June 26, 2019, 02:54:50 PM

Author Topic: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG  (Read 109976 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #150 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

Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #151 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.
-Vaaish

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #152 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?

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #153 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.
-Vaaish

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #154 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.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 05:46:46 AM by Sigoroth »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #155 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 :)

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #156 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.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 06:03:29 AM by Sigoroth »

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #157 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.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #158 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!  ::)

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #159 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.
-Vaaish

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #160 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.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #161 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.


Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #162 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.

Offline KivArn

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #163 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

Offline commander

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #164 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?