BFG:R Tau Empire

[horizon]

Yes, you should. With the simple note that the change is approved but to large of a change for the original intent of BFG revised.

[Talos]

We could also just put a side note under each 2 hit escort stating at it may purchase the second hit at +5pts if both players agree.

But personally, I think 2 hit escorts are already in, so let's roll with them.

[Xisor]

I don't think I've ever met anyone interested in the game who hasn't commented on the size of the Defender. It is pretty big. I doubt the 2-hits would really be that much of a shock (if any shock at all). Indeed, people weren't exactly hospitalised by shock over the two-shield Dhows.

[afterimagedan]

Yes, you should. With the simple note that the change is approved but to large of a change for the original intent of BFG revised.

Yeah, sorry. I'm not going down that road. Voting has worked just fine and executive decisions haven't really worked in the past.

[afterimagedan]

How about this... I can make copies of the documents that do not include the 2 hit escorts but instead include the 1 hit versions?

[AndrewChristlieb]

I think one hit copys with an amendment about the two hit ships might be in the best interest.

[afterimagedan]

The best interest of the community is to release the document of the stuff we voted on. A separate document with the two hit rules may be in the best interest of horizon or andrewchristleib,  but clearly not the voting community (by the previous vote), unless it's voted otherwise. Want me to put up another vote?

[AndrewChristlieb]

I dont know about that. Yes there is a majority here (7/8) that agrees with 2 hit escorts, myself included, but there has also been quite an outcall to see them added but as an additional suppliment to the core fleet lists. I am personally torn on how this should be applied. I really like having 2 hit escorts and being a fan of the Kiss system I believe in slimplifying anything we can, but I really also see the problem of trying to convince a group that may not be quite so open with the rules, the FAQ2010 isnt even universally accepted (and I dont really blaim people for that) and it has far less reaching changes. That aside like I said I voted to add the 2 hit escorts and will stand by that as I would like to see them, but I dont think we should alienate anyone if we can help it.

[afterimagedan]

I don't want anyone to feel alienated either, but I am not going to down the road where I make changes based on some people's opinions even though it is contrary to the votes of who voted. Doing it just once sets a precedent for it to be repeated.

I don't want to be attacking anyone else's efforts, but I don't want to be like the guy working on BFG:R before me, who took matters into his own hands and left the community out of some major decisions. That alienates people.  I just want to facilitate the community's votes and move this community building process along.  I personally am not following the "original intent" of BFG:R because that isn't what matters.  What is happening here is the community voting on changes to the game and making the game how they want it.  Ultimately, some will not get everything they want, including me.  That's fine, because I know that it isn't some dude making the changes he wants, but the community choosing things.  If we want to bring up another vote to keep the 2 hit escorts stuff as a separate appendix, I am certainly willing to do that. Separate appendixes seem silly, because if we are shooting for the "original intent" of BFG:R, having a condensed document so we don't have tons of stuff to sort through seems most fitting, and was part of the "original intent."

[horizon]

Original intent was adjusting stats & point costs, and aye, 2 hits is a stat thing, but also a new rule mechanic for escorts.
Now, the vote was close, and even ones who voted for 2-hits escorts, would acknowledge the 'edgy' factor of it. And, how many people voted? Less then 50 for sure. Is that representative of a whole community? On Port Maw which was the biggest BGF forum back in the days things like this and chaos light cruisers would found little ground only (Eldar MMS was like destroyed by a majority there as well... got better over time heh heh).
I do know that back on the yahoo group a majority wanted 2 hits as well, but that group was also very varying in how it should be implemented (eg. crit hits, crippled, etc).

So, it is up to you as document holder in what you do, just take these considerations as friendly advice.

[Talos]

For what it's worth, no one working on this project is a puritan. As has been stated several times previously is that zealots fervent enough to be against these changes are the kind that are not going to use any "non-official" ruleset, regardless of anything we change. The objective has always been to improve the game, and although this can be done in a myriad of ways, they all add up to one thing: improving the enjoyment of the game. One factor is game balance, and that is what part of what BFG:R is doing. Another is streamlining and refining existing things to be more enjoyable.

I will back up afterimagedan on this one; this project is made to improve a game, and if some people don't like those changes they are not forced to. Some people like BBB; so let's allow them to. But why would they have more influence on the project since they have no intention of actually using these rules? So called radical's are behind this project, and those that actually vote are those that want this to happen and that care to make their opinions heard about how they want this ruleset to develop.

Simply put,

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be never so vile. This day shall gentle his condition. And gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

afterimagedan is my metaphorical brother here, and I will stand by him to see this done. If there is a a small sidebar added to the 2-hit escorts, it should be to say that they can be run as 1-hit escorts at 5pts less if you and your opponent agree to make this the case for all multiple hit escorts.

/rant closed

[Khar]

It should be noted that in times of Port Maw, while they really didn't take unofficial rules well, there was still such thing as official rules. Now not so much - rules we have on GW site, which are closest to 'official' that we have, are not even complete, lacking even rules for some ships with models still in sale. So, well, every owner of, for instance, Flame of Asuryan, has to use unofficial rules of some sort. This might change some people's perspective.

Second of all, as other folks said: people against unofficial rules will not use them. So we don't have to take them into account when deciding precise nature of our unofficial rules - they're not for them. Here, for example, there's a strong crowd refusing evento use faq 2010. It's not on GW's site, You can't use it. Simple as that [i did love trolling them with exploiting obvious unfaqed loopholes faq 2010 resolved, though ] Folks who would consider playing BFG:R would usually accept anything that makes the game better and/or more interesting. It's done for them.

Yeah, sidebar letting using 2 hit escorts as 1 hit for 5 points less might be the best option, as long as both sides agree to it. I like them, though. They give nice middle ground between escort and 4 hit light cruisers some fleets have.

[afterimagedan]

Should I put up a vote to finalize the Tau document?

[Talos]

Do it up, Dan my Man. Let's hook line and sink this!

One small question: Is the castellan really worth 45pts? I was comparing it to the Falchion and this is what I came up with:

-It has +1 torpedo
-It has 1 less battery
-It's batteries have greater range

Is that really worth a 10pts increase? Seems like it would only be a 5pts increase.

Or compared to a 40pts Infidel:

-It has greater battery range
-It has 5cm less speed
-It has less torpedo options

At 40pts it would fit nicely into the escorts points wise as well; the orcas and wardens at the cheap and efficient end of the spectrum (at 25pts-ish) and the 50pts defender as a much bigger and heavily armed/armored heavy escort. The 40pts castellan just seems to fit right in the middle, in my eyes at least.

I know with the current fleet lists the two tau fleets can be mixed pretty liberally, which makes the castellan seem even a little more out of place at 45pts.

Am I the only one who feels this way? If so I will stop bothering everybody, but if someone feels the same way please speak up. I would hate to have this ignored and then swept under the rug when we close the document.

[AndrewChristlieb]

TYPE /HITS SPEED TURNS SHIELDS ARMOR TURRETS
Escort/1      25cm    90°       1           5+         2

ARMANENT                    RANGE          FIREPOWER/STRENGTH    FIRE ARC
Prow Railgun Battery       45cm                       2                 Left/ Front/ Right
Prow Gravitic Launcher  Speed: 20-40cm         2                         Front

so how does this compare to the Imp and Chaos basics?

Sword: +10 points, +15cm range/ -2 weaps, +2 torps (+Tau)
Infidel: +5 points, +15cm range, +Tau torps/ - boarding torps, -5cm speed
 
so vs the Sword we have better range on the weapons and torpedoes (which are typically better than batteries) and theyre further boosted by their Tau characteristics. +10 points seems perfectly reasonable.

and vs the Infidel we have the same better range and the Tau torps (a loss of boarding torpedoes yes but losing a crap option isnt really a loss) and a loss of 5cm speed. Once again you gain a measurable increase in the weapons output (about the same as vs the Sword) but with a loss in speed. +5 pts seems reasonable once again.

I think 45 sounds fine, dropping the 45cm range and 5 pts would be ok.