Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on October 25, 2012, 07:31:02 PM
-
Tau deserves their own thread too!! Anyways, I think the tau list is looking pretty close but it would be good to get some of the details out of the way to call it "finished." So... what about this commander named character guy?
-
Keep the character. Like him.
I don't use named characters anyway as I design my own background stories.
From other thread:
Protector 180pts
Castellan 45pts
What I like:
Emissary 130pts
prow deflector 6+ / 5+ armour
speed 25cm
turns 90*
shields 1
hits 4
turrets 2
prow railguns @ 45cm - str 2 - F
prow railguns @ 45cm - str 2 - F
prow railguns @ 45cm - str 2 - F
dorsal launch bay (barracuda)
prow gravitic missiles 20-40cm - str3
may replace port/starboard railguns with grav hooks
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-aXA8fc5AQ8aTlYYWtnNkpEazg
Wait on Sig for Demiurg. Really. What does everyone think about commerce variant?
-
The Skilled Pilots quality thing is actually the just the refit from the campaign chart. Seems worth more than 5 points in my book however. How much do the eldar pay smotherman style for their ordnance increase? Because your basically tacking on eldar rules to tau rules, making the manta hands down make a thunderhawk annihilator look like a crappy bomber 9/10. I think he's pretty cool, but that ability is probably worth more like +20 points or so.
As for Demiurg, particularily the cruisers, suffer from a real lack of firepower in a given direction. And that's without counting the VP rules, which are possibly the stupidest things I have ever read, baring certain high school yearbook quotes.
-
Are you suggesting that as an additional varient? I primarily use the lance one, without deflector, so keeping the various options (and keeping them as options) is something I'd like to see. The defender needs to change. longer range, more hits, something to make in not an inferior Castellan, same thing with the orca, though to a much lesser degree. Protector has to keep the ability to have bombers. I would also suggest -5 or -10 pts on the Hero, given that we cut so much firepower. What is going on with the messenger? it's just a free 50 points to the enemy. And the Merchant. The other half of weakening the Hero is powering up the Merchant, to make it viable as a warship, and not just a transport (though it is a frigging great transport...). Keep the original profile if you want to use it as a transport though.
Why Prow, forward only railguns three times? Not 2 F/L, 2 R/L, 2F? or simply 6F?
I was going to suggest +5 or 10pts or so for the leader, as skilled pilot can only affect a max of 6 bays in the game.
-
In a campaign, that refit would only target one ships too, but on a custodian it would cost 35pts.
I 100% agree with messenger and merchant.
If Hero got cost cut, it would be about 5 points max. Still don't see need personally, but open world buddy.
As for emmisary, I presume that is what horizon meant.
There has been lots of talk in support of multiple hit escorts, and common consensus seems that the defender is one of them, which along with a point bump upward would make it quite a viable alternative to the castellan.
Protector should have bombers, IMO. Tau shoudln't have to depend on the custodian for bombing runs.
-
Defender, I don't think the cost shoudl be modified, or max by 5 points. even with two hits, its solid, but not amazing.
On the custodian it would be 33 points (Head bob, dick smile)
The Hero is significantly weaker than it was, but it's the same price? That makes no sense. It'd be like shaving the lances on a gothic, but not changing the cost. Removing the nova from a dominator, torpedoes from a dictator etc.
-
Don't point costs get rounded up? Or is BFG a dick like that (shakes head)?
Examples are a bit extreme no? It still fires about on par with a lunar plus has launch bays.
Could be wrong, but I think a gothic without lances is worth like 100pts or so?
Dominator is like 150pts probably, Dictator like 170pts.
Defender at 50pts is probably fine:
Defender = +1 hit point, +1 WB
Castellan = higher speed, longer ranged batteries, better turns
The extra hit is obviously worth more and the range is probably slighly worse than the extra battery most of the time. Speed is no strictly advantageous to a long range heavy destoyer so doesn't affect that much. 45 castellan 50 buffed up defender is my vote.
-
They probably do, I was just bein an a**hole :D
On one side, but then the lunar has that, again, on the other side. And saying that it can't bring it all on one target is not a counter-argument, it has them, the hero does not.
I said shave, not remove. Just take away 1-2 str each side.
Also as an aide, a weaponless gothic is worth the same as a merchant, that's saying somehting.
I agree with the escorts.
-
Agree with Horizons points drops on the Protector and the Castellan. And 40pts for the Defender is needed, unless to whole 2 hit thing goes ahead, then 45 may be in order
As for the Messenger, wouldn't 35- 40 points be more fitting? It's not like you can take swarms of them.
The Hero is a damn expensive model and it seem a little unfair on those who've forked out for one to get a weakened profile (and at same price!). How 'bout Making it a Kor'Or'Vesh vessel (ie. not halve boarding mod), Keep the original stats and make it 200pts? That way it fills the Battlecriuser role for the Tau. Fluff-wise, these would be modified vessels given more modern equipment, but then you've got the same ship with 2 rules-sets:s 165-170 for the Hero's altered stats?
-
No.
Fluff:
Hero<Lunar
thus Hero stats must be weaker then Lunar.
So 180pts for profile as given is good. Plus it is unrestricted.
I will not sign for a Hero stronger then a Lunar. 8)
Emissary:
the variant I give should be the only option.
It is wysiwyg.
The model has no Ion Cannon, thus it should not have the option.
It has launch bay + missiles thus the stats should have it.
And for me all railguns on all models are F only.
Defender:
make it a heavy brunter.
(2 hits)
5 weapon batteries
1 missiles
Makes the Castellan attack frigate and the Defender a defensive (hey!) frigate.
Merchant as in pdf is good with me.
Messenger is okay to me. I heard people using this thing to great effect.
-
100% behind horizon on the hero. Fluff FTW mates.
Emissary is interesting proposition (I am horizon, king of kings! Look upon my profiles ye mighty, and despair! For lo they are infinitely superior for they are wysiwyg!) ;D
I agree with horizon, but the batteries should really be typical tau; 2 port firing L/F, 2 Front and 2 starboard firing R/F; anything else is just not tau enough to satisfy.
How much would a defender cost with 2 hits, 2 more battery but 1 less missile?
Messenger just seems like a very vulnerable 50pts, and the custodian has double the range for tracking system, plus is a lot less fragile.
You are probably the only person in the world horizon who actually likes the merchant as is. Let that sink in for a moment. Forever Alone... :'( ;)
-
I actually liked the Merchant with 4 hits so 6 is great and 8 is AWESOME. ;D
The Hero... shouldnt have 45cm range or attack craft. Hard to work around tho.
Messenger is ok, slipping it in with some Castellans will make it a bit less vulnerable if thats what your worried about. If someones targeting this over something else instead of just getting within 30 then o_O.
-
Hey Talos,
have you noted the Merchant is now (revised) standard 6 hits? And can go to 8 hits. Big difference already for no point increase.
It can bring cheap Orca's (25pts!).
It can upgrade to get some Ion Cannons.
Plus, time ago someone on PortMaw had a Tau fleet based on Merchants supported by Messengers to create a great gunnery line. With the revised cost/stats it become an even better alternative to the AC line.
Defender,
lets go conservative, no 2 hits but weapon upgrade. I'd cost it at 45pts
+2wb - 1 missile evens out but gives more purpose/distinct role.
Messenger,
yeah, mix it into another squadron.
Emisssary,
game of stats
- a clash of variants
:)
-
Oops...forgot about merchant upgrades. ::)
So...are we not doing 2 hit escorts? Or are we doing 1 hits standard, and then come our rules revision we have a sheet that has what escorts have 2-3 hits and their adjusted cost? Because that would work just fine.
Still don't think the messenger should be so pricy; easiest 50 pts in the game.
I like your emissary; swap the batteries to my suggested array (3 way split, with broadsides or wothlessness) and you have my vote.
-
As for the batteries, the f/l & r/f won't matter strenghtwise. If people want it, alas.
-
I don't think we should be removing options from the emmisary. The amount of options it had made up in part for the small fleet size of Tau. It is also a much less useful warship without this variant, and if we weaken 2 of Tau's 4 warships, and we don't give them something to compensate...
Having the lance emissary allowed for more fleet versatility, I run a fleet without protectors, and use emissaries as mg ships of the line. If this change happens, the I MUST use protectors, with no alternative.
The one horizon suggested is fine, if we make the railguns l/f, r/f and f, as all other Tau vessels have that. And if its an addition, not a replacement.
I think if the hero is worse than the lunar, it should be st least 5 points cheaper. I would be willing to playtest that defender. I still think the merchant should be slightly upgunned.
-
The ion Merchant has more focusable firepower then the dauntless.
I think points are spot on.
Fluffwise it is pretty weird to not use protectors in a kororvesh fleet as it is the main Combat vessel.
Alas, you want more emissaries and want to break what the model shows. ;)
What do others think?
No point drop on Hero, it still has options due its synergy strike options.
-
As for Hero, not many other cruisers can target an enemy with battery-lance, followed up by torpedo-bombers. And even though it runs slower, it still has 2 more hull than the protector, which is a boon.
@horizon ThaneAquilon has yet to play against me with his Tau in a game larger than 1500pts, so his fleet does not run protectors. I'm sure he will in a larger game however.
As for emmisary, I think the horizon profile should replace one of the three current options; off the top of my head, we should keep the ion cannon version and the launch bay version, toss whoever is left (no pdf in front of me here). It would be ahrdly the first model to not have the weapons it hsa depicted on the model (I'm looking at you, Hive Ship >:().
Merchant is well gunned, just very slow and un-manoeuvrable for a light cruiser. But it is really cheap, so...
-
Hero,
in a 1:1 duel vs the Lunar the Hero, even with the lower stats will give the Lunar a difficult time as the Lunar can only use 1 broadside. The Hero loses 2 wb in that attack but gains 2 resilient bombers (plus a fighter to neuter the Lunar its torpedoes).
In a bigger game the Lunar gains as it can start using both broadsides but on the way in the Hero still is a solid line cruiser.
Also remember I (we?) want to drop Protector to 180pts.
Emissary,
In that case drop the dal'yth variant (grav hook only). Grav hook as option to all other variants (replacing port/starboard).
Merchant,
115pts:
6 railguns @ 45cm + 2 ion @ 30cm. Slow, yes, but 15cm is a perfect add on to an Explorer. Adding gunnery. Add Messenger to this pack and the line gets a good punch.
Hero's among them for more (only going 20cm to park themselves in front of the Explorer line).
Yeah, I see it.
For 20pts extra's you get a 135pts vessel with 8 hitpoints. A lot of work to take down, and still only few vps to gain.
-
Hero should be 180, far weaker broadside but slightly stronger prow than Lunars broadside. Lance and launch should be seperated. Standard range should be 30, with an option to upgrade to 45.
Prow:
6 30cm wbs front
6 tau missles front
Broadside x2:
3 30cm wbs port/star
2 30cm ion port/front front/star
Or replace ions for 2 tau launch -/- for +30pts
Or replace ions and webs for 6 45cm wbs port/front front/star for free
That screams "We saw some IN cruisers and said, ok i can do that."
(thats basically my interpretation of a Tau version of an IN Lunar/Dictator/Tyrant.
I dont actually expect anyone to take this seriously either, this is just what feels "right" to me.
-
eh,
is that 1 ic per side or 2 ic per side?
-
Sorry 1/1 same for launch (maybe a bit high on launch but theyre better than IN too).
Looking at it all written down you could leave the prow at 45 and make the upgrade +10pts for the port/star wbs and keep the ions/ launch.
-
And wbs would fire left/right only? Not front?
/
Personally I like the current floating design at 180pts.
-
Wow, I'm really lost in the discussion but when you guys get some agreed upon changes, let me know and we can vote on them.
-
Oh no sorry the port/star weapons is a typo :P p/f and f/s would be correct.
So after a bit of thought I have revised my idea:
180pts and base stats as presented in Armada
Prow:
6 Tau missles firing F
4 Weapons batteries 45cm and L/F/R should be fine
Broadside:
3 Weapons batteries 45cm L/F and F/R
1 Lance 30cm L/F and F/R
This would place the Hero right at where I would expect it, 10 wbs and 2 lances in the F fire arc is slightly better than the Lunars broadside while 7 wbs and 1 lance is slighly worse. With the option to split fire you would have 5 wbs and 1 lance in each broadside if youre in the situation to use both broadsides. The 45cm weapons help overcome the price difference between loosing the 1 wb and 1 lance per side. I could see adding the Tracking Systems to this ship as a boost and to further seperate it from the carrier version (and its got that big module on the rear).
190 ish pts and base stats as presented in Armada
Prow:
6 Tau missles firing F
4 Weapons batteries 45cm and L/F/R
Broadside:
1 Tau Launch -
1 Lance 30cm L/F and F/R
This one would still retain a decent amout of firepower and bring the lauch. The loss of the Weapons batteries and Tracking Systems (if used as they would be given over to multi role combat craft and missle control) would help bring down the upgrade cost to attack carrier.
In either case the option to upgrade the Lances to 45cm but with a restriction of one 45cm lance Hero per 2 cruisers would be nice.
Hum Im actually rather fond of this layout, still just throwing ideas around, the Hero as presented in BFG-R is fairly balanced its just awkward that all of their ships are so muddled.
-
Part of me hates what we are doing to the Hero...but making it more like Tau-ified Lunar makes it way more distinct from the protector, which is a win in my books.
I am more in favor of the version with tracking systems and launch bays, seems to fit in more with GW tau. Also in favor of long range lance version, although it should use the same restriction as protector ion variant (1:1).
-
Nah, no tracking systems to the older Hero design.
-
I generally prefer the old (modified lances) Hero, but clearly most people don't. I found it fit with emulating the lunar hull: an all-purpose hull that can do essentially any battlefield role, which when combined with the typically Technological Ambition that is Tau, we get a cruiser that can fill any battlefield role, with the forward firing Tau flavor. This also helps explain the weird discrepency between the amount of Chaos/IN (even Eldar and Ork) cruisers and Tau cruisers. If the reason for these proposed changes are that it would make sense that emulating an imperial cruiser would result in this, then the conclusion would be to give it stronger broadsides with more limited arcs I would presume.
Just my thoughts on the Hero, but if everyone wants to go this new direction, I'll give it a shot.
-
@ThaneAquilon I definitely see where you are coming from with your argument, and the flavor you put forth is good. I think what the others are going for is more early tau have no combat vessels yet, Hero is first combat vessel they design, EVER. So their like like how do we do this? And their all like "Hey remember that incident? Where those two IN Lunars destroyed a whole bunch of Explorers? Let's make us one of those!" So in this case, the feel is more modified Lunar than Lunar idea/concept, if I understand correctly.
As for Tau's lack of frontline cruisers, I would proably attribute that to the fact that they have been in space combat for only a few hundred years, versus the 10,000+ of the imperium. Seems reasonable to say they have had less time/interest to develop line cruisers, when they are generally peaceful.
-
That is true, but if we bring in their ground tech, they (like IG/SM/SB/GN forces...) Develop one hull to try and do it all. Them being thousands of years behind should still yield more ships, if they didn't trust one ship to be able to do it all, in my opinion. The other concern is that Tau NEED a ship that can, at the VERY LEAST come close to competing with the Lunar in terms of conventional firefights. If they don't have any ships of the line, they lose. Plain and simple.
-
I presume you mean GW Tau, and I'm afraid we disagree on this point. The FW tau have a more balanced approach, and their ships reflect this with strong ordnance, but average quantities backed up by more effective firepower with comparable ranges for a combined arms approach. The GW tau, being mostly reconfigured cargo and exploration vessels, are mostly just ordnance machines; Tau cruisers are ships of the line, they just deliver their damage through point-blank ordnance with trickles of conventional firepower, in the form of the hero. The merchant is both capable of laying down lots of firepower (for its size) and has a boatload of hull integrity at a real affordable price; the Hero is there to help soak up hits and deliver the vaunted tau torpedoes en masse, both of them absorbing damage that would otherwise go to the fragile but deadly explorers. Then they have Orca's for picking off wounded ships and warding off mobile enemies, and defenders for plugging holes in the line and covering the explorers in their most vulnerable arc; the 30cm and less from the sides or rear.
-
Yeah, that's all true, and I never said it wasn't. What I'm saying is that as their only real warship, they put a lot.of stock.in it having versatile damage output, as evidenced by its original stats. Now weakening to match the "weaker than a lunar" fluff I'm fine with. But removing the ability to really damage cruiser in a variable way is a problem. What if theirs a 3-4 turret cruiser? Carrier of admech or.something? Then although this hero, theirs bombers are way less effective, but the landed they had (even just 2 total) will shore that up, and vice versa for high shield low turret. My point is that the hero was made to.be able to perform in all 4 aspects of space warfare (lance, torpedoes, batteries, ac) and to remove that would 1 hurt he flavor, imo, and 2 hurt the fleets ability to compete.
-
What I am saying is that the BFG:R design was good enough. :P
-
You mean classic hero, just reduced lances right? If so then I agree, this new version, although functional, is not required. On that we agree. ;D
-
Yes, alright, that's all I was trying for. EXCEPT! We reduced the lances by 1 each side, which is good, but did we also reduce batteries? that seems unecessary.
-
Did we?
-
The last I had read (though it may not have actually happened) there was a push to reduce the batteries by 2 on each side.
-
The weapon battery variant dropped str1 per side (2 in total).
Previous the choice was:
4 Ion Cannons @ 30cm vs 8 Weapon Batteries @ 45cm
Now:
2 Ion Cannons @ 30cm vs 6 Weapon Batteries @ 45cm
-
Okay, did we really need to drop 2 WB? it's already losing quite a bit of firepower. Or was that change already made in BFG:R, and voted on the last time round?
-
@ThaneAquilon did you mean the 1 battery less a side for the battery variant or something else? As is, the Battery variant horizon is showing is on par with the lance variant; slightly less effective but longer range.
With this change, it is only marginally less dangerous with firepower than a lunar (assuming forward firing) and still packs the launch bays extras, along with the extra turret. Still clearly a powerful all-rounder, just like you are wanting, but without the ability to outgun a Lunar, at least without combining ordnance.
-
Almost forgetting:
Custodian should be a grand cruiser.
-
We are really close with Tau. Anyone want to put forward a proposal for voting? I am looking at the Hero and Defender.
-
i really REALLY think the Messenger should be reviewed. Talos and I tried to roughly calculate the cost, and either it is grossly over-costed (This is what I think) or the Custodian is seriously undercosted.
-
Putting 1 Messenger near a Custodian basically gives it 3-5wbs at 45cm when over 30cm range. Check the chart out and compare the differences between Custodian without a Messenger nearby and a Custodian with a Messenger nearby. Now, check the differences between the firepower of 1 Messenger between a Custodian and a Protector. The amount of extra firepower a Messenger can add if used well is fantastic. And this is not counting the re-roll turret bonus. Now, check out the benefits the Messenger adds when you spread a squadron of them and add their tracking ability to 2 Protectors, 2 Emissaries, a Custodian, and a squadron of Castellans. That's a lot of extra firepower in that turn you are at long range. It can win you the game.
-
Well, putting a Messenger next to a custodian doesn't actually do anything, as it has a Tracker built in with a longer range. Yes it can be used strategically, the tracking system is good, that's not what I'm arguing against, I'm saying that the messenger is not worth 50 points. Even opperating on a ten cm tracker, the custodian bassically gets it for free, and it's like 25 points on the messenger. However my problem is that the messenger is hillariously easy to destroy 1 shild 1 hit 1 wb..it's just terrible for 50 points, IMO even with the tracker.
-
Hmm, you are right. I forget the Custodian has a tracker in it too.
The only reason I can see that makes the Messenger useful is to stick it in a squadron of other escorts, Castellans or Defenders, and keep it at the back. But yes, knowing that it cannot benefit a Custodian, this brings it's usefulness down a ways.
Personally, at bare minimum, I think its WBs should be brought out to 45cm. The point cost is something that could use some reworking also.
-
It can't benefit the denfender either, I believe it's batteries are also 30 (I coule be wrong, though). I understand how to use it with escorts, and long ranged vessels (though it becomes hideously vulnerable when paired with cruisers), I just think it should have more firepower to make it a reasonable addition to an escort squadron (like even just str 2 45cm batteries. I would like to see more than that, alike a lance or a torpedo or something, but) OR a points reduction.
-
It can't benefit the denfender either, I believe it's batteries are also 30 (I coule be wrong, though). I understand how to use it with escorts, and long ranged vessels (though it becomes hideously vulnerable when paired with cruisers), I just think it should have more firepower to make it a reasonable addition to an escort squadron (like even just str 2 45cm batteries. I would like to see more than that, alike a lance or a torpedo or something, but) OR a points reduction.
I would like to work with making it 2wbs at 45cm and find the proper pts cost. That way, it can play a role in escort squads and benefit from its own tracking rule. Plus, I think the Defender profile is still being discussed.
-
I would be fine with that change, it still isn't awesome, combat-wise, but it feels like an actual support vessel instead of a crappy transport that you have to escort.
Also for the defender, I thought all we were changing were the hits, if the discussion is still ongoing, I will gladly join in.
-
Well, I just remember people debating the armament. I am not sure where people are on that one. The 2 hit thing is implemented.
-
They (we) wanted to make it 4 WB. That decision seemed fairly unanimus (though not 100%m if I remember correctly) and there was some debate as to dropping the Torps to 1 (I was against this) and discussion on whether it should be at 45 or 50 pts, pending how we decided about the armaments. I don't really know what the outcome of that discussion was, I believe it died off in the face of a nearly completed IN document.
-
Messengers are really usefull in slow moving SG fleet. Add it to the Merchant-Hero-Explorer core and your 45cm gunnery line becomes impressive.
In the Tau fleet its role is taken by the Custodian.
Two very different ships. I could see a Messenger having 2 railguns, but that's it.
//
Defender: to change its role and give the Castellan more purpose the slow heavy brawler approach is what I like. 4railguns + 1 torp. Truly defensive thing.
-
My biggest problem there is that 1wb does not equate to 1 torp. the other thing is with only 4 wb at 30 and 1 single torpedo, it won't really be able to initiate any kind of preventative strikes. If it had str 2 torp it could potentially be used to deter attack.
-
But you are getting 2hits.
1torp is more useful then you think. The same reason the Falchion is a good vessel.
-
Originally the second hit was proposed with no modification to pt cost, as the Defender was not a very good ship otherwise.
I was under the imprssion that IN players thought the Falchion was pretty, well not the best :P
-
Bad IN players. :)
-
Haha well alright.
-
Falchion is ok, not great but ok.
Dont forget that a squadron of messengers can cover a huge area AND be better protected by doing so. Even just three can be spread over 45cm and by keeping them at the limit of squadron cohesion will limit the enemys ability to wipe them out, saving vps and making them a less attractive target.
-
I would like to propose to make the Messenger with 2 45cm wbs at its current cost.
-
That would be a good improvement. As is, I reckon it's more 40pts if only for the TS, hell I'd even go as low as 35!
-
My only objection to the messenger was its high point cost, when all it is is a floating tracking system. Consider that the custodian actually does stuff and has a double range one, I agree that it should have a point reduction and a bit more firepower.
-
You should not compare the Messenger & Custodian.
And I think you underestimate its effect.
-
I am not comparing the two on general merit; the custodian is obviously a much better vessel. As for what the messenger helps most, really it only proves useful when paired with hero's (less so now), protector (a mediocre choice at best) or castellan's, for which it is pretty useful. Of course, castellan's are usually hanging out around a custodian, so...
It just seems you have to pay a lot of points on an escort that is very feeble apart from the tracking system, which is quite good but also pricy if you consider its method of transportation.
-
Horizon, do you think the Messenger is worth 50pts?
-
Talos, the Messenger renders best among Merchants & Explorers.
-
Well the range on them could be better. Stripping the system off the custodian (which is just bad in the first place) would help make the decision easier too after all the only reason to take the messenger goes right out the window when a capitol ship gets the same thing only better and for free.
-
@horizon How so? 50pts to boost the very measly firepower of your explorers seems rather useless. I will conceed that it would work rather well among ion merchants, but even then it does not seem fantastic.
Interesting point from AndrewChristlieb. What if all tracking systems were 20cm? Or the custodians was only ten and the merchants was the 20cm one? :o
-
Well the range on them could be better. Stripping the system off the custodian (which is just bad in the first place) would help make the decision easier too after all the only reason to take the messenger goes right out the window when a capitol ship gets the same thing only better and for free.
Well, it's "free" meaning it's written into the points cost.
I would be entirely fine with just dropping the point cost of Messengers to 40pts. Its tracking system only really gets to work once reliably, sometimes twice, and then its roles is done. Essentially, it's a 25pt ship with a 25pt tracker on it and those 25 points go away very quickly. If used well, it can be really beneficial for the turn it is used but then it's gone so quickly.
-
The Custodian pays for the tracking system just as it pays for grav hooks.
-
If smotherman is considered reasonably accurate (which I believe people do think), the custodian without tracker is still undercosted by 50 or so points. I think its a pretty cheap alternative in my book. ;D
-
If smotherman is considered reasonably accurate (which I believe people do think), the custodian without tracker is still undercosted by 50 or so points. I think its a pretty cheap alternative in my book. ;D
I have it at 325.5, not accounting for the boarding downside, containing resilient bombers, and Orca carrying, and the targeting stuff. It's a great deal.
-
a grav hook is 5 points, so fifteen for the Custodian. I would say the inability to board and H+R probably offsets resiliant bombers.
-
Smotherman is a rough in a lot of cases.
But if I use it the Custodian comes at 328,5pts including 5pts per grav hook.
Drop 5% for boarding -16,25pts
The TS system is on ship self 20pts:
turrets have a re-roll option so gain, so 6x5pts instead of 4x5pts (=10pts more)
railguns count above 45cm as more railguns to count, under 30cm this does not.
So: 16 basis weapon batteries equals 12railguns without right shift @45cm (look it up in the table)
16wb @45cm = 48pts. But the bonus is dropped under 30cm so 12 gets worse under 30cm and is the same as 16 regular above 30cm
(sounds jibberish but its true ;) )
Downgrade the 48pts to max of 45pts. That is 9pts more then what 12wb @ 45cm cost...
...
thus.... TS = +10pts for turrets & +10pts for railguns.
328 (base)+20(ts)-16 (boarding)= 332pts
Furthermore: above is counted with full 32,5pts for Imperial Prow:
a) Tau prow deflector can be destroyed / IN not
b) the IN prow is overcosted anyway in smotherman :P
So drop those 332 to 325 pts.
Now the most tricky part:
the range of the tracking systems. It can be good, it can be not.
10pts would seem okay for the range. (So in total the Custodian pays 30pts for the TS)
So we end at 335pts.
Undercosted vessel? Nah.
edit: resilient bombers: T-hawk bays cost 10pts according smothy, I used 13,5 IN value.
-
edit: resilient bombers: T-hawk bays cost 10pts according smothy, I used 13,5 IN value.
True, forgot to look into that. Good work on the math, btw.
-
@horizon you must have a more up to date version than I do, because it smothermans out to 375ish on mine, without counting tracker at all. Could you link me yours? Mine is: http://yenlowang.free.fr/BFG/smotherman_formula_v205.pdf
-
I used the same, lol.
-
I hate to quote sig but smothermans pretty bad... The Custodian feels underpriced theres no doubt about that, then again so does the Explorer but I dont often hear people complain (too much :P) about that turd.
-
Of course, if you just use smotherman and don't consider the context, it doesn't work well at all. It does help give a good ballpark and then you have to use your best judgment on top of that and consider the special rules of the fleet.
-
Of course, if you just use smotherman and don't consider the context, it doesn't work well at all. It does help give a good ballpark and then you have to use your best judgment on top of that and consider the special rules of the fleet.
Yup
-
Yup,
that's why I derived some things without smothy.
Best thing is: look at existing values within a fleet you are measuring. Cross reference. eyeball smotherman, playtest.
On Custodian: cross reference: Emperor battleship.
-35pts
* -10wb/rg
* lesser range on all wb/rg
* +2 ic
* -2lb
* -2 hits
* -1 turret
* -1 shield
* -1Ld (emperor has +1)
* +8 missiles
* +prow deflector
* +tracking
* +5cm speed
Is this 35pts?
-
@horizon uh...your comparison seems to be forgetting the 8 strength tau torpedoes...which, as far as I know, are worth at least as much as IN torpedoes, and probably more to be fair. Those are worth a fair amount I would say. ;)
Okay, I get what you are saying with smothy. As for custodian, I always thought it was really freakin' good for its price, but not overpowered.
-
Ah yeah. Plus I forgot the Emperor Ld bonus.
And yes, it is good but not overpowered. 10 hits/3shields is as good as a grand cruiser and not a battleship. 8 hits in one turn is crippled, Emperor is 10 hits.
-
Ok, we found some common ground on the Custodian. What about the Messenger? Also, are we keeping the Hero where it is?
-
I have no real problem with the Hero as is, it's just a shame that anyone forking out for one of these things now gets less powerful ship, but the BFG:R stats fit the fluff better (damn you GW >:(). I'm lucky I got mine cheap off Ebay.
Afterimagedan's proposed changes to the messenger are good too, or a drop to 40 as is.
Don't want to be picky, but during the conversation above about the Custodian, people mentioned a boarding penalty...Ko'or'vesh ships don't get a penalty for boarding...or is that not being carried through to BFG:R?
-
For the record Im ok with Matt Warding the Hero fluff and keeping it as a badarse better than a Lunar full line cruiser also.
-
@Andrew I am as well, but I think we are a minority
@Bessemer They don't get the half strength thing but they do get a penalty in that they can't do it at all. they only get to roll at full strength defensively.
-
Hero should not be better then Lunar.
Current BFG: profile = good.
Castellan: did everyone agree on lowering its cost to 45?
Protector: did everyone agree on lowering its cost to 180?
-
@bessemer + ThaneAquilon Actually Tau can't conduct H&R, but Kor'Or"Vesh vessels have full boarding value and can board however and whenever they please, as far as the faq 2010 goes anyhow. I think the H&R is what horizon was alluding too.
We did mess around a bit with the tyrant's fluff, and no one found that offensive, so keeping the hero powerful is not an issue...but even smotherman puts it at 217.5, minus the difference between armored prow/deflector and half boarding rules (-5pts each I would assume)...so I would be okay with the full strength Hero at 200-210pts. Or we can stick with our voting and established fluff and just cut two lances, making it a more versatile but less line ship-y than the lunar.
@horizon My smotherman document doesn't have rules for tau torpedoes/launch bays...are these priced the same as imperials? In my mind they should probably be slightly more expensive (4-4.5pts per torpedo and 14-15 a lb).
-
@Talos-I thought that was how it worked, hell, in the Compendium it mentions a squadron of Emissary's boarding and taking a battleship :o
Also, I too would rather have the Hero's original profile, even at 200pts (May have already said this somewhere...) if only for the reason above. Although I realise many people won't let this go, and even in it's BFG:R stats it's a decent ship.
@Horizon- I think I've already agreed with you on those, if not, I do now (if only for the record ;))
-
I do not wish to reopen the Hero discussion, I was simply agreeing with Andrew. I am fine with the BFG:R Stats we decided on.
-
Hero should not be better then Lunar.
Current BFG: profile = good.
Agreed
Castellan: did everyone agree on lowering its cost to 45? yes
Protector: did everyone agree on lowering its cost to 180? I would like to hear more about this
-
Because the Protector has no 25cm speed. 8)
-
180pts just seems right...plus it becomes a matter of personal preference between it and the hero.
-
OK, so Hero at 180, Castellan at 45. Anything else?
-
Defender change (5 rg/1missile)?
Protector -5pts?
-
Defender change (5 rg/1missile)?
Protector -5pts?
I suppose we should bring these to a vote?
-
Give some option for the defender however: personally I think that with 5 battery it makes castellan's a pretty moot point. I am more in favor of 4 battery 1 missile myself.
As for the points, throw 'em up!
-
Not really,
Castellan 45cm 2 rg + 2 missiles
Defender 30cm 5rg + 1 missile
1 missile equates about 1.5 rg (little more)
So: 5 (C) vs 6,5 (D) in equivalents.
Castellan has a better turn rate, speed & range.
I see two frigates with very different roles.
-
You would be batting 100%, horizon...but you forgot one crucial point: defender has 2 hits now. That little tidbit is what makes it a lot better than the protector. Without that extra hit you would be correct, but with it the math becomes strongly skewed towards the defender.
-
Oh, I thought that 2hits was disbanded for now from BFG:R.
-
Wait, what? 2 hits? Since when? We should not be talking about 2 hit escorts for BFG:R. At least, not for the main document. While I'm not one of them there is a sizeable chunk of the community against 2 hit escorts. We're talking easy to swallow changes, remember? So give a balanced 1 hit option for all escorts and then give an alternative 2 hit profile for those inclined to go down that path. Main issue for BFG:R isn't to rewrite the rules, but rather provide a correction to imbalances. This should mostly be in the form of price revisions, but also other changes where warranted. As small as possible. Of course, by all means throw in some good ideas like 2 hit escorts and whatnot, just don't assume them to be standard.
As for the idea of voting, well that's all well and good for minor adjustments to current profiles. So, for example, the notion of voting on a profile change to the Defender to make it balanced, particularly in light of its competition. That's fine.
But when you're talking more radical changes, such as what would a 2 hit Defender profile be, then I think that instead of voting on a ship by ship basis, we should compile a list of 2 hit escorts taken from each fleet list and review them as a whole.
-
I was under the impression we voted on the inclusion of two hit escorts a few months ago, and the community was generally for them.
-
1 Hit defender at those stats would be balanced with the castellan. But I was also under the impression those had been voted upon successfully.
@Sigoroth Hehe, I agree with you about (mostly) small changes. Sorry if it seems douchey, but rarely have I seen you write anything so...agitated.
-
To be honest, I was positive of 2-hit escorts but I totally forgot it got voted in.
And I agree with Sigoroth:
2 hits is difficult point. It is quite controversial, so leaving them out and adding this as an extra rule addendum might be better to take more players onboard instead of scaring them away.
-
For the record, I think that MMS Eldar should also be included in an addendum. A lot of people much prefer MMS, as well they should, but for some it's not official therefore it's wrong and for others it's "unEldary" (which I clearly disagree with of course). My point is that the main document should be a list of changes so small and easy to digest that players reading it should say to themselves "well of course it should be like that, why weren't we always playing it like that?"
So when talking about more radical changes such as doing away with the Necrons VP table I'd like to see that entitled BFG:R Extreme Edition or something. So in the same post you can make suggestions regarding balance changes to the current ruleset (making escorts cheaper or giving them a better hull save or whatever) as well as proposing a new ruleset (ditch VP table, hike price to 3 gazillion points per ship, etc).
-
I see where you two stand on that; however, 2-hit escorts can't be that controversial because the vote passed by a landslide IIRC ;)...
We shall see what are spiritual liege (hehe) afterimagedan has to say on the subject.
-
Honestly, I am just facilitating because no one else was. I had been working with Plaxor helping him out for a while and then he stopped working on BFG:R so I picked it back up. There was the general view that some of the changes to BFG:R that were not voted on were not a good idea. I decided that I would bring things back to a vote and rewind back to the original BFG:R vote list (which you can see on the Finishing BFG:R thread). I am not entirely in the same place as Sig as far as how much I am hoping to fix/change things but it doesn't matter what I want, it matters what the community wants. BFG:R seems to have a different purpose now and it is basically the BFG community on these forums are making the changes that they want. It may end up being hugely changed or not very changed. My top priority, personally, is not that it would be the best received by BFG conservatives but that the community would make the changes they wanted to see in the game. I have already told Sig that I am happy to that the 2010 documents and make the small changes that he/BFG conservatives would like to see and produce those documents for them. I am not hoping to be a leader here, just facilitating votes. :D
-
We've done some playtesting of 2 hit escorts over here. Good thing is - they don't do anything terrible with game mechanics. They're simple to use, and as well might've been in official rules. No problem here.
Bad thing - they're something radically new. Some more conservative players may have problem with it.
But, honestly, those are the same people who'd have problems with BFG R in general. Some of those won't even accept 2010 compendium. So, well, if they passed the vote here, I guess there's nothing to worry about, is it? BFG has left official/unofficial stage years ago, when specialist games site was taken down. Now it belongs to the community. If community wants 2 hit escorts, let there be 2 hit escorts.
-
BFG has left official/unofficial stage years ago, when specialist games site was taken down. Now it belongs to the community. If community wants 2 hit escorts, let there be 2 hit escorts.
Yes.
-
So, it looks like we have finalized IN, SM, Eldars, and Necrons and have a lot done on Tau. What other changes need to be addressed before we work on Chaos :o ?
-
So, we voted on the Protector, Defender, and the Castellan.
Stuff to talk through: Hero, Emissary, Messenger, Mesme, Demiurg.
-
Hero lance drop by 2 should be voted on.
If we keep our voted pricing along with 2 hit escorts, castellan is quite crappy compared to the defender.
Emissary seems fine, although there was some interesting variants proposed. Will wait for community input.
Mesme is way too good for his paltry 110pts or whatever. He is bascially just a regular ld 9 ld (80pts) with an extra rerolls (25pts), so basically you are paying 5pts for a refit which seems really good. If we correct tau leadership to match imperial/potentially chaos, then we can adjust his cost upwards by a tiny bit and call it that.
In a campaign, that refit would cost 20-35pts depending on whether he was in a custodian or explorer (to be fair, he is described as being in kor'or'vesh vessel so custodian sounds more likely), so adjusting that to 25pts (enforced discount perhaps?) would make him 125 points, plus his optional upgrade. Still not too expensive to run, but a little more balanced at least.
-
You want to make the hero have NO lances? That is ridiculous, and I wholeheartedly disagree.
I'm not able to check the stats on the castellan, so I can't comment.
I like the emissary, I think the deflector should stay optional.
I would have Mesme at 5 to 10 points higher. I think 15 is too much.
-
@Thane- I think he means the drop it already has in BFGR. I've already said my piece on this so won't repeat.
Still, would making it's frontal RG fpwr 6 be that bad? It makes the Hero a bit more competitive while still keeping in with fluff. Tested this recently and it didn't unbalance the Hero Over the Protector in any way IMO.
-
@Thane A little bit of an over reaction, much? I just mean't the drop to 2 lances instead of four. I can't remember if it was voted upon or not.
@Bessemer I never understood why the frontal battery was dropped in the first place. The lance drop was all that was necessary.
Maybe we could vote on the battery? And the lances if we have not already.
-
@Talos The frontal battery was't dropped, it was always 4, believe it or not!
-
Huh, well what do you know...I checked it up and your right!
As it stands,
Hero: +1 Torpedo, +1 LB, +2 hits
Protector: +6 Battery, Better Maneuverability
Both are currently at 180pts I believe. Upon reflection, this is not so bad. Smotherman Hero advantages at being worth 27pts (3.5 + 13.5 +10) whereas the protectors advantages add up to 18+pts (18 + however much the 90 degree trurn is worth).
I might actually be okay with leaving the hero as is. Thoughts?
-
We've done some testing here, protector vs. hero look fairly balanced.
In terms of firepower they're more or less equall [slight advantage for protector] and it boils down to your preferences: 90 turn or 8 hits. Protector's advantage in firepower is balanced by the fact it only takes 3 hits to cripple him, while hero needs 4.
If hero had 1-2 more strength in batteries, or 1 torpedo more, I'd say they're perfectly balanced. If not, I still won't complain.
-
This is still my fave Emissary:
Emissary 130pts
prow deflector 6+ / 5+ armour
speed 25cm
turns 90*
shields 1
hits 4
turrets 2
prow railguns @ 45cm - str 2 - F
prow railguns @ 45cm - str 2 - F
prow railguns @ 45cm - str 2 - F
dorsal launch bay (barracuda)
prow gravitic missiles 20-40cm - str3
may replace port/starboard railguns with grav hooks
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-aXA8fc5AQ8aTlYYWtnNkpEazg
Hero as is in BFG:R is fine.
Mesme is fine imo.
-
@horizon I do like that emissary profile myself, but IIRC there was some resistance to that profile, so we should definitely vote on it.
Vote for Mesme too. I don't think 125pts is such a huge cost for a character, particularly one that makes his ship so nasty. Heck, with him on board tau AC makes eldar AC look shitty, which is something to say the least. Resilient bombers that re-roll their bombing dice are powerful, and any player looking for a powerboost for his tau fleet would snatch him up in a heartbeat. 25pts? That would get an escort, provided you had the grav hooks. Which is more dangerous, an extra one escort or 50% more efficiency from your primary carrier? Warden's/Orca's damage and harass things, but custodian's kill them :D
-
Well in light of the revision to the IN command structrue where do the Tau stack up? Previously they were 8/9 for 50/80 compared to 8/9/10 for 50/100/150. Now instead of being slightly cheaper theyre a bit more so where should sit now? Also how should their re-rolls be priced? Once this is done we can reevaluate the special commanders price.
-
AndrewChristlieb and I propose this:
Tau Commander
Ld 8 50pts
Ld 9 70pts
-up to 2 RRs at 25pts each.
Still thinking about Mesme as well.
-
That pricing seems pretty good, slightly better than IN but slightly more dependent on it as well. If a ld 9 + 1RR is 95pts, then mesme might be just fine at 110pts.
-
I think Mesme should be 135pts.
Ld9 is 70
2 RR is 50
Refit about 15
-
Ok I cannot find this special character... What are the stats for him?
-
Oh...I did not realise he had 2 rerolls :-[...that changes things
@AndrewChristlieb He is in the tau protection fleet document, in the first section just before the rules and ship profiles.
-
Ah gotcha. I think the rule as presented in te FAQ, 110pts for ld9 2 re-rolls and a crew skill plus an additional 10 for the refit, are quite adequate with the current leadership chart, maybe a bit low with the original.
-
Since the tau votes seem like they will pass, should we put the vote up to finalize tau? If not, what changes are needed? I still have to integrate the changes into the pdf.
-
Well apparently some people are reconsidering 2 hit escorts ::)...If they have any final objection, now is probably a good time.
Also, the new defender vs. castlellan vote really messed things up since apparently everyone forgot that the defender has 2 hits, and is now way better than the castellan. That should probably be discussed, since part of the goal of BFG:R is to not have useless ships. Guarantee if you somtherman that stuff the defender will be considerably more expensive than its castellan counterpart.
-
IDK, the defender is really sluggish for an escort and it's voted stats mean it can't just sit back and lob out missiles
en masse any more and have to close to get the best out of them. that gives your opponents an extra turn to get his fleet in a position to counter them.
The castellan can not only do that but can chase stuff down as well, not to mention the benefits of tracking systems for it's batteries.
Don't forget that a 2-hit ship is still as vulnerable to H&R as other escorts.
-
Actually' they aren't. They are half as vulnerable. The 2 hit escorts take a damage on a successful hit and run.
-
Actually' they aren't. They are half as vulnerable. The 2 hit escorts take a damage on a successful hit and run.
The extra damage is what I meant, poor choice of wording there :-[
Are people really in that much of a tizz about the 2-hit thing? Or just the Defender? Would a return to it's original armament be preferred? Another price Increase? Or to drop 2-hits? If so, why did people vote for it in the first place?! Sorry if this comes across as mad (I'm not :)), it just seems that we voted to take a step forward, now there may be vote to go back. But, that is what a forum is for.
What do people think?
CoughcoughHeroforwardbatteriesfpw6coughcough
-
What's voted on is what's voted on. If someone wants to call another vote for a change to a ship, they should mention it and I will start a vote! We have tried 2 hit escorts a bit here and they work well. Its an extra dynamic to the game that I think makes for some interesting "new" ships.
-
I agree, that's why I voted for it! :D
but Talos does make a point, if people voted for the Defender's new stats thinking it had 1 hit, does that invalidate the result? if so, would another vote be in order? Sorry to bring it up but a choice made in error needs correction.
-
Ya, no 2 hits escors.
Defender with changed stats, and perhaps somewhat lessened pts.
-
At 1 hit, the proposed changes are excellent and really differentiate the two. But with only the defender at 2 hits and the castellan at one, it certainly seems a little weaker.
If the community is okay with the way it is, then let's just move on. But it seems some people voted not realizing that we had 2 hit escorts, we should reconsider the vote. Possibly re-vote if enough people were not aware of that?
-
Ok why dont we get everyone to post here what you think the two ships stats should be and then work from there.
Defender: 40 pts
Escort/2 20cm speed 45* turns 1 shield 5+ Armor 2 turrets
Railguns 30cm range 3 firepower l/f/r
Torps 20-40cm 1 strength f
Castellan: 40 pts
Escort/1 25cm speed 90* turns 1 shield 5+ Armor 2 turrets
Railguns 45cm range 2 firepower l/f/r
Torps 20-40 cm 2 strength f
-
Castellan definatelly need 2 more railguns to make up for speed and turn rate.
-
Do you mean the Defender? I dont know, I think the extra hit balances it nicely, I really dislike the idea of having so many weapons on such a small ship anyway, maybe dropping it to 35 pts would be closer to the mark.
-
I assume he means defender and I agree, it needs more weaponry than that and a point increase, especially because it is a 2 hit escort now. I think it is more fitting to make it a more expensive/more armed ship.
To quote Horizon on page 1...
"Defender:
make it a heavy brunter.
(2 hits)
5 weapon batteries
1 missiles"
-
HOLD UP. We have already voted on this...
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5081.0
-
....and you can guess who the voice of dissension was ;D
I always thought it should have been castellan at 40pts, defender at 45pts WITH fleet separation or defender at 50pts with fleet inclusion.
And by that I mean if GW and FW fleets were entirely separate, the point difference would not matter so much. In the original BFG:R documents plaxor did this, and it explains some of his decisions.
If the two were in separate fleets the power difference between the two would be a non-issue. People would go damn the defender is way better and other people would go yeah, your right. Play GW tau if you like it so much.
-
Giving them a power difference should be reflected in the points and not be a way that encourages you to play one fleet over another. I think having the Defender as a slower, less maneuverable ship, with more weapon batteries and 1 torp instead or 2, make it an entirely different ship to play than the Castellan. I dig it!
-
Apart from the defender's second hit, I too dig the changes. They are different, it's just that with the second hit the defender it is clearly the superior vessel.
-
Superior, yes, but with a points increase.
-
Ah, I meant Defender indeed (so it becomes 5rg/1 missile).
pts cost for both 45.
No 2nd hit (seperate pdf with 2 hits as an optional addition to the BFG rules).
-
No 2nd hit (seperate pdf with 2 hits as an optional addition to the BFG rules).
Right but the 2 hit escorts were approved. We would have to take another vote to change this.
-
@horizon What would you suggest for the pricing of the 2 hit defender, if we were to separate the 2 hit escorts in their own document?
-
Still, Dan, sg people are perhaps most intro it but you need to think about presenting it to the whole world and two hits is a tricky subject.
I think it should be at least +5 points.
-
Still, Dan, sg people are perhaps most intro it but you need to think about presenting it to the whole world and two hits is a tricky subject.
So what do you suggest I do? Go against the votes of the community?
-
Yes, you should. With the simple note that the change is approved but to large of a change for the original intent of BFG revised.
-
We could also just put a side note under each 2 hit escort stating at it may purchase the second hit at +5pts if both players agree.
But personally, I think 2 hit escorts are already in, so let's roll with them.
-
I don't think I've ever met anyone interested in the game who hasn't commented on the size of the Defender. It is pretty big. I doubt the 2-hits would really be that much of a shock (if any shock at all). Indeed, people weren't exactly hospitalised by shock over the two-shield Dhows.
-
Yes, you should. With the simple note that the change is approved but to large of a change for the original intent of BFG revised.
Yeah, sorry. I'm not going down that road. Voting has worked just fine and executive decisions haven't really worked in the past.
-
How about this... I can make copies of the documents that do not include the 2 hit escorts but instead include the 1 hit versions?
-
I think one hit copys with an amendment about the two hit ships might be in the best interest.
-
The best interest of the community is to release the document of the stuff we voted on. A separate document with the two hit rules may be in the best interest of horizon or andrewchristleib, but clearly not the voting community (by the previous vote), unless it's voted otherwise. Want me to put up another vote?
-
I dont know about that. Yes there is a majority here (7/8) that agrees with 2 hit escorts, myself included, but there has also been quite an outcall to see them added but as an additional suppliment to the core fleet lists. I am personally torn on how this should be applied. I really like having 2 hit escorts and being a fan of the Kiss system I believe in slimplifying anything we can, but I really also see the problem of trying to convince a group that may not be quite so open with the rules, the FAQ2010 isnt even universally accepted (and I dont really blaim people for that) and it has far less reaching changes. That aside like I said I voted to add the 2 hit escorts and will stand by that as I would like to see them, but I dont think we should alienate anyone if we can help it.
-
I don't want anyone to feel alienated either, but I am not going to down the road where I make changes based on some people's opinions even though it is contrary to the votes of who voted. Doing it just once sets a precedent for it to be repeated.
I don't want to be attacking anyone else's efforts, but I don't want to be like the guy working on BFG:R before me, who took matters into his own hands and left the community out of some major decisions. That alienates people. I just want to facilitate the community's votes and move this community building process along. I personally am not following the "original intent" of BFG:R because that isn't what matters. What is happening here is the community voting on changes to the game and making the game how they want it. Ultimately, some will not get everything they want, including me. That's fine, because I know that it isn't some dude making the changes he wants, but the community choosing things. If we want to bring up another vote to keep the 2 hit escorts stuff as a separate appendix, I am certainly willing to do that. Separate appendixes seem silly, because if we are shooting for the "original intent" of BFG:R, having a condensed document so we don't have tons of stuff to sort through seems most fitting, and was part of the "original intent."
-
Original intent was adjusting stats & point costs, and aye, 2 hits is a stat thing, but also a new rule mechanic for escorts.
Now, the vote was close, and even ones who voted for 2-hits escorts, would acknowledge the 'edgy' factor of it. And, how many people voted? Less then 50 for sure. Is that representative of a whole community? On Port Maw which was the biggest BGF forum back in the days things like this and chaos light cruisers would found little ground only (Eldar MMS was like destroyed by a majority there as well... got better over time heh heh).
I do know that back on the yahoo group a majority wanted 2 hits as well, but that group was also very varying in how it should be implemented (eg. crit hits, crippled, etc).
So, it is up to you as document holder in what you do, just take these considerations as friendly advice. :)
-
For what it's worth, no one working on this project is a puritan. As has been stated several times previously is that zealots fervent enough to be against these changes are the kind that are not going to use any "non-official" ruleset, regardless of anything we change. The objective has always been to improve the game, and although this can be done in a myriad of ways, they all add up to one thing: improving the enjoyment of the game. One factor is game balance, and that is what part of what BFG:R is doing. Another is streamlining and refining existing things to be more enjoyable.
I will back up afterimagedan on this one; this project is made to improve a game, and if some people don't like those changes they are not forced to. Some people like BBB; so let's allow them to. But why would they have more influence on the project since they have no intention of actually using these rules? So called radical's are behind this project, and those that actually vote are those that want this to happen and that care to make their opinions heard about how they want this ruleset to develop.
Simply put,
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be never so vile. This day shall gentle his condition. And gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
afterimagedan is my metaphorical brother here, and I will stand by him to see this done. If there is a a small sidebar added to the 2-hit escorts, it should be to say that they can be run as 1-hit escorts at 5pts less if you and your opponent agree to make this the case for all multiple hit escorts. :D
/rant closed
-
It should be noted that in times of Port Maw, while they really didn't take unofficial rules well, there was still such thing as official rules. Now not so much - rules we have on GW site, which are closest to 'official' that we have, are not even complete, lacking even rules for some ships with models still in sale. So, well, every owner of, for instance, Flame of Asuryan, has to use unofficial rules of some sort. This might change some people's perspective.
Second of all, as other folks said: people against unofficial rules will not use them. So we don't have to take them into account when deciding precise nature of our unofficial rules - they're not for them. Here, for example, there's a strong crowd refusing evento use faq 2010. It's not on GW's site, You can't use it. Simple as that [i did love trolling them with exploiting obvious unfaqed loopholes faq 2010 resolved, though ;)] Folks who would consider playing BFG:R would usually accept anything that makes the game better and/or more interesting. It's done for them.
Yeah, sidebar letting using 2 hit escorts as 1 hit for 5 points less might be the best option, as long as both sides agree to it. I like them, though. They give nice middle ground between escort and 4 hit light cruisers some fleets have.
-
Should I put up a vote to finalize the Tau document?
-
Do it up, Dan my Man. Let's hook line and sink this!
One small question: Is the castellan really worth 45pts? I was comparing it to the Falchion and this is what I came up with:
-It has +1 torpedo
-It has 1 less battery
-It's batteries have greater range
Is that really worth a 10pts increase? Seems like it would only be a 5pts increase.
Or compared to a 40pts Infidel:
-It has greater battery range
-It has 5cm less speed
-It has less torpedo options
At 40pts it would fit nicely into the escorts points wise as well; the orcas and wardens at the cheap and efficient end of the spectrum (at 25pts-ish) and the 50pts defender as a much bigger and heavily armed/armored heavy escort. The 40pts castellan just seems to fit right in the middle, in my eyes at least.
I know with the current fleet lists the two tau fleets can be mixed pretty liberally, which makes the castellan seem even a little more out of place at 45pts.
Am I the only one who feels this way? If so I will stop bothering everybody, but if someone feels the same way please speak up. I would hate to have this ignored and then swept under the rug when we close the document.
-
TYPE /HITS SPEED TURNS SHIELDS ARMOR TURRETS
Escort/1 25cm 90° 1 5+ 2
ARMANENT RANGE FIREPOWER/STRENGTH FIRE ARC
Prow Railgun Battery 45cm 2 Left/ Front/ Right
Prow Gravitic Launcher Speed: 20-40cm 2 Front
so how does this compare to the Imp and Chaos basics?
Sword: +10 points, +15cm range/ -2 weaps, +2 torps (+Tau)
Infidel: +5 points, +15cm range, +Tau torps/ - boarding torps, -5cm speed
so vs the Sword we have better range on the weapons and torpedoes (which are typically better than batteries) and theyre further boosted by their Tau characteristics. +10 points seems perfectly reasonable.
and vs the Infidel we have the same better range and the Tau torps (a loss of boarding torpedoes yes but losing a crap option isnt really a loss) and a loss of 5cm speed. Once again you gain a measurable increase in the weapons output (about the same as vs the Sword) but with a loss in speed. +5 pts seems reasonable once again.
I think 45 sounds fine, dropping the 45cm range and 5 pts would be ok.
-
Sword is an odd comparison because it is a much more efficient vessel than the castellan, point for point. Infidel is a bit more lop sided admittedly, although saying that tau torpedoes are 100% than IN is absolute crap. The shrinking factor has come into play multiple times in games I have played, rendering crippling torpedo salvos into mere annoyances.
Second, if also competes against the new defender. Give me 9 defenders versus 10 castellan's and you would have a one sided slaughter ::) ;) And the defender's would feast on the corpses of the more "advanced" ships.
The defender outguns it and is significantly harder to kill....for 5 points. True it does have it's advantages, but nothing comparable to the huge firepower and resilience that the defender gains. For 5pts. And the castellan is much more reliant on SO than it's brother. Miss an SO and that castellan is pegging away with its puny batteries. Miss an SO and your defender still has the battery output comparable to a lunar cruiser.
To compound that, they are both available without restrictions in the same fleet lists.
It's good that the defender will see more play; it's just a shame it went from being pretty bad to quite good whilst the castellan is mired in mediocrity, in comparison if nowhere else. Maybe I can find some defenders on ebay...
-
I do think 45pts doesnt seem right. The 40pts at 30cm looks like a good idea.
-
I retract my statement. Castellan is good at 45. It has more speed, double the turning radius, extra range, another tau torpedo(which is a big deal), and 5 pts less. Drawbacks are 1 hit instead of 2 and 3 less batteries.
Talos, I will take you up on that battle. You will not be able to dodge the torpedoes I am putting out and I will be hitting you with my batteries first, guaranteed. Yes, you have double the hits and those batteries will hurt, but taking that firs strike of the castellan weapons will reduce your chances.
-
Putting up then vote to close the Tau document.
-
@afterimagedan Tau torpedoes are no more accurate than IN ones for damage output, and the defenders 1 torpedo will pop those 2 torpedo volleys as easy as they would a strength 9 retribution volley ;D And a quick mathhammer would put 20 str battery with range penalty at...well, not very dangerous at all. Even if you lost half of your defenders to that one battery strike (unlikely at best) your lock on return fire would gut them like fish on a spear gun. LO 25 battery, probably with range bonus, will destroy far more 1 hit escorts than the penalized 20 str one. That is matthammer though, and if reality has taught me anything it's not to trust numbers. They lie and they cheat... ::)
Honestly, to me the castellan is like 42pts, but since we can't do that it may as well stay I suppose. Especially if both 'Dan and 'Chris are so god-damned adamant about it, cursed american stubborness... ;)
Also, those be fighting words, Dan. If you ever find yourself in my neck of the woods, I might make you eat those words. Either it way it would be fun to meet and play with you guys... :D
-
It would only be penalized assuming I have to shoot you at long range. With my faster speed, I may be able to rig it so that I get the first shot at normal range. And yes, them's faat'n wurdz. What is castellans went to wb3?
-
Castellan with 45cm is unique plus it benefits a lot from tracking range (offense & defence).
45pts is okay.
The little ship has a striking range of 70cm with railguns and 65cm with missiles. An Infidel only has a striking range of 60cm with both weapons. A Falchion even less.
-
@afterimagedan If castellan's were weapon battery 3 I would stop complaining forever. Come visit your northern neighbors for a trouncing some time, eh?
@horizon Very much agreed about the tracking range very much benefiting the castellan, but that (should) have no effect on it's pricing, as it is not a intrinsic part of the vessel.
I'm not (despite any underlying bitterness :D) saying that the castellan is absolute garbage; just that the defender is now really good whereas the castellan is only mediocre to okay. And both are available freely in the same fleet without restriction.
Somewhat like the styx thing; people ran it at 290pts or whatever it was, but it was a much better vessel and was radically improved by a price drop to 260pts. I feel like the castellan could really benefit from this treatment as well. Or, as dan suggested, a 1 point battery increase.
-
The problem isn't the 45pts Castellan but it is how the Defender at 2 hits ( :/ ) will handle in games.
Otherwise the Defender is the close combat brawler and the Castellan the agile sniper. Two unique escorts with good concepts.
-
@ horizon Again we are in 100% agreement, and at 1hit 45pts each there would be no competition. They would just be different themes. I am pro 2 hit escorts, but in this particular scenario it really makes the castellan seem like the lesser option, because it can actually take the hit to close, making it more versatile overall. Still, we shall see. Tau lists tend not to be tight point wise, so maybe the 15pts/ 3 escort squadron won't affect list building much anyway.