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

[Xyon]

Because,  in the main rulebook, under the section for weapon batteries, it says.

"weapon batteries form the main armament for most warships, ensuring that much of their hull is pock-marked by gun ports and weapon housings.  Each bettery consists of rank upon rank of weapons: plasma projectors, laser cannons, missile launchers, rail guns, fusion beamers, and graviton pulsars."


The very definition of weapon batteries presented in the blue book is that you've taken all the specific weapons from the 40k universe and diluted them into a generic terminology.

[Vaaish]

What is your point? That because the first rulebook written lumps everything into a single WB category you can't ever name individual weapons that function as WBs? There is no contradiction here, just more precise terminology.

[Xyon]

Then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree,   I personally think it wont make things boring if they just changed it to WB and lances in the tau profiles.   And if you wanted to make things more interesting, there would be special names for each fleet's WB and Lances.    Possibly grouped as  generic imperial, generic chaos,  tau, ork, generic eldar, necron, tyranid.

[horizon]

Agreed to disagree.

Generic is like not cool. I hate generalizing in general. lol

[lastspartacus]

He has a point, of course.  Eldar dont say 'etheric plasma launchers' or Orks dont say 'big boulder catapult'  or whatnot.  But its just been that way since Armada.  It wouldnt hurt if it just said weapon batteries and lances, and it makes sense.  But people are just fond of it now i guess.

[Zelnik]

Really? we are going to argue over something so silly as this here? start that in the general forum and let us stay ON TASK!

[lastspartacus]

Right, back on task.  Its just waiting to see really if Nate decides to snub the community without at least asking about certian Kororvesh things, if he feels they are so radical

[skatingtortoise]

Right, back on task.  Its just waiting to see really if Nate decides to snub the community without at least asking about certian Kororvesh things, if he feels they are so radical

i really hope that if i were to put as much time and effort in as nate obviously has, id get a bit more credit than this.

it might be more constructive to summarise what you feel needs changing, why, and how to solve it. 40 odd pages of theorising and postulating is difficult to use in a pitch.

[Zelnik]

From what I can tell, the summary of all the issues is thus:

1. The Custodian: Is it a battleship, or a grand cruiser? It has the toughness of a grand cruiser with the weaponry of a battleship. Should It get 90^o turns?

2. The Protector: Should it cost so much? should it have lost it's ordnance capacity?

3. The Emissary: two fighter variant? maybe 25cm speed?

4. The Castellan: only 2 batteries?

5. The Stronghold... why the hell does it have only 10 hits when it's larger then most imperial battleships?

6. I want to Habeeb.

[Sigoroth]

From what I can tell, the summary of all the issues is thus:

1. The Custodian: Is it a battleship, or a grand cruiser? It has the toughness of a grand cruiser with the weaponry of a battleship. Should It get 90^o turns?

2. The Protector: Should it cost so much? should it have lost it's ordnance capacity?

3. The Emissary: two fighter variant? maybe 25cm speed?

4. The Castellan: only 2 batteries?

I think some of the issues you've raised are slightly off.

1. The question isn't "should it have 90° turns?", but rather "should it have CG status?" (yes).

2. Given representativeness of model and that this is supposed to be a more direct fire fleet than in the past I don't think it should get more ordnance. The question is just "should it be cheaper?".

3. Since the model has bays as well as torps I don't see it as a matter of making the fighter variant more worthwhile, simply more accurately reflecting the model. The speed is an issue of role (fluff/game), and there is an issue of worth. So there really are a few questions here. The first is "is the Emissary worth taking?", to which I posit the answer is "no". The second is "if it isn't, will it be balanced by increasing its speed and adding 1 fighter bay to the two different torpedo variants?" (dropping the current launch bay variant). My answer to this is "hmm, maybe, but it makes sense in terms of the model, fluff and game play, so this is a good place to start".

4. Again, the basic question is "is it worth it?" again with the answer being "no". I do not think a fix should be in terms of increased firepower given the models size and the increased range. So this should read "The Castellan: cheaper?".

[horizon]

Habeeb?

1) Custodian should have Grand Cruiser status with 45* turns.
2) It costs well, weapony on both variants: good.
If it lost arcs on railguns: tracking systems added. Not necessary. It'll give Distant Darkness still something extra.
3) Drop lb variant. Add 1 lb to other variants. Increase speed to 25cm.
4) I like this Castellan, but if someone makes it 45pts I am fine with it.

[lastspartacus]

Agreed on all points  but the Protector.  Castellan would be a great 45 point ship.
Warden is OP too, but thats less of an issue.

If having the 'battleship' on the Custodian is so important, which it shouldnt be as it is more a designation of manueverability rather than power,
just go with that automatic upgrade that sig suggested.

Edit:  By OP I meant overpriced.

[Zelnik]

how do you justify calling the warden OP? It's slow, and requires grav hooks to bring into play.

[horizon]

25cm slow?
I like it as it is.

[Zelnik]

oh, thought it was 20.. nevermind on the speed thing