June 16, 2019, 12:09:18 PM

Author Topic: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG  (Read 109378 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #375 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.

Offline Caine-HoA

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #376 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)

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #377 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!!

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #378 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? 

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #379 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.


Offline Caine-HoA

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #380 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.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #381 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.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #382 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.

Offline Caine-HoA

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #383 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 ;-)

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #384 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 :)
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 09:16:41 PM by lastspartacus »

Offline tinfish

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #385 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.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2010, 10:33:49 AM by tinfish »

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #386 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.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #387 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.
-Vaaish

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #388 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?

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #389 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.