October 22, 2019, 03:25:16 PM

Author Topic: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG  (Read 119658 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #360 on: November 19, 2010, 10:56:46 AM »
I don't get the issue. Will the Tau GC really suffer if it can only turn 45'? Is it really hard to get targets in its front arc if it can only turn 45'?

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #361 on: November 19, 2010, 02:19:32 PM »
The battleship will suffer trying to maintain fire concentration after the first pass.  Think about it.  Its at least two turns until he is shooting with anything besides the meager broadsides.  And it is a battleship.  Has the power and look of a battleship, don't take away the Kororvesh's battleship :)

I realize due to its ordnance the Custodian is superior to the Protector in that regard.  My point is the Custodian is not a support carrier.  It has 45cm guns and frontal fire arc.  If its going to be using half its purpose, it can't be skirting the battlefield.

It already has enough disadvantages currently.  I'll state them again if anyone cares to disagree.

Battleship cost.
Subpar battleship weapon's range.
Forced to close to be of best use.
Subpar battleship shielding means its no more resilient to closing-chart batteries than the armored prow Protector.
45* turns prevent coming to terms after the first fleet pass.
Weak HP for a battleship.

That said, I love most of how the Kor is now, I really do.  The more agile, more flimsy ships fit the fluff perfectly, and I hope the Custodian soon is corrected to match.  Just a few tweaks are needed.

90* turn and the missing 4th shield for the Custodian

Less certain but really feel Protectors are too expensive for what they do.  Certainly not 75 points more valuable than an Emissary, feels more Slaughter value.
Negatives of Protector variant is a bit too harsh.  Could use just a smidge more broadside strength.  Str4 and a lance is still paltry for a cruiser's broadside.

Castellan feels like a 45 point ship.  Its an Idolator with less gauranteed ignoring of right shift and trades a lance for torps, and slower.

Thats all I can think of thats not close to perfect.  Basically, the Tau are kind of like Eldar.  Fragile ships, only with less speed, a bit less manouverability, and less devastating firepower.  This leaves them in a delicate position to be something great and unique, but with careful loving :)

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #362 on: November 19, 2010, 02:33:15 PM »
LS: have you tried playing with the stats as they are against multiple opponents? I really don't think the custodian needs the 4th shield or 90' turns especially not both. The targeting array grants it a column shift @45 (Look at the mars, that column shift makes it just about the same as s10 batteries on the tyrant) and better defenses than any other ship it's size outside of eldar and necron with the capability to project that to friendly ships (I think the range needs to be a bit larger because of the model size). That means you are getting superior firepower on the first pass and higher equivalent broadsides with the capability to launch missiles without needing the target in teh prow arc. The custodian isn't weak by any stretch for not having 90' turns and CG's don't need BB level shields to survive. I know this because I nearly always field two vengeance when I play.
-Vaaish

Offline tinfish

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #363 on: November 19, 2010, 03:16:16 PM »
You should have tried a few games with the Custodian in the August version. The current one has 2 extra RB's, LB's & torpedoes. The previous one was underpowered, this one should be able to cause some damage closing then use bombers to protect itself while turning. If it keeps some Wardens close they can provide some covering fire as well.


Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #364 on: November 19, 2010, 08:44:43 PM »
The battleship will suffer trying to maintain fire concentration after the first pass.  Think about it.  Its at least two turns until he is shooting with anything besides the meager broadsides.  And it is a battleship.  Has the power and look of a battleship, don't take away the Kororvesh's battleship :)

A lot of the battleships will suffer concentration after the first pass and even then with the Tau ordnance, I wouldn't think this would be a problem. The last 2 tourney winners would seem to indicate that.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #365 on: November 19, 2010, 09:24:58 PM »
I'm confused Admiral, what to GW tau have to do with it?  Do GW tau fancy running their Explorers on the front line?  The Custodian is a mixed purpose ship, I'm assuming in these scenarios you are using it to its full potential.  With forward firing weapons it cant even stay at a distance and support at long range like other carriers, it cant properly defend itself besides ordnance unless it is closing.

How would a typical battleship suffer after the first pass more than any other ship?  The Retribution, for example, is much more durable a battleship, and much more able to keep the enemy at a distance while maintaining effectiveness.
The Custodian is a down and dirty front line ship, theres no way around it.  Frontal weapons and left shifting nearby vessels means its going to be right there with the Protectors as your main backbone.

Alternatively, as previously suggested, prow deflectors would somewhat solve the problem as a 4th shield if that was a more desirable route.
The Tau theme of 'less hits but equal shields' would be reconciled with a 4th shield.  But if you see the model dead on, most if the main part of the ship is actually hollow, you would think they could justify heavy shielding over the ship's innards too.  One or the other.  I'd prefer simply a 4th shield.

I'd still appreciate a better argument than 'nah' for 90* turns and an extra shield on the Custodian.

Castellan was only a niggling issue, if its seen too powerful for 45 points then so be it.  Would just help it compete with the Warden, I feel, but I guess the point is to not have a good reason to take, say, hook-less Emissary's

I assume the advocates of the Protector feel firm that the modest vessel is actually worth a bit more than a Lunar or Hero?
My vote is 170 points.  Str4 broadsides.  Protector variant either losing str2 battieries or 4 but keeping its ion cannon broadside potential, not both negatives.  

I realize I've made a few points, try to address each one individually :)


As to playtesting, I sincerely wish I could.  I could proxy models on the rare occasions I get to play with my playgroup, but I was wanting to surprise them with a full FW tau fleet.  I'd love vassal volunteers, come put your money where your mouth is :)
I really really want to play, really!
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 09:45:10 PM by lastspartacus »

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #366 on: November 19, 2010, 09:43:50 PM »
I'm confused Admiral, what to GW tau have to do with it?  Do GW tau fancy running their Explorers on the front line?  The Custodian is a mixed purpose ship, I'm assuming in these scenarios you are using it to its full potential.  With forward firing weapons it cant even stay at a distance and support at long range like other carriers, it cant properly defend itself besides ordnance unless it is closing.

Being FW or GW has nothing to do with it. Tau is still reliant on ordnance to do a lot of the dirty work. That is the basic Tau doctrine. You cannot expect this ship to go toe to toe with guns esp since it is a mixed purpose Tau ship, meaning ordnance reliant. You don't have to put it up forward unless there is really some pressing need to do so. Put your other ships ahead of it and then use it to catch what the others miss. Then follow up with ordnance.

How would a typical battleship suffer after the first pass more than any other ship?  The Retribution, for example, is much more durable a battleship, and much more able to keep the enemy at a distance while maintaining effectiveness.

Retribution doesn't compare to Tau's first pass attack unless it decides to turn and expose the broadsides. If it does, swing away towards the rear arc of the Ret. It will have a hard time trying to swing around to meet the targets in the rear. Aside from which Tau ordnance will usually mean the Ret will be in for a tough time.

The Custodian is a down and dirty front line ship, theres no way around it.  Frontal weapons and left shifting nearby vessels means its going to be right there with the Protectors as your main backbone.

Well, can't really have everything. I really can't see any justification for Tau to have 90' turn on their GCs and still remain balanced with other races. Tau, whether FW or GW can already reliably, if not easily whip the IN which is the race which one should really be playtesting against. They're not really Eldar or even Dark Eldar which has the ships that come closest to turning on a dime. So why should Tau get a 90' turning 10 HP ship?


Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #367 on: November 19, 2010, 10:01:38 PM »
Having used CG extensively (and the custodian is basically that) I can tell you that a 4th shield or 6+ prow armor isn't needed to make them effective ships. You can't have your cake and eat it too which is what you are trying to do by adding 90' turns and a 4th shield. Custodians already have exceptional 45cm firepower and are backed up by a good number of AC as well as torpedoes which lets them do a synergy strike far better than the Dictator could hope to accomplish. The current CPF list is a flavorful and unique fleet approach that may need a tweak here or there, but nothing so substantial as you are suggesting to the Custodian without some fairly extensive playtesting.

You have to justify changes like these and it's been pointed out several times why the changes are unwarranted from fluff perspective and there have been few remarks about the capabilities on the board. Test the ship as it is before theoryhammering buffs on it. My experience with similar ships says this one is fine as it stands stats wise but it might warrant a slight reduction in price.
-Vaaish

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #368 on: November 19, 2010, 10:09:36 PM »
Being FW or GW has nothing to do with it. Tau is still reliant on ordnance to do a lot of the dirty work. That is the basic Tau doctrine. You cannot expect this ship to go toe to toe with guns esp since it is a mixed purpose Tau ship, meaning ordnance reliant. You don't have to put it up forward unless there is really some pressing need to do so. Put your other ships ahead of it and then use it to catch what the others miss. Then follow up with ordnance.
Ah, but it has everything to do with it.  Its been the stated purpose since page 1 that the intent of FW tau is that of a mobile gunnery fleet.
The korvattra uses loads of AC because they are essentially mostly merchant ships converted to war, with lots of room for AC and little weaponry.
One battleship with good AC capacity does not an ordnance fleet make, FW tau are officially mixed arms.  
By putting it forward, I don't mean the very front.  I mean even if its 10cm behind the rest of the fleet, its still heading towards the enemy in the same direction as the rest of the ships.  Point of impact will happen, and its way too easy to destroy.  90* turns will help it at least present an abeam if it needs to try to get out of there, otherwise all it does is let it bring its weapons to bear effectively.  45* turn and all frontal weapons is a poor choice for anything.

Quote
Retribution doesn't compare to Tau's first pass attack unless it decides to turn and expose the broadsides. If it does, swing away towards the rear arc of the Ret. It will have a hard time trying to swing around to meet the targets in the rear. Aside from which Tau ordnance will usually mean the Ret will be in for a tough time.
Abeam is much more desirable than closing.  Of course its going to 'expose' its broadsides, as that is the point of most battleships?  In closing or abeam, of course, The retribution has the advantage over the Custodian in survivability even before shields and HP are considered.
This is just an example, not saying the Custodian should have Retribution stats.
'Swing away toward the rear' is a nice sounding idea, but it doesn't work that well in BFG.  Assuming your manouver goes perfectly, do you realize that any ship with broadsides and a 45* turn can easily hit a target behind it?
I'm not comparing the two ships one on one, just noting the design flaw in the Custodian.

Quote
Well, can't really have everything. I really can't see any justification for Tau to have 90' turn on their GCs and still remain balanced with other races. Tau, whether FW or GW can already reliably, if not easily whip the IN which is the race which one should really be playtesting against. They're not really Eldar or even Dark Eldar which has the ships that come closest to turning on a dime. So why should Tau get a 90' turning 10 HP ship?

The justification is in the above posts, in many different points.  If you choose to disagree, or feel it is imbalanced, reasons or examples would be great :)  I'd say you should explain at least why the Custodian would lose its balance with other races if it gains a greater turn radius, Tau have been on my brain alot these days, I'd at least appreciate some real, less vague statements.
Is there any point I have made that someone feels is incorrect?

And its not like a 90 degree turning, 2ocm, 10hp battleship is anywhere close to Eldar speed or agility, lets be reasonable now :)
It simply fits with Tau combat doctrine, sacrificing hits for agility.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #369 on: November 19, 2010, 10:12:39 PM »
Having used CG extensively (and the custodian is basically that) I can tell you that a 4th shield or 6+ prow armor isn't needed to make them effective ships. You can't have your cake and eat it too which is what you are trying to do by adding 90' turns and a 4th shield. Custodians already have exceptional 45cm firepower and are backed up by a good number of AC as well as torpedoes which lets them do a synergy strike far better than the Dictator could hope to accomplish. The current CPF list is a flavorful and unique fleet approach that may need a tweak here or there, but nothing so substantial as you are suggesting to the Custodian without some fairly extensive playtesting.

You have to justify changes like these and it's been pointed out several times why the changes are unwarranted from fluff perspective and there have been few remarks about the capabilities on the board. Test the ship as it is before theoryhammering buffs on it. My experience with similar ships says this one is fine as it stands stats wise but it might warrant a slight reduction in price.
I'm sorry, what is the CG?  Does it cost 300+ points?  I have attempted to justify these changes in multiple points, in the fluff and in the game.
I'm just waiting for a good argument besides 'nuhuh!' :P

Believe it or not, I'm a huge conservative.  I just want the CPF to be as 'tau-ish' and flavorful as possible, while staying competative and balanced.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 10:14:41 PM by lastspartacus »

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #370 on: November 19, 2010, 10:25:13 PM »
Ah, but it has everything to do with it.  Its been the stated purpose since page 1 that the intent of FW tau is that of a mobile gunnery fleet.

And if we go by that statement, does Tau not have this maneuverability even with 45 cm turns on one of its larger ships?


Abeam is much more desirable than closing.  Of course its going to 'expose' its broadsides, as that is the point of most battleships?  In closing or abeam, of course, The retribution has the advantage over the Custodian in survivability even before shields and HP are considered.
This is just an example, not saying the Custodian should have Retribution stats.
'Swing away toward the rear' is a nice sounding idea, but it doesn't work that well in BFG.  Assuming your manouver goes perfectly, do you realize that any ship with broadsides and a 45* turn can easily hit a target behind it?
I'm not comparing the two ships one on one, just noting the design flaw in the Custodian.

It's still a problem with the Retribution or any battleship as I point out. The Ret isn't even the typical IN battleship. Put BMs on the Apoc, Emperor and Oberon and you basically prevent them from shooting you if you get to the rear arc.

The justification is in the above posts, in many different points.  If you choose to disagree, or feel it is imbalanced, reasons or examples would be great :)  I'd say you should explain at least why the Custodian would lose its balance with other races if it gains a greater turn radius, Tau have been on my brain alot these days, I'd at least appreciate some real, less vague statements.
Is there any point I have made that someone feels is incorrect?

Nope, having read through the posts, justification is just not there. You still have not proven why they need such an advantage. Again, the Tau already have an advantage in front firing guns supported by AC. Giving them almost the maneuverability of Eldar on a large ship would allow them to quickly turn and shoot again as well as bomb or torp the opponent again.

And its not like a 90 degree turning, 2ocm, 10hp battleship is anywhere close to Eldar speed or agility, lets be reasonable now :)
It simply fits with Tau combat doctrine, sacrificing hits for agility.

I would agree with the speed but where's your proof it would not be close to Eldar agility? DE still do not have their equivalent of GCs or battleships. I can see the DE GC or BB getting the 90' turn and 10 HP. The only difference would be the base speed which will most likely be faster by 5 cm at least.


Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #371 on: November 19, 2010, 11:46:40 PM »
LS - Let's pretend that FW made the Protector and Emmisary models larger. So they could be given 8 & 6 hits respectively. In this case we can give the Tau 90* turns as a racial rule. Doing so however would presuppose a level of technology higher than that of the Imperium, at least in drive tech. Current fluff does not support this notion however. So they'd have had 45* turns instead. Therefore we're left with the Tau having to make their ships smaller to gain extra mobility, just like the IN would. So going from 8 hits down to 6 gives CL levels of manoeuvrability, ie, 90* turns. Dropping from 12 hits down to 10 should give cruiser level mobility, ie, 10cm min move instead of 15cm.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #372 on: November 20, 2010, 12:42:10 AM »
CG= grand cruisers. They cost around 230-255 points. Only the Repulsive has near the level of firepower that the custodian has with the tracking system and only has weaker strength dumbfire torpedoes to say nothing of completely lacking in the AC realm. None of them have the defensive turret strength or the rerolls granted by the tracking system. In terms of hits, armor, shields, and speed they are exactly the same as the Custodian.
-Vaaish

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #373 on: November 20, 2010, 09:06:32 AM »
@Admiral:
Its not my statement or opinion in this case, its a fact.  Tau does have this manouverability in all but its largest ship, which is why I'm not discussing it otherwise.

I'm confused how the idea that broadside battleships having difficulty hitting things behind it helps the case of the battleship that has even more trouble hitting things behind it.

As to me not providing justification...sigh.  I've made multiple points if you care to argue against them.  Once I sleep I'll convert them all in bullet points once I sleep, for your dissection.

Eldar ships can turn on a dime and move faster.  A ship with 90 turns and frontal fire can't even get an enemy directly behind them like broadside based ships can.  It just helps even the playing field after the first pass.

@Sig:
I just see it as the Tau designed their ships in that 'squashed' design their hulls have, allowing tighter turns but more fragile superstructure.

@Vaaish:
I don't think its too much to ask to have a battleship with 100 more points or so on the typical grand cruiser to have the normal levels of battleship shielding.  At least the option.  I dunno, 15 points.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #374 on: November 20, 2010, 03:48:45 PM »
I'd love to pay 15 points for the option to give a grand cruiser 4 shields. The thing is Grand cruisers are already supposed to be built at what is arguably the high point of technology for the imperium. They don't have the capability to make them anymore and since Tau are supposed to be behind the IN tech level of the 40th millennium, I don't see how you can justify them making a ship of the same size much better than the imperium close to it's height. If the IN couldn't fit 4 shields on a CG hull and had to use the standard BB hulls to pull it off then why should Tau be able to do it now?

Gameplay wise it would probably break the CG. 4 shields is tough to crack. Even more so when you options to ignore the shields put you up against 4 rerolling turrets.
-Vaaish