bullyboy wrote: This thing does both...oh and then tack on some MW too for good measure....because reasons.
People keep thinking the MW are to make it more deadly, but clearly that isn't the case as it ignores almost all possible saves. It's to allow an avenue for saves. That's the "because reasons".
Ah yes, the handcrafted design to be ever-so-slightly worse if the Hammerhead happens to be facing off against very specific subfactions that will possibly shrug off an average of 1 in 3 mortal wounds. I can taste the game balance.
That's the difference between a dead vehicle and an alive one, which means they've needing to have other guns in place. Burst cannons are still only 18", which is quite short if you're trading tanks. Honestly this is probably the best way to make a unit that only really gets one shot - at least Raiders can still transport models.
This thing is still a huge problem for superheavies so the full jury is still out until we have the whole picture.
Anyway of the next books the following have a general purpose FNP:
Admech - 4+++
Marines
The entire GK army
Thousand Sons
And these have a strat to go top profile:
Admech
Marines PotMS GKPotMS DGPotMS TSPotMS
Necrons have none, but have Quantum Shielding and a subfaction. DE have nothing, but I don't think anyone cares there. Orks have none, but have high wound counts on the vehicles that would care. Sisters have none, but aren't a "big vehicle" army.
This is all aside from prayers, spells, other abilities, or armies that can double repair.
Both Death Guard and Thousand Sons can only use their PotMS on basic Land Raiders, nothing else. And it wouldn't be "a huge problem for superheavies" if they'd actually let them get something out of terrain, and change the cap on negative modifiers to hit.
The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
could you elaborate what is hilarious about it? Aren't tank commanders roughly in the same price range (195 + 30 for optional sponsons). Do you mean hilarious in a "a tank commander with one of the best IG relics should do more to a hammerhead" sense or do you mean "a tank commander from a not updated and currently struggling codex already almost kills it in one shot, the other codizes need not be afraid"?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
could you elaborate what is hilarious about it? Aren't tank commanders roughly in the same price range (195 + 30 for optional sponsons). Do you mean hilarious in a "a tank commander with one of the best IG relics should do more to a hammerhead" sense or do you mean "a tank commander from a not updated and currently struggling codex already almost kills it in one shot, the other codizes need not be afraid"?
What I meant was that everyone is freaking out about how OP this thing is. There isn't a really prominent faction that can't deal with this thin very easily, except for Custodes.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
could you elaborate what is hilarious about it? Aren't tank commanders roughly in the same price range (195 + 30 for optional sponsons). Do you mean hilarious in a "a tank commander with one of the best IG relics should do more to a hammerhead" sense or do you mean "a tank commander from a not updated and currently struggling codex already almost kills it in one shot, the other codizes need not be afraid"?
What I meant was that everyone is freaking out about how OP this thing is. There isn't a really prominent faction that can't deal with this thin very easily, except for Custodes.
Don't have any Telemons? And haven't I seen you mention having an Ares before?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
could you elaborate what is hilarious about it? Aren't tank commanders roughly in the same price range (195 + 30 for optional sponsons). Do you mean hilarious in a "a tank commander with one of the best IG relics should do more to a hammerhead" sense or do you mean "a tank commander from a not updated and currently struggling codex already almost kills it in one shot, the other codizes need not be afraid"?
What I meant was that everyone is freaking out about how OP this thing is. There isn't a really prominent faction that can't deal with this thin very easily, except for Custodes.
Properly tooled-up Shield-Captain on Dawneagle Jetbike w/Salvo Launcher...
Spoletta wrote: Despite many considering it a bad thing for the game, the fact that recently weapons saw and increase in the number of attacks, is actually quite good.
The more the output of a weapon is split in several attacks, the less the game depends on the randomness of the dices.
This weapon instead goes completely against that concept, and this is why it isn't good for the game.
It doesn't have a problem of firepower, or MWs or ignore invul or stuff like that. It has a problem on the distribution of results.
All or nothing.
The existence of this weapon makes the game a lot more dice based. Hitting or missing with it makes a huge swing in the course of the game.
I disagree. The game should definitely remain dice based to some significant degree, which can't be too low. There's no point in rolling tons of dice to rely on guaranteed average results, let's just play with averages then, rolling just one dice to round the result up or down. Basically the only thing I miss from the past is rolling not many dice when attacking with units.
IMHO the problem is not the hit or miss concept, in fact I wish the entire game was basically designed around units firing a limited amount of shots. The problem is hit or miss with such profile as it's either 0 damage or 10-12 damage. It's either a massive reward or a massive failure. A pure gamble. Unless tau gain ways to "fix" the roll and get something very close to a guaranteed good result; in that case it would be extremely unhealthy for the game as well.
Ordana wrote: The ignore invul is literally the designer looking at all the invul save tanks & monsters everyone brings (because those without and invul are generally garbage) and thinking 'I want to counter that' and either no one being able to tell him no or GW recognizing that they gave out way to many invul saves.
Yeah, it's just kind of bad rules writing since mortal wounds are already the "ignores invulnerable saves" mechanic in the game.
You could make this gun damage into MWs, sure. But then it would be a lot stronger against small models.
We already have guns which in the fluff are supposed to be very powerful who have this rule. On a succesful wound roll, inflict x mortal wounds and then the attack sequence ends.
In this case, the damage was done largely by standard methods to avoid making it too powerful.
Gert wrote: Dedicated AT weapon finally good at killing tanks and big monsters. Next up, water wet?
And medium to heavy infantry, and light infantry.
It kills 4 models out of a unit of guardsmen if it hits and wounds (possibly on a 2+ with reroll and 2+, respectively). That's way more reliable than any d6 blast weapon against the same target
Just an observation, but you are making it sound like the Hammerhead should not be able to kill anything at all. Killing 4 guardsmen or 2 1/2 space marines is not some major feat of power.
Will be interesting to see the final rules(with codex bonuses, stratagems, and all the jazz). I'll keep my judgment until I see the entire thing.
Gert wrote: Dedicated AT weapon finally good at killing tanks and big monsters. Next up, water wet?
And medium to heavy infantry, and light infantry.
It kills 4 models out of a unit of guardsmen if it hits and wounds (possibly on a 2+ with reroll and 2+, respectively). That's way more reliable than any d6 blast weapon against the same target
Just an observation, but you are making it sound like the Hammerhead should not be able to kill anything at all. Killing 4 guardsmen or 2 1/2 space marines is not some major feat of power.
Well it makes sense when you think about how railguns actually work. Presumably if its killing multiples of anything it's because they're standing in a straight line.
Gert wrote: Dedicated AT weapon finally good at killing tanks and big monsters. Next up, water wet?
And medium to heavy infantry, and light infantry.
It kills 4 models out of a unit of guardsmen if it hits and wounds (possibly on a 2+ with reroll and 2+, respectively). That's way more reliable than any d6 blast weapon against the same target
Just an observation, but you are making it sound like the Hammerhead should not be able to kill anything at all. Killing 4 guardsmen or 2 1/2 space marines is not some major feat of power.
Well it makes sense when you think about how railguns actually work. Presumably if its killing multiples of anything it's because they're standing in a straight line.
Doesn't even need that. The acoustic shockwave generated by the hypersonic projectile can also kill people outside the direct line of the projectiles trajectory.
Gert wrote: Dedicated AT weapon finally good at killing tanks and big monsters. Next up, water wet?
And medium to heavy infantry, and light infantry.
It kills 4 models out of a unit of guardsmen if it hits and wounds (possibly on a 2+ with reroll and 2+, respectively). That's way more reliable than any d6 blast weapon against the same target
Just an observation, but you are making it sound like the Hammerhead should not be able to kill anything at all. Killing 4 guardsmen or 2 1/2 space marines is not some major feat of power.
Will be interesting to see the final rules(with codex bonuses, stratagems, and all the jazz). I'll keep my judgment until I see the entire thing.
It is a pretty major feat for an anti-tank gun.
Could you imagine what the best Eldar heavy weapon would be if they all were normal and then the Bright Lance just said "if this wounds infantry, it kills 4". It would be the best all-rounder weapon hands down, as that would exceed every other weapon against both tanks and bodies.
Yet that is essentially what the Hammerhead Railgun does (against 1w infantry anyways).
Heck, killing 2.5 Marines is almost as good as a stock Russ on average.
Gert wrote: Dedicated AT weapon finally good at killing tanks and big monsters. Next up, water wet?
And medium to heavy infantry, and light infantry.
It kills 4 models out of a unit of guardsmen if it hits and wounds (possibly on a 2+ with reroll and 2+, respectively). That's way more reliable than any d6 blast weapon against the same target
Just an observation, but you are making it sound like the Hammerhead should not be able to kill anything at all. Killing 4 guardsmen or 2 1/2 space marines is not some major feat of power.
Will be interesting to see the final rules(with codex bonuses, stratagems, and all the jazz). I'll keep my judgment until I see the entire thing.
It is a pretty major feat for an anti-tank gun.
Could you imagine what the best Eldar heavy weapon would be if they all were normal and then the Bright Lance just said "if this wounds infantry, it kills 4". It would be the best all-rounder weapon hands down, as that would exceed every other weapon against both tanks and bodies.
Yet that is essentially what the Hammerhead Railgun does (against 1w infantry anyways).
Heck, killing 2.5 Marines is almost as good as a stock Russ on average.
Yet weirdly those russ aren't packing anti-armour rounds yet do it pretty well!
Dudeface wrote: Yet weirdly those russ aren't packing anti-armour rounds yet do it pretty well!
That's exactly my point.
The Hammerhead railgun is pretty good against infantry - certainly better than a d6 blast weapon. And is VERY good against tanks. It's more "all purpose" than most weapons in the game, with the quintessential all-purpose weapon being the battlecannon.
By comparison, the battlecannon kills about 3 marines (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 and not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2.5.
The battlecannon does 2-3 damage against a Baneblade, the Hammerhead does 10-12 roughly 50% of the time (average of about 6).
The battlecannon does 3-4 damage against a Chimera/Rhino; the Hammerhead outright kills the chimera or rhino roughly 70% of the time.
The battlecannon kills 1 Custodes (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2 outright.
The battlecannon kills 1 Terminator with Storm Shield; the Hammerhead kills 2 outright, etc.
Dudeface wrote: Yet weirdly those russ aren't packing anti-armour rounds yet do it pretty well!
That's exactly my point.
The Hammerhead railgun is pretty good against infantry - certainly better than a d6 blast weapon. And is VERY good against tanks. It's more "all purpose" than most weapons in the game, with the quintessential all-purpose weapon being the battlecannon.
By comparison, the battlecannon kills about 3 marines (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 and not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2.5. Wrong, it kills 1.56.
The battlecannon does 2-3 damage against a Baneblade, the Hammerhead does 10-12 roughly 50% of the time (average of about 6).
The battlecannon does 3-4 damage against a Chimera/Rhino; the Hammerhead outright kills the chimera or rhino roughly 70% of the time.
The battlecannon kills 1 Custodes (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2 outright. Wrong, it kills 1.25.
The battlecannon kills 1 Terminator with Storm Shield; the Hammerhead kills 2 outright, etc. Wrong, it kills 1.25.
Corrected some of your numbers.
Yes, the railgun outperforms the battle cannon when shooting at high durability targets like vehicles, custordes or terminators. Nothing wrong with it, that's its niche. Also, the railgun is a vastly more costly weapon than a battle cannon (assuming that it will cost around 190-210 points) and is mounted on a more frail platform, comparing them 1 to 1 isn't exactly fair.
Ordana wrote:I just love people comparing 9th edition weapons to 8th and then complaining about how much worse the 8th edition weapon is.
Like this is the first time a 9th edition weapon profile has looked ridiculous in comparison.
9th is a whole different game not even in the same ballpark, stop trying to force comparisons.
And yet half (or so) of the armies in the game don't have their codex yet, including all of mine at least until may.
Should we just sit tight and suffer? Or perhaps GW should put some effort into balancing the game instead of all the new books being better than all the old books?
One side of the mouth says "power creep doesn't exist!" and the other side of the mouth says "don't compare new books to old ones, the old books are too weak!"
Tyel wrote:How can we stand against a gun which can kill 4 whole guardsmen?
Thank you for misunderstanding the point for a quick jab.
Dudeface wrote: Yet weirdly those russ aren't packing anti-armour rounds yet do it pretty well!
That's exactly my point.
The Hammerhead railgun is pretty good against infantry - certainly better than a d6 blast weapon. And is VERY good against tanks. It's more "all purpose" than most weapons in the game, with the quintessential all-purpose weapon being the battlecannon.
By comparison, the battlecannon kills about 3 marines (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 and not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2.5. Wrong, it kills 1.56.
The battlecannon does 2-3 damage against a Baneblade, the Hammerhead does 10-12 roughly 50% of the time (average of about 6).
The battlecannon does 3-4 damage against a Chimera/Rhino; the Hammerhead outright kills the chimera or rhino roughly 70% of the time.
The battlecannon kills 1 Custodes (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2 outright. Wrong, it kills 1.25.
The battlecannon kills 1 Terminator with Storm Shield; the Hammerhead kills 2 outright, etc. Wrong, it kills 1.25.
Corrected some of your numbers.
Yes, the railgun outperforms the battle cannon when shooting at high durability targets like vehicles, custordes or terminators. Nothing wrong with it, that's its niche.
Also, the railgun is a vastly more costly weapon than a battle cannon (assuming that it will cost around 190-210 points) and is mounted on a more frail platform, comparing them 1 to 1 isn't exactly fair.
I rounded to whole numbers because averages don't work for a gun that either does everything or nothing.
Right now the hammerhead is 156 stock, and the Russ is 160 stock. You can assume a cost all you want, but it's always just going to be "I made up this number, now it is a bad tank, Huzzah!". As if GW has never miscost anything in the past.
And it isn't that much frailer of a platform. The hammerhead has 1 less toughness, which matters against strength 8 weapons and strength 14 and 15 weapons, but 1 more wound. There are a couple of other units and army special rules that can repair a Leman Russ, but there are also a couple of Tau units and special rules that increase a Hammerhead's damage output for the points.
T7 vs T8 matters against S4 and S7 too. Plus S8 being super common for AT, and S4 being twice as effective vs T7, is a big deal. Russes also have a 2+ save now vs the Hammerhead's 3+. The Russ is a ton sturdier whereas 'T7 3+ no invulnerable no damage reduction' dies to a stiff breeze these days.
Twilight Pathways wrote: T7 vs T8 matters against S4 and S7 too. Plus S8 being super common for AT, and S4 being twice as effective vs T7, is a big deal. Russes also have a 2+ save now vs the Hammerhead's 3+. The Russ is a ton sturdier whereas 'T7 3+ no invulnerable no damage reduction' dies to a stiff breeze these days.
Ah true, forgot the 2+ update.
Still, when it comes to my armies (which is the perspective I am looking from), both defensive profiles are very similar.
Good point about the 2+, though, conceded that the Russ is more durable.
Twilight Pathways wrote: T7 vs T8 matters against S4 and S7 too. Plus S8 being super common for AT, and S4 being twice as effective vs T7, is a big deal. Russes also have a 2+ save now vs the Hammerhead's 3+. The Russ is a ton sturdier whereas 'T7 3+ no invulnerable no damage reduction' dies to a stiff breeze these days.
Ah true, forgot the 2+ update.
Still, when it comes to my armies (which is the perspective I am looking from), both defensive profiles are very similar.
Good point about the 2+, though, conceded that the Russ is more durable.
Which brings us to: how much of this is a problem with the hammerhead and how much of it is disgruntlement about the state of the factions you play?
Dudeface wrote: ...Which brings us to: how much of this is a problem with the hammerhead and how much of it is disgruntlement about the state of the factions you play?
The Hammerhead's a symptom, not a cause. We all know that damage creep is GW's solution to all problems, and it's happening so fast these days that if you didn't get a Codex that broke the game in half when it released it probably means that a year on you'll be obsolete and getting casually tabled by whatever new hotness comes along.
Twilight Pathways wrote: T7 vs T8 matters against S4 and S7 too. Plus S8 being super common for AT, and S4 being twice as effective vs T7, is a big deal. Russes also have a 2+ save now vs the Hammerhead's 3+. The Russ is a ton sturdier whereas 'T7 3+ no invulnerable no damage reduction' dies to a stiff breeze these days.
Ah true, forgot the 2+ update.
Still, when it comes to my armies (which is the perspective I am looking from), both defensive profiles are very similar.
Good point about the 2+, though, conceded that the Russ is more durable.
Which brings us to: how much of this is a problem with the hammerhead and how much of it is disgruntlement about the state of the factions you play?
Does it have to be one or another?
The factions I play are just as much a part of the game as anyone else's. GW's inability to keep the game on a stable, fun-to-play footing is a problem for me now, but it will be a problem for others into the future as well.
It would be better if GW were better, no? And they could do better, so complaining/illustrating problems has a purpose.
As Anomander says, the problem with the Hammerhead is a microcosm of the problem with the game in general, and serves as a useful, illustrative example.
Ordana wrote:I just love people comparing 9th edition weapons to 8th and then complaining about how much worse the 8th edition weapon is.
Like this is the first time a 9th edition weapon profile has looked ridiculous in comparison.
9th is a whole different game not even in the same ballpark, stop trying to force comparisons.
And yet half (or so) of the armies in the game don't have their codex yet, including all of mine at least until may.
Should we just sit tight and suffer? Or perhaps GW should put some effort into balancing the game instead of all the new books being better than all the old books?
One side of the mouth says "power creep doesn't exist!" and the other side of the mouth says "don't compare new books to old ones, the old books are too weak!"
wtf are you talking about, I do little on these forums but complain about how insane the power creep is in 9th. Where am I saying power creep does not exist? my entire complaint is that the power creep is so bad that there is no point in comparing 8th and 9th.
And yes GW should do better, feel free to stop giving them money. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes little sense to compare 8th and 9th edition armies.
Ordana wrote:I just love people comparing 9th edition weapons to 8th and then complaining about how much worse the 8th edition weapon is.
Like this is the first time a 9th edition weapon profile has looked ridiculous in comparison.
9th is a whole different game not even in the same ballpark, stop trying to force comparisons.
And yet half (or so) of the armies in the game don't have their codex yet, including all of mine at least until may.
Should we just sit tight and suffer? Or perhaps GW should put some effort into balancing the game instead of all the new books being better than all the old books?
One side of the mouth says "power creep doesn't exist!" and the other side of the mouth says "don't compare new books to old ones, the old books are too weak!"
wtf are you talking about, I do little on these forums but complain about how insane the power creep is in 9th. Where am I saying power creep does not exist? my entire complaint is that the power creep is so bad that there is no point in comparing 8th and 9th.
And yes GW should do better, feel free to stop giving them money. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes little sense to compare 8th and 9th edition armies.
I didn't mean your mouth specifically. There are people on this forum that swear up and down power creep doesn't exist, and then when I make a thread illustrating that it does, I get bogged down by people saying "of course it does, idiot" as you have (in so many words).
The utility in comparing 9th books to 8th books is to illustrate precisely the point you agree with - power creep is utterly bonkers. It makes perfect sense in that context.
Ordana wrote: The ignore invul is literally the designer looking at all the invul save tanks & monsters everyone brings (because those without and invul are generally garbage) and thinking 'I want to counter that' and either no one being able to tell him no or GW recognizing that they gave out way to many invul saves.
Yeah, it's just kind of bad rules writing since mortal wounds are already the "ignores invulnerable saves" mechanic in the game.
It doesn't really pan out like that.
If the Rail Gun didn't ignore invulns and did 3MW it would possibly be the worst anti-tank unit around when it comes up against 4++.
A TVC with ML does 5.3. Said HH would do 4.1 for (presently) more points, but "as-is" does 6.5. The TVC has access to way more buffs.
Let's pretend it does ALL MW. You have the same net effect, but then the gun becomes worse against armies with lots of FNP available. Against a GMDK it the current version does 7.4 and if it did all MW it would be 5.9. But if you had no FNP it would be 8.9. This creates a much larger gap between haves and have nots versus such a weapon.
Ordana wrote: The ignore invul is literally the designer looking at all the invul save tanks & monsters everyone brings (because those without and invul are generally garbage) and thinking 'I want to counter that' and either no one being able to tell him no or GW recognizing that they gave out way to many invul saves.
Yeah, it's just kind of bad rules writing since mortal wounds are already the "ignores invulnerable saves" mechanic in the game.
It doesn't really pan out like that.
If the Rail Gun didn't ignore invulns and did 3MW it would possibly be the worst anti-tank unit around when it comes up against 4++.
A TVC with ML does 5.3. Said HH would do 4.1 for (presently) more points, but "as-is" does 6.5. The TVC has access to way more buffs.
Let's pretend it does ALL MW. You have the same net effect, but then the gun becomes worse against armies with lots of FNP available. Against a GMDK it the current version does 7.4 and if it did all MW it would be 5.9. But if you had no FNP it would be 8.9. This creates a much larger gap between haves and have nots versus such a weapon.
If it did all MW, it'd wipe a Guard squad in one wound. Or an entire min squad of Marines.
yeah, the biggest problem with making it all mortal wounds (which it effectively is with AP -6 and no invuls) is that mortal wounds carry over and normal damage doesn't.
Ordana wrote: The ignore invul is literally the designer looking at all the invul save tanks & monsters everyone brings (because those without and invul are generally garbage) and thinking 'I want to counter that' and either no one being able to tell him no or GW recognizing that they gave out way to many invul saves.
Yeah, it's just kind of bad rules writing since mortal wounds are already the "ignores invulnerable saves" mechanic in the game.
It doesn't really pan out like that.
If the Rail Gun didn't ignore invulns and did 3MW it would possibly be the worst anti-tank unit around when it comes up against 4++.
A TVC with ML does 5.3. Said HH would do 4.1 for (presently) more points, but "as-is" does 6.5. The TVC has access to way more buffs.
Let's pretend it does ALL MW. You have the same net effect, but then the gun becomes worse against armies with lots of FNP available. Against a GMDK it the current version does 7.4 and if it did all MW it would be 5.9. But if you had no FNP it would be 8.9. This creates a much larger gap between haves and have nots versus such a weapon.
That wouldn't make it the worst anti-tank gun against a 4++. Against a T7 4++ target a Fellblade Accelerator Cannon averages 3.33. Against T8 4++ it's 2.667.
Ordana wrote: I just love people comparing 9th edition weapons to 8th and then complaining about how much worse the 8th edition weapon is.
Like this is the first time a 9th edition weapon profile has looked ridiculous in comparison.
9th is a whole different game not even in the same ballpark, stop trying to force comparisons.
K, lets bring in da Orkz then shall we?
DA KANNON WAGON! 170pts base. T7 3+ save, 16 Wounds BS5+ (BS4 on its gun so it can't be improved beyond 4+) its only gun worth mentioning Heavy 2D6 S8 -2 3dmg Blast. Ranged 60. Averages 7 shots and 3.5 hits a turn. Against a unit of 5 Marines its 1.94 dead Marines. The 0.94 being the chance of a 2nd wound happening which inflicts 3 dmg so auto kills a 2 wound Marine. So in complete fairness 2 Dead Marines a turn.
Against a T8 vehicle with 2+ armor its 3.5 hits, 1.75 wounds and 0.87 unsaved wounds for 2.6 dmg a turn on average. In fairness, this model which doesn't want to move or be anywhere near the frontlines has the capacity to transport 6 whole ork models so there is that.
Not a fair comparison because its forgeworld? Ok lets go to the codex and the infamous GUNWAGON! (WARNING: Gunwagon makes the Kannonwagon look OP)
GunWagon: 165pts base.
T8 16 wounds 3+ armor. Has +1 to hit on its maingun so it can never hit better than a 4+ on any of its guns regardless of positive modifiers.
What is its base weapon? Is it as good as the Railgun! Absolutely! Its a ...Kannon. S8 -2 D6dmg heavy 1. BUT! you can use a frag munition instead which is Heavy D6 S5 no AP 1dmg. Ok, bad comparison, nobody runs this thing with a kannon, lets upgrade it to its REAL main gun! For 10pts more you can take a KILLKANNON! WOOO!!!!!!
Now this gun is seriously just as good as the Railgun because its a true 9th edition gun right! HELL YES. D6 shots, S8 -2AP 2dmg Blast. *Sad Ork noises* Averages half the Kannon wagon in terms of hits/wounds, only other difference is dmg and range. The kannonwagon is Range 60, the Killkannon is 24 So 3.5 shots, 1.75 hits, Works out to basically about 1 dead Marine a turn. Against a T8 2+ vehicle its 0.87dmg a turn.
What about real Ork anti-tank options. Ok lets look. TANKBUSTAS! For a mere 170pts you can take 10 Tankbustas at T5 1 wound 6+ armor with 24' rokkitz which are S8 -2 3dmg They are Heavy weapons though, so if they move their 5' movement they hit infantry on 6s and vehicles on 5s. Realistically you have to put these guys into a trukk because you really don't want a 17pt model dying to a handful of bolter shots. So its more like 240pts for this build. How good is it? Well turn 1 against its target of choice (Vehicles) it moves forward and does 20 shots on average for 6.6 hits, against T7, 4.4 wounds and against 3+ armor thats 9dmg. Against infantry its ...well how can i put this...not so good. Its 3.3 hits, 2.7 wounds and against 3+ armor 1.85 dead Marines, not exactly what you want from what used to be the GO TO weapon of choice for anti-marine fire power. of course at this point we have also drifted from vehicles/heavy support to anything that can kill vehicles
I can keep going if you really want, the point though is that no other faction in the game has such a weapon in its arsenal (*yet*) and unless the points cost is truly prohibitive we are about to see a lot of HH on the table.
Also, on a pro-tau tangent Please everyone keep in mind, everyone thought Ork boyz were going to break the game in 9th when their datasheets were leaked. Sadly we didn't have all the rules and interactions yet and it wasn't until about 4 months after release that Die Hard anti-boyz players admitted they were wrong and that boyz suck...and even to this day some muppets still exist which say Ork boyz are OP So, before we start screaming the sky is falling, lets wait and see how it interacts with the rest of the army and specifically their rules.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
could you elaborate what is hilarious about it? Aren't tank commanders roughly in the same price range (195 + 30 for optional sponsons). Do you mean hilarious in a "a tank commander with one of the best IG relics should do more to a hammerhead" sense or do you mean "a tank commander from a not updated and currently struggling codex already almost kills it in one shot, the other codizes need not be afraid"?
What I meant was that everyone is freaking out about how OP this thing is. There isn't a really prominent faction that can't deal with this thin very easily, except for Custodes.
In fairness to you, yes you are correct, however that isn't the point. In 8th every single army could easily deal with 180 Orkz with no problem. The issue that arose was when those boyz were brought to a tournament where it ran counter-meta and nobody had brought the tools to deal with it. In this case, its more the fact that its a devastating alpha strike weapon. If the Tau players goes first against a Vehicle/monstrous creature style army its going to basically be GG turn 1. 4 of these (including their HQ option) will kill a knight and some more turn 1 and still leave most of the Tau army ready to fire their first volley still.
I pity the matchup where a player brings a small elite force or big monstrous units against a HH tau list because its not going to be a fun game for at least one player
Ordana wrote: The ignore invul is literally the designer looking at all the invul save tanks & monsters everyone brings (because those without and invul are generally garbage) and thinking 'I want to counter that' and either no one being able to tell him no or GW recognizing that they gave out way to many invul saves.
Yeah, it's just kind of bad rules writing since mortal wounds are already the "ignores invulnerable saves" mechanic in the game.
It doesn't really pan out like that.
If the Rail Gun didn't ignore invulns and did 3MW it would possibly be the worst anti-tank unit around when it comes up against 4++.
A TVC with ML does 5.3. Said HH would do 4.1 for (presently) more points, but "as-is" does 6.5. The TVC has access to way more buffs.
Let's pretend it does ALL MW. You have the same net effect, but then the gun becomes worse against armies with lots of FNP available. Against a GMDK it the current version does 7.4 and if it did all MW it would be 5.9. But if you had no FNP it would be 8.9. This creates a much larger gap between haves and have nots versus such a weapon.
That wouldn't make it the worst anti-tank gun against a 4++. Against a T7 4++ target a Fellblade Accelerator Cannon averages 3.33. Against T8 4++ it's 2.667.
So, just asking, this would be able to punch through the void shields of a titan correct? Because in the writing, it says a Void shield is just an extra invuln save.
Ordana wrote: The ignore invul is literally the designer looking at all the invul save tanks & monsters everyone brings (because those without and invul are generally garbage) and thinking 'I want to counter that' and either no one being able to tell him no or GW recognizing that they gave out way to many invul saves.
Yeah, it's just kind of bad rules writing since mortal wounds are already the "ignores invulnerable saves" mechanic in the game.
It doesn't really pan out like that.
If the Rail Gun didn't ignore invulns and did 3MW it would possibly be the worst anti-tank unit around when it comes up against 4++.
A TVC with ML does 5.3. Said HH would do 4.1 for (presently) more points, but "as-is" does 6.5. The TVC has access to way more buffs.
Let's pretend it does ALL MW. You have the same net effect, but then the gun becomes worse against armies with lots of FNP available. Against a GMDK it the current version does 7.4 and if it did all MW it would be 5.9. But if you had no FNP it would be 8.9. This creates a much larger gap between haves and have nots versus such a weapon.
That wouldn't make it the worst anti-tank gun against a 4++. Against a T7 4++ target a Fellblade Accelerator Cannon averages 3.33. Against T8 4++ it's 2.667.
Relatively speaking.
Way to kick me when I'm down, Daed......................
It'll still kick your Monolith's straight back to the War in Heaven though.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, just asking, this would be able to punch through the void shields of a titan correct? Because in the writing, it says a Void shield is just an extra invuln save.
No. That's not rules. Just follow the rules as printed for how void shields work.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, just asking, this would be able to punch through the void shields of a titan correct? Because in the writing, it says a Void shield is just an extra invuln save.
No. That's not rules. Just follow the rules as printed for how void shields work.
So technically it does, if it wounds. It'll do 3 MW (bypassing voids) and collapse 1 layer of void shielding. So by inflicting mortal wounds, it is "punching through"
But not in the way I assume FezzikDaBullgryn means.
What I meant was that everyone is freaking out about how OP this thing is. There isn't a really prominent faction that can't deal with this thin very easily, except for Custodes.
Custodes have plenty of firepower and, more to the point, can actually hide from the fething thing reasonably well.
The faction that the railgun is actually going to gak on is Daemons, particularly monster mash which is one of the most viable ways to play them atm. Most competitive Daemons lists have like five greater daemons in them, some have even more..
What I meant was that everyone is freaking out about how OP this thing is. There isn't a really prominent faction that can't deal with this thin very easily, except for Custodes.
Custodes have plenty of firepower and, more to the point, can actually hide from the fething thing reasonably well.
The faction that the railgun is actually going to gak on is Daemons, particularly monster mash which is one of the most viable ways to play them atm. Most competitive Daemons lists have like five greater daemons in them, some have even more..
Well yeah, this gun exists to punish big models with 4++/5++ saves. Those with inbuilt hit penalties though don't risk that much. Belakor in particular laughs at railguns.
Want to know who is going to be very sorry? Dreadknights.
Well yeah, this gun exists to punish big models with 4++/5++ saves. Those with inbuilt hit penalties though don't risk that much. Belakor in particular laughs at railguns.
Want to know who is going to be very sorry? Dreadknights.
Two hammerheads firing at Belakor at once are more likely to score a wound on Belakor than not, and if that happens Belakor is suddenly bracketed with five wounds left. And two hammerheads are cheaper than Belakor at their current points. And it bluntly isn't a huge upset for two railguns to just blow him clean off of the table, we've all seen considerably hotter rolls. And as you've said, Belakor is one of the worst targets for this thing. It does considerably better against Big Bird of a Keeper of Secrets.
That's the problem with this gun. It's the most feast or famine weapon I've ever seen. It either does nothing, or it does 10-12 wounds.
Spoletta wrote: An Hammerhead has a 22% chance to wound belakor.
More accurately: a Hammerhead has a 22% chance to wound assuming they are BS4+ in the next codex instead of BS3+ like they are now.
Assuming their Ballistic Skill remains as is, a lone Hammerhead would have a 33% chance to successfully land a hit and wound.
Tau vehicles are BS4+, including 9th edition ones (we know this from FW).
HH having 1 more than the other tanks was due to the targeting array being incorporated in the datasheet, which in this case isn't.
Spoletta wrote: I think that the chances of it are quite low.
Tau vehicles are BS4+, including 9th edition ones (we know this from FW).
HH having 1 more than the other tanks was due to the targeting array being incorporated in the datasheet, which in this case isn't.
Except that in 6e edition they had BS 4 (hit on 3+) and could take the targeting array upgrade for a chance at Precision Shots USR.
It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
Jidmah wrote: It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
Spoletta wrote: I think that the chances of it are quite low.
Tau vehicles are BS4+, including 9th edition ones (we know this from FW).
HH having 1 more than the other tanks was due to the targeting array being incorporated in the datasheet, which in this case isn't.
Gw copy paste alot so there is a good chance that stats remain the same regardless of balance.
Jidmah wrote: It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
The video of that one guy freaking out is still one of my favorites. But yeah, i'm not worried yet, i'll wait to see the stat sheet. Not a fan of the sub munitions though I can tell you that. So hopefully the Cost tied with lack of CP makes it less appealing
Jidmah wrote: It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
Spoletta wrote: I think that the chances of it are quite low.
Tau vehicles are BS4+, including 9th edition ones (we know this from FW).
HH having 1 more than the other tanks was due to the targeting array being incorporated in the datasheet, which in this case isn't.
Except that in 6e edition they had BS 4 (hit on 3+) and could take the targeting array upgrade for a chance at Precision Shots USR.
Advanced Targeting System, not Targeting Array. The Targeting Array of previous codexes disappeared in 6th.
And now it's back. Doing something other than +1 BS.
Jidmah wrote: It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
Hah. I had to go look him up, because I completely forgot who the hell he was.
I think we're still waiting on the Kill Rig meta, too.
I think we're still waiting on the Kill Rig meta, too.
I think a triple killrig list would be really good. The problem is that the damn model is so big its hard to maneuver and your almost always in LOS of the enemy.
Ordana wrote:I just love people comparing 9th edition weapons to 8th and then complaining about how much worse the 8th edition weapon is.
Like this is the first time a 9th edition weapon profile has looked ridiculous in comparison.
9th is a whole different game not even in the same ballpark, stop trying to force comparisons.
And yet half (or so) of the armies in the game don't have their codex yet, including all of mine at least until may.
Should we just sit tight and suffer? Or perhaps GW should put some effort into balancing the game instead of all the new books being better than all the old books?
One side of the mouth says "power creep doesn't exist!" and the other side of the mouth says "don't compare new books to old ones, the old books are too weak!"
wtf are you talking about, I do little on these forums but complain about how insane the power creep is in 9th. Where am I saying power creep does not exist? my entire complaint is that the power creep is so bad that there is no point in comparing 8th and 9th.
And yes GW should do better, feel free to stop giving them money. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes little sense to compare 8th and 9th edition armies.
I didn't mean your mouth specifically. There are people on this forum that swear up and down power creep doesn't exist, and then when I make a thread illustrating that it does, I get bogged down by people saying "of course it does, idiot" as you have (in so many words).
The utility in comparing 9th books to 8th books is to illustrate precisely the point you agree with - power creep is utterly bonkers. It makes perfect sense in that context.
Folks can mean different things when they say ‘power creep’: but the most useful definition I’ve seen is when comparing against a baseline (e.g., Antagonist NPCs in a video game, an immutable standard card in a collectible card game). In this 40k context, Editions are the baseline.
Therefore, I don’t think that comparing 8th Ed. to 9th Ed. demonstrates power creep—even though clearly stats increased between the two editions. If we went to a hypothetical 10th Ed. Where all stats got a flat 1000x increase: the stats are obviously higher, but everything is still technically the same.
The problem with my argument is that armies/units still exist with their stats unchanged since their 8th Ed. version—but I think this illustrates the frustration you are probably experiencing in these discussions: those armies should be getting updated. Comparing these against each other is obviously wrong, aside from demonstrating the need for GW to more swiftly release the relevant Codex updates.
Ordana wrote:I just love people comparing 9th edition weapons to 8th and then complaining about how much worse the 8th edition weapon is.
Like this is the first time a 9th edition weapon profile has looked ridiculous in comparison.
9th is a whole different game not even in the same ballpark, stop trying to force comparisons.
And yet half (or so) of the armies in the game don't have their codex yet, including all of mine at least until may.
Should we just sit tight and suffer? Or perhaps GW should put some effort into balancing the game instead of all the new books being better than all the old books?
One side of the mouth says "power creep doesn't exist!" and the other side of the mouth says "don't compare new books to old ones, the old books are too weak!"
wtf are you talking about, I do little on these forums but complain about how insane the power creep is in 9th. Where am I saying power creep does not exist? my entire complaint is that the power creep is so bad that there is no point in comparing 8th and 9th.
And yes GW should do better, feel free to stop giving them money. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes little sense to compare 8th and 9th edition armies.
I didn't mean your mouth specifically. There are people on this forum that swear up and down power creep doesn't exist, and then when I make a thread illustrating that it does, I get bogged down by people saying "of course it does, idiot" as you have (in so many words).
The utility in comparing 9th books to 8th books is to illustrate precisely the point you agree with - power creep is utterly bonkers. It makes perfect sense in that context.
Folks can mean different things when they say ‘power creep’: but the most useful definition I’ve seen is when comparing against a baseline (e.g., Antagonist NPCs in a video game, an immutable standard card in a collectible card game). In this 40k context, Editions are the baseline.
Therefore, I don’t think that comparing 8th Ed. to 9th Ed. demonstrates power creep—even though clearly stats increased between the two editions. If we went to a hypothetical 10th Ed. Where all stats got a flat 1000x increase: the stats are obviously higher, but everything is still technically the same.
The problem with my argument is that armies/units still exist with their stats unchanged since their 8th Ed. version—but I think this illustrates the frustration you are probably experiencing in these discussions: those armies should be getting updated. Comparing these against each other is obviously wrong, aside from demonstrating the need for GW to more swiftly release the relevant Codex updates.
To distill the argument further, even with an edition change, the core rules and unit profiles didn't change in a manner that necessitated an inflation of power/damage in the way that has been seen. It would have been perfectly acceptable to simply revise the armies or place them on a similar power curve to the 8th ed books and nothing would have been lost.
Jidmah wrote: It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
Hah. I had to go look him up, because I completely forgot who the hell he was.
I think we're still waiting on the Kill Rig meta, too.
To be fair, kill rigs are a fairly decent units and there are a bunch of people placing well with 2-3 of them as part of lists using the traditional Waaagh!
Not an unconditionally OP unit, but definitely one of the best ones in the codex.
The problem I have, and I think others may have too is that these buffs are just very inequal, like someone was pointing out earlier the gunwagon actually got nerfed, and now is 175 points for a 4+ bs chassis putting out d6 s8 ap-2 d2 shots. The guns that actually did get buffed inarguably, the KMB and the tellyport blasta are basically only on a handful of units, even within those only on a few chassis even worth considering.
I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each
I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each
I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.
which only makes it weirder why the slightly bigger one does.
Is it somewhere between a bullet going mach 10 or mach 12 that reality just breaks?
It's actually hilarious now. The Shadowsword and Quake Cannon are anti-titan weapons, cost 500 points per platform, have a worse balistic skill, no rerolls, and can't get orders/aura buffs. Obviously there is the 30 wound thing, but try and hide a baneblade anywhere on a map. You can't. Hammerheads can be. Rules like this invalidate entire sections of codexes, like the BB variants, or the whole list of Land Raiders.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's actually hilarious now. The Shadowsword and Quake Cannon are anti-titan weapons, cost 500 points per platform, have a worse balistic skill, no rerolls, and can't get orders/aura buffs. Obviously there is the 30 wound thing, but try and hide a baneblade anywhere on a map. You can't. Hammerheads can be. Rules like this invalidate entire sections of codexes, like the BB variants, or the whole list of Land Raiders.
Super Heavies don't belong in 40k and Land Raiders haven't been valid since forever, the Railgun existing or not is irrelevant to that.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's actually hilarious now. The Shadowsword and Quake Cannon are anti-titan weapons, cost 500 points per platform, have a worse balistic skill, no rerolls, and can't get orders/aura buffs. Obviously there is the 30 wound thing, but try and hide a baneblade anywhere on a map. You can't. Hammerheads can be. Rules like this invalidate entire sections of codexes, like the BB variants, or the whole list of Land Raiders.
To be fair: the Shadowsword has BS 3+ and rerolls failed wound rolls against titanic units. But I get what you mean.
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
The Railgun is good vs infantry and large targets though.
6+D3 Damage kills 1
3 MW kills: 3 1w models, 1.5 2w models or 1 3w model
VS MSQ of 5 the normal fire mode is better vs all targets.
VS MSQ of 10 the stratagem is slightly better vs 1 wound targets, parity vs 2w, and worse vs 3w.
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each
I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.
which only makes it weirder why the slightly bigger one does.
Is it somewhere between a bullet going mach 10 or mach 12 that reality just breaks?
I suspect it's supposed to be *considerably* bigger, not *slightly* bigger, and we've just spent the last several years being collectively enormously underwhelmed by a deeply mediocre version of the weapon.
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
The Railgun is good vs infantry and large targets though.
6+D3 Damage kills 1
3 MW kills: 3 1w models, 1.5 2w models or 1 3w model
VS MSQ of 5 the normal fire mode is better vs all targets.
VS MSQ of 10 the stratagem is slightly better vs 1 wound targets, parity vs 2w, and worse vs 3w.
HH isn't absolutely terrible against 1w units because it inflicts 3 MWs, but that's not exactly the same as "Good". A gladiator reaper kills 17 guards, and it isn't even considered good.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: The problem I have, and I think others may have too is that these buffs are just very inequal, like someone was pointing out earlier the gunwagon actually got nerfed, and now is 175 points for a 4+ bs chassis putting out d6 s8 ap-2 d2 shots. The guns that actually did get buffed inarguably, the KMB and the tellyport blasta are basically only on a handful of units, even within those only on a few chassis even worth considering.
Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: The problem I have, and I think others may have too is that these buffs are just very inequal, like someone was pointing out earlier the gunwagon actually got nerfed, and now is 175 points for a 4+ bs chassis putting out d6 s8 ap-2 d2 shots. The guns that actually did get buffed inarguably, the KMB and the tellyport blasta are basically only on a handful of units, even within those only on a few chassis even worth considering.
Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.
The gunwagon is BS5+ and pays 40 points for +1 to hit on a single gun. The only way to make it even remotely worthwhile is paying another 25 points for a weapon upgrade, for a total of 190 points for what is roughly equal to a bare bones LRBT with battle cannon. The transport capacity is pretty much worthless, as it's not open topped. The melee capacity is irrelevant as you are not driving a 190 points tank (205 with deff rolla) with 4+ armor and a bast weapon into combat. It's quite literally one of the worst units in the codex.
Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Jidmah wrote: There is no point value where a gunwagon would be worth bringing. It's just a flawed unit, dead till next codex.
how can you even make claims like that? there is for sure a points cost where it would be an auto 3-of in every army
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Tau are much better at killing low-T stuff than vehicles from my experience against them.
I don't think i ever saw rail rifles broadsides so their only true anti tank was either coldstar with fusions, ghostkeel or some meme-y missile list
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
When's the last time you saw a Railgun equipped Hammerhead in a competitive Tau list?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Broadsides Heavy Railrifles are 2 shot s8 ap-4 d6 damage. And broadsides are barely taken in competitive (and then more often the missile version) because they are slow, expensive and eat AT fire. Tau's AT fire tends to come more from a single relic Ion Riptide and lots of str 7 shots.
'Large volumes of low damage' has been the majority contribution to tau antitank for a while now, with the relic ion riptide being a bit of an outlier just because of how bloody good that gun is.
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
It is a tank with a single gun with a single shot, from the shooting faction of the game. It is perfectly fine that it is powerful.
When it was released the first time, it was damn scary too. Then the ages creeped it out.
In 8th/9th edition GW is giving dignity back to the old models. This means making it scary again. Now, we can complain about it being too good, or too swingy or whatever, but we all agree that it being again a damn scary gun is absolutely a good thing.
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each
I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.
which only makes it weirder why the slightly bigger one does.
Is it somewhere between a bullet going mach 10 or mach 12 that reality just breaks?
I suspect it's supposed to be *considerably* bigger, not *slightly* bigger, and we've just spent the last several years being collectively enormously underwhelmed by a deeply mediocre version of the weapon.
Yeah, that's my take as well, after I remembered what it used to do in older editions. This thing used to be S10 AP1, which in 3rd/4th meant it could pen AV14 on a 4+, because AP1 counted "glances" as "pens". And AV14 was the best anything I can remember got. Then the editions rolled on and it kept the same profile as the rules changed, until 8th edition rolled around and suddenly its S10 AP-4 Dd6. Big drop. This thing used to be scary, now it is again. They've just brought it back to where it used to be, more or less.
ccs wrote: Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
Do you think it took them 10 years to notice?
I guess snappy one-liners don't add much.
All in all I don't think this is about sales, its just trying to make a one-shot weapon work.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: The problem I have, and I think others may have too is that these buffs are just very inequal, like someone was pointing out earlier the gunwagon actually got nerfed, and now is 175 points for a 4+ bs chassis putting out d6 s8 ap-2 d2 shots. The guns that actually did get buffed inarguably, the KMB and the tellyport blasta are basically only on a handful of units, even within those only on a few chassis even worth considering.
Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.
The gunwagon is BS5+ and pays 40 points for +1 to hit on a single gun. The only way to make it even remotely worthwhile is paying another 25 points for a weapon upgrade, for a total of 190 points for what is roughly equal to a bare bones LRBT with battle cannon.
The transport capacity is pretty much worthless, as it's not open topped.
The melee capacity is irrelevant as you are not driving a 190 points tank (205 with deff rolla) with 4+ armor and a bast weapon into combat.
It's quite literally one of the worst units in the codex.
Well, like I said -- it pays too much for parts that coincidentally make the other end of it not as worthwhile. There are better things in the book, but when you're making a comparison to a unit that makes one big shot and another unit that transports, shoots, can do melee well, rerolls charges, and has some -1D potential then you're not making a straight comparison and it will be misleading.
Jidmah wrote: There is no point value where a gunwagon would be worth bringing. It's just a flawed unit, dead till next codex.
how can you even make claims like that? there is for sure a points cost where it would be an auto 3-of in every army
Because a battlewagon will always be cheaper, has open topped and the only value the gunwagon has over a battlewagon is +1 to hit on its main gun which is worse than every single main gun on every single buggy, even if you pick the once-per-army upgrade.
And of course, I assumed that it was clear that I wasn't talking about something unreasonable like 80 points for 16 T8 wounds.
But if you insist, I can change my statement to "there is no non-gamebreaking point value where a gunwagon would be worth bringing".
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each
I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.
which only makes it weirder why the slightly bigger one does.
Is it somewhere between a bullet going mach 10 or mach 12 that reality just breaks?
I suspect it's supposed to be *considerably* bigger, not *slightly* bigger, and we've just spent the last several years being collectively enormously underwhelmed by a deeply mediocre version of the weapon.
Yeah, that's my take as well, after I remembered what it used to do in older editions. This thing used to be S10 AP1, which in 3rd/4th meant it could pen AV14 on a 4+, because AP1 counted "glances" as "pens". And AV14 was the best anything I can remember got. Then the editions rolled on and it kept the same profile as the rules changed, until 8th edition rolled around and suddenly its S10 AP-4 Dd6. Big drop. This thing used to be scary, now it is again. They've just brought it back to where it used to be, more or less.
Don't forget when it was released it wasn't even best in class for tank-mounted anti-tank though. Solidly 4th or 5th behind:
Vanquishers (8+2d6 pen, ordnance damage table)
Demolishers (10+ 2d6d1 pen, ordnance damage table)
linked Fire Prisms (10+1d6 pen, AP1 also, twin linked, small blast)
So either those weapons are going to be even MORE powerful when their book drops (yikes) or they are going to be breaking tradition.
Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.
Well, like I said -- it pays too much for parts that coincidentally make the other end of it not as worthwhile. There are better things in the book, but when you're making a comparison to a unit that makes one big shot and another unit that transports, shoots, can do melee well, rerolls charges, and has some -1D potential then you're not making a straight comparison and it will be misleading.
Not really. It is T8, it does have W16, it does have a 3+ but the transport capacity is functionally USELESS, Ramshackle and Ere we go are functionally useless as well. I can count on one hand how many games where Ramshackle has really ever mattered, and usually its because someone brought a heavy bolter and the only thing worth shooting was my mek gunz which coincidentally actually benefit more from ramshackle then most vehicles thanks to T5 In no way, shape or form is a Gunwagon a "Decent assault vehicle" even if you give it the 15pt upgrade of a deffrolla. Its got 6 attacks base at S8 no AP 1dmg hitting on 5s. The only way to make it somewhat ok in CC is to give it the deffrolla which ups it to S9, -2AP 2dmg and hits on 2+, but still only 6 attacks, on a now 180pt unit, 190 if you give it the killkannon and 210 if you give it the 4 big shootas it can carry (Don't recommend the big shootas...or hte gunwagon in general ) In regards to it paying "A bit too much" yes...for everything. And I want to tie that in with this quote as well
how can you even make claims like that? there is for sure a points cost where it would be an auto 3-of in every army
You and Jidmah are correct...kind of. Jidmah is correct, there is no points value that is reasonable that this would ever be taken for its main purpose of being a tank. If you priced it the same as a buggy it would be taken but only because it would be unbelievably durable for its cost. You are correct in that it would be an auto-include if priced that low..But not for what it was designed for, it would be an auto-include because it would likely be the cheapiest T8 3+ wounds in the game. Kitted out with its killkannon and 4 big shootas (no other upgrades) this damn thing costs 195pts...its just not worth it, the killkannon averages 1 dead Marine a turn...and its actually slightly less then that. If this thing remained unmolested the entire game, 5 full turns and had nothing but Marine infantry in front of it, by the end of the game it would kill 4.86 Marines with its Killkannon and 3.7 with its 4 big shootas. totals 8.5 Marines, if they are 20pts each thats 170pts. And that is giving Big shootas half range the entire game. My general rule of thumb is that a shooty unit needs to make back its points value in 3 turns to be considered OK. This thing can't even do that in 5 turns. You could literally give the Killkannon 2x the # of shots and it would still be lackluster, especially considering it has a MAX range of 24' which means its one of those wonderful SHORT ranged tanks. And as mentioned, you really don't want this thing in CC because it then can't even utilize its main gun and at best its got 6 attacks. If you wanted it in close combat you would have been better off grabbing a Bonebreaka which averages 9.5 attacks on a turn where it charges....which is also a trash unit because...its only for 1 turn and then it goes RIGHT back to being a regular Battlewagon with smaller transport capacity.
So to summarize daed, its not a decent assault vehicle, its a really crappy one with no purpose except to give the ork player -1 to start the game. And its not even an OK shooting unit since equipped with its best loadouts its unable to earn back its points in a full game. And if you ram it into CC, it sucks and will just spend the rest of the game bogged down.
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
Honestly this is a contested point. However, I will point out that in 8th edition GW had the now infamous "Orktober" shenenigans where they accidentally released most of the stuff in November, and the stuff they did release was....crap. The buggies were okish looking, I personally only like 1 or 2 of them as far as aesthetics go, competitively...they mostly sucked. The Scrapjet was ok, and 1 other was doing okish but definitely not competitive in the GT scene. But the worst offender, by a country mile was the Rukkatruk squigbuggy. It was so bad and overpriced that even GW went "whoops" and gave it a hefty price cut....which didn't even help. Nobody bought them, they were trash. Then comes 9th and GW buffs it to be the premier buggy with amazing firepower, basically the only model in the ork army with indirect fire and priced it rather aggressively. Suddenly they were flying off the shelf and GW ran out for a bit.
So, does GW price/rules equip models to sell? Sometimes? For every unit you can find that didn't sell well because of trash rules that then DID sell when the rules became OP or just good I can cite you at least 1 other unit that sucked in a previous edition and sucked harder the next....Looking at you Stompa.
Without internal knowledge of what GW is doing and what their warehouses look like we will never know for sure.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Tau Railguns as originally implemented in 3rd edition were the premier anti tank weapon of any army. packing STR10, AP1 and long range. Hammerheads had this gun, together with a reasonably mobile platform and an alternate fire mode that was one of the few templates they could put down. Broadsides had twinlinked railguns with no alternate fire, (when twin linked let you re-roll hits rather than double shots) and limited mobility (moving with heavy weapons in 3rd forfeited heavy weapon shooting). In game terms what this meant is that in 3rd, and even more so in 4th and 5th, Railguns were excellent at the one shot against vehicles as AP 1 meant that glancing hits would be penetrating hits instead, and penetrating hits had a good chance of blowing whatever it was that was hit to bits. Glancing hits were unreliable and rarely resulted in lasting effects to vehicles.
When 6th came around, and Hull points were added, the riptide was introduced, and broadsides were reduced to STR8 heavy rail rifles, it meant that while the railgun was still one of the premier anti tank weapons, and Heavy Rail rifles were still AP1 (trumped by all the D weapons starting to appear) Glancing hits on vehicles would strip hull points and wreck the vehicle. this meant that you could use a more multi purpose platform (broadsides with HYMP) to engage infantry and vehicles, and glance vehicles down through weight of fire, and the one shot railguns fell out of favour, since as they were one shot, and you now had to contend with things like Invisibility, widespread Invuln saves etc, they were increasingly unreliable.
Move to 8th edition, Railguns became simply STR10 lascannons, Heavy Railrifles were now slightly punchier missile launchers no longer able to one shot anything and with the move to vehicles having a big wound pool, having a few shots with unreliable damage with low BS meant that the only really reliable way to take out vehicles was Cold stars with fusion blasters, or weight of fire from S7 missile pods. Incidentally, in 3rd to 7th editions, S7 weapons could not even scratch land raiders, or leman Russ' from the front, and could only barely damage predators. So you are now, in 8th/9th in a situation where Weight of fire is generally preferred over High Strength low shot weapons since all weapons can now hurt anything on the table, whether its reliable or not.
If anything, compared to Railguns as originally implemeted, they are a lot weaker against vehicles, and a lot stronger against MC's. It used to be a rare shot that would instant death a big gribbly, all weapons did one damage unless the shot was double the toughness of what it hit, in which case Splat, MC's used to rock around with 4+ wounds and the STR/T interaction was a lot harsher than it is now.
Quite seriously though, since the Railgun is on one platform, and not a very durable one at that, I can see them being shot once per game, per platform, and depending on how Longstrike is implemented in the new book, thats only 3-4 shots total if you max out with RO3. If you don't have anything that can reply, or the Hammerheads can maneuver round well to avoid counterfire, then they can probably smash multiple units down over multiple turns, especially big things like Mortarian, Knights and so forth, but with the boards being so constrained size wise, they have no-where to move to to leverage their range.
Game play aside, in the fluff, Tau units are supposed to be specialists, not generalists, with units designed to engage specific targets rather than take all comers, and the take all comers is the standard setup for most units now. I would love for various weapons to excel at their specific thing, but be sub par against everything else, but that may be wishful thinking
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each
I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.
which only makes it weirder why the slightly bigger one does.
Is it somewhere between a bullet going mach 10 or mach 12 that reality just breaks?
I suspect it's supposed to be *considerably* bigger, not *slightly* bigger, and we've just spent the last several years being collectively enormously underwhelmed by a deeply mediocre version of the weapon.
Yeah, that's my take as well, after I remembered what it used to do in older editions. This thing used to be S10 AP1, which in 3rd/4th meant it could pen AV14 on a 4+, because AP1 counted "glances" as "pens". And AV14 was the best anything I can remember got. Then the editions rolled on and it kept the same profile as the rules changed, until 8th edition rolled around and suddenly its S10 AP-4 Dd6. Big drop. This thing used to be scary, now it is again. They've just brought it back to where it used to be, more or less.
Don't forget when it was released it wasn't even best in class for tank-mounted anti-tank though. Solidly 4th or 5th behind:
Vanquishers (8+2d6 pen, ordnance damage table)
Demolishers (10+ 2d6d1 pen, ordnance damage table)
linked Fire Prisms (10+1d6 pen, AP1 also, twin linked, small blast)
So either those weapons are going to be even MORE powerful when their book drops (yikes) or they are going to be breaking tradition.
Well, we already have several units armed with Demolishers with 9th edition rules, and they're the same as they were in 8th. Vanquisher is mostly up in the air, but I'm still betting it will be half of the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon: Heavy 1, S16, AP-4, D9. And the rumour (still unconfirmed) is that linked Fire Prisms will ignore invulns as well. So, possibly? And nothing is stopping them from boosting Demolishers in the Guard codex or one their "balance dataslates".
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Tau Railguns as originally implemented in 3rd edition were the premier anti tank weapon of any army. packing STR10, AP1 and long range. Hammerheads had this gun, together with a reasonably mobile platform and an alternate fire mode that was one of the few templates they could put down. Broadsides had twinlinked railguns with no alternate fire, (when twin linked let you re-roll hits rather than double shots) and limited mobility (moving with heavy weapons in 3rd forfeited heavy weapon shooting). In game terms what this meant is that in 3rd, and even more so in 4th and 5th, Railguns were excellent at the one shot against vehicles as AP 1 meant that glancing hits would be penetrating hits instead, and penetrating hits had a good chance of blowing whatever it was that was hit to bits. Glancing hits were unreliable and rarely resulted in lasting effects to vehicles.
As mentioned in my post, Railguns weren't even in top 3 Best In Class tank-mounted antitank weapons when they were released. I expect the other weapons to be buffed similarly to keep this trend - and that's TERRIFYING for the health of the game.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Well, we already have several units armed with Demolishers with 9th edition rules, and they're the same as they were in 8th. Vanquisher is mostly up in the air, but I'm still betting it will be half of the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon: Heavy 1, S16, AP-4, D9. And the rumour (still unconfirmed) is that linked Fire Prisms will ignore invulns as well. So, possibly? And nothing is stopping them from boosting Demolishers in the Guard codex or one their "balance dataslates".
Yep, so Demolishers now worse than Railguns confirmed (against every target class in the game, nice). If the Vanquisher goes to Strength 16, AP-4, D9, you don't consider that perhaps a bit too OTT? That's what I was afraid of - the Arms Race of superweapons. 1500 points of Titan? No worries, I brought 500 points of Vanquishers. "Who Shoots First Wins" is my favorite mission pack - and good news, it's the name for all modes of play! And yay, more ignoring the thing that ignores the thing rules for the Fire Prism. Especially ignoring invulns. That's the sign of a healthy game right there. I can't wait for the invuln-that-ignores-ignoring-invulns mechanic.
Lethality train has no brakes! (wait did I say that in the first post already?).
Ordana wrote:The Vanquisher was never actually good as an AT gun despite being advertised as such.
Ordanance was 2d6 pick highest, which in no way compensated for 2 more points of str.
The basic Battlecannon was a better AT gun then the Vanquisher because of scatter being better then having to roll to-hit.
In the 4th edition armored company rules, the Vanquisher had access to BS4 (3+ now) and Veteran Skills (including a hit reroll) as well. And it was 2d6 and pick the highest while ALSO having the option to fire standard battlecannon shells (except with 24" greater range out to 96").
It was Ordnance and2d6 and add them together, meaning it penetrated much more easily than any other gun in the game AND got to roll on the most devastating damage chart.
Ordana wrote: The Vanquisher was never actually good as an AT gun despite being advertised as such.
Ordanance was 2d6 pick highest, which in no way compensated for 2 more points of str.
The basic Battlecannon was a better AT gun then the Vanquisher because of scatter being better then having to roll to-hit.
Vanquisher Cannon was roll 2d6 and add them together. Like the 7th edition Armourbane USR.
Penetration wise, yeah the Vanquisher was WAY better. But Ordana was correct that generally speaking the LR Battlecannon was better overall thanks to the Blast rule. The Vanquisher was a single shot weapon, the battlecannon was a pieplate.
The reason why the old Battlewagon with Killkannon was good was because ork shooting was terrible when it had to roll to hit. Placing a template down and letting it scatter wherever was just fun and usually resulted in more hits then we can get now with the stupid thing. So it was more reliable to hit while the Vanquisher was more reliable to penetrate and destroy
The New Tau gun though...good god almight, if nothing else they likely need to tone it down in terms of dmg output. And the submunitions strat is just broken against Ork specialist mobz. Thing can gut a unit of kommandos in 1 turn.
Ordana wrote: The Vanquisher was never actually good as an AT gun despite being advertised as such.
Ordanance was 2d6 pick highest, which in no way compensated for 2 more points of str.
The basic Battlecannon was a better AT gun then the Vanquisher because of scatter being better then having to roll to-hit.
Vanquisher Cannon was roll 2d6 and add them together. Like the 7th edition Armourbane USR.
Penetration wise, yeah the Vanquisher was WAY better. But Ordana was correct that generally speaking the LR Battlecannon was better overall thanks to the Blast rule. The Vanquisher was a single shot weapon, the battlecannon was a pieplate.
The reason why the old Battlewagon with Killkannon was good was because ork shooting was terrible when it had to roll to hit. Placing a template down and letting it scatter wherever was just fun and usually resulted in more hits then we can get now with the stupid thing. So it was more reliable to hit while the Vanquisher was more reliable to penetrate and destroy
The New Tau gun though...good god almight, if nothing else they likely need to tone it down in terms of dmg output. And the submunitions strat is just broken against Ork specialist mobz. Thing can gut a unit of kommandos in 1 turn.
In 4th and 3rd, the pieplate was half strength unless the hole landed on the target - a Russ was a good bit less accurate than a BS4 (3+) vanquisher especially on the move (except against large targets like the Land Raider, which it was incapable of penetrating), unless Strength 4 was sufficient to penetrate your tank.
In later editions (5th-6th), the Armored Battlegroup Vanquisher got a Co-Axial Heavy Stubber which made the main gun twin-linked if it hit the target with any one of its 3 shots. It also got Beast Hunter Shells, which were not only Blast but also inflicted Instant Death. The codex vanquisher did indeed suck badly.
Ordana wrote:The Vanquisher was never actually good as an AT gun despite being advertised as such.
Ordanance was 2d6 pick highest, which in no way compensated for 2 more points of str.
The basic Battlecannon was a better AT gun then the Vanquisher because of scatter being better then having to roll to-hit.
In the 4th edition armored company rules, the Vanquisher had access to BS4 (3+ now) and Veteran Skills (including a hit reroll) as well. And it was 2d6 and pick the highest while ALSO having the option to fire standard battlecannon shells (except with 24" greater range out to 96").
It was Ordnance and2d6 and add them together, meaning it penetrated much more easily than any other gun in the game AND got to roll on the most devastating damage chart.
Right, hitting on 3s, rerolling, needing a 7 on 2d6 to pen AV14. At which point, you roll on the "most devastating damage chart" and either cripple or kill the tank (50% chance of either). And you think giving it 1 S16, AP-4, D9 shot is OTT? That won't kill any "tank", it'll just cripple them.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Tau Railguns as originally implemented in 3rd edition were the premier anti tank weapon of any army. packing STR10, AP1 and long range. Hammerheads had this gun, together with a reasonably mobile platform and an alternate fire mode that was one of the few templates they could put down. Broadsides had twinlinked railguns with no alternate fire, (when twin linked let you re-roll hits rather than double shots) and limited mobility (moving with heavy weapons in 3rd forfeited heavy weapon shooting). In game terms what this meant is that in 3rd, and even more so in 4th and 5th, Railguns were excellent at the one shot against vehicles as AP 1 meant that glancing hits would be penetrating hits instead, and penetrating hits had a good chance of blowing whatever it was that was hit to bits. Glancing hits were unreliable and rarely resulted in lasting effects to vehicles.
When 6th came around, and Hull points were added, the riptide was introduced, and broadsides were reduced to STR8 heavy rail rifles, it meant that while the railgun was still one of the premier anti tank weapons, and Heavy Rail rifles were still AP1 (trumped by all the D weapons starting to appear) Glancing hits on vehicles would strip hull points and wreck the vehicle. this meant that you could use a more multi purpose platform (broadsides with HYMP) to engage infantry and vehicles, and glance vehicles down through weight of fire, and the one shot railguns fell out of favour, since as they were one shot, and you now had to contend with things like Invisibility, widespread Invuln saves etc, they were increasingly unreliable.
Move to 8th edition, Railguns became simply STR10 lascannons, Heavy Railrifles were now slightly punchier missile launchers no longer able to one shot anything and with the move to vehicles having a big wound pool, having a few shots with unreliable damage with low BS meant that the only really reliable way to take out vehicles was Cold stars with fusion blasters, or weight of fire from S7 missile pods. Incidentally, in 3rd to 7th editions, S7 weapons could not even scratch land raiders, or leman Russ' from the front, and could only barely damage predators. So you are now, in 8th/9th in a situation where Weight of fire is generally preferred over High Strength low shot weapons since all weapons can now hurt anything on the table, whether its reliable or not.
If anything, compared to Railguns as originally implemeted, they are a lot weaker against vehicles, and a lot stronger against MC's. It used to be a rare shot that would instant death a big gribbly, all weapons did one damage unless the shot was double the toughness of what it hit, in which case Splat, MC's used to rock around with 4+ wounds and the STR/T interaction was a lot harsher than it is now.
Quite seriously though, since the Railgun is on one platform, and not a very durable one at that, I can see them being shot once per game, per platform, and depending on how Longstrike is implemented in the new book, thats only 3-4 shots total if you max out with RO3. If you don't have anything that can reply, or the Hammerheads can maneuver round well to avoid counterfire, then they can probably smash multiple units down over multiple turns, especially big things like Mortarian, Knights and so forth, but with the boards being so constrained size wise, they have no-where to move to to leverage their range.
Game play aside, in the fluff, Tau units are supposed to be specialists, not generalists, with units designed to engage specific targets rather than take all comers, and the take all comers is the standard setup for most units now. I would love for various weapons to excel at their specific thing, but be sub par against everything else, but that may be wishful thinking
Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.
Well, like I said -- it pays too much for parts that coincidentally make the other end of it not as worthwhile. There are better things in the book, but when you're making a comparison to a unit that makes one big shot and another unit that transports, shoots, can do melee well, rerolls charges, and has some -1D potential then you're not making a straight comparison and it will be misleading.
Not really. It is T8, it does have W16, it does have a 3+ but the transport capacity is functionally USELESS, Ramshackle and Ere we go are functionally useless as well. I can count on one hand how many games where Ramshackle has really ever mattered, and usually its because someone brought a heavy bolter and the only thing worth shooting was my mek gunz which coincidentally actually benefit more from ramshackle then most vehicles thanks to T5 In no way, shape or form is a Gunwagon a "Decent assault vehicle" even if you give it the 15pt upgrade of a deffrolla. Its got 6 attacks base at S8 no AP 1dmg hitting on 5s. The only way to make it somewhat ok in CC is to give it the deffrolla which ups it to S9, -2AP 2dmg and hits on 2+, but still only 6 attacks, on a now 180pt unit, 190 if you give it the killkannon and 210 if you give it the 4 big shootas it can carry (Don't recommend the big shootas...or hte gunwagon in general ) In regards to it paying "A bit too much" yes...for everything. And I want to tie that in with this quote as well
how can you even make claims like that? there is for sure a points cost where it would be an auto 3-of in every army
You and Jidmah are correct...kind of. Jidmah is correct, there is no points value that is reasonable that this would ever be taken for its main purpose of being a tank. If you priced it the same as a buggy it would be taken but only because it would be unbelievably durable for its cost. You are correct in that it would be an auto-include if priced that low..But not for what it was designed for, it would be an auto-include because it would likely be the cheapiest T8 3+ wounds in the game. Kitted out with its killkannon and 4 big shootas (no other upgrades) this damn thing costs 195pts...its just not worth it, the killkannon averages 1 dead Marine a turn...and its actually slightly less then that. If this thing remained unmolested the entire game, 5 full turns and had nothing but Marine infantry in front of it, by the end of the game it would kill 4.86 Marines with its Killkannon and 3.7 with its 4 big shootas. totals 8.5 Marines, if they are 20pts each thats 170pts. And that is giving Big shootas half range the entire game. My general rule of thumb is that a shooty unit needs to make back its points value in 3 turns to be considered OK. This thing can't even do that in 5 turns. You could literally give the Killkannon 2x the # of shots and it would still be lackluster, especially considering it has a MAX range of 24' which means its one of those wonderful SHORT ranged tanks. And as mentioned, you really don't want this thing in CC because it then can't even utilize its main gun and at best its got 6 attacks. If you wanted it in close combat you would have been better off grabbing a Bonebreaka which averages 9.5 attacks on a turn where it charges....which is also a trash unit because...its only for 1 turn and then it goes RIGHT back to being a regular Battlewagon with smaller transport capacity.
So to summarize daed, its not a decent assault vehicle, its a really crappy one with no purpose except to give the ork player -1 to start the game. And its not even an OK shooting unit since equipped with its best loadouts its unable to earn back its points in a full game. And if you ram it into CC, it sucks and will just spend the rest of the game bogged down.
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
Honestly this is a contested point. However, I will point out that in 8th edition GW had the now infamous "Orktober" shenenigans where they accidentally released most of the stuff in November, and the stuff they did release was....crap. The buggies were okish looking, I personally only like 1 or 2 of them as far as aesthetics go, competitively...they mostly sucked. The Scrapjet was ok, and 1 other was doing okish but definitely not competitive in the GT scene. But the worst offender, by a country mile was the Rukkatruk squigbuggy. It was so bad and overpriced that even GW went "whoops" and gave it a hefty price cut....which didn't even help. Nobody bought them, they were trash. Then comes 9th and GW buffs it to be the premier buggy with amazing firepower, basically the only model in the ork army with indirect fire and priced it rather aggressively. Suddenly they were flying off the shelf and GW ran out for a bit.
So, does GW price/rules equip models to sell? Sometimes? For every unit you can find that didn't sell well because of trash rules that then DID sell when the rules became OP or just good I can cite you at least 1 other unit that sucked in a previous edition and sucked harder the next....Looking at you Stompa.
Without internal knowledge of what GW is doing and what their warehouses look like we will never know for sure.
It's a gun wagon. It will never be a "sit back and shoot" kind of vehicle like a HH. As long as it has transport capacity and T8/W16 it will never be as point efficient at killing things as other vehicles designed to do so.
I'm not claiming it's great. I'd rather run a naked BW with 'ard case and deffrolla and again, as I noted, it pays too much for its gun.
That last paragraph though. Pretty sure a Tau infantry unit with effectively S5 -2AP 1dmg shots at 36' range and up to 3 shots at 18' range is a pretty generalist weapon build.
To put that in perspective, against a T6-8 3+ armored vehicle a unit of 12 firewarriors with a fireblade nearby will get 36 shots, 18 hits (no other buffs, including markerlights etc) 6 wounds and 4dmg. Not great, but that is a hell of a lot better then say 30 Ork boyz at 9' range who get 90 shots, 30 hits, 10 wounds and 3.3dmg Thats a 108pt unit putting out 4dmg vs a 270pt unit putting out 3.3dmg.
The railgun is itself a pretty generalist weapon as well. Yeah the gun is massive and only 1 shot but that sub-munitions strat is just ridiculously good against semi-elite infantry. A Unit of 10 kommandos will lose 5 to this strat alone. Thats 50pts, and its an auto-hit ability with mortal wounds so there is no protection except with FNP which is rather scarce in a lot of armies.
Again for comparison on how "generalist" that strat makes the Railgun. 20 Intercessors all in double tap range will get 40 shots, 26.6 hits, 8.8 wounds and 4.4dmg, or 4-5 dead Kommandos. So that Railgun is as effective at killing Kommandos as 400pts of intercessors.
Seems to me more like Tau are more of a generalist army. I mean hell, in 7th Tau used to kill Titans by chucking haywire grenades at them from danger close
Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.
Well, like I said -- it pays too much for parts that coincidentally make the other end of it not as worthwhile. There are better things in the book, but when you're making a comparison to a unit that makes one big shot and another unit that transports, shoots, can do melee well, rerolls charges, and has some -1D potential then you're not making a straight comparison and it will be misleading.
Not really. It is T8, it does have W16, it does have a 3+ but the transport capacity is functionally USELESS, Ramshackle and Ere we go are functionally useless as well. I can count on one hand how many games where Ramshackle has really ever mattered, and usually its because someone brought a heavy bolter and the only thing worth shooting was my mek gunz which coincidentally actually benefit more from ramshackle then most vehicles thanks to T5 In no way, shape or form is a Gunwagon a "Decent assault vehicle" even if you give it the 15pt upgrade of a deffrolla. Its got 6 attacks base at S8 no AP 1dmg hitting on 5s. The only way to make it somewhat ok in CC is to give it the deffrolla which ups it to S9, -2AP 2dmg and hits on 2+, but still only 6 attacks, on a now 180pt unit, 190 if you give it the killkannon and 210 if you give it the 4 big shootas it can carry (Don't recommend the big shootas...or hte gunwagon in general ) In regards to it paying "A bit too much" yes...for everything. And I want to tie that in with this quote as well
how can you even make claims like that? there is for sure a points cost where it would be an auto 3-of in every army
You and Jidmah are correct...kind of. Jidmah is correct, there is no points value that is reasonable that this would ever be taken for its main purpose of being a tank. If you priced it the same as a buggy it would be taken but only because it would be unbelievably durable for its cost. You are correct in that it would be an auto-include if priced that low..But not for what it was designed for, it would be an auto-include because it would likely be the cheapiest T8 3+ wounds in the game. Kitted out with its killkannon and 4 big shootas (no other upgrades) this damn thing costs 195pts...its just not worth it, the killkannon averages 1 dead Marine a turn...and its actually slightly less then that. If this thing remained unmolested the entire game, 5 full turns and had nothing but Marine infantry in front of it, by the end of the game it would kill 4.86 Marines with its Killkannon and 3.7 with its 4 big shootas. totals 8.5 Marines, if they are 20pts each thats 170pts. And that is giving Big shootas half range the entire game. My general rule of thumb is that a shooty unit needs to make back its points value in 3 turns to be considered OK. This thing can't even do that in 5 turns. You could literally give the Killkannon 2x the # of shots and it would still be lackluster, especially considering it has a MAX range of 24' which means its one of those wonderful SHORT ranged tanks. And as mentioned, you really don't want this thing in CC because it then can't even utilize its main gun and at best its got 6 attacks. If you wanted it in close combat you would have been better off grabbing a Bonebreaka which averages 9.5 attacks on a turn where it charges....which is also a trash unit because...its only for 1 turn and then it goes RIGHT back to being a regular Battlewagon with smaller transport capacity.
So to summarize daed, its not a decent assault vehicle, its a really crappy one with no purpose except to give the ork player -1 to start the game. And its not even an OK shooting unit since equipped with its best loadouts its unable to earn back its points in a full game. And if you ram it into CC, it sucks and will just spend the rest of the game bogged down.
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
Honestly this is a contested point. However, I will point out that in 8th edition GW had the now infamous "Orktober" shenenigans where they accidentally released most of the stuff in November, and the stuff they did release was....crap. The buggies were okish looking, I personally only like 1 or 2 of them as far as aesthetics go, competitively...they mostly sucked. The Scrapjet was ok, and 1 other was doing okish but definitely not competitive in the GT scene. But the worst offender, by a country mile was the Rukkatruk squigbuggy. It was so bad and overpriced that even GW went "whoops" and gave it a hefty price cut....which didn't even help. Nobody bought them, they were trash. Then comes 9th and GW buffs it to be the premier buggy with amazing firepower, basically the only model in the ork army with indirect fire and priced it rather aggressively. Suddenly they were flying off the shelf and GW ran out for a bit.
So, does GW price/rules equip models to sell? Sometimes? For every unit you can find that didn't sell well because of trash rules that then DID sell when the rules became OP or just good I can cite you at least 1 other unit that sucked in a previous edition and sucked harder the next....Looking at you Stompa.
Without internal knowledge of what GW is doing and what their warehouses look like we will never know for sure.
It's a gun wagon. It will never be a "sit back and shoot" kind of vehicle like a HH. As long as it has transport capacity and T8/W16 it will never be as point efficient at killing things as other vehicles designed to do so.
I'm not claiming it's great. I'd rather run a naked BW with 'ard case and deffrolla and again, as I noted, it pays too much for its gun.
Well what's funny is that last edition it was more effective lol, it had leman russ grinding advance and da boomer as a cp thing. It was honestly kinda good in 8th.
This seems ridiculously un-needed. The old heat lances for dark eldar did ap -5 but were only strength 6, the new ones are str 8 ap -4 but d6+2 damage. Dark lances have much the same profile but as heat lances except for 36" range and d3+3 damage.
This gun has 72" range (double the range of dark lances), str 14 (which is over 5 higher than void lances which we never use and 6 higher than dark lances which we used lots of), d3+6 damage (which is better than heat lance's damage which have 1/4 of their range) and when it wounds it does automatic 3 mortal wounds. Oh yeah and i almost forgot it also goes through invulnerable saves which my vehicles need to stay alive. FnP is the only real way around this and it's likely not enough.
I know this is just some leaked stats but this arms race GW forces out with each new codex esp. making some factions stupid absurd i just don't know if i want to play 40k in a serious manner anymore. I know a friend that was competitive in 40k and just stopped playing because his army just always got shafted and he was sick of it. I hated the idea of AoS but i might seriously consider it or a non-GW game. The arms race is ridiculous and i don't want to see a return of 7th edition tau over again.
Perhaps i'm freaking out too quickly but it seems balance is out the window again.
SemperMortis wrote: That last paragraph though. Pretty sure a Tau infantry unit with effectively S5 -2AP 1dmg shots at 36' range and up to 3 shots at 18' range is a pretty generalist weapon build.
To put that in perspective, against a T6-8 3+ armored vehicle a unit of 12 firewarriors with a fireblade nearby will get 36 shots, 18 hits (no other buffs, including markerlights etc) 6 wounds and 4dmg. Not great, but that is a hell of a lot better then say 30 Ork boyz at 9' range who get 90 shots, 30 hits, 10 wounds and 3.3dmg Thats a 108pt unit putting out 4dmg vs a 270pt unit putting out 3.3dmg.
The railgun is itself a pretty generalist weapon as well. Yeah the gun is massive and only 1 shot but that sub-munitions strat is just ridiculously good against semi-elite infantry. A Unit of 10 kommandos will lose 5 to this strat alone. Thats 50pts, and its an auto-hit ability with mortal wounds so there is no protection except with FNP which is rather scarce in a lot of armies.
Again for comparison on how "generalist" that strat makes the Railgun. 20 Intercessors all in double tap range will get 40 shots, 26.6 hits, 8.8 wounds and 4.4dmg, or 4-5 dead Kommandos. So that Railgun is as effective at killing Kommandos as 400pts of intercessors.
Seems to me more like Tau are more of a generalist army. I mean hell, in 7th Tau used to kill Titans by chucking haywire grenades at them from danger close
These apples to oranges comparative vacuum analysis games are just silly - especially when you're willing to apply Montka to T'au ( plus HQ ) and nothing to Orks. Not to mention for those Strikes to be shooting a vehicle like that they'd need to be within 18" AND be the closest eligible unit of it turn 1, which is pretty much impossible if you decide it not to be a thing -- and it only gets more restricted from there.
Even 12 Shoota Boyz under Waagh pick up to 36 WS3 S4 swings where 12 Strikes would be 12 WS5 S3. In that math Shoota Boyz are an order of magnitude stronger than Strikes in melee.
Like I get that Shoota Boyz get sort of screwed by Waaagh, but this is not a good way to assess relative strength.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Well what's funny is that last edition it was more effective lol, it had leman russ grinding advance and da boomer as a cp thing. It was honestly kinda good in 8th.
And that made the design of the unit lopsided. No one wanted to move it like a transport, because moving too far lost you shots. It's a conflicted model that needs a point drop and the return of boarding planks strat that GW has no doubt decided to bury in a supplement in the future.
flamingkillamajig wrote: This seems ridiculously un-needed. The old heat lances for dark eldar did ap -5 but were only strength 6, the new ones are str 8 ap -4 but d6+2 damage. Dark lances have much the same profile but as heat lances except for 36" range and d3+3 damage.
Yeah, and if a Ravager had a single Dark Lance it would kind of suck.
Fortunately it gets 3 and probably costs 75%~ of the Hammerhead.
GW could have just gone "screw it, Heavy 3 or 4, S10 AP-4 D3+3 damage, bit of fizz with mortal wounds on a 6".
And there are arguments for the game that a weapon that has a more normal distribution would be better as its less swingy.
But it doesn't obviously fit the fluff idea of a massive railgun that does one shot one kill. It also obviously steps on the Ion Cannon, which is presumably going to get a similar buff as well (although probably not quite to the same magnitude).
As for the Orks - sure the Gunwagon sucks. But don't compare it to the Gunwagon. Compare it to say 2 Scrapjets.
I just realized the stupidity of making this thing s14. What t7 units are there in the game that are scary enough to merit this weapon? This seems like it was designed by a rules member that was still extremely salty about 8th edition IH Dreadnaught characters. S16 would make sense, but s14 just means it has +2 to wound anything t7, which are light transports and Dreadnaughts. Neither of which warrant 10+3MW and anti-invuln firepower. Am I missing a horde of t7 Heavy units running around?
Honestly as a dark eldar player the only way i can think of fighting these things is just spamming lots of smaller vehicles. We still don't know what else tau have though.
@Tyel: I don't think you understand. I can only have 3 ravagers and a couple flyers. God only knows what else they can bring. Each shot that hits (the hardest part) and wounds (2+ to wound) will auto-kill almost any vehicles i have (each railgun shot does 7 damage+3 mortal wounds and avoids invulnerable saves and all my armor so 10 damage i can't avoid during its worst shots). If they pick out the ravagers first i'll be down a solid amount of firepower esp. if this happens turn 1. As i said before the only things i can do against this is spam vehicles or something similar.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just realized the stupidity of making this thing s14. What t7 units are there in the game that are scary enough to merit this weapon? This seems like it was designed by a rules member that was still extremely salty about 8th edition IH Dreadnaught characters. S16 would make sense, but s14 just means it has +2 to wound anything t7, which are light transports and Dreadnaughts. Neither of which warrant 10+3MW and anti-invuln firepower. Am I missing a horde of t7 Heavy units running around?
Chaos Daemons? Be'lakor, 2-3 Keepers of Secrets, and a Lord of Change - all T7.
These apples to oranges comparative vacuum analysis games are just silly - especially when you're willing to apply Montka to T'au ( plus HQ ) and nothing to Orks. Not to mention for those Strikes to be shooting a vehicle like that they'd need to be within 18" AND be the closest eligible unit of it turn 1, which is pretty much impossible if you decide it not to be a thing -- and it only gets more restricted from there.
Even 12 Shoota Boyz under Waagh pick up to 36 WS3 S4 swings where 12 Strikes would be 12 WS5 S3. In that math Shoota Boyz are an order of magnitude stronger than Strikes in melee.
Like I get that Shoota Boyz get sort of screwed by Waaagh, but this is not a good way to assess relative strength.
You missed the point of the post, it wasn't to highlight orkz vs Tau it was to show how Tau weapons are generalist in their abilities rather then against Orks specifically. Tau Firewarriors are now likely getting 3 shots at 18' range at S5 AP-1 with a fireblade nearby and every Tau player is going to choose Montka which means -2 vs their closest enemy, and thanks to their weapons profile, its actually rather effective when they do this...and that is without any other buffs they are likely to get. I've always wanted to play a Tau army but only with loads of firewarriors, maybe now is my chance to try it (Kidding, ize ony play da Orkz)
As far as shoota boys vs Firewarriors...yes if those shoota boyz ever got into CC...they won't, but if they ever did, yes they would win. But with 5' movement and no AP on their attacks...they aren't exactly scary in CC.
Daedalus81 wrote: And that made the design of the unit lopsided. No one wanted to move it like a transport, because moving too far lost you shots. It's a conflicted model that needs a point drop and the return of boarding planks strat that GW has no doubt decided to bury in a supplement in the future.
No, it made it useful. The problem with GW's design for orkz is that we don't have dedicated vehicles like other factions. A Killakan doesn't know if it want's to be shooting or slashing, a dread has the same problem. A morkanaut/gorkanaut just sucks, but for some reason has a transport capacity of 6....ok. Hell the Stompa is a transport as well, but nobody ever used it as such, they merely used it to pack Mekz into it back in like 7th to heal its HP from the inside.
The wagons have become the de-facto tanks for Orkz, the problem is GW doesn't want to give up that Transport capacity that NOBODY WANTS! On the bonebreaker it makes a bit of sense, but on a unit like the gunwagon it doesn't. A real ork would just cram more guns and ammo into the transport space. The Bonebreaker can leave room for a unit to jump out of, but even it needs a hefty buff in terms of dmg potential Because 6+D6 only on the charge is crap.
Well what's funny is that last edition it was more effective lol, it had leman russ grinding advance and da boomer as a cp thing. It was honestly kinda good in 8th.
It wasn't good, it was playable. Thats the difference. None of the wagons are good this edition, literally NONE. Some suggested this is because GW released the Primork vehicles Killrig and huntarig, but I'm not sold on that theory.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just realized the stupidity of making this thing s14. What t7 units are there in the game that are scary enough to merit this weapon? This seems like it was designed by a rules member that was still extremely salty about 8th edition IH Dreadnaught characters. S16 would make sense, but s14 just means it has +2 to wound anything t7, which are light transports and Dreadnaughts. Neither of which warrant 10+3MW and anti-invuln firepower. Am I missing a horde of t7 Heavy units running around?
A lot of Vehicles are T6 and T7. Predators and rhino chassis are all T7, Riptides are T7, battlewagons are T7 etc. So it does make a lot of sense there. It's also a pretty hefty upgrade (+4 strength) so it changes wounding T6 and T7 to 2s instead of 3s. It just makes it as close to a guaranteed wound against those medium vehicles as possible while the heavies with T8 only get wounded on a 3
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just realized the stupidity of making this thing s14. What t7 units are there in the game that are scary enough to merit this weapon? This seems like it was designed by a rules member that was still extremely salty about 8th edition IH Dreadnaught characters. S16 would make sense, but s14 just means it has +2 to wound anything t7, which are light transports and Dreadnaughts. Neither of which warrant 10+3MW and anti-invuln firepower. Am I missing a horde of t7 Heavy units running around?
Oooo, fun game! Might I add Leviathans, Sicarans, Hive Tyrants, and Dimachaerons to the growing list?
ccs wrote: Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
Do you think it took them 10 years to notice?
No. It only took them about 4 years (2017 - now).
Why? Because in 3e-7e it's 1/turn shot was quite capable of doing it's job. That changed with 8th. You couldn't 1-shot a Rhino, let alone any tank more dangerous that'd you'd actually aim such a gun at.
Tyel wrote: All in all I don't think this is about sales, its just trying to make a one-shot weapon work.
So it IS about sales.
Because if the thing doesn't work, then people won't buy it.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Honestly as a dark eldar player the only way i can think of fighting these things is just spamming lots of smaller vehicles. We still don't know what else tau have though.
@Tyel: I don't think you understand. I can only have 3 ravagers and a couple flyers. God only knows what else they can bring. Each shot that hits (the hardest part) and wounds (2+ to wound) will auto-kill almost any vehicles i have (each railgun shot does 7 damage+3 mortal wounds and avoids invulnerable saves and all my armor so 10 damage i can't avoid during its worst shots). If they pick out the ravagers first i'll be down a solid amount of firepower esp. if this happens turn 1. As i said before the only things i can do against this is spam vehicles or something similar.
Drukhari also have tons of units that can fire with blasters and heat lances, plus multiple sources of mortal wounds. Even the most common transports, raiders, carry a powerful anti tank weapon. Drukhari would easily have enough anti tank even if they lose some gun boat. And they have effective ways to assault enemy gunboats pretty soon.
ccs wrote: Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
Do you think it took them 10 years to notice?
No. It only took them about 4 years (2017 - now).
Why? Because in 3e-7e it's 1/turn shot was quite capable of doing it's job. That changed with 8th. You couldn't 1-shot a Rhino, let alone any tank more dangerous that'd you'd actually aim such a gun at.
Tyel wrote: All in all I don't think this is about sales, its just trying to make a one-shot weapon work.
So it IS about sales.
Because if the thing doesn't work, then people won't buy it.
So the only way to prove it isn’t about sales is if nothing worked?
ccs wrote: Yes. Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits. Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit. Result: the rail guns new stats.
Do you think it took them 10 years to notice?
No. It only took them about 4 years (2017 - now). Why? Because in 3e-7e it's 1/turn shot was quite capable of doing it's job. That changed with 8th. You couldn't 1-shot a Rhino, let alone any tank more dangerous that'd you'd actually aim such a gun at.
Tyel wrote: All in all I don't think this is about sales, its just trying to make a one-shot weapon work.
So it IS about sales. Because if the thing doesn't work, then people won't buy it.
"It's just for the sales" is kind of a dumb argument anyways. Multiple companies and studies have proven that games which are well balanced and are feelling "right" sell a lot better than those which aren't. Games have dropped in popularity (and thus sales) when balance went down or new mechanics/rules changes were frustrating people.
So of course is making one-shot hammer hands work for tau done because of sales. Because everything that makes the game better is good for sales.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Honestly as a dark eldar player the only way i can think of fighting these things is just spamming lots of smaller vehicles. We still don't know what else tau have though.
@Tyel: I don't think you understand. I can only have 3 ravagers and a couple flyers. God only knows what else they can bring. Each shot that hits (the hardest part) and wounds (2+ to wound) will auto-kill almost any vehicles i have (each railgun shot does 7 damage+3 mortal wounds and avoids invulnerable saves and all my armor so 10 damage i can't avoid during its worst shots). If they pick out the ravagers first i'll be down a solid amount of firepower esp. if this happens turn 1. As i said before the only things i can do against this is spam vehicles or something similar.
Yes. I understand that. In the 25% scenario (exact stats depending) 3 hammerheads pop up and insta-kill your 3 ravagers. The game may be over right there. Kind of sucks, bad for game design.
But.... do you know what happens if say your 3 Ravagers and a Jetfighter pop up and shoot at 3 Hammerheads and roll in the top 25% probability bracket? I'm pretty sure you kill all 3. Which equally kind of sucks, bad for game design. But somehow the game has gone on (and ravagers have generally been one of the less complained about DE units).
Don't have any Telemons? And haven't I seen you mention having an Ares before?
straight back to the War in Heaven though. 
