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

Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5558		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Tactica [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Just a personal beef.

I love the swordfish model, the conversions I've made, and the background on the unit.

Stat wise, its been proved to be sound.

Point wise - I've always felt it was too harsh of a cost. The standard HH is 62.5 points or 2 for 125.

The 'upgrade' mentality of turning a HH into a SwF has always irritated me as I just don't like the mechanism of trading out a HH for a Swordfish.

The Swordfish is currently 87.5 points or 2 for 175 points.

My complaint / grief is 2 parts...

1) Two swordfish are not as valuable to me as any of these other 175 point combinations:
AX-1-0
4 Pathfinders + 2 Devilfish
2 stingray gunship upgrades + heavy gun drone upgrade

2) They are not 50 points better than two HH.


My OPINION.

I think the SwF are worth 75 points each when the HH is 62.5 each.

That would make 2 SwF = 150 would be appropriate.

I'd also like to pay 75-150 points and just purchase one or two models for my formation vs. swapping out units.

Again, I really like the swordfish model and stats (as previously noted) but I find that I take less and less of them because I think they are over costed, and because I don't want to use up a precious 'upgrade' if I'm not adding models to the formation.

I'd like to get a feel for what others think about this. Anyway - gota run.


Cheers for your thoughts and consideration.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Heh.

I was actually concerned at one point that the Swordfish was too cheap, so I crunched the numbers on it and found that it actually came out pretty close to being exactly 25 points better than a Railcannon HH based on the square root rule.  Of course, this was several months ago and I can't remember if the HH point costs have changed since then.

I would have thought that burying the Swordfish in a HH Cadre would make it proportionately tougher because it had more units to hide behind/soak BMs, allowing it's specific upgrade to stay combat-effective longer.
Author:  Honda [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?

I would have thought that burying the Swordfish in a HH Cadre would make it proportionately tougher because it had more units to hide behind/soak BMs, allowing it's specific upgrade to stay combat-effective longer.


Because you have to replace a regular HH to get the SrF, this statement isn't correct. Whether you buy a SrF or not, the resistance to BM's is the same.

I too have stopped taking these a long time ago because the incremental cost to get a +2 AT for a HH isn't worth the points.

As a modeling aside, I used Skyrays for mine.
Author:  Tactica [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Quote (nealhunt @ 06 Feb. 2006 (10:31))
Heh.

I was actually concerned at one point that the Swordfish was too cheap, so I crunched the numbers on it and found that it actually came out pretty close to being exactly 25 points better than a Railcannon HH based on the square root rule. ?Of course, this was several months ago and I can't remember if the HH point costs have changed since then.

I would have thought that burying the Swordfish in a HH Cadre would make it proportionately tougher because it had more units to hide behind/soak BMs, allowing it's specific upgrade to stay combat-effective longer.

NH - HH points have not changed.

I've done the math too. On paper, I agree with you. (I previously came to the same conclusion, 25 points on paper seemed right.)

However, after months of playtesting since, I've found what I posted in the openning thread.

Since I'm using an upgrade slot, replacing an existing model in the formation instead of adding one, and typically only getting the main gun in range in the majority of turns - it seems to hurt that much more.

Forget the points... If I have an AMHC, it gets network drones first and foremost. Now I have two upgrade slots remaining. I can either add two more HH to the formation yielding two more shots and increasing the unit count in the formation, or I can upgrade up to two existing HH to Sword Fish... I could even do them both as I have two upgrade slots remaining.

I find more and more than I'm going with more units and more shots - caveat: unless I know the opponent and army. I find that unit count in a formation is too important. So I tend to go with the HH upgrade and wait and see how the rest of the list pans out. If I have an unused 25 points, I'll throw a SwFish somewhere.

Also, to waste another 50 points on an upgraded shot on two units (from 3+ to 2+) just doesn't seem to be that worthwhile to me. I know the Swordfish has a 45cm AT shot, but that just isn't used much and if the enemy closes or vice versa - fine, that shot comes into play - but typically - the 30cm smart missles on the HH and the 45cm missle pod on the Swordfish just aren't a factor. So +25 points for +1 to the at shot just doesn't work out for me usually.

Therefore,

1) I think I would use these more if I was buying additional units for the formation instead of replacing units.

2) I think I would use these more if I was paying 75 points per model instead of 87.5 points per model.

Cheers,
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Since I'm using an upgrade slot, replacing an existing model in the formation instead of adding one, and typically only getting the main gun in range in the majority of turns...


That makes sense.  If the extra firepower is difficult to use for whatever reason, it would be worth less.

The obvious question, I guess, is whether this is a unit issue or a play-style issue.  Would someone who played in a more Jaldon-esque style and kept the Tau closer to the enemy get the full 25 point value out of it because they are using those shots you have foregone?

That's a real question, not rhetorical.

I find more and more than I'm going with more units and more shots... I find that unit count in a formation is too important.

Didn't I tell you that months ago in the Tau v Eldar discussions? :D
Author:  Tactica [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 1:46 am ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Quote (nealhunt @ 06 Feb. 2006 (13:58))


Since I'm using an upgrade slot, replacing an existing model in the formation instead of adding one, and typically only getting the main gun in range in the majority of turns...


That makes sense.  If the extra firepower is difficult to use for whatever reason, it would be worth less.

The obvious question, I guess, is whether this is a unit issue or a play-style issue.  Would someone who played in a more Jaldon-esque style and kept the Tau closer to the enemy get the full 25 point value out of it because they are using those shots you have foregone?

That's a real question, not rhetorical.

A good fair question - one I'd have to depend upon others to answer as stylistically, that's not my cup of tea.... hopefully others will respond.


I find more and more than I'm going with more units and more shots... I find that unit count in a formation is too important.

Didn't I tell you that months ago in the Tau v Eldar discussions? :D

Probably... LOL - too bad I haven't gotten a chance to play against my eldar buddy lately. (he has real life issues going on at the moment with the significant other that's not turnning out well - it may be a while until he has access to the models)

I'm trying to get another eldar local in the group. I'd love to put some new practices to test.

Cheers NH,
Author:  clausewitz [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:10 am ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Tactica,

The Swordfish would definitely be a more valuable upgrade if it was additions instead of substitutes.  I agree that I too am much more likely to buy Networked Drones for 25 points than a Swordfish.

I wonder if that would begin to make the MAHC begin to look too much like an IG Tank Company?  With added HammerHeads and then two Swordfish would make a ten tank formation with two Vanquishers err i mean Swordfish (for the same 650 points).

If the Swordfish is (approximately) 12.5 points over-costed could we change the upgrade to TWO Swordfish for 25 points, instead of 25 points each?
Author:  HecklerMD [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:46 am ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Quote (clausewitz @ 06 Feb. 2006 (17:10))
I wonder if that would begin to make the MAHC begin to look too much like an IG Tank Company?  With added HammerHeads and then two Swordfish would make a ten tank formation with two Vanquishers err i mean Swordfish (for the same 650 points).

If the Swordfish is (approximately) 12.5 points over-costed could we change the upgrade to TWO Swordfish for 25 points, instead of 25 points each?

I'm just gonna steal CW's words here 'cause I agree with them 100% and I just had a Econ test and my brain is mush.


:80:
Author:  Tactica [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Quote (HecklerMD @ 07 Feb. 2006 (00:46))
Quote (clausewitz @ 06 Feb. 2006 (17:10))
I wonder if that would begin to make the MAHC begin to look too much like an IG Tank Company? ?With added HammerHeads and then two Swordfish would make a ten tank formation with two Vanquishers err i mean Swordfish (for the same 650 points).

If the Swordfish is (approximately) 12.5 points over-costed could we change the upgrade to TWO Swordfish for 25 points, instead of 25 points each?

I'm just gonna steal CW's words here 'cause I agree with them 100% and I just had a Econ test and my brain is mush.


:80:

Heckler & Cw,

Good points (both of you?) :p

Although not exactly the fix I was after, I like the cautionary approach to it - and the alternative situation is not where I want to go either.

As a result, I like your suggestion better than mine actually. Thanks for the insite.

I'd be on board with giving Cw's suggestion a go.

Others... CS?
Author:  Tactica [ Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
CS,

Any input one way or the other?
Author:  CyberShadow [ Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Hi, sorry for the delay. I do agree with the logic of the arguments so far (and I have to admit that the Swordfish is one of my favourite vehicles, not just in the Tau list but in the game). I think that most players would take the extra shots/units rather than the upgrade. That said, I would prefer to keep the Swordfish as an upgrade. My current preference is to make the upgrade two Swordfish for 25 points.

Thanks.
Author:  Honda [ Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
@CS


My current preference is to make the upgrade two Swordfish for 25 points.


So...does that mean you can get a AMHC + HH upgrade + 2 Swordfish for a total of 10 tanks?
Author:  clausewitz [ Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Honda, no the swordfish is still swapped for Hammerheads.  Not an upgrade in the usual sense of the word in the Tau list, but upgrade as in upgrading the hammerheads to swordfish.
Author:  Tactica [ Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Honda,

He's saying instead of having the option to upgrade 1-2 HH to Swordfish and paying 25 per Swordfish upgrade (50 points total), you would simply upgrade two of them for 25 total.

Cheers,
Author:  Honda [ Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Swordfish - too expensive - upgrade vs. add unit?
Got it. I just wanted the statement "spelt" out clearly so that I didn't assume anything.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/