September 18, 2019, 12:31:07 PM

Author Topic: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview  (Read 19694 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« on: February 06, 2012, 05:38:59 PM »
Alright, it has been about a year since the 2010 faq came out, and I have played the new tau fleet extensively.  Over the course of my many victories (and defeats :-\) I have managed to come up with this review of the fleet as a whole.  Suggestions and a pros and con list will be provided at the bottom for the lazy.

Prologue: the new Tau fleet took a drastic departure from the old.  While the old rules relied heavily on ordnance and less so on direct firepower, the new rules shift that trend to direct firepower while keeping the strong ordnance presence.  For those who remember the original specialist games rules for the forgeworld ships, this fleet draws heavily from it.  The biggest differences lay in the overall increase of battery strength and overall reduction in launch capacity.

The Command Structure:  The Tau have two command options, an ld8 and 9 commander who come with a re-roll, and up to two additional re rolls on top of that in the form of ethereals. The only issue here is the unusual points cost which make tournament standard fleets difficult to construct. (1500 pts).  As the tau are heavily reliant on reload ordnance, re-rolls are essential.  This is the first area where the rules should be considered for modification.

The Ship Layout: Like most alien factions in the game, the Tau are focused on the frontal assault model, however, they utilize it differently. Unlike the corsair and craftworld eldar (hit and run), dark eldar (hit and persist) and ork (smash and grab), the Tau are a strange mix of imperial phalanx and persist.  With strong front armor and weapons that have shifting firing arcs, they form a powerful line that is difficult to break.  This runs into problems in the future, which will be explained later. On the whole, no Tau ship has weapons that don't sweep between two arcs.

The Firepower: Tau weapons have a standard in this list, effectively placing batteries at a fixed range of 45cm, even on their light cruisers.  This can prove to be very appealing when using a messenger for support.  Lances tend to stick at the 30 cm range, but there are examples of longer range fire. No weapon goes beyond 45 cm in the tau fleet, which can leave you feeling exposed at long ranges.  This zone of conflict is supposed to be the realm of tau ordnance, which will be explaned in the next section.  The best piece of advice I can give you is take messengers, the extra dice they provide is crucial.

Ordnance: this has always been where the Tau shine, but not as much in the new list. An overall reduction in ordnance strength in favor of direct fire weapons harms the tau in long range exchanges and weakens what was a total dominance of the ordnance phase.  With these new rules, the tau still maintain an edge over most races, but it is recommended that you take an explorer to keep control of the ordnance phase.

The Ships: I will move from the smallest ships up to the largest. I will include the Nicassar for the purposes of going over the rig, and its purpose in the fleet.

The Warden Escort: this is possibly my favorite escort.  Extremely cheap for a lance escort at 30 points, it is one nasty customer for its size. With a grav hook requirement, it can be limited in number, but that can be easily mitigated with merchants, emmisaries or explorers.  Faster, tougher and better equipped then its orca cousin... It is one of the few escorts I have no complaints about.

The Castellan: this escort was changed from its specialist games and forgeworld version with a reduction of battery strength and an increase in speed. On the whole, it remains as the principle heavy escort of the tau, though I feel it is overpriced for its position in the fleet. Its best comparison is the infadel, which is faster then the castellan and has roughly the same firepower.  The torpedos are better on this vessel by rules alone, but the cost is painful when you only have this to pick from. Overall, I take it because it is still a great escort, but it is a costly points sink and a very sweet target for the enemy.*note, the rail cannons on this escort are standard 45cm like the rest of the fleet. Keep a messenger near these bad boys!

The Nicassar Dhow: I add this because it is so rarely used, but is such a good escort.  With the rig option, you get four grav hooks to bring some to the table for cheap, since all of the new tau ships only bring wardens for the fight.  In a wolfpack of six, these escorts are very dangerous to any slow moving vessel like imperial or ork cruisers, since they have individual broadside strengths, effectively doubling their firepower if properly placed.  Also, they are just cool looking and are the only escort with two shields. Take the rig!

The Emmisary: the standard light cruiser gives up durability for insane firepower.  While the messenger was able to be bumped up to six hits for cheap, this vessel takes a 6+ prow and a mean additude.  Far better equpped then its merchant counterpart, they can be a major threat to much larger ships with a heavy lance battery and torpedos, tow in wardens, or provide a fighter screen. Fly these bad boys in sqauds of 2, you will not be disappointed!  This vessel only has 4 hits, so use them wisely.

The Protector: this vessel is a little schitzophrenic.  While it was significantly weakened in the new rules for the price of a 90 degree turn. You may argue that the trade for a st 10 weapon battery is worth it, but losing one torp strength and one launch capacity is a huge tactical shift. Instead of functioning as a torpedo platform, it is now a mixed gunship.  I personally do not agree with the 90 degree turn choice, though it does help prevent the vessel from being flanked, I would rather have a ship that can hold its own and assist better in the ordnance phase.  The 5 point reduction is nice though.  Another point is that for a phalanx vessel, it only has 6 hits, making it a poor choice for the job.  It has problems both giving and receiving hits, and makes the user torn on lock on or reload ordnance.  The lances should all be standard 45 cm instead of having a second, weaker version.

The Custodian: there has been a lot of argument over this vessel in regards to its classification as a battleship. I feel that energy could have been better served for the protector and its armament then on the custodian.  This vessel was given a huge boost in power with the new rules. Better batteries, stronger torps, and a launch capacity still within the realm of usefulness. The price went up, but so did its usefulness.  The only thing that bugs me is its shield rating of 3, when it should be 4. If you want to designate it as a battleship, give it 12 hits or 4 shields. Even cheaper, better armed imperial battleships have both 12 hits and 4 shields.  Still, it has tracking systems, so it rerolls its turrets and ignores range penalties. 


Conclusion: of all the major overhauls for the bfg fleets, this one was successful over most areas. However, the fleet design and tactics require a durability that simply is not there. Either there is too little punch in their mainline cruisers or too few hits to survive a broadside from another ship.  I feel some decisions were made in response to the abuses of the original tau list, instead of letting this one shine on its own merits.  It is still a diverse and powerful list, but the original intent, I feel, of the previous versions was to show how the tau adapted to fighting their most common enemies (orks, nids, imps) while remaining weaker against the foes they encounter less frequently (all eldar, necrons, chaos).  The old list showed this specialization with greater ordnance numbers which those factions suffer from the most, showing the tau capitalizing on this weakness. Now it seems the push for a generalist fleet with no background support has made them weaker against all targets, which is not supposed to be the goal.

Pros:
Powerful at medium to long range thanks to variable speed torps
good fleet coherancy
Lots of options from old and new fleets, function well across generational divide.
Great escorts and a potent battleship
emmisaries are very flexible.
good ordnance concentration.

Cons:
no longer dominant in the ordnance phase without explorer assistance.
all grav hooks are warden specific.
schitzophrenic protector armament.
reliance on two special orders instead of one (lock on and reload ordnance)
overall reduction in protector power weakens backbone of the fleet.
Generalization reduces built in strengths from previous fleet
point costs add up poorly for tournament play

Suggested resolutions
Make ld commanders point cost consistant to allow for better point allocation
Increase the protectors torpedo to 6, lc to 2.  Reduce turn to 45.
Allow the emmisary to buy one more hit point for 10 pts. Or allow grav hooks to carry dhows and orcas.
increase castellan wb to 3 again or reduce cost to 45 points.
Increase dhow rig capacity to 6. Increase cost by 10 points.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 07:53:40 PM by Zelnik »

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2012, 07:24:00 PM »
Hi Zelnik,

some quick notes:

In the Emissary paragraph you mention Messenger where you mean Merchant.

The Protector should ever and always be 90* turns. If I had a veto I would veto it. ;)

The Castellan, a reduce of 5pts, kay. It has 45cm range railguns which in a group add a punch. Plus it is a different choice now compared to the Defender.

The command point costs is just like Tau Armada. I like the offset from usual fleets.
iirc I was able to build a 1500 list with competitve intent without wasted points.

---

the gameplay is very different from the old versions. Which was the intent. The FW list was not special enough compared to the SG Tau Armada list. I gave many games with project distant darkness which had less weaponry then this FW list and I managed succes.

And when you say succes and defeats in the opening that's what it should be. An all winner or all loser race isn't what we strife for. right? ;)

Thing is, this is a raider fleet, the others battlefleets.



edit: nice to see your grog o matic back. :)

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2012, 07:41:14 PM »
I just had a look at the rules... you're right about the castellan! I thought it was a 30cm shooter! The 50 point cost should remain on that note

I would rather see a stronger and less manuverable protector, it is just not worth the same cost as an imperial cruiser at this point.  Can you explain why you prefer it weaker?

I view this fleet as what the true battlefleet should be, and the other an artifact of an older time, and more fluffy.  I also hate pewter minis :)

I will edit the messenger/merchant typo when I get home

Offline LuCarD

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2012, 07:54:15 PM »
The 90* turns Protector makes a tau fleet much more versatile. In a 1500pts I always pair up 2 protectors to give some major threats and cover from the rear of the fleet.

I do think the 1 LB is a waste of resources, I would have preferred  more speed or more lance range or a grav hook instead of a LB

I also really like the emmisaries but for some reason I am always suprised by their slow speed. For a light cruiser like this the speed should really be 25. Also the emmisary cannot be used for fightscreen because the LB has only Barracuda support.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2012, 08:03:04 PM »
What I am going to propose is a 2012 faq that resolves odds and ends in the rules, far smaller in scope then the 2010. Just little things to resolve the issues in the individual fleets.

I feel that losing the lb would take away the character of the ship. Increase the cost to 190, and give it back its launch capacity.

The emmisary is not the only light cruiser in the game to have speed 20, but how about this option, 25cm speed, but it can purchase 1 additional hit and shield and reduce its speed back down to 20 cm.  Say for 10 more points

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2012, 08:13:48 PM »
What shall we compare the FW Protector vs the Protector '2010'?

FW 190pts
6 hits - 20cm speed - 45* turns - shields 2- 6+/5+ armour - 3 turrets

6 missiles
6 railguns @ 45cm (6 front 2/2 left/right)
2 ion cannon @ 45cm (front)
2 launch bays

-----
'2010' standard t'olku - 185pts
6 hits - 20cm speed - 90* turns - shields 2- 6+/5+ armour - 3 turrets

5 missiles
10 railguns @ 45cm (10 front 2/2 left/right)
2 ion @ 30cm (2 front 1/1 left/right)
1 launch bay

=========
For a drop of 5pts we do see:
-1 launch bay
-1 missile
-15cm IC range

+ 4 railguns
+ arcs on IC
+ turn rate

========
So on a drive by the '2010' does more damage (2rg vs 2rg+1c) when being caught close range. The one drop missile can be felt, but with the Tau rules (on a 6 missiles fall out) a str6 wave could end up less in the end. The single launch bay is perhaps not ideal for a Manta (hence I recommended a Tigershark fighter bomber option), but the barracuda is ideal to remove enemy AC on cap to clear the way for missiles. But agreed, the FW does a better job at this.

The better turn rate must be used to get a better shooting position within 30cm to use maximum of the increased gunnery.

The FW version is more forgiving in positioning at the way in, until the point you get close. The 2010 version can do come to new heading and do a full 180* in one turn! Blast them engines!


Now a second point, the addition of the variant in 2010. It can only be taken if you have two Tol'ku. But what does that mean if we have three.

The variant:
'2010' vior'la extra - 185pts

6 hits - 20cm speed - 90* turns - shields 2- 6+/5+ armour - 3 turrets

5 missiles
8 railguns @ 45cm (10 front 2/2 left/right)
2 ion @ 45cm (2 front)
1 launch bay

========
3 times FW
FW 570pts

18 missiles
18 railguns @ 45cm (18 front 6/6 left/right)
6 ion cannon @ 45cm (front)
6 launch bays
--
2010 2 time tolku 1 time vior'la
15 missiles
28 railguns @ 45cm (28 front 6/6 left/right)
4 ion @ 30cm (4 front 2/2 left/right)
2 ion @ 45cm (2 front)
3 launch bay
========


In the end the 2010 version is more difficult to use. But a better raider. Needs better positioning. The FW cuts down to the quite similar Hero. The 2010 has a different job.




warning -
the emissary for its role and intention is a 25cm speed vessel.
2 lb on the protector would overpower it. Plus not fit the model. ;)

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2012, 09:16:52 PM »
I prefer the fw version myself becauase it lends itself better to the phalanx tactic.   I do agree with your math though.

How would you fix the emmissary then? Do you like the idea of giving it an additional optional hit?

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2012, 10:04:26 PM »
Excellent review! I really like the ideas you have. On the Protector tho I always thought it was a bit of their take on an improvement of the Dauntless (kind of like the original Hero was based off their experience with Lunars) or an evolution of the hero to a smaller more maneuverable design. That said I think it would have worked better with a 5/5 railgun p/s 1/1 ion cannon and 6 torps for around 170/180 or the option of 2-3 launch bays in exchange for either the lances (preferably) or the torps (meh, but makes more sense) with a 20ish point increase for launch.

This would allow for either a powerful light cruiser similar in idea to the Hero, or a decent light carrier with enough fire power to defend itself (something like a Dauntless/Defiant mix).
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2012, 10:45:19 PM »
If you would read all of the backgrounds for the Protector, it was meant to be a replacement to the Hero. This was never in question, it was just a matter of what direction was taken (ordnance or direct fire).

Seriously, sometimes I wonder if you actually read the background information on these things, Andrew. This is not 40k where you can make rules that completely ignore the background.  The reason for it's design MATTERS here.

Remember, the Hero is several hundred years old, outdated, and about as "old warhorse" as it gets by the time the Protector was designed.  The only reason why the Air Caste didn't want to get rid of it is because it was A. Easy to build and B. Effective at what it did (even if it was not efficient at it).

The Tau know better then to just throw them away, so they are used frequently as system defense ships on worlds where their slower FTL does not hinder their job. Remember, the Protector can go DOUBLE the FTL speed of the Hero, which makes it a far more versatile vessel overall. 

I just prefer to have the Hero as a tougher, more ordnance heavy ship killer then a direct fire raider.


Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2012, 02:27:53 AM »
The Custodian
Yes, it should have 4 shields and yes it should count as a cruiser! Manoeuvrability is the Tau modus operandi and it would not only be in keeping with this but would also make it easier to keep the fleet together. Just because it is the BB of the Tau fleet there's no reason for it to be classified as a BB with regards to turning ability. It has 10 hits ffs.


The Protector
Yes, it is a little light in punch. Yes, it is a little light in Ordnance (comparatively) and yes it is a little light to be used as a line cruiser. However, it does, I feel have as much firepower, AC and hits as could feasibly be crammed into the model. For any lack, blame FW for their inability to grasp the notion of scale. It is more in keeping with the Tau philosophy of war than their old sluggish vessels. If it did not have the 90° turns then it would be a totally pointless vessel. The only potential buff that this vessel could really get is a slight points decrease.


The Emissary
Yes, it is fragile and yes it should have 25cm speed. No it should not have any more survivability than it does. It is tiny and already has a fair bit packed into its tiny frame. Again FW and their inability to grasp scale are to blame.


The Castellan
It's poo. Too expensive.


The Warden
Compared to the Orca it's weak. Compared to a Firestorm it's meh. Firestorms are weak. Paying 5 pts per ship for a bit of extra speed is not my idea of a bargain. This ship should have been completely different to the Orca. It should have been something like 4WB, 30cm speed and armour 4+ for like 20 pts. Cheap hard hitting ships that aren't meant to hang around for a dogfight. Looking at the model, I can't imagine how 5+ armour is justified (presumably just hand-waived away).


The Dhow
Novelty ship. Sure, increase the rig by up to 2 hooks. Doesn't overpower the Dhows, since they're so weak anyway. Great manoeuvrability and great shields and great total firepower. On the other hand a great cost to purchase, a great susceptibility to ordnance and a great fat lot of good its firepower does you when you can't get into position to use it because they're so slow.
  :o Not an impressive vessel. Novelty.


Note to all: The word "than" should be used in most cases, as opposed to "then". The former is used in comparisons. I would rather do activity X than activity Y. Another example;  "Faster, tougher and better equipped than its Orca cousin ..." (The Warden's not tougher than the Orca, btw. In fact, due to its increased cost, it's weaker). On the other hand the word "then" is used in contingencies. For example; If you're going to take a Custodian then I would recommend taking some Wardens to accompany it. THAN = comparisons, THEN = contingencies. I hope that helps clarify it for you non-English speakers (I'm looking at you Americans!).



Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2012, 03:30:30 AM »
Umm wow uncalled for much? If you didnt understand what I wrote a simple "can you please explain" would go a little better  ;).

Ill break it down for you.

Excellent review! I really like the ideas you have.

seems straight forward enough

On the Protector tho I always thought it was a bit of their take on an improvement of the Dauntless (kind of like the original Hero was based off their experience with Lunars) or an evolution of the hero to a smaller more maneuverable design.

Once again pretty straight forward, they have Heros, they need newer better ships and a light cruiser design allows them a tactically better platform that fits with the style of attack that their warriors are more familiar with. Remember the main purposes of the new battle fleet was to steer away from the cargo ship mentality of big and lumbering and to better integrate the fire warriors with the crew instead of just having them man the guns.

That said I think it would have worked better with a 5/5 railgun p/s 1/1 ion cannon and 6 torps for around 170/180

The rules were actually a take on both the Hero and Protector rules that are already out(go figure ::)) The idea behind this being that they would not invest so much resources on a vessel design that is so maneuverable and not use everything available to them in order to take full advantage of it. By placing all of the weapons on the p/s they would have the same ability to focus fire that they have always had and be able to perform the flanking maneuvers the Hero would be unable to accomplish while still bringing a significant weight of fire to the enemy (fixed forward guns on Tau really?) 

or the option of 2-3 launch bays in exchange for either the lances (preferably) or the torps (meh, but makes more sense) with a 20ish point increase for launch.

Obviously they have significant experience with attack craft and any cruiser design they come out with should have a variant to acknowledge that, I also found it strange that with their experiences they would still have mixed gunship/ carriers instead of following the design style of the Emissary. I think the preferable way to  represent this is to remove the lances and add launch on a one for one basis (with a slight increase in points no more than 20) or if staying strictly with the design style represented by the Emissary then replacing the torps with a slight deviation of 1 launch for two torps instead of 2 launch for 3 torps. (4 launch light cruisers just don't feel right and I really dislike that it would still be a mixed type cruiser)

This would allow for either a powerful light cruiser similar in idea to the Hero, or a decent light carrier with enough fire power to defend itself (something like a Dauntless/Defiant mix).

This all comes back to what I said in the beginning, because even in its current form it is not a direct replacement for the Hero (a true line cruiser in design and purpose), it is in fact an advanced Dauntless or scaled down Hero (or the evolution of the Hero design if you will)


The Custodian
Yes, it should have 4 shields and yes it should count as a cruiser! Manoeuvrability is the Tau modus operandi and it would not only be in keeping with this but would also make it easier to keep the fleet together. Just because it is the BB of the Tau fleet there's no reason for it to be classified as a BB with regards to turning ability. It has 10 hits ffs.


I'm not sold on 4 shields, 3 seems quite fitting as it is a large cruiser (grand cruiser if were using BFG vernacular) I am also agreed that it should not be a "battleship".

The Protector
Yes, it is a little light in punch. Yes, it is a little light in Ordnance (comparatively) and yes it is a little light to be used as a line cruiser. However, it does, I feel have as much firepower, AC and hits as could feasibly be crammed into the model. For any lack, blame FW for their inability to grasp the notion of scale. It is more in keeping with the Tau philosophy of war than their old sluggish vessels. If it did not have the 90° turns then it would be a totally pointless vessel. The only potential buff that this vessel could really get is a slight points decrease.


Same as I posted earlier, basically should have variants for launch/gun specific.

The Emissary
Yes, it is fragile and yes it should have 25cm speed. No it should not have any more survivability than it does. It is tiny and already has a fair bit packed into its tiny frame. Again FW and their inability to grasp scale are to blame.


I also think this is fitting with the fluff, how would a race feel if you showed up to a negotiation with a full fledged war ship?

The Castellan
It's poo. Too expensive.


I thought these were pretty awesome myself, staying @ midrange allows them to hang behind the bigger ships and be effective.

The Warden
Compared to the Orca it's weak. Compared to a Firestorm it's meh. Firestorms are weak. Paying 5 pts per ship for a bit of extra speed is not my idea of a bargain. This ship should have been completely different to the Orca. It should have been something like 4WB, 30cm speed and armour 4+ for like 20 pts. Cheap hard hitting ships that aren't meant to hang around for a dogfight. Looking at the model, I can't imagine how 5+ armour is justified (presumably just hand-waived away).


Add a turret and make the railguns l/f/r along with the ion cannon.

The Dhow
Novelty ship. Sure, increase the rig by up to 2 hooks. Doesn't overpower the Dhows, since they're so weak anyway. Great manoeuvrability and great shields and great total firepower. On the other hand a great cost to purchase, a great susceptibility to ordnance and a great fat lot of good its firepower does you when you can't get into position to use it because they're so slow.
  :o Not an impressive vessel. Novelty.

^

Note to all: The word "than" should be used in most cases, as opposed to "then". The former is used in comparisons. I would rather do activity X than activity Y. Another example;  "Faster, tougher and better equipped than its Orca cousin ..." (The Warden's not tougher than the Orca, btw. In fact, due to its increased cost, it's weaker). On the other hand the word "then" is used in contingencies. For example; If you're going to take a Custodian then I would recommend taking some Wardens to accompany it. THAN = comparisons, THEN = contingencies. I hope that helps clarify it for you non-English speakers (I'm looking at you Americans!).

well than Im probably guilty :(

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2012, 04:00:07 AM »
...Andrew. my apologies, I misread your post and I was rushed at the time. The whole necron fiasco does not help since we agree on zero aspects of that insane list.

You will also have to forgive Sig. He is even angrier then I am, and hates everything about the 2010 faq.


Sig.

On the custodian, thanks for agreeing on the fourth shield. I am personally on the fence about the "grand cruiser" designation.  the difference is mostly in 5 cm before turning. My only argument  -against- it is that it has battleship equivalent firepower, and no grand cruiser in the game has more then 3 shields.  When it comes to scale, it is bigger then the Necron tomb ship, which has 12 full hits, and just as big as any Orc battleship, which has 12 full hits. Don't consider the Tau to be small, just consider human ships to be unnecessarily large.

On the issue of scale, I don't hold that against the Tau ships because I like the idea of a ship that can go toe-to-toe with an imperial vessel that is smaller due to more advanced technology, automation and miniaturization.  The increase of 1 LC and/or 1 torpedo will not offend scale purists I think.  Don't forget that a protector is larger then the dauntless mini, and is just as wide as an imperial cruiser is long (I just did the comparison), so I find your scale argument unconvincing :D

The Emiisary is about the same size as the Shrowd, and slightly shorter then a dauntless.

Your argument on the orca vs warden is... sorry Sig, but stupid. Painfully stupid.  Better armor, better speed, better weapon allocation.  Armor is determined by the materials that make the ship, and clearly the tau have done something to improve their materials. The only difference between it and the Firestorm is one turret, a FLR lance, and ten points cheaper. 



I like my dhows.. shadap.. just because they are slow... :<

And your math is off on the warden/orca as well.  Sorry sig, you will have to admit you are wrong for once.


And if SCALE Is your issue with hits, tell me why the Stronghold, a ship ONLY dwarfed in size by the HULK and Kroot war sphere, is 10 hits?



Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2012, 04:09:43 AM »
elnik,

as for the Emissary, the speed bump, 25cm speed is what it needs. It is a diplomatic ship. It wants speed & turns to get out whenever possible. Hey, 5d6 aaf would be fitting as well. ;)

In which fluff it is stated that the Hero is being replaced by the Protector. I see it more as an expansion and/or addition.

Plus we all know the Hero is a big design mistake by them in Armada. They talk about a ship that was supposed to meet a Lunar, but failed according fluff. Yet we see a ship that is as expensive as a Lunar plus it can take down a Lunar on its own. It is better then a Lunar.
The 'fix' was making it a dependant ship (1 other cruiser needed to take one), that is backwards balancing.

The Hero should have weaker armament to fit its background role.

-warning
the Warden & Orca both have 5+ armour. And I like the Warden due better speed and flexible IC.

I did measuring  a Protector once in a scale thing (based of the what the real dimensions of a Manta would be! It ended up perfectly in scale in the universe where Imperial cruisers are 3km long. It was 2/3 of the IN cruiser.

Funnily enough I think the Necron tombship is small and should not have 12 hits at all. 10 hits max.

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2012, 04:36:44 AM »
...Andrew. my apologies, I misread your post and I was rushed at the time. The whole necron fiasco does not help since we agree on zero aspects of that insane list.

No worries :) the necron stuff is a cluster ::) and it appears to have been abandoned.

You will also have to forgive Sig. He is even angrier then I am, and hates everything about the 2010 faq.

Teal is the color of fury  ;D

Sig.

On the custodian, thanks for agreeing on the fourth shield. I am personally on the fence about the "grand cruiser" designation.  the difference is mostly in 5 cm before turning. My only argument  -against- it is that it has battleship equivalent firepower, and no grand cruiser in the game has more then 3 shields.  When it comes to scale, it is bigger then the Necron tomb ship, which has 12 full hits, and just as big as any Orc battleship, which has 12 full hits. Don't consider the Tau to be small, just consider human ships to be unnecessarily large.

On the issue of scale, I don't hold that against the Tau ships because I like the idea of a ship that can go toe-to-toe with an imperial vessel that is smaller due to more advanced technology, automation and miniaturization.  The increase of 1 LC and/or 1 torpedo will not offend scale purists I think.  Don't forget that a protector is larger then the dauntless mini, and is just as wide as an imperial cruiser is long (I just did the comparison), so I find your scale argument unconvincing :D

The Emiisary is about the same size as the Shrowd, and slightly shorter then a dauntless.

Your argument on the orca vs warden is... sorry Sig, but stupid. Painfully stupid.  Better armor, better speed, better weapon allocation.  Armor is determined by the materials that make the ship, and clearly the tau have done something to improve their materials. The only difference between it and the Firestorm is one turret, a FLR lance, and ten points cheaper. 

same armor, 5 cm speed boost, better ion cannon arc but the rules state front only for the rail guns :\  They are far superior (points wise) to firestorms tho, and I like some firestorms.

I like my dhows.. shadap.. just because they are slow... :<

And your math is off on the warden/orca as well.  Sorry sig, you will have to admit you are wrong for once.


And if SCALE Is your issue with hits, tell me why the Stronghold, a ship ONLY dwarfed in size by the HULK and Kroot war sphere, is 10 hits?

Size matters not. Everything is only as big as the tip of the stand anyway.

elnik,

as for the Emissary, the speed bump, 25cm speed is what it needs. It is a diplomatic ship. It wants speed & turns to get out whenever possible. Hey, 5d6 aaf would be fitting as well. ;)

sounds ok, but its not overpriced right now (its even carrying at least 10pts, more like 20, of extra cost for the wardens it can bring) so if it gets any boosts it needs a price increase

In which fluff it is stated that the Hero is being replaced by the Protector. I see it more as an expansion and/or addition.

Based on the mission envisioned for the Lar‟shi cruiser, the Lar‟shi‟vre “Protector” cruiser is the primary combat vessel of the Kor‟or‟vesh. Not a direct replacement as I stated but it was designed to fulfill the same purpose according to fluff.

Plus we all know the Hero is a big design mistake by them in Armada. They talk about a ship that was supposed to meet a Lunar, but failed according fluff. Yet we see a ship that is as expensive as a Lunar plus it can take down a Lunar on its own. It is better then a Lunar.
The 'fix' was making it a dependant ship (1 other cruiser needed to take one), that is backwards balancing.

The Hero should have weaker armament to fit its background role.

yup

-warning
the Warden & Orca both have 5+ armour. And I like the Warden due better speed and flexible IC.

I did measuring  a Protector once in a scale thing (based of the what the real dimensions of a Manta would be! It ended up perfectly in scale in the universe where Imperial cruisers are 3km long. It was 2/3 of the IN cruiser.

Funnily enough I think the Necron tombship is small and should not have 12 hits at all. 10 hits max.


I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2012, 05:16:28 AM »
Your argument on the orca vs warden is... sorry Sig, but stupid. Painfully stupid.  Better armor, better speed, better weapon allocation.  Armor is determined by the materials that make the ship, and clearly the tau have done something to improve their materials. The only difference between it and the Firestorm is one turret, a FLR lance, and ten points cheaper. 

And your math is off on the warden/orca as well.  Sorry sig, you will have to admit you are wrong for once.

Ahem. Let me tackle your points one at a time eh?

Firstly, better armour - nup, they have the same armour, same shields, same turrets. Also same firepower and turn rate.

Secondly, better speed - yup, they get +5cm speed.

Thirdly, better weapon allocation - nup, they're just as boned as the Orca. I cannot think of a single instance where this arc swap would come in useful. So you've locked on and sailed past your target? OK, so you get 3 locked on lances (2.25 hits average) vs the Orcas turning to bring all guns to bear and getting 1.5 hits + 6WBs worth of hits, which is what, +0.625 assuming equal distribution amongst 5+/6+ armour and each column. So a loss of 0.125, hits assuming you never get 4+ armour and you can't manipulate the circumstances to get better than an equal distribution (which if you can't you're doing something wrong).

So you've turned and are still out of arc? That gives you 3 lances vs 6WBs right? No, CTNH from the Orcas will put them in arc and give 2L + 3WB. Even. So really, you're talking about the times that you can't go on orders (because you're braced or you've failed your test) and cannot bring a target to bear in the forward arc. Yeah, that'll happen a lot.

The fact is that both the Warden and the Orca are front fire arc specialists. They do their best work firing at a target to the fore and always strive to be able to do so. Which weapon can swing is irrelevant.

So, now let's consider a scenario. You've got 2 Explorers providing 6 hooks. It would cost 150 pts to fill all those hooks with Orcas, but the same points will only fill 5 using Wardens. So you've got some extra speed, and the extra minuscule weapon swing versatility and the option to fill another hook should points allow (meaning the Orca player would be able to upgrade his leader instead, or buy a re-roll or something). The Orca player has instead an extra ship. That's an extra hit, an extra shield and an extra 5WBe firepower. Orcas win. An extra 5cm speed is not worth the loss of survivability or firepower.


Now, let's look at the Firestorm. This ship is, by and large, a rubbish ship. It's a Sword with an extra pip of firepower. However, unlike the Orca/Warden comparison, the Firestorm is actually less versatile than the Sword. Firstly, it has mixed weaponry compared to the Swords "pure". This seems like an advantage, but only if you have no idea what you'll be coming up against. Since the vast majority of the time you do know, the advantage of the Sword lies in that you'll either be taking it as a hard counter to the opponent or leaving it alone as subpar. Also, the Sword does not have to fire to the fore arc. The extra weapon swing on its armaments is actually relevant. This means it can present a much better abeam aspect and also LO more often, since it has less need to turn to face. These advantages to the Sword actually compensate fully for the lost pip of firepower compared to the Firestorm. The Firestorm is however 5 pts more expensive. Firestorm = sucky.

Comparing the Warden to the Firestorm we see the Firestorm cost 5 pts more and gain an extra turret. No, it does not cost 10 pts more, it's 5 pts. You are paying 5 pts for the hook in the cost of the parent ship, regardless of whether an escort is taken or not. So the real cost of a Warden is 35 pts.  Again, both the Warden and the Firestorm need to fire forward to be useful, so again ignore that reversal of swing. So it's just 5 pts for an extra turret. Eh, given that ordnance is the biggest enemy of escorts that's actually close to reasonable. The two ships are pretty much comparable. You'll get an extra Warden for every 7 Firestorms, but you'll lose less Firestorms to AC. So, given that the Firestorm = sucky and Warden = Firestorm, it stands to reason that Warden = sucky. This is even more apparent when you take into account that if you don't take your full complement of Wardens you're just throwing away 15 pts for every Custodian. An IN player, on the other hand, can feel free to ignore the Firestorm option and indeed can ignore good options, like the Cobra and Sword.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 05:44:25 AM by Sigoroth »