Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?  Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:34 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (asaura @ 27 Oct. 2005 (16:52)) | |
(this is quite OT)
If you comment on my name, please get it right 
|
"Clearly you are just as stuck up as I expect Eldar to be too!" 
(Plese don't take any offense, I meant that in jest) 
OK, seriously - I apploigize for messing up your sign-on and will make an effort to correctly type your name in the future.
While on that topic: I do use my own version of shorthand from time and again when it comes to sign-on's, so not making any promises of accuracy, but will make an honest effort to remain concious of your name's spelling. 
The Eldar don't need those abilities any more than the Tau really need ML and CF to be effective. |
Agreed.
A plain Crisis-heavy airborne force with Hammerheads and Auxilia is probably quite competitive without either of those abilities. For most Tau armies, they are defining qualities.
We agree.
_________________
Rob
| Top |
|
 |
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:11 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
>>Quote
The Eldar don't need those abilities any more than the Tau really need ML and CF to be effective.
<<
Although I would agree on CF, I think I'd challenge the ML assumption. Our GM are heavily dependent on at least obtaining a ML to a target and also are greatly assisted by sustained fire.
When the Tau player can bring both of those force multipliers to bear, we get really tough. Accomplishing both of those when you need it is part of your test of generalship.
The CF ability is very interesting, however I have observed that it must be used judiciously, otherwise you might end up over committing yourself too early in the turn. So, I see CF as icing, but not the cake.
JMO
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
asaura
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:15 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
| Quote (Honda @ 27 Oct. 2005 (18:11)) | | Although I would agree on CF, I think I'd challenge the ML assumption. Our GM are heavily dependent on at least obtaining a ML to a target and also are greatly assisted by sustained fire. |
That's precisely why I presented a Crisis-heavy airborne force supported by HHs and auxilia as an example. There are very few GMs in such a list, so ML don't play a part in the overall effectiveness.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:42 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
Ok, but now you're telling me how and what to field in order to be "effective". I don't think that is what the list is supposed to do.
JMO, a list should provide "options" to allow players to adapt the army to their style. We see that in 40K (just using this for comparison). In the 40K codex, one can choose a Mech heavy list, a "Hybrid", or a Foot heavy list. Each one has it's own capabilities/drawbacks, but each is effective in it's own way.
Again, JMO, but the EA Tau list should provide a similar level of flexibility, not a structured "this is how you win with this list".
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
asaura
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:53 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
|
I seem to not understand where you're coming from. As I see it, I presented ML/GM and CF as defining Tau stuff, which are both unique to the Tau and effective tools. I then responded to something else by saying that the Tau can conceivably be effective without these two things, but usually these two things are what define the Tau.
I agree completely that an army list must allow for choice, for constructing armies around different concepts. In my opinion, the current Tau list allows for that. Examples of big choices: land- or airborne force. Emphasis on ML/GM or direct fire. If the list is any good, a large portion of players use ML/GM, but the list does not make them do it to succeed.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:09 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
So, then since you guys are arguing about other stuff, I suppose we all agree that 2xSC is a bad idea, right?
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:36 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 27 Oct. 2005 (14:43)) | |
There should not be 2 SCs in any Epic Army. SCs are supposed to represent very competent high-level commanders and personnel of that ability would not be deployed in close proximity. Even Ulthwe with lots of precognitive advisors and SMs who live and breath tactics and strategy do not have more than 1 SC on a battlefield.
It's stylistically a bad idea.
|
This comment struck home for me NH. Thanks for responding.
I wondered if 2x SC in any list was really acceptable, or if it was a no-no that all lists should avoid. An unspoken rule so-to-speak. You've made a very precise argument about the franchise and universe here IMHO. Ulthwe are supposed to have the pre-cognisance and awareness into the future, and they (although get to retain the initiative more than once to reflect their power) don't get to make two supreme commander rerolls.
Regardless of how tactically aware a Shas'o is, they are not the battle tacticians with forsight comparable to favored heros of the imperium.
Stylistically, I really have to agree with NH. I'd rather err on the side of caution here too. E:A has a strategy and initiative value, Tau are not the necon supercomputers or psychically attuned eldar. If someone was to recieve a 2 SC ability, I would expect it be one of them before us anyway.
So, Although Tau weaponry and drone tech is something to behold IMHO, I don't want to make an out of context error here with the Tau and SC as E:A SC really is reflective of a tactical influence of a commander - augmented or no, I fear this may be an area of sacred ground, and if any are to walk upon it - there are better racial candidates based upon background. The reasoning just makes perfect sense to me.
Its 'epiphanies' like this that make me happy to participate in public forums. I, for whatever reason, really hadn't given this perspective much consideration prior to NH's comments - so thanks again.
So - that brings me to the second part of NH's comments:
That said, I don't think the Dragonfish is a bad unit and I think as long as the overall army list states that it may have no more than 1 SC the Dragonfish could be included in the main list.
|
I agree. I think the idea of a protective fire platform where a shas'o could command from makes perfect sense to the Tau. Tech used for defense, speed, and weaponry - that still allows the commander to influence from. It also cators to the mech list idea that I want to explore within the tau.
I think the caveat for 1 SC available is a wise one, now.
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:35 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
I thought I'd freshen up this topic a little rather than start something new. If that's a forum faux pax, let me know.
In any case, this issue is something that has always struck me as odd, so I thought I'd see if anyone else sees it the same way.
Dragonfish, the command version of the Scorpionfish (I just can't say the N-word), loaded to the gills with comm gear, less missiles, but has an Ion Cannon. Why?
The IC seems very out of character to me.
Would there be any real objections if the IC was dropped in favor of the Hunter missiles for the same cost?
That weapon system seems more in line with a battlefield c3 and support role.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:50 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Honda,
That just makes the vehicle rely more on markers.
Considering its role and other weapon systems, its probably not a bad thing.
Marks make it have a potential to be better at AA than the ion-cannon, but the AT and AP default values go down. Again, with marks it can get AT and AP values back to ion-cannon levels.
The hunter does add 15cm range, but without marks the thing is worthless.
So the net of the change is default values reduced, heavier reliance on ML to be effective, Chance that AA could get better with marks, 15cm increase in range for the swap.
No, I actually don't see any issues with it personally.
If there's a consensus one way or the other - speak now or forever hold your peace. 
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
And to that comment, I would assume that the Tau are able to support vertical launchers (like a lot of naval craft do), so their doesn't really need to be much of a conversion at all.
Because the Orca's are so beautifully molded, I'm hesitant to fiddle with them at all, but I think I'll settle on adding some sort of vertical launcher representation behind the big sensor dome on the top.
...but I don't think that's really necessary.
JG did some pretty cool conversions, but I have neither extra Skyray turrets to sacrifice, nor was I too happy with the look of the Crisis missile pods.
Anyway, to each their own.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
