Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5430		 Page 1 of 6
Author:  Tactica [ Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
Honda mentioned his fascination for the Dragonfish in another thread recently. Others have commented on it being put back into the main list.

If I recall correctly, it was tabled to collectors models because there was a question as to whether it would ever see a real model and it there was too much other turmoil going on when it was introduced originally. Well, Lots of direction and playtesting has occured since those times.

I'm wondering if its not a good time to blow the dust off of this concept and start feeling out the ideas around this piece once again.

I personally would like to see it back in the list. Afterall, we have swordfish, scorpionfish (narwhal), Morays, and stingrays in - and there's no models for any of them. Adding the Dragonfish back into the line doesn't seem over the top.

(then there's that elusive Great Knarloc... ' got yer back L4!)

From a rules perspective, the unique 2 SC rerolls is a very interesting concept to me. It seems representative of the Ethereal's 'guiding vision' which the race has much to credit for its rapid technical and evelutionary advancements.

So, I'm wondering...

Have you tried using it, if so, how often?

Do you still use it?

What point games are you using or did you use it in?

Do you like the piece in concept and/or actual construct as is?

Should it be in the main list, why or why not?

Would you be opposed or for its inclusion into the main list?

Do you have other concerns?

What's on your wishlist for this piece?

Thanks in advance,
Author:  colonel_sponsz [ Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:12 am ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
I certainly wouldn't want to see it disapear from the list entirely.  I like the collector's section of the Tau list, it allows people to use more intersting elements of the Tau in games without having to balance them for tournaments, which is a hard task.  Things like the Dragonfish and sentry turrets can be used by those that want them without unabalncing the core list and inciting, what I will call, the 'Eldar whinge' :D   It shows what could have been included but wasn't if people start complaining the the list is overpowered or tricked out with too many special units.

Orde
Author:  Honda [ Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:13 am ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
Have you tried using it, if so, how often?

Do you still use it?

What point games are you using or did you use it in?

H: 4K

Do you like the piece in concept and/or actual construct as is?

H: Yes, I don't think it needs to be changed. It works very well as is.

Should it be in the main list, why or why not?

H: Yes, it should be in the main list, no doubt about it. Why? Because we are talking about an Orca chassis. Except for adding a few antennae if you want, we already have the model. As it is, I'm using a plastic spaceship model with Tau stuff added to it as I was only able to secure 3 Orcas.

Should I decide to get a 4th, then I'd do some minor conversion work so that the vehicle looks like it came from the same family.

Would you be opposed or for its inclusion into the main list?

H: I think you asked this already, but for completion's sake, I'll raise both hands and feet. :P

Do you have other concerns?

H: Yes, don't mess with it. It works as advertised without going through a whole new development cycle.

What's on your wishlist for this piece?

H: That it be included in the main list.
Author:  Steele [ Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:17 am ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
I?m going with Honda. Nothing to add. Perhaps the game points: sometimes i use it at 3k.

Cheers!
Steele
Author:  xerxes [ Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:24 am ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
I know I'm limiting myself, but so far I am only considering units that I can buy a unit for. Epic is a secondary game to me (and Tau secondary to my IG horde), so I haven't spent any time converting. I also think the Orca is too expensive, so base my force around not using one. This probably limits the effectiveness of my force (missing stuff like the Swordfish), but I'm probably not the only one to have this attitude.

I'm not saying this to be critical, but the main contributors to this board are far more prepared to proxy or convert, so I figure a more modest gamer's opinion would add some balance.

Keep up the good work btw
Author:  asaura [ Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:41 am ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
I don't like the rules for it. Allowing a second init reroll is something I don't want to see in the Tournament lists.
Author:  Tactica [ Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
Col_Sp...

First let me say - love the sept icon  :cool:

Now, when you speak of keeping it in collectors and avoid balance issues, I'm assuming you are talking to the legitimacy of the second SC reroll? Can you elaborate for us a bit?

Honda,

All points understood - and I appoligize for repeating myself in some of those questions - thanks for being thourough nonetheless though  :/

Xerxes,

3K game - thank you for that! That is helpful. I'm assuming you, like Honda, run it with a second scorpionfish to bolster ranks of the formation - and to afford some ablative positioning (remove from front...)

Asura,

What is the major balance concern when considering two rerolls a turn instead of one - if one pays for the ability? Are you saying the ability would imbalance tournament games, or are you saying the points are not accurate for the ability?

Thanks,
Author:  asaura [ Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
Quote (Tactica @ 20 Oct. 2005 (16:44))
What is the major balance concern when considering two rerolls a turn instead of one - if one pays for the ability? Are you saying the ability would imbalance tournament games, or are you saying the points are not accurate for the ability?

I don't care about points. The ability in itself is in bad form. It's something that will cause endless bitching and bickering and it doesn't add anything the Tau really need. It's just a thing that some people consider nifty. I know I'm putting it bluntly, but the Dragonfish is not a good use of list-specific special rules.
Author:  colonel_sponsz [ Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
Quote (Tactica @ 20 Oct. 2005 (16:44))
First let me say - love the sept icon  :cool:

Cheers, flattery will get you everywhere.  :8):

Now, when you speak of keeping it in collectors and avoid balance issues, I'm assuming you are talking to the legitimacy of the second SC reroll? Can you elaborate for us a bit?


I just think it will be hard to defend the list against the usual critisisms of list creep that get leveled at any new list that is percieved as having too many specialist units and rules - the outcry over the recent Eldar list being a case in point.  Things that don't have a background in official fluff (thank god for IA3) are likely to be some of the first targets and I feal that something like a second SC reroll will be singled out as being too good.  - ??? Idea:  make it 0-1 (DF or Shas'o) otherwise the Tau could have 3 SC re-rolls. /idea

I can't really talk about points/balance issues as I don't play balanced games so my point about a large collectors section was more general.  It keeps the high tech, advanced race, idea going whilst minimising any opening for a cheesy min-max tournament legal army.

I also seem to remember that each tournamnent list is supposed to have roughly the same number of  units and special rules?  We don't know what Codex:Tau II will bring us yet.

Orde
Author:  Honda [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:07 am ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
1. I definitely support making the vehicle 0-1. I agree that being able to take a bunch of these types would be taking advantage of the intent.

2. However, I'm not sure I understand some of the comments regarding list creep. It seems like this type of vehicle is a logical progression of C3 capabilities for the Tau.

Also, in taking in what Tau need to effect opponents, some sort of command flexibility (as a characteristic) seems logical. We can't assault or FF our way out of a paper bag. We have really nice guns, but our formations are not that large that they can take a lot of BM's or hits before becoming combat ineffective. Our crisis and stealth don't have jump/shoot/jump like they do in 40K, our units (vehicles and infantry) are not able to split fire as nearly every unit in 40K can...and all the above are Ok, because of how we have characterized the Tau.

However, each of the races has something that sets them apart. Orks have big formations, Eldar have super technology, SM have superb command and control, the Bugs have unstoppable numbers...etc.

The Tau need something as well.

I think flexible firepower could be that thing. We don't need to have the high rolls that SM have, but we do need something that allows us to be flexible. JMO.

In reading the IA3 campaign story, FW spends a lot of time emphasizing how mobile the Tau (at least in the early part of the campaign, I'm still reading) are, showing up where they aren't expected, causing damage, then skipping out before the response becomes too severe.

I think the Dragonfish allows the Tau to be "super" reactive to other forces at a "macro" level, allowing them to leave dangerous terrain (i.e. not get stuck in an assault) and maneuver to favorable fire positions. This seems to be what the Tau (at least at an Epic scale) are all about.

Now is the Dragonfish the ultimate weapon?

Nope, in fact in our recent game we were in dire consequences when our activation rolls didn't materialize.

However, when we were able to take advantage of them, we were able to stay very mobile. I am quite certain that without that ability, we'd have been wiped off the table by turn two.

3. The model...this is a tough one as you are correct, FW Orcas aren't cheap. However, I don't see any reason why a "counts as" BFG model couldn't sub just as easily. As I stated earlier, I converted something else, so I'm not using the Orca chassis and I don't see any reason to force others to do the same.

I think Jervis' intent is to grow the game, not ensure that everyone spends $10,000 on their figures.
Author:  asaura [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:05 am ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
Quote (Honda @ 21 Oct. 2005 (04:07))
However, each of the races has something that sets them apart. Orks have big formations, Eldar have super technology, SM have superb command and control, the Bugs have unstoppable numbers...etc.

The Tau need something as well.

Four words: Coordinated Fire and Markerlights.

Coordinated Fire allows for decisive results without assaulting. That's unique. Markerlights result in a distinctive style of deployment and formation interaction.

Coordinated Fire is the Tau specialty you're after.
Author:  colonel_sponsz [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:38 am ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
Quote (Honda @ 21 Oct. 2005 (04:07))
1. I definitely support making the vehicle 0-1. I agree that being able to take a bunch of these types would be taking advantage of the intent.

I think if a Dragonfish was taken then the Shas'o should not be available.  The commander would be in the DF and a Shas'el would lead on the field.

2. However, I'm not sure I understand some of the comments regarding list creep. It seems like this type of vehicle is a logical progression of C3 capabilities for the Tau.


I merely raised the point about list creep to ensure it was addressed thusly:

Now is the Dragonfish the ultimate weapon?

Nope, in fact in our recent game we were in dire consequences when our activation rolls didn't materialize.

However, when we were able to take advantage of them, we were able to stay very mobile. I am quite certain that without that ability, we'd have been wiped off the table by turn two.[

The danger is that people will see all these shiny toys and special rules and weapons and think that the Tau are too good without even playing with them.  Being able to point people to discussions like this should help them see that it has been thought through and tested.

Personally, I like the DF concept and intend to use one at some point.

Orde
Author:  Tactica [ Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
Asura,

Those 4 words do not do enough to seperate the Tau. Sure, CF and ML are a tactic of abilities.

I listed more than 10 special abilities that allow the Eldar to identify themselves rather uniquely in another Tau thread recently.

I don't want the tau list to only work when its using CF and ML. That would be silly. The enemy would simply take out either the ML or the CF formations and the tau list would come to an end.

Chaos doesn't only work because it can summon daemons for example. It doesn't have to summon a darn thing to work. In fact, I think black legion is quite powerful when its using a minimal amount of daemons!!

Noting the Asura name... "Eldar" don't have to use webway portal objective or even webway portal vehicles, hit and run, the ability that allows their infantry and jetbikes to move a full move after combat instead of 5cm, or the ability that allows them to retain more than once in a single turn every turn, or summon a free avatar WE in order to be effective for formidable. They are abilities that enhance and augment the list, they make it unique and give it further appeal.

Frankly, I don't see how CF and markerlights alone do the Tau justice. Furthermore, I don't see how the argument of the DragonF is over the top. I think its a neat ability on a vehicle that most definitely can be eliminated. It Affords two SC rerolls instead of one. Many other races have many other really sweet and effective abilities. Frankly, I think the SC vehicle in this mode can be somewhat vulnerable in this mode.

I've not tested it, so I don't know if its balanced as written or not. I don't think the proposition is over the top to exclude it from the realm of consideration though.

Someone mentioned that a Shas'O (also a SC) should be removed from the list *IF* a DragonF was selected in the list. In my opinion, I think this is a very wise suggestion. The Shas'O would most definitely find himself aboard the commanding DragonF should it be included in the list.
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
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.


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.
Author:  asaura [ Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Dragonfish - love, hate, or missing it?
Quote (Tactica @ 26 Oct. 2005 (22:28))
Noting the Asura name... "Eldar" don't have to use webway portal objective or even webway portal vehicles, hit and run, the ability that allows their infantry and jetbikes to move a full move after combat instead of 5cm, or the ability that allows them to retain more than once in a single turn every turn, or summon a free avatar WE in order to be effective for formidable. They are abilities that enhance and augment the list, they make it unique and give it further appeal.

(this is quite OT)
If you comment on my name, please get it right  :p

The Eldar don't need those abilities any more than the Tau really need ML and CF to be effective. 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.
Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/