Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Plaxor on December 08, 2010, 09:29:01 AM
-
So this is the thread for every fleet that isn't SM/IN/Chaos/Orks. So Eldar/CWE, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons and Tyranids.
Note this of course uses the latest from the HA, and eldar in this document are according to msm.
So proposed changes so far:
Tau:
Defender = 2hp escort [Horizon, RCgothic Plaxor (Meh, would make for a small faq)]
Confirmed Changes
Tau:
Hero: -2lances, -2FP (one each side), No longer restricted.
Merchant: 105pt cost, 6hits standard, upgrade to 8 hits for 20 points. +10 for lance variant
Corsairs:
Nightshade 50pts
Hemlock 50pts
Aconite 60pts
Hellebore: 80pts with profile change: 2wb, 1 pl, 1 fighter launch bay
Solaris: weapon range @45cm, no right shift.
Shadow: +2 torps, +2wb
Craftworld Eldar
Flame of Asuryan, name change: -> Void Dragon CG. , keel pulsar Front only No longer requires Hero to buy. Just supreme admiral?
Shadowhunter: old special rule. Speed bands +5cm, DE variant lance, +1wb, 45pts
Ghost Ships: Using MMS version, without shields (duh).
Dark Eldar:
Mimic engines for free
Torture can buy two impalers for 20 points, not 2 for 20 each.
-
Tau:
Hero = no point change, drop 2 lance, no restrictions
Merchant = 6hits per standard, +1 shield as an option 10pts
Defender = 2hp escort
aside of changing Corsair & Craftworld Eldar rules to MMS, within official realms this should be done:
Corsair Eldar
Nightshade 50pts
Hemlock 50pts
Aconite 60pts
Hellebore: 80pts with profile change: 2wb, 1 pl, 1 fighter launch bay
Solaris: weapon range @45cm, no right shift.
Shadow: +2 torps, +2wb
Craftworld Eldar
Per FAQ2010 with exception of:
Flame of Asuryan, name change: -> Void Dragon CG. , keel pulsar Front only
Shadowhunter: old special rule. Speed bands +5cm, DE variant lance. ~45pts.
Dark Eldar
Mimic Engines for free.
Two Impalers on cruiser sized vessel.
Introduction of light cruiser (book of nemesis)
Introduction of grand cruiser (?)
-
Thanks Horizon, didn't want to get into some arguing about MMS. 2x impalers were approved on cruisers by HA, so we wont deal with that.
2 shields on merchant? isn't that a bit unfluffy? It is a CL as well.
Hmm... how about increasing the merchants base to 6 as you said, but keeping the upgrade to increase its hits by one or two according to the fluff blurb.
-
I'll second everything horizon said.
-
Horizon, could you come up with a CG dark eldar stats?
-
Also, what about thoughts on the Kroot warsphere, demiurg (should we include the citadel?), demiurg fleet list options (as per faq 2010?).
Rogue trader vessels and stuff (per Nate's document?)
There also is nothing for the tyranids... is the feeling that they don't need any changes?
-
Tau:
Hero = no point change, drop 2 lance, no restrictions
Merchant = 6hits per standard, +1 shield as an option 10pts
Defender = 2hp escort
Hero: still too strong if we look at the fluff that goes with it, as printed in the book. Also a look at the former classes and hulls they can build. Way too much firepower on that ship.
- 6HP max, that's the technology they just reached; so no 8 HP.
- Previous class gave one module over to storage of the missiles and Hero get lances AND LB's? Come on. Drop the LB.
- Heavy prow armament, again. S6 Torps AND FP4 R45. Way to much attempted upon the available platform.
Still not sure how I would equip this ship but it would be weaker and cheaper.
Redesigning the whole lot seems the better solution IMO.
Escorts: although I can imagine even up to 4 point escorts for some other fleets, I do NOT see any multiple HP escorts for the Tau.
-
Hi Plaxor,
their are more knowledgable people to do that. :)
Commander,
I disagree. The GW Armada ships are large. So the 8 hits is a must on the Hero. It will also help in keeping GW Tau / FW Tau two distinct fleets.
The Hero is a line ship, THE Tau line ship. I have no problems with the ship going down to 2 lances without further changes. Perhaps a lowering of missiles may be in order but otherwise nothing else.
Ha! The Defender is one of the 4 Biggest Escort Models out there. It should be a pioneer of the 2hits generation.
-
Ha! The Defender is one of the 4 Biggest Escort Models out there. It should be a pioneer of the 2hits generation.
Guesses on other three:
Dhow, Corsair, and um... both the FW gladius and nova?
-
All no iirc.
One of them is the Ork escort, the largest one.
-
Ah, the Jackal and Hellebore. At least of those with official models. (I cheated and looked in warp rift)
-
Well, no. With the previous ship class (merchant) they only recently discovered a way to have HP6 hits. And than a jump to 8 with no indication they got better, again? Nope, not in my book.
What I am thinking instead is:
- HP6
- S6 missiles on front
- S1 R30 lances per side (L,F and R,F)
- S2 R45 WB per side (L,F and R,F)
NO LB; cost? (have not smotherman at hand to indication of cost)
Still good firepower in front (FP4 R45 WB, S2 R30 lances and S6 torps), crap on the broadside. Just like fluff says.
-
But, I can live with HP8 on the hero (if I must) ;)
-
Yeah, you should.
The Explorer has 12 hits.
Hitpoints has less to with technology!
-
Tau:
Hero = no point change, drop 2 lance, no restrictions [Horizon, Plaxor, RCgothic]
Merchant = 6hits per standard, +1 shield as an option 10pts [Horizon, RCgothic]
Defender = 2hp escort [Horizon, RCgothic Plaxor (Meh, would make for a small faq)]
My thoughts exactly on the Hero.
Agreed on Merchant, except the 2nd shield. This is primitive Korvattra.
Shady on 2hp escorts.
Corsair Eldar
Nightshade 50pts [Horizon, RCgothic]
Hemlock 50pts [Horizon, RCgothic]
Aconite 60pts [Horizon, RCgothic]
Hellebore: 80pts with profile change: 2wb, 1 pl, 1 fighter launch bay [Horizon, RCgothic]
Solaris: weapon range @45cm, no right shift. [Horizon, RCgothic]
Shadow: +2 torps, +2wb [Horizon, RCgothic]
Craftworld Eldar
Flame of Asuryan, name change: -> Void Dragon CG. , keel pulsar Front only [Horizon, RCgothic, Plaxor]
Shadowhunter: old special rule. Speed bands +5cm, DE variant lance. ~45pts. [Horizon, RCgothic]
Dark Eldar
Mimic Engines for free. [Horizon, RCgothic Plaxor (would be happy at half cost)
Introduction of light cruiser (book of nemesis) [Horizon, Plaxor, RCgothic]
Introduction of grand cruiser (patghiggins stats?) [Horizon, Plaxor, RCgothic]
I generally discount all this and move to drop it all and just play MMS variants for all the subraces. I do vote for free mimic engines and more DE versatility and larger ships.
I'll stop for now, since I think we are only talking about ships that really need fixing. My next suggestion would have been 15cm speed razorfiends.
-
Well, no. With the previous ship class (merchant) they only recently discovered a way to have HP6 hits. And than a jump to 8 with no indication they got better, again? Nope, not in my book.
What I was saying is actually that the fluff for the weaker version would be referring to 6 hits, and the new discovery was to make it eight hits
-
Well, no. With the previous ship class (merchant) they only recently discovered a way to have HP6 hits. And than a jump to 8 with no indication they got better, again? Nope, not in my book.
What I was saying is actually that the fluff for the weaker version would be referring to 6 hits, and the new discovery was to make it eight hits
Allright, can live with that but only with my proposed stats. Its own written fluff says weaker than Lunar.
So; the Hero:
- HP8
- S6 missiles on front
- S1 R30 lances per side (L,F and R,F)
- S2 R45 WB per side (L,F and R,F)
NO LB
Still good firepower in front (FP4 R45 WB, S2 R30 lances and S6 torps), crap on the broadside. Just like fluff says. Anything more and it is equals to and/or is even better than Lunar. NO WAY.
-
I'm guessing we aren't talking about the merchant.
-
I'm guessing we aren't talking about the merchant.
No, Hero; forgot to put the ships class. Will edit.
-
So drop 2 lances off the ship AND the LB? Too harsh.
Besides, it fits the Korvattra paradigm of 'to win, throw AC at it'
The Hero is a warship, but it just can't help but feel naked without AC.
Its why I dislike the LB on the Protector, seems the fleet would be advanced enough to leave the nest and try it without a launch bay.
-
Protector model has a launch bay.
-
There are TWO hardpoints per side AND TWO on the prow. Too much; that nearing battlecruiser level. Why does everybody want to 'overload' on a cruiser chassis? AND fluff states very clear they did fail to equal the Lunar. So WHY want you all that it's better than a lunar???? You lost me there.
-
Fluff indeed says the Hero did not manage to achieve Lunar level.
In the base concept regarding hits we take a look at the model.
so Hero & Lunar both cruiser, 45cm turns, 2 shields, speed 20cm, 8 hits. Hero has +1 turret. Hero has boarding halved.
Lunar:
12 batteries @30cm
4 lances @ 30cm
6 torpedoes.
Hero as is:
4 batteries @ 45cm (LFR)
4 lances @ 30cm (2/2 LF /RF)
2 launch bays
6 missiles
@ 30cm The Lunar total WB eqv = 24.
As maximum focus it can do 12.
@ 30cm The Hero total WB eqv = 16.
As maximum focus it can do 16.
Furtermore 4 has a reach of 45cm, albeit in a 1:1 duel the result would be dropped shield at most.
The hero could do a left/right of 2wb + 2l = 8 eqv.
Thus in the thick of fighting, enemies on both sides the Lunar has better firepower.
Now, both have 6 torps/missiles. The missiles edging out the torps.
Now, the asset to the Lunar are the 2 launch bays. This and the maximum focus vs a Lunar makes that the Hero is a better ship.
Now if we bring down lances to 2 the Hero would have:
@ 30cm The Hero total WB eqv = 10.
As maximum focus it can do 10.
Furtermore 4 has a reach of 45cm, albeit in a 1:1 duel the result would be dropped shield at most.
The hero could do a left/right of 2wb + 1l = 5 eqv.
So in firepower it drops below the Lunar. And now it is dependant on its launch bays, where as former these where just an extra bonus.
-
Indeed, losing a lance on each side is the perfect fix.
-
Allright, I will playtest this a couple of times.
-
One quick one on one game.
The hero with your layout can still focus the equal of FP7 R30 WB to one side and add a S2 LB to it, thats in total FP13 to me.
Stronger than a Lunar. So no go for me.
-
2LBs are less then half as powerful as S4 bays.
2AC vs T2:
2 Survive: 2*0.25*1.67 = 0.835
1 Survives: 1*0.5*1.67 =0.835
0 Survives: 0*0.25*1.67=0
Total: 1.667 attacks
4AC vs T2:
4 Survive: 4*0.25*1.67 = 1.67
3 Survive: 3*0.5*1.67 = 2.5
2 Survive: 2*0.25*1.67 = 0.835
Total: 5 Attacks
1/2 of 4AC do: 2.5 Attacks.
This is 50% Better than 2AC by themselves. So if S4 Bays are worth 12WBe, and 1/2 of S4 Bays are worth 6WBe, S2 Bays are worth 4WBe.
That gives a total focussed firepower of 11WBe for the Hero, NOT 13.
-
S2 LB = FP6 which is half of S4 LB; So 13.
-
My conclusion sofar (after one 1:1 game):
Hero, possible configuration:
- HP8
- FP4 R45 WB L/F/R
- S1 lance R30 L/F and R/F
- S6 torps F
Nothing more. Adding to this will make it equal or better than Lunar, something I'll never accept (fluffwise).
-
S2 LB = FP6 which is half of S4 LB; So 13.
Did you not actually read my post? Yes, on a Dictator or Mars or other ship with 4LBs, 2LBs are worth FP6. But on a 2LB ship such as the Hero or Defiant, they are only worth 4. This is because turrets destroy a greater proportion of them. The Hero can thus concentrate FP11 to the side.
-
Well, at least the Lunar gets to be abeam when its firing, and at 45 turns the Hero should struggle even more than the Protector after the pass.
Does losing 2 lances still make it more powerful than the Lunar?
By design I think the Hero should be challenging but not equal to the Lunar, at the same points.
-
Abeam/ 5+ armor is on average the same as Closing/6+ armor. However you are right in that there is greater potential for more damage when closing.
In my experience, a single Hero struggles a lot after the pass against chaos/imperial, just because it can't ever really bring its weapons to bear again.
To be useful again, the hero needs to use either CTNH or RO orders, and the imperials can be trying very hard to make them brace; Imperials can also be using LO orders, whereas Tau never really get that chance.
-
A hero as is, has no more problems than a Lunar. More firepower (incl LB's) and same firing arcs.
Modified hero: well, abeam FP11 or 13 - depends how one will count ;) - is as much (FP11 and FP12 have same results on gunnery table) / more as lunar.
Fluff says otherwise, so tone it down.
-
I counted 50/50 like the Lunar must. Only fp.
-
Its tough, much more focusable firepower, but struggles in its own unique ways. str4 torps as well?
-
So for the merchant; Cost 115 for 6 hit version not 120? and an upgrade for 15 points to go up to 7 hits? Anyone like those ideas?
-
Upgrade to 8 hits for 20 points methinks.
-
Any more thoughts on this section?
-
Shadowhunter, DE variant lances are worth 5/3 lances. Eldar weapons batteries are worth about 1.41 weapons batteries. Which means that 3wbs=4.23 regular wbs. And from math earlier, 1 lance equals 3.5wbs. So therefore the DE lance=5.83wbs. So you would have to up the weapons batteries on the ship to 4, so that they would equal 5.64 regular wbs, much closer to what is reasonable.
Rather than a 17% discrepancy between the two variants, we would have a 3.3% difference.
So Phantom Lance=DE phantom Lance, and fp4. 45 points, old special rule, +5cm bands.
Any thoughts on ghostships?
-
Ghostship per MMS. :)
-
Interesting. I agree.
-
Did you not actually read my post? Yes, on a Dictator or Mars or other ship with 4LBs, 2LBs are worth FP6. But on a 2LB ship such as the Hero or Defiant, they are only worth 4. This is because turrets destroy a greater proportion of them. The Hero can thus concentrate FP11 to the side.
Well, yes and no. Typically against escorts a 4 LB ship would break its ordnance down into at least 2 waves, so these LBs are worth the same amount as on a larger carrier when attacking escorts. Also, they can be combined to make a normal strength 4 wave. It is a little more effort though.
-
Well, yes and no. Typically against escorts a 4 LB ship would break its ordnance down into at least 2 waves, so these LBs are worth the same amount as on a larger carrier when attacking escorts. Also, they can be combined to make a normal strength 4 wave. It is a little more effort though.
He's right. Also 2lb make way better defensive weapons than offensive. I would use my light carriers to launch fighters, which don't really have any point of being in a wave. Sure bombers suck in a 2 squadron wave, but the ship is more useful in killing escorts if need be.
-
Final thoughts in this section.
DE: Should they have free mimic engines? The faq spoke it nicely at 5/20, but the Mimic engines aren't that big of a deal unless you're going against a NC fleet.
Also the Cruiser should be able to buy 2 impalers for 20 points, not up to 2 for 20 each.
Eldar: I think I'm just going to go with everything Horizon said, as he knows Eldar way way better than I do. Although changing the FoA to Void Dragon? That seems a bit weird, although I do think that the Ork ships don't have as much character as say The Planet Killer or SO. I think that it warrants them to be a character if they have something unique, or that there already is a class of them. (such as with the SO and terminus est) making them actually unique.
In the case of Orks, most players just use the stats for each of the BBs but just assume that their fleet has another similar vessel, much like how KK's are Orks only have a few good design ideas that are fairly similar.
Tau:
How does 4wbs@45cm=1lance@30? I think that if the lance goes down to thirty, then the Wbs should be at 3@45cm. Then the Hero shouldn't be restricted and will be less competitive overall with a lunar.
Merchant, So I proposed that we should keep it at 6hits for 115, but have an upgrade going to 8 hits for an extra 25? points. Just work with the fluff of there being a weaker and a stronger hit version.
Nids: Apparently No comment?
Necrons: I know that the CL has problems in that no one takes it due to the fear of it getting blown up. Any thoughts on increasing it to 6 hits for +10? points? Making it a more viable option?
Also the Escorts, people don't take these too often, but I don't know what to really do with them. Maybe a small increase in firepower? A better save?
-
I have not looked into any other race beside Eldar/Tau.
So, make no calls on those. Perhaps rename this thread to Eldar/Tau? Open a new one for Nids/Necrons?
I agree on the Merchant (Plaxor's), 2 extra hits shouldn't be more then +15/max 20 to me.
I plead for Void Dragon to make the vessel a Grand Cruiser option in the cwe fleet. May take one per High Admiral/Admiral, thus not Hero specific. Makes sense to me to bolster fleet.
-
K, merchant will be at 20 points for 2 hits, as this is what Sig said.
Not hero specific works for me.
And will make Nid/Necron thread.
-
No ideas on warspheres? It is such a terrible ship.... but I think it shouldn't have BV20, instead double would be more true to rules.
Possibly range 45 wbs? Cheaper?
-
Added in confirmed section. Everything eldar/cwe/de just happened to get passed as there was no argument.
Hero, I added in the wb reduction so that instead of 8wb@45vs 2lances at 30 being to obvious a choice, the WBs were reduced to 6@45, a much more reasonable value in comparison to 2 lances.
Also the DE I added in the torture having 2 impalers for 20 points, as this makes sense.
-
Eh, well I've certainly got arguments against those CE changes, but since I don't see MSM Eldar being fixed then I don't care what you do. I wouldn't play those values for MSM Eldar though.
-
Yeah, Horizon came up with them, I kinda just agreed, because I never really have played against a CWE or CE fleet until recently.
I always wondered why no one thought of the terrain system being broken rather than the movement of eldar...
-
Well CE are doubly broken. If you can shoot at them they totally suck and will lose. If you can't they rule and will win. That aside there is the Strategy Rating method of battlezone (and therefore terrain) selection. This is fine, in principle, as the Eldar really would be very hard to pin down into disadvantageous terrain and should more often than not get to choose their battlefield. Similarly it might be easier in general to bring a foe to battle in more dense terrain as that might simply be the logical place to hide and so therefore to look. So the SR part is right, and the value of the battlezone that is added to this might even be fine. However, there is no randomness involved. Eldar will always get to fight in the Outer Reaches or, at worst, Deep Space. These are the best two battlezones. In my group we add a d6 to the total (so SR + BZ + 1d6) to add in some variance.
On top of this however it could be an issue of scenarios. A lot of them have no either no battlezone limitation or have a 'recommended' battlezone. Well, recommendations would only work if you're doing some purely random BZ selection method, or selection by agreement, etc. If you're using strategy ratings then it's pretty much meaningless. Maybe a more definite "this scenario takes place in this battlezone" would be a better fix.
Even with a better battlezone selection method the MSM Eldar are still boned. There's never decent terrain at tournaments, so they suck there, but even were that to be fixed somehow all these changes would only stand to fix the overall win/loss ratio of Eldar, without fixing the fact that these wins are still cheesy and the losses still ridiculous. That can only be fixed by ditching the current MSM method.
-
MSM, raider scenario 750-1500pts, turn 1:
Movement phase: Eldar move onto table.
Shooting phase: Eldar destroy enemy vessel.
Ordnance phase pt1: Eldar cripple another vessel.
Ordnance phase pt2: Eldar fly from table.
End of Game, Eldar vps win.
Opponent: "Wtf?"
I actually did that once to make a point. < evil grin >
-
Add:
Demiurg Stronghold should be 12 hits.
-
Add:
Demiurg Stronghold should be 12 hits.
Are you sure? the stronghold is much better than the bastion, and I couldn't see this unless the bastion was at 10 hits. Also the citadel doesn't seem worth 185, so would the ripples go here too? (8 hits?)
It would mimic orks, which seems apt for a space dwarf race....
Just read over the Kroot Warsphere from Nate's document. Interesting....
Also why are Tau transports better than IN ones? I mean I guess it's not much of a difference, but still.
-
Warsphere thoughts:
Worse than Roks? Well they don't have the range of roks, and cost 2x as much, given they have 2x the weapons batteries and shields and hits... but still?
Honestly I would keep the vessel at Nates' document but just give them the +15cm range weapons for free. Roks have a hard time using them, Although I do wonder how a warsphere fleet would play? Honestly the best bet would be to actually build a Kroot fleet with various sized spheres and speeds.
-
So what was the final ruling for fighter bombers? What was the one we like better?
That reminds me of the Tau, of course. Something that has been bothering me about Mantas.
If they could lose their resilient status, that would go a long way to making the Korvattra just about perfect as a fleet, along with -2 ions on the Hero and buffs to the Merchant.
Then there is no need to limit or increase cost of the Explorer.
My reasoning is thus: The supposed reason for the manta being Resilient is its size and sophistication. I see this as flawed reasoning.
A Fury interceptor is around 70 meters long, and the Starhawk bomber is larger still, small ships in their own right.
Then, one marker represents not just one, but a squadron of these vessels, 3-5 seeming to be the average, depending on class. These ships are as large as the Manta.
My point is, the Manta should be considered to be flying in squadrons as the other ships just to be counted as a full marker, much less resilient.
But lets say a lot more resources go into the Manta, much more than the usual bomber. Then we could say that it by itself has the power of a squadron. Thats a stretch, but it certainly is more of a stretch to suggest that one Manta is more resilient than a squadron of its counterparts.
-
If the Manta would not be resilient then the Thunderhawk wouldn't be resilient as well.
-
That never made sense either. 'Oh, the thunderhawk is bigger so its only half the launch bays.' A thunderhawk is smaller than a Fury interceptor.
Also, a Manta is larger than a thunderhawk, and manages to have normal bay capacity. There should be no half bay restriction for T-Hawks.
Either way though, Thunderhawks can maintain their resiliency on account of their skilled crew, for the same reason Eldar pilots are resilient.
-
There is no half bay T-Hawk issue. Why do you think so? A Marine bay is build to accomadate T-hawks.
Vbb's may take T-hawks instead of their regular ships. Bay accomodated.
Balance wise a t-hawks counts for 2 regular markers in ac vs ac. No wrong with that.
-
Well I'll certainly never agree a slow assault boat is worth 2 markers, but thats besides the point.
My point is that if Mantas were not resilient, it would go a long way right there in fixing the Korvattra.
It would also make fluff sense. That was really all I was saying, for consideration.
-
Welllll, I don't agree. I think Manta's are large enough to be a new type in BFG. A step between marker & escort.
-
With Mantas being no bigger than a standard imperial bomber, and flying in solos rather than squadrons, how would it be better than a normal bomber marker? If we can just fix this, it really helps the korvattra. If the Kororvesh need to keep resilient ordnance for balance purposes, just say tigersharks are resilient or something, or say they fly their mantas in squadrons.
-
With Mantas being no bigger than a standard imperial bomber, and flying in solos rather than squadrons, how would it be better than a normal bomber marker? If we can just fix this, it really helps the korvattra. If the Kororvesh need to keep resilient ordnance for balance purposes, just say tigersharks are resilient or something, or say they fly their mantas in squadrons.
What do you mean "no bigger than a standard imperial bomber"? Mantas as huge! They're bigger than Eldar Vampire Raiders. They have limited warp dive capability as well as shield generators. Imperial bombers wouldn't. That's why they're resilient. They have shields. Their shields aren't as good as those on a larger ship (like a Cobra), which is why they only get a 4+ save.
I would allow them to get their save against ship turrets too, and stick around after completing a bombing run. But I would limit their numbers to 1 per launch bay in the fleet. So if you had 12 launch bays then you can only have 12 Mantas throughout the entire game and once they're gone they're gone. Otherwise just use squadrons of tigershark bombers.
-
AC are bigger in space, sig. Yes, the Manta is big by infantry standards. I wasn't aware they had dive tech, but yes, they have shield tech.
A Fury Interceptor nears 70 meters in length, and Starhawks are significantly larger. These aren't Marauder bombers.
There are multiples in a squadron.
-
Corsairs > What about the Aurora and Solaris?
DE > I think a DE CG is again to large, a CA/BC is a better option
Cruiser/8 // Speed 30 // turn 90 // Shadowshields // Armor 5+ // Turrets 0
Prow Weapons Batteries 30cm 12 Left/Front/Right
Pick 2 of the following (Any Combination)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prow Shadow Lance 30cm 2 Front
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prow Tropedoes 30cm 4 Front
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaler AC 30cm Special Front
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fighter 30cm
Launch Bay Bomber 20 cm 3 ---
Assault 30cm
Base Points 230 with upgrades it ends up a little more than CWE Dragon Ship and it must have a Dread Archon and the 3 to 1 escot to Cap rule stiil stays the same.
Tau leave AS IS
-
DE > I think a DE CG is again to large, a CA/BC is a better option
Hey Pat, finally joined the Conversation. :)
A CA/CB is essentially a cruiser with more weaponry, meaning that it would have 6 hits in the world of DE. By definition an 8 hit cruiser would be a CG. CA/CBs in other fleets have the same number of hits as their standard cruisers.
Eldar/Dark Eldar Examples of each ship class:
Battleship: CE Void stalker 10hits
Grand Cruiser: CWE/CE: Flame of the Asuryan w/8 hits
Battlecruisers: CWE: Dragonship (has better weapons than a wraithship) 6 hits
Cruisers: CE: Shadow & Eclipse, CWE: Wraithship, DE: Torture, all have 6 hits
Light Cruisers: CE: Aurora & Solaris Both have 4 hits.
Eldar ships are two hits behind IN equivalents for number of hits.
Tau leave AS IS
What's wrong with the Tau mods? They are done to make it more versatile of a fleet. Everyone buys the extra hits on a Merchant, but the model is big enough to have 6 hits as is, and people don't buy merchants save to get heros. To make them more viable they were made this way, with an upgrade to give them more hits (thereby fulfilling the fluff of a larger variety). Also they were upped to make them more appealing without the need to buy them to get heros.
Then the Hero, which is a bit too powerful for 180 points had its weaponry reduced slightly. Since this makes it less valuable, we decided to remove the restrictions on it. This was done partially for fluff reasons, and partially because a Hero could blow any similar class of vessel out of the water.
It is unlikely that we will do any other changes to Tau, as the other proposed things are very... out there.
Also there are a lot of things being tossed around for fluff reasons, however that doesn't incorporate the scope of this project, in this case fluff<gameplay, but some can be incorporated if it makes sense for gameplay reasons.
These two things that were done, will make the Tau fleet not necessarily look like: Explorers+Merchants=Heros, and will make the Merchant a viable CL on its own. The ship is widely considered underpowered, and rarely taken in favor of explorers.
Of All fleets the Tau probably have the fewest things 'wrong' with them.
-
Oh, and Pat, I'm photoshoping up all these rules for easy visibility and comprehension. We can post these to our group website. It will make it so you only have to look at one document to know what the current rules are for your own fleet, and at the very least, cut the FAQ in half. (and total pagecount by half as well).
We'll likely have to sit down and talk about everything at some point. After the Marvak sector's first meeting of course.
-
Was there any more thoughts on the Demiurg ships getting more hits or did that fizzle?
-
Absolutely should. Built dwarf tough :)
-
I own a Demiurg fleet (2 Strongholds and 4 Bastions) and I most definately say there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this fleet. Just my 2 cents ;) I've played against Orks three times, Chaos, Imp Navy, and Ad Mech and found them to be very balanced in every engagement.
Dark Eldar Grand Cruiser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 pts
Cruiser/8 // Speed 30 // turn 90 // Shadowshields // Armor 5+ // Turrets 0
Prow Weapons Batteries 30cm 16 Front
Pick one of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prow Shadow Lance 30cm 3 Front . . . . . . . . . . . +40 pts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prow Tropedoes 30cm 6 Front . . . . . . . . . . . +40 pts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaler AC: 30cm 3 --- . . . . . . . . . . . +60 pts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fighter: 30cm
Launch Bay Bomber: 20 cm 4 --- . . . . . . . . . . . +40 pts
A-Boat: 30cm
And don't forget the Mimic Engine! But we haven't decided what to do with that officially yet, right?
Obviously 3 escorts needed to buy this. Dread Archon MUST be on this ship. Only one in any Dark Eldar fleet.
-Zhukov
-
I own a Demiurg fleet (2 Strongholds and 4 Bastions) and I most definately say there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this fleet. Just my 2 cents ;) I've played against Orks three times, Chaos, Imp Navy, and Ad Mech and found them to be very balanced in every engagement.
I do too, I've only played maybe 5 games with them (using Xisor's rules and plasticard converted escorts). I don't think I've lost a game with them. (Played mostly against IN, and once against eldar). I think that the +2 hits thing come out of the fact that the stronghold is pretty big.
My idea on the Dark Eldar Grand Cruiser:
Cruiser/8 // Speed 30 // turn 90 // Shadowshields // Armor 5+ // Turrets 0
Prow Weapons Batteries 30cm 16 Front
Pick one of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prow Shadow Lance 30cm 3 Front
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prow Tropedoes 30cm 6 Front
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaler AC: 30cm 3 ---
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fighter: 30cm
Launch Bay Bomber: 20 cm 4 ---
A-Boat: 30cm
Sounds about right, but the lances should be str. 4 rather than three. Also as a reminder this isn't the scope of this document. For now we're revising all currently legal ships from the BBB and Armada, as well as loosely from Nate's documents. This however is good for my next project after this one.... ;)
-
@ Path,
Aurora no change
Solaris 45cm weaponry, no right shift above 30cm. No point change.
-
Played with 2 6hps merchants and 2 heroes the other night
Again more hits is not worth it for the merchants. I would have rather spent the upgrade points for a second shield.
The hero is fine as is. It is the only gunship of any worth for the fleet. Yes it may have a better profile compared to the fluff but fluff should enhance play rather than dictate it. If the hero is nerfed then it should be unrestricted cause as is you really to average it with a merchant or an explorer. And despite 8 bays explorers, with the current launch limits, just isn't that good. It cannot stay effective at range for long and with one shield just doesn't last long once the fleet engages. Btw, it too needs the second shield.
-
DE needs a flagship of 8-10 hits
-
Fracas, your opinions about Tau competative level doesn't match up to their steamrolling tournament victories.
Explorers are amazing. Heros are amazing. Merchants should get the HP upgrade for free.
DE deserve a battleship.
-
Maybe I am not doing it right :)
My opponents plays IN, Chaos, SM, and CSM
They close they board I die :(
Explorer's 8 bays of mantas are great but they get neutralized (shot at or repeated fighters attacks) so far-launches aren't that good. They do on average 1.5 attacks (average 2 turrets on most cruisers)
Strike-launches put the 1 shield explorers in harm's way.
Merchants die. Taken if at all only to take heroes.
And you folks want to weaken their mainline ship? A ship that must orient as closing to be better than the lunar? And abeam is marginally better if you don't include the dead weight of merchants/explorer requirements. Leave it as is I say. Or uncouple it if made weaker.
The only change the tau need is 2 shield option for the merchant, maybe the explorer as well.
-
Making it balanced, but taking it away. And it is agreed Heros should not be restricted.
-
@fracas,
I've played gw tau for years, and they were my main fleet before Orks.
The merchant is fairly useless, Not something you take on its own. I know people hate having 1 shield on anything, but I've played Orks for a long time, and you learn to live with it.
The reason we decreased the power of the Hero is because it is too powerful for a 180 point ship, Str 12 wbs@45? with 2 launch bays, and 6 tau torps? The thing is that it is way perfect in the prow, whereas any other fleet can't optimize nearly so well.
Talented tau players will never lose games. I rarely lose with my tau (which was actually the original reason I started playing orks).
We removed the restriction on it as well, so it is actually easier to run a more 'shooty' fleet. Try running 6 heros and an explorer at 1500 points now. (with these revised stats) I think you'll be happily surprised.
However the merchant, everyone who takes it, takes it at 6 hits, even this is a little overcosted so this version was put to 115 points, and then to fulfill the fluff of a larger version the 8 hit upgrade was added.
for 135 points you can get a lot of 8 hit cruisers with 6 45cm wbs and 2 lances in the front, a pretty good deal. At 1500 you could take an explorer and 9 of these things, outnumbering anyone with a ship that sure is a bit easier to damage, and slow, but it still has decent range and good damage output.
-
uncoupling the hero will make a huge different
the hero in either configuration is fine as is
combined starboard/port 1 bomber does not equal 4 batteries or 2 lances
i'd rather 2 shield and 4HPs than 1 shield and 6HP
btw, a talented player will win regardless of what he plays? but that speaks more to the player than the list doesn't it?
-
I think he means 2 talented players: the tau player usually wins. Its well documented actually.
You may like 2 shields over 6 hp better, but the model and the fluff lean heavily on the latter. Of course said increase should keep same points cost.
-
I think he means 2 talented players: the tau player usually wins. Its well documented actually.
You may like 2 shields over 6 hp better, but the model and the fluff lean heavily on the latter. Of course said increase should keep same points cost.
Yes, sorry for the confusing statement.
2 Shields isn't something that makes sense for the merchant. Hell... I'm somewhat surprised the hero has it. Playing Orks for a long time you learn that having 1 shield isn't so bad, as you have more hits.
Hmmm... a merchant with 6 hits for 105? I think I could see it, it needs some math behind it. Basically right now for 45 points you lose 2fp, but gain a shield, a prow deflector, 2 launch bays, and 6 torpedoes. A pretty nifty deal.
Which would mean that a better difference of 55 points could be warranted. (I.E. base cost 105 for 6 hit vers.)
-
DE > I think a DE CG is again to large, a CA/BC is a better option
Hey Pat, finally joined the Conversation. :)
A CA/CB is essentially a cruiser with more weaponry, meaning that it would have 6 hits in the world of DE. By definition an 8 hit cruiser would be a CG. CA/CBs in other fleets have the same number of hits as their standard cruisers.
Eldar/Dark Eldar Examples of each ship class:
Battleship: CE Void stalker 10hits
Grand Cruiser: CWE/CE: Flame of the Asuryan w/8 hits
Battlecruisers: CWE: Dragonship (has better weapons than a wraithship) 6 hits
Cruisers: CE: Shadow & Eclipse, CWE: Wraithship, DE: Torture, all have 6 hits
Light Cruisers: CE: Aurora & Solaris Both have 4 hits.
Eldar ships are two hits behind IN equivalents for number of hits.
Chaos heavy Cruisers are 8 points, and the IN Battle Cruisers are also 8 hits so thats why call my stats for the heavier DE cruser a CA or BC
Tau leave AS IS
What's wrong with the Tau mods? They are done to make it more versatile of a fleet. Everyone buys the extra hits on a Merchant, but the model is big enough to have 6 hits as is, and people don't buy merchants save to get heros. To make them more viable they were made this way, with an upgrade to give them more hits (thereby fulfilling the fluff of a larger variety). Also they were upped to make them more appealing without the need to buy them to get heros.
Then the Hero, which is a bit too powerful for 180 points had its weaponry reduced slightly. Since this makes it less valuable, we decided to remove the restrictions on it. This was done partially for fluff reasons, and partially because a Hero could blow any similar class of vessel out of the water.
It is unlikely that we will do any other changes to Tau, as the other proposed things are very... out there.
Also there are a lot of things being tossed around for fluff reasons, however that doesn't incorporate the scope of this project, in this case fluff<gameplay, but some can be incorporated if it makes sense for gameplay reasons.
These two things that were done, will make the Tau fleet not necessarily look like: Explorers+Merchants=Heros, and will make the Merchant a viable CL on its own. The ship is widely considered underpowered, and rarely taken in favor of explorers.
Of All fleets the Tau probably have the fewest things 'wrong' with them.
I like the linr of thought that take the's the FE models as the 3rd generation of Tau ships, (the 2nd being the Hero)
-
I like the line of thought that... the FE models [are] the 3rd generation of Tau ships, (the 2nd being the Hero)
True, Evolution in Tau design= Explorer-->Merchant-->Orca-->Defender--->Hero--->Messenger? Given the space between Explorer and Hero is 1000 years, Merchant isn't listed (although presumably Tau shipbuilding philosophy comes out with something new every couple hundred years.
However it would seem that both the hero and messenger could be considered in the 'second gen' category.
So for the merchant, it shouldn't be more technologically advanced than the IN, whose CLs only have 1 shield. Although it can have more hits, as Tau vessels are noted as being forcibly larger than average to contain all the necessary systems.
However, a lance Merchant (6 hits with Ion Cannons) compared to a dauntless:
The Merchant gains: More focusable firepower (in the front) about equal on the sides. Longer range
Dauntless: 1 more lance, +10cm speed (hell of a lot more threat range) 90' turns
In my eyes the speed really counteracts the range of the Merchant, and 1 additional lance is well, slightly less than 6fp, but the firepower at that range is not as worthwhile. Not only that but the Merchant nearly always wants to keep it's prow towards enemies (for internal fleet interaction). Whereas the Dauntless' increased maneuverability makes it a lot better at being defensive/performing light cruiser duties.
I suppose I could see the merchant at 110, but that's probably the lowest.
However, on tau's win record. They have readily available access to 8lb carriers (which are 2/3 as expensive as everyone else's) and a wave of 8 bombers is more than twice as effective as a wave of 4. Not only that but tau bombers are resilient, so they're somewhat like 1.5 bombers when someone is defending against them.
Spamming ordinance is one of the best ways for people to win tournaments, if not 'the' way. Ork players do it (6terror ships and nothing else?) Tau (anyone ever seen 6 explorers, it's pretty douchey.), even Chaos have had a few cries of cheese at their Devestation lists.
Although Ork ordinance is better than 'normal ordinance' in FAQ 2007 by a sizable margin (124% effective), certainly inflating the terror ship list win record, however in FAQ 2010 they returned to a place about 80% as effective as regular ordinance. Which means that when it becomes official we won't likely see any Orks winning Adepticon.
-
In a game of maneuvers turning and speed mean alot and both are lacking in the merchant compared to the dauntless
-
Fracas,
this list won Adepticon twice:
3x Explorer, 2x Hero, 9x Orca, 3x Defender.
A Hero lowered in strength should be unrestricted. Yes.
-
In a game of maneuvers turning and speed mean alot and both are lacking in the merchant compared to the dauntless
Which is why its sad that Ordnance are the most effective weapon >-<
-
@ Horizon In that TAU list where are the Merchants, isn't there suppose to be a merchant for every hero?
-
@ Horizon In that TAU list where are the Merchants, isn't there suppose to be a merchant for every hero?
1 Hero per Merchant or Explorer.
Mind you, I'd drop the Defenders and a couple of Orcas to pick up another Hero.
-
i can understand the hesitancy to give the merchant 2 shields. fine.
but something really ought to be done to make it worth taking other than as a stepping stone to the Hero
and additional 2 hits are just not enough.
90 degree turn?
flexibility with modules? like ability to take 4 hooks? (would make it the perfect model as a Nicassaar cruiser)
thoughts?
-
It is what it is. 2 hp for free and its good, I think.
-
Two hit points for free and it's good as far as I'm concerned. However, upon thinking about the lance variant I think it should cost +10 pts. The whole "1 hook costs 5 pts and is worth 10 issue" is fine so long as the hook is a forced purchase with the ship and the escort is worth taking. This is true in the case of the Explorer. However, it isn't true with the Merchant because you have the option of ditching the hook in favour of more firepower. Since you have the option then it really costs 5 pts and is worth 5 pts, whereas the lance costs 5 pts and is worth 10 pts.
Example: You purchase an Explorer for 230 (215 ship + 15 hooks) and buy 3 Orca for 25 each. The actual total price of an Orca is 30 pts. If you buy a Merchant you could have a 6WB ship and then buy 2 Orca for 30 pts each, or you could decide not to buy the Orcas and take a 6WB & 2L ship.
Now obviously the Orca is worth (a little) more than its cost, but this is because you have to buy the escort since you've already sunk some points into when you bought the parent ship. If you don't have to waste points then you don't have to buy the Orca. So the option of the lance is unbalancing. It shouldn't get the same price break that the hook gets.
I would say +10 pts for the lance variant Merchant. I wouldn't increase the price for the lance Emissary though, since the hook on that ship is worthless anyway, there is no balancing the two options and it should not be penalised for this.
-
I agree with Sig,
105 points for 6 hits hook vers, 115 for lance vers.
The Merchant is viable because it is ridiculously cheap. The vessel wasn't meant to be in a combat fleet, and in comparison the lance variant does have good firepower compared to a hero, for a much cheaper cost. Still 100/110 could be warranted.
-
Good with me.
-
If you go the route of 1 lb 2 b 1 fighter for the hellbore, how do you justify the cost? much less the abandonment of wyswyg.
-
If you go the route of 1 lb 2 b 1 fighter for the hellbore, how do you justify the cost? much less the abandonment of wyswyg.
Honestly I think this is an 'everyone nods with horizon' thing. Which happens pretty often ;)
I don't know Eldar well at all, I've never owned an eldar fleet (I currently own 1 cruiser and 6? escorts I was using for a Rogue Trader game). For BFG I kinda just ignored their existence, as I've rarely come into contact with an eldar BFG player, and only played against them twice.
-
What?
1 launch bay = 1 fighter bay on the Hellebore.
(2wb + 1pl)
thus compared to current: -2 torps, +1wb, +1 fighterbay, +5pts (unique role)
I agree I am stepping over the wyswyg issue here. This to fix the issue.
You read the latest faq...?
Unchanged profiles:
Hellebore 65pts
Aconite 55pts
Hemlock/Nightshades still at 40pts.
I am very concerned about these things and am horrified no one protests. Bringing Aconite down, unchanged Hellebore ah well okay. But 10pts less for the Aconite!! I can only agree if they brought up the Hemlock/Nightshade to 50pts. imo.
-
You can always take hooks without orcas or dhows
Don't see why taking lances should cost more for the merchant a ship that is already weak as it is
I would say that the lance merchant is weaker than the merchant + orcas
-
I don't vote for an increase on the lance version of the Merchant, but thats just me. I'd prefer +4 wb at 45cm than +2 lances at 30cm, personally.
But ya know, I dont have a korvattra fleet right now, so decide as ye want.
-
I am very concerned about these things and am horrified no one protests.
That's because everybody plays the MMS rules you've maintained so they don't care what happens in the MSM world ;)
In all honestly, I'm with you Horizon on the points issues. I've never gotten around to painting my Eldar since I think the rules aren't the fairest already and I think this is only going to make it worse.
-Zhukov
-
@lastspartacus & fracas
The vote wasn't for the increase of the cost of the lance version, it was for a decrease of the hook version. Which, happened.
To get the extra lances and wbs on the hook version you have to spend an additional +50 points.
The Orca is probably worth ~30 points, as compared to a firestorm, which has +5cm speed and 1 turret (probably about 5 pts value), To the merchant spends about 10 points towards those in its hook version. However if you don't buy them it's a waste, which is a disadvantage.
The Ion cannon version gets more firepower on the same hull, and not on easy to kill escorts, also it doesn't 'waste' the 10 points for hooks if it doesn't use them. According to smotherman, the lances would be worth ~20 points. Hence the reasons.
-
I think ion cannons are way advanced for the merchant anyway. I like the idea of 2 wb per side rather than a lance.
-
I think ion cannons are way advanced for the merchant anyway. I like the idea of 2 wb per side rather than a lance.
Not Really, Ion cannons are a more common thing in tau than lances in IN. Tau can readily produce them, and have just as much power issues with railguns as they would Ion cannons.
Although you could make a railgun merchant option, with Str. 2 45cm wbs on each side instead of the lances. Would make for an interesting variant LR tau playstyle. With tons of merchants and an explorer and a few messengers.
I would reccomend a +5 point cost on this variant instead of +10
How do people feel about that?
Also as a note on the messenger; does anyone think that this ship is too doomed to die? I think that either the restriction on them should be deleted or they should get 'stealth systems' (I.e. when a player tries to shoot at them when they aren't the closest target they must make an ld check on 3d6 rather than 2. If they are, then they just have to make a standard ld as though they weren't the closest.)
Other thoughts.... I don't think that there should be a Kor'or'vesh/Kor'vattra fleet list, I think that they should be separate and the allying rules works just fine if someone wants to use an older vessel in their 'new fleet', or a newer one in their old fleet.
It makes sense to have heroes in Kor'or'vesh, but not really merchants or explorers, or even defenders, as these would be all 400-800 years outdated. Presumably the Kor'vattra list represents the Tau fleet just after the damocles gulf crusade ~750M41. The Kor'or'vesh would be ~988m41 about 250 years later. The way tau update their tech, this would mean that the 1000 year old Explorers (which in the fluff are no longer produced as of 750m41, would be dying out quickly) and the 800 year old merchants (which weren't designed to be a front line ship) wouldn't be included in the main active fleets of the tau. They would likely be reserve vessels, taken in times of desperation, similar to old IN vessels.
However the Messenger and hero work just fine in the 'newer fleets' as these are 2nd gen ships.
-
Some necron thoughts. Reactive hull being exactly as the Kraken defenses?
AAF makes them harder to hit of they roll a 4 or more?
-
hey,
As a Dark Eldar player I wish to talk about them.
By the way, I talk this according to latest confirmation;
Dark Eldar:
Mimic engines for free
Torture can buy two impalers for 20 points, not 2 for 20 each.
And I read latest FAQ Draft (v.2.6).
I think DE has nearly everything they need (at least what I . For Grand Cruiser, DE doesn't madly needs it but it helps in both Fleet building and options but I advocate Yriel's Flagship like ship instead of 'slower' ship.
What I mean with Yriel's Flagship like is;
*It has have same movement with regular DE cruiser like Yriel's Flagship has same movement with other CWE cruisers.
*It has 0-1 (max 1) restriction.
I advocate these because;
*A slower DE ship is not fluffwise and less effective even it has 8 hits...
*Having many Grandcruiser is not fluffwise(this is Dark Eldar and only strongest and richest kabals 'may' have a cruiser like this one) and also 'may' effect game balance
So 'if' there will be a DE Grandcruiser it will be 8 hits but has same movement with other cruiser (35cm) and maximum 1 restriction (and may also has limited to 500+ or 750+ points fleets). As you noticed a 'flagship' will be perfect decision, at least from my point of view :D
It also solves main problem of dublication of same cruisers for larger battles (like 750+ points ones) and also will be fluffwise and balanced.
Thanks,
-
Perhaps there could be a simpler solution;
The Torture carrying the fleet commander can upgrade its hits to 8 and then purchase an additional weapons system. Probably the cost for this would be somewhat steep, maybe 35? points.
-
Perhaps there could be a simpler solution;
The Torture carrying the fleet commander can upgrade its hits to 8 and then purchase an additional weapons system. Probably the cost for this would be somewhat steep, maybe 35? points.
Great idea! An upgrade option is best fluffwise solution. Simple and also will not cause 'new ship' trouble!
How about this;
If fleet is worth over 750 points you can upgrade Dread Archon's Flagship for 35 pts.
Upgraded Dread Archon's Tortune Class Cruiser will have 8 hits and may choose one additional weapon from Tortune Class Cruiser ship's weapon options for given points.
For fluffwise name of this upgrade will be a special character like Duke Sliscus's Flagship
By the way i just read 2010 FAQ and it seems this is not comfirmed :( ;
Dark Eldar:
Mimic engines for free
Torture can buy two impalers for 20 points, not 2 for 20 each.
-
I agree that the Kor'vattra and Kor'or'vesh should maintain separate fleet lists, much like CWE and CE. To mix fleets use reserves rules.
-
Oqlanth, this isn't official/part of the faq. It's more of a homebrew system for building fleets. The idea was put into place because the HA's are unwillling or unable to change ship profiles significantly.
Also I'm making rules pdfs that incorporate this and the faq items. So that there doesn't need to be a 30 page FAQ. Hopefully everything will be included into the documents
-
1. Keep the two tau list separate
2. A character ship for DE is a great idea. Allow for +2 hits and one additional weapon system
-
Two seperate Tau fleets.