June 24, 2019, 02:58:51 PM

Author Topic: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview  (Read 18945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2012, 06:56:05 AM »
Quote
Andrew:
I too prefer the tactics of V1.0 despite the problems it had, and most players I know still use that system for los. I think on this scale ideally there should be some combination of the original (for play ability) and the current (for fairness) Or for example bm still must intersect los to cause a shift with blast markers placed in a direct line from stem to stem fanning outward, ships in base (or near base <1cm) contact will only be affected if the blast markers touch their base due to the natural placement. Ordnance attacking the ship must roll D6 to survive the blast markers no matter where they attack from. This actually allows ships to be protected a bit by staying on the far side of the ship.
I think the v1.0 are balanced & playable. Alas, I do not see a single improvement in either category with the new rules.

So:
Blastmarkers must be placed in line of fire : fanning out left/right with more markers.
Blastmarkers only touch the ship they are fired at (so nothing of moving BM to touch two ships:urgh)
If shooting at a ship a blastmarker will only cause a shift if it is in the line of fire.
Ordnance should only roll the D6 if the path goes through the marker. You have room/speed left to move around: no roll

So we have varying opinion on the ordnance attack :)

I just hate people taking 10 minutes to try and plot their course around every blast marker on the table to avoid 1 roll its stupid and a waste of time *of course I'm impatient also ::)

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

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2012, 07:00:53 AM »
Use a time setting per turn.

10 minutes and the clock is ticking.... heh

Plus, AC has the ruling it can turn at every moment as much as they want for a reason. To avoid trouble.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2012, 01:27:05 PM »
When taking on a capitol ship the best path of approach (assuming open space with no screening capitols ships of your own) is prow on to the side of the enemy with an approach angle towards their stern preferably  about parallel with them. This is actually usually very easy to accomplish as most players believe this is exactly what they want ::). You should at this point be locked on but with no cover this may be the difficult part. Now if you lined up right your ships front fire arc should be just over the stem of their ship. Now during their turn they have 2 options: move and shoot at an abeam escort likely either outside of 30cm, in a position requiring a turn to keep them in the side arc, or a combination of both. They can also burn retros and shoot at a closing escort with half effectiveness. Either way there's very limited effectiveness. At this point your next move would be into their rear arc preferably near the limit of your effective range to limit any counter attack they can muster. This is the only point the L/F/R weaponry comes into effect. The enemy then can move and turn, firing if your ships are in range once again at an abeam escort each turn after this your approach should be to bring yourself just into your effective range at the rear of their ship and pointed slightly in the opposite direction of the enemy so that all tho you are presenting your prow, they should only be able to see your side during their shooting phase. By turn 3 of this its obviously game over for the capitol ship, unless they still have other ships of course. Neither really sees a big difference here, excusing space marines/necrons (I include necrons just because I have never know one to brace against escorts ::)) or Eldar (any type) even vs Orks there's so little difference as too be a non issue (1 hit give or take) an explorer of course would wipe out either squadron with ordnance so that's a wash too (slight advantage to the extra turret on the sword tho, not that it would really matter).


Your opponents must have shit for brains to just let you get on their tail so easily.


Quote
Smotherman works for this purpose which is to compare one thing to another (I believe it was actually 313.5 points for an Imperial ship with the same stats as a Custodian and 105 points for one similar to the Emissary  but of course that doesn't take into account the Tau bombers) I did state that approximately 1 to 2 points is close to the price actually payed by the custodian/ emissary (if that ::)). Its one thing to say a ship has an extra 10 points added on but really does anyone think a Dauntless comes any where close to an Emissary, even with out escorts? The Custodian is quite close to accurate for its point cost.

No, it is not useful for anything at all. Smotherman is a flawed formula. As such, any values derived from it are flawed. It proves nothing. It shows nothing. It is useless. Worse than useless, it let's people think that they're on the right track when they aren't. Ignore this aberration. It should never have been published.

Quote
Hum... of course not really knowing the true effects of an expanding explosion on a surface of an energy barrier we can only make assumptions here however the chances seem much more likely that the edges of the ship would become more blurred than highlighted as in any explosion. Of course anything with enough force to actually cause damage to a vessel of any size would by its nature cause the ship to move away from the point of impact.

You're wrong on both counts. A good number of projectiles could just penetrate straight through the entire ship and continue on without slowing appreciably. This would leave a hole in the ship, some damage and alter its trajectory a fraction, but nothing major. Similarly there could be high explosive warheads that spread their energy over a large area and so impact very little on the trajectory of the ship. Further, we can assume that a ship isn't on a random course but rather a predetermined one and so it isn't unreasonable for thrusters to automatically kick in to correct any minor course upsets (after all, the ships aren't spun to face a random direction).

The other count is whether it would make the target easier to detect. Finding anything in space is hard. Having a sudden massive energy spike to work off would make it a good deal easier to know in what general direction to aim (so if anything WBs should have an easier time of it since they're area saturation weapons rather than precision scalpels like lances). Furthermore, the ship itself would act to block hard radiation, so anything on the other side of the explosion would have a much easier time determining exactly where the ship is due to the halo of radiation which surrounds it.

Of course, it could be hand-waived away as being screened by the explosions, or blurred, and to a degree this makes sense at least when the explosion is between the target and a new ship. Also, my wording may have been a bit strong here, since we really don't know what the putative effects would be, but what I mean is that you're wrong in that "the chances seem much more likely". To me they do not. An argument could be presented either way with no real way of knowing. I think it's more intuitive that an obstacle should only take effect when you're aiming at something behind it and I think the tactics involved are much more beneficial to the game as a whole.

Quote
However wrong you may be your right I should not have said that you shouldn't attempt to do what ever you want and I'm sorry. Also are you bringing up a legal term from the 16th century to try and move the focus off the fact that this entire argument is stupid  :P much as I enjoy a good bout especially with you I just don't see the point being that as you have pointed out I was mistaken in thinking that you were attempting to dissuade people from using a ship I feel is quite good. This all seems so pointless now with the Firestorm/Sword/Warden/Orca deal. (hence the current meaning of a moot point: an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance)

You misunderstand, though that is perhaps itself understandable. I didn't cite the processes of moots simply to be facetious. Rather I was was trying to intimate that the Warden in its current form is lacking and that this is an appropriate place/time to discuss it. Just like in moots we don't really have any power to actually change a Warden but what we can do is come to some sort of consensus or at least an understanding. This may not seem like much but really that's what we're doing when we're discussing all attributes of the game. So what I meant to impart from my 'mootness' was that the discussion of the Warden is no more or less appropriate than any other.

The issue is whether or not it's worth its points. I hold that it isn't. You, and some others no doubt, hold that it is. Note that value is not the only issue I have with it, mind. But my reasons, to recap, are as follows:
  • You actually pay as much for a Warden as you do for a Sword but the Warden is conflicted, has lower field of fire and is less resilient.
- Counter; the Warden has more firepower. Rebuttal; this does not compensate fully.
  • You actually pay as much for a Warden as you would for a balanced (i.e., usable) Firestorm, but the Firestorm has an extra turret.
  • The Warden is much more constricted within the fleet, having an upper limit set by the number of hooks you can bring.
  • The Warden is a forced choice since you've already paid for hooks. Escorts are generally not worth their points (else you'd see all escort fleets) and as such compulsory escorts are a disadvantage.

To my mind the Warden would be just on a par with the Sword if it cost 35 pts and you could take them without limit and leave them without penalty. Paying part cost in their capital ships and having limited squadron composition choices are disadvantages not made up for in the final product. If the Custodian was able to tow Orcas then to my mind there would be no contest. The only time I'd consider the Warden over the Orca would be when I just happened to have 15 pts I just did not know what to do with.

For example, when the Kor'vattra first came out I was dismayed that hooks practically forced you to take escorts (which traditionally have performed very poorly for their points). Then I saw the Orca. It was quite a steal at its cost, even more so when you considered the ridiculously low cost of the Explorer. But even with a balanced parent vessel the Orca wasn't a bad little ship. You give up some of the luxuries but get a decently priced gunboat. So on the whole a positive experience.

Now with the Warden it's like "oh, ok, it's a faster Orca. So I'm getting back some of those luxuries, but paying for them. Aaaaaand I don't have the option to just take the Orca. Fuckin yay. I really don't want to have to pay for luxuries. Particularly when you're paying double what you should.


Quote
Why cant the Protector get the option to increase its hits to 8 for a decrease of 45* turn and a slight points increase? It already has precedent due to the Merchant rules, for that matter the Emissary could also see a raise to 6 hits but at a cost of speed maybe? These could also suffer from limitations due to construction limits and or the weapons loadouts.

Two reasons come to mind. Firstly, the Tau don't actually want to become less manoeuvrable. Presumably they would simply use the Hero as a stopgap measure (albeit an imperfect one) until they can remedy the situation and make a full line cruiser with 90° turns. Secondly, the model. There's just no way that it could warrant 8 hits. It'd be like seeing an 8 hit Dauntless. Yes, they're wingspan is nearly as long as a full cruiser and they're length is wider, but they're so thin. It would be like saying that Eldar cruisers should be 10 hits because of all the area their sails take up. It is this same reason that sees the Stronghold at 10 hits, though in that case I myself could see it being 12. Also, the damn Merchant should've just be 6 hits from the start. The option was added because so many people on the SG forums bitched about the huge size of the model (with attendant price tag) and its tiny number of hits. The ship was also over priced, so why they didn't just make it 6 hits instead of dicking around with an "upgrade" beats the hell out of me.

Quote
Quote
The Warden, which has sparked off so much debate, I would personally like its profile completely changed so that it cannot be so easily (or unfavourably) compared to the Orca. I would say drop it to 20 pts, give it 4WBs@30cmLFR, 30cm movement and 4+ armour. The ship itself looks very fast and very fragile. Hell, possibly drop it to 15 pts with 3WB@30cmF. Either way, make it a real raider and different to the Orca.
The addition of a Wb armed ship would be welcomed all tho that would leave out the lance armed version

Yes, but I see no reason why the Orca can't be included more easily in the fleet. I know that the Custodian has an internal bay designed specifically for Wardens but the Emissary has external hooks. Why can't it tow Orcas? This makes sense too, given that the Emissary was the first of the Kor'or'vesh ships built. Presumably it would have been towing Orcas around long before Wardens even showed up. I can't imagine any objections from a 'purity' standpoint either. Kor'vattra ships are already freely allowed in the Kor'or'vesh and it's not as if you couldn't take Wardens if you preferred. I also don't think that the Orca would be phased out like the rest of the Kor'vattra if the Warden were built with a different role in mind. As a true raider it wouldn't encroach upon the role of the Orca, and the Orca isn't constrained by an inefficient FTL capability either (since it's towed), unlike the rest of the Kor'vattra. Also, unlike the Defender, the Orca actually has manoeuvrability and even though it's not the fastest it's fast enough to keep up with the fleet.

Quote
Indeed there should be a lower price level for this, maybe bringing the WB range down and pricing it similar to an Infidel? or giving it an optional weapons load, perhaps something similar with the Warden (the Tau do seem to enjoy their variants after all)

There are people who like them as is, and the profile we have with them underwent a large amount of haggling and hand-wringing to arrive at in the first place. I'm personally not a fan, but I'm not opposed, in principle, to ill designed ships. Just in paying exorbitant prices for them. I am opposed to the notion of variants though. Variants for the original SG metal ships was fine; they were modular and variations could easily be represented. On the FW ships however there is no modularisation at all. Not even a difference in turrets. The only way that I would countenance variations is if they were included along with strict instructions to model the differences, as well as a clear profile picture demonstrating what those differences are. For example, you can see the differences between a Lunar and a Gothic by looking up their profile pictures in the BBB. The same should be done for any variations. How this would be done on such a small ship I have no idea.

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2012, 01:46:21 PM »
You might as well say they are unaffected by blast markers then. Until this ruling was made I never saw anyone have to make a roll for blast marker because everyone just flew around them. Regardless there's so much crap that should be fixed about ordnance its not funny and this is low on the totem pole imo. Personally I'd be ok with it if we saw a return to v1.0 bombers, attack craft waves limited in size to that of the parent ship and remove the massed turrets and escorting fighter rules. Really now that your limited in number to how many attack craft you can have in play there's not much call for a lot of the extra rules that came out about them.
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 #34 on: February 09, 2012, 03:38:04 PM »
So the current list of proposed changes thus far:

Custodian: re-assign to Grand Cruiser status.  I personally agree with this after repeated play, and the arguments for battleship status are extremely weak. 

Stronghold:increase hits to 12.  Something this large should not have 10 hits.

Emmisary: speed increase to 25 cm, remove "warden only" status for grav hooks (as a diplomatic vessel, it should allow for alien allies to be brought in to the fight)

Protector: optional 5 point increase, increase firepower of torpedos to 6 or lc to 2, reduce turn radius to 45.

Castellan: cost reduced to 45.

Dhow: cost reduced to 40, or speed increased to 25.

Warden: alternate pattern, 30cm, st 3 wb, 4+ armor.  25 points.

Bastion: either increase hits to 10, or reduce cost by 30 points.

Citidel: either increase its hits to 8, or reduce cost by 20 points.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 03:44:20 PM by Zelnik »

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2012, 04:11:21 PM »
if were proposing dropping the warden to a destroyer then the cost should be 20 for 3 weps and 25cm speed (this comes in at about 5 pts less than an iconoclast which has greater speed. If the warden was too have a variant weapons loadout then just one lance no weapons. If no change to destroyer add one turret and swap weapons arcs for no price change.

Emissary 25cm speed and reevaluate their cost. Removing the warden only status does make sense.

Protector 25cm speed has been proposed all tho its iffy, split prow weapons batteries to p/s l/r or just make them l/f/r, gunboat or carrier option: remove launch bays and increase lances to 2/2 or as a variant replace lances with launch bays (slight increase in points for upgrade). If just a torp or lance upgrade I wouldn't reduce the turning radius just points increase (10-15?).

Everything else sounds ok.
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 #36 on: February 09, 2012, 05:15:38 PM »
I feel the emm does not need a points shift, it is over priced as it is for a 4 hit cruiser.

I do not want to meddle too much with firing arcs in the protectors case.

I don't quite understand your warden suggestion

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2012, 07:34:22 PM »
Horizon's opinions in blue:

===
Custodian: re-assign to Grand Cruiser status. 
===
agreed

===
Stronghold:increase hits to 12.  Something this large should not have 10 hits.
===
agreed for me

===
Emmisary: speed increase to 25 cm, remove "warden only" status for grav hooks (as a diplomatic vessel, it should allow for alien allies to be brought in to the fight)
===
Sig's reasoning was good: Emmissaries had grav hooks before Wardens existed. So I agree on both points.

===
Protector: optional 5 point increase, increase firepower of torpedos to 6 or lc to 2, reduce turn radius to 45.
===
Must retain 90*. If people want I'd agree on a point drop. No other changes.

===
Castellan: cost reduced to 45.
===
agreed.

===
Dhow: cost reduced to 40, or speed increased to 25.
===
Dunno.

===
Warden: alternate pattern, 30cm, st 3 wb, 4+ armor.  25 points.
===
4+ armour: agreed. St3 wb, 25pts.
Sure. I could live with it. Though I do not mind the current version in any way!


===
Bastion: either increase hits to 10, or reduce cost by 30 points.
===
Citidel: either increase its hits to 8, or reduce cost by 20 points.
===
Point drops.

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2012, 07:53:55 PM »
Sorry what I was saying is that if it drops to 4+ with 3 weps then keep the speed at 25cm speed for 20 points

If this happens AND there is a variant it should replace the weapons with a single lance. (Personally I'd rather just see orcas as an option in this case but meh)

If the warden remains as is the fire arcs should be swapped on the weapons/ lance and have the added turret.
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 #39 on: February 09, 2012, 09:27:28 PM »
on the warden, Honestly, I like the idea of it keeping it's 5+ armor save, on the basis that it is the materials made that determine hull strength, not size.  If we were going to do an alternate pattern, it should keep it's armor but replace it's lance with 1 WB and 1 turret.

If we increase speed, then the armor goes down. 

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #40 on: February 10, 2012, 02:35:54 AM »
So the current list of proposed changes thus far:

Custodian: re-assign to Grand Cruiser status.  I personally agree with this after repeated play, and the arguments for battleship status are extremely weak. 

Yarp.

Stronghold:increase hits to 12.  Something this large should not have 10 hits.

I'd be willing to sign off on this, though a price increase would likely be in order.

Emmisary: speed increase to 25 cm, remove "warden only" status for grav hooks (as a diplomatic vessel, it should allow for alien allies to be brought in to the fight)

Yarp.

Protector: optional 5 point increase, increase firepower of torpedos to 6 or lc to 2, reduce turn radius to 45.

I'm dead against any of these myself. I'd sooner see a price decrease of 5 pts, even up to 10 pts, rather than give this tiny model more firepower, particularly in the ordnance department. Another possibility is giving it 45cm range on its IC as standard. I'm also dead against 45° turns on it.

Castellan: cost reduced to 45.

Yarp.

Dhow: cost reduced to 40, or speed increased to 25.

To be honest, it could use both. Remember, you're actually paying 50 pts for it currently, because it's hooked. Given its 6WBs are split into broadside arcs (worst possible utility) and the downsides of hooks and the strength of the competition ...

Warden: alternate pattern, 30cm, st 3 wb, 4+ armor.  25 points.

This is still much too weak. Remember, you'd be actually paying 30 pts for this ship, not 25, and this is worse than an Iconoclast (which is a rubbish ship) due to hooks.

Bastion: either increase hits to 10, or reduce cost by 30 points.

I don't think the model warrants an increase in hits. I would be happy with a points reduction. At 235 pts it's a reasonable choice.

Citidel: either increase its hits to 8, or reduce cost by 20 points.

This ship has no model of its own and as such I don't contemplate its use. I do however contemplate scratch building one. At which point it would be a 6 hit ship (if I made one that is). If you were inclined to grab a Bastion model and convert it then perhaps the Citadel could go up to 8 hits. I don't see how this would be done except to add some gun turrets to the Bastion to represent its extra firepower. However, the Citadel is actually pretty close to balanced at its current cost for its current hits. Maybe 5 pts over priced. Again this is from eyeballing, since I don't use this ship.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #41 on: February 10, 2012, 03:10:55 AM »
if were proposing dropping the warden to a destroyer then the cost should be 20 for 3 weps and 25cm speed (this comes in at about 5 pts less than an iconoclast which has greater speed. If the warden was too have a variant weapons loadout then just one lance no weapons. If no change to destroyer add one turret and swap weapons arcs for no price change.

When evaluating hooked vessels you have to take two specific things into account. One is that 5 pts of the cost is actually paid in the parent ship. The other is that the vessel should be worth more than a comparable balanced vessel from another race due to the downsides of hooks (fleet composition limitations, squadron limitations, forced inclusion, etc). Being hooked is a downside .Another thing to consider when making comparisons, just in general, is the comparison ships position, i.e., whether the ship you're comparing to is useful. For example, the Sword and the Cobra are both useful escorts in the IN fleet. They're used fairly frequently, though they do not compete with capital ships for priority.

The Iconoclast however, is rarely used. Like all Chaos escorts it is weak. It has 75% of the total firepower of a Cobra and does not fulfil the same, aggressive, role. It's really worth no more than 25 pts. Even then it'd be 'meh'. So when you compared to the Iconoclast you're right that it comes in less than the current Icono (for a slower ship), but it's not a balanced comparison because the Iconoclast is not balanced and because we want a better ship, since this one is hooked.

So, let's look at a starting profile and compare. So, let's say 30cm speed, 4+ armour, 4WB@30cmLFR. This profile is exactly +1 WB over an Iconoclast. An Iconoclast should cost no more than 25 pts. So let's start at 20 pts for this profile of Warden (+5 pts in parent ship gives a total of 25 pts). So same total price but the Warden has +1WB vs the Iconoclasts non-hooked status. I'd say the advantage is with the Warden in this comparison, since the 1 WB is probably worth slightly more than the downsides of the hook, but then again, even at 25 pts the Iconoclast is 'meh'. And you don't want to forced to take 'meh' ships.

Now comparing this profile to a Sword we have the same firepower but an increase in speed of 5cm and a 10 pt price decrease vs +1 armour and turret and non-hooked status. Presuming that we value the armour and turret at 5 pts each (or rather, a total of 10 pts for the two) then it just comes down to a 5cm speed boost vs non-hooked status. This seems fine to me, as we want hooked vessels to be good value for money (in essence they should be worth 5 pts more than they cost in total).

Now let's compare this vessel to an Orca. Just like the Sword/Firestorm comparison, all else being equal the weaponry should even out. A slight advantage to the Orca/Firestorm, but different roles and not enough of a difference to justify a price divergence. So it comes down to a difference of 1 pip of armour vs +50% speed. This is about right, perhaps a slight advantage to the Warden in this case, but that's made up for by the slight advantage in firepower of the Orca.

So with 4WB@30cmLFR, 4+ armour and 30cm speed for 20 pts the Warden would be balanced against the Orca, the Sword and a decent Iconoclast, all its closest matches. This method of comparison uses convergent evidence to arrive at its results and as such is quite reliable. Also, while better than non-hooked escorts, Orcas and Wardens are limited, so even if they're 'too good' they're not abusable. And really, an escort that is 'too good' is only just on a par with capital ships. If you make them 'meh' on the other hand then you're gimping a player by including ships with hooks in the fleet.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2012, 03:17:47 AM »
Custodian: re-assign to Grand Cruiser status.  I personally agree with this after repeated play, and the arguments for battleship status are extremely weak.

Stronghold:increase hits to 12.  Something this large should not have 10 hits. I really don't see why the cost should go up, it's already 350 points, more then a Retribution and not as good. More then an Oberon as well.

Emmisary: speed increase to 25 cm, remove "warden only" status for grav hooks (as a diplomatic vessel, it should allow for alien allies to be brought in to the fight)

Protector: Remove the 45cm, weaker battery option, make all weapons 45cm standard. cost remains the same.

Castellan: cost reduced to 45.

Dhow: cost reduced to 40 and speed increased to 25.

Warden: This appears to be something that will be the source of some discussion. personally, as this vessel is locked into the Custodian, I feel it should be slightly more powerful for it's points. IF we want another option, it should be just as effective and the same cost as it's alternative. 

Suggested stats: armor 4+, WB3, 2 turrets, 30cm speed.  (Andrew) Armor +4 WB4, 1 turret, 30cm speed (sig)  Armor 5+ WB 4, 1 turret, 25cm speed (me). 

Bastion: reduce cost by 20 points.

Citidel:  reduce cost by 20 points.

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2012, 03:44:24 AM »
So: 4wb 30cm speed 4+ 1t for 20pts... The only real issue I would have with this would be the speed 25cm seems more fitting with the rest of the fleet but that's meh especially if the light cruisers see an increase in speed.
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview
« Reply #44 on: February 10, 2012, 04:07:09 AM »
Yeah.


A Protector note:
perhaps this is an option, it is fiddling but it could mean the solution in the AC department without a big hassle.
Modelwise it has a large hangar for Manta's mounted on the keel. Along the prow it has hangars as well. These hangars are big enough for Orca dropships, thus big enough for Barracuda fighters. I know because I asked.

This could be done:
1 launch bay - Manta
1 launch bay - Barracuda
So it could launch 2 AC in total but always 1 of each.