Really don't like these rules. Some of the ships are a little off, but some are pretty majorly wrong. The Emissary and Protector, for example, should be more agile (90° turn!). I don't mind the large straight guns representing lances (unlike horizon and the model designer), but I would drop the AC compliment down to 1 for both of these, in fact, I'd halve the Custodians AC too. For the Emissary 1 AC, 3 torps, 2 prow WBs (F), deflector, 25cm speed, 90° turns, 4 hits, 1 shield, 2 turrets. The P/S weaponry could either be 2IC@30cmF, 2RG@45cmLF+RF or 2 grav hooks. Also optional 2nd shield.
The HA’s have already decided unanimously that as a rule, Kor’or’vesh ships would be slightly faster vs. more agile when it comes to incorporating improvements. The Emissary was made faster, but it will not be a 90deg ship. A Tau Dauntless it is not. A LOT of playtesting went into making that thing right (it was the crux of the most complaints), and I am loath to revisit the thing yet again.
You think you and I disagree on everything? Ray and I really butt heads over the Custodian, with him wanting it to have 6 bays and me wanting it to have 8. Even after all the playtesting, Bob broke the tie on that one. By the way, the Smotherman formula is a good baseline tool, but playtesting is how we decide how much things cost.
A LOT of people have been saying they would prefer the Custodian to be more shooty than be yet another big carrier. I for one am hung up over how many flipping launch bays are on the model! However, Horizon has been poking me in the forehead over the Tau ever since we stapled the list closed, and I don’t mind re-visiting this for a more shooty, slightly more ordnance-poor Custodian. Caveat: absolutely NO 60cm weapons.
The Lar'shri've T'olku is far more powerful than the base version. When in normal range 1 lance is worth roughly 3 WBs, and since Tau WBs don't suffer range penalties then the 12WB@45cm of the T'olku is equivalent to the 6WB+2L@45cm of the standard model. The 2L@30cm is much better than the 2TT and teensy weensy bit of extra sideways capable firepower. Mind you, if you drop the AC down to 1 and increase turns to 90° I don't think that the T'olku is all that bad. Most firepower forward, mainly guns and manoeuvrable. Make this the base Protector. Perhaps reduce the P/S railguns by 1 or 2.
Protectors were carefully playtested before the variants were codified. I don’t mind revisiting this again to incorporate small tweaks to any or even all the variants, but we will likely NOT be re-doing these from scratch yet again. One serious proposal is to get rid of all the ship-internal tracking systems, give it to the Custodian as an external system like the Messenger and call it done. Protectors are NOT getting 90deg turns.
I don't mind the 45cm range on the Custodians IC, but it should count as a cruiser to shorten its turn radius (it will still be the least manoeuvrable ship, since it's 45°) and, of course, reduce the AC.
The Custodian is a battleship. I am willing however to revisit trading launch bays for more firepower.
Again, no 60cm weapons, but I’m sure we agree on this last one.
The Warden should be 2IC. Love the 2IC Warden. If for some reason that is considered too powerful, even though escorts aren't considered all that powerful and to even take them you'd need to sacrifice firepower (Emissary) or invest a lot of points into the Custodian, then you could reduce their armour to 4+ or something. Not that I think they'd be too powerful.
Sigoroth, this is actually a good point, but this isn’t going to happen. Hold on, don’t shoot me yet- there is actually a very valid reason for this one. Way back when the GW Tau were still being designed and we didn’t even have models for them yet, we tested 2IC on the Orca. This little ship in squads beat up on Chaos and absolutely massacred Necrons. On the other hand, it was complete junk against Eldar, and the points they soaked up turned the Tau into the Eldar’s punching bag. Playtest six of these and see what you get. If a model is absolute poison to one fleet and complete garbage to another, it is unbalanced and broken.
Trivia note- because Tau models didn’t exist yet, I used my Space Marine fleet to simulate them. How’s that for blasphemy!!
The Castellan is ok.
OMG- Sigoroth approves of something!!!
<faints>
As for the Citadel class commerce vessel I don't see how it could be the exact same model as the Bastion. It loses 2L@60cmL+R and 2 hits. That's a massive loss for no change of model. While I do think the Bastion is woefully overpriced, since I prefer the mixed AC/torps bay and don't like the proposed cutting beam changes I'd much rather just see the cost of the Bastion reduced than have the Citadel.[/color]
Sigoroth, on this I cannot agree with you more. That’s right folks, you heard it here first- Sigoroth and I agree on something.
Here’s our intent with the Citadel. In order to make a “pure†Demiurg fleet viable, they need a ship we can price at 185 points. This is gospel, call it one of our guiding principles to the HA’s. The biggest problem is that Forgeworld simply is NOT making any more ships for BFG, much less for the Demiurg in particular. What the means is that we need to create a ship that’s much cheaper than the Bastion but looks just about the same, kind of like the difference between a Mars and a Dictator, which except for two dorsal turrets and a prow bit is exactly the same model.
Here’s where it gets sticky: Another guiding principle is that we can fix the game however necessary as long as we don’t break any of the core profiles in the rulebook or Armada. That came directly from Jervis himself. THAT’S why we’re so resistant to wiping the slate on entire fleets, like you suggested for the Orks and Space Marines, but that’s beyond the scope of this post. The immediate problem is that we can’t dump the Bastion, but we need a cheaper Demiurg ship so the fleet can be realized.
Here’s where it gets really sticky (as a side note). You know who to blame for the Bastion profile in Armada? Me. After the Stronghold was codified and hit the market, Forgeworld had a lot of initial success selling the model and without warning made a smaller one. Really- even Andy C didn’t get the word until just weeks before it hit the street! He wrote me to basically say “quick, make a Demiurg cruiser profile!†After some basic guidance from him, I did some playtesting and figured out what it should look like, then sent in the profile. I didn’t hear anything for two months, during which time I received a few free samples for my time. My first thought? “Oh crap, this model is TINY!!†It didn’t fit the profile at all, so I sent in another profile that more befit the model. Unfortunately, the first profile I sent in already hit the press for BFG Magazine, and that’s what the Bastion became. Because the Bastion profile had no complaints, it was kept for Armada, and my second profile was relegated to the dustbin. That second, smaller profile is what the Citadel is now.
You’re right that there’s no way to model the Citadel. The best thing I can tell you is to not glue the rear antennas on, snip off some of the side and rear hull and call it a Citadel. The Bastion isn’t going away, and we need a cheaper Demiurg ship to round out the fleet. IF giving it a different stand isn’t good enough to tell the difference, snipping some of the hull and tail is a simple-simon way to generate a model that otherwise is never going to exist.
- Nate
