Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?  Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 3:56 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
| Quote (Honda @ 13 Nov. 2005 (05:01)) | | So if people have heartburn over the deflector, should that be dropped as the Scorpionfish don't have it either? I'd be more interested in keeping the weapons loadout and cost down vs. a bigger more expensive HQ. |
I agree with Honda's statement.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:12 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
v4.1 Dragonfish Removals
1. Already Removed - Extra Supreme Commander
2. Removal Proposal - ion cannon 60cm AP4+/AT4+/AA6+
3. Removal Proposal - Tau Deflector Shield
Now, considering the above removals... Red are the new proposals:
Dragon Fish - Tau WIP v4.2.4 Proposal
Weapons ? ?Range ? ?FirePower ? ?Notes
2x Twin-linked Burst Cannons ?15cm AP4+ ?-
Tracer Missiles ?75cm ?MW6+ Guided Missiles
Submunitions Missiles ?75cm ?2x AP5+ ?Guided Missiles, Ignore Cover
Hunter Missiles ?75cm ?AT6+/AA6+ ?Guided Missiles
Damage Capacity 3, Critical Hit Effect: The Communications Array is severed and the Dragonfish loses the Supreme Commander ability for the rest of the game. Further critical hits cause no further effect.
Notes: Skimmer, Reinforced Armour, Supreme Commander
Is this what we are thinking gentlemen?
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:37 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
Still for 200 points? Similar to a Baneblade, with SC thrown in?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:20 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Yeah, but we get into the cross list comparison and many will challenge that logic - however, I'm game...
Now first, show me a top E:A IG player that thinks the baneblade is worth 200 points a model when he can get 3 leman russ for 200 that have an aggregate of
3 hits with 4+ Reinforce Armor
3x battlecannon 75cm AT4+/AP4+
3x lascannon 45cm AT5+
6x sponson bolters 30cm ap 5+
or a warhound for 250, a shadowsword co for 200 a model, or a manticore battery for 250... heh, and a commissar in any one of the formations on top of that - which is a power weapon bump, combat resolution bump, and blasmarker removal bump
In my area, most IG players consider the baneblade as written worth about 100 - 125 points. BTW: nobody fields them either as written. Shadowswords at 200 / model are a far better choice.
So if the dragonfish is comparable to a baneblade with commissar without the SC, then adding the SC is probably close to accurate if you figure the way the baneblade should be pointed out to the folks in my area. PS - many characters offer more than just SC for that +100 points.
That +100 usually comes with close combat upgrades, leader, inspiring, commander or something as well as a nasty FF or CC attack - and in some cases - a nasty weapon shot possibly too.
As the dragonfish is 0-1 effectively, if it gives us slightly more than the average 200 point model due to being our SC, that's not unprecidented or even out of line.
It would not be out of the Tau's nature to have 'shootier' bonus to their SC superheavy.
Now - all this said, it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other.  I was just playing devil's advocate with you.
You guys make the call. If people aren't happy with the Dragonfish as is, and the ion-cannon doesn't make sense, then let me know what you guys want to see...
I tried to suggest what I thought was what you guys were after.
I've outlined what I heard on this topic and why I made the suggestion I did. More discussion and some eventual playtest will allow us to playtest this thing out.
I'm just looking for a good starting point we are all happy with. Maybe that's the proposed, maybe that's the way it is in the list. Maybe that's something else all together.
I encourage playtest as it is and we can go from there but many have voiced concerns about the desire to take the unit - so if nobody wants to field it, there's already a problem... but that's your guys call.
We'll see who else weighs in on the proposed or these further comments and go from there. In the meantime Cw, what do YOU propose? 
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:23 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
For the record, whatever is done with the dragonfish weapon load-out, i do think it needs to be an even point swap for the scorpionfish/narwhal unit. No reason to make the points go up.
I am in favor of the 0-1 dragonfish command vehicle delivering a little more bang for the buck as is seen in many other SC models/upgrades. We don't have a MW cc or FF attack to give to our SC, but extra battlefield shooting we can afford if desired IMHO.
Looking forward to getting this unit worked out to something to playtest.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
I think the weapon load out is fine and the cost is workable. I think we have a good starting point for play test.
I would ask Clausewitz to keep in mind that the Baneblade/Leman option shoots on 4+ and in order for the DrF to accomplish those numbers, ML must be in place, so additional coordination is required.
Something else we need to ensure is its delivered benefits at various points levels. I expect that the DrF will really start to add value at 2700+ and above. At lower levels it might be a kind of push. I'm still looking to put one in my 1500 list for tomorrow.
I will try the new loadout either tomorrow or on the 26th against 2700 points of bugs.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:29 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
Tactica,
That +100 usually comes with close combat upgrades, leader, inspiring, commander or something as well as a nasty FF or CC attack - and in some cases - a nasty weapon shot possibly too. |
Supreme Commander ability includes leader IIRC. Agreed most SC have an extra CC attack, often a MW. Which SC adds inspiring?
I won't argue the merits of the Baneblade. Clearly you don't value it, and I only picked the Baneblade as a comparison as it had several qualities in common with the Dragonfish.
So instead I will go back to a previous comparison: Dragonfish versus Crisis Shas'o. 38 points more for the Dragonfish, more DC, better armour, much longer range weapons, deflector, etc. Does this seemed balanced?
Honda,
I think we need to take account of ML when costing Tau units. It is an integral part of the Tau list. I know Tactica would like to have the Tau be able to operate without the "gimmicks" of ML and co-ordinated fire, but IMO the Tau should need to make use of these abilities to perform at peak efficiency. Not doing so would be like a SM army not making use of assaults, its not in the character of the army and therefore should not be the optimum way of fighting.
Suggestions for the Dragonfish - base it on the Narwhal and cost it at 300 points. The Narwhal is 200 points and SC is 100 points. If its not good enough like that (and I dont think its far off) then add an extra weapon (similar to the CC attacks other SC get), like an extra Tracer missile (MW6+).
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:53 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
@Tactica:
I run with the given stats, but consider clausewitz Points upping. I don?t want to be called a cheater when fielding a Superheavy with SC for 200 Bucks. 
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
Suggestions for the Dragonfish - base it on the Narwhal and cost it at 300 points. The Narwhal is 200 points and SC is 100 points. If its not good enough like that (and I dont think its far off) then add an extra weapon (similar to the CC attacks other SC get), like an extra Tracer missile (MW6+).
|
Although I'd really rather not have to pay more for this unit, I see your logic. However I would point out with other SC, that the upgrade usually adds to the existing abilities of the pre-existing unit, whereas the DrF was intending to substitute abilities.
Perhaps a simpler approach would be to take the straight Scorpionfish and for 100 points give it a SC ability that includes CF. Then the weapons loadout wouldn't be an issue, it is what the original unit is + new abilities.
Then it would be easier to cost and I would feel better about paying the 300 pts. As it stands, we're not really comparing apples to apples and I think this is clouding the issue.
Your thoughts?
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 9:18 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
300 points for the Drf for comparable weapons loadout as a Narwhal/Scorpionfish works for me.
Cw makes a good argument here, I'll concede my stance.
SC is worth 100 points and sometimes delivers other bonus' whatever those may be - but Narwhal + 100 for DrFish is probably better safe than sorry and a good place to start as Honda mentions.
Steele, I'm with you - nobody wants a cheesy list, just fair and balanced (hmm... F'x news...)
You get my vote as well Cw.
Cheers for the enlightening conversation.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:29 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
@Honda:
IIRC the Tau Supreme Commander already includes Co-ordinated Fire (as normal SC gets combined assault). If we based it on the Narwhal then it could have MLs as well. If you wanted to keep the 2x Twin-linked Burst Cannons (15cm AP4+) to balance the usual MW CC attack that other SCs get. Alternately, perhaps the deflector could stay (since SCs usually have the Invulnerable Save ability)
@Tactica:
Thank you keeping an open mind. As you mention elsewhere it is worth checking all the bases, and with the level of participation we have the best ideas will get picked up. And thank you also for the interesting exchange 
Even though the formation of 1 Narwhal and 1 Dragonfish is 100 points more expensive, I think the formation is more focused with the two units having the same (or similar) weapons. So it should actually perform a bit better, whilst IMO costing the SC appropriately.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:05 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Cw,
No problem.
Your argument is compelling and in the end, the right one - regardless of what the collector's model's base cost should or shouldn't be.
I admittingly got hung up on the replacement of narwhal and thus should be the same price. Well, the narwhal was based on the orca just like the DrFish, therefore, I erroneously assumed their base value should be the same if they had the same weapons.
Well, if it has the same weapons, and we add SC, then it surely adds up to 300 points doesn't it! 
I think its more important that the 'unit' be designed in such a way that its working in a fashion that's valuable to the list and acheiving the deisred effect / role in the list. Secon, it needs to fit into whatever formation we choose (Narwhal) as a vehicle operating in a cohesive fashion with the 'formations' intended role / function in the list.
Just makes good sense. So thanks for openning my eyes on this one.
Regarding the deflector, I think it makes the unit stand out, but i don't think its necessary. I don't even think its warranted. I think the deflector fits much better on our skimming / support craft gi-normous Tau titans. Leaving it there _and only there_ makes them unique in that regard.
That's a good thing to me. 
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:19 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
Deflector = just on support craft makes sense to me.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
RedDevil
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:24 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm
Posts: 112
|
|
If SC's normally get an Inv save, then why not give the Dragonfish one instead of a deflector? (yes more crazy ideas like a my flyer that is a skimmer when landed).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it? Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:33 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
Just to let you all know, I fiddled with my 1500 list for my game tonight and went with the new 300 pt Dragonfish. I'll let you know how it goes.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
