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

[Don Gusto]

With 90° turns the Protectors look overpowered to me.

In comparison with the Hero (Tolku configuration) the Viorla trades:
3 batterys for a lance,
1 launch bay for another lance,
2 hits for twice the turn rate.
The Hero also has better broadsides.

This may look balanced but it is not.

While the Hero's broadsides are good its full firepower is front only. Combined with a standard turn its effective field of fire is 180° to the front. This is a disadvantage.
The Protector has its firepower concentrated even more to the front. But with a 90° turn its effective field of fire is 270°. Now that front concentration is an advantage. With 90° turns the Protector doesn't need broadsides, it can point ALL its weapons at 75% of its surroundings without special orders. BC firepower on a light cruiser frame.
So far there's also not a single capital ship in the entire official range that combines 2 shields with 90° turns!

@horizon
You compare it to a Lunar, 1on1 a Lunar won't stand a chance against this beast. It will be lacking in every department. I would be surprised if it could win 1 out of 5.
Bad example I guess since a Lunar on its own isn't that good. This Protector on the other hand can take on any cruiser.
Note: The odds to disable the prow deflector with a regular hit are tiny.

How will a Dictator with a regular cruiser fare against 2 Protectors? Points-wise they should be on top but I doubt it.

The Emissarys don't seem any more reasonable, but at least they didn't get another shield.
8 batterys and 2 lances to the front for 110 points? With range to boot and missiles on top of it??? I can't believe people are still bitching about them.

@Nate
You say you test these designs. Please do it thoroughly. I will try some testing myself but won't have time for it until the end of next week.
Out of curiosity: How much lobbying is required to get such crazy ideas past your better judgement? You felt the FW list was too strong but this is supposed to be balanced? I'm simply shocked.

No one shared my concerns with the SM SC'S so I'm probably wasting my time here as well.
Kudos to the Tau Engineers for fitting more guns on smaller frames but I fear for the worst.

[horizon]

Ah, Don Gusto, finally someone who opposes to 90* Protectors. Saw this coming.

One note: for me they could fix all weapons in the forward arc (thus no swivelling) on a 90* Protector.
We also replied to Nate/HA that missiles should be 5, Ion Cannon 30cm, 8 railguns (422) instead of 9 (333).

But it is just NOT overpowered. Project Distant Darkness showed this. The turn rate I mean. So before you dismiss it try it. With the adds I pointed out.

One of the first playtests I did was using 2 Protectors vs a A Devestation and Carnage. Chaos won easily.

You underestimate the effect of 6 instead of 8 hits.

Protector Hero vs Hero Vash'ya.
6 vs 8 hits
90* vs 45*
9( vs 4 railguns (prow on)
3 vs 4 railguns (broadside)
2 vs 4 Ion Cannon
That is 2 Ion Prow on only, while Here can do 2 to left, 2 to right as well).
1 lb vs 2 lb
6(5) vs 6 missiles

So Prow on Hero can do: 4 RG + 4 IC = 4 + (3x4) = 4 + 12 = 16
So Prow on Prot can do: 9RG + 2IC = 9 + (3x2) = 9 + 6 = 15
With our adviced 8RG, and range drop on IC we will have 14 RG in total.

Broadside Hero (focused) 4RG + 2IC = 10
Broadside Hero (split) 2RG + 2IC = 8
Broadside Protector (focused/split) = 3

Then the Hero has a Launch bay extra = bombing run options.

Seriously... the Hero still outedges the Protector largely as a fleet engagement ship. More firepower prow on, even better broadsides (off setting the lower turn range) and more ordnance. PLUS more hits.

The Lunar has much more firepower then a Protector. But 1:1, yes, the raider Protector will have the alpha strike advantage. The Lunar gets better in larger engagements. The strength of the IN.

Dictator + Lunar
vs
2 Protectors.

IN cruiser shoulds drive at the Tau.

There is a note: previously, the FW Protector, could attempt bombing runs with 2 launch bays and 6 missiles as a backup. 1 Launch bay is hardly worth using offensive. So it mainly be fighter.
2 Protectors will have 2 launch bays instead of 4.

This is a mayor change in ordnance warfare. Perfectly fitting for these ships.

90* MUST BE.
90* MUST BE.
90* MUST BE.

But Don Gusto, please test. Keep in mind the changes I advice (5 missiles, 30cm Ion Cannons).

For the Emissary: the 8wb/2ic version you point we also commented on as being too much.

I guess Nate is checking if we are right.

It wasn't lobbying, it was facts. Compared to FW you are no longer an ordnance fleet. Ah, so much more fun to play gunnery.

Have you read Project Distant Darkness? Even less ordnance and more restricted fire arcs

[lastspartacus]

5 missiles is just so wierd to me.

Forgive me for not keeping up with the pages of dialogue.  Where are we at on more variety in the protector variants, and the warden?

[horizon]

Why is 5 missiles weird? Make it 4 then.

Nate hasn't replied so I think we are in the waiting room right now.


This

So far there's also not a single capital ship in the entire official range that combines 2 shields with 90° turns!

Before Armada there were no:

Eldar light cruisers, battleships.
Ork battleships, hulks, orks
Imperial Navy Grand Cruisers
Nicassar Dhows (escorts with 2 shields)
Tracking Systems

Before Doom of the Eldar there were no:
Eldar ships with 5+ armour

Before Ships of Mars there were no:
light cruisers with 3 turrets and 45cm weapon range.

The list is endless.

My main point being, your argument like that is one that has no merits.


ps... The Strike Cruiser with 6 hits has 90* and 25cm and 2 shields.
Oh wait...you hate that as well

[Sigoroth]

@Don Gusto

Let's face it, the whole point of broadside oriented firepower is to get enemies on either side so that you can fire both broadsides. In this case the Lunar has 12WB + 4L, much more than either the Protector or the Hero. Of course, this isn't terribly easy to do and you have to deal with the extra shields of the second target. Still, it's not too much to assume that a fleet is going to shoot at at least 2 targets per turn, making dealing with the 2nd lot of shields rather moot. But the difficulties associated with getting targets into each broadside do lessen the effective firepower of the ship. A handy rule of thumb is to halve the offside firepower when deciding it's overall contribution. So a Lunar is sitting on 9WB + 3L worth of focussed fire. At least whenever firing at 2 targets is viable.

So, 1 on 1, sure, a Protector beats a Lunar. But the Lunar is a fleet vessel. In fact, the reason why the IN ships work so well is that they do break the enemy lines and use their offside fire. Chaos ships are widely regarding as being better individual ships, and to this I agree, but the vast majority of the time they only fire one of their broadsides, due to their strengths and weaknesses. Which is why the IN are able to compete.

As for 90° turns with fixed forward firepower getting an effective 270° coverage, well, a broadside oriented fleet with only 45° turns gets a full 360° coverage. If you sit directly behind a Protector then he can't reach you unless he goes on CTNH orders. Do the same thing to a Lunar and he can still hit you with a full broadside.

[Trasvi]

I really like the new fleet, but I do have a few comments.
(i assume we're talking about the 2.1 draft here?)
1) Why have the two Protector variants? Trading 1 missile for 3 batteries isn't really very interesting.
2) No come to new heading orders on the Custodian seems odd. I don't think its that big a ship, and with everything else in the fleet on 90* turns having one incredibly unmanoeuvrable ship could see it completely left behind.
3) What about the option of adding additional Ethereals to the Emissary? Given they are  diplomatic vessels I think it would be quite fitting if they carried around an Aun'el for additional re-rolls.
4) The custodian restriction wording still seems a little.... wordy... to me.
Perhaps explaining it with a table could be bette?
0-749 - 0 Custodians
750-1499 - 1 Custodian
1500-2249 - 2 custodians
5) The reduction in the number of launch bays worries me slightly as it seriously changes the threat levels of the Ordnance phase. - my typical fleet loses 6 launch bays (down from 16) - 37% reduction. The increase in torpedoes from the Custodian IMO doesn't offset this as the torps can easily be downed by a single fighter. Maybe thats intended balance, now that the explorer is an option, but just pointing it out.

6) How 'official' is this list? Some members at my club are opposed to using anything unofficial (ie, anything not appearing on the GW site is a no-go)

7) Would it hurt to reprint the rules for Tracking Systems, Mantas and Missiles in this fleet list, to consolidate everything?

thats all for now
Trasvi

[Sigoroth]

2) No come to new heading orders on the Custodian seems odd. I don't think its that big a ship, and with everything else in the fleet on 90* turns having one incredibly unmanoeuvrable ship could see it completely left behind.

Well as it stands the Custodian counts as a battleship, therefore it's only able to execute a turn after moving 15cm straight. It would take some extraordinary circumstances to boost the Custodians speed to the 30cm necessary to make this a concern anyway. I would like to see it count as a cruiser as far as turning is concerned at least. Then it could turn after 10cm, making the CTNH thing an issue. At which point I wouldn't mind if it could not CTNH.

3) What about the option of adding additional Ethereals to the Emissary? Given they are  diplomatic vessels I think it would be quite fitting if they carried around an Aun'el for additional re-rolls.

Well Ethereals aren't actually diplomats. It is the water caste (Por) that handle diplomatic matters. Ethereals are more like the Tau's holy men. They can inspire great acts but the Tau suffer their loss greatly.

4) The custodian restriction wording still seems a little.... wordy... to me.
Perhaps explaining it with a table could be bette?
0-749 - 0 Custodians
750-1499 - 1 Custodian
1500-2249 - 2 custodians

Or it could just be worded: 0-1 per full 750 pts.

5) The reduction in the number of launch bays worries me slightly as it seriously changes the threat levels of the Ordnance phase. - my typical fleet loses 6 launch bays (down from 16) - 37% reduction. The increase in torpedoes from the Custodian IMO doesn't offset this as the torps can easily be downed by a single fighter. Maybe thats intended balance, now that the explorer is an option, but just pointing it out.

This is intentional. The idea behind this fleet is as a mobile gun platform. The Custodian is more powerful than the Explorer and the Protector has comparable direct fire to a Hero but is unrestricted in the fleet. The Emissary (currently) has enormous firepower for its size (this has to come down!). The Custodian and Warden are faster than their Kor'vattra contemporaries and the Protector, Emissary and Castellan are more agile than their counterparts. Mobile gunships, rather than slow carriers.

6) How 'official' is this list? Some members at my club are opposed to using anything unofficial (ie, anything not appearing on the GW site is a no-go)

Presently these rules are still in the formative process. They're draft only rules, and therefore open to feedback. So feel free to playtest. Once finalised they'll become official.

7) Would it hurt to reprint the rules for Tracking Systems, Mantas and Missiles in this fleet list, to consolidate everything?

That actually sounds like a good idea.

[horizon]

Hi Trasvi,
1) as you can see we are giving feedback to see the variant tweaked a little. You should also notice the range change on the Ion Cannons

2) Well, Sigoroth and I are advocating to see the Custodian classified as a Grand Cruiser to adress the issue you describe. So it is nice to see you are on the same wave.

3) mmm

4) 1 per full 750

5) Intentional! Best thing of this raider fleet: becoming a mobile gunnery fleet not relying on ordnance. Will make for more tactical battles for sure. Heck, I would even drop the launch bays on the Custodian to 4 (8 missiles) to advance the theme.

6) It will go to the GW site in time. So it will be at a time official. Now it is time to test and give feedback. A true good development thing.

7) Good.

[lastspartacus]

Yes, the salvo can be stopped by one fighter.  I am considering a house rule where fighter markers remove d6 torpedos when they hit. 

I do love tau torps, and would love to have the option to spam them as much as possible, if i wanted.


Finally, I agree with what someone mentioned about mantas not really being bombers in role.  Why not normal tigershark nonresilient bombers?
Give the carriers a 5 or 10 points break if need be.  Or make tigersharks 25cm, they look like fast bombers

[flybywire-E2C]

I took a hard look at all the Tau feedback from the SG forum, and I play-tested the ideas I was presented with in several games (with several iterations per game)  to make sure we were going in the right direction. Because of time constraints, I was unable to get as much play time in as I wanted so the Ork FB rule tweaks will have to wait another week. However, it turns out some of the remarks were valid, and both the Emissary and Protector have been tweaked and had their variants balanced against each other a tiny bit.

Here’s the biggest thing about these ships that came out in gameplay over the weekend. Yes, they have a lot of firepower for their size, but it is for all intents and purposes all coming out of one arc, the prow. Even with their better turns, they still move only as fast as Imperials, and because all their firepower is essentially in their prows, they ended up spending a LOT of time getting their T’s crossed. The best response to this is keeping them line-abreast, but even then Imperials as often as not ended up in a better firing solution than the Tau, and the 6+ deflector ended up being of less utility than one would think under the circumstances. Even against Orks the FW ships are not overbearing fleet killers, precisely because we purposely dialed down their ordnance compared to the GW models. While their firepower is much better than Orks, it turns out their fragility compared to Ork ships turned into a significant balancing factor.

After spending more time with these things in actual gameplay. I would be very careful in complaining too much about how the new Tau ship profiles make them better than Imperials. I will post the new file on-line sometime tomorrow after I get all my notes collated, and I think this one will really allow us to staple this document shut. Even so, I will leave it in draft form for another week so everyone can review and comment.

Separately, I understand the argument about Tau ordnance, but at this time we're not entertaining any changes to the fundamental rules of any fleets. Once all the smaller projects are complete, maybe we will get to that, but right now there's a lot on our plate just with the unfinished materials we're working on at the moment.

-   Nate

[horizon]

Good with me.
And I told you it was balanced, those turns.

[Vaaish]

sooo.... when do we get to see the changes?

[lastspartacus]

When you say changes to tau ordnance, do you mean mantas becoming tigersharks and not being resilient?

[Sigoroth]

I took a hard look at all the Tau feedback from the SG forum, and I play-tested the ideas I was presented with in several games (with several iterations per game)  to make sure we were going in the right direction. Because of time constraints, I was unable to get as much play time in as I wanted so the Ork FB rule tweaks will have to wait another week. However, it turns out some of the remarks were valid, and both the Emissary and Protector have been tweaked and had their variants balanced against each other a tiny bit.

Here’s the biggest thing about these ships that came out in gameplay over the weekend. Yes, they have a lot of firepower for their size, but it is for all intents and purposes all coming out of one arc, the prow. Even with their better turns, they still move only as fast as Imperials, and because all their firepower is essentially in their prows, they ended up spending a LOT of time getting their T’s crossed. The best response to this is keeping them line-abreast, but even then Imperials as often as not ended up in a better firing solution than the Tau, and the 6+ deflector ended up being of less utility than one would think under the circumstances. Even against Orks the FW ships are not overbearing fleet killers, precisely because we purposely dialed down their ordnance compared to the GW models. While their firepower is much better than Orks, it turns out their fragility compared to Ork ships turned into a significant balancing factor.

After spending more time with these things in actual gameplay. I would be very careful in complaining too much about how the new Tau ship profiles make them better than Imperials. I will post the new file on-line sometime tomorrow after I get all my notes collated, and I think this one will really allow us to staple this document shut. Even so, I will leave it in draft form for another week so everyone can review and comment.

Separately, I understand the argument about Tau ordnance, but at this time we're not entertaining any changes to the fundamental rules of any fleets. Once all the smaller projects are complete, maybe we will get to that, but right now there's a lot on our plate just with the unfinished materials we're working on at the moment.

-   Nate

Good stuff, good stuff.

Huh, if only I had've predicted that 90° turns wouldn't be overpowered with fixed forward fire and lower hits ... oh wait ... 

[Caine-HoA]

Meanwhile i had an idea:

What if we take the tracking system from the Custodian to the Emissary. With only 10cm range od the system the Custodian would have problems following/staying close to the Cruisers. The Emissary on the other side is perfect for both staying with a Protector or supporting Castellans.

This way you could make the Emissary a much more needed ship and would avoid Custodian & Protector only fleets the same time as you give a Tau player more options how to use the tracking system. in addition it gives the easy to destroy Emmisary at least a small defence backup against ordnance.