October 22, 2019, 01:36:08 PM

Author Topic: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG  (Read 119638 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #105 on: October 08, 2010, 09:00:40 PM »
Mainly simply because I like the idea of the original rules the best, and I was surprised no one has tried to modify them, rather than FW Tau.  Has anyone endeavoured to do this, or is FW Tau seen to be the real deal.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #106 on: October 08, 2010, 09:35:54 PM »
What?
Armada Tau is about the metal ships sold by Games Workshop.
FW Tau (and this draft) is about the resin ships sold by Forgeworld.

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #107 on: October 08, 2010, 11:07:39 PM »
GW Tau isn't broken so why fix it?

Offline commander

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #108 on: October 08, 2010, 11:12:27 PM »
GW Tau not broken??? Don't get me started! Hero anyone?

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #109 on: October 08, 2010, 11:20:28 PM »
So? You need a Merchant for every Hero you want included anyway. Comes out effectively to an expensive 285 points (180+105). I don't mind.

Offline KivArn

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #110 on: October 08, 2010, 11:37:32 PM »
Apart from you don't have to take a merchant... you can take an explorer.... 230 points and 8 resilient bombers! Yes please!!

Anyway, that's another discussion for another thread ;) The FW ships and CPF rules are an alternative fleet to the Tau rules in Armada, similar to the Armageddon fleet in comparison to the Gothic fleet. 2 Different fleets with different ships, both same race :)

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #111 on: October 09, 2010, 12:02:36 AM »
I only mention Merchant bec its the cheapest. Yes you can bring an Explorer. Comes out now to an effective 410.

Offline KivArn

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #112 on: October 09, 2010, 12:06:30 AM »
The explorer is a much better ship than the merchant though, In 1500 points you can have 3 Explorers, 3 Heros and a spattering of escorts. That gives you a lot of ordnance each turn as well as 3 very strong cruisers!

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #113 on: October 09, 2010, 12:19:59 AM »
Yes so no major problems I would say.

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #114 on: October 09, 2010, 12:43:05 AM »
All fleets can field very competitive combos against some
But not all opponents

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #115 on: October 09, 2010, 06:03:18 AM »
Really don't like these rules. Some of the ships are a little off, but some are pretty majorly wrong. The Emissary and Protector, for example, should be more agile (90į turn!). I don't mind the large straight guns representing lances (unlike horizon and the model designer), but I would drop the AC compliment down to 1 for both of these, in fact, I'd halve the Custodians AC too. For the Emissary 1 AC, 3 torps, 2 prow WBs (F), deflector, 25cm speed, 90į turns, 4 hits, 1 shield, 2 turrets. The P/S weaponry could either be 2IC@30cmF, 2RG@45cmLF+RF or 2 grav hooks. Also optional 2nd shield.

The Lar'shri've T'olku is far more powerful than the base version. When in normal range 1 lance is worth roughly 3 WBs, and since Tau WBs don't suffer range penalties then the 12WB@45cm of the T'olku is equivalent to the 6WB+2L@45cm of the standard model. The 2L@30cm is much better than the 2TT and teensy weensy bit of extra sideways capable firepower. Mind you, if you drop the AC down to 1 and increase turns to 90į I don't think that the T'olku is all that bad. Most firepower forward, mainly guns and manoeuvrable. Make this the base Protector. Perhaps reduce the P/S railguns by 1 or 2.

I don't mind the 45cm range on the Custodians IC, but it should count as a cruiser to shorten its turn radius (it will still be the least manoeuvrable ship, since it's 45į) and, of course, reduce the AC.

The Warden should be 2IC. Love the 2IC Warden. If for some reason that is considered too powerful, even though escorts aren't considered all that powerful and to even take them you'd need to sacrifice firepower (Emissary) or invest a lot of points into the Custodian, then you could reduce their armour to 4+ or something. Not that I think they'd be too powerful.

The Castellan is ok.

As for the Citadel class commerce vessel I don't see how it could be the exact same model as the Bastion. It loses 2L@60cmL+R and 2 hits. That's a massive loss for no change of model. While I do think the Bastion is woefully overpriced, since I prefer the mixed AC/torps bay and don't like the proposed cutting beam changes I'd much rather just see the cost of the Bastion reduced than have the Citadel.






Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #116 on: October 09, 2010, 07:48:33 AM »
Admiral & Fracas,
you do not see the problem, that GW Tau fleet I posted is almost ubeatable. The problem is that the Hero is MUCH to good. Background vs stats anyone, especially you admiral considering your marine discussions!
The Explorer is too good in masses, the Merchant to poor.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #117 on: October 09, 2010, 08:03:31 AM »
Really don't like these rules. Some of the ships are a little off, but some are pretty majorly wrong. The Emissary and Protector, for example, should be more agile (90į turn!). I don't mind the large straight guns representing lances (unlike horizon and the model designer), but I would drop the AC compliment down to 1 for both of these, in fact, I'd halve the Custodians AC too. For the Emissary 1 AC, 3 torps, 2 prow WBs (F), deflector, 25cm speed, 90į turns, 4 hits, 1 shield, 2 turrets. The P/S weaponry could either be 2IC@30cmF, 2RG@45cmLF+RF or 2 grav hooks. Also optional 2nd shield.


The HAís have already decided unanimously that as a rule, Koríorívesh ships would be slightly faster vs. more agile when it comes to incorporating improvements. The Emissary was made faster, but it will not be a 90deg ship. A Tau Dauntless it is not. A LOT of playtesting went into making that thing right (it was the crux of the most complaints), and I am loath to revisit the thing yet again.

You think you and I disagree on everything? Ray and I really butt heads over the Custodian, with him wanting it to have 6 bays and me wanting it to have 8. Even after all the playtesting, Bob broke the tie on that one. By the way, the Smotherman formula is a good baseline tool, but playtesting is how we decide how much things cost.

A LOT of people have been saying they would prefer the Custodian to be more shooty than be yet another big carrier. I for one am hung up over how many flipping launch bays are on the model! However, Horizon has been poking me in the forehead over the Tau ever since we stapled the list closed, and I donít mind re-visiting this for a more shooty, slightly more ordnance-poor Custodian. Caveat: absolutely NO 60cm weapons.

Quote


The Lar'shri've T'olku is far more powerful than the base version. When in normal range 1 lance is worth roughly 3 WBs, and since Tau WBs don't suffer range penalties then the 12WB@45cm of the T'olku is equivalent to the 6WB+2L@45cm of the standard model. The 2L@30cm is much better than the 2TT and teensy weensy bit of extra sideways capable firepower. Mind you, if you drop the AC down to 1 and increase turns to 90į I don't think that the T'olku is all that bad. Most firepower forward, mainly guns and manoeuvrable. Make this the base Protector. Perhaps reduce the P/S railguns by 1 or 2.



Protectors were carefully playtested before the variants were codified. I donít mind revisiting this again to incorporate small tweaks to any or even all the variants, but we will likely NOT be re-doing these from scratch yet again. One serious proposal is to get rid of all the ship-internal tracking systems, give it to the Custodian as an external system like the Messenger and call it done. Protectors are NOT getting 90deg turns.

Quote


I don't mind the 45cm range on the Custodians IC, but it should count as a cruiser to shorten its turn radius (it will still be the least manoeuvrable ship, since it's 45į) and, of course, reduce the AC.



The Custodian is a battleship. I am willing however to revisit trading launch bays for more firepower. :) Again, no 60cm weapons, but Iím sure we agree on this last one.  :)

Quote



The Warden should be 2IC. Love the 2IC Warden. If for some reason that is considered too powerful, even though escorts aren't considered all that powerful and to even take them you'd need to sacrifice firepower (Emissary) or invest a lot of points into the Custodian, then you could reduce their armour to 4+ or something. Not that I think they'd be too powerful.




Sigoroth, this is actually a good point, but this isnít going to happen. Hold on, donít shoot me yet- there is actually a very valid reason for this one. Way back when the GW Tau were still being designed and we didnít even have models for them yet, we tested 2IC on the Orca. This little ship in squads beat up on Chaos and absolutely massacred Necrons. On the other hand, it was complete junk against Eldar, and the points they soaked up turned the Tau into the Eldarís punching bag. Playtest six of these and see what you get. If a model is absolute poison to one fleet and complete garbage to another, it is unbalanced and broken.

Trivia note- because Tau models didnít exist yet, I used my Space Marine fleet to simulate them. Howís that for blasphemy!!  :D

Quote


The Castellan is ok.



OMG- Sigoroth approves of something!!!    :o <faints>  :D

Quote



As for the Citadel class commerce vessel I don't see how it could be the exact same model as the Bastion. It loses 2L@60cmL+R and 2 hits. That's a massive loss for no change of model. While I do think the Bastion is woefully overpriced, since I prefer the mixed AC/torps bay and don't like the proposed cutting beam changes I'd much rather just see the cost of the Bastion reduced than have the Citadel.[/color]




Sigoroth, on this I cannot agree with you more. Thatís right folks, you heard it here first- Sigoroth and I agree on something.

Hereís our intent with the Citadel. In order to make a ďpureĒ Demiurg fleet viable, they need a ship we can price at 185 points. This is gospel, call it one of our guiding principles to the HAís. The biggest problem is that Forgeworld simply is NOT making any more ships for BFG, much less for the Demiurg in particular. What the means is that we need to create a ship thatís much cheaper than the Bastion but looks just about the same, kind of like the difference between a Mars and a Dictator, which except for two dorsal turrets and a prow bit is exactly the same model.

Hereís where it gets sticky: Another guiding principle is that we can fix the game however necessary as long as we donít break any of the core profiles in the rulebook or Armada. That came directly from Jervis himself. THATíS why weíre so resistant to wiping the slate on entire fleets, like you suggested for the Orks and Space Marines, but thatís beyond the scope of this post. The immediate problem is that we canít dump the Bastion, but we need a cheaper Demiurg ship so the fleet can be realized.

Hereís where it gets really sticky (as a side note). You know who to blame for the Bastion profile in Armada? Me. After the Stronghold was codified and hit the market, Forgeworld had a lot of initial success selling the model and without warning made a smaller one. Really- even Andy C didnít get the word until just weeks before it hit the street! He wrote me to basically say ďquick, make a Demiurg cruiser profile!Ē After some basic guidance from him, I did some playtesting and figured out what it should look like, then sent in the profile. I didnít hear anything for two months, during which time I received a few free samples for my time. My first thought? ďOh crap, this model is TINY!!Ē It didnít fit the profile at all, so I sent in another profile that more befit the model. Unfortunately, the first profile I sent in already hit the press for BFG Magazine, and thatís what the Bastion became. Because the Bastion profile had no complaints, it was kept for Armada, and my second profile was relegated to the dustbin. That second, smaller profile is what the Citadel is now.

Youíre right that thereís no way to model the Citadel. The best thing I can tell you is to not glue the rear antennas on, snip off some of the side and rear hull and call it a Citadel. The Bastion isnít going away, and we need a cheaper Demiurg ship to round out the fleet. IF giving it a different stand isnít good enough to tell the difference, snipping some of the hull and tail is a simple-simon way to generate a model that otherwise is never going to exist.

-   Nate

Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #118 on: October 09, 2010, 08:11:50 AM »
Hi,
playtesting and feedback around the globe on many forums showed that a 45* Emissary is not worthwhile taking in any incarnation.
There, said it ;)

Custodian has only 4 Manta Launch bays, not a single more. Dropping bays is something I heavily favour. The old list by the HA had the Custodian at 4 launch bays!!! and 8 missiles. I approve (check project distant darkness). 60cm not allowed is given.

The problem with 2 ion cannon is not the ion cannon but that Eldar in official rules are bad-broken ;)

I really do not understand your aversion towards 90* Protectors with fixed forward weapons. Emissary as well 90* fixed forward. Custodian as a grand cruiser.

aaah, just a lovely concept of an unique fleet.

I cannot imagine how your playtesting could approve of the current difference between the 2 Protectors.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #119 on: October 09, 2010, 08:12:07 AM »
Admiral & Fracas,
you do not see the problem, that GW Tau fleet I posted is almost ubeatable. The problem is that the Hero is MUCH to good. Background vs stats anyone, especially you admiral considering your marine discussions!
The Explorer is too good in masses, the Merchant to poor.

Horizon, I'll admit that the Hero is pretty good, but it isn't all that spectacular. A Devastation is only slightly more expensive, and it will clean its clock. That's saying a lot- I believe Tau were tailor-made to mash on Chaos. That's one of the reasons why I don't mind revisiting the Kor'or'vesh list. Well, that and I'm tired of you pounding divots into my forehead!

- Nate
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate