PDA

View Full Version : ForgeWorld Tau...bfg



Darwin_green
30-08-2006, 17:43
I came to the stunning conclusion that the FW tau cost about the same as the crappy pewter ones.

prices converted to USD using an online currency converter.
explorer(Secialist games)- $28.55
custodian(ForgeWorld)- $30.40

hero- $22
Protector-$30.40 for TWO models

Merchent- $19.8
Emmisary- $22 for two models

messenger/defender-$4.75
castelian- $11.42 for Four models

orca- $3.80
Warden- $11.42 for four models

it's just the price comparison is just crazy... for once it may be cheaper to go Forgeworld than the normal thing. But most importantly... the forgeworld models are beautiful.

DarkWarrior1981
30-08-2006, 18:17
I came to the stunning conclusion that the FW tau cost about the same as the crappy pewter ones.

prices converted to USD using an online currency converter.
explorer(Secialist games)- $28.55
custodian(ForgeWorld)- $30.40

hero- $22
Protector-$30.40 for TWO models

Merchent- $19.8
Emmisary- $22 for two models

messenger/defender-$4.75
castelian- $11.42 for Four models

orca- $3.80
Warden- $11.42 for four models

it's just the price comparison is just crazy... for once it may be cheaper to go Forgeworld than the normal thing. But most importantly... the forgeworld models are beautiful.
Castellans are only three per pack.;)

Furthermore the SG models are much larger then the FW counterparts. For exampel, the SG Defender has roughly the same mass (length and width) as the FW Protector or Emmisary.

Anyway, you're right concerning the prices and yes, they are beautiful!:cool:

cookiescrumble
30-08-2006, 20:37
Yeah, i'll be getting them this weekend.

Agamemnon2
30-08-2006, 21:12
The same is true for other Specialist Games as well. Metal Epic models are sometimes more expensive than resin ones. IIRC, Warhound titans, Leman Russes and Baneblades are all cheaper in resin.

Senbei
03-09-2006, 19:49
Resin SoB Exorcist is also cheaper than the plastic one... Though they'll probably send you the marine Rhino so you have to order some doors too...... out of spite )_)

Zephro
10-09-2006, 21:01
Really? I've wanted to pick up a Tau Fleet but assumed the FW ones were a rip off and the GW ones are amazingly ugly. Like they watched Babylon 5 and some how stripped the grace out of them.

Shasolenzabi
18-09-2006, 10:16
[[[ The Forgeworld Models are so much more gracefull, and nicer looking!

mark_logue
25-09-2006, 12:20
Some of FW models are really good value. The tau fleet looks really good painted up and the list for the FW models are up on specialist games now. Its different to the normal Tau list using the pewter ships.

Yarick Zan
25-09-2006, 12:22
i think the FW ones look more like what the tau would do. if i start playing BFG thats where im going to get them.

Zhai Morenn
27-09-2006, 23:47
You all have no idea how thrilled I am to find an active BFG Forum hehe, among other things. And I agree- the Tau Forgeworld fleet is both more beautiful and affordable than the SG series of tau ships. I also play Eldar but I thought Id give a race with shields a try and the Tau just appeal to me.

Shinnentai
28-09-2006, 00:40
Active BFG forum? Surely the Specialist Games forum is fairly active on the BFG front?

Good to see so many potential Tau players here! In case you guys haven't seen it, you may want to check out the fan-created fleet list here :

http://www.beerbadger.force9.co.uk/Shinnentai/GW/TauCPFarticle.pdf

As Mark says, FW have finally put their own rules up for download, and by all accounts these are to become official (they won't be changing the ship rules or points costs either since they were published in IA3 and hence are apparently set in stone), but you can always use the fan-rules in friendly games and I'd hope the article would be of interest even if you don't like the rules themselves. Speaking of which, any feedback would be greatly appreciated since the list is very much still in development.

Zhai Morenn
28-09-2006, 03:28
Well my old account on the SG forum went inactive and theres been difficulty in getting it reactivated. That aside, it's great to be here.

Also I love the rules on that article you posted, Shinnentai, and I can hardly wait to give those a spin in a campaign but I would like some clarity on one thing- I havent bought the Imperial Armour III book and havent seen anything except the downloadable stats for the new forgeworld ships- were the stats in this list the ones in Armour III or ones of your own making? Im just asking b/c Ive been kinda confused for a while- like the downloaded rules mention nothing about Emissaries carrying wardens while on the FW website it mentions that the Emissaries can carry a pair each. I really hope these rules of yours are the case b/c these stats are sweet.

Shinnentai
28-09-2006, 08:10
Yeah I think they've maybe tightened up the activation procedure to discourage spammers registering.

Cheers for the positive feedback on the rules, although I think they're maybe a tad powerful at the moment and in need of tweaking. We're looking at raising the points cost of the Custodian a bit to counter this. We're also discussing altering the Protector's direct fire armament a bit to give it more weapons batteries and less lances to try to match the model more closely. I also think that too many lances on a cruiser is a bad thing since it discourages the player from trying to manouver it into a better firing position ( since lances are equally destructive no matter what the target's direction of movement is ).

The Forgeworld rules are in the link below, and are identical to the ones in IA3 - just with an added fleet list :

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/downloadsgothic.htm

I personally find them pretty mediocre and ill-thought out, and the presentation leaves a bit to be desired :rolleyes:. They've dropped the option for the Emissary to carry Wardens which seems a bit weird, the Warden itself is pretty much just a more expensive Orca, the Castellan gains 90 turns over the Defender for just 5 points (making the Defender obsolete) and the Emissary is a 130pt ship that's crippled after 3 hits. More than anything, there just seems to be a lack of ideas here. Still, I think some players will prefer these rules since they take a very relaxed attitude to fleet selection and the Custodian packs 8 launch bays.

Zhai Morenn
28-09-2006, 08:47
Hmmm yah. I really like your rules for the Emissary and Warden. I think the FW rules for the Emissary and Protector need tweaking, esp since the Protector has almost no side arc firepower, though I do like the idea of using them as Ion snipers. As for the Emissaries.... just bleh, they lack the manuverability of all other light cruisers. Another big issue Ive got with it is that theres like no means of bringing wardens into the fight. Unless you bring two Custodians you will only have 3x wardens to a fleet. (Btw I really like how you explained the new designs having better warp drives and hence making them offensive vessels in the background of your rules list)

Im thinking that if I were to build a fleet list from the FW rules I would definitely include a hero to work in concert with my protectors- either more Ion power at med range or mass weapon batteries fire. Though in truth a real strength in the FW rules is that nearly every ship carries missiles. I tried a small 600 point cruiser duel against an Imp bud of mine and I found out that you can spread your cruisers apart and have their missiles cross paths to hit the weaker armor of a Imps flank. *shrug* the FW rules seem very reliant upon mass ordinance while I like your rules because the ships dont become useless after ordinance runs out. Then again I guess its a handy idea to invest in rerolls.

My projected fleet list (if I were to operate under FW rules) is as follows- Id love any opinions

2x Protectors -380 pts
1x Hero -180 pts
1x Custodian -310 pts
3x Wardens -90 pts
2x Messengers-100 pts
8x Wardens -400 pts
Aun'el for +1 reroll 25 pts
(If I were to fight a high armor enemy like space marines Id prolly ditch the hero and grab another protector so I can snipe at them without having to get in range of those scary bombardment cannons)

That leaves me at a total of 1485 pts total, Another alternative if I want to give up a ton of good missile platforms is I could ditch the 8 wardens in favor of another Custodian and 3x wardens- I lose the missiles, but gain a really nice base for spitting out waves of bombers and a squadron of 6 lance armed nasties in the wardens- *shrug* sometimes It can be such a chore bringing the Greater Good to the lesser races (no offence meant to Eldar- they still be some of my favs too lol)

Shinnentai
28-09-2006, 16:11
Well, using the experimental ordnance rules that were brought in a few years ago, ordnance no longer runs out on doubles, although the maximum amount of attack craft you can have on the table at any one time is limited to the number of launch bays in your fleet. Check them out in the errata file here :

http://www.specialist-games.com/battlefleetgothic/faq.asp

They're only optional since they're experimental of course, but I would very much imagine that they're going to be introduced as official rules in the new printed edition of BFG - so best to get used to them now :).

Obviously you mean Castellans when you're talking about the 8 Wardens. To be honest I'd be a bit wary of a 50pt escort - sure it has good armament but it is just as easy to kill as a 35pt Sword, and to get value out of it you can't have it just hanging back firing off missiles since then its gunnery goes to waste. Still, play it clever and get a squadron round the flank of the enemy without drawing too much attention and these are great in the closing stages of the game once the fleets have intermingled. I'd probably take 4 and invest in another capital ship - 8 is just too noticable even if you split them 4 to a flank.

The Hero is certainly a good choice - it's massively undercosted at 180pts. You do however have to field either a Merchant or Explorer to field one - I'd go for Explorer since the Merchant is a pretty poor ship.

Zhai Morenn
28-09-2006, 21:51
lol woops yah- meant Castellans not Wardens.

And yah, Id gladly give up a 4 or 5 castellans and grab another 8 bay carrier. In any case I imagine that the Castellans would be pretty respectable escort killers since they can fire off a strong missile salvo that can follow and intercept a squadron of escorts. A 200 pt flight of Castellans will fire off a str 8 salvo of missiles and if it reaches say, an equivelantly sized squadron of swords (5-6 of them) there's going to likely be casualties less they brace or go for close formation turret saves. I guess the 50 point cost isn't nearly as troubling to me since Im used to seeing that kinda point cost on my edlar escorts- granted those have holofields and normally superior quality of weaponry (apart from perhaps the torps) but yah- I see what you mean.
Another capital ship would prolly serve better in any case- hehe that Explorer we were talking about for instance. I will be completely honest in that my Eldar fleets tend to be mostly escorts with only a few cruisers and very very occasionally a battleship present so if I seem to be trying to play a non-eldar force in a rather newbish or Eldar way pls tell me what would work better hehe.

Oh yes, one more question- does it make sense to anyone else that Tau missiles, being drone guided, would know not to target other friendly tau ships? Just a thought but since the Tau are good with AIs I'd imagine that tau missiles wouldn't activate when coming into base contact with a friendly- granted I know you could turn either the friendly ship or the missiles to avoid it but Im imagining a phalanx type of set up with frailer missile boats behind hardier cruisers. Just a thought.

Shinnentai
29-09-2006, 01:19
Yeah that's come up a few times before. I would justify it by presuming that the Tau didn't want to rely upon an IFF system that would be able to be used against them by their enemies.

From a game point of view, having Tau missiles able to ignore friendly targets would just make it too easy for the Tau player to set up the kind of formation that you describe, whereas at the moment they must be clever in how their ships are set up and manoeuvered - one of the main things that makes BFG a wargame and 40k an exercise in dice-rolling ;) .

Zhai Morenn
29-09-2006, 02:07
lol true on both points. I guess it shall simply have to suffice to develop my own formations to create missile crossfire zones for my enemies :-) . Another thought I had, what do you think about using the Emissary as a means of clearing ordinance for larger ships in the fleet? I mean its a passable gunship (though I still dont get why half the batteries dont get the extended range that all other tau caps get) and one can use the missiles to actually intercept enemy interceptors (since they have to engage the first ordinance marker they come across) and the fighters it deploys could go for bombers or more interceptors. A pair of Emissaries can clear away 10 interceptor squadrons like that in one go an leave the way open for missiles and mantas from protectors and the like.

Shinnentai
29-09-2006, 08:09
A pair of Emissaries can clear away 10 interceptor squadrons like that in one go an leave the way open for missiles and mantas from protectors and the like.
Well it would only be 6, since you can't split up missile salvoes, and when a missile salvo comes into contact with an enemy fighter marker, the entire salvo is removed. But sure, with its two fighter only launch bays, the Emissary is a strong anti-ordnance asset. I do usually use my launch bays for fighters to clear the way for missiles in the early stages of the game.

Zhai Morenn
29-09-2006, 08:51
In the Gothic Rules Book it says under fighters intercepting ordinance markers "Remove both defending and attacking markers from play" I had always thought that meant that markers cancelled one another out at a 1 for 1 ratio, seeing as it doesnt make sense that potentially a single squadron could intercept say, a strength 18 missile salvo (lets say hypothetically from like 3 heros). Its kinda counter productive then to squadron torpedo ships together for combined torp salvos- and I know that theres the issue of smaller salvos having trouble getting past turrets but still. Then again it could just be a case of me and my buds that I play with normally misenterpreting the rules.

Anyhow, all of that aside, your custom rules and fleet list- are you still developing it or is it a finished project? It seems that you are moving more away from tau missiles and ordinance and more towards heartier gunships (excepting the Emissary- even though thats really a means to bring 2 more Wardens which under your rules are amazing gunships)- I know that the end goal is a more mobile fleet for convoy protection and hit and fade raids against imperial assets but one thing Im curious about is what is your objective for fleet dynamics? With the ability to carry more Wardens into battle it feels like we're looking at a few capital ships being supported heavily by very nasty escort gunships.

The Protector has always seemed heavily gunned in the forward arc- even more so now under the Quath'Fannor Kor'Vattra fleet list and rules- granted it has less hits than an average cruiser but has more than enough firepower to obliterate just about any cruiser it can get into its forward arc within 30 cm. That an aim for a kinda berserker fighting style? less concern for durability in exchange for firepower? (Not trying to make it sound orkish or anything) Ofcourse the 6+ prow deflector armor is handy but in the end it just makes a brutal cruiser in 1v1 ship encounters and even deadlier in groups. I will have to playtest the rules for it and see if its overgunned- in the FW rules I always assumed that the ship's ions were an advanced and new design which accounted for why they had to be fixed in the forward arc and had better range.

Anyhow those are my current round of thoughts humbly presented, (Im really enjoying discussion on this topic)

Zhai Morenn
29-09-2006, 08:55
I hereby put my foot into my mouth on the statement on the protector- thats really akin to the firepower that a standard hero can lay down in ion config. So its not the overall firepower that had me thinking, I guess it was the swapping 2 range 45 cm ICs for 4 range 30 ICs- I mean if we want that firepower why not just grab a Hero? I like the wide fire arcs you have on it, but Id just as soon have the longer range variant and let my hero ships handle the massive IC power in med ranges.

Shinnentai
29-09-2006, 13:57
In the Gothic Rules Book it says under fighters intercepting ordinance markers "Remove both defending and attacking markers from play" I had always thought that meant that markers cancelled one another out at a 1 for 1 ratio, seeing as it doesnt make sense that potentially a single squadron could intercept say, a strength 18 missile salvo (lets say hypothetically from like 3 heros). Its kinda counter productive then to squadron torpedo ships together for combined torp salvos- and I know that theres the issue of smaller salvos having trouble getting past turrets but still. Then again it could just be a case of me and my buds that I play with normally misenterpreting the rules.
Yes I'm afraid you've been playing it wrong - but you're in good company! This has come up a number of times on the Specialist Games website and the Answer Mods agree that a single fighter marker takes down the entire torp salvo. The crux of the matter is that torpedo salvoes are counted as single ordnance markers (no matter how many physical bits of card go into making the salvo) whereas waves of attack craft are counted as a individual ordnance markers that just happen to be in a single formation. This differentiation between torp salvoes and attack craft waves is subtle as written in the rulebook, but it is there.

This makes it quite important to clear defending fighters away with your own fighters or smaller missile salvoes to make a path for the larger ones. Such mammoth 18 strong missile salvoes as you describe are still useful, but only really within 40cm where you can strike your target in the turn of launch - a technique often referred to as 'shotgunning' :D.


Anyhow, all of that aside, your custom rules and fleet list- are you still developing it or is it a finished project? It seems that you are moving more away from tau missiles and ordinance and more towards heartier gunships
Still very much in development. I'd certainly say there's been a move away from ordnance and towards direct gunnery. This was somewhat of a conscious decision to provide a character and playing style that was distinct from the existing Tau fleet. This extended down to the individual ships - since there's no point having two slightly different ships in each range. Players would just pick the slightly better one and the other would be made obsolete. This is why the Castellans and Protectors have more gunnery and less ordnance than the corresponding Defenders and Heroes. Plus we felt it fitted the weapons sculpted on the models slightly better - if you look at them there's a lot of hefty guns and the missile tubes are a fairly small detail.

Still, with every combat ship in the CPF bar the Wardens mounting gravitic launchers, they still have parity (or even an advantage) in terms of missiles. Another interesting difference there is that the CPF will have more but weaker salvoes, reducing the need for supporting figher squadrons - the single strength missiles of the Castellans are great for tactically knocking out fighters :) .


With the ability to carry more Wardens into battle it feels like we're looking at a few capital ships being supported heavily by very nasty escort gunships.
The Wardens are certainly a fun and very aggressive aspect of the fleet, however it's important to remember that they only have an extra 20% of the firepower of the Orca, and that they're costing you around 40 points each since 10pts is included in the carrying vessel's cost. They're also the only combat ship in the fleet with a 5+ prow, making them prime targets to be destroyed before they can even fire (I actually proposed this be reduced to 4+ to emphasise this powerful but fragile theme still further but I don't think that idea was too popular so I dropped it). Finally, don't forget that the Emissary can replace its grav-hooks with 2 Ion Cannon which turns it into a very capable light cruiser.

On the Protector, it does have 2 more weapons batteries than the Hero and benefits from the tracking systems, but sacrifices hit-points and ordnance. We're actually considering changing the gunnery at the moment to make it more Railgun based and less Ion Cannon : 8RG@45cm(F), 1IC + 2RG@30cm(FL), 1IC + 2RG@30cm(FR).

This would give the same weight of firepower, but encourage the Tau player to cleverly manoeuvre the ship to get a better firing aspect. With most of its armament in Ion Cannon, there's little need to worry about this at the moment since they are equally effective whichever way the target faces. Since BFG is primarily a game of manoeuvre, this really diminishes the game I feel. The new configuration would also match the model a lot better than the current one which was always a compromise since we couldnt agree on it! (at the moment all those guns on the leading edges of the wings and prow are represented by just 2 Ion Cannon, whilst the tiny turrets on the wings generate 6 weapons batteries at 45cm! :wtf:)

I'm also enjoying this discussion. As you can probably tell, I could talk for a long time about the CPF! ( There's at least 6, 10+ page long development threads on the Specialist Games forum to prove my point! :rolleyes: ).

Zhai Morenn
29-09-2006, 19:42
I like the idea of combinging the presense of tracking systems on board with the railgun batteries. Heh, when I first saw the stats from the FW rules I thought that the 2 big guns on the wings near the drives were the IC and the smaller guns the batteries. Anyhoo, yah- the gunnery fleet definitely has a more aggressive and having become used to playing Eldar aggressive is my pref for fighting. Have ya given thought to keeping the FW configuration of IC for the Protector though? Broad arcs or no I think thats kinda indicative of the advanced and aggressive design behind the Protector- hitting the Imps and hitting them hard before all but their largest ships are in range.

Zhai Morenn
29-09-2006, 20:36
I just had a thought (uh oh) and had to ideas to throw out at ya- I was reading the GW forum threads regarding Tau and the CPF and had two thoughts, one regarding the idea of a Tau specific weapons system, like how the IN has the nova cannon, orks their 'eavy gunz and so forth. I like the idea of the cruise missile wep, but as an alternative (I dont particularly favor one over the other but just a line of reason I had) it could still be ordinance but more akin to some kinda super bomber- either something fast or stealthy or both. I was just thinking on that along the lines of that Mantas are really some of the most adaptable and multi-use vehicles in all of 40k. They are heavy troop drop ships, bombers for fleet actions and really the tau equivelant to a Titan, so why not have some kinda prototype (like Shadowsun's armor) Manta designed to penetrate deep into enemy formations and pick out a specific target? We could have a D6 attacks thats not savable by turrets, representing the speedy and unexpected nature of the strike- or it could denote that this particular Manta is using some kinda electronic warfare disruption to throw the ships turrets off, like decoy pods or something new- perhaps deploying its normal payload in addition to something akin to chaff or a system thats designed to launch many weak warheads that mimic the sensor readings and look of the heavier hitting weps.

The second thought came about as I was recalling the Firewarrior story line and reading the proposed rules on Gue'Vesa extras acting in the specific function as kill-teams. A fun idea for a scenario could be to have an Emissary (since they seem to be able to use Orca dropships but not the larger and heartier Mantas) be something like a designated Gue'Vesa kill-team ship. You could use this in a modified assualt scenario only this way it lends itself to smaller fleet actions. Say perhaps the Kill team is after a specific enemy or an artifact or whatever really- the defender isn't expecting a large fleet action, and the tau only bring a few ships so its a smaller faster game and the Tau wins if they can get the Emissary into low orbit for perhaps 2 successive turns or whatever seems balanced. This could be a fun way to add a small side story onto a campaign. It could be a rescue mission, an assassination, recon, or perhaps an attempt to contact friendly non-Tau elements upon the planet. Just another thought for a use for the Emissary hehe.

Shinnentai
30-09-2006, 16:12
Well, I'd say that there is already a pretty Tau specific weapons system in the form of the Gravitic launcher :cool: . It seems to me that a lot of fan-based rules fall into the trap of getting so immersed in the background detail that they end up with special rules all over the place - much to the derision of the wider gaming community who think they're just a bunch of [insert race here] fanboys :rolleyes:. I believe that the fewer special rules, the better, so I was keen to avoid them as much as possible.

This may not be apparent from the CPF list of course since it adds three new fleet-wide specials. However, these mainly came about as a compromise between those concerned with not making the original Tau fleet obsolete and those that wanted to represent the advanced nature of the ships. They're also fairly low-key affairs that don't impact too much on the game - just adding a little necessary flavour.

I quite like the idea of 45cm Ion Cannon on the Protector. This could be incorporated into the cost by dropping the prow Railguns to 6, so you could have 6RG@45cm(F), 1IC@45cm(FL) + 2RG@30cm(FL),1IC@45cm(FR) + 2RG@30cm(FR) plus the ordnance of course. I've suggested it on the Specialist Games forum to see what others think.

Not so sure about an Emissary being used to drop off a kill team. These things are 1.5km long! If you scaled an Emissary up to Epic size you would have a model about 12 foot square. Imagining it being used to deploy two stands of epic infantry feels a little insignificant for it.

Still, the idea's a good one - just swap out the kill team for a small raiding force made up of a few cadres. You could have the defender initially have his ships on laid out patrol routes or standing at anchor, until a Tau ship gets within a certain distance of them (or fires weaponry!).

This would make a great cross-over between BFG and 40k/Epic games too. I like this kind of low-intensity warfare - the Tau forces would be perhaps just an Emissary and Castellans/Wardens while the Defenders could have System craft, escorts, armed freighters, a defense platform and a light cruiser - with everything but the patrolling System craft inactive until the Tau are detected.

Zhai Morenn
01-10-2006, 00:12
Yeah, I really like the cross-over sort of scenarios hehe. And the initial size of the Tau ground force being about the size of a kill team or 2 was initially based on the fact that in the Firewarrior book Khas (the main char Firewarrior) only had 2 dropships worth of firewarriors come down with him- but then I remembered that the main char's force was really just a distractive force and that the main bulk of the tau forces were used elsewhere- so yeah, a smaller raid sounds more in fitting with the capabilities of an Emissary. Combine that little bit of forgetfullness with the fact that I had been reading on the Gue'Vesa and such. oh well. Though now that I think about it, the Tau may try to sneak some Gue'Vesa onto a human held world to kinda sow the seeds of dissent and start giving the Gue'la there a more receptive view of the Greater Good. Or perhaps the Tau would be seeding Gue'Vesa insurgents along a string of Imperium controlled worlds in a system. It could make an interesting side objective for a 40k/epic game- sneak x amount of Gue'Vesa onto the planet under the cover of a Tau raid force. Then again it doesn't have to be Gue'Vesa, it could be an Etherial and some bodyguards along with the Gue'Vesa (who would prolly be needed to break down local xenophobia before letting the Aun take control of things). Kinda a hidden preacher of the Greater Good sort of thing.

And as to the longer ranged Protector- its really not too dissimilar to the FW downloadable rules for it- only difference being that the IC only have front arc (though I always thought they should each get a side arc too) and the RG were 2RG@45cm(F), 2RG@45cm(F,L), 2RG@45cm(F,R) which I never minded aside the fact I thought the forward rail should cover front and side arcs- but if it came down to choosing your long range config or FWs Id take the one you have there.

Also, I really like the ideas/details ya have in mind for the BFG side of the scenario- set patrol routes till the tau approach within certain range or attack / having them be on standby till Tau action X is a great idea, it emphasizes the unexpected nature of the Tau incursion. Hehe, I got the image of the fleet suddenly realizing somethings wrong when a few salvos of Tau missiles show up on their augurs.