08:39:08 PM
He has a point, of course.  Eldar dont say 'etheric plasma launchers' or Orks dont say 'big boulder catapult'  or whatnot.  But its just been that way since Armada.  It wouldnt hurt if it just said weapon batteries and lances, and it makes sense.  But people are just fond of it now i guess.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 06, 2011, 07:19:35 AM
Really? we are going to argue over something so silly as this here? start that in the general forum and let us stay ON TASK!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 06, 2011, 12:01:53 PM
Right, back on task.  Its just waiting to see really if Nate decides to snub the community without at least asking about certian Kororvesh things, if he feels they are so radical :)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: skatingtortoise on January 06, 2011, 04:38:33 PM
Right, back on task.  Its just waiting to see really if Nate decides to snub the community without at least asking about certian Kororvesh things, if he feels they are so radical :)

i really hope that if i were to put as much time and effort in as nate obviously has, id get a bit more credit than this. ;)

it might be more constructive to summarise what you feel needs changing, why, and how to solve it. 40 odd pages of theorising and postulating is difficult to use in a pitch.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 06, 2011, 05:39:14 PM
From what I can tell, the summary of all the issues is thus:

1. The Custodian: Is it a battleship, or a grand cruiser? It has the toughness of a grand cruiser with the weaponry of a battleship. Should It get 90o turns?

2. The Protector: Should it cost so much? should it have lost it's ordnance capacity?

3. The Emissary: two fighter variant? maybe 25cm speed?

4. The Castellan: only 2 batteries?

5. The Stronghold... why the hell does it have only 10 hits when it's larger then most imperial battleships?

6. I want to Habeeb.


Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on January 06, 2011, 06:59:37 PM
From what I can tell, the summary of all the issues is thus:

1. The Custodian: Is it a battleship, or a grand cruiser? It has the toughness of a grand cruiser with the weaponry of a battleship. Should It get 90o turns?

2. The Protector: Should it cost so much? should it have lost it's ordnance capacity?

3. The Emissary: two fighter variant? maybe 25cm speed?

4. The Castellan: only 2 batteries?

I think some of the issues you've raised are slightly off.

1. The question isn't "should it have 90° turns?", but rather "should it have CG status?" (yes).

2. Given representativeness of model and that this is supposed to be a more direct fire fleet than in the past I don't think it should get more ordnance. The question is just "should it be cheaper?".

3. Since the model has bays as well as torps I don't see it as a matter of making the fighter variant more worthwhile, simply more accurately reflecting the model. The speed is an issue of role (fluff/game), and there is an issue of worth. So there really are a few questions here. The first is "is the Emissary worth taking?", to which I posit the answer is "no". The second is "if it isn't, will it be balanced by increasing its speed and adding 1 fighter bay to the two different torpedo variants?" (dropping the current launch bay variant). My answer to this is "hmm, maybe, but it makes sense in terms of the model, fluff and game play, so this is a good place to start".

4. Again, the basic question is "is it worth it?" again with the answer being "no". I do not think a fix should be in terms of increased firepower given the models size and the increased range. So this should read "The Castellan: cheaper?".
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 06, 2011, 08:17:11 PM
Habeeb?

1) Custodian should have Grand Cruiser status with 45* turns.
2) It costs well, weapony on both variants: good.
If it lost arcs on railguns: tracking systems added. Not necessary. It'll give Distant Darkness still something extra. ;)
3) Drop lb variant. Add 1 lb to other variants. Increase speed to 25cm.
4) I like this Castellan, but if someone makes it 45pts I am fine with it.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 07, 2011, 07:50:06 PM
Agreed on all points  but the Protector.  Castellan would be a great 45 point ship.
Warden is OP too, but thats less of an issue.

If having the 'battleship' on the Custodian is so important, which it shouldnt be as it is more a designation of manueverability rather than power,
just go with that automatic upgrade that sig suggested.

Edit:  By OP I meant overpriced.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 14, 2011, 09:06:06 PM
how do you justify calling the warden OP? It's slow, and requires grav hooks to bring into play.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 14, 2011, 09:15:56 PM
25cm slow?
I like it as it is.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 14, 2011, 09:25:51 PM
oh, thought it was 20.. nevermind on the speed thing
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 14, 2011, 09:36:36 PM
OP means overpriced.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 14, 2011, 10:55:59 PM
Now your going crazy. It's still a 25 cm, lance using 2 WB escort. 30 points is perfect (it's the same as a cobra or an iconoclast, and better then either of them)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 14, 2011, 11:07:21 PM
I agree with Zelnik.

And even though it is restricted not a lot people would take more then 3-6 if unrestricted at 35points (as the Custodian pays 5~7 pts per grav hook).

Thus, it is a cheap strong escort.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: flybywire-E2C on January 15, 2011, 05:46:19 AM
The Tau Kor’or’Vesh rules have been pushed over and are now FINAL. No, the Custodian is NOT a Grand Cruiser, and I apologize if you feel like you have been snubbed because we didn’t take on that idea. However, a few last-minute small tweaks and corrections have been incorporated.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 15, 2011, 12:54:34 PM
Cool with the 2 bays on the Emissary, thats all I can see changed.

I'm curious Nate, if the Custodian HAD gotten 90* or CG status, how much of a points increase would that have necessitated?
I ask because I want to play it fair when I play it that way.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 15, 2011, 03:17:33 PM
probably around 340
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 15, 2011, 05:13:55 PM
Thats what I was thinking too.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 15, 2011, 05:52:02 PM
For CG status, probably 340-50 give the level of firepower it has and the benefits CTNH and shorter turning radius gives. For 90` turns, I'd say you would look more at 370-80 at least. That's a paradigm shift on a ship that large. Suddenly it means you can pull a one 180 if you are in a gravity well with no consequences. It also means you can react very quickly without regard to facing now that you have the 6+ prow. That means such a ship needs to be pretty expensive.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 15, 2011, 06:03:05 PM
Its interesting that you see one as that much a bigger advantage over the other.  Firstly, abeam 5+ and closing 6+ is roughly the same on average, with more potential damage at the closing.  50 point increase for greater turn ability?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 15, 2011, 06:34:54 PM
yes, it's a ship that can pull a 180` turn under the right circumstances and that has all of its weapons capable of targeting the forward arc with no downside to presenting that arc to the enemy. Even under normal conditions 90` turns ensure that you can put those weapons in the optimal positions. Think of it this way, with 90` turns and a planet you can make a pass launching all ordnance and firing all weapons using LO and the following turn RO, make your free turn, move and make your second turn giving you 180` to put whatever target you have back in your forward arc and launch all your ordnance again. That kind of capability isn't something that is seen outside of eldar, necrons (the two most advanced races), or light cruisers. It's not a capability that should be given inexpensively because of the potential benefits.

The reason it needs to be so expensive is that you already have a very capable ship that you are boosting rather significantly. CG status gives a slightly better turning radius and CTNH then lets it pull 90` turns if it doesn't have a BM but you pay for that with halved weapons strength and losing your ability to RO so it's a rather minor boost. Just giving it 90` turns gives it the same ability as CG status but without any penalty for the capability. Since you now have access to RO with much improved turning and the capability to pull 180` turns if you use the terrain well you end up with a ship that has much greater capacity to control engagements and place itself optimally on top of boosting the capability of the ships around it. That means you need a rather significant price increase. Basically it's taking the best of the emperor, the best of the ordnance, and the best of the retribution and then pulling a page from eldar while sticking a tracking system off a mars on top and you think it should cost less than a Oberon?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 15, 2011, 06:38:36 PM
With the downside of, once crippled, not being able to turn without an SO, if it were 90*
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 15, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
Um... incorrect. Crippled just knocks off 5cm since the custodian moves 20cm it is still capable of the 15cm moves needed to make a single turn whether or not it's crippled. Of course, the thing isn't going to be that easy to cripple either if you play it right.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 15, 2011, 08:08:31 PM
Correct.

CG status would mean no cost increase. 90* is not an option ever and thus should cost it at 400points.

But the ship as a Battleship is still GOOD. Certainly the harders hitter the Tau have.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Don Gusto on January 15, 2011, 08:14:23 PM
In the "Demiurg and Kroot Xenos Fleet List" does a Stronghold Commerce Vessel count for the cruiser restrictions?

For example, would Stronghold, Bastion, Citadel, Merchant, Merchant be a legal fleet setup?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 15, 2011, 08:27:21 PM
I was referring to blast marker and crippled.

You think CG and prow deflector is not worth a price increase, Horizon?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 15, 2011, 08:32:24 PM
Custodian has a Prow Deflector.

Being crippled and a bm and turning.

There are battleships who cannot turn with a bm in contact, let alone crippled. ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 15, 2011, 09:27:41 PM
Much more imporant on foward firing BB though ;)

I know it has a prow deflector, I just meant that originally it was 330, then got a prow deflector at no additional cost.  Which was awesome, but you think it shouldn't go up with CG status as well?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 15, 2011, 10:25:52 PM
Quote
was referring to blast marker and crippled.
Then say that. Saying it's not able to turn when crippled is completely different than can't turn when crippled and has a BM. As horizon said, there are plenty of other ships that can't turn with a BM let alone being crippled. The emperor, Apocalypse, and Oberon are good examples. You can't have your cake and eat it too regardless of it being more important to turn with a forward facing BB. There has to be SOME penalty for getting hurt or taking fire you can't just ignore everything because you have the best firepower when you get something in the forward arc. Take the hit, use burn retros if you must, but if your crippled you've got more thing to worry about than turning without it costing something.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 16, 2011, 05:49:31 AM
The key point you need to realize is that a forward firing ship suffers much more dramatically from not being able to turn.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 16, 2011, 06:37:33 AM
You need to realize the forward arc is just the OPTIMAL firing solution for the custodian, it isn't the ONLY direction it can engage from. Yes it will suffer, but it also has much greater benefit when it is not crippled. If it moved 15cm you might have a point, but you are trying to tell me the performance of the ship in the crippled state with a BM outweighs the tactical capability in speed, maneuverability, and durability it would have to position itself in such a way that crippling it would be far more difficult to accomplish in the first place.

The fact remains that although the ship wouldn't perform as well once crippled and still under fire (no surprise there, I mean you could almost say such a situation would be.... crippling), it will perform MUCH better in all other circumstances.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 16, 2011, 09:05:05 AM
Agreed. The Custodian will be prow on. Where its firepower is.

And you can do still a Burn Retros if you are desperate for a turn.

And also: if my Custodian reached the crippling status I am seriously thinking for a disemgage anyway.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 16, 2011, 10:32:51 PM
But you do feel like CG status and prow deflector isnt worth a points increase?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 16, 2011, 10:59:55 PM
Got to play a 1000 kororvesh game against IN.  My initial thoughts were 'I wish I had taken the Protector variant' and 'Man, I really love Tau torpedoes.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on January 17, 2011, 12:20:52 PM
Then say that. Saying it's not able to turn when crippled is completely different than can't turn when crippled and has a BM. As horizon said, there are plenty of other ships that can't turn with a BM let alone being crippled. The emperor, Apocalypse, and Oberon are good examples. You can't have your cake and eat it too regardless of it being more important to turn with a forward facing BB. There has to be SOME penalty for getting hurt or taking fire you can't just ignore everything because you have the best firepower when you get something in the forward arc. Take the hit, use burn retros if you must, but if your crippled you've got more thing to worry about than turning without it costing something.

All those IN ships you listed don't give a rats arse about not being able to turn with a BM or being crippled. Hell, the Retribution doesn't even care for the most part. The Custodian does. Now, I don't think the Tau should get special treatment just because they suffer more than other BBs. On the other hand I don't think they should be unfairly punished either. This is exactly what is going on. "Well, you're only going to be the size of a CG, with the firepower and shields of a CG, but you're going to turn like a BB". What? Why? They have parity with the IN, their fleet is based on agility and their ship suffers more for the lack, so they want the agility more. Presumably this is why they only made the Custodian CG sized, so they actually could turn it better. I know I know, you're just arguing against 90° turns, which is fair nuff, since it's OTT. Just annoyed that the Nobs decided against CG status, despite it being extraordinarily obviously apt.

Oh, btw, you know that a gravity well only gives 45° turns right? And only towards the planet, so you can't swing past the line of the planet to be turning away. So for a 90° Custodian to get a 180° turn it would have to begin and end its movement in the gravity well, and for it to be a true 180°, rather than just 178° or 179° ( :P) then it'd have to not move at all, meaning it counts as a defence.
 
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 17, 2011, 03:22:49 PM
Sig, I agree the thing is a CG but at this point a change like that is beyond us. On the turn. Mathematically it's not a true 180` turn, but the free turn + the regular 90` nets you 135` and your forward arc will extend 22.5` left and right of centerline which means it's 157.5`effective turn since it still places the target back in the forward arc by the time the target moves in its turn. The whole point was that giving a ship 90' turns improves its capabilities far more than just giving it CG status and should be a considerable boost in points.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 17, 2011, 07:02:48 PM
Not really, but as i see the reasonable nature of both sides, and you are zealous about yours, I'll just play it as a CG ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 17, 2011, 08:28:33 PM
CG is by far the more appropriate direction, but I can't really say anything if you really think 90` turns are just as reasonable as cg status on a ship that large that doesn't belong to eldar or crons.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 17, 2011, 08:32:53 PM
Distant Darkness provides a CG variant for the Custodian. ;)
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 18, 2011, 04:12:58 AM
Crons have a 90* turn big ship?  Even the shroud has 45* turns at 4 hits, on the online pdf, which is hilariously stupid :)

I don't get the lack of tech like 60cm on the most advanced races, other than balance i guess.


Ok.  So something i just noticed.  Where is the stronghold in the Kororvesh list?

Edit:  Apparently the citadel is a new ship.  My bad.  how do you model one?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: horizon on January 18, 2011, 04:16:14 AM
Necron AAF is more turns aka 90*. ;)

Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 18, 2011, 04:19:00 AM
What about the stronghold getting 12 hits?

Also, can only the citadel increase the range of its cutting beam?

It doesnt make sense that Demiurg ships cant store up cutting beam energy.  Its a mining ship, after all.

And finally, its simply interesting that a Citadel can muster the same amount of beam attacks that a stronghold can.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Zelnik on January 18, 2011, 10:12:01 PM
Because it is identical equipment for a mining job, sparticus. It is a weapon of war only in emergencies.

The strength 12 battery in the prow is what makes the difference ;)

I agree, the stronghold should be 12 hits, but the cost of the vessel would probably swell to close to 400 points.. it is a BEHEMOTH already!
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 19, 2011, 01:51:24 AM
I just always put the amount of attacks to storage space.  I don't think it would be imbalanced for the blast markers to carry over, judging on how pricey the ships already are.  Would be a great deterant to normal fire.

I'm assuming even after max accumulation, blast markers are still removed?

Still need to know if the 'shoot to 30 for 2' cutting beam ability is Citadel only.

Also, why the disparity in weapon ranges, 60cm straight to 30cm?  Why did dwarves give inferior ion beams to the Tau? :)

Edit: Just noticed a big goof.  Demiurg should say they have ion beams, not lances.  Ion beams are Demiurg tech for lances, and the Tau got it from them.  I realize its superficial but  the Tau fleet set the precedent for different names.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Vaaish on January 19, 2011, 02:42:54 AM
When the Tau bought the cannons, they didn't have enough coin for the enhanced generator package needed for 60cm lances.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 19, 2011, 02:51:43 AM
Lol.

Also, just a general question for someone who has tested all 3 classes:  Are they not overpriced?  I mean, can they stand up to ships of comparable points costs?

The way they seem to want to approach an enemy fleet is weird, closing abeam and then going prow-on when close.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on January 19, 2011, 03:58:07 AM
From what I can see the Stronghold is pretty much in the right region. It's worth its cost. Could maybe use the extra hits given its early departure in most fleets. The Bastion is terribly overpriced. A good 30 odd points. It's not a bad ship, but just way expensive. I have not tested the other one, but my objection to it is that it shouldn't exist. It uses the same model as the Bastion but has a completely different profile, including reduced hits. This is absurd. Nate's "logic" was that he made the Bastion's stats before seeing the model and upon seeing the model thought it was too small to justify 8 hits. He also wanted the Demiurg to be able to field a ship in the cruiser clash scenario.

In the first instance I think he's wrong. The model seems to be quite clearly on a par with an Imperial or Chaos cruiser to me, in terms of displacement. They're not small at all. Grey Knights Strike Cruisers on the other hand have a much harder time justifying their 6 hits, particularly when compared directly to the standard SC.

On the second point I absolutely think it's unnecessary. Cruiser clash is a beginners scenario and the 185 pt restriction is for beginners, which really should be using IN/Chaos in the first place. Looking a little further into the scenario people have the option to remove the point limit on cruisers or simply select cruisers up to a set points value. So if you're a beginner, learn the game with standard fleets. If you're not you can simply modify the selection restrictions to allow for more diverse ships, enabling the Bastion to be taken.

So, given this, I haven't even considered the new Demiurg cruiser. If FW ever make a smaller Demiurg vessel then I'll revisit the stats. It's not likely that they will though.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 19, 2011, 11:38:18 AM
Is there a way to easily convert it?  Leave out some pieces?  I was looking at the models as well, and they do seem on par with cruiser/battleships.  Stronghold definately seems beefier than a Custodian, for instance.

Any answer on the 'can the other 2 use the 30cm beam' or 'why no lasting beam storage'.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: lastspartacus on January 21, 2011, 01:18:49 AM
What if Demiurg could automatically spend a cutting beam shot to auto pass a move through asteroids?
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Sigoroth on January 21, 2011, 01:43:09 AM
Is there a way to easily convert it?  Leave out some pieces?  I was looking at the models as well, and they do seem on par with cruiser/battleships. Stronghold definately seems beefier than a Custodian, for instance.

There is no real easy way to convert the Bastion by leaving stuff off. The Stronghold is definitely big enough to count for the full 12 hits. With the release of the CL stats I've spent a little time thinking on how one would go about making a Demiurg CL. You could use the same bridge/cutting beam as the Bastion and the same armour plates, though with a little chopped off the inside of each. However, instead of the split body adjoining the bridge section, mock up a thinner single body from plasticard that would slot around the bridge section. You could build it up to the same thickness as the Bastion with successive layers. As for the shape, I would make it pretty much identical to the Cardassian Galor class cruiser's main body and rear.

Quote
Any answer on the 'can the other 2 use the 30cm beam' or 'why no lasting beam storage'.

I think this is partly a balance issue, and partly a feel thing.

What if Demiurg could automatically spend a cutting beam shot to auto pass a move through asteroids?

That actually seems pretty cool.
Title: Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
Post by: Plaxor on January 21, 2011, 02:02:24 AM
I've played Demiurg for a while now. I think to construct a 'Citadel' I would simply reduce the size of each of the 'side' pieces by shaving down the fronts of them up to 1.5cm. Thereby shortening the vessel slightly, and applying the vessels prow pieces back on the shaved parts, hiding the cuts nicely.


The Stronghold is worthwhile for its points. The Bastions however are about 30 pts overcosted. However I do generally use Xisor's rules when playing with demiurg, and you can build the escorts rather easily. The smaller ones are just the rear half of a defense monitor (from the defense monitor and system ships blister) which actually looks like it was intended to be a demiurg ship.

The Ramparts, I actually used a plasticard mockup that I made following instructions from someone on port maw. Now I think I'll actually build one out of bastion parts.