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

[horizon]

1 Custodien per full 1000pts, or part of.

I agree on the above post by Kivarn and am still very concerned the fleet is overpowered (Protector, Custodian).

[flybywire-E2C]

1 Custodien per full 1000pts, or part of.

I agree on the above post by Kivarn and am still very concerned the fleet is overpowered (Protector, Custodian).

I have given this some thought. How about we take away tracking systems from all ships except the Custodian, make the Custodian's tracking system behave like a Messenger starship, then otherwise leave the Protectors as-is for points but raise the Custodian's cost a notch?

I personally don't want to revisit the ship profiles anymore. We have burned several weekends and other days playtesting those things to get them tweaked just right against Imperials, Chaos and Orks both before and again after the forum tore our original draft to shreds. They are priced and outfitted well, regardless of what the slide-rules might say. I do find tracking systems a bit of a kick up, but I would rather remove them from Protectors than raise their price.

Wardens are absolutely not getting 2x30 ion cannon. I don't have any idea how Forgeworld even invented this profile. Well, actually I do, but that's beyond the scope of this post. When the Tau were first being developed and the Games Workshop models weren't even out of the design stage yet, we tested 2x30 ion cannons for the Orca. They were complete and absolute junk against Eldar, and the points they soaked up made the Tau the Eldar's punching bag. On the other hand, it was absolutely ridiculous what they did to Necrons. Anything cheap that turns a fleet into junk against one opponent and poison against another is broken. (Funny side note- because there were no models yet, I used my Space Marines fleet to simulate the Tau. Yes, I know- blasphemy!!)   

Horizon, I know you hate it, but Emissaries are NOT EVER going to get 90deg turns. They are NOT Tau Dauntlesses. In fluff and our background notes, they were the first of the new Kor'or'vesh designs and are thus less polished than the later Protectors. Even with their evolved tech, Tau are STILL supposed to not be as good as Imperials. Their weapons fit makes them seem like they are, but their weapons are prow heavy, which means they are closing on Imps and Chaos to be effective, while Imps and Chaos are crossing their T to shoot back at them. In actual gameplay, the Tau need all that prow firepower just to stand up to the beating they get against Imps and Chaos.

It has come up in several e-mails that the Warsphere should not be allowed more than 16HP max. I'm thinking the same thing, but I haven't run that by Bob yet.

I know a lot of people feel like we're just force-feeding rules to the fans. I promise the opposite is true- we made a LOT of changes based on feedback from the forum (gravitic hooks on the Orbital City was particularly well-received). It's just that we put a LOT of effort into making this right while keeping to the designer's intent and true to fluff, and juggling all that is never easy. I want the fans to be happy, but we aren't scrapping this to start from scratch because some people want the Kor'or'vesh to represent something the designers never intended, regardless of how fun it is to play, etc.

I know we don't agree on everything, but I still want to hear your comments, complaints, etc.

- Nate

[flybywire-E2C]

I like the upgrade options posted for the warsphere thus
And I agree with much of what you said that is why I am looking for "downgrade" options for 4-6hp spheres

It makes sense, but one of the guiding principles we were given was "no new ship designs that can't be modeled right out the box." That gives us the green light for things like the Titan from the Nemesis Fleet from Warp Rift, but the red light for things like the Govenor grand cruiser that has a profile that can't be anything but scratch-built.

A downgraded Warsphere makes complete fluff sense. Heck, Ray in particular wants a downgraded Warsphere so bad, he can taste it! He and I tried to get GW to sell a model using the current kit but leaving out the outer ring shell, but there was no way for them to do it economically without making a new mold, which was out of the question. Because there's no kit for it, it HAS to be scratchbuilt, and we can't make legal a model that only experienced model builders can make.

"What about Roks and Space Hulks!" Yes, I know these are official models that can only be scratchbuilt. However, in all honestly my daughter can grab a pebble off the street, smear glue on it, drop it in my bitz bin, pull it out and call it a Rok. A Warsphere is nowhere near that simple to make and you know it!       Nonetheless, I will bring it up with the HA's. I know Ray will like the idea a lot.

I am re-posting this in the Tau thread.

- Nate

 

[fracas]

why would you need a new model?
sell the sphere as is and let the players build down and up as they want

i suspect that there will be customized models soon enough

like the endeavor model doesn't really exist per GW but there are still rules

[Vaaish]

I kind of like the idea of the custodian having the targeting system and having it operate like the messenger. That alone makes me feel better about the other stats but I'll need to do more thinking on it.

[horizon]

1 Custodien per full 1000pts, or part of.

I agree on the above post by Kivarn and am still very concerned the fleet is overpowered (Protector, Custodian).

I have given this some thought. How about we take away tracking systems from all ships except the Custodian, make the Custodian's tracking system behave like a Messenger starship, then otherwise leave the Protectors as-is for points but raise the Custodian's cost a notch?

Not opposed.

I personally don't want to revisit the ship profiles anymore. We have burned several weekends and other days playtesting those things to get them tweaked just right against Imperials, Chaos and Orks both before and again after the forum tore our original draft to shreds. They are priced and outfitted well, regardless of what the slide-rules might say. I do find tracking systems a bit of a kick up, but I would rather remove them from Protectors than raise their price.

So you ignore the wish for a fast turning, fixed forward firing (mainly) unique fleet using how the models look like?

Wardens are absolutely not getting 2x30 ion cannon. I don't have any idea how Forgeworld even invented this profile. Well, actually I do, but that's beyond the scope of this post. When the Tau were first being developed and the Games Workshop models weren't even out of the design stage yet, we tested 2x30 ion cannons for the Orca. They were complete and absolute junk against Eldar, and the points they soaked up made the Tau the Eldar's punching bag. On the other hand, it was absolutely ridiculous what they did to Necrons. Anything cheap that turns a fleet into junk against one opponent and poison against another is broken. (Funny side note- because there were no models yet, I used my Space Marines fleet to simulate the Tau. Yes, I know- blasphemy!!)  

First the 2 Ion Cannon Warden is not from Forgeworld. Fanmade design (even I find iffy , go figure, lol).
Secondly the problem in your playtest was noy the 2IC Warden but the rule system for Eldar. Necrons fear batteries (psychology) as much as lances.

Horizon, I know you hate it, but Emissaries are NOT EVER going to get 90deg turns. They are NOT Tau Dauntlesses. In fluff and our background notes, they were the first of the new Kor'or'vesh designs and are thus less polished than the later Protectors.

Not only me. Look, the ship is smaller then the Dauntless. It has big engines, it has a wing design that even in low orbit it can turn on a dime. Background dictates it is maneouvrable. Background dictates it can run away. Background says it MUST be 90* and 25cm.
As long as the ship stays at 45* it'll be relegated to a gimmick vessel someone takes if he wants to show of a cool model, not for effectivity.
I will continue this crusade, shupported by everyone in this forum (I hope).

The Dauntless tonnage is much higher then the Emissary. The Dauntless is nearly cruiser sized, the Emissary more of an escort.

Even with their evolved tech, Tau are STILL supposed to not be as good as Imperials. Their weapons fit makes them seem like they are, but their weapons are prow heavy, which means they are closing on Imps and Chaos to be effective, while Imps and Chaos are crossing their T to shoot back at them. In actual gameplay, the Tau need all that prow firepower just to stand up to the beating they get against Imps and Chaos.

Then tell me Nate, from Armada:
* Tau have the best carrier force. A cheap battleship, 230pts, that launches 8 resilient bombers. No Imperial Ship can match that. Yes 1:1, but in a fleet duel...
* Tau have better missiles. Faster and Turnable.
* The Tau have the Hero that in a 1:1 duel beats a Lunar, Gothic, Tyrant, Murder, Carnage etc. The fleet limit is just bad rule design to fix this problem.
The Hero costs the same as a Lunar but has much better weaponry. With this ship background and stats go completely false.

As it stands the GW Tau Armada fleet is better then the Imperial Navy by a longshot. Only weakship is the Merchant but it can be avoided to be taken. The only thing Tau might fear is Nova Cannon spam.

Check this, Adepticon winner, twice:
3x Explorer (iirc one was the torp variant, not sure), 2x Hero, 9xOrca, 3xDefender, command.

At warseer a lenghty discussion was applied on what fleet the IN should take in such a tournament setting and both be able to deal with such a Tau fleet, roaming Eldar (non-powergamed as it seemed) and some Chaos. Conclusion was that almost no Imperial Fleet would be able to deal with above Tau list and at the same time have a good day vs Eldar or Chaos for example.

The Prow on weaponry comes only late as the ordnance does the job. And even then : Fighting prow on is much easier then abeam for beginning players.

Short Story: Armada Tau is better then the Imperial Navy.  shocker!

This Tau draft will do the same I fear. Certainly as it loses two "weaker" points compared to Armada:
* shooting
* boarding
Both are filled now.

I would rather see the FW Tau fleet as a gunnery fleet overall being light on attack craft (but not so on missiles). Agressive first strike fleet with horrible broadside (unlike draft Tau). Custodian with 4 launch bays, 8 missiles (as per High Admirality original design, yes yes).

I know a lot of people feel like we're just force-feeding rules to the fans. I promise the opposite is true- we made a LOT of changes based on feedback from the forum (gravitic hooks on the Orbital City was particularly well-received). It's just that we put a LOT of effort into making this right while keeping to the designer's intent and true to fluff, and juggling all that is never easy. I want the fans to be happy, but we aren't scrapping this to start from scratch because some people want the Kor'or'vesh to represent something the designers never intended, regardless of how fun it is to play, etc.

So you deny fun and balance to stay in the designer's favour so to say. One could ask themselves if the designers weren't wrong. That might be the case. Designers are never 100% correct. Some even not reaching 10%.

I know we don't agree on everything, but I still want to hear your comments, complaints, etc.

Complaints (with tracking system to Custodian):
* The Aun is still needed on a Protector or is that a typo?
* Aun on Custodian, iffy, not needed.
* As Kivarn pointed out the Protector restriction is a gimmick not doing anything useful
* The 12str battery Protector variant still is better then the 'normal' variant, surely when in companion with Custodian. I advocate a lowering to 8 or max 10 batteries.
* The Railgun Stubs on all models are Fixed Forward, how can I explain to someone they are swivelling?
* I am not opposed to tracking systems on Protectors if the firepower is reduced on the str.12 battery variant to 8. The normal variant has no issues as mighty.

As said, per latest draft the Warden & Castellan are approved of.

[lastspartacus]

So you think, Horizon, that GW Tau are too powerful?  Correct me if im wrong, but Tau shouldn't be able to stand up ship to ship to Imperials, but make up for it with good and cheap ordnance.  Isnt that what is accomplished?
Will the new fleet list reflect the flavor of Tau better?  IIRC, its been awhile, but I came away from reading the FW Tau thinking 'They are trying to Imperialize them'

[horizon]

The Hero eats Imperial Navy cruisers for breakfast 1:1

A Hero + Explorer (410pts) will eat enemy battleships for dinner.

The above Tau fleet will eat enemy fleets as a desert.

GW Tau are too powerful because the way Gothic plays ordnance can be a key factor, especially en masses. GW Tau are too powerful because the 'weak' ship does not need to be taken. Even better to add Demiurg then.

Cheap ordnance is one thing, cheap ordnance being better then their expensive equivalents is not.

The Manta should not be ship/bomber it is now.

I would replace this by Tigershark Bombers (20cm normal bomber).

quick mindmelt
The Manta should be a selection in the fleet list: 5pts per Manta.
Following ordnance rules and all but having a 4+ save vs everything.
Acts as a resilient bomber otherwise.

The FW Tau are indeed Imperialized if you say so. But isn't that just how it should happen? In the Litesh war the Tau got a surround beating by the Imperial Navy, so obvious, when building new ships you learn from that. Use your own strong points etc but adapt things useable from the main enemy. Thus...

But the FW Tau are more GW Tau then the FW Tau are Imperial.

[Vaaish]

In actual gameplay, the Tau need all that prow firepower just to stand up to the beating they get against Imps and Chaos.

This is nice in theory, but the inbuilt Deflectors or cheap options to take them makes the Tau just as hard to damage as the imperials or chaos sitting abeam. Combined with the all forward weapons and extended ranges and advanced ordnance options, this makes it much more probable that tau will be the ones doing the beating rather than taking it. This is especially true when you consider that their imperial adversaries will have little to retaliate with since Imperial ships heavy rely on 30cm weapons.

After thinking it through more, I think the Custodian is alright. Maybe slightly underpriced at 330 (ok, so the actual cost is 360 which is 5 points under the Emperor). It seems interesting with the proposed changes to the tracking system and the deflector makes sense on it and are probably paid for by the reduced rage and weapons strength compared to the empy. Restrictions probably won't come into play since most fleets only take a single BB in 1500 points anyway.

The Protector feels too good for the points. It brings a ton into the battle and the only trade off is it has 6 hits and front arcs for most of it. It has more firepower than a Tyrant or a dominator if you take the variant, can still drop two mantas, and has better defenses than either. Perhaps make the deflector a paid option rather than standard?

I would agree with Horizon on the emissary getting 90 degree turns... BUT I would also reduce the variants of this that you have listed and only allow the improved turns on a variant that cannot take wardens and can't take the deflector (Ok, so I think the emissary shouldn't have the deflector option period because it's too small).

I think things get much dicier with the added armada ships too so that could throw things. Why not just let them come in under reserve rules instead?

[horizon]

Hi,

Reserve rules? The FW Taufleet option worked nicely. None confusing. Real reserve rules would be odd for one fleet within one race.

Prow Deflector,
so funny. Some people think all vessels should have it, including Castellans.

Prow Deflectors are a special technique of layering shields to the prow. Making for better warp dives as well. This shield technique, thus, has nothing to do with the size of ships.

One could argue that this option is only available to ships with at least 2 shields. 1 shield cannot be layered.

The Protector should have a prow deflector per standard.

[KivArn]

I have given this some thought. How about we take away tracking systems from all ships except the Custodian, make the Custodian's tracking system behave like a Messenger starship, then otherwise leave the Protectors as-is for points but raise the Custodian's cost a notch?

I wouldn't be averse to it, though as Horizon has said i think i'd leave the neutered version on the protector as well.

Wardens are absolutely not getting 2x30 ion cannon. I don't have any idea how Forgeworld even invented this profile. Well, actually I do, but that's beyond the scope of this post. When the Tau were first being developed and the Games Workshop models weren't even out of the design stage yet, we tested 2x30 ion cannons for the Orca. They were complete and absolute junk against Eldar, and the points they soaked up made the Tau the Eldar's punching bag. On the other hand, it was absolutely ridiculous what they did to Necrons. Anything cheap that turns a fleet into junk against one opponent and poison against another is broken. (Funny side note- because there were no models yet, I used my Space Marines fleet to simulate the Tau. Yes, I know- blasphemy!!)   

I think it's just me wanting these ^ ^ and that's mainly from a would be so cool point of view  . As they currently are i think they're fine. I have no problems in either them of the castellans. They both are perfect

Horizon, I know you hate it, but Emissaries are NOT EVER going to get 90deg turns. They are NOT Tau Dauntlesses. In fluff and our background notes, they were the first of the new Kor'or'vesh designs and are thus less polished than the later Protectors. Even with their evolved tech, Tau are STILL supposed to not be as good as Imperials. Their weapons fit makes them seem like they are, but their weapons are prow heavy, which means they are closing on Imps and Chaos to be effective, while Imps and Chaos are crossing their T to shoot back at them. In actual gameplay, the Tau need all that prow firepower just to stand up to the beating they get against Imps and Chaos.

If you are loath to changing the stats on the Emissary to give 90* can you change the background in that case to say that it doesn't have the manoeuvrability to escape from pirates and they regularly are destroyed by them and random escorts

As long as the ship stays at 45* it'll be relegated to a gimmick vessel someone takes if he wants to show of a cool model, not for effectivity.

It's long been relegated to heavy transport for me... I'd rather take a few more escorts if i have the left over points

I will continue this crusade, shupported by everyone in this forum (I hope).

Yep

It has come up in several e-mails that the Warsphere should not be allowed more than 16HP max. I'm thinking the same thing, but I haven't run that by Bob yet.

He and I tried to get GW to sell a model using the current kit but leaving out the outer ring shell, but there was no way for them to do it economically without making a new mold, which was out of the question. Because there's no kit for it, it HAS to be scratchbuilt, and we can't make legal a model that only experienced model builders can make.

You could always make a bigger warsphere using the left over centre sections to bolster the size

I know a lot of people feel like we're just force-feeding rules to the fans. I promise the opposite is true- we made a LOT of changes based on feedback from the forum (gravitic hooks on the Orbital City was particularly well-received). It's just that we put a LOT of effort into making this right while keeping to the designer's intent and true to fluff, and juggling all that is never easy. I want the fans to be happy, but we aren't scrapping this to start from scratch because some people want the Kor'or'vesh to represent something the designers never intended, regardless of how fun it is to play, etc.

I know we don't agree on everything, but I still want to hear your comments, complaints, etc.

- Nate

We do appreciate your willingness to work with us in making a unique, good and balanced fleet list

Stuff Horizon has said

I agree with pretty much everything he says with the changes to the fleet

Complaints (with tracking system to Custodian):
* The Aun is still needed on a Protector or is that a typo?
* Aun on Custodian, iffy, not needed.
* As Kivarn pointed out the Protector restriction is a gimmick not doing anything useful
* The 12str battery Protector variant still is better then the 'normal' variant, surely when in companion with Custodian. I advocate a lowering to 8 or max 10 batteries.
* The Railgun Stubs on all models are Fixed Forward, how can I explain to someone they are swivelling?
* I am not opposed to tracking systems on Protectors if the firepower is reduced on the str.12 battery variant to 8. The normal variant has no issues as mighty.

Just checked the PDF and the Aun is not required on a protector, this must have been corrected and we missed it

If we're wanting a nicely unique and colourful fleet then this

* The Railgun Stubs on all models are Fixed Forward, how can I explain to someone they are swivelling?

Would be pretty good coupled with 90* turns on everything give a powerful alpha strike but then a need to reorganise for another strike as they will always lose a broadside battle.

[KivArn]

After thinking it through more, I think the Custodian is alright. Maybe slightly underpriced at 330 (ok, so the actual cost is 360 which is 5 points under the Emperor). It seems interesting with the proposed changes to the tracking system and the deflector makes sense on it and are probably paid for by the reduced rage and weapons strength compared to the empy. Restrictions probably won't come into play since most fleets only take a single BB in 1500 points anyway.

Minor point, but the Custodian doesn't have a prow deflector...

Prow Deflector,
so funny. Some people think all vessels should have it, including Castellans.

Yep, me   well all vessels that are capable of warp dives, aka not the warden

Prow Deflectors are a special technique of layering shields to the prow. Making for better warp dives as well. This shield technique, thus, has nothing to do with the size of ships.
One could argue that this option is only available to ships with at least 2 shields. 1 shield cannot be layered.

One could also argue that the wedge needed for the smaller castellan doesn't need to be as strong as for the larger vessels and so doesn't particularly give any benefit against weapons.

Either way the custodian ought to have it.

The Protector should have a prow deflector per standard.

well... yes kinda goes without saying

[Vaaish]

Prow Deflectors are a special technique of layering shields to the prow. Making for better warp dives as well. This shield technique, thus, has nothing to do with the size of ships.

I understand that, my reasoning is that the emissary is so small that it just doesn't have access to the power required to boost the deflector enough that it enhances the protection on the ship. Currently that seems to be the case but you can upgrade to get the deflector for 15. I would just drop that option and move it up to the protector. Just because you layer the shields to help with warp travel doesn't automatically make them strong enough to have an effect in combat and I think there needs to be a trade off with having all your weapons facing forward. Having the deflector neutralizes the disadvantage for the Tau fleet needing to present a closing aspect to get the most out of their shooting.

hmmm.... I was sure I read that the custodian had the deflector last night when I was posting. My mistake.

[lastspartacus]

For helping the GW Tau, would weakening the Hero, increasing Explorer cost, doing the bomber change you mentioned, and possibly increasing the str of the light cruiser slightly, be sufficient?

[horizon]

Mostly, yes.