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

[horizon]

The BatRep:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163117

[lastspartacus]

I do not agree completely. Same as Marines will never be for fleet engagments, like Dark Eldar the Tau Kor'or'Vesh pure fleets shouldn't be engagement elites either. It's their role: raiding, assisting the main battle line.

I agree certain fleets should be better and worse and certain things, absolutely.  Being at a dire disadvantage though, not so much.

Heavy fleet engagement level. Bring it down to 1500 for proper comparision.
Also: 2000pts should be 2nd Custodian imo.
Also: Chaos fleet should have carrier otherwise they die missile death.

Weren't the Kororvesh created to be a true military arm of the fleet dedicated solely to combat?
They shouldn't be so disadvantaged in my favorite size battle
Fighters I'm sure you know is not the only way to deal with ordnance, though that was the one advantage I acknowledged to the Tau.

You're sure? 345pts vs 270pts. 22 batteries + 5 lances (37) vs 18 batteries + 9 lances (45)
I think the Chaos escorts are in dire problems in a direct duel. Wardens level Iconoclast with batteries, lances for Idolators.

Greater speed and Idolator's longer firing range.

That, Horizon, is why I am fussing about the Kororvesh

You are underestimating:

* Tau Alpha Strike
* Tau Missiles
* 90* turns (this is a real biggie when used well)
* Tau gunnery @ 45cm.

So, I do not agree on your fuzz.
[/quote]

I did acknowledge that Ordnance was the one thing Chaos lacked in this case.  This isn't even my optimal Chaos list, it was at the time a 'lets see if I can win without ordnance' list.
The Tau will do damage with the missiles and AC waves, but it will be mitigated until around 45cm because of chaos shooting.  You say tau has alpha strike, when that actually belongs to the Chaos fleet.  Once it hits 60cm, its as scary as the Tau fleet when it hits 45cm.  90* turns simply help the Tau come to grips after the Chaos ship passes and brings its broadsides to bear again.  So, to summarize, out of those final points you made I only see the one about missiles being valid.

I challenge anyone to schedule a game with me on vassal to change my mind

[lastspartacus]

Read the battle report.  You have been playing BFG long enough that I feel confident you are a skilled player, Horizon.  Your opponent...well, just going by his ship selection and choices in squadroning, it was pretty horrible before he set model to board

[horizon]

Read the battle report.  You have been playing BFG long enough that I feel confident you are a skilled player, Horizon.  Your opponent...well, just going by his ship selection and choices in squadroning, it was pretty horrible before he set model to board

Hey,
he's a good player, the squadron wasn't bad (Ld issue), he didn't play bad plus the selection isn't far away from my Chaos fleet to be honest. Even better I think to face Tau.

[lastspartacus]

The carnages should have been together, as well as the murder and hades.  And with all that long range firepower, the Tau player still managed to get the alpha strike?  Either poor planning or horrible dice.  Sounds like your dice were amazing as well, with such damage and critical hits in one turn.  Hulks drifting around and exploding at the right spots.

Sounds like it was a very fun game, but I wouldn't take anything from it on the competativeness of the kororvesh.  Seriously, someone face me with the guys.  I want a volunteer

Either way, they should still stand a chance at higher points.

[horizon]

They do stand a chance under draft 2010.

And, I, never ever squadron vessels. Unless a Protector might end up with Ld 6. Even with 7 I keep them single vessels and non squadroned.
Though with Tau may balance win-loss ratio is pretty good.

Yup, dice, went my way. Normally I roll one critical on 10 attempts, now I had 1 out of 3. I managed to do the alpha strike because I planned it all well. At the right moment moving ships into the 40cm-45cm zone.

Oh, look at the date, that was 2008 with the FW Tau rules (45* degrees and all), under draft 2010 my alpha gunnery strike would even been better.

I think you and Don Gusto should face off. Both 1500pts, Chaos vs Tau. Same fleets. Vica Versa matches.

[clintv42]

Hey Horizon,
So you're against the Custodian having 90* turns.  If it does have 90* turns you would like to bring it down to 4 (2/2) bays.  What do you see as the fundamental problem with a Custodian turning 90* without loss of weaponry?  I guess what I'm asking here is an answer beyond, "its a Battleship and battleships can't do that" or "because its not balanced".  Not saying that has been your reply in the past but I'm after a little more substance to why not.  So give me some logistics on why the Custodian becomes a Juggernaut of battle with with the addition of 90* turns <--- Do I end that sentence with a (.) or a (?)...

[horizon]

It is a Grand Cruisers. Only Eldar Grand Cruisers turn more then 45* heh heh.
A Grand Cruiser Custodian can do CTNH.

One should keep in check that a opinion on Tau kor'or'vesh could be that 90* for a Protector is already too much. See Don Gusto.
Pushing a 10 hit vessel which in essence is the same strength as an Imperial or Chaos equivalent battleship is very tricky. It can be pretty off balancing in game play.

Perhaps not the answer you'd like. As I said earlier if 90* is accepted then hey, cool with it. But my 'feeling' is that a 90* will reduce the general acceptance of draft 2010. People will scream murder. Trust me, I've seen such things happen...

In Project Distant Darkness my proposal was quite weaker then the current draft.

[Sigoroth]

So give me some logistics on why the Custodian becomes a Juggernaut of battle with with the addition of 90* turns <--- Do I end that sentence with a (.) or a (?)...

You use a full stop (or a period as the yanks say), since it wasn't a question. As for the 90° Custodian, if the Protector and Emissary were larger then I'd be fine with it (in principle). Since these two ships are not at the proper size then I don't see it as plausible, and there's been no argument here that was in the least bit convincing. Production efficiency, engine size A vs B, Tau preference for smaller hit ships, blah.

[Trasvi]

Sorry Sigoroth, but I really don't understand our argument. You're saying that if Tau can build a 10 hit ship with 90*, why don't they build an 8hp with 90*? Maybe they just didn't feel like it; Why don't the imperials have more 4 or 6hp ships? Maybe the Tau high command feels that it is more tactically sound to have all ships being able to move as one, with the same speed and turns, rather than having fast ships that eventually get too far away to support the bigger ones.

As for the engine size thing I was talking about... imagine we're talking about cars. You can get tiny cars with small engines, and they're fast because they're light. But they're too light to fit a V12 monster in there, so you need to increase the size of the car until you can get that bigger engine.

I guess that, like nearly all rules, the fluff justification is secondary to the game. Really, the protector's model size indicates it should have been 8hp from the start, and we're only now having to retcon story to cover up FW's lack of imagination.

HOWEVER, I am in agreement with Horizon... even if the 90* turns isn't unbalancing (I don't think it is), it might reduce the general acceptance of the list just because it is unusual.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Fluff justification should not be secondary to the game. They should go hand in hand with the rules. If it was secondary then heck, I'd just make up ship rules which shouldn't be allowed in a faction.

[tinfish]

I was busy for 6 weeks, couldn't face reading pages of replies, so I didn't. Some people will like the changes, some will hate them, that's what forums are for.

I like the v2.2 draft, lost integrated tracking, gained more guns & manoeuvrability - I can live with that.

I will give them a spin on Saturday and see how I get on.

[Sigoroth]

Sorry Sigoroth, but I really don't understand our argument. You're saying that if Tau can build a 10 hit ship with 90*, why don't they build an 8hp with 90*? Maybe they just didn't feel like it; Why don't the imperials have more 4 or 6hp ships? Maybe the Tau high command feels that it is more tactically sound to have all ships being able to move as one, with the same speed and turns, rather than having fast ships that eventually get too far away to support the bigger ones.

As for the engine size thing I was talking about... imagine we're talking about cars. You can get tiny cars with small engines, and they're fast because they're light. But they're too light to fit a V12 monster in there, so you need to increase the size of the car until you can get that bigger engine.

I guess that, like nearly all rules, the fluff justification is secondary to the game. Really, the protector's model size indicates it should have been 8hp from the start, and we're only now having to retcon story to cover up FW's lack of imagination.

HOWEVER, I am in agreement with Horizon... even if the 90* turns isn't unbalancing (I don't think it is), it might reduce the general acceptance of the list just because it is unusual.

The reason the Tau models from FW are all given 2 less hit points than other fleets and even their previous incarnation is because the models are small. We can't justify full hits on them. That leaves us in the position of trying to justify why they (the Tau, not FW) made them smaller. The ideas of "that's how Tau like it" or "production efficiency" just don't cut it. It is a flat out disadvantage tactically. There had to be some tactical gain from doing this. Therefore we lit upon the idea of extra manoeuvrability as the trade-off, which is very Tau-ish.

Now, since it is Tau-ish, I would be inclined to agree that the Custodian should get 90°. At least, the Tau would want their Custodian to be so agile. However, if they had to sacrifice resilience on their Protector in order to get 90° turn rate, then there's no way they'd be able to achieve the feat on a 10 hit ship. We've already established the trade-off of resilience for mobility in the case of the Protector. The same thing can be done for the Custodian (since it has 2 less hits than a true BB) but it cannot emulate the gain acquired by the Protector and still have what the Protector sacrificed. So it has to be a different form of mobility.

Since grand cruisers are 10 hits and count as cruisers as far as turning circle is concerned then this alone might be reason enough for the Tau to have made their BB smaller. To get the same sort of performance out of their BB as Chaos get out of their CG. After all, we have only established the Tau as having equivalent technology as the Imperium regarding movement.

If the Protector and, to a lesser extent, the Emissary were bigger then the entire fleet could have 90° turns. However, this would presuppose a greater level of technology than the Imperium and we'd likely have been stuck with a 45° fleet anyway.

[lastspartacus]

Sig, I think you need to campaign for larger hulled designs, if you want it.

As it is, it makes perfect sense for a forward firing ship to be able to turn to bring said weapons to bear. 
Making your battleship do it worse than your cruiser is just silly.

Tau hull design allows for 90* turns.  Tau build their ships at the size they do, because they do.  Smaller size means less cost, and an agile and light alternative that can hold its own against bulkier vessels of the same class is deemed a plus.  Its no stretch at all.

It has always been against tau battle doctrine to go for brute force and size.

[horizon]

No, Tau doctrine is agile & swift deployment of guns.

Sig does not want large hulled designs as that is not how the FW models look like.

And the Custodian is not worse then the cruiser. It is the only carrier in the fleet which can use its ordnance on the attack (larger waves).