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

[horizon]

On the Nicassar: I'd like to see modelling options or alternative models. Especially because of the fact the Nicassar Dhow is no longer being sold.

[KivArn]

 Much of what i'll say has already been said, but i shall add my voice to the mix

Overall, i'd like to see prow deflectors on everything but the warden. The prow deflector was meant to be used in FTL travel to help the ships dive into the warp. It just happens to give a combat bonus as well. So anything that can do extraplanetary travel ought to have one (i.e. everything )


Custodian
Seems fine, would have to play test to comment fully on the cost.
(Prow Deflector)

Protector
Needs to be more nimble, 90* turn. Otherwise ok, though i would prefer a drop in ordinance for either a drop in cost or a boost in weaponary (drop to 1 LB 4 Torps for +1 port/starboard/prow Batteries ?)


Emissary
Not a ship of the line at all. Not even designed as one.
Too expensive, not nimble enough, way too fragile.
Give it a prow deflector too

Castellan
Jack of all trades, master of non,
Drop the ion cannons for weapons batteries and reduce the cost. 50 points was pushing it even before.
With a prow deflector its almost worth the 50
Maybe drop 1 torp (so that it is 4 WB, 1 Torp, Prow deflector) to help keep cost down.


Warden
I still want to see this as a 2 IC ship. It just looks cool and since it is quite restricted, it's not that bad as one!


Fleet list.
There's no need for the restrictions at all. Especially not forcing players to take an explorer (?!??!?!) and emissaries due to fluff reasons.

The CPF isn't meant to be a exploratory fleet but a battlefleet so no need to take an explorer.
The emissary is a diplomacy vessel, and so would not be seen in great numbers in any fleet, certainly shouldn't be outnumbering protectors, the mainline cruiser.
Protectors shouldn't be limited. They're not overly powerful and are meant to be the mainstay of the fleet, designed to replace the hero class.

In subsequent decades, this vessel has been encountered in ever-increasing frequency, not only in defense of Tau home worlds but abroad outside of Tau-controlled space, operating in pairs while accompanying colonization fleets or as deep space patrols reminiscent of the operations common to the Imperial Navy.

How can it act as a deep space patrol if it has to be accompanied by a pair of diplomacy ships. ?
You should be able to build a patrol fleet ... 750ish with protectors and castellans.

If you really want to limit protectors, then go for 1 protector per 2 castellans or something similar.

To be honest. The fleet list smacks a fair bit off "You must buy GW ships if you want to play a FW fleet." Plenty of people have just the CPF fleet with no GW Tau ships and this fleet list pretty much eliminates them all.



As to the comment about playtesting, you have a wealth of play testers here at TacComms, we've been play testing epic lists for several years and have come up with several balanced and unique lists Use us to help with the play testing, allowing you to vary the weapons load outs more

[horizon]

Hi Kivarn,

Protector
Needs to be more nimble, 90* turn. Otherwise ok, though i would prefer a drop in ordinance for either a drop in cost or a boost in weaponary (drop to 1 LB 4 Torps for +1 port/starboard/prow Batteries ?)

Heh, here is the Project Distant Darkness variant:
points: 190
hits: 6
speed: 20cm
turns 90*
shields 2
turrets 3
armour 6+/5+

Prow Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Port Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Starboard Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Port Ion Cannon - 30cm - str.1 - L / F
Starboard Ion Cannon - 30cm - str.1 - R / F
Dorsal Launch Bay - manta 20cm/barra 25cm - str.1 - NA
Prow Missiles - 20-40cm - str.4 - F

Prow Deflector + Integrated Tracking Systems

Castellan
Jack of all trades, master of non,
Drop the ion cannons for weapons batteries and reduce the cost. 50 points was pushing it even before.
With a prow deflector its almost worth the 50
Maybe drop 1 torp (so that it is 4 WB, 1 Torp, Prow deflector) to help keep cost down.


Warden
I still want to see this as a 2 IC ship. It just looks cool and since it is quite restricted, it's not that bad as one!

Funny enough your ideas are as shown in the Tau CPF fan list by Xisor/Shinnentai.


Agreed on the fleet list and all.
Especially on the Protector Hunting Squadrons.

[KivArn]

I like the DD protector, though a 5 point reduction might be necessary for the cruiser clash scenario

I've historically used the Xisor/Shinnentai list which is where my views on the Castellan came from .

And i've wanted the Warden as 2 IC from the very start.. it just reminds me of the defiant

I'd be happy with the Castellan as 2IC, 1/2 Torp, PD but i think it'd be a bit too strong at 50 points! (and too fragile for anything more!)

[Caine-HoA]

Kiv i dont think you will see an escort with 2 ICs in any fleet.

Castellen for me always was the escort with the Missiles for Tau. For 2 Missiles 50p was already expensive but 55 is simply too much. So my point of view would be to make it a 3T/Missile Ship for 50p with any amount of Batteries that could be included in the costs. Or to make it a 2Missile 2Battery 45p.

[tinfish]

The Defender has 3 WB, 2 Torps for 45pts.

The Castellan needs to be different, especially in a combined fleet list. IC & WB rather than Torps? More of a Firestorm equivalent.

It could do with a bit more speed as well, Wardens move 25, so it would be nice if the Castellan did - it would separate them from the GW ships as well.

[flybywire-E2C]

I'm postively surprised at the effort the HA is putting into this whole rules revision.

My major concern with the Tau Draft are the Integrated Tracking Systems.

In the original lists theres only 1 ship mounting a tracking system. For 50 pts the Messenger can provide a substantial advantage to the big ships but this is balanced by the fact that it is quite vulnerable itself and its lack of effective weaponry.
A true support ship. I find the concept tactically interesting.

But I've always frowned on the idea of having tracking systems on all the big ships (e.g. Project Distant Darkness and the Tau CPF Article).
Fluff-wise the argument seems to be that tracking systems are the pinnacle of current Tau-tech and each and everyone of the next generation of warships just has to get one. I don't really want to go into a fluff argument here but I disagree on this. By that logic every US navy carrier would have its own aegis air defense system but they don't.
Imho more important is balancing and gameplay. The advantages offered by tracking systems are easily worth two refits. That's +20% in points value and none of the ships in the draft go anywhere near that. It's also boring to have the tracking system on every ship with 45cm railguns and 3+ turrets. Essentially turns it into a race bonus.
There was some overall balancing in the fleet lists that maybe accounted for the added benefits of the Kor'or'vesh but you already made it less restrictive and I wouldn't go that way anyway.

Suggestion:
Give the Emissary the option of carrying a full tracking system and leave it at that. The Emissary seems to fill a somewhat similar role as the messenger and that would make it a lot more attractive without forcing it into every fleet list.

I like this Emissary suggestion a lot, but this will cause some “back to the drawing board” issues so give the HA’s a few days to digest this. Incidentally, the FW capital ships tracking system mechanic was not designed to be used by anything but the host vessel. Only the Messenger (still!) has the ability to extend that effect beyond itself.

The Protector was dropped in price for no really good reason so I bumped that back up.

A friend of mine (my Tau friend ) pointed out to me, that the basic Cruiser Clash Scenario has an upper points limit of 185 for each cruiser. Maybe that was the reasoning for the 5pt reduction.

Custodian 3 shields, 4 turrets: Well a change that balances itself out but I would rather leave it specialized versus ordnance (2/5). [/quote]

The intent was to create a more balanced and effective true battleship as opposed to the Explorer, which is a very highly (almost exclusively!) specialized attack craft carrier.

Demiurg Citadel, Kroot Warsphere and Nicassar Caravan: Very Nice

I’m glad you like the Xenos inputs. The Kroot really needed a better profile for that ENORMOUS model while still affording the opportunity to have a 145-point “Tau Rok” for people who wanted one. The Demiurg Citadel was created so that the Demiurg could have a cheap “Cruiser Clash” cruiser in a pure Demiurg fleet. Oh, and the Protector is back to 185 points for the same reason.

[flybywire-E2C]

The Defender has 3 WB, 2 Torps for 45pts.

The Castellan needs to be different, especially in a combined fleet list. IC & WB rather than Torps? More of a Firestorm equivalent.

It could do with a bit more speed as well, Wardens move 25, so it would be nice if the Castellan did - it would separate them from the GW ships as well.

Based on feedback, we're hashing about having the Castellan drop the Ion Cannon for 45cm L/F/R WB's. Thoughts?

[flybywire-E2C]

Protector
Heh, here is the Project Distant Darkness variant:
points: 190
hits: 6
speed: 20cm
turns 90*
shields 2
turrets 3
armour 6+/5+

Prow Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Port Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Starboard Railgun Battery - 45cm - str.4 - F
Port Ion Cannon - 30cm - str.1 - L / F
Starboard Ion Cannon - 30cm - str.1 - R / F
Dorsal Launch Bay - manta 20cm/barra 25cm - str.1 - NA
Prow Missiles - 20-40cm - str.4 - F

Prow Deflector + Integrated Tracking Systems

Warden
I still want to see this as a 2 IC ship. It just looks cool and since it is quite restricted, it's not that bad as one!

Funny enough your ideas are as shown in the Tau CPF fan list by Xisor/Shinnentai.

[/quote]


I made a few snips above, but otherwise, here’s the part where Ray and I make Horizon happy! It’s not exactly Horizon’s version, but this is a proposal for an alternate Protector variant that can be used as often as other Protectors for the same 185 point cost. Thoughts?

TYPE /HITS   SPEED   TURNS   SHIELDS   ARMOR   TURRETS
Cruiser/6                20cm   45°   2   5+   3
ARMANENT                RANGE   FIREPOWER/STRENGTH   FIRE ARC
Port Railgun Battery   45cm   4                            Left/ Front
Starboard Railgun Battery   45cm   4                            Right/ Front
Prow Railgun Battery   45cm   4                            Front
Port Ion Cannon                30cm   1                            Front
Starboard Ion Cannon   30cm   1                            Front
Prow Launch Bays                Mantas: 20cm
                                       Barracudas: 25cm   2               N/A
Prow Gravitic Launcher   Speed: 20-40cm   4              Front


As for the Warden, a 2-IC ship with nothing else sounds and looks cool but would be complete junk against Eldar. What’s wrong with making the Warden a faster Orca, or maybe even a Tau Cobra?

[horizon]

I miss the turn rate on the Protector, but it is a step in the right direction (if it is an unrestricted ship ofcourse ).

Castellan Project Distant Darkness = 25cm speed. 2 missiles. 2 weapon batteries @ 45cm. So yeah, I'll support 45cm batteries on them.


Wardens with 2 Ion Cannon: as much as I love the concept there is a flaw in it. And it has nothing to do with Eldar (I mean, the Cobra is useless against Necrons it still exists).
If the Emissary brings 2, the Custodian 3. You can have 5 Wardens. 5x30=150points.
These 150 points will be equipped with 10 lances! Get it? 10 lances for 150pts. That's insane.

So, I like the FW variant with lfr Ion Cannon and f weapon batteries. Slightly different but still a pure gunship within the Tau fleet.

[flybywire-E2C]

I miss the turn rate on the Protector, but it is a step in the right direction (if it is an unrestricted ship ofcourse ).

Castellan Project Distant Darkness = 25cm speed. 2 missiles. 2 weapon batteries @ 45cm. So yeah, I'll support 45cm batteries on them.


Wardens with 2 Ion Cannon: as much as I love the concept there is a flaw in it. And it has nothing to do with Eldar (I mean, the Cobra is useless against Necrons it still exists).
If the Emissary brings 2, the Custodian 3. You can have 5 Wardens. 5x30=150points.
These 150 points will be equipped with 10 lances! Get it? 10 lances for 150pts. That's insane.

So, I like the FW variant with lfr Ion Cannon and f weapon batteries. Slightly different but still a pure gunship within the Tau fleet.

I'm glad you like the Castellan, and I don't think the FW Warden will be a hard sell.

Horizon, how’s this for a compromise: 2 Protectors for 500 points. That’s tantamount to saying,” for one escort squadron, I get 2 Protectors!” It’s not unrestricted, but it’s pretty generous.

I'm sorry, but we're never going to buy off on unrestricted Protectors. They are so much better for the price than the other models, that's all people will play with. More importantly, a fleet of just Protectors isn’t fluff-true. I know many gamers couldn’t give a snot about the fluff, but as HA’s we’re tasked with keeping a fine balance between the storyline, game balance and fairness. There are a hundred reasons why someone could justify a fleet of just Protectors using specific scenarios or particular battles, but as a whole it wouldn’t be fluff-true for the Tau race, and it wouldn’t be balanced when compared to how the Tau fleet was designed to behave.

- Nate

[horizon]

Huh? What?

You read Kivarn's excerpt from your document? That Protector's are hunting in pairs.

I will agree with you that the FW fleet should be a raider fleet.

On the 2 Protectors per 500pts = 380 pts from 500pts = 120pts = 2 Castellans.
What in the common 750 setting? 1 per 250?
2 per 500 means 6 per 1500.
I have 3 per 1500, most common is 4 per 1500 so the restriction will work I think.

NOTE: I am in favour of making escorts a MUST take in every fleet (par CWE fleets not defending Craftworlds).

If you read all my things (pdd, starblade, ke) you'll know I am a fan of fluff-true.


On how Tau fleet was designed to behave? Go back to Armada and erase everything regarding Tau. That is a really bad designed fleet.

Hero = much better then Lunar (and Protector!) but same cost. Should be weaker ship.
Explorer= cheap carrier spam
Merchant = useless

This is thé 1500pts tournament fleet:
3x Explorer
2x Hero
9x Orca
3x Defender

But I am intrigued: how is the Tau fleet designed to behave? And what is fluff true?

A different note:
Why not replace Manta's with Tigershark (figher?)bombers.
Then make Manta's buyable in the fleet list. mini-escort. 4+ armour, attacks as a bomber. Interaction like standard ordnance (gunnery table etc). 5pts per Manta - restricted per nr. of launch bays in fleet.

[Harrypotter]

But while it's in work, is somebody going to 'fix' the Emissary?

As it stands it's a waste of a beautiful model

[horizon]

Like this:
Emissary
points 130
hits 4
turrets 2
shields 1
armour 6+/5+
speed 25cm
turns 90*

Prow Railguns - 45cm - str.2 - F
Port Railguns - 45cm - str.2 - F
Starboard Railguns - 45cm - str.2 - F
dorsal launch bay - barracuda 25cm - str.1 - n/a
Prow missiles - 20-40cm - str.3. - F

prow deflector, integrated tracking systems.
may swap port/starboard railguns for grav hooks (-> wardens).

Thus a diplomacy vessel which can actually outrun raiders & pirates. Plus some decent defences vs raids.
20cm & 45* nowhere reflects a diplomacy vessel in hostile territory.


Oh Nate, 

I did look at your Dark Horizons article, but the Protector there is even more powerful than this one, except that the Ion Cannon range is -15cm. Also, your use of a keel launch bay would have necessitated the need for a new critical chart or a "counts as" note, neither of which I thought was warranted.

You clearly did not read the Project Distant Darkness link I posted here: 
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/ddarkness.html

Phase II Protector (one of a kind) and phase III Protector (mainstay) in that article do not have keel launch bays (both dorsal). You are referring to the old PDD pdf from the SG site. Phase II is an update of that ship.

[Harrypotter]

Yeah, that's more like it, I'd even pay a few more points and have 2 shields to offset the low hull rating.

If the ship became workable I (personally) wouldn't mind (too much) a fleet restriction along the lines of 'for every Emissary in the fleet you may take up to 2 Protectors'. As in if diplomacy fails we have a pair of bigs sticks ready to beat you with