Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: Zelnik on February 06, 2012, 05:38:59 PM
-
Alright, it has been about a year since the 2010 faq came out, and I have played the new tau fleet extensively. Over the course of my many victories (and defeats :-\) I have managed to come up with this review of the fleet as a whole. Suggestions and a pros and con list will be provided at the bottom for the lazy.
Prologue: the new Tau fleet took a drastic departure from the old. While the old rules relied heavily on ordnance and less so on direct firepower, the new rules shift that trend to direct firepower while keeping the strong ordnance presence. For those who remember the original specialist games rules for the forgeworld ships, this fleet draws heavily from it. The biggest differences lay in the overall increase of battery strength and overall reduction in launch capacity.
The Command Structure: The Tau have two command options, an ld8 and 9 commander who come with a re-roll, and up to two additional re rolls on top of that in the form of ethereals. The only issue here is the unusual points cost which make tournament standard fleets difficult to construct. (1500 pts). As the tau are heavily reliant on reload ordnance, re-rolls are essential. This is the first area where the rules should be considered for modification.
The Ship Layout: Like most alien factions in the game, the Tau are focused on the frontal assault model, however, they utilize it differently. Unlike the corsair and craftworld eldar (hit and run), dark eldar (hit and persist) and ork (smash and grab), the Tau are a strange mix of imperial phalanx and persist. With strong front armor and weapons that have shifting firing arcs, they form a powerful line that is difficult to break. This runs into problems in the future, which will be explained later. On the whole, no Tau ship has weapons that don't sweep between two arcs.
The Firepower: Tau weapons have a standard in this list, effectively placing batteries at a fixed range of 45cm, even on their light cruisers. This can prove to be very appealing when using a messenger for support. Lances tend to stick at the 30 cm range, but there are examples of longer range fire. No weapon goes beyond 45 cm in the tau fleet, which can leave you feeling exposed at long ranges. This zone of conflict is supposed to be the realm of tau ordnance, which will be explaned in the next section. The best piece of advice I can give you is take messengers, the extra dice they provide is crucial.
Ordnance: this has always been where the Tau shine, but not as much in the new list. An overall reduction in ordnance strength in favor of direct fire weapons harms the tau in long range exchanges and weakens what was a total dominance of the ordnance phase. With these new rules, the tau still maintain an edge over most races, but it is recommended that you take an explorer to keep control of the ordnance phase.
The Ships: I will move from the smallest ships up to the largest. I will include the Nicassar for the purposes of going over the rig, and its purpose in the fleet.
The Warden Escort: this is possibly my favorite escort. Extremely cheap for a lance escort at 30 points, it is one nasty customer for its size. With a grav hook requirement, it can be limited in number, but that can be easily mitigated with merchants, emmisaries or explorers. Faster, tougher and better equipped then its orca cousin... It is one of the few escorts I have no complaints about.
The Castellan: this escort was changed from its specialist games and forgeworld version with a reduction of battery strength and an increase in speed. On the whole, it remains as the principle heavy escort of the tau, though I feel it is overpriced for its position in the fleet. Its best comparison is the infadel, which is faster then the castellan and has roughly the same firepower. The torpedos are better on this vessel by rules alone, but the cost is painful when you only have this to pick from. Overall, I take it because it is still a great escort, but it is a costly points sink and a very sweet target for the enemy.*note, the rail cannons on this escort are standard 45cm like the rest of the fleet. Keep a messenger near these bad boys!
The Nicassar Dhow: I add this because it is so rarely used, but is such a good escort. With the rig option, you get four grav hooks to bring some to the table for cheap, since all of the new tau ships only bring wardens for the fight. In a wolfpack of six, these escorts are very dangerous to any slow moving vessel like imperial or ork cruisers, since they have individual broadside strengths, effectively doubling their firepower if properly placed. Also, they are just cool looking and are the only escort with two shields. Take the rig!
The Emmisary: the standard light cruiser gives up durability for insane firepower. While the messenger was able to be bumped up to six hits for cheap, this vessel takes a 6+ prow and a mean additude. Far better equpped then its merchant counterpart, they can be a major threat to much larger ships with a heavy lance battery and torpedos, tow in wardens, or provide a fighter screen. Fly these bad boys in sqauds of 2, you will not be disappointed! This vessel only has 4 hits, so use them wisely.
The Protector: this vessel is a little schitzophrenic. While it was significantly weakened in the new rules for the price of a 90 degree turn. You may argue that the trade for a st 10 weapon battery is worth it, but losing one torp strength and one launch capacity is a huge tactical shift. Instead of functioning as a torpedo platform, it is now a mixed gunship. I personally do not agree with the 90 degree turn choice, though it does help prevent the vessel from being flanked, I would rather have a ship that can hold its own and assist better in the ordnance phase. The 5 point reduction is nice though. Another point is that for a phalanx vessel, it only has 6 hits, making it a poor choice for the job. It has problems both giving and receiving hits, and makes the user torn on lock on or reload ordnance. The lances should all be standard 45 cm instead of having a second, weaker version.
The Custodian: there has been a lot of argument over this vessel in regards to its classification as a battleship. I feel that energy could have been better served for the protector and its armament then on the custodian. This vessel was given a huge boost in power with the new rules. Better batteries, stronger torps, and a launch capacity still within the realm of usefulness. The price went up, but so did its usefulness. The only thing that bugs me is its shield rating of 3, when it should be 4. If you want to designate it as a battleship, give it 12 hits or 4 shields. Even cheaper, better armed imperial battleships have both 12 hits and 4 shields. Still, it has tracking systems, so it rerolls its turrets and ignores range penalties.
Conclusion: of all the major overhauls for the bfg fleets, this one was successful over most areas. However, the fleet design and tactics require a durability that simply is not there. Either there is too little punch in their mainline cruisers or too few hits to survive a broadside from another ship. I feel some decisions were made in response to the abuses of the original tau list, instead of letting this one shine on its own merits. It is still a diverse and powerful list, but the original intent, I feel, of the previous versions was to show how the tau adapted to fighting their most common enemies (orks, nids, imps) while remaining weaker against the foes they encounter less frequently (all eldar, necrons, chaos). The old list showed this specialization with greater ordnance numbers which those factions suffer from the most, showing the tau capitalizing on this weakness. Now it seems the push for a generalist fleet with no background support has made them weaker against all targets, which is not supposed to be the goal.
Pros:
Powerful at medium to long range thanks to variable speed torps
good fleet coherancy
Lots of options from old and new fleets, function well across generational divide.
Great escorts and a potent battleship
emmisaries are very flexible.
good ordnance concentration.
Cons:
no longer dominant in the ordnance phase without explorer assistance.
all grav hooks are warden specific.
schitzophrenic protector armament.
reliance on two special orders instead of one (lock on and reload ordnance)
overall reduction in protector power weakens backbone of the fleet.
Generalization reduces built in strengths from previous fleet
point costs add up poorly for tournament play
Suggested resolutions
Make ld commanders point cost consistant to allow for better point allocation
Increase the protectors torpedo to 6, lc to 2. Reduce turn to 45.
Allow the emmisary to buy one more hit point for 10 pts. Or allow grav hooks to carry dhows and orcas.
increase castellan wb to 3 again or reduce cost to 45 points.
Increase dhow rig capacity to 6. Increase cost by 10 points.
-
Hi Zelnik,
some quick notes:
In the Emissary paragraph you mention Messenger where you mean Merchant.
The Protector should ever and always be 90* turns. If I had a veto I would veto it. ;)
The Castellan, a reduce of 5pts, kay. It has 45cm range railguns which in a group add a punch. Plus it is a different choice now compared to the Defender.
The command point costs is just like Tau Armada. I like the offset from usual fleets.
iirc I was able to build a 1500 list with competitve intent without wasted points.
---
the gameplay is very different from the old versions. Which was the intent. The FW list was not special enough compared to the SG Tau Armada list. I gave many games with project distant darkness which had less weaponry then this FW list and I managed succes.
And when you say succes and defeats in the opening that's what it should be. An all winner or all loser race isn't what we strife for. right? ;)
Thing is, this is a raider fleet, the others battlefleets.
edit: nice to see your grog o matic back. :)
-
I just had a look at the rules... you're right about the castellan! I thought it was a 30cm shooter! The 50 point cost should remain on that note
I would rather see a stronger and less manuverable protector, it is just not worth the same cost as an imperial cruiser at this point. Can you explain why you prefer it weaker?
I view this fleet as what the true battlefleet should be, and the other an artifact of an older time, and more fluffy. I also hate pewter minis :)
I will edit the messenger/merchant typo when I get home
-
The 90* turns Protector makes a tau fleet much more versatile. In a 1500pts I always pair up 2 protectors to give some major threats and cover from the rear of the fleet.
I do think the 1 LB is a waste of resources, I would have preferred more speed or more lance range or a grav hook instead of a LB
I also really like the emmisaries but for some reason I am always suprised by their slow speed. For a light cruiser like this the speed should really be 25. Also the emmisary cannot be used for fightscreen because the LB has only Barracuda support.
-
What I am going to propose is a 2012 faq that resolves odds and ends in the rules, far smaller in scope then the 2010. Just little things to resolve the issues in the individual fleets.
I feel that losing the lb would take away the character of the ship. Increase the cost to 190, and give it back its launch capacity.
The emmisary is not the only light cruiser in the game to have speed 20, but how about this option, 25cm speed, but it can purchase 1 additional hit and shield and reduce its speed back down to 20 cm. Say for 10 more points
-
What shall we compare the FW Protector vs the Protector '2010'?
FW 190pts
6 hits - 20cm speed - 45* turns - shields 2- 6+/5+ armour - 3 turrets
6 missiles
6 railguns @ 45cm (6 front 2/2 left/right)
2 ion cannon @ 45cm (front)
2 launch bays
-----
'2010' standard t'olku - 185pts
6 hits - 20cm speed - 90* turns - shields 2- 6+/5+ armour - 3 turrets
5 missiles
10 railguns @ 45cm (10 front 2/2 left/right)
2 ion @ 30cm (2 front 1/1 left/right)
1 launch bay
=========
For a drop of 5pts we do see:
-1 launch bay
-1 missile
-15cm IC range
+ 4 railguns
+ arcs on IC
+ turn rate
========
So on a drive by the '2010' does more damage (2rg vs 2rg+1c) when being caught close range. The one drop missile can be felt, but with the Tau rules (on a 6 missiles fall out) a str6 wave could end up less in the end. The single launch bay is perhaps not ideal for a Manta (hence I recommended a Tigershark fighter bomber option), but the barracuda is ideal to remove enemy AC on cap to clear the way for missiles. But agreed, the FW does a better job at this.
The better turn rate must be used to get a better shooting position within 30cm to use maximum of the increased gunnery.
The FW version is more forgiving in positioning at the way in, until the point you get close. The 2010 version can do come to new heading and do a full 180* in one turn! Blast them engines!
Now a second point, the addition of the variant in 2010. It can only be taken if you have two Tol'ku. But what does that mean if we have three.
The variant:
'2010' vior'la extra - 185pts
6 hits - 20cm speed - 90* turns - shields 2- 6+/5+ armour - 3 turrets
5 missiles
8 railguns @ 45cm (10 front 2/2 left/right)
2 ion @ 45cm (2 front)
1 launch bay
========
3 times FW
FW 570pts
18 missiles
18 railguns @ 45cm (18 front 6/6 left/right)
6 ion cannon @ 45cm (front)
6 launch bays
--
2010 2 time tolku 1 time vior'la
15 missiles
28 railguns @ 45cm (28 front 6/6 left/right)
4 ion @ 30cm (4 front 2/2 left/right)
2 ion @ 45cm (2 front)
3 launch bay
========
In the end the 2010 version is more difficult to use. But a better raider. Needs better positioning. The FW cuts down to the quite similar Hero. The 2010 has a different job.
warning -
the emissary for its role and intention is a 25cm speed vessel.
2 lb on the protector would overpower it. Plus not fit the model. ;)
-
I prefer the fw version myself becauase it lends itself better to the phalanx tactic. I do agree with your math though.
How would you fix the emmissary then? Do you like the idea of giving it an additional optional hit?
-
Excellent review! I really like the ideas you have. On the Protector tho I always thought it was a bit of their take on an improvement of the Dauntless (kind of like the original Hero was based off their experience with Lunars) or an evolution of the hero to a smaller more maneuverable design. That said I think it would have worked better with a 5/5 railgun p/s 1/1 ion cannon and 6 torps for around 170/180 or the option of 2-3 launch bays in exchange for either the lances (preferably) or the torps (meh, but makes more sense) with a 20ish point increase for launch.
This would allow for either a powerful light cruiser similar in idea to the Hero, or a decent light carrier with enough fire power to defend itself (something like a Dauntless/Defiant mix).
-
If you would read all of the backgrounds for the Protector, it was meant to be a replacement to the Hero. This was never in question, it was just a matter of what direction was taken (ordnance or direct fire).
Seriously, sometimes I wonder if you actually read the background information on these things, Andrew. This is not 40k where you can make rules that completely ignore the background. The reason for it's design MATTERS here.
Remember, the Hero is several hundred years old, outdated, and about as "old warhorse" as it gets by the time the Protector was designed. The only reason why the Air Caste didn't want to get rid of it is because it was A. Easy to build and B. Effective at what it did (even if it was not efficient at it).
The Tau know better then to just throw them away, so they are used frequently as system defense ships on worlds where their slower FTL does not hinder their job. Remember, the Protector can go DOUBLE the FTL speed of the Hero, which makes it a far more versatile vessel overall.
I just prefer to have the Hero as a tougher, more ordnance heavy ship killer then a direct fire raider.
-
The Custodian
Yes, it should have 4 shields and yes it should count as a cruiser! Manoeuvrability is the Tau modus operandi and it would not only be in keeping with this but would also make it easier to keep the fleet together. Just because it is the BB of the Tau fleet there's no reason for it to be classified as a BB with regards to turning ability. It has 10 hits ffs.
The Protector
Yes, it is a little light in punch. Yes, it is a little light in Ordnance (comparatively) and yes it is a little light to be used as a line cruiser. However, it does, I feel have as much firepower, AC and hits as could feasibly be crammed into the model. For any lack, blame FW for their inability to grasp the notion of scale. It is more in keeping with the Tau philosophy of war than their old sluggish vessels. If it did not have the 90° turns then it would be a totally pointless vessel. The only potential buff that this vessel could really get is a slight points decrease.
The Emissary
Yes, it is fragile and yes it should have 25cm speed. No it should not have any more survivability than it does. It is tiny and already has a fair bit packed into its tiny frame. Again FW and their inability to grasp scale are to blame.
The Castellan
It's poo. Too expensive.
The Warden
Compared to the Orca it's weak. Compared to a Firestorm it's meh. Firestorms are weak. Paying 5 pts per ship for a bit of extra speed is not my idea of a bargain. This ship should have been completely different to the Orca. It should have been something like 4WB, 30cm speed and armour 4+ for like 20 pts. Cheap hard hitting ships that aren't meant to hang around for a dogfight. Looking at the model, I can't imagine how 5+ armour is justified (presumably just hand-waived away).
The Dhow
Novelty ship. Sure, increase the rig by up to 2 hooks. Doesn't overpower the Dhows, since they're so weak anyway. Great manoeuvrability and great shields and great total firepower. On the other hand a great cost to purchase, a great susceptibility to ordnance and a great fat lot of good its firepower does you when you can't get into position to use it because they're so slow. :o Not an impressive vessel. Novelty.
Note to all: The word "than" should be used in most cases, as opposed to "then". The former is used in comparisons. I would rather do activity X than activity Y. Another example; "Faster, tougher and better equipped than its Orca cousin ..." (The Warden's not tougher than the Orca, btw. In fact, due to its increased cost, it's weaker). On the other hand the word "then" is used in contingencies. For example; If you're going to take a Custodian then I would recommend taking some Wardens to accompany it. THAN = comparisons, THEN = contingencies. I hope that helps clarify it for you non-English speakers (I'm looking at you Americans!).
-
Umm wow uncalled for much? If you didnt understand what I wrote a simple "can you please explain" would go a little better ;).
Ill break it down for you.
Excellent review! I really like the ideas you have.
seems straight forward enough
On the Protector tho I always thought it was a bit of their take on an improvement of the Dauntless (kind of like the original Hero was based off their experience with Lunars) or an evolution of the hero to a smaller more maneuverable design.
Once again pretty straight forward, they have Heros, they need newer better ships and a light cruiser design allows them a tactically better platform that fits with the style of attack that their warriors are more familiar with. Remember the main purposes of the new battle fleet was to steer away from the cargo ship mentality of big and lumbering and to better integrate the fire warriors with the crew instead of just having them man the guns.
That said I think it would have worked better with a 5/5 railgun p/s 1/1 ion cannon and 6 torps for around 170/180
The rules were actually a take on both the Hero and Protector rules that are already out(go figure ::)) The idea behind this being that they would not invest so much resources on a vessel design that is so maneuverable and not use everything available to them in order to take full advantage of it. By placing all of the weapons on the p/s they would have the same ability to focus fire that they have always had and be able to perform the flanking maneuvers the Hero would be unable to accomplish while still bringing a significant weight of fire to the enemy (fixed forward guns on Tau really?)
or the option of 2-3 launch bays in exchange for either the lances (preferably) or the torps (meh, but makes more sense) with a 20ish point increase for launch.
Obviously they have significant experience with attack craft and any cruiser design they come out with should have a variant to acknowledge that, I also found it strange that with their experiences they would still have mixed gunship/ carriers instead of following the design style of the Emissary. I think the preferable way to represent this is to remove the lances and add launch on a one for one basis (with a slight increase in points no more than 20) or if staying strictly with the design style represented by the Emissary then replacing the torps with a slight deviation of 1 launch for two torps instead of 2 launch for 3 torps. (4 launch light cruisers just don't feel right and I really dislike that it would still be a mixed type cruiser)
This would allow for either a powerful light cruiser similar in idea to the Hero, or a decent light carrier with enough fire power to defend itself (something like a Dauntless/Defiant mix).
This all comes back to what I said in the beginning, because even in its current form it is not a direct replacement for the Hero (a true line cruiser in design and purpose), it is in fact an advanced Dauntless or scaled down Hero (or the evolution of the Hero design if you will)
The Custodian
Yes, it should have 4 shields and yes it should count as a cruiser! Manoeuvrability is the Tau modus operandi and it would not only be in keeping with this but would also make it easier to keep the fleet together. Just because it is the BB of the Tau fleet there's no reason for it to be classified as a BB with regards to turning ability. It has 10 hits ffs.
I'm not sold on 4 shields, 3 seems quite fitting as it is a large cruiser (grand cruiser if were using BFG vernacular) I am also agreed that it should not be a "battleship".
The Protector
Yes, it is a little light in punch. Yes, it is a little light in Ordnance (comparatively) and yes it is a little light to be used as a line cruiser. However, it does, I feel have as much firepower, AC and hits as could feasibly be crammed into the model. For any lack, blame FW for their inability to grasp the notion of scale. It is more in keeping with the Tau philosophy of war than their old sluggish vessels. If it did not have the 90° turns then it would be a totally pointless vessel. The only potential buff that this vessel could really get is a slight points decrease.
Same as I posted earlier, basically should have variants for launch/gun specific.
The Emissary
Yes, it is fragile and yes it should have 25cm speed. No it should not have any more survivability than it does. It is tiny and already has a fair bit packed into its tiny frame. Again FW and their inability to grasp scale are to blame.
I also think this is fitting with the fluff, how would a race feel if you showed up to a negotiation with a full fledged war ship?
The Castellan
It's poo. Too expensive.
I thought these were pretty awesome myself, staying @ midrange allows them to hang behind the bigger ships and be effective.
The Warden
Compared to the Orca it's weak. Compared to a Firestorm it's meh. Firestorms are weak. Paying 5 pts per ship for a bit of extra speed is not my idea of a bargain. This ship should have been completely different to the Orca. It should have been something like 4WB, 30cm speed and armour 4+ for like 20 pts. Cheap hard hitting ships that aren't meant to hang around for a dogfight. Looking at the model, I can't imagine how 5+ armour is justified (presumably just hand-waived away).
Add a turret and make the railguns l/f/r along with the ion cannon.
The Dhow
Novelty ship. Sure, increase the rig by up to 2 hooks. Doesn't overpower the Dhows, since they're so weak anyway. Great manoeuvrability and great shields and great total firepower. On the other hand a great cost to purchase, a great susceptibility to ordnance and a great fat lot of good its firepower does you when you can't get into position to use it because they're so slow. :o Not an impressive vessel. Novelty.
^
Note to all: The word "than" should be used in most cases, as opposed to "then". The former is used in comparisons. I would rather do activity X than activity Y. Another example; "Faster, tougher and better equipped than its Orca cousin ..." (The Warden's not tougher than the Orca, btw. In fact, due to its increased cost, it's weaker). On the other hand the word "then" is used in contingencies. For example; If you're going to take a Custodian then I would recommend taking some Wardens to accompany it. THAN = comparisons, THEN = contingencies. I hope that helps clarify it for you non-English speakers (I'm looking at you Americans!).
well than Im probably guilty :(
-
...Andrew. my apologies, I misread your post and I was rushed at the time. The whole necron fiasco does not help since we agree on zero aspects of that insane list.
You will also have to forgive Sig. He is even angrier then I am, and hates everything about the 2010 faq.
Sig.
On the custodian, thanks for agreeing on the fourth shield. I am personally on the fence about the "grand cruiser" designation. the difference is mostly in 5 cm before turning. My only argument -against- it is that it has battleship equivalent firepower, and no grand cruiser in the game has more then 3 shields. When it comes to scale, it is bigger then the Necron tomb ship, which has 12 full hits, and just as big as any Orc battleship, which has 12 full hits. Don't consider the Tau to be small, just consider human ships to be unnecessarily large.
On the issue of scale, I don't hold that against the Tau ships because I like the idea of a ship that can go toe-to-toe with an imperial vessel that is smaller due to more advanced technology, automation and miniaturization. The increase of 1 LC and/or 1 torpedo will not offend scale purists I think. Don't forget that a protector is larger then the dauntless mini, and is just as wide as an imperial cruiser is long (I just did the comparison), so I find your scale argument unconvincing :D
The Emiisary is about the same size as the Shrowd, and slightly shorter then a dauntless.
Your argument on the orca vs warden is... sorry Sig, but stupid. Painfully stupid. Better armor, better speed, better weapon allocation. Armor is determined by the materials that make the ship, and clearly the tau have done something to improve their materials. The only difference between it and the Firestorm is one turret, a FLR lance, and ten points cheaper.
I like my dhows.. shadap.. just because they are slow... :<
And your math is off on the warden/orca as well. Sorry sig, you will have to admit you are wrong for once.
And if SCALE Is your issue with hits, tell me why the Stronghold, a ship ONLY dwarfed in size by the HULK and Kroot war sphere, is 10 hits?
-
elnik,
as for the Emissary, the speed bump, 25cm speed is what it needs. It is a diplomatic ship. It wants speed & turns to get out whenever possible. Hey, 5d6 aaf would be fitting as well. ;)
In which fluff it is stated that the Hero is being replaced by the Protector. I see it more as an expansion and/or addition.
Plus we all know the Hero is a big design mistake by them in Armada. They talk about a ship that was supposed to meet a Lunar, but failed according fluff. Yet we see a ship that is as expensive as a Lunar plus it can take down a Lunar on its own. It is better then a Lunar.
The 'fix' was making it a dependant ship (1 other cruiser needed to take one), that is backwards balancing.
The Hero should have weaker armament to fit its background role.
-warning
the Warden & Orca both have 5+ armour. And I like the Warden due better speed and flexible IC.
I did measuring a Protector once in a scale thing (based of the what the real dimensions of a Manta would be! It ended up perfectly in scale in the universe where Imperial cruisers are 3km long. It was 2/3 of the IN cruiser.
Funnily enough I think the Necron tombship is small and should not have 12 hits at all. 10 hits max.
-
...Andrew. my apologies, I misread your post and I was rushed at the time. The whole necron fiasco does not help since we agree on zero aspects of that insane list.
No worries :) the necron stuff is a cluster ::) and it appears to have been abandoned.
You will also have to forgive Sig. He is even angrier then I am, and hates everything about the 2010 faq.
Teal is the color of fury ;D
Sig.
On the custodian, thanks for agreeing on the fourth shield. I am personally on the fence about the "grand cruiser" designation. the difference is mostly in 5 cm before turning. My only argument -against- it is that it has battleship equivalent firepower, and no grand cruiser in the game has more then 3 shields. When it comes to scale, it is bigger then the Necron tomb ship, which has 12 full hits, and just as big as any Orc battleship, which has 12 full hits. Don't consider the Tau to be small, just consider human ships to be unnecessarily large.
On the issue of scale, I don't hold that against the Tau ships because I like the idea of a ship that can go toe-to-toe with an imperial vessel that is smaller due to more advanced technology, automation and miniaturization. The increase of 1 LC and/or 1 torpedo will not offend scale purists I think. Don't forget that a protector is larger then the dauntless mini, and is just as wide as an imperial cruiser is long (I just did the comparison), so I find your scale argument unconvincing :D
The Emiisary is about the same size as the Shrowd, and slightly shorter then a dauntless.
Your argument on the orca vs warden is... sorry Sig, but stupid. Painfully stupid. Better armor, better speed, better weapon allocation. Armor is determined by the materials that make the ship, and clearly the tau have done something to improve their materials. The only difference between it and the Firestorm is one turret, a FLR lance, and ten points cheaper.
same armor, 5 cm speed boost, better ion cannon arc but the rules state front only for the rail guns :\ They are far superior (points wise) to firestorms tho, and I like some firestorms.
I like my dhows.. shadap.. just because they are slow... :<
And your math is off on the warden/orca as well. Sorry sig, you will have to admit you are wrong for once.
And if SCALE Is your issue with hits, tell me why the Stronghold, a ship ONLY dwarfed in size by the HULK and Kroot war sphere, is 10 hits?
Size matters not. Everything is only as big as the tip of the stand anyway.
elnik,
as for the Emissary, the speed bump, 25cm speed is what it needs. It is a diplomatic ship. It wants speed & turns to get out whenever possible. Hey, 5d6 aaf would be fitting as well. ;)
sounds ok, but its not overpriced right now (its even carrying at least 10pts, more like 20, of extra cost for the wardens it can bring) so if it gets any boosts it needs a price increase
In which fluff it is stated that the Hero is being replaced by the Protector. I see it more as an expansion and/or addition.
Based on the mission envisioned for the Lar‟shi cruiser, the Lar‟shi‟vre “Protector†cruiser is the primary combat vessel of the Kor‟or‟vesh. Not a direct replacement as I stated but it was designed to fulfill the same purpose according to fluff.
Plus we all know the Hero is a big design mistake by them in Armada. They talk about a ship that was supposed to meet a Lunar, but failed according fluff. Yet we see a ship that is as expensive as a Lunar plus it can take down a Lunar on its own. It is better then a Lunar.
The 'fix' was making it a dependant ship (1 other cruiser needed to take one), that is backwards balancing.
The Hero should have weaker armament to fit its background role.
yup
-warning
the Warden & Orca both have 5+ armour. And I like the Warden due better speed and flexible IC.
I did measuring a Protector once in a scale thing (based of the what the real dimensions of a Manta would be! It ended up perfectly in scale in the universe where Imperial cruisers are 3km long. It was 2/3 of the IN cruiser.
Funnily enough I think the Necron tombship is small and should not have 12 hits at all. 10 hits max.
-
Your argument on the orca vs warden is... sorry Sig, but stupid. Painfully stupid. Better armor, better speed, better weapon allocation. Armor is determined by the materials that make the ship, and clearly the tau have done something to improve their materials. The only difference between it and the Firestorm is one turret, a FLR lance, and ten points cheaper.
And your math is off on the warden/orca as well. Sorry sig, you will have to admit you are wrong for once.
Ahem. Let me tackle your points one at a time eh?
Firstly, better armour - nup, they have the same armour, same shields, same turrets. Also same firepower and turn rate.
Secondly, better speed - yup, they get +5cm speed.
Thirdly, better weapon allocation - nup, they're just as boned as the Orca. I cannot think of a single instance where this arc swap would come in useful. So you've locked on and sailed past your target? OK, so you get 3 locked on lances (2.25 hits average) vs the Orcas turning to bring all guns to bear and getting 1.5 hits + 6WBs worth of hits, which is what, +0.625 assuming equal distribution amongst 5+/6+ armour and each column. So a loss of 0.125, hits assuming you never get 4+ armour and you can't manipulate the circumstances to get better than an equal distribution (which if you can't you're doing something wrong).
So you've turned and are still out of arc? That gives you 3 lances vs 6WBs right? No, CTNH from the Orcas will put them in arc and give 2L + 3WB. Even. So really, you're talking about the times that you can't go on orders (because you're braced or you've failed your test) and cannot bring a target to bear in the forward arc. Yeah, that'll happen a lot.
The fact is that both the Warden and the Orca are front fire arc specialists. They do their best work firing at a target to the fore and always strive to be able to do so. Which weapon can swing is irrelevant.
So, now let's consider a scenario. You've got 2 Explorers providing 6 hooks. It would cost 150 pts to fill all those hooks with Orcas, but the same points will only fill 5 using Wardens. So you've got some extra speed, and the extra minuscule weapon swing versatility and the option to fill another hook should points allow (meaning the Orca player would be able to upgrade his leader instead, or buy a re-roll or something). The Orca player has instead an extra ship. That's an extra hit, an extra shield and an extra 5WBe firepower. Orcas win. An extra 5cm speed is not worth the loss of survivability or firepower.
Now, let's look at the Firestorm. This ship is, by and large, a rubbish ship. It's a Sword with an extra pip of firepower. However, unlike the Orca/Warden comparison, the Firestorm is actually less versatile than the Sword. Firstly, it has mixed weaponry compared to the Swords "pure". This seems like an advantage, but only if you have no idea what you'll be coming up against. Since the vast majority of the time you do know, the advantage of the Sword lies in that you'll either be taking it as a hard counter to the opponent or leaving it alone as subpar. Also, the Sword does not have to fire to the fore arc. The extra weapon swing on its armaments is actually relevant. This means it can present a much better abeam aspect and also LO more often, since it has less need to turn to face. These advantages to the Sword actually compensate fully for the lost pip of firepower compared to the Firestorm. The Firestorm is however 5 pts more expensive. Firestorm = sucky.
Comparing the Warden to the Firestorm we see the Firestorm cost 5 pts more and gain an extra turret. No, it does not cost 10 pts more, it's 5 pts. You are paying 5 pts for the hook in the cost of the parent ship, regardless of whether an escort is taken or not. So the real cost of a Warden is 35 pts. Again, both the Warden and the Firestorm need to fire forward to be useful, so again ignore that reversal of swing. So it's just 5 pts for an extra turret. Eh, given that ordnance is the biggest enemy of escorts that's actually close to reasonable. The two ships are pretty much comparable. You'll get an extra Warden for every 7 Firestorms, but you'll lose less Firestorms to AC. So, given that the Firestorm = sucky and Warden = Firestorm, it stands to reason that Warden = sucky. This is even more apparent when you take into account that if you don't take your full complement of Wardens you're just throwing away 15 pts for every Custodian. An IN player, on the other hand, can feel free to ignore the Firestorm option and indeed can ignore good options, like the Cobra and Sword.
-
Hey Sig,
while not debating your math you forget one factor in the Warden vs Firestorm debate:
If I destroy 3 Firestorms I receive 120vps.
If I destroy 3 Wardens I receive 90vps, not 105vps (which is 3 Swords).
At that point it does not matter the Warden within the Tau fleet is technically 35pts.
Small side-effect: within range of a Custodian the 1 turret on the Warden gains a little value.
As for the speed 25cm vs 20cm in the Warden vs Orca debate:
The +5cm speed is more worth then it seems. The Warden can execute a 'gap-fill' role much better then the Orca (which is a good vessel!).
It has more wiggle room to stay behind the main fleet untill the lines meet and it needs to help out the larger vessels.
An Explorer cannot bring Wardens, A Custodian cannot bring Orca's.
Which does mean that giving math of 2 Explorers = 6 Orca's = 5 Wardens is in theory correct but in reality non evident.
And yes, the Custodian should be a Grand Cruiser. I do not mind 3 shields.
-
So far as I can tell, horizon, the explorer can take wardens, nothing says it cannot. Only the emmissary and the custodian are restricted in their deployment of ships.
-
ah yeah, the small mention in the Warden box. One argument down. thnx.
-
No problem... I always take an explorer in my fleets so I can lay down six wardens after all :), the additional lc is a great help too.
-
A comparable number of Wardens should be at worse equal to Swords with anyone worth half a grain of salt. Even when they're not locked on 3 Wardens/Firestorms/whatever have an average of 2 hits against an abeam Sword, 3 Swords have an average of 3 hits on a closing Warden when locked on. Where this becomes tricky is when you actually put these in the hands of players. Basically its going to come down to who can get the first strike, discounting bad rolls, and that person will be locked on. When you compare them against what they're actually going to be doing for the most part (supporting capitol ships) you will find that the lance armed ships will often times outgun the Swords even when not locked on due to the effect of blast markers. The real benefit to having a ship like the Sword comes when your still learning how to play or against specific races that force you to adapt quickly (Eldar, Necrons, Etc) as it can more easily adapt to problems that might arise. In a typical game a good player will not have any problems getting several lock on opportunities with lance ships especially in a fleet such as this where you can have multiple torpedo salvos to force people into avenues of approach.
Also as Horizon pointed out it is actually cheaper if destroyed.
When you factor in that to take the Wardens you must ::) have a boat load of ordnance to go with it the lack of a single turret really wont make a big difference against anyone but Nids.
-
A comparable number of Wardens should be at worse equal to Swords with anyone worth half a grain of salt. Even when they're not locked on 3 Wardens/Firestorms/whatever have an average of 2 hits against an abeam Sword, 3 Swords have an average of 3 hits on a closing Warden when locked on. Where this becomes tricky is when you actually put these in the hands of players. Basically its going to come down to who can get the first strike, discounting bad rolls, and that person will be locked on. When you compare them against what they're actually going to be doing for the most part (supporting capitol ships) you will find that the lance armed ships will often times outgun the Swords even when not locked on due to the effect of blast markers. The real benefit to having a ship like the Sword comes when your still learning how to play or against specific races that force you to adapt quickly (Eldar, Necrons, Etc) as it can more easily adapt to problems that might arise. In a typical game a good player will not have any problems getting several lock on opportunities with lance ships especially in a fleet such as this where you can have multiple torpedo salvos to force people into avenues of approach.
Ugh, where to begin. Well, firstly, let's say that people get exactly as much out of a Warden as they could a Sword. I don't believe this to be the case as your simple maths above highlights and the Wardens are more fragile even when within tracking system range. But let's assume this is the case. So what? They cost as much as a Sword. No big surprise that they should pull the weight of one then. Oh, but you're forced to take them, since you've already spent 15 pts on the squadron by buying a Custodian. That's a downfall.
Also if you play by the original rules where BMs don't count all round then the Swords very rarely have their firepower reduced by BMs (or cause such a reduction for another ship) because they're excellent flankers. Escorts that have to point themselves at the enemy to shoot are not so good. If you don't play by those rules, well, you can always opt not to take any Swords. The Wardens on the other hand ...
Also as Horizon pointed out it is actually cheaper if destroyed.
The advantage of Wardens giving away fewer VPs is made up for by the disadvantage of hooked vessels giving away more VPs.
When you factor in that to take the Wardens you must ::) have a boat load of ordnance to go with it the lack of a single turret really wont make a big difference against anyone but Nids.
No, this isn't true. A Custodian puts out 6AC at 330 pts and you can only have 1 per 1k points. Protectors only give 1 each. It isn't hard to out-ordnance a Tau CP Fleet. Aside from which, you don't need to have more or even equal ordnance in order to destroy some escorts. Unless he has 4 fighters protecting each and every target within range even a single Dictator can do some damage.
Hey Sig,
while not debating your math you forget one factor in the Warden vs Firestorm debate:
If I destroy 3 Firestorms I receive 120vps.
If I destroy 3 Wardens I receive 90vps, not 105vps (which is 3 Swords).
At that point it does not matter the Warden within the Tau fleet is technically 35pts.
Small side-effect: within range of a Custodian the 1 turret on the Warden gains a little value.
Firstly, Firestorms are overpriced and poo, though it will still be harder to destroy those 3 Firestorms for the most part, due to their extra turret. Secondly, if I destroy a Custodian I get 330 VPs, not 315 VPs. So the actual cost you pay for the Wardens (35 pts) can still be reaped as VPs by the opponent. You might consider the shift in the placement of those VPs beneficial, but it's only beneficial when the Custodian survives and the Wardens do not. If both are destroyed or both survive there is no difference. If the Wardens survive but the Custodian does not then it is a negative. All in all, I'd count this as a slight advantage to the Wardens (and any other hooked escort) compared to non-hooked escorts. However, the Orca also enjoys this slight advantage.
As for the speed 25cm vs 20cm in the Warden vs Orca debate:
The +5cm speed is more worth then it seems. The Warden can execute a 'gap-fill' role much better then the Orca (which is a good vessel!).
It has more wiggle room to stay behind the main fleet untill the lines meet and it needs to help out the larger vessels.
I have no doubt that the extra speed of the Warden is a benefit. I've sometimes lamented the lack in Orcas myself. I just don't think that it is worth an extra 5 pts per escort. After all, destroying 3 Orcas will only grant 75 VPs vs the 90 VPs of the Wardens. :P
-
Just one edit Sig.
It's one custodian per 750, letting you have 2 per 1500 match.
Tell me, sig. How would you fix the tau fleet?
-
Ugh, where to begin. Well, firstly, let's say that people get exactly as much out of a Warden as they could a Sword. I don't believe this to be the case as your simple maths above highlights and the Wardens are more fragile even when within tracking system range. But let's assume this is the case. So what? They cost as much as a Sword. No big surprise that they should pull the weight of one then. Oh, but you're forced to take them, since you've already spent 15 pts on the squadron by buying a Custodian. That's a downfall.
My "simple math" just shows that the Wardens would only be slightly worse when they are not locked on compared to a group of Swords that are locked on. The fact of the matter here is that when taken equally the Sword does not compare, it is cheaper than the Firestorm because it cannot cause damage as efficiently. With 5+ armor being the standard only against a closing capitol ship would you actually be better off with the Sword and then only when locked on and even then just barely. I'm not trying to say that the Sword is bad here just that its a much more situational ship where as something like the Firestorm is more all comers, with the price differences the Warden is much better and the Orca is almost overpowered. If you think that its easier to get lock on opportunity with swords then ok that's fine clearly you haven't played enough with prow armed ships to develop the tactics required to use them effectively, I'm sorry, your right in that instance.
Closing Cap Closing Escort Abeam Cap Abeam Escort
NLO LO NLO LO NLO LO NLO LO
Sword 2.67/4.34 2.00/3.33 1.33/2.33 0.67/1.00
S/BM 2.00/3.33 1.33/2.33 0.67/1.00 0.67/1.00
Warden 2.83/4.33 2.50/3.67 2.17/3.00 1.83/2.67
W/BM 2.50/3.67 2.17/3.00 1.83/2.67 1.83/2.67
(I made it look more complicated just for you Sig but this actually removes a step ;))
Now I hate to figure point costs for ships but the Custodian does come up actually 16.5 points over costed by Smothermans formula, assuming you don't take into account that they have much better bombers which should actually even them out a bit :-\. Emissaries are over costed by only 5 pts, once again if you don't take those bombers into consideration. So I'm sorry to burst your bubble but they really are not 5 points more that they're listed as, if anything their "parent ships" are actually priced about right, maybe with a one or two point penality/ hook but definitely not 5pts :-X.
Also if you play by the original rules where BMs don't count all round then the Swords very rarely have their firepower reduced by BMs (or cause such a reduction for another ship) because they're excellent flankers. Escorts that have to point themselves at the enemy to shoot are not so good. If you don't play by those rules, well, you can always opt not to take any Swords. The Wardens on the other hand ...
Why would you play the original rules? These were clearly flawed as they assumed that a blast not in line with the firing ship and the defending ship would not affect their targeting, even tho the ship that was just hit would be tossed about quite a bit by the force of the impacts. Of course explosions and debris also tend to wrap around something when its been hit further distorting its appearance, even on the side where it wasn't hit.
The advantage of Wardens giving away fewer VPs is made up for by the disadvantage of hooked vessels giving away more VPs.
Once again they really don't ::)
No, this isn't true. A Custodian puts out 6AC at 330 pts and you can only have 1 per 1k points. Protectors only give 1 each. It isn't hard to out-ordnance a Tau CP Fleet. Aside from which, you don't need to have more or even equal ordnance in order to destroy some escorts. Unless he has 4 fighters protecting each and every target within range even a single Dictator can do some damage.
If your escorts are seen as a bigger threat than your carriers then you must be very good with them, of course the way you talk about them it sounds more likely that you just throw them away. A Tau CP fleet can throw down 22 wb@45cm 8 LB and still have 6 wardens making closing with them very dangerous... @750pts ::)
Firstly, Firestorms are overpriced and poo, though it will still be harder to destroy those 3 Firestorms for the most part, due to their extra turret. Secondly, if I destroy a Custodian I get 330 VPs, not 315 VPs. So the actual cost you pay for the Wardens (35 pts) can still be reaped as VPs by the opponent. You might consider the shift in the placement of those VPs beneficial, but it's only beneficial when the Custodian survives and the Wardens do not. If both are destroyed or both survive there is no difference. If the Wardens survive but the Custodian does not then it is a negative. All in all, I'd count this as a slight advantage to the Wardens (and any other hooked escort) compared to non-hooked escorts. However, the Orca also enjoys this slight advantage.
I'm not even going there ::)
I have no doubt that the extra speed of the Warden is a benefit. I've sometimes lamented the lack in Orcas myself. I just don't think that it is worth an extra 5 pts per escort. After all, destroying 3 Orcas will only grant 75 VPs vs the 90 VPs of the Wardens. :P
This I could agree with if they were 30cm speed I could see the points increase but not 5cm.
This whole argument is moot at any point because the Tau do not have Swords they have Wardens and Orcas and the pure CP fleet can only take Wardens. If you don't like them so be it, but don't try to dissuade others from making use of them because of your flawed belief that they are "poo".
-
My "simple math" just shows that the Wardens would only be slightly worse when they are not locked on compared to a group of Swords that are locked on. The fact of the matter here is that when taken equally the Sword does not compare, it is cheaper than the Firestorm because it cannot cause damage as efficiently.
There is no reason why it is cheaper than a Firestorm. Yes, it cannot cause as much damage, having less firepower, but it has advantages over the Firestorm that see it being as good. The Sword is a decent escort and is actually used. The Firestorm is not a decent escort and only newbies use it. Or people that bought the model and are sick of it sitting on their shelves. It does not compete with the Sword, despite its extra firepower.
With 5+ armor being the standard only against a closing capitol ship would you actually be better off with the Sword and then only when locked on and even then just barely. I'm not trying to say that the Sword is bad here just that its a much more situational ship where as something like the Firestorm is more all comers, with the price differences the Warden is much better and the Orca is almost overpowered. If you think that its easier to get lock on opportunity with swords then ok that's fine clearly you haven't played enough with prow armed ships to develop the tactics required to use them effectively, I'm sorry, your right in that instance.
The Sword sucks against Space Marines. The Firestorm sucks against Corsair Eldar, Craftworld Eldar and Dark Eldar. The Sword excels against those 3 races, whereas the Firestorm only performs adequately against SMs (40% of its firepower is still WBs). The Sword excels against Necrons (4+ braced armour), Orks (4+ rear armour), Tau (4+ rear on explorers, or 5+ prow on Explorers/Merchants), Chaos (juicy 5+ prows) and Tyranids (5+ prows). The Firestorms perform more evenly across all those fleets. They also rarely get to use their WBs against rear armour, because they're too busy trying to keep a target to the fore. So you can take a Sword against any blind fleet and you'll only be hosed if it happens that you're fighting SMs (which is a bit of a laugh anyway). Only against IN or the Tau CPF do they go a little flat.
This is their advantage. Having mixed weaponry is a downside. It makes you less versatile. On a highly mobile weapons platform (ie, escorts), the best weapon direct fire weapon is WBs firing LFR. This makes you a raider. If you're going to have forward firing lances then you're basically an artillery ship. To have both types on the one ship is just bad.
Oh, and as for my tactics, or lack thereof, we'll just leave that comment alone, eh? Let's move on to the fact that it's easier to get a firing solution for LO for a Sword than it is for a Firestorm. Example: enemy in front arc, their turn, they move into your side arc. Firestorms' solution: turn to present prow weaponry. Swords' solution: LO, fire to the side.
Closing Cap Closing Escort Abeam Cap Abeam Escort
NLO LO NLO LO NLO LO NLO LO
Sword 2.67/4.34 2.00/3.33 1.33/2.33 0.67/1.00
S/BM 2.00/3.33 1.33/2.33 0.67/1.00 0.67/1.00
Warden 2.83/4.33 2.50/3.67 2.17/3.00 1.83/2.67
W/BM 2.50/3.67 2.17/3.00 1.83/2.67 1.83/2.67
(I made it look more complicated just for you Sig but this actually removes a step ;))
These numbers aren't quite correct. For example, a squadron of 3 LO Swords at normal range into a closing cap ship with 5+ prow armour average 4.44 hits, not 4.34. Against an abeam capital ship under the same circumstances (normal range, no BM, 5+ armour, on LO) the average is 2.22 hits, not 2.33.
However, let's consider a fairly typical situation. On their way to the rear of the enemy lines a Sword escort squadron (strength 3), in passing, goes on LO and shoots at an abeam capital ship at close range. Let's say 5+ armour, as it's most typical. Average of 3.33 hits. Now consider the Wardens. Well, they could perhaps move a shorter distance to get a shot at the ships prow (6+ armour) and so manage to LO since they don't need to turn. In that case they could do a nice 3.78 hits on average. Their position is a little weaker to return fire though, and they're not really on their way to the rear of the enemy lines and their minimum movement may not allow for this. Alternatively they could move forward and LO as per the Swords, getting only 2.25 hits on average, since they'd be unable to bring their WBs to bear. Or they could move forward as per the Swords and turn to present their prow, granting 2.5 hits on average. The Sword seems to perform fairly reasonably compared to the up-gunned Warden here.
Now let's consider a move that puts the escort squarely behind the target. Both the Swords and the Wardens would have to turn to present guns in this case, so no LO. The Swords would average 2.67 hits vs the Wardens 1.5 hits. OK, so what about if they went on CTNH? That allows both ships to point their prows at the enemy rear and gives 1.33 hits for the Swords and 1.67 hits for the Wardens. Now that they're tailgating, what about LO for the next turn? That's 4.47 hits for the Wardens and 4.44 hits for the Swords. A barely noticeable difference.
So what does all this mean? It means that the Sword is a better flanking vessel and the Warden a better artillery vessel. The Warden gains no appreciable bonus when tailgating on LO. The Sword on the other hand gains significantly if it's a 4+ armour rear (Orks, Tau Explorer). The Warden would of course perform better against SMs, but much worse against Eldar of any type.
So it's much of a muchness really. Except that the Sword generally presents a more resilient aspect to enemy gunnery and it is much more resilient to enemy ordnance. Advantage Sword.
Now I hate to figure point costs for ships but the Custodian does come up actually 16.5 points over costed by Smothermans formula, assuming you don't take into account that they have much better bombers which should actually even them out a bit :-\. Emissaries are over costed by only 5 pts, once again if you don't take those bombers into consideration. So I'm sorry to burst your bubble but they really are not 5 points more that they're listed as, if anything their "parent ships" are actually priced about right, maybe with a one or two point penality/ hook but definitely not 5pts :-X.
Oh dear. Firstly ditch Smotherman and don't ever use it ever again. Ever. It's rubbish. Secondly, if there were no hooks on the Custodian it would cost 315 pts. The price has remained consistent of 5 pts per hook across all iterations. Check the cost of Nicassar rigs and defence stations hooks. In fact it has been specifically stated by SG that a part of the hooked ships cost is paid by the parent vessel. How much of that cost do you think is being paid then? 3 pts? 2?
Why would you play the original rules? These were clearly flawed as they assumed that a blast not in line with the firing ship and the defending ship would not affect their targeting, even tho the ship that was just hit would be tossed about quite a bit by the force of the impacts. Of course explosions and debris also tend to wrap around something when its been hit further distorting its appearance, even on the side where it wasn't hit.
Why? Because those rules are superior. The only reason why BMs came to be counted as all-round was because of the introduction of the massed turret rules and the problems that arose with the attendant downside introduced to balance them. The downside being that the attacking player could shift the BM off the line of fire to make it touch other ships in base contact. This was abused by shifting it to the far side of the target giving a clear line of fire for the rest of the fleet. A better solution would have been to add an extra BM in contact with all ships in base contact with the target, placed on a line to the firing ship. But anyway.
There are 2 ways you can look at the turn. Simultaneously or sequentially. In the first since it's all happening at once there is no "order" of fire so BMs placed this turn should not interfere with subsequent fire this turn. I dislike this method. In the latter instance then the order of fire does matter, but one could assume that subsequent firing will wait until their target has resolved. In other words, the target being impacted by a few hits should not interfere with you gunnery. Also, we're dealing with ships with a good deal of momentum. A few impacts aren't likely to "toss it about" much at all. Even if destroyed the wreck is going to travel pretty much in the same direction was going. As for explosions "wrapping around" the target, well that is just nonsense really. To be honest, an explosion on the left side of a ship is more likely to highlight its position to those on its right than obfuscate it. But assuming that the explosion does "wrap around", we're talking about a moving vessel. It's going to move away from the explosion. So the explosion will only ever be on one side (ie, the rear).
But apart from all that, the WBs and lances were originally balanced around the original rules. This stupid sweeping change that the HA brought in unbalanced them in favour of lances, while doing nothing to alter the costs of these weapons. Furthermore, and more importantly, this change removed an excellent tactical mechanic from the game. This decision was, and still is, inexplicable.
If your escorts are seen as a bigger threat than your carriers then you must be very good with them, of course the way you talk about them it sounds more likely that you just throw them away. A Tau CP fleet can throw down 22 wb@45cm 8 LB and still have 6 wardens making closing with them very dangerous... @750pts ::)
If you are not destroying your opponents escorts as soon as possibly then you're doing it wrong. They are too fast and pack too much focusable firepower to ignore. Not to mention they're easier to destroy. I don't "throw them away" but I don't expect them to survive either. My opponents aren't stupid enough to let me have my way with my escorts.
This whole argument is moot at any point because the Tau do not have Swords they have Wardens and Orcas and the pure CP fleet can only take Wardens. If you don't like them so be it, but don't try to dissuade others from making use of them because of your flawed belief that they are "poo".
Gah, where to begin. Firstly, my belief is not "flawed". My belief is that they are flawed. I have shown evidence of my belief, whereas you have not shown evidence that my belief is flawed. Secondly I have not attempted to dissuade anyone from taking Wardens. Compared to what you could previously bring with hooks (ie, Orcas) the Wardens will cost you 15 pts more for essentially the same ship. However, if you don't take them then you're wasting 15 pts worth of hooks. Since you're going to be throwing away 15 pts whether you take them or not I actually suggest taking them, as you do get a slight advantage for those 15 pts (the increase in speed). I do not, however, recommend them for Orca-capable hooks, such as on an Explorer or Merchant, as I believe the Orca is superior value.
Thirdly, I can attempt to dissuade anyone I like from doing anything I like. It is my right to make the attempt, and others' rights to take or ignore my advice as they see fit. YOU may not think my argument is convincing and so choose to ignore it or present a counter to it, but don't presume to tell me who I can advise to do what.
Fourthly, regardless of whether or not the point is ultimately moot, since we're in a moot (ie a conclave given to discussing the merits of a particular issue for which we have no direct ability to change) then it is appropriate to actually discuss the issue. Moots aren't held only for someone to say "this is moot, let's go home". Given that we're in a thread discussing the flaws of the CPF and ideas of how to fix them comparisons to Swords are perfectly fine. There are only two ways to make comparisons, either internally or externally. Internal comparison are made against the next best option, which in this case is the Orca. The Warden was supposed to supersede this ship and it hasn't, in role or function. External comparisons are made against known examples (whether good or bad). When discussing the hook dynamic it is appropriate to compare it to the non-hook paradigm. The Sword is a known good example of a non-hook paradigm escort with a comparable total cost. The Firestorm is useful also in its similarity in weapons load and the fact that it's a known bad design.
-
Just one edit Sig.
It's one custodian per 750, letting you have 2 per 1500 match.
Ah, yes, yes, but that is per 750 pts of Tau ships. So it does not include Fleet Commanders, re-rolls, Nicassar, Kroot (neither of which I would use) or Demiurg (which I would use, at least with a reduced price tag on the Bastion). So if you wanted a Stronghold in a 2k list you could actually only fit one Custodian in. You can only fit 1 Custodian into a pure Tau 1500 pt list too. So it's much more like 1 per 1000 pts.
Tell me, sig. How would you fix the tau fleet?
Well I think I've already given a bit of an outline. For the most part I think that the Tau are actually pretty much on track. From an examination of the models and the Tau philosophy of war as well as a reasonable approximation of where their technological abilities would lie, based upon their heightened rate of advancement and their previous level, they're pretty much on track.
Some glaring inconsistencies are the Custodians turning circle, the Protectors poor comparison with the Hero, the Wardens comparison with the Orca and the speed of the Emissary.
The Custodian can be "fixed" fairly simply by recategorising it as a cruiser. Even if it doesn't get the 4th shield this will go a long way towards fixing it, both thematically and balance wise.
The Emissary can be fixed by increasing speed to 25cm. I would also tinker a little with the weapons load out, but this is unimportant.
The Protector can, to some extent be hand-waived. The Hero was really too good for what it was meant to be. Assuming that the Hero was "fixed" to sub-Lunar level of utility then the Protector could be seen as an improvement. The loss of hits can be considered the price the Tau pay for being able to finally accommodate their preferred method of warfare, i.e., highly mobile. This can be a theme throughout the Tau fleet. So the Protector has to give up some hits compared to a normal line cruiser to be able to get its 90° turn, the Emissary has to give up some hits compared to a normal light cruiser to be able to maintain its speed, manoeuvrability and shielding (6+ prow). The Custodian has to give up some of its hits in order to get a tighter turning circle (i.e., cruiser status).
This is all fine and good, but where the problem lies is that the Protector becomes a support ship. The only way to fix this problem is to either lower its cost so that it becomes so good that it doesn't matter that it's only 6 hits or to allow some other ships to be used as the line ships.
To some extent this is done by allowing Kor'vattra ships in the Kor'or'vesh fleet. This could actually justify the Hero's stat-line as an updated and refitted ship (i.e., 'Mk XXV', etc, maybe make some nerfed earlier 'Mk I' version to slot into the old Kor'vattra). The problem with doing this is that the Kor'or'vesh ships are meant to replace the Kor'vattra ships, not rely upon them. It is possible of course that this was the intent of the Tau but that they found that in practice the Protectors weren't strong enough to be used as warships, thus relegating them as primary raiders while using Heroes to protect key areas.
This all makes sense fluff wise and in game play too, but presumably you'd want to be able to take a pure Kor'or'vesh fleet and have it hold its own. Possibly some slight imbalance for doing so would actually be expected if you were to take the view that the Tau just "aren't quite there yet". Alternatively you could make special rules for pure Kor'or'vesh fleets, such as dropping the points cost of the Protectors, though what justification there could be for doing so I can't imagine.
Another alternative would be to allow free use of Custodians. This would bolster the line considerably, essentially turning the Tau fleet into one that focuses on its Custodian contingent with attendant light craft (Wardens, Protectors, Emissaries). Unfortunately the stance has been taken that Custodians are rare and Protectors are the mainstay of the fleet.
Yet another option would be to simply allow Bastions to fulfil this role. However, these ships are considerably overpriced and again they're not pure kor'or'vesh. Assuming that their price was fixed and that the argument that the Tau have never been "pure" holds sway, even then the limitation on 'Tau only' ships for the Custodian should be lifted.
I myself would like to see the Bastion price fixed and the 'Tau only' limitation removed from the Custodian. I also wouldn't mind seeing an old 'Mk I' Hero profile that justifies the belief that Lunars were superior. Would make for some interesting 'period' games using a pure Kor'vattra list and the nerfed Hero.
The Warden, which has sparked off so much debate, I would personally like its profile completely changed so that it cannot be so easily (or unfavourably) compared to the Orca. I would say drop it to 20 pts, give it 4WBs@30cmLFR, 30cm movement and 4+ armour. The ship itself looks very fast and very fragile. Hell, possibly drop it to 15 pts with 3WB@30cmF. Either way, make it a real raider and different to the Orca.
As for the ancillary escorts, for the most part they just need a moderate to large points decrease across the board. The Defender, Dhow and Castellan should have at least 5 pts lopped off their price and the Messenger should have at least 10 pts cut.
The Castellan reminds me of the Idolator. Good ideas individually that when married gives a conflicted design. For example, if you had 2 Idolators you'd have 4WB@45cmLFR with no range shift and 2L@30cmF for 90 pts. If you could split these down to 1 vessel with 4WB@45cmLFR with no range shift for 45 pts and another vessel with 2L@30cmF for 45 pts they'd be probably worth their high costs. You wouldn't take them in the same squadron of course. You'd make up specialist squadrons that had different roles, and that's the point. Mixed together in a squadron (short range ships to the fore, long range to the back) they're sucky. Mixed together in the one ship it's just downright stupid. Certainly not worth 45 pts each.
For the same reason the Castellan seems conflicted to me. To make the most use out of its range you have to be near a tracking system for a start, which is a bit of a downside. Apart from that it doesn't really have a very strong gun battery, meaning you need significant numbers. That isn't likely since they cost so much and rely upon a nearby tracking system. They do have torpedoes of course, but they really don't combine well with their guns. Again, a single escort with 4WB@45cmLFR plus one with 4TT would be better than 2 with half each. The 50 pt price tag is just ludicrous. They have a lot of stuff for an escort, but even at 45 pts they're a large risk. The same is true of the Defender too. It's like an Infidel, but even more expensive. Really, when ships start getting compared unfavourably to Chaos escorts it's time for a rethink.
-
Also, I'd like to include a note on the supposedly favourable reversal of swing for the Warden compared to the Orca (and Firestorm/Idolator, et al.). There is actually a situation where this reversal of swing is a disadvantage. That situation is where you've gone straight past the enemy lines and turned perpendicular to their ships with the intent of firing upon 2 ships (perhaps to drop shields from behind to allow the rest of the fleet unmitigated fire).
I'll try to demonstrate visually:
8) 8) 8) 8) <---- your fleet (facing down)
:o :o <---- enemy ships (facing up)
>:( <---- your Wardens (facing right)
So, you can't fire all weaponry to the rear of the ship you're behind because its not in your front arc. You could fire all weaponry at the ship to the right assuming you passed a leadership test. However, that ship is more than 15cm away and is presenting an abeam profile to you and you want to be able to drop shields of both targets if at all possible. A typical arrangement of fire (Orca, Firestorm, Idolator) would allow the WBs to fire at close range into the rear armour of the nearer ship and the lances to fire at the target to the fore. The Warden however will be forced to fire its WBs at the abeam target at normal range and so, therefore, will fire its lances at the nearer target. I'd rather be firing at rear/close than abeam/normal with my WBs. Weapon batteries depend most upon aspect and so they're the ones affected most by poor positioning. The reversal of swing is not always favourable.
-
A note:
sigoroth:
Also if you play by the original rules where BMs don't count all round then the Swords very rarely have their firepower reduced by BMs (or cause such a reduction for another ship) because they're excellent flankers. Escorts that have to point themselves at the enemy to shoot are not so good. If you don't play by those rules, well, you can always opt not to take any Swords. The Wardens on the other hand ...
andrew:
Why would you play the original rules? These were clearly flawed as they assumed that a blast not in line with the firing ship and the defending ship would not affect their targeting, even tho the ship that was just hit would be tossed about quite a bit by the force of the impacts. Of course explosions and debris also tend to wrap around something when its been hit further distorting its appearance, even on the side where it wasn't hit.
I am with Sigoroth here, the original v1 blastmarker rules are far superior to the current ones. It makes a lot more of tactical gameplay.
-
I really do think that from the way you talk about escorts your thinking is flawed. You talk of how good the Sword is against the prow of enemy ships even tho as an escort it really should never be there. You also mention a lot how advantageous it is that the Sword can present its side, the downside to this is that your opponent should not be sitting still and shooting at your side, by presenting the side on your turn it opens your front or rear for the enemy to move into *situational once your in their rear you should be fairly safe. Of course the whole point is that you are allowing them to return fire at all which should rarely happen with escorts. You must not let yourself get into the position where you are responding to what they're doing, you must instead force them to do what you want.
Let's move on to the fact that it's easier to get a firing solution for LO for a Sword than it is for a Firestorm. Example: enemy in front arc, their turn, they move into your side arc. Firestorms' solution: turn to present prow weaponry. Swords' solution: LO, fire to the side.
When taking on a capitol ship the best path of approach (assuming open space with no screening capitols ships of your own) is prow on to the side of the enemy with an approach angle towards their stern preferably about parallel with them. This is actually usually very easy to accomplish as most players believe this is exactly what they want ::). You should at this point be locked on but with no cover this may be the difficult part. Now if you lined up right your ships front fire arc should be just over the stem of their ship. Now during their turn they have 2 options: move and shoot at an abeam escort likely either outside of 30cm, in a position requiring a turn to keep them in the side arc, or a combination of both. They can also burn retros and shoot at a closing escort with half effectiveness. Either way there's very limited effectiveness. At this point your next move would be into their rear arc preferably near the limit of your effective range to limit any counter attack they can muster. This is the only point the L/F/R weaponry comes into effect. The enemy then can move and turn, firing if your ships are in range once again at an abeam escort each turn after this your approach should be to bring yourself just into your effective range at the rear of their ship and pointed slightly in the opposite direction of the enemy so that all tho you are presenting your prow, they should only be able to see your side during their shooting phase. By turn 3 of this its obviously game over for the capitol ship, unless they still have other ships of course. Neither really sees a big difference here, excusing space marines/necrons (I include necrons just because I have never know one to brace against escorts ::)) or Eldar (any type) even vs Orks there's so little difference as too be a non issue (1 hit give or take) an explorer of course would wipe out either squadron with ordnance so that's a wash too (slight advantage to the extra turret on the sword tho, not that it would really matter).
Oh dear. Firstly ditch Smotherman and don't ever use it ever again. Ever. It's rubbish. Secondly, if there were no hooks on the Custodian it would cost 315 pts. The price has remained consistent of 5 pts per hook across all iterations. Check the cost of Nicassar rigs and defence stations hooks. In fact it has been specifically stated by SG that a part of the hooked ships cost is paid by the parent vessel. How much of that cost do you think is being paid then? 3 pts? 2?
Smotherman works for this purpose which is to compare one thing to another (I believe it was actually 313.5 points for an Imperial ship with the same stats as a Custodian and 105 points for one similar to the Emissary but of course that doesn't take into account the Tau bombers) I did state that approximately 1 to 2 points is close to the price actually payed by the custodian/ emissary (if that ::)). Its one thing to say a ship has an extra 10 points added on but really does anyone think a Dauntless comes any where close to an Emissary, even with out escorts? The Custodian is quite close to accurate for its point cost.
There are 2 ways you can look at the turn. Simultaneously or sequentially. In the first since it's all happening at once there is no "order" of fire so BMs placed this turn should not interfere with subsequent fire this turn. I dislike this method. In the latter instance then the order of fire does matter, but one could assume that subsequent firing will wait until their target has resolved. In other words, the target being impacted by a few hits should not interfere with you gunnery. Also, we're dealing with ships with a good deal of momentum. A few impacts aren't likely to "toss it about" much at all. Even if destroyed the wreck is going to travel pretty much in the same direction was going. As for explosions "wrapping around" the target, well that is just nonsense really. To be honest, an explosion on the left side of a ship is more likely to highlight its position to those on its right than obfuscate it. But assuming that the explosion does "wrap around", we're talking about a moving vessel. It's going to move away from the explosion. So the explosion will only ever be on one side (ie, the rear).
Hum... of course not really knowing the true effects of an expanding explosion on a surface of an energy barrier we can only make assumptions here however the chances seem much more likely that the edges of the ship would become more blurred than highlighted as in any explosion. Of course anything with enough force to actually cause damage to a vessel of any size would by its nature cause the ship to move away from the point of impact.
A note:
sigoroth:
Also if you play by the original rules where BMs don't count all round then the Swords very rarely have their firepower reduced by BMs (or cause such a reduction for another ship) because they're excellent flankers. Escorts that have to point themselves at the enemy to shoot are not so good. If you don't play by those rules, well, you can always opt not to take any Swords. The Wardens on the other hand ...
andrew:
Why would you play the original rules? These were clearly flawed as they assumed that a blast not in line with the firing ship and the defending ship would not affect their targeting, even tho the ship that was just hit would be tossed about quite a bit by the force of the impacts. Of course explosions and debris also tend to wrap around something when its been hit further distorting its appearance, even on the side where it wasn't hit.
I am with Sigoroth here, the original v1 blastmarker rules are far superior to the current ones. It makes a lot more of tactical gameplay.
I too prefer the tactics of V1.0 despite the problems it had, and most players I know still use that system for los. I think on this scale ideally there should be some combination of the original (for play ability) and the current (for fairness) Or for example bm still must intersect los to cause a shift with blast markers placed in a direct line from stem to stem fanning outward, ships in base (or near base <1cm) contact will only be affected if the blast markers touch their base due to the natural placement. Ordnance attacking the ship must roll D6 to survive the blast markers no matter where they attack from. This actually allows ships to be protected a bit by staying on the far side of the ship.
Gah, where to begin. Firstly, my belief is not "flawed". My belief is that they are flawed. I have shown evidence of my belief, whereas you have not shown evidence that my belief is flawed. Secondly I have not attempted to dissuade anyone from taking Wardens. Compared to what you could previously bring with hooks (ie, Orcas) the Wardens will cost you 15 pts more for essentially the same ship. However, if you don't take them then you're wasting 15 pts worth of hooks. Since you're going to be throwing away 15 pts whether you take them or not I actually suggest taking them, as you do get a slight advantage for those 15 pts (the increase in speed). I do not, however, recommend them for Orca-capable hooks, such as on an Explorer or Merchant, as I believe the Orca is superior value.
Thirdly, I can attempt to dissuade anyone I like from doing anything I like. It is my right to make the attempt, and others' rights to take or ignore my advice as they see fit. YOU may not think my argument is convincing and so choose to ignore it or present a counter to it, but don't presume to tell me who I can advise to do what.
Fourthly, regardless of whether or not the point is ultimately moot, since we're in a moot (ie a conclave given to discussing the merits of a particular issue for which we have no direct ability to change) then it is appropriate to actually discuss the issue. Moots aren't held only for someone to say "this is moot, let's go home". Given that we're in a thread discussing the flaws of the CPF and ideas of how to fix them comparisons to Swords are perfectly fine. There are only two ways to make comparisons, either internally or externally. Internal comparison are made against the next best option, which in this case is the Orca. The Warden was supposed to supersede this ship and it hasn't, in role or function. External comparisons are made against known examples (whether good or bad). When discussing the hook dynamic it is appropriate to compare it to the non-hook paradigm. The Sword is a known good example of a non-hook paradigm escort with a comparable total cost. The Firestorm is useful also in its similarity in weapons load and the fact that it's a known bad design.
However wrong you may be your right I should not have said that you shouldn't attempt to do what ever you want and I'm sorry. Also are you bringing up a legal term from the 16th century to try and move the focus off the fact that this entire argument is stupid :P much as I enjoy a good bout especially with you I just don't see the point being that as you have pointed out I was mistaken in thinking that you were attempting to dissuade people from using a ship I feel is quite good. This all seems so pointless now with the Firestorm/Sword/Warden/Orca deal. (hence the current meaning of a moot point: an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance)
Just one edit Sig.
It's one custodian per 750, letting you have 2 per 1500 match.
Ah, yes, yes, but that is per 750 pts of Tau ships. So it does not include Fleet Commanders, re-rolls, Nicassar, Kroot (neither of which I would use) or Demiurg (which I would use, at least with a reduced price tag on the Bastion). So if you wanted a Stronghold in a 2k list you could actually only fit one Custodian in. You can only fit 1 Custodian into a pure Tau 1500 pt list too. So it's much more like 1 per 1000 pts.
Tell me, sig. How would you fix the tau fleet?
Well I think I've already given a bit of an outline. For the most part I think that the Tau are actually pretty much on track. From an examination of the models and the Tau philosophy of war as well as a reasonable approximation of where their technological abilities would lie, based upon their heightened rate of advancement and their previous level, they're pretty much on track.
Some glaring inconsistencies are the Custodians turning circle, the Protectors poor comparison with the Hero, the Wardens comparison with the Orca and the speed of the Emissary.
The Custodian can be "fixed" fairly simply by recategorising it as a cruiser. Even if it doesn't get the 4th shield this will go a long way towards fixing it, both thematically and balance wise.
+1
The Emissary can be fixed by increasing speed to 25cm. I would also tinker a little with the weapons load out, but this is unimportant.
I agree on the speed, maybe the weapons depending on whats done, but its still worth well more than its cost right now
The Protector can, to some extent be hand-waived. The Hero was really too good for what it was meant to be. Assuming that the Hero was "fixed" to sub-Lunar level of utility then the Protector could be seen as an improvement. The loss of hits can be considered the price the Tau pay for being able to finally accommodate their preferred method of warfare, i.e., highly mobile. This can be a theme throughout the Tau fleet. So the Protector has to give up some hits compared to a normal line cruiser to be able to get its 90° turn, the Emissary has to give up some hits compared to a normal light cruiser to be able to maintain its speed, manoeuvrability and shielding (6+ prow). The Custodian has to give up some of its hits in order to get a tighter turning circle (i.e., cruiser status).
Why cant the Protector get the option to increase its hits to 8 for a decrease of 45* turn and a slight points increase? It already has precedent due to the Merchant rules, for that matter the Emissary could also see a raise to 6 hits but at a cost of speed maybe? These could also suffer from limitations due to construction limits and or the weapons loadouts.
This is all fine and good, but where the problem lies is that the Protector becomes a support ship. The only way to fix this problem is to either lower its cost so that it becomes so good that it doesn't matter that it's only 6 hits or to allow some other ships to be used as the line ships.
To some extent this is done by allowing Kor'vattra ships in the Kor'or'vesh fleet. This could actually justify the Hero's stat-line as an updated and refitted ship (i.e., 'Mk XXV', etc, maybe make some nerfed earlier 'Mk I' version to slot into the old Kor'vattra). The problem with doing this is that the Kor'or'vesh ships are meant to replace the Kor'vattra ships, not rely upon them. It is possible of course that this was the intent of the Tau but that they found that in practice the Protectors weren't strong enough to be used as warships, thus relegating them as primary raiders while using Heroes to protect key areas.
This all makes sense fluff wise and in game play too, but presumably you'd want to be able to take a pure Kor'or'vesh fleet and have it hold its own. Possibly some slight imbalance for doing so would actually be expected if you were to take the view that the Tau just "aren't quite there yet". Alternatively you could make special rules for pure Kor'or'vesh fleets, such as dropping the points cost of the Protectors, though what justification there could be for doing so I can't imagine.
Another alternative would be to allow free use of Custodians. This would bolster the line considerably, essentially turning the Tau fleet into one that focuses on its Custodian contingent with attendant light craft (Wardens, Protectors, Emissaries). Unfortunately the stance has been taken that Custodians are rare and Protectors are the mainstay of the fleet.
Yet another option would be to simply allow Bastions to fulfil this role. However, these ships are considerably overpriced and again they're not pure kor'or'vesh. Assuming that their price was fixed and that the argument that the Tau have never been "pure" holds sway, even then the limitation on 'Tau only' ships for the Custodian should be lifted.
I myself would like to see the Bastion price fixed and the 'Tau only' limitation removed from the Custodian. I also wouldn't mind seeing an old 'Mk I' Hero profile that justifies the belief that Lunars were superior. Would make for some interesting 'period' games using a pure Kor'vattra list and the nerfed Hero.
The Warden, which has sparked off so much debate, I would personally like its profile completely changed so that it cannot be so easily (or unfavourably) compared to the Orca. I would say drop it to 20 pts, give it 4WBs@30cmLFR, 30cm movement and 4+ armour. The ship itself looks very fast and very fragile. Hell, possibly drop it to 15 pts with 3WB@30cmF. Either way, make it a real raider and different to the Orca.
The addition of a Wb armed ship would be welcomed all tho that would leave out the lance armed version
As for the ancillary escorts, for the most part they just need a moderate to large points decrease across the board. The Defender, Dhow and Castellan should have at least 5 pts lopped off their price and the Messenger should have at least 10 pts cut.
+1
The Castellan reminds me of the Idolator. Good ideas individually that when married gives a conflicted design. For example, if you had 2 Idolators you'd have 4WB@45cmLFR with no range shift and 2L@30cmF for 90 pts. If you could split these down to 1 vessel with 4WB@45cmLFR with no range shift for 45 pts and another vessel with 2L@30cmF for 45 pts they'd be probably worth their high costs. You wouldn't take them in the same squadron of course. You'd make up specialist squadrons that had different roles, and that's the point. Mixed together in a squadron (short range ships to the fore, long range to the back) they're sucky. Mixed together in the one ship it's just downright stupid. Certainly not worth 45 pts each.
For the same reason the Castellan seems conflicted to me. To make the most use out of its range you have to be near a tracking system for a start, which is a bit of a downside. Apart from that it doesn't really have a very strong gun battery, meaning you need significant numbers. That isn't likely since they cost so much and rely upon a nearby tracking system. They do have torpedoes of course, but they really don't combine well with their guns. Again, a single escort with 4WB@45cmLFR plus one with 4TT would be better than 2 with half each. The 50 pt price tag is just ludicrous. They have a lot of stuff for an escort, but even at 45 pts they're a large risk. The same is true of the Defender too. It's like an Infidel, but even more expensive. Really, when ships start getting compared unfavourably to Chaos escorts it's time for a rethink.
Indeed there should be a lower price level for this, maybe bringing the WB range down and pricing it similar to an Infidel? or giving it an optional weapons load, perhaps something similar with the Warden (the Tau do seem to enjoy their variants after all)
-
I really enjoyed the older version of the castellan, with 3 weapon batteries and 2 torps. At 30cm, you remove the tracking requirement and made it worth the 50 point pricetag.
I am going to compose a list of changes we can agree on and present them to ray, after a year of hands on play, this fleet needs to be amended to have it work the way it should.
-
Andrew:
I too prefer the tactics of V1.0 despite the problems it had, and most players I know still use that system for los. I think on this scale ideally there should be some combination of the original (for play ability) and the current (for fairness) Or for example bm still must intersect los to cause a shift with blast markers placed in a direct line from stem to stem fanning outward, ships in base (or near base <1cm) contact will only be affected if the blast markers touch their base due to the natural placement. Ordnance attacking the ship must roll D6 to survive the blast markers no matter where they attack from. This actually allows ships to be protected a bit by staying on the far side of the ship.
I think the v1.0 are balanced & playable. Alas, I do not see a single improvement in either category with the new rules.
So:
Blastmarkers must be placed in line of fire : fanning out left/right with more markers.
Blastmarkers only touch the ship they are fired at (so nothing of moving BM to touch two ships:urgh)
If shooting at a ship a blastmarker will only cause a shift if it is in the line of fire.
Ordnance should only roll the D6 if the path goes through the marker. You have room/speed left to move around: no roll
So we have varying opinion on the ordnance attack :)
Tau fleet:
yeah, Custodian as a grand cruiser (as said before).
Same on Emissary +5cm speed
Protector: fine with it as is, 25cm speed would be really cool, lol
A Warden with 4+ armour and lower cost: okay. I could accept an all Railgun version, though I do not mind the current weapon layout.
Castellan: I like the weapons as are, -5pts -> okay.
-- Zelnik.
nah, that is the Defender. Castellan/Defender should be different platforms. The 45cm range is ideal to support Protector's on a raid.
-
Andrew:
I too prefer the tactics of V1.0 despite the problems it had, and most players I know still use that system for los. I think on this scale ideally there should be some combination of the original (for play ability) and the current (for fairness) Or for example bm still must intersect los to cause a shift with blast markers placed in a direct line from stem to stem fanning outward, ships in base (or near base <1cm) contact will only be affected if the blast markers touch their base due to the natural placement. Ordnance attacking the ship must roll D6 to survive the blast markers no matter where they attack from. This actually allows ships to be protected a bit by staying on the far side of the ship.
I think the v1.0 are balanced & playable. Alas, I do not see a single improvement in either category with the new rules.
So:
Blastmarkers must be placed in line of fire : fanning out left/right with more markers.
Blastmarkers only touch the ship they are fired at (so nothing of moving BM to touch two ships:urgh)
If shooting at a ship a blastmarker will only cause a shift if it is in the line of fire.
Ordnance should only roll the D6 if the path goes through the marker. You have room/speed left to move around: no roll
So we have varying opinion on the ordnance attack :)
I just hate people taking 10 minutes to try and plot their course around every blast marker on the table to avoid 1 roll its stupid and a waste of time *of course I'm impatient also ::)
-
Use a time setting per turn.
10 minutes and the clock is ticking.... heh
Plus, AC has the ruling it can turn at every moment as much as they want for a reason. To avoid trouble.
-
When taking on a capitol ship the best path of approach (assuming open space with no screening capitols ships of your own) is prow on to the side of the enemy with an approach angle towards their stern preferably about parallel with them. This is actually usually very easy to accomplish as most players believe this is exactly what they want ::). You should at this point be locked on but with no cover this may be the difficult part. Now if you lined up right your ships front fire arc should be just over the stem of their ship. Now during their turn they have 2 options: move and shoot at an abeam escort likely either outside of 30cm, in a position requiring a turn to keep them in the side arc, or a combination of both. They can also burn retros and shoot at a closing escort with half effectiveness. Either way there's very limited effectiveness. At this point your next move would be into their rear arc preferably near the limit of your effective range to limit any counter attack they can muster. This is the only point the L/F/R weaponry comes into effect. The enemy then can move and turn, firing if your ships are in range once again at an abeam escort each turn after this your approach should be to bring yourself just into your effective range at the rear of their ship and pointed slightly in the opposite direction of the enemy so that all tho you are presenting your prow, they should only be able to see your side during their shooting phase. By turn 3 of this its obviously game over for the capitol ship, unless they still have other ships of course. Neither really sees a big difference here, excusing space marines/necrons (I include necrons just because I have never know one to brace against escorts ::)) or Eldar (any type) even vs Orks there's so little difference as too be a non issue (1 hit give or take) an explorer of course would wipe out either squadron with ordnance so that's a wash too (slight advantage to the extra turret on the sword tho, not that it would really matter).
Your opponents must have shit for brains to just let you get on their tail so easily.
Smotherman works for this purpose which is to compare one thing to another (I believe it was actually 313.5 points for an Imperial ship with the same stats as a Custodian and 105 points for one similar to the Emissary but of course that doesn't take into account the Tau bombers) I did state that approximately 1 to 2 points is close to the price actually payed by the custodian/ emissary (if that ::)). Its one thing to say a ship has an extra 10 points added on but really does anyone think a Dauntless comes any where close to an Emissary, even with out escorts? The Custodian is quite close to accurate for its point cost.
No, it is not useful for anything at all. Smotherman is a flawed formula. As such, any values derived from it are flawed. It proves nothing. It shows nothing. It is useless. Worse than useless, it let's people think that they're on the right track when they aren't. Ignore this aberration. It should never have been published.
Hum... of course not really knowing the true effects of an expanding explosion on a surface of an energy barrier we can only make assumptions here however the chances seem much more likely that the edges of the ship would become more blurred than highlighted as in any explosion. Of course anything with enough force to actually cause damage to a vessel of any size would by its nature cause the ship to move away from the point of impact.
You're wrong on both counts. A good number of projectiles could just penetrate straight through the entire ship and continue on without slowing appreciably. This would leave a hole in the ship, some damage and alter its trajectory a fraction, but nothing major. Similarly there could be high explosive warheads that spread their energy over a large area and so impact very little on the trajectory of the ship. Further, we can assume that a ship isn't on a random course but rather a predetermined one and so it isn't unreasonable for thrusters to automatically kick in to correct any minor course upsets (after all, the ships aren't spun to face a random direction).
The other count is whether it would make the target easier to detect. Finding anything in space is hard. Having a sudden massive energy spike to work off would make it a good deal easier to know in what general direction to aim (so if anything WBs should have an easier time of it since they're area saturation weapons rather than precision scalpels like lances). Furthermore, the ship itself would act to block hard radiation, so anything on the other side of the explosion would have a much easier time determining exactly where the ship is due to the halo of radiation which surrounds it.
Of course, it could be hand-waived away as being screened by the explosions, or blurred, and to a degree this makes sense at least when the explosion is between the target and a new ship. Also, my wording may have been a bit strong here, since we really don't know what the putative effects would be, but what I mean is that you're wrong in that "the chances seem much more likely". To me they do not. An argument could be presented either way with no real way of knowing. I think it's more intuitive that an obstacle should only take effect when you're aiming at something behind it and I think the tactics involved are much more beneficial to the game as a whole.
However wrong you may be your right I should not have said that you shouldn't attempt to do what ever you want and I'm sorry. Also are you bringing up a legal term from the 16th century to try and move the focus off the fact that this entire argument is stupid :P much as I enjoy a good bout especially with you I just don't see the point being that as you have pointed out I was mistaken in thinking that you were attempting to dissuade people from using a ship I feel is quite good. This all seems so pointless now with the Firestorm/Sword/Warden/Orca deal. (hence the current meaning of a moot point: an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance)
You misunderstand, though that is perhaps itself understandable. I didn't cite the processes of moots simply to be facetious. Rather I was was trying to intimate that the Warden in its current form is lacking and that this is an appropriate place/time to discuss it. Just like in moots we don't really have any power to actually change a Warden but what we can do is come to some sort of consensus or at least an understanding. This may not seem like much but really that's what we're doing when we're discussing all attributes of the game. So what I meant to impart from my 'mootness' was that the discussion of the Warden is no more or less appropriate than any other.
The issue is whether or not it's worth its points. I hold that it isn't. You, and some others no doubt, hold that it is. Note that value is not the only issue I have with it, mind. But my reasons, to recap, are as follows:
- You actually pay as much for a Warden as you do for a Sword but the Warden is conflicted, has lower field of fire and is less resilient.
- Counter; the Warden has more firepower. Rebuttal; this does not compensate fully.
- You actually pay as much for a Warden as you would for a balanced (i.e., usable) Firestorm, but the Firestorm has an extra turret.
- The Warden is much more constricted within the fleet, having an upper limit set by the number of hooks you can bring.
- The Warden is a forced choice since you've already paid for hooks. Escorts are generally not worth their points (else you'd see all escort fleets) and as such compulsory escorts are a disadvantage.
To my mind the Warden would be just on a par with the Sword if it cost 35 pts and you could take them without limit and leave them without penalty. Paying part cost in their capital ships and having limited squadron composition choices are disadvantages not made up for in the final product. If the Custodian was able to tow Orcas then to my mind there would be no contest. The only time I'd consider the Warden over the Orca would be when I just happened to have 15 pts I just did not know what to do with.
For example, when the Kor'vattra first came out I was dismayed that hooks practically forced you to take escorts (which traditionally have performed very poorly for their points). Then I saw the Orca. It was quite a steal at its cost, even more so when you considered the ridiculously low cost of the Explorer. But even with a balanced parent vessel the Orca wasn't a bad little ship. You give up some of the luxuries but get a decently priced gunboat. So on the whole a positive experience.
Now with the Warden it's like "oh, ok, it's a faster Orca. So I'm getting back some of those luxuries, but paying for them. Aaaaaand I don't have the option to just take the Orca. Fuckin yay. I really don't want to have to pay for luxuries. Particularly when you're paying double what you should.
Why cant the Protector get the option to increase its hits to 8 for a decrease of 45* turn and a slight points increase? It already has precedent due to the Merchant rules, for that matter the Emissary could also see a raise to 6 hits but at a cost of speed maybe? These could also suffer from limitations due to construction limits and or the weapons loadouts.
Two reasons come to mind. Firstly, the Tau don't actually want to become less manoeuvrable. Presumably they would simply use the Hero as a stopgap measure (albeit an imperfect one) until they can remedy the situation and make a full line cruiser with 90° turns. Secondly, the model. There's just no way that it could warrant 8 hits. It'd be like seeing an 8 hit Dauntless. Yes, they're wingspan is nearly as long as a full cruiser and they're length is wider, but they're so thin. It would be like saying that Eldar cruisers should be 10 hits because of all the area their sails take up. It is this same reason that sees the Stronghold at 10 hits, though in that case I myself could see it being 12. Also, the damn Merchant should've just be 6 hits from the start. The option was added because so many people on the SG forums bitched about the huge size of the model (with attendant price tag) and its tiny number of hits. The ship was also over priced, so why they didn't just make it 6 hits instead of dicking around with an "upgrade" beats the hell out of me.
The Warden, which has sparked off so much debate, I would personally like its profile completely changed so that it cannot be so easily (or unfavourably) compared to the Orca. I would say drop it to 20 pts, give it 4WBs@30cmLFR, 30cm movement and 4+ armour. The ship itself looks very fast and very fragile. Hell, possibly drop it to 15 pts with 3WB@30cmF. Either way, make it a real raider and different to the Orca.
The addition of a Wb armed ship would be welcomed all tho that would leave out the lance armed version
Yes, but I see no reason why the Orca can't be included more easily in the fleet. I know that the Custodian has an internal bay designed specifically for Wardens but the Emissary has external hooks. Why can't it tow Orcas? This makes sense too, given that the Emissary was the first of the Kor'or'vesh ships built. Presumably it would have been towing Orcas around long before Wardens even showed up. I can't imagine any objections from a 'purity' standpoint either. Kor'vattra ships are already freely allowed in the Kor'or'vesh and it's not as if you couldn't take Wardens if you preferred. I also don't think that the Orca would be phased out like the rest of the Kor'vattra if the Warden were built with a different role in mind. As a true raider it wouldn't encroach upon the role of the Orca, and the Orca isn't constrained by an inefficient FTL capability either (since it's towed), unlike the rest of the Kor'vattra. Also, unlike the Defender, the Orca actually has manoeuvrability and even though it's not the fastest it's fast enough to keep up with the fleet.
Indeed there should be a lower price level for this, maybe bringing the WB range down and pricing it similar to an Infidel? or giving it an optional weapons load, perhaps something similar with the Warden (the Tau do seem to enjoy their variants after all)
There are people who like them as is, and the profile we have with them underwent a large amount of haggling and hand-wringing to arrive at in the first place. I'm personally not a fan, but I'm not opposed, in principle, to ill designed ships. Just in paying exorbitant prices for them. I am opposed to the notion of variants though. Variants for the original SG metal ships was fine; they were modular and variations could easily be represented. On the FW ships however there is no modularisation at all. Not even a difference in turrets. The only way that I would countenance variations is if they were included along with strict instructions to model the differences, as well as a clear profile picture demonstrating what those differences are. For example, you can see the differences between a Lunar and a Gothic by looking up their profile pictures in the BBB. The same should be done for any variations. How this would be done on such a small ship I have no idea.
-
You might as well say they are unaffected by blast markers then. Until this ruling was made I never saw anyone have to make a roll for blast marker because everyone just flew around them. Regardless there's so much crap that should be fixed about ordnance its not funny and this is low on the totem pole imo. Personally I'd be ok with it if we saw a return to v1.0 bombers, attack craft waves limited in size to that of the parent ship and remove the massed turrets and escorting fighter rules. Really now that your limited in number to how many attack craft you can have in play there's not much call for a lot of the extra rules that came out about them.
-
So the current list of proposed changes thus far:
Custodian: re-assign to Grand Cruiser status. I personally agree with this after repeated play, and the arguments for battleship status are extremely weak.
Stronghold:increase hits to 12. Something this large should not have 10 hits.
Emmisary: speed increase to 25 cm, remove "warden only" status for grav hooks (as a diplomatic vessel, it should allow for alien allies to be brought in to the fight)
Protector: optional 5 point increase, increase firepower of torpedos to 6 or lc to 2, reduce turn radius to 45.
Castellan: cost reduced to 45.
Dhow: cost reduced to 40, or speed increased to 25.
Warden: alternate pattern, 30cm, st 3 wb, 4+ armor. 25 points.
Bastion: either increase hits to 10, or reduce cost by 30 points.
Citidel: either increase its hits to 8, or reduce cost by 20 points.
-
if were proposing dropping the warden to a destroyer then the cost should be 20 for 3 weps and 25cm speed (this comes in at about 5 pts less than an iconoclast which has greater speed. If the warden was too have a variant weapons loadout then just one lance no weapons. If no change to destroyer add one turret and swap weapons arcs for no price change.
Emissary 25cm speed and reevaluate their cost. Removing the warden only status does make sense.
Protector 25cm speed has been proposed all tho its iffy, split prow weapons batteries to p/s l/r or just make them l/f/r, gunboat or carrier option: remove launch bays and increase lances to 2/2 or as a variant replace lances with launch bays (slight increase in points for upgrade). If just a torp or lance upgrade I wouldn't reduce the turning radius just points increase (10-15?).
Everything else sounds ok.
-
I feel the emm does not need a points shift, it is over priced as it is for a 4 hit cruiser.
I do not want to meddle too much with firing arcs in the protectors case.
I don't quite understand your warden suggestion
-
Horizon's opinions in blue:
===
Custodian: re-assign to Grand Cruiser status.
===
agreed
===
Stronghold:increase hits to 12. Something this large should not have 10 hits.
===
agreed for me
===
Emmisary: speed increase to 25 cm, remove "warden only" status for grav hooks (as a diplomatic vessel, it should allow for alien allies to be brought in to the fight)
===
Sig's reasoning was good: Emmissaries had grav hooks before Wardens existed. So I agree on both points.
===
Protector: optional 5 point increase, increase firepower of torpedos to 6 or lc to 2, reduce turn radius to 45.
===
Must retain 90*. If people want I'd agree on a point drop. No other changes.
===
Castellan: cost reduced to 45.
===
agreed.
===
Dhow: cost reduced to 40, or speed increased to 25.
===
Dunno.
===
Warden: alternate pattern, 30cm, st 3 wb, 4+ armor. 25 points.
===
4+ armour: agreed. St3 wb, 25pts.
Sure. I could live with it. Though I do not mind the current version in any way!
===
Bastion: either increase hits to 10, or reduce cost by 30 points.
===
Citidel: either increase its hits to 8, or reduce cost by 20 points.
===
Point drops.
-
Sorry what I was saying is that if it drops to 4+ with 3 weps then keep the speed at 25cm speed for 20 points
If this happens AND there is a variant it should replace the weapons with a single lance. (Personally I'd rather just see orcas as an option in this case but meh)
If the warden remains as is the fire arcs should be swapped on the weapons/ lance and have the added turret.
-
on the warden, Honestly, I like the idea of it keeping it's 5+ armor save, on the basis that it is the materials made that determine hull strength, not size. If we were going to do an alternate pattern, it should keep it's armor but replace it's lance with 1 WB and 1 turret.
If we increase speed, then the armor goes down.
-
So the current list of proposed changes thus far:
Custodian: re-assign to Grand Cruiser status. I personally agree with this after repeated play, and the arguments for battleship status are extremely weak.
Yarp.
Stronghold:increase hits to 12. Something this large should not have 10 hits.
I'd be willing to sign off on this, though a price increase would likely be in order.
Emmisary: speed increase to 25 cm, remove "warden only" status for grav hooks (as a diplomatic vessel, it should allow for alien allies to be brought in to the fight)
Yarp.
Protector: optional 5 point increase, increase firepower of torpedos to 6 or lc to 2, reduce turn radius to 45.
I'm dead against any of these myself. I'd sooner see a price decrease of 5 pts, even up to 10 pts, rather than give this tiny model more firepower, particularly in the ordnance department. Another possibility is giving it 45cm range on its IC as standard. I'm also dead against 45° turns on it.
Castellan: cost reduced to 45.
Yarp.
Dhow: cost reduced to 40, or speed increased to 25.
To be honest, it could use both. Remember, you're actually paying 50 pts for it currently, because it's hooked. Given its 6WBs are split into broadside arcs (worst possible utility) and the downsides of hooks and the strength of the competition ...
Warden: alternate pattern, 30cm, st 3 wb, 4+ armor. 25 points.
This is still much too weak. Remember, you'd be actually paying 30 pts for this ship, not 25, and this is worse than an Iconoclast (which is a rubbish ship) due to hooks.
Bastion: either increase hits to 10, or reduce cost by 30 points.
I don't think the model warrants an increase in hits. I would be happy with a points reduction. At 235 pts it's a reasonable choice.
Citidel: either increase its hits to 8, or reduce cost by 20 points.
This ship has no model of its own and as such I don't contemplate its use. I do however contemplate scratch building one. At which point it would be a 6 hit ship (if I made one that is). If you were inclined to grab a Bastion model and convert it then perhaps the Citadel could go up to 8 hits. I don't see how this would be done except to add some gun turrets to the Bastion to represent its extra firepower. However, the Citadel is actually pretty close to balanced at its current cost for its current hits. Maybe 5 pts over priced. Again this is from eyeballing, since I don't use this ship.
-
if were proposing dropping the warden to a destroyer then the cost should be 20 for 3 weps and 25cm speed (this comes in at about 5 pts less than an iconoclast which has greater speed. If the warden was too have a variant weapons loadout then just one lance no weapons. If no change to destroyer add one turret and swap weapons arcs for no price change.
When evaluating hooked vessels you have to take two specific things into account. One is that 5 pts of the cost is actually paid in the parent ship. The other is that the vessel should be worth more than a comparable balanced vessel from another race due to the downsides of hooks (fleet composition limitations, squadron limitations, forced inclusion, etc). Being hooked is a downside .Another thing to consider when making comparisons, just in general, is the comparison ships position, i.e., whether the ship you're comparing to is useful. For example, the Sword and the Cobra are both useful escorts in the IN fleet. They're used fairly frequently, though they do not compete with capital ships for priority.
The Iconoclast however, is rarely used. Like all Chaos escorts it is weak. It has 75% of the total firepower of a Cobra and does not fulfil the same, aggressive, role. It's really worth no more than 25 pts. Even then it'd be 'meh'. So when you compared to the Iconoclast you're right that it comes in less than the current Icono (for a slower ship), but it's not a balanced comparison because the Iconoclast is not balanced and because we want a better ship, since this one is hooked.
So, let's look at a starting profile and compare. So, let's say 30cm speed, 4+ armour, 4WB@30cmLFR. This profile is exactly +1 WB over an Iconoclast. An Iconoclast should cost no more than 25 pts. So let's start at 20 pts for this profile of Warden (+5 pts in parent ship gives a total of 25 pts). So same total price but the Warden has +1WB vs the Iconoclasts non-hooked status. I'd say the advantage is with the Warden in this comparison, since the 1 WB is probably worth slightly more than the downsides of the hook, but then again, even at 25 pts the Iconoclast is 'meh'. And you don't want to forced to take 'meh' ships.
Now comparing this profile to a Sword we have the same firepower but an increase in speed of 5cm and a 10 pt price decrease vs +1 armour and turret and non-hooked status. Presuming that we value the armour and turret at 5 pts each (or rather, a total of 10 pts for the two) then it just comes down to a 5cm speed boost vs non-hooked status. This seems fine to me, as we want hooked vessels to be good value for money (in essence they should be worth 5 pts more than they cost in total).
Now let's compare this vessel to an Orca. Just like the Sword/Firestorm comparison, all else being equal the weaponry should even out. A slight advantage to the Orca/Firestorm, but different roles and not enough of a difference to justify a price divergence. So it comes down to a difference of 1 pip of armour vs +50% speed. This is about right, perhaps a slight advantage to the Warden in this case, but that's made up for by the slight advantage in firepower of the Orca.
So with 4WB@30cmLFR, 4+ armour and 30cm speed for 20 pts the Warden would be balanced against the Orca, the Sword and a decent Iconoclast, all its closest matches. This method of comparison uses convergent evidence to arrive at its results and as such is quite reliable. Also, while better than non-hooked escorts, Orcas and Wardens are limited, so even if they're 'too good' they're not abusable. And really, an escort that is 'too good' is only just on a par with capital ships. If you make them 'meh' on the other hand then you're gimping a player by including ships with hooks in the fleet.
-
Custodian: re-assign to Grand Cruiser status. I personally agree with this after repeated play, and the arguments for battleship status are extremely weak.
Stronghold:increase hits to 12. Something this large should not have 10 hits. I really don't see why the cost should go up, it's already 350 points, more then a Retribution and not as good. More then an Oberon as well.
Emmisary: speed increase to 25 cm, remove "warden only" status for grav hooks (as a diplomatic vessel, it should allow for alien allies to be brought in to the fight)
Protector: Remove the 45cm, weaker battery option, make all weapons 45cm standard. cost remains the same.
Castellan: cost reduced to 45.
Dhow: cost reduced to 40 and speed increased to 25.
Warden: This appears to be something that will be the source of some discussion. personally, as this vessel is locked into the Custodian, I feel it should be slightly more powerful for it's points. IF we want another option, it should be just as effective and the same cost as it's alternative.
Suggested stats: armor 4+, WB3, 2 turrets, 30cm speed. (Andrew) Armor +4 WB4, 1 turret, 30cm speed (sig) Armor 5+ WB 4, 1 turret, 25cm speed (me).
Bastion: reduce cost by 20 points.
Citidel: reduce cost by 20 points.
-
So: 4wb 30cm speed 4+ 1t for 20pts... The only real issue I would have with this would be the speed 25cm seems more fitting with the rest of the fleet but that's meh especially if the light cruisers see an increase in speed.
-
Yeah.
A Protector note:
perhaps this is an option, it is fiddling but it could mean the solution in the AC department without a big hassle.
Modelwise it has a large hangar for Manta's mounted on the keel. Along the prow it has hangars as well. These hangars are big enough for Orca dropships, thus big enough for Barracuda fighters. I know because I asked.
This could be done:
1 launch bay - Manta
1 launch bay - Barracuda
So it could launch 2 AC in total but always 1 of each.
-
Here is a proposal, make the protector lc2 barracudas only. This will allow the fleet to maintain a strong attack craft presence while shifting the bomber role up to their larger carriers. Let's face it, you should not be launching bombers from a protector anyway with the current rules.
-
Nah, that would make it weaker during raids without carrier backup.
-
Yeah.
A Protector note:
perhaps this is an option, it is fiddling but it could mean the solution in the AC department without a big hassle.
Modelwise it has a large hangar for Manta's mounted on the keel. Along the prow it has hangars as well. These hangars are big enough for Orca dropships, thus big enough for Barracuda fighters. I know because I asked.
This could be done:
1 launch bay - Manta
1 launch bay - Barracuda
So it could launch 2 AC in total but always 1 of each.
This is interesting.
-
Can't we just leave the current models ( Protector ) the same but add one grav hook? This way we make the fleet list more versatile.
-
Can't we just leave the current models the same but add one grav hook? This way we make the fleet list more versatile.
Add one hook to what? The Emissary's hooks are the circles on the wings, the Custodians hooks are in the central (3 Wardens actually fit into it) and the Protector has no hooks.
Besides, adding more hooks wouldn't help the fleet unless the Warden was better value. Also, adding hooks doesn't add versatility, it removes it. It puts even more pressure on players to bring more escorts and so gives fewer points for other ships. For example, let's say that each ship had 3 hooks. So if you took 2 Protectors you'd take 6 Wardens to go with them. Essentially, this would just tack on 90 points to each capital ship, meaning you get less of them. So increasing hooks decreases your options and so, versatility. If hooks were rife throughout the fleet but they didn't cost anything and the extra points were placed in the escorts themselves then yes, this would increase versatility.
-
Sorry... I mean the protector ... :)
Leave the protector model as it is ... And add a grav hook :)
-
Sorry... I mean the protector ... :)
Leave the protector model as it is ... And add a grav hook :)
I don't think the model has one anywhere. Besides, it doesn't quite fix the ship. Would you rather a 5 pt decrease or a "free" hook (ie, you're spending the 5 pts on the hook instead)? This would just mean that now you've got to buy an escort to go with that hook or else the upgrade is wasted and we're left where we were. I'd just prefer the 5 pt discount, to be honest.
-
I would agree with sig on this one.
When it comes to the specific "one barracuda, one manta" my only issue is that there are TWO fighter launch bays on the model, each with enough slots to launch a squadron each... it's why I approved of the original LC2.
Also remember that miniatures for fighter craft are NOT in ANY way to scale, even less so then the other ships in the game. I don't care of the protector keeps it's 5 torpedos, I want my LC2 back.
-
Ok so Protector complaints/ suggestions are:
5pts cost reduction
Attack craft limit increased from 1 to 2 OR 1F 1B
Torpedoes increased from 5 to 6
Why not try leaving the price the same, adding one unrestricted launch bay, and removing one torpedo. The torpedo is not worth the same price as the launch, but its already over priced so that should balance out.
-
And by doing so (AC) a massive increase of IN/chaos AC because their LB are so massive?
The Tau are 'working' with a relatively small weapons platform here.
-
Heya,
1Manta + 1Barracuda (1b+1f)
for the cost of 185pts-190pts.
Why? Because the extra fighter increases the worth of the Manta & Missiles by a margin as well.
edit:
Zelnik,
there is only 1 Manta bay, so launching 2 Manta's is unrealistic I think.
Going by the prow fighter bays: one could argue that a barracuda wave is more vessels thus more 'holes' needed.
1 Manta + 2 fighters would be too much. So 1 Manta + 1 fighter is a reasonable balance while following what the model gives.
-
I would agree with sig on this one.
When it comes to the specific "one barracuda, one manta" my only issue is that there are TWO fighter launch bays on the model, each with enough slots to launch a squadron each... it's why I approved of the original LC2.
Also remember that miniatures for fighter craft are NOT in ANY way to scale, even less so then the other ships in the game. I don't care of the protector keeps it's 5 torpedos, I want my LC2 back.
Yeah, but as has been said, the launch bays on IN and Chaos vessels are huge compared to those fighter bays on the Protector. There are also launch bays on the Emissary, but they're pretty much slated for transport shuttles and orbital drop craft (apart from one really craptastic variant that has a fighter bay at the expense of its torpedoes ... can't imagine who'd use it).
And having a ship that can launch 1 of 1 type and another of another type is really quite interesting. There's some flavour there. And it is still launch capacity 2 after all, just not 2 of anything.
-
Ah, an idea. Regarding the WYSIWYG nature of the Protector we can safely assume that the bay which gives it its current figher/Manta capacity is the keel bay. So the prow bays would be for transport shuttles and orbital drop ships. How about a variant that sacrifices some torpedo storage for extra fighters to be launched from these prow bays? So drop torps down to 2 and add 2 fighter capacity? So this would allow it to launch 3 fighters or 2 fighters and 1 Manta. This doesn't balance the current Protector of course, so reduce its price by 5 points or so and add the carrier version.
-
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).
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.
-
Hi Sigoroth,
per the Protector model designer the prow bays are big enough for Orca dropships. Orca dropships are bigger then Barracuda fighters.
Even though FW was not good with scaling it all within GW, I do give them credit for scaling it with their own models.
I do not see it as beneficial to drop the missiles to a lower strength.
Fixing all weaponry Forward:
Railguns: yes (they're mounted fixed).
Ion cannons: no (they swivel)
-
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.
-
Heh, I just recalled:
http://sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/82pdd.pdf
Ignore the 5cm/turn....
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ya but the fw stats were garbage... Hence the need for the CPF compendium to begin with.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
thanks for the history Horizon :D
I agree, five is a good number. Let's keep it that way :D
I am sticking with +2 LC, 190 pts, no further changes. It keeps it simple and gives the ship a well needed usefulness bump.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If other people insist on a 5+ armoured Warden then 25pts would be sufficient. I think even better.
With 1 Custodian & 1 Emissary you have 5 Wardens = 100pts = 20 batteries, that is a lot on a fast moving item. The limitation due grav hooks is of less an issue since I think.
Zelnik,
I rather see a revision of Tau Armada. :)
-
I'm with Sig on the Warden's armor. If were going off of the models size as we have on all the other ships then it should be destroyer sized. Additionally if there is a variant instead of leaving the original 5+ drop it to the 4+ also for the same cost. This actually differs it a bit from the Orca and allows a pure Tau CPF to have the 3 standard types of escort.
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.
Its about time someone said this. There is probably at least one ship in each of the fleet lists that need to be reevaluated if not in points then in stats and several of the lists could use a pass through as well.
-
I am glad to see that everyone agrees on the other ships at least.
I will agree with the 4+ 30cm variant for 25 points.
Also, I fully intend on going over all of the fleets, I just want to focus on the ones with glaring problems and ships that are less then useful.
-
I am glad to see that everyone agrees on the other ships at least.
Well, I'm not entirely sold on the 2 launch bay Protector. It seems a backwards step to me.
-
So 25pts for 1 hit 1 shield 1 turret 4+ armor and 30cm speed. What weapons then? 4 L/F/R doesn't fit with the mix of turret and fixed guns that is the current standard. Or will this just remain as 2 weps F and 1 lance L/F/R? Maybe a variant with 2 weps F and 3 weps L/F/R like the havoc instead?
-
We do not mention ships from battlefleet ham sandwich here, andrew. St 4 f/l/r is just fine
Lc2 is hardly a step back, it allows the tau to function with a strong ordnance presence without relying on an explorer all the time. Remember, ordnance is the primary strength of the tau, and this should not be weakened to the point of uselessness.
-
... But ham tastes soooo good :)
-
Baconnnnn.
ahem,
Protector, I am still in the 1 fighter bay for free or +5pts camp.
Zelnik, the Tau Armada has glaring problems! Hero to strong, Merchant to weak, cheese build list to easy.
-
BATTLEFLEET HAM SANDWICH ONLY ALLOWS HAM, BREAD, AND MAYBE CHEESE IF YOU SUCK UP TO YOUR HIGH ADMIRAL ENOUGH!!!!
Good lord, we have hit another one of these three way problems. Can I just say that having LC1 makes bombers useless? why not just have it LC 1 fighter? it's all it will be used for.
What's worse is that we all clearly have different ideas as to where this ship is supposed to go. LC 1 bomber and 1 fighter is just the same as LC 1 fighter, because no one will ever launch the bomber, and it's a waste of points. you might as well remove it all together and add 2 strength to the torpedo's.
Most of the problems I hear from folks here about LC 2 is scale... well we all know this game NEVER has adhered to scale. Ship mini's are representations of tiny dots at the tip of the stem.
-
BATTLEFLEET HAM SANDWICH ONLY ALLOWS HAM, BREAD, AND MAYBE CHEESE IF YOU SUCK UP TO YOUR HIGH ADMIRAL ENOUGH!!!!
Good lord, we have hit another one of these three way problems. Can I just say that having LC1 makes bombers useless? why not just have it LC 1 fighter? it's all it will be used for.
What's worse is that we all clearly have different ideas as to where this ship is supposed to go. LC 1 bomber and 1 fighter is just the same as LC 1 fighter, because no one will ever launch the bomber, and it's a waste of points. you might as well remove it all together and add 2 strength to the torpedo's.
Most of the problems I hear from folks here about LC 2 is scale... well we all know this game NEVER has adhered to scale. Ship mini's are representations of tiny dots at the tip of the stem.
Eh, I disagree. Firstly, a single bomber is still good for taking out an escort. Let's suppose that you've got a group of 3 escorts with 1 turret each in base contact to mass turrets. That one bomber has no hope. Now fire a salvo of torpedoes at the group. They will roll those turrets against the torps, because to do otherwise would be suicide for the entire squadron. Now that lone bomber can move in unimpeded and get 1d6-1 attacks. Very useful. Apart from this, Protectors are often in squadron and as such would be able to launch a wave of 2 bombers. This is tantamount to overkill when you consider that the main weaponry of the CPF is meant to be direct fire and that you can still very easily fit 8 AC into a 1k fleet (2 Protectors and a Custodian is pretty easy to do). Since most fleets up to 1500 pts only run 8 AC this seems fine to me. If you want to spam AC then you can still call in Explorers. But having a 6/1/1 split is actually better than having a 4/4 split as far as I'm concerned, since the majority of the time you'll be using at least 2 fighters per turn.
So I don't see having a single launch bay as being worthless. On top of which, I think that having 2 launch bays would be a step back to the Hero days. Really, a couple of Heroes in squadron had the launch capacity of a full carrier, and they were gunships. :o That was, I suppose, ok for a fleet so heavily dependant upon AC, but the CPF is not meant to be that fleet.
As for scale, I don't agree. For the most part things are held to a loose scale. Frigates are larger than destroyers, and so usually have better armour. At the very least they are a better total package (advantage in armour, turrets or firepower, or even all 3). Light cruisers are larger than frigates and so have more hits as well as more goodies (firepower, etc). Cruisers are larger again, grand cruisers larger, and battleships still larger, all with attendant gains in hits, shields, firepower, etc. The Tau Protector is smaller than a Hero. It has much more firepower than a ship its size. It is already, I feel, as jam packed full of goodies as it can be given its size.
Let's think about it for a sec. If it has as much firepower as it can have, and it has as many hits as it can have, and it has as many shields and turrets as it can have and it has as many special rules as it can have and it still sucks, then, as far as I can see, the only real change left to make is to adjust its cost. At 185 pts it really is an odd duck. That price tag says that it is a better ship of the line than a Lunar or Gothic. There is no particular reason why you should have to get 185 pts worth of value out of a Protector, except that it costs 185 pts. So, drop the cost.
Now, this is my feeling on the subject. I don't see 1 launch bay as a problem, in fact I like the character. I think the best fix is a simple price reduction. But, if we really must include another launch bay, then I'd prefer either a variant that sacrifices some firepower for a couple of fighter bays or Horizon's idea of an additional single fighter bay. Whether this would mean that the Protector could launch 1f & 1b only or a choice of 1f & 1b or 2f is another matter.
Note: adding fighters is not a purely defensive option, by the way. Even if there is no enemy ordnance to expend the fighters on (such as against Necrons) then they can still support the bomber in the attack, granting +1 attack as well as being a meatshield.
-
Its been said time and time again that BFG adheres to no scale. While ships may be scaled against each other that in no way means that they all are, especially when were dealing with two different companies. The CPF fleet argument about scale is pointless if the ships were intended to represent one thing then there is no reason to say they represent another because of the actual size of it. This is like saying that my cruiser sized hulk is not a hulk because its not ridiculously over sized and held up with 8 pins attached to the base ::) so long as its on the right sized base its whatever I say it is.
If the protector gets 1.5 launch bays it needs to be exactly that: 1 bomber 1 fighter or 2 fighters.
I still like the idea of removing some weaponry to make a "carrier" version, either removing the lances or some of the railguns for additional launch bays (keeping the cost reduction to 180).
-
Its been said time and time again that BFG adheres to no scale. While ships may be scaled against each other that in no way means that they all are, especially when were dealing with two different companies. The CPF fleet argument about scale is pointless if the ships were intended to represent one thing then there is no reason to say they represent another because of the actual size of it. This is like saying that my cruiser sized hulk is not a hulk because its not ridiculously over sized and held up with 8 pins attached to the base ::) so long as its on the right sized base its whatever I say it is.
No, this would undermine the already shaky integrity of scale that the game has. If you go around giving the Protector 8 hits, for example, then all arguments for ship hits based off apparent size go out the window. You'll get shit like "oh hey, look at the battleship I just made, the model is the size of a Cobra, but I've given it 300 hits because it represents something the size of a small moon".
While the scale issue is a subjective one, it does hold to some rough rules. Every exception to these rules undermines them and weakens the game. What we basically need to avoid is giving stats that the ship doesn't look like it has. For example, if you tried to use an Ork Hulk the size of a cruiser against me I'd say no way. It has 40 hits, make it bigger than a battleship.
If anything, instead of making more exceptions we should be looking for ways to reduce the number of exceptions. For example, giving a couple more hits to the Stronghold.
-
Horizon: One bomber is not enough to kill an escort with any sort of reliability, since said bomber will get destroyed 50% of the time. If the escort is B2b with it's buddies, it's destruction closes in on 100%.
There is -nothing- wrong with having 2 LC, and having it be a "hold over from the hero days" is a purely subjective thing on your part. This fleet is STILL heavily dependent on LC, even more so now that the average number of hits to the fleet has been forcibly reduced by 2 across the board.
The Tau are adaptive and practical, why remove something that works? Simply giving them one more LC will also remove any need for them to have a 'carrier' variant and justify the cost of the ship.
it also prevents some loud, nasty and unpleasant rules disputes in the future, and does not complicate things with "oh this launch bay only fires one thing, this one fires another". It's absurd.
Giving it one more LC to justify it's cost is not going to change how it's used either, it will just make it's presence as a flexible combat vessel more defined. I still UTTERLY fail to see your justification as to why they would move away from a method of war that works remarkably well. Sure, more gun is great, but they have some of the best attack craft and torpedo's in the game... why move away from what works so well against almost every opponent?
Sig: Thanks for agreeing that the stronghold needs to be a 12 hit battleship.. seriously, what were they thinking...
-
Zelnik, Sig said that about 1 bomber, not me.
I think 1 bomber/1 fighter is an unique approach for a vessel that is a perfect raider. It can do anything.
-
Horizon: One bomber is not enough to kill an escort with any sort of reliability, since said bomber will get destroyed 50% of the time. If the escort is B2b with it's buddies, it's destruction closes in on 100%.
There is -nothing- wrong with having 2 LC, and having it be a "hold over from the hero days" is a purely subjective thing on your part. This fleet is STILL heavily dependent on LC, even more so now that the average number of hits to the fleet has been forcibly reduced by 2 across the board.
The Tau are adaptive and practical, why remove something that works? Simply giving them one more LC will also remove any need for them to have a 'carrier' variant and justify the cost of the ship.
it also prevents some loud, nasty and unpleasant rules disputes in the future, and does not complicate things with "oh this launch bay only fires one thing, this one fires another". It's absurd.
Giving it one more LC to justify it's cost is not going to change how it's used either, it will just make it's presence as a flexible combat vessel more defined. I still UTTERLY fail to see your justification as to why they would move away from a method of war that works remarkably well. Sure, more gun is great, but they have some of the best attack craft and torpedo's in the game... why move away from what works so well against almost every opponent?
Well, the Tau are about manoeuvrability. The proper application of force at a specific point. In the past their ships have been so slow and ungainly that they've had to rely upon attack craft to do this for them. Now, with a more mobile force, they are finally able to apply the guns of their ships as they wish. So we see a change in doctrine from total reliance upon attack craft to a more rounded fleet. Of course having 2 launch bays is better than only 1 and the Tau would prefer to have 2 rather than 1. It is a simple improvement. But that extra AC comes at the cost of something. It necessarily means the ship has less weaponry. There are only a finite number of things that you can fit into a ship and the more AC you have the less you have of something else. In this new Tau I think that the single bay is more of a safety net than anything else, used for CAP and the odd attack of opportunity. I don't think this new Tau would add a second bay if they had the room, I think they'd add more guns.
You might argue which is more effective, guns or AC. You might argue even that AC is better at applying force where they need it. But if that sentiment were mirrored in full by the Tau, they'd simply have nothing but carrier Explorers. It is possible that AC is by far the superior weapon system but that the Tau still move away from it. In Japan in WWII the big gun lobby vied for more battleships over carriers, even though carriers were superior (I'm sure they had their reasons).
Having said all that, it is my contention that the Protector is already jam packed full of goodies as it is. I personally don't think that you can fit anything more into the ship. This is, of course, my opinion. I think it's reasonably well supported by the model and its size as well as reasonable extrapolations from previous capabilities.
If the Protector is still lacking (as I believe it is) then I think that a cost reduction is the best fix. If there is still a need for a carrier (which I'm unsure of) then a variant adding 2 fighter bays at the cost of some other firepower seems sufficient to me. More than that, it seems justifiable, due to the small prow launch bays. In the event that neither of these options is palatable then adding a single fighter bay to the Protector seems more than enough to me. Adding another Manta bay is less justifiable as far as I'm concerned (by the model) but also less desirable because it is a step back in design to the Hero. You may as well give it 6 torps and the same direct gunnery too.
-
From that pov:
Dauntless, Voss CL all 6 hits vessels and they have far less on them installed. Even the Strike Cruiser has less components. So the 6 hit Protector is probably the most advanced 6 hit vessel around. Or the 'weakest' 8 hit vessel.
-
Indeed even the eldar cruisers don't have so much packed on. Of course you could always say that there's already so much on there what can one more thing hurt :P.
-
It is not wise to compare eldar ships to others... they break all the rules of the game as it is!
Either way. I feel that rules trump WYSWYG. I agree the vessel should either be better or cheaper. I would not mind making it significantly cheaper, say, 180 points, putting it in line with a Lunar cruiser.
I would, however, remind you that it's description says it is the first vessel designed to engage and destroy enemy vessels. This means it is meant for killing cruisers, Not escorts. I still push for LC2, there is NOTHING wrong with this but personal opinion on either subjective scale issues, or subjective opinions on what people view the future of the Tau empire is. Really, we are complaining about one strength of fighters and bombers!
Again, I can see two manta's being held in that bay. Just as each launch bay on either side of the wings has enough to fill one full fighter wing.
-
I wish BFG was more wysiwyg all over the place. Look at the first Chaos battleship you'll encounter. Make it wysiwyg and it will be so much cooler.
Yes, it should engage enemy cruisers (and others while raiding). It has impressive gunnery. Good missiles. A fighter bay to remove cap to make sure the Manta harasses. And the Missiles have fun.
And I still see the Hero as a ship being employed by the Tau when the heavy engagements start.
We should make sure the Protector does not replace the Hero, better said make the Hero useless as a choice.
-
I do not think that it will be an issue, since the hero has a stronger torpedo salvo, ion cannon strength and more hits. I want the protector to be an alternative and viable for any player who wants a pure forgeworld fleet or does not want to spend 30 bucks on a pewter model.
Also, the hero is being replaced by the protector as it is... its right there in its description.
-
I understand the (FW) Kor' Or' Vesh Tau fleet is an Exploration, and vanguard fleet.
That's why their ships are smaller and sleeker, maybe a little compressed. OVERPOWERED FOR THEIR SIZE; all of them!!
Leaving the main engagements to the Kor'Vattra (GW) battleFleet made out of slow and heavy PROPER WAR VESSELS
So if you want a battlefleet get the pewter one
And if you want the resin fleet, act accordingly with its role!
Where it says FW ships are replacing GW ships? in what official rulebook? there's no armada entry for FW ships, so resin ships are still an alternative fleet. Anyone in this forum can create rules and feedbacks and say whatever he wants, therefore say they are the new breed of ships, replacing the old ones.
I shall difer, for me they are explorers.
Custodians are awesome grand cruisers (or eldar Battleships)
Protectors are badass light cruisers, 90º turns are ok, no extra points for that, it's ridiculous!!!
emissaries are just like auroras or solarises, to give them hooks instead of bays is a good idea.
-
Tyberius...
I will refrain from swearing, but the difference between battle, standard and light cruiser only applies to Imperial navy.
The power arc is far muddier when it comes to alien races, and using it to brand them is trying to make every race Imperial navy.
-
Also, the hero is being replaced by the protector as it is... its right there in its description.
Which description. ;)
We can rewrite it. heh heh.
And since the Hero is still being sold, still has rules, people prefer GW over FW, the matter of fact is that their is no 'real' replacement within BFG.
-
I do not think that it will be an issue, since the hero has a stronger torpedo salvo, ion cannon strength and more hits. I want the protector to be an alternative and viable for any player who wants a pure forgeworld fleet or does not want to spend 30 bucks on a pewter model.
I agree that the goal should be to make a fleet that can stand alone. Or at least, that would be what the Tau were aiming for. However, the fact remains that the Tau empire does rely upon allies and auxiliaries. So it's not that big a deal that a 'pure' Kor'or'vesh fleet would be at a disadvantage compared to a mixed fleet. They do, after all, have the ability to take other ships. Also, in trying to balance the Protector against the Hero we're going to, of necessity, run into a problem, since the Hero is overpowered.
Also, the hero is being replaced by the protector as it is... its right there in its description.
Right, and that's what the Tau were aiming for. The success of their endeavour is somewhat in doubt though, and even if the Protector were to be the hands down winner compared to the Hero you'd still find that the Tau would depend upon the Hero for a good long while, simply due to numbers. I'd imagine the Heroes would be easier to repair and maintain too, since they have a modular design. But all this is beside the point. What I think Horizon meant about the Protector not replacing the Hero was from a game perspective. Both fleets are extant and both need to be viable. The very best way to achieve this is having a clear point of difference between the ships.
As it stands, the Protector is a manoeuvrable, hard hitting, light gunship. The Hero is a solid linchpin all-rounder. To give the Protector the same AC capability as the Hero blurs that distinction a bit.
I think we both agree that the Protector is not quite up to snuff at the moment. A pure Kor'or'vesh fleet really should be viable at least. However, given that it already has so much for such a small ship and that adding a launch bay reduces the points of difference between it and the Hero I think that a points reduction is the best fix. It isn't the only possible fix. I can understand why you'd want another point of AC, and that would be a fix. It is also a possible fix. That is to say, it's able to be justified (with some wrangling). I just don't find it either necessary nor the most justifiable fix. Thus, to me, it is unsatisfactory.
-
Tyberius...
I will refrain from swearing, but the difference between battle, standard and light cruiser only applies to Imperial navy.
The power arc is far muddier when it comes to alien races, and using it to brand them is trying to make every race Imperial navy.
Everything is measured, clasified and named upon imperial standards in the 40k universe... and every fleet/race has it's own ship displacement clasification...
.....and there's no need to swear.. we are adults, (I Guess)
You will indeed swear reading this:
Tau are Copiers, that's what they do, they copy and adapt technologies to their own needs, always making them better, and more advanced. I must say, this is why they are so successful, and why they are always evolving..
Ok, lets say the Kor'Vattra fleet is made under imperial standards
Explorer= imperial Battleship
Hero= imperial cruiser or battlecruiser
merchant= a mix between a transport and a light cruiser (odd ship)
Then we must say the Kor'or'vesh fleet Is configured by Eldar standards. (just cause eldars did it first, or maybe a result of tau investigation on eldar ships)
Custodian= eldar battleship
protector= eldar cruiser
emissary= eldar light cruiser
Evidently we have another type of fleet, that surely can stand a fight by themselves, but my point was on this: It is a different fleet with different roles and features, so no ship in the kor'or'vesh fleet is a replacement for a kor'vattra ship.
-
Tiberius, I want you to know that I read your post twice just so I could get your whole point of view.
To put it simply, this is not 40k, you cannot judge anything by the standards of one fleet alone on the basis that every fleet fights in a different manner. You cannot in any stretch of the mind compare an explorer with an imp battleship for the simple sake that it only costs 230 points... we can go into details if you like but it derails the conversation.
Sig.
Glad to see you understand my point of view, its ok to disagree! Here is another argument though, the points of a ship also are a factor of how rare the ship is, and the resources needed to deploy it. If we reduce the points, we will be increasing the number of ships on the table, and reducing the feel of how rare the ship is. In the original rules you were restricted by a 1 for 1 ratio on the ship, but got more bang for your buck because of it.
-
Tiberius, I want you to know that I read your post twice just so I could get your whole point of view.
To put it simply, this is not 40k, you cannot judge anything by the standards of one fleet alone on the basis that every fleet fights in a different manner. You cannot in any stretch of the mind compare an explorer with an imp battleship for the simple sake that it only costs 230 points... we can go into details if you like but it derails the conversation.
You read my post twice and still didn't get the point.
1.- This is indeed 40k universe, not star wars, not star trek, not starship troopers...no space balls.
2.- Every fleet fights in a different manner, yes even Chaos and Empire fights differently and they are measured by the same standards of displacement.
3.- I do compare an explorer to an imperial battleship, cause every fleet classifies their ships by displacement. (both are battleships)
Let's compare it to an emperor.
same hits, same speed, same ac capacity, considerably less weaponry, different armor config, different shield cap...they are very different yet the same role is given to them both. CARRIERS.
4.- My (real and important one) point was: You have to treat the protection fleet as a totally different fleet not a replacement for the kor'vattra.
Sorry if you cannot understand me, maybe my english is not so good. ;)
-
This isn't spaceballs? :(, and I always thought necrons went plaid ???.
-
I just had a bit of a brainstorm.
Why don't we reduce the cost of the protector to 180, like many agree with and institute some upgrade options to the fleet?
Things like experimental systems, xv15 boarding teams, or even optional grav hooks or tracking systems.
This would allow the tau player to patch 5 to 25 point holes frequently found in tau fleets and add some flavor to the fleet.
-
I would enjoy seeing options for small upgrades in the Tau list. Good call Zelnik.
-
That is, indeed, a good idea.
Integratred Tracking Systems (as the old HA SG Tau CPF list had on them! PDD also has this).
Black Sun Filter (no shift due blastmarkers, idea belongs to Elkerlyc)
etc
-
I just had a bit of a brainstorm.
Why don't we reduce the cost of the protector to 180, like many agree with and institute some upgrade options to the fleet?
Things like experimental systems, xv15 boarding teams, or even optional grav hooks or tracking systems.
This would allow the tau player to patch 5 to 25 point holes frequently found in tau fleets and add some flavor to the fleet.
I like being able to use all points available, and things like the prow power ram only add to the game, so I'm in favour.
-
Short range ablative capsules that fill the roll of teleporters on other races as an upgrade.
-
Ehh.. let's not try and give the tau something that they have been denied due to balance and fluff reasons.
How about these...
Gravitic Wedge
once per game, the tau player can force a ramming enemy ship to re-roll its leadership to ram
Disruption feild.
Once per game, the tau player may make an ld check, on a success, all gunnery attacks against that vessel suffer from a left column shift.
Experimental engine coils: increase the speed of a vessel by 5 cm, increase explosion radius by 1d6.
Iridium reinforcement. +1 hit to vessel.
-
What has been denied for balance & fluff?
+1 hits = not my idea of an upgrade for the protector to be honest.
gravitic wedge = not worth it I think. Though the name is nice enough.
+5d6 aaf would be nice
ITS
advanced ordnance control bridge : ac may go in and out of formation.
-
Tau not having teleport attacks is purely fluff I don't see them being unbalanced by getting them, especially if its only as an upgrade to one type of ship. They have used this same type of attack in the books tho so I don't see it really being a problem. Making it a bit expensive and letting them bypass shields would be a unique fluffy addition :).
+1 hit is good as an upgrade
Gravitic Wedge could just be an automatic 1 damage that the power ram adds to imps
Disruption Field sounds cool but maybe an always on effect where enemy ships trying to target the ship receive a -1 to their leadership tests (this would apply to Lock On and to shoot at the Protector instead of another ship).
Experimental engines are good +5d6 aaf is good too :)
Advanced bridge is kind of iffy tho, maybe just a +1 to leadership tests?