Page 1 of 1

[ 11 posts ]

Contingent Concept - Swordfish Contingent
Tactica	Post subject: Contingent Concept - Swordfish Contingent Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:30 am
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Ideas on my mind: Congingents Add: Swordfish Contingent: 2 Hammerheads + 2 Swordfish = 275, upgrades would be as hammerhead contingent (150 for stingrays, 125 for hammerheads) Thoughts? _________________ Rob
Top

Steele	Post subject: Contingent Concept - Swordfish Contingent Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:06 am
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany	Ok, this would lead to quite flexible Armoured formations for us. Allowing to a degree to specialize the Contingents. Thumbs up. Cheers! Steele _________________ Quid pro Quo
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Contingent Concept - Swordfish Contingent Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:20 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	HH+HH+Swordfish - 400 points Swordfish+HH - 400 points The Swordfish contingent had an extra Swordfish and more upgrade slots left. Why in the world would anyone ever take Hammerhead contingents when you can get more stuff for the same points from a Swordfish contingent? ==== HH Cadre - 375 HH Cont + HH - 375 Cadre has a free Swordfish/Stingray upgrade, adds contingent slots while contingent uses a slot, and the cadre has more upgrade slots left.  Since I have no recollection of EVER seeing anyone not take the upgrades on a contingent, once again, why would anyone ever take the Contingent when you get more for the price with a Cadre? ==== At this point, you might as well take the HH contingent out of the list entirely because it's not even close to internally balanced. _________________ Neal
Top

baronpiero	Post subject: Contingent Concept - Swordfish Contingent Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:52 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm Posts: 186	I'm not too sure I like the idea of grouping Swordfishs into Contingents for they are quite similar to a railgun Hammerhead right now. So if you do that, I suspect either RG Hammerhead or Swordfish will be more cost-effective and will always be taken. That's why I would tend to lean toward keeping the Swordfish 0-1 and add a special feature that could make it worthwile adding to a contingent. For Instance, I'm sure you noticed that Tau had a poor count of Leader characters. Therefore why not consider the swordfish a command Tank and add the Leader ability? There is also other possibilities, like giving it different kind of firepower. For instance, consider the swordfish is always crewed by veterans. This, combined with the high tech equipment makes it a sniper. What else?
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Contingent Concept - Swordfish Contingent Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:57 am
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	NH, Well the Cadre should be slightly better than the Contingent as a lead formation, but it also costs more and one might not have the points remaining to use that. It may be advantageous to try and work more formations in as well and go with the smaller formations. I definitely feel there is value between the Cadre and HH Contingent However, the point about the HH contingent vs the SF contingent is well met, noted, valid, and worth examining to rectify. The HH is the main battle tank of the Tau. Its a staple in contingent and cadre formation IMHO. The Stingray formation will go before either of the other two. That said, I think the Stingray formation can work - we just need to consider how each compares to one another - as NH has already pointed out. Each needs value for different reasons. First Swordfish Contingent Consideration - Remove Piranhas: I recall thinking that the pirahna's were not going to be part of this formation - but that was never discussed so I just left them in as a place to start. I'm thinking they should be removed, that way, they will only be available to the Hammerhead contingent as th first point of differentiation. Thoughts? Second Swordfish Design Consideration - Add Stingray to HH: We could also add Stingray contingent to the Hammerhead contingent to further differentiate it if necessary. That formation would have to chance to reach 9 tanks, but only if you really wanted to reduce the amount of AT potential the foramation had. However, it would be an option to further differentiate that foramtion. The Cadre would still be unique in that it would have the chance to be 9 tanks, but would be very AT oriented regardless of configuration because the formation would not have any Stingray upgrade options. Thoughts? Third Swordfish Contingent Consideration - Raise SF points in SF Contingent: Also, I counted the Swordfish at 75 points each since they were part of a formation that was to focus on them. This may have been a bad call. Perhaps its best to start them out at the 62.5+25=87.5 each value. that would take a base formation up to 300 points. So a premium is paid for an experimental formation: 2HH + 2 Sf = 2 * 87.5 + 2 * 62.5 2HH + 2 Sf = 175 + 125 2HH + 2 Sf = 300 Thoughts? Other Stuff Personally, I like the stingray contingent because it serves as a relatively small to medium sized formation of tanks that fill an AT niche roll, but its pricy to do so. I like removing the piranhas because it avoids false bolstering of the ranks in this experimental tank formation, shows the Tau encorporating the new technology into a contingent fighting roll and it keeps the focus on the Swordfish not the pirahnas and HH. I considered removing one HH out of the base formation originally, but due to the value of HH at a funny points value, that messes things up and even numbers of units work btter as a result. Also, a base 4 unit tank formation has proven to work well. I'm not really keen on adjusting the swordfish stats as its proved itself for quite some time now in its roll for its points. Right now, i'm leaning towards 1) remove pirahnas as upgrade for this formation.  + + + AND + + + 2) raise the points for the swordfish to 87.5 each. NH - good eye on this topic. At minimum, I think we need to do one of the above. LMK what you guys think. cheers, _________________ Rob
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Contingent Concept - Swordfish Contingent Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:41 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	I like the Stingray contingent both stylistically and because its primary role in providing GMs simply doesn't fit tactically with formations with a direct-fire focus.  It's the closest thing to an arty piece in the army and I think it needs to stay. My understanding was that the concept for the Swordfish was that it was a relatively rare upgunned version of the HH.  Is there sufficient background to change that concept or have I misunderstood?  I have no objection to adding it if I'm wrong or if we want to tweak the background for play-balance reasons.  However, wouldn't it be easier to just change the Swordfish upgrade to 1-2 or possibly 1-3 instead of making a whole new formation - same net effect, fewer army list entries, and keeps the "upgrade" feel to the Swordfish. I still don't understand what role you guys think Piranhas are supposed to fulfill.  I see 3 roles, none of which seems to ever be considered: 1)  Cheap GMs for added fire support (and point-defense AP). 2)  Screening (especially with the exp allocation rules), bulk, and fire support for mixed formations. 3)  All-LV formations with Tetras to provide cheaper bulk and extra firepower while the Tetras provide all the gadgetry. _________________ Neal
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Contingent Concept - Swordfish Contingent Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:00 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	NH, Stingrays aren't an issue. We agree. Swordfish, My understanding was that the concept for the Swordfish was that it was a relatively rare upgunned version of the HH. True.  Is there sufficient background to change that concept or have I misunderstood?

No, but I don't think we are trying to change that concept/feel. The limited access to the unit is in itself a rarity. i.e. you can never take Swordfish without taking HH's - and an equal amount of the HH's at least. The cost prohibition for taking the units should serve to add the feel of rarity to the unit. All that said, there's sufficient justification for slightly increasing their availability to the list from the v4.1 perspective as many have desired for some time.

I have no objection to adding it if I'm wrong or if we want to tweak the background for play-balance reasons.
Your definitely not wrong, but for your latter comment is what we are addressing.

However, wouldn't it be easier to just change the Swordfish upgrade to 1-2 or possibly 1-3 instead of making a whole new formation - same net effect, fewer army list entries, and keeps the "upgrade" feel to the Swordfish

Actually, I hadn't thought of that, but I think that might be a good idea NH.

I wouldn't be apposed to eliminating the Swordfish Contingent and making the Tau Upgrades, 'Swordfish' to '1-2 at 25 points per unit upgrade'.

Note: 1-3 for all formations could be an option to consider at a later date _if_ 1-2 didn't work out, but I'd rather start smaller.

I'd be interested in what others would think about this for WIP v4.2.

Thoughts?