Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG

[Caine-HoA]

Ah ok, didnt realise the IC.

[horizon]

So, hey, on 1500exact:

Kor'o + Aun'el
Custodian
3* Warden
Custodian
3* Warden
3* Protector
=1500

or

Kor'o + Aun'el
Custodian
3* Warden
Custodian
3* Warden
1* Protector
1* Emissary
5* Castellan
= 1500

1 Emissary [pd] + 5 Castellan = 2 Protectors

[KivArn]

or

Kor'O & Aun'El
Custodian
3x warden
3x Protector
2x Emissary
4x Castellan

(Though personally i'd dump the 2 Emissary's for 4 more Castellans )

or

Kor'O & Aun'O 130
Custodian
3x Warden
Emissary
2x Warden
Emissary
2x Protector
6x Castellan

[Sigoroth]

Or:

Kor'el + Aun'el
Custodian
Protector x 3
Hero x 3

[horizon]

I just made a list that had 2 Custodians. My normal fleet would look different.

[Xisor]

Greetings!

A few quick suggestions and comments:
- I think the fleet restrictions are generally needless. Availability of battleships, good. Mandating them? Not good.
- Demiurg escorts. Flip the RT Xenos Escort around and use the Defence Monitor Hull with a few bits clipped off and you have two perfectly sensible looking Demiurg escorts. One is a slightly bulkier one, one is a much smaller and more skeletal one. In my Demiurg list I denote them Rampart and Buttress classes.
- There's a few options for the Cutting Beam. Personally, after years of considering it and examining bits, I see very little reason to think that it shouldn't simply be a short ranged Bombardment Cannon or Lance. I favour the BC interpretation because it adds excellent critical hit opportunities, but requires a bit of odd rationalisation for effectiveness versus ordnance. I don't mind this because it makes it much simpler and 'neater'.
- There is still a trouble with the Castellan in which it is conflicted. This runs parallel to the problem with the Hellebore for the Eldar. That is: use of special orders. With a strong Torpedo/Missile component, you lose effectiveness mightily without reloading ordnance. But with a heavy/formidable 'other weapon' complement anyway, you really should be looking for opportunities to Lock On. Balancing the cost for this uncertainty/indecision is something I find is most easily solved by simply diversifying the role of the escorts: Warden for proper weapons, Castellan for Missiles. This allows the costs to come down and the force to be streamlined for efficiency by the players and designers. Given the Tau's willingness to use allied ships, I see no trouble with this except for those who are very keen to use 'Tau only' fleets, but I find that a difficult audience to cater for, mainly because it doesn't add anything.

Anyway, that's just a quick rehash of the long-standing troubles I've personally had with the fleet reformed to consider this list particularly.

I'll add more in detail when I can! It's really nice to see peeps working on it!

[Vaaish]

Horizon, I don't think you could pull 2 custodians in 1500 points. You have to have at least 750 points of tau vessels in the fleet to take the first one and then the second can be taken once you hit 1500 points of ships. That would make it a minimum of 1910 points to have two custodians once you include the Kor'O.

[KivArn]

This has been cleared up in the examples of the fleet list (custodian entry)... 2 in 1500 is fine.

Also i believe that the don't apply restrictions  untill you have the whole fleet list mantra applies...

ie,  my 1500 point fleet list is blah blah blah... is it legal?

1500 of tau ships... check so 2 custodians allowed
2 custodians + x other grav hooks allows 6 wardens plus y other grav hook needing thingies... so long as y=< x, this is fine
etc

I think i've just made this an overly complicated example/explanation XD i blame my cold >_>

[lastspartacus]

The Castellan would be awesome if it slowed down and lost whatever was needed to gain another missile.  Just because I love Tau missiles, and a truly dedicated beefy missile boat would be grand.

[horizon]

The Castellan with 2 RG@45cm and 2 missiles is NOT conflicted. It is a GRAND design in the Tau fleet and should be kept. Do NOT mess with it.

Veto from me. (Like that counts... ).

Perhaps Nate should chip in of the list I posted is legal or not. Just to avoid future confusions.

[Vaaish]

The wording seems like the same as the Void Stalker one or similar, but I agree clarification would be nice. Given the list isn't final having the restrictions as clear as possible can only be a good thing!

[lastspartacus]

Its just that 3 torps would be so grand.  Cant we make it happen? ^^

[Sigoroth]

To be honest, the idea of having to have exactly 750 pts of ships to be able to field 1 is demented. It should just go by your point limit, not how close you get to it. If you were playing a 3000 point game then this should be a perfectly legal list:

Kor'el
Custodian x 4

It's not like there's any advantage to doing this, so it can't be abused. And before you say something like "the Tau wouldn't leave their battleships unprotected", blah, blah, well the other ships got lost in transit. Destroyed a priori. Called away to answer an emergency that the slower Custodians couldn't reach in time. Accidentally flew into a minefield. Was lured away by a crafty enemy leaving the Custodians vulnerable. Etc.

If you're gunna start doing crap like saying it has to be exactly 1500 pts to get 2 Custodians, then you need to put in 5 pt upgrades.

[KivArn]

weeeeell, i'd argue that it should be

4 x Custodian
Kor'O
Aun'el/O

but i get your point

i think the idea behind it is to avoid 2 custodians and multiple bastion/stronghold etc ships.


Personally i'd rather see 1 per 1500 pts or part there of (could be 1250 or 1000, nothing lower though)

[Caine-HoA]

For me its more the point how many points we play in a game than how many points are in the fleet.

So if we say we make a 750 points match its one custodian even if i got only 720 points with what ships i chose. I dont think this should ever be an problem when you play with friends.