June 20, 2019, 03:57:26 AM

Author Topic: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG  (Read 109608 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #225 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.


Offline Caine-HoA

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #226 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...

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #227 on: October 24, 2010, 07:01:30 PM »
I am not saying point change, more like weapon change.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #228 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.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #229 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
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 Caine-HoA

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #230 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.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #231 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.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #232 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.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #233 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
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 #234 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.
-Vaaish

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #235 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.


Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #236 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.

Offline KivArn

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #237 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...

Offline Caine-HoA

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #238 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.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #239 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.