September 15, 2019, 11:36:42 PM

Author Topic: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG  (Read 116022 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #585 on: December 31, 2010, 09:07:13 AM »
Castellan is good. :/ (played it, tested it, yakihaki).

Well, they tell us Necron armour values represent stealth. Perhaps Wardens have 5+ armour because they are hard to hit due size?
lol

4+ on them would not be off limits tbh. It is better then the Orca though!

Play tested the Castellan, they were rubbish. Easy VPs. The Warden was good, but the extra speed and swapped weapon swing (lance swinging vs WBs swinging) never once came in handy. Therefore having an extra 50 pts to spend (on 2 more Orcas) would have been much better.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #586 on: December 31, 2010, 09:45:32 AM »
Castellan.

Compared to an Infidel.
Same weapons but Castellan has +15cm range on batteries (per smotherman that would be around ~ 2-3pts.
Castellans has +1 turret, again per smotherman around 5pts.

Then the missiles, same strength but longer reach (faster) and has turns. But can burn out. Lets say +1-2pts

Total (low end): +2 + 5 + 1 = 8pts
Total (high end): +3 + 5 + 2 = 10pts

40+8 = 48 --> 50

Castellan has a reach of 40cm with all weapons, thus can be farther away from enemy which is a good thing for escorts.
With the dropping of ordnance on Protectors (-1 ac & -1 missile) the missiles on the Castellan become more important.


But, hey, if you can sell it for 45pts I am all for it. ;)

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #587 on: December 31, 2010, 01:03:28 PM »
it's better then the orca due to the lance firing FLR!

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #588 on: December 31, 2010, 07:59:13 PM »
I wanted it at 25 points, but I'm happy enough with the warden at 30, its still a bit of a discount I guess.

I complained about the Castellan pages ago, but I figured it wasn't going to change.  45+ point escorts need to be good.  I mean its got Eldar escorts that are way better than it in the 50 point category.

But the main problems are what I listed.  When I said perfect, it meant 'then I can live with it' not 'I now think Protectors are perfectly priced and such' :)

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #589 on: January 01, 2011, 06:02:11 AM »
it's better then the orca due to the lance firing FLR!

If you're ever in a situation where absolutely cannot put a target in your front arc then it's better. It isn't better than, say, a Sword, which can always present an abeam arc and put out more firepower. Like the Orca, Idolator and the Firestorm, you want to point your prow at the target. Only then do you get more firepower than a Sword equivalent.

Therefore the benefit of the swapped swinging weaponry of the Warden over the Orca is miniscule. The speed is nice, but not fantastic. If the Kor'or'vesh hooks were capable of taking Orcas I would take them every single time. That says that the Orca is a better ship for its cost.

Also, in our own efforts to fix the broken or imbalanced ships from the IN list we dropped the Firestorm down to 35 pts; no more than a Sword. I do believe that this is all it's worth. If everyone else was serious in their estimations then they have to believe it too. Now, comparing this Warden to the adjusted (ie, worthwhile) Firestorm we have in the favour of the Warden the swapped swinging weaponry. Miniscule upside. The downsides are that it has 1 less turret, you have a limit in the numbers you can take and you must take one for every hook in your fleet or else you're wasting points.

If you removed hooks from your fleet, reduced the cost of hook ships by 5 pts per hook and then were able to take as many or few Wardens as you liked for 35 pts each they still would not be as good as a Firestorm!

So it's not worth it's actual price, it's certainly not benefiting from the points break it's supposed to receive for being hooked and it's not as good value as an older ship very similar in profile.

Mind you, I think it should only be 4+ armour. I think there should be more 4+ armour in the game, and I don't see it being better armour than Eldar escorts. It's a tiny model and I don't think that "stealth" cuts it (else DE should be able to increase their armour to 6+ with Nightshields).

Castellan.

Compared to an Infidel.
Same weapons but Castellan has +15cm range on batteries (per smotherman that would be around ~ 2-3pts.
Castellans has +1 turret, again per smotherman around 5pts.

Then the missiles, same strength but longer reach (faster) and has turns. But can burn out. Lets say +1-2pts

Total (low end): +2 + 5 + 1 = 8pts
Total (high end): +3 + 5 + 2 = 10pts

40+8 = 48 --> 50

Castellan has a reach of 40cm with all weapons, thus can be farther away from enemy which is a good thing for escorts.
With the dropping of ordnance on Protectors (-1 ac & -1 missile) the missiles on the Castellan become more important.


But, hey, if you can sell it for 45pts I am all for it. ;)

OK, now factor in that the Infidel should have the 2nd turret free and even then it's still not as good as the more role-clear Cobra*. Also, the Castellan really doesn't need the speed. It wants to escort the Custodian. Drop it down to 20cm at 45 pts.

*When choosing between 4 Cobras giving 4 WB + 8 torps on 4+ armour, 1 turret hulls with 4 hits/shields versus alternatively 3 hits/shields, 1 turret, 5+ armour, 6WB + 6 torps the former seems to be the preferred, at least by usage. I imagine that upping it to 2 turrets on the Infidels would only slightly alter this.


By the way, anyone else with me on a 25cm speed on the Emissary? Tiny ship, mostly engines, role as light fleet support suggests the need, role as a diplomatic envoy ship suggests the need and sacrifice of mass compared to a Protector suggests the gain.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 771
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #590 on: January 01, 2011, 09:40:33 AM »
What? And let the tau have a single claim to fame? A ship that moves 5 cm? Nonsense!

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #591 on: January 01, 2011, 06:05:15 PM »
Happy New Year's everyone! Now that the BFG FAQ/Errata is finally out, we're looking to wrap up the rest of the projects we haev in work. The Kor'or'vesh Fleet list has been pretty static over the last few weeks so this is one that will probably be the next one pushed over the top.

I'm aiming for next Wednesday (Jan 5th) as the date we push this over. While I know there's lots of things people wanted to see that didn't get added to the list, at this point I'm looking for things that are actually broken, NOT "I think it should be this and not that," and so on.

The goal at this point is to produce a useable rule-set that doesn't need a follow-on FAQ to make it work, not a line-by-line assessment on how each ship relates to fluff, how this ship or that ship needs this added or subtracted, etc. Anything you have to bring to the table will be greatly appreciated.

The Tau Kor'or'vesh Fleet list can be found on the BFG repository page by clicking the link on my signature. Again, thanks for everything you all do.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 06:17:07 PM by flybywire-E2C »
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 lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #592 on: January 01, 2011, 08:59:54 PM »
I agree completely Sig, about the Emissary.  Otherwise, it would be much better to transport a diplomat on a Protector, or even a Courier, if the goal is to GTFO more rapidly.

Nate:
It is a big deal.  If you don't want to change the status of the Custodian's movement, you will be ruining the whole flow of the fleet.  Your fluff examples are personal opinion, and as it is you have a flagship that stumbles about while the rest of the fleet is forced to stay with it if it wants mutual support.  Thats broken to me.  Oh and deflector shields, willing to take a price increase for that. 

The community as a whole wants this Nate, please give us a better reason if it just cant be.

Otherwise, its just personal feeling.  Except the Emissary, the main variant should have 2 fighters, to be balanced with the other variants.  It doesnt make sense for the torp options to be more desirable than what is obviously the main build.  25cm makes sense on it too.
Great job on a great fleet.


Offline tinfish

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #593 on: January 01, 2011, 11:12:06 PM »
If the Emissary could keep up with the Wardens it would help - as I said many many pages before, they would then act more as a heavy escort.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #594 on: January 02, 2011, 12:38:43 AM »
I has come to my attention that because of how closely the Tau Kor'or'vesh rules interrelate with the Rogue Traders rules, it is best that these be released together. I'm still aiming for next Wednesday (Jan 5th) as the date we push over these two rule sets. Like I posted before, I know there's lots of things people wanted to see that didn't get added to the list, but right now we have to focus on things that are actually broken. Please note that "i]"broken"[/i] means "provides tactically unfair advantage" or "so over-priced it is essentially unusable" or "the rules as written don't make sense or are too vague." Something that presents a tactical challenge to use does not in and of itself mean that it is broken unless it "breaks theme" with the fleet, like putting Abbadon the Despoiler in charge of a Tau fleet or allowing Necrons to be used as reserves for Imperials, or something equally absurd. Being too slow or not turning as well as we want does not fall into this category.

The goal at this point is to produce a useable rule-set that doesn't need a follow-on FAQ to make it work. The Kor'or'vesh ships are not being re-visited at this point. This does NOT mean we aren't listening- the Custodian is getting a deflector for no added cost. However, we have fielded so many contradictory complaints, demands and other such rants like "make it like this or I'm going to smash all my models and never play this game again" (that was an actual e-mail) that at this point I'm happy with 90% right just as long as we can reach an end-state that is more or less fair for everyone. Keeping that in mind, anything you have to bring to the table concerning Rogue Traders and the Tau will be greatly appreciated.
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 clintv42

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #595 on: January 02, 2011, 01:13:06 AM »
Hey folks,
I ran across a conundrum in the 2.6 draft

The rules in the gw tau download state this about torps:
..."However, you must roll a dice for each point of missile strength at the start of each ordnance phase, after the first.  The salvo is reduced by 1 point for every 6 rolled."

The rules in the 2.6v draft state this:
"Roll a d6 for each torpedo strength in the salvo at the start of each ordnance phase, removing one for every 6 rolled". 

There's no mention of "after the first" which completely changed the way it would work.  If it stays that way in the draft that means that you'd launch and then immediately roll for all your torps to burn out which would really suck.  I wanted to know if that was the intention or not and if not obviously wanted to bring it to ya'lls attention. 

Once again, thanks for all your hard work on the tau commerce draft.  I've been playing it and have really liked the changes!

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #596 on: January 02, 2011, 01:41:42 AM »
the demiurge & kroot list should clarify leadership for the non-demiurge ships

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #597 on: January 02, 2011, 06:59:02 AM »
the demiurge & kroot list should clarify leadership for the non-demiurge ships


Hey folks,
I ran across a conundrum in the 2.6 draft

The rules in the gw tau download state this about torps:
..."However, you must roll a dice for each point of missile strength at the start of each ordnance phase, after the first.  The salvo is reduced by 1 point for every 6 rolled."

The rules in the 2.6v draft state this:
"Roll a d6 for each torpedo strength in the salvo at the start of each ordnance phase, removing one for every 6 rolled".  

There's no mention of "after the first" which completely changed the way it would work.  If it stays that way in the draft that means that you'd launch and then immediately roll for all your torps to burn out which would really suck.  I wanted to know if that was the intention or not and if not obviously wanted to bring it to ya'lls attention.  

Once again, thanks for all your hard work on the tau commerce draft.  I've been playing it and have really liked the changes!

Thanks- these are both good catches! These are good examples of broken. I've incorporated a number of other small tweaks and will be posting the v2.7 draft very soon after replying to this. Barring any other significant catches, this is pretty much what the Final will look like come Wednesday, 05 January.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 07:00:49 AM by flybywire-E2C »
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: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #598 on: January 02, 2011, 09:52:16 AM »
So, Custodian got its prow deflector = good. And for the sake of +/- I can understand that they do not want to make it a Grand Cruiser (yet).

Dal'yth Emissary is broken. 1 laucnh bay (fighter only) =/= 3 missiles.

Solution = add 1 fighter bay to the other Emissarier, drop dal'yth.
Solution2 = increase bays to str2 (Or 4 lol). Drop cost on Dal'yth by ~10.

Page 2 = the image drops over the text.




/// if this is the to be official list = me pretty happy. Distant Darkness ahoy!

« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 09:53:57 AM by horizon »

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #599 on: January 02, 2011, 10:33:29 AM »
I has come to my attention that because of how closely the Tau Kor'or'vesh rules interrelate with the Rogue Traders rules, it is best that these be released together. I'm still aiming for next Wednesday (Jan 5th) as the date we push over these two rule sets. Like I posted before, I know there's lots of things people wanted to see that didn't get added to the list, but right now we have to focus on things that are actually broken. Please note that ""broken" means "provides tactically unfair advantage" or "so over-priced it is essentially unusable" or "the rules as written don't make sense or are too vague." Something that presents a tactical challenge to use does not in and of itself mean that it is broken unless it "breaks theme" with the fleet, like putting Abbadon the Despoiler in charge of a Tau fleet or allowing Necrons to be used as reserves for Imperials, or something equally absurd. Being too slow or not turning as well as we want does not fall into this category.

The goal at this point is to produce a useable rule-set that doesn't need a follow-on FAQ to make it work. The Kor'or'vesh ships are not being re-visited at this point. This does NOT mean we aren't listening- the Custodian is getting a deflector for no added cost. However, we have fielded so many contradictory complaints, demands and other such rants like "make it like this or I'm going to smash all my models and never play this game again" (that was an actual e-mail) that at this point I'm happy with 90% right just as long as we can reach an end-state that is more or less fair for everyone. Keeping that in mind, anything you have to bring to the table concerning Rogue Traders and the Tau will be greatly appreciated.

All right, brokenness. First up, the Custodian. Manoeuvres like a pig, gets left behind by the fleet, does not have the hits or shields to justify this. This is not just a fluff/common sense argument here. The ship really really needs the upgrade. At the very least give it cruiser status. That is not to say that the Tau don't view it as their battleship. For fluff, see the many previous posts. Not only is it I think justified by fluff but warranted. But you don't want those arguments and that's fine. I'm just saying it's not an impediment. The ship really needs it. If you're looking for some sort of balancing offset, then the only thing that I can suggest is lowering the tracking system to 15cm radius. 10cm is useless and it did need the upgrade, but 20cm seems to be very useful and any 2 Custodian fleet has a fairly easy time keeping the entire fleet in range. I know, I know, I'm the one that said 20cm in the first place, but I think that 15cm is "doable".

The Protector is a nice ship, and I have no qualms with their profiles, even the variant is fine (though how to represent the difference is another matter). However, having played them, I just have to agree with LS, they're not worth their cost. Nice ship, but 185 pts they aint. At 6 hits they are just too fragile. I would suggest a value of 170 pts.

The Emissary is a strange one. I like the look and the idea of the ship and I like the firepower difference with the hooked and non-hooked version. The profile is nearly there too, and the option of the prow deflector is good. However it still sucks. It is too slow for its size, it should really be 25cm so it can run with the Wardens in a fast attack wing (not to mention the fluff and common sense reasons for the increase). I would suggest that it should also get its 1 fighter bay on top of the 3 torpedoes (so drop the variants down to 2, hooks or lances). This would free a squadron of Protectors that are in BtB contact launching a salvo of 10 torps to also put out a squadron of 2 bombers to harass the same target (shoot at torps or bombers) or take care of an escort. The Emissary is an extremely fragile vessel and these changes might make it worth its points.

Castellan. Okies, this one is truly crapola. Expensive escorts should really be worth their points. Now, I can see where you might conclude that this is a 50 pt ship when you compare it to say, an Infidel or an Idolator. However, both those ships are overpriced. On top of which, if you brought their costs down they'd still just be mediocre. If you're paying 50 pts for an escort it can't be mediocre, it has to be great. This is because of just how tempting a target they are. As it happens, the Castellan is rubbish. I would firstly drop its speed back down to 20cm. This is because with its long range low strength (compared to cost) weaponry it wants to really use its range, and not close. Also, since it wants to stick with a Custodian to make use of the tracking system it wants to go no faster than the Custodian, which is 20cm. Then drop its cost to 45 pts. At this price I still hold that it's definitely a mediocre ship, and taking a fleet full of them wouldn't be broken. If you're worried about it being the same price as the Defender, don't be. The Defender is over-priced too.

The Warden. Two things here. The differences between it and the Orca do not warrant the price increase. I know it's a bit hard to do otherwise, since it has improvements, but it's not worth an Orca. If I could take Orcas with my Kor'or'vesh hooks I would every time. It's a bit silly that the older version of the same ship is the better value for money. Apart from that, the model is tiny. It should really have no more than 4+ armour. This could allow you to bring it down to 20-25 pts. The way the points sit at the moment, I am being slightly penalised in taking it. If it were free of the hooks at 35 pts and hook ships came down in price by 5 pts per hook (basically removing the hook mechanic for no other change) and I was able to take Wardens freely, then I'd round out my list with them using left over points. Being forced to take 3 per Custodian because of the wasted points in hooks is a downfall not adequately compensated for (and the comparison to the Orca doesn't help either).



So seeing all the above and how I'm recommending a change for all the Tau ships in this fleet you might think that I hate the fleet. I don't, I quite like it. But it isn't anywhere near as powerful as the Kor'vattra, which is odd but fine, but on top of which it also isn't very competitive against other fleets too (Eldar and Chaos that I know of personally).

In this fleet we're paying full BB cost for the Custodian, full CA cost for the Protector and full CL cost for the Emissary, and yet we're missing 2 hits from each ship. It's a very fragile fleet. The Prot gets +turn rate for the loss, but also loses broadside arcs making the +turn rate necessary in the first place. Too much lost for too little gain. Not to say I'd have it any other way, just that it doesn't warrant full cost (this is from experience, I was a little unsure till I really got a chance to see them in action).

It gets worse for the Custodian and Emissary though. They don't actually gain anything for their loss of hits. I see no reason that the identical Custodian profile couldn't be given 12 hits. Since it doesn't have 12 hits, and is more fragile as a consequence, then it needs something, and the shorter turning circle seems the perfect trade-off [going by the looks of the model, the logic of the lower mass making for easier turns, the feel of the fleet and the Custodians place in it as well as Tau doctrine].

Similarly, the Emissary could have 6 hits for no loss of speed or turn rate or shields or weapons. So why doesn't it? Well the obvious reason is because the model doesn't bear it out, but there's no game reason. It's such a fragile ship that it really needs the boost, and I can't see why it couldn't go as fast as a Dauntless.

So what do I find good about the fleet? Well I do like the vast majority of the profiles. The Custodian is nice, particularly with the prow deflector, as is the Protector. The Emissary just needs a tiny tweak or two (+1 fighter, +5cm speed) and I think the Orbital city is pretty good too. Though I think the Orbitals themselves are a little weak and could maybe do with a strength 2 torp launcher in addition. The feel of the fleet is good for the most part.

I don't really like the Castellan's feel that much, but with the changes I listed (slower, cheaper) I'd be willing to sign off on them. I really dislike the Warden having the same firepower as the Orca, though looking at the model I can understand why you went with the LFR lance and the F WBs. It's pretty representative. But if you're going to be representative to that degree, at the expense of an opportunity to make it notably different to the Orca then I don't see why you don't go representative in terms of its armour. It really should be only 4+.