August 20, 2019, 12:25:49 AM

Author Topic: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG  (Read 114175 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 #390 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.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #391 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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 07:28:50 PM by lastspartacus »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #392 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.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #393 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.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #394 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*
« Last Edit: November 23, 2010, 03:50:28 AM by lastspartacus »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #395 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. :)

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #396 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?

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #397 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.

Offline Trasvi

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #398 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.



Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #399 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.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #400 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! :)

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #401 on: November 23, 2010, 07:07:20 AM »
Yep, he's right. We've been working on this argument for literally years.

Offline Trasvi

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #402 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.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #403 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*?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2010, 01:24:27 PM by horizon »

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #404 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.