Tau Protection Fleet 2010 overview

[Sigoroth]

The problem with that is the same as the Emissary tho. By removing torpedoes (even a portion) your removing damage inflicting weapons for fighters that may or may not be useful. If the torpedoes get dropped they should be removed entirely in favor of launch bays using a standard mix of attack craft (0 torpedoes 3 launch bays).

Losing offensive power for fighters is not a problem as far as I can see. Justifying the loss is a little trickier. I myself am not a fan of the torp/AC swap idea. I was just looking for a way to keep these ships more direct fire focussed as well as limit the amount of total weaponry on the ship and limit the number of carrier versions likely to turn up. After all, it is an offensive loss for only a defensive gain. For these purposes the swap works, though it doesn't sit well with me. And the main problem with the Emissary's fighter bay is that the swap simply isn't worth it. The carrier Emissary is rubbish.

Personally I would like to see a mix of 2 launch and 4-6 torpedoes as standard and the weapons batteries to be taken out of a fixed forward firing arc as per all other tau designs, an additional 5cm speed should be standard as well if were dreaming here ;-).

These are all things that would fit with the taus preferred method of attack and would make the vessel much more able to actually perform flanking attacks instead of being forced to always close to attack. (not that it actually HAS to close, but really 2wb and 1 lance )

I'm not really opposed to the idea of a mix of fighter only and bomber only bays either, this does sound quite fluffy especially for the almost self sufficient ship that this has turned out to be. I just don't think they should lose anything to bring that ability, if this approach is taken I would rather see it as a way to patch the 5pt price issue.

The SG Tau were not very manoeuvrable, and had to make up for it with their weaponry. They were still a primarily forward firing fleet though. The FW Tau are no longer so sluggish, so locked forward fire isn't that big a problem. The trade-off for locking their firepower forward is likely that they can get more of it. As for the speed, well, Tau never have been that fast in any game system. They're no Eldar. But more than this, if the Protector could have 90° turns and 25cm speed, then surely the Tau have advanced so significantly in their drive technology that they'd be able to make an 8 hit ship with 90° turns and 20cm speed. Of the two designs, I'm sure they'd favour the latter. Since they have a 6 hit ship we can be safe in assuming that they don't have the tech just yet to make 8 hit, 20cm cruisers with 90° turns. That is to say, in order to make their ship turn so sharply, they had to make it lighter.

As for the ordnance, well, there is a problem of inundating the CPF Tau with ordnance, which would make them too much like their previous iteration. This fleet is supposed to be something different. So less incidental AC (the Heroes having 2 each on top of their armament was very strong) and less torpedoes coupled with more direct fire weaponry gives them a different flavour. So why any AC at all on the Protector? Well it has the bays for it and you do need some AC outside the Custodian. Why only 5 torpedoes instead of 6? Well, one, to accentuate the different approach compared to the old Heroes and, two, because there are 5 torpedo tubes on the model. Sure, these are just representative and could be any number, but it's intuitively better for it to match.

So, if no sacrifice of torpedoes for the carrier version then I'm not sure how to represent it. The only real alternative that I can see is just leave their cost as is and include a single fighter bay.

[horizon]

Heh, I just recalled:
http://sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/82pdd.pdf

Ignore the 5cm/turn....

[AndrewChristlieb]

Horizon I'm not sure what your trying to show us here?

As for the fighter issue that's exactly what I was getting at, just adding on fighter with no other changes.

As for the weapons batteries its just an inconsistency really, the protector is the only tau ship with fixed weapons batteries and when you look at the model there's a whole bunch of little turrets  .

When you look at the protector compared to the hero I have to wonder why the protector is more expensive, loss of two hit points for 90* turn 10 focused wb and 2 lances with 2side wb and 1 lance vs 12 focused wb and 8 side wb and the hero has better ordnance? The protector is less durable and has less ordnance and all tho it has slightly better direct fire weapons they're less desirable, even tho it can turn to bring those weapons to bear it might not always be beneficial to do so. This also brings up the argument that it limits your ability to lock on and its generally less flexible especially if the enemy can get you in a pincer (do you engage both with little power or turn your full strength to one and leave your rear open to the other)?

[horizon]

That I had vision long ago. (Sigoroth as well, I just tried if I could have a FW vessel as an article because FW & SG had troubles over the Tau CPF rules). It worked).
Look at the pdf and the gunnery plus the 1+1 AC.

The Railguns on the Protector are the stubs next to the missiles and on the wings = fixed forward.
(Emissary has these fixed forward as well! Castellan, Warden also has these fixed forward. Warden has tiny Ion swivelling underneath. Castellan missile holes.)

The small turrets are anti-AC.

The two Large turrets, one per side, are the Ion Cannon = swivel.


The Hero is to cheap. Or better said too strong. It should be 170-180pts with much less gunnery.

[Zelnik]

In all honesty, the keel launch bay may be large enough for two mantas depending on the lelvel of automation present in the ship. It is entirely possible that one manta is held deeper inside the vessel and both are launched one after the other.

I do not want to mess with the prow torps, reducing them any further destroys the usefulness of the vessel.

I think there is enough space to give this vessel lc2 without breaking the wyswyg and points bank too badly.

[horizon]

Well...

Protector recap:

i. keep profile as is; drop 5-10pts

ii. add a single fighter bay: increase 0-5pts

iii. increase launch bay to 2: increase 5-10?pts

iv. other?

[Zelnik]

I say +1 launch bay, +5 points, you land the vessel at the same points level it used to be, and makes the vessel worth bringing.  I am sure sig will say keep at 185. 

[horizon]

So uhm,
for the same points as the FW variant we get:

-1 missile
+ 4railguns
-15cm range on Ion
+ arcs on Ion
+ 90* turn rate

I call that quite a win to the variant.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ya but the fw stats were garbage... Hence the need for the CPF compendium to begin with.

[horizon]

Not really, the FW stats were a playable fleet. It was not unbalanced or anything. The problem was that is was as a whole to much Tau Armada, not innovative and boring. Especially seen the radical design change.

[Zelnik]

I never viewed them like that horizon. I saw them as replacements to the old fleet.  Remember that the original fleet was designed before the art aesthetic for the tau was finalized. The fw fleet was meant to represent both the future of the tau, and the established art style across all genras.

You can blame citidel for not ending production of the old ships that the fw ships were meant to replace entirely (no rules were originally slated)

The citidel released their first ruleset, which pissed off fw, causing them to create their own ruleset. They demanded the removal of citidels rules as well, which is why the original citidel rules are so hard to find.


Horizon, I feel that reducing the strength of the tau torpedo is a bad move, on any ship.  The most powerful weapon the tau have is their torps, and we should not turn this fleet into something that does not put them at the forefront of the destructive power.

[horizon]

Hi Zelnik,

I never viewed them like that horizon. I saw them as replacements to the old fleet. Remember that the original fleet was designed before the art aesthetic for the tau was finalized. The fw fleet was meant to represent both the future of the tau, and the established art style across all genras.

You can blame citidel for not ending production of the old ships that the fw ships were meant to replace entirely (no rules were originally slated)

The citidel released their first ruleset, which pissed off fw, causing them to create their own ruleset. They demanded the removal of citidels rules as well, which is why the original citidel rules are so hard to find.

That is, historically seen, not entirely correct.

GW designed the Tau fleet and released rules for them in Armada.
GW released the Firewarrior pc game which featured a new Tau vessel: the Emissary
FW made a BFG model for the Emissary, this was met with many yays and hurrays.
FW decided to create a whole set of new models for the Tau fleet.
FW announced Imperial Armour 3: Taros Campaign
SG (Ray, Bob, Nate) thought they could develop the feet rules, when they visited FW they where surprised FW did their own set of rules. They persuaded FW in dropping some things (eg a mega overpowered Custodian iirc).
FW waited and waited with IA3
SG released their set of rules (mail the right people and you'll get it), one week it stayed online
FW asked for removal because IA3 was released that same week, they felt it would hurt sales and such (it was several months later (or longer) that FW released the fleet list pdf).

I am glad GW still produces their fleet. And I think the FW fleet is not a replacement.Even in the removed SG rules it makes mention that the CPF is highly specialized and mostly lies in dock (defending) the biggest homeplaces. The ECF (Armada) still doing the bulk.
However Protectors/Castellans replace Heroes/Defenders for deep space raids. Heroes remain the Tau ship of the line.
While the CPF took on some ECF roles the ECF still exists.

So the FW fleet (models) was never ever meant to replace the GW fleet (models). It was an addition to the Tau Empire. A militaristic fleet added to a trade fleet.

Horizon, I feel that reducing the strength of the tau torpedo is a bad move, on any ship. The most powerful weapon the tau have is their torps, and we should not turn this fleet into something that does not put them at the forefront of the destructive power.

Compared to the FW rules the '2010' fleet has:
+4 missiles on the Custodian
-1 missile on the Protector (five is a good number)
same on Castellan & Emissary (variant).

[Zelnik]

thanks for the history Horizon


I agree, five is a good number. Let's keep it that way

I am sticking with +2 LC, 190 pts, no further changes. It keeps it simple and gives the ship a well needed usefulness bump.

[Zelnik]

Alright, Let me list up the changes one last time.


Custodian: Change class to Grand Cruiser. The reasons behind this are legion, and arguments simply do not hold water.  The strongest reasoning is simply that it has 3 shields and 10 hits, which is a grand cruiser standard in this game. No points adjustments.

Emmisary: Increase speed to 25 cm. All gravitic hook variants of this vessel may carry any grav-hook required ship.

Protector: Increase launch capacity to 2 from 1 on both variants of the vessel. Increase point cost to 190. 

Castellan: Decrease cost to 45 points, making it a working alternative to the Defender.

Warden: Alternative version: WB 4, FLR, same stats, same points (making it the same "Sig" cost as a sword, not quite as good, but you benefit from the lower 'overall' cost)

Nicassar Dhow: Increase speed to 25 cm, no points adjustment

Nicassar Rig: Increase capacity to six.  Increase cost to 50 points.


If there are no arguments, I would like Ray to have a look and see about certifying it... I am going to move on from here to Corsair Eldar, then Craftworld Eldar, then probably the other alien races before I finally land on IN.

[Sigoroth]

Warden: Alternative version: WB 4, FLR, same stats, same points (making it the same "Sig" cost as a sword, not quite as good, but you benefit from the lower 'overall' cost)

Armour 4+, speed 30cm, 20 pts.

A note on the cost: I arrive at 20 pts by comparison to the Sword. While the Sword is slower it has an extra turret (no adjustment). The Warden has worse armour (-5 pts). Part of the Warden's cost (5 points worth) is included in the parent vessel (-5 pts). The Warden is a hooked vessel, with all the downfalls associated with it (-5 pts). Sword cost (35 pts) minus adjustments (15 pts) = new total (20 pts).

Comparing to a 25 pt Iconoclast (because at 30 pts they're worthless), we see pretty much identical ships for an identical cost (total actually paid), except the Warden is hooked (negative) but has +1WB (positive).

Comparing to the Orca, the 20 pt Warden comes out slightly ahead. The speed/armour differences about balance. The firepower/arc issue nearly balance; slight advantage to the Orca. Warden would be cheaper, giving it the edge. This is fine really, since the Orca doesn't stack up against a balanced (ie, 35 pt) Firestorm either, lacking the 2nd turret. This is ok too, since the disadvantages of being hooked probably don't quite add up to 5 pts per escort either. More like 3~4 pts.

Mind you, getting this escort right (the Warden) should lead to getting those other crappy escorts right, such as the Firestorm and all the Chaos escorts. Would like a review of these for publication in a FAQ or rules update. Even if it's only as a suggested optional rule.