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

[Sigoroth]

When the Merchant stats came out everyone looked at the model, looked at the stats, looked at the model again, and then scratched their heads in confusion. At the barest minimum, even with the notion that as a merchant vessel it is not very durable, everyone thought it should be 6 hits. Given how weak it was we thought that just adding 2 hits without increasing cost would be a good balance fix. So we screamed and screamed and the HA finally added an option of +2 hits for extra points ... talk about missing the point.

The Merchant should have the same profile it has, at the same cost, but with 6 hits. The option to add another 2 hits for +15 points could be removed, or it could stay. After all, the ship is clearly an 8 hit model and it's not terribly fantastical to suggest that some might be refit with extra internal bulkheads and damage control systems, etc, to make them more combat worthy. After all, this is obviously the rationale behind the current option. It would just mean that the ships stats would be more balanced and more believable.

[horizon]

Trasvi.... you really think a ship with
8 hits -- 45* turns -- 4 Ion Cannons --  2 launch bays -- 6 missiles -- 4 railguns

is the same as a ship with
6 hits -- 90* turns - 2 Ion Cannons -- 1 launch bay -- 5 missiles --- 12 railguns (or less)

[Trasvi]

I know they're  sufficiently different from each other in the amount of armament, but they do have identical types of armament: ion cannon, launch bay, missiles, railguns. A jack-of-all-trades ship and his little brother.
Perhaps i'm playing the wrong fleet, or hoping for another expansion supplement, but I think Tau's fleet could be given more variety by having ships which were more focussed on one particular role.
Also a non-carrier battleship, we can all dream...


On second thought, the Hero does fit the role of 'lance cruiser' better than I thought. Still new to this game :/

[horizon]

I don't agree. Not every fleet should have everything.

The Tau fleet has enough variety with Armada and all its variants 9 (two Explorers/Heroes/Merchants, Draft2010 (two Protectors, three Emissaries) and all xenos allies.

[Caine-HoA]

Its nice to see that trasvi has the same opinion about the hero, nevertheless with the new protector profile it plays completely different to the hero (except from still having to reload to be most effective).

@Merchant
Sry but to fix this ship it needs more than +2 hits. It can take no role letstake a look ...  15cm combined with 45° 1 shield 6wb and 4 hits thats it and now to the pros: ... ... wait there have to be some let me look again ... ...

Come on guys, be honest who would take such a ship in any fleet? Fluff is nice but senseless if gameplay wise this ship is nothing but a waste of space in the rulebook.

[horizon]

Just before Port Maw was down there was a player who used Merchants in a non-standard Tau fleet. He called it the best Tau could do. It was an interesting discussion.

He went for the maximum gunnery fleet, with gun Merchants iirc. Using Messengers to create a devestating 45cm barrage.

Perhaps we should try to take the Merchant out of that ideal setup and make it more worthwhile in a Tau fleet of ordnance-doom.

[lastspartacus]

Thoughts on Custodian:
The Kororvesh fleet has some unique flavor traits.  Equal shielding to its counterparts in other fleets, -2HP due to lighter more efficient construction, 90* turns, and a greater concentration of turrets.  These things set a tau vessel in whatever ship class it falls into.
Thus, the Custodian needs a 90* turn, and at least the option for an extra shield and turret at a points increase.
This is for flavor and fleet cohesion, but it also goes a good deal towards perfecting the ship at its role in the fleet, as a more hands on carrier than the Explorer.

Thoughts on Protector:
If it were up to me, Protector battery layout would be 4/4/4 and become 3/4/3 and forward locking lances for the variant.
Still feel its overcosted, 170 point ship at the high end.  All systems firing forward, slightly surpasses the single broadside of some cruisers.
-2 HP is a big disadvantage to other line cruisers.  Nature weapon positions means its almost always going to suffer the closing column on gunnery chart.  Try and reconcile that with 5 points more than a Lunar.

Thoughts on the Emissary:  I guess its accepted that the fighter bay variant is purely for fluff and fun, so be it.  2 and it would be a fine alternative.  Otherwise, probably the best capital ship for its points in the fleet, great example of a good ship.
Option for extra hull points or extra shield would be appreciated.

Thoughts on the Castellan:
Pricey but solid escort.  Wish it had a tad something more for 50, as Id much rather pay the 10 points for an Emissary over 2 Castellans, for many reasons.  Wish it had an extra weapon battery, and lost 5cm of speed, at such a premium points level.  Those huge escorts also LOOK like they pack more firepower.  Lose the 90* turn if its overpowered, the thing feels and should function like a long range artillery piece.  Or make em 55 points.

Thoughts on the Warden:
I've come to accept the little fellow.  Not quite Orca levels of cost/effect, but the slight improvements make it still a great steal for 30 points.
Don't change a thing


And for fun, anyone seen this yet?
http://forums.tauonline.org/other-gw-games/61732-tau-bfg-experimental-ships.html

[Don Gusto]

I like the way the Kroot Warsphere is developing in the draft, v2.2 is even better than 2.1.

Regarding the Citadel - what the Stronghold and Bastion have in common is that once crippled their leadership is 5. The Citadel is different here because its leadership starts 'too high' for its 6 hits. I think it would make more sense to give it a starting leadership of 8 instead. 8 would be ok for the smaller cruiser and the wording could be the same for all 3 ships.

The Protectors however are still totally over the top.

I've tested two v2.1 Viorl'la Protectors in several cruiser clashs against a Carnage/Devastation team. They easily dominated all games and beat the shit out of the chaos cruisers. The chaos ships superior speed and range could only delay their doom but not cripple a single Protector. This didn't really surprise me as I had feared as much.
What did surprise me however was their reception by my Tau opponent who was outright disgusted by the cheesy nature of their profile. He said they felt more like dogfighting jets than spaceships.

I agree that with 6 hits they will have a harder time in bigger engagements where more fire can be concentrated on selected targets. But even then I hardly see them on the receiving end. If you find the current (v2.2) design balanced in a 1500 straight-out clash/fleet engagement I suggest you try the same fleets in an escalating engagement. That should tell you something of their capabilities.
I have to admit here that I don't see 1500pts tournament play as the measure of all balancing. Over the last two years I've mostly played campaigns with scenarios ranging from 500 to 1500 points, the majority being 750. Here the Protectors will clearly dominate.

The advantages of a front-firing ship of this size with 90° turns are so blatantly obvious. Just to name one, with CTNH it can turn 180° in a single round. Only light ships can do this in BFG. The Protector is NOT a light ship.
Indeed as has been pointed out before it has a 90° 'blind spot' to the rear - But how will you get there to exploit it? How is this supposed to be a liability?
Has anyone ever tried to get behind a Dauntless?
...
No?
...
Well why bother when you can just blow it up!!!
Won't work on the Protector though.

I find the change of the Castellan to 25cm speed very interesting. A design that hadn't changed for several revisions suddenly gets a speed boost. Well of course! Who would take 20cm Castellans over these awesome protectors?

On a further note:
Reducing the missiles from 6 to 5 is cosmetical at best.
It doesn't change their deployment, it doesn't change their threat, it changes nothing on BFI/crippled and sure doesn't justify this madness.

EDIT:
Forgot to mention this:
From v2.2: "T'olku configuration Protectors must outnumber those of the Vior'la configuration in a Tau fleet."
Now theres a sliver of sanity in all this.
If the T'olku had less firepower overall or 45° turns it would go a long way to balance this design. As it stands though both configurations are roughly equal. Not nearly enough.

[lastspartacus]

Hah, its funny how two people can have such different takes on a ship

Don, do you have access to vassal?  Id love to test out that combo clash with you.
2 Protectors vs a carnage and a devastation?  Firstly, thats not a great combo at all vs protectors, who have just enough bays and turrets to render the devastation's ordnance obsolete.  2 carnages, now thats the ticket.  Or 2 devastations, both stronger in pairs than one of each.

Even so, would you mind telling me how each player handled the battle?  It sounds a bit funny to me.

[horizon]

Hey,
that's indeed funny. I am a bit on the middle ground. As the Protectors certainly are not to weak as LS says but I wouldn't call them over the top either.
However, in the latest draft I will admit that the Protectors should lose prow gunnery (4/2/2 is still my call on best balance).

LS, 90* Custodian will like never happen. Push the Grand Cruiser crew.

Don Gusto, with Project Distant Darkness that matchup is exactly what I used to playtest the PDD Protectors. Chaos won a lot of times...above 50% to be honest but I felt fine with that.
Calling it madness is off limits. 90* is to stay. I'll veto it.

Keep in mind the cheaper phase III PDD Protector variant has this layout:

points: 190 (I don't care about cruiser clash limits )

hits 6
shields 2
turns 90*
turrets 3
armour 6+/5+
speed 20cm

Prow Railguns @ 45cm strength 4 - F
Port Railguns @ 45cm strength 2 - F
Starboard Railguns @ 45cm strength 2 - F
Port Ion Cannon @ 30cm strength 1 - L/F
Starboard Ion Cannon @ 30cm strength 1 - R/F
Dorsal Launch bay @ 20/25 strength 1 - NA
Prow Gravitic Missile Launcher @ 20-40cm strength 4 - F
with Tracking Systems

So Don Gusto, questions / advices:

i) detailed battle report please   (I am curious how a Carnage & Devestation failed to do something. I always had a hard time getting close not being crippled. )
ii) You play with draft2010 Tau versus Chaos (so switch roles)
iii) You play against and with Project Distant Darkness phase 3 Protectors using same setup.

On the Castellan: 25cm is like good, it is a friggin expensive escort. Keep that in mind!

[lastspartacus]

As the Protectors certainly are not to weak as LS says but I wouldn't call them over the top either.

Which of my points on the Protector weaknesses were false?

LS, 90* Custodian will like never happen. Push the Grand Cruiser crew.

Why not?  Fits the fleet so much better than simply going to cruiser status.
As stated before, its got Protector level gunnery, so what does 90* turns break?

On the Castellan: 25cm is like good, it is a friggin expensive escort. Keep that in mind!

I was voting for a buff for it.  I want to see it at str3 batteries. Only drop to 20cm if its deemed OP at 50 with all of that, though as I said, I don't think it suffers anything from going to 20cm.

[horizon]

Because, really, ships with 10 hits, non-Eldar, should turn 90*. Grand Cruiser status is enough.

Protector has more focusable direct firepower + missiles + attack craft in one arc then most enemies.
This mounted on 90* turn radius makes a good enough offset for lesser hits and weakened broadsides.

Check back to the FW Protector:
6 railguns, 2 ion, 2 launch bay, 6 missiles on a 45* radius for 190pts. And it was balanced (yet boring).

[lastspartacus]

Custodian:  Why?  It would allow it to better keep up with the rest of the fleet, and be very flavorful.  And forward firing focus makes 90* a must just to even match the smaller Protector.  The size and design of the battleship means it has to move further before its momentum catches up to move in a new direction, but can turn easier.  The design screams turning ability.  It takes zero flavor from the Eldar, who function must faster and agile than the tau.  Tau just get tighter turns and Imperial level speed.

Protector:  You forgot to mention always having to be closing as a negative.  Also, after the initial battle-run pass, the Tau actually struggles more to bring its weapons to bear again.  Its like cramming a lunar's broadside on its front arc, losing the other broadside altogether, giving it a small strength increase and tighter turning, taking away a fourth of its staying power, and having a 5 point increase 0.o]

In other news, I'm curious, for a pure kororvesh fleet, are messengers still considered a must?

[Sigoroth]

I would not be opposed in principle to the Custodian getting 90° turns. This would make the Tau the most agile fleet apart from Eldar, though not as fast. This is a reflection of their 40k feel, so that's fine.

However if the Tau are able to put 90° turns on a 10 hit ship then what reason would there be to downsize their Hero replacement? Obviously the Custodian, Protector and Emissary have 2 less hits than normal for their roles because FW has no idea of scale. However I think that we established that the fluff reason they did this was to get more manoeuvrability. So Prot is 6 hits instead of 8 to go from 45° to 90°. This suggests that they can't do 90° turns on ships more than 6 hits.

If this were not the case, and the Tau have the ability to go to 90° turns on any size hull, up to 10 hits at least, then why are the Emissary and Protector undersized? They could be bigger ships (6 & 8 hits respectively) and still have 90° turns to go with their greater survivability.

If these two ships were made large enough to be given normal hit values then I could see a 90° fleet. Mind you, if they were we'd probably be stuck with 45° on them instead. So the only question left is "why is the Custodian so small for a BB, given that it can't get 90° turns?" to which my response would be that it should gain some extra agility, in the form of a cruiser's turning circle. My preference would be that it should even be allowed to go on CTNH. That way it could keep up (to a degree) with the rest of the fleet by using orders.

[lastspartacus]

I always saw the kororvesh design philosophy as very efficient ships.  Less tonnage than similar class vessels in other fleets, but packing alot of firepower and using the less tonnage and splayed hull design for tighter turns.

I don't see it as 'nothing over 6 can turn 90'  I see it more as 'kororvesh hull design, which means slighter builds, required to achieve turning ability'
So you sacrifice the hits for the turning ability.  Which the Custodian does as well. 
The other design philosophy of good shielding for its size is lost in the Custodian as well, and I hope the option for a 4th is included, if not an extra turret.