So to summarize, you admit they were heavily into some lists until people realized that MM attack bikes were better because they had more durability/speed with slightly less firepower. Likewise, a lot of people ran DevMM because the overall cost might be slightly higher, but they were a 175pt auto-delete anything on the table unit in a drop pod, something that Eradicators couldn't have because apparently its too hard to retrofit a drop pod to handle an extra 4 inches of Primaris Marine
The point was that yes they were heavily relied upon in a lot of lists, in competitive lists they made frequent appearances until people realized that with the 9th mission set it would be better to go for speed teamed with that ridiculous firepower put out by the newly buffed MM.
BTW, SM Players, I was promised my Tankbustas were going to get a similar treatment to MMs.....still waiting for that
And to summarize you admit that Eradicators weren't actually a problematic unit, because they had drawbacks that had to be considered in terms of how the game plays and that just looking directly at a unit's performance doesn't tell you how it will play out in the missions and against various armies.
6 months from now we may be talking about how T'au players moved away from using four HH, because <insert flaw here>.
Eradicators main problem is they were born with two extremely special rules. 1, double shoot
and 2. New melta damage styles. Gone were the old style of 2d6 drop the lowest, now these double shooting 24" blasters with assault did at minimum, 4-10 damage, where as before they did 1-6.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Eradicators main problem is they were born with two extremely special rules. 1, double shoot
and 2. New melta damage styles. Gone were the old style of 2d6 drop the lowest, now these double shooting 24" blasters with assault did at minimum, 4-10 damage, where as before they did 1-6.
Eradicators weren't the problem, their guns were.
Double shoot isn't a property of the gun, so no.
And the d6+2 matters less because the new melta profile got left behind as more armies escalated the damage problem (and the Hammerhead is part of the continued escalation).
An 'even more better meltagun' seemed ridiculous at the beginning of the edition when we weren't used to where 9th edition was going. Its still a symptom of the same design problem, its just been left behind as the lethality problem keeps growing unchecked (and is even encouraged).
JNAProductions wrote: “Other units do it better” doesn’t mean the first unit is bad.
Aye, especially since "doing it better" often comes down to points. One of the reasons Attack Bikes are better than eradicators is that they're a bit cheap for what they do, while most of their preferred targets are a bit on the overpriced side.
Which, coming back to the topic at hand, is the problem I'm seeing with the HH and Stormsurge: they're very aggressively priced compared to similar units. The leaked prices for the HH puts it in the same price range as a "bare" Sicaran or Leman Russ, while the Stormsurge is cheaper than a Repulsor Executioner or an Achilles. We do have a new CA coming up, and the leaks are saying that the Custodes Ares and Orion are both getting 50 PPM drops, so maybe gw has finally realized that they've overpriced most heavy vehicles in the "new AT" paradigm, and we'll see similar drops for other heavy vehicles. But if we don't, it looks bad.
Obviously that doesn't make facing HH with big models an enjoyable experience.
Really? Eleven pages of tangents and argumentative blather, and it ends in 'oh, yeah, that probably isn't fun?'
Knights don't have their book. I can't predict how lists will shape, when books will come out, and what rules they'll have. We can debate GW's strategy there, but it won't change anything.
That doesn't mean the HH will get spammed. Someone rolling hot with other units is part of the game. If people can't deal with big swings they need to rethink their approach. It's harder for knights, but four titanics was kind of a gak boring army to play against so I won't exactly lament their need to pull in armigers.
SemperMortis wrote: You mean the Eradicators which heavily featured in every single Marine list for the first few months after their codex was released until they received a 12% increase in price and Marine players decided to switch over to the MM attack bikes which were ALMOST as damaging but significantly more durable/faster. You are right, I do remember them being oppressive in their ability to delete units at will.
No.
Eradicators featured heavily in some lists. Namely hamfisted Salamanders lists. At the same time Drop pod devs, attack bikes, and BGV featured quite a lot as well.
An Eradicator went to 45 points. An Attack Bike was 55. Attack Bikes were popular for far longer than Eradicators ever were even though they were less powerful on paper. Why? Because there's a lot more than "this unit does a lot of damage!" to 40K.
We'll see lists with four HH and then people will probably learn that there are better more nuanced lists that are more effective.
Attack bikes spam was (is?) a fairytale in real life. They're old firstborn models, not many players are really going to invest a lot on such models. Eradicators on the other hands were shiny new models and available for very cheap through the starter. So yeah, they've always been extremely popular, much more than attack bikes which is true that they were spammed at events but not really that much from average SM players, unlike eradicators.
And it is possible to still be OP even if there's something even more OP.
SemperMortis wrote: You mean the Eradicators which heavily featured in every single Marine list for the first few months after their codex was released until they received a 12% increase in price and Marine players decided to switch over to the MM attack bikes which were ALMOST as damaging but significantly more durable/faster. You are right, I do remember them being oppressive in their ability to delete units at will.
No.
Eradicators featured heavily in some lists. Namely hamfisted Salamanders lists. At the same time Drop pod devs, attack bikes, and BGV featured quite a lot as well.
An Eradicator went to 45 points. An Attack Bike was 55. Attack Bikes were popular for far longer than Eradicators ever were even though they were less powerful on paper. Why? Because there's a lot more than "this unit does a lot of damage!" to 40K.
We'll see lists with four HH and then people will probably learn that there are better more nuanced lists that are more effective.
Attack bikes spam was (is?) a fairytale in real life. They're old firstborn models, not many players are really going to invest a lot on such models. Eradicators on the other hands were shiny new models and available for very cheap through the starter. So yeah, they've always been extremely popular, much more than attack bikes which is true that they were spammed at events but not really that much from average SM players, unlike eradicators.
And it is possible to still be OP even if there's something even more OP.
They were only available through a limited run box for a long time, they were far from cheap on the 2nd hand market, they're still not cheap now. Where as a lot of players have attackbikes from way back when, it's as much a fairy tale list as 18 eradicators are.
Again to reiterate, hammerheads do not do the most damage in the game, even against invuln units (see above eradicators) either in total or per point. They're not going to break the game, but they're also a dumb design that's unfun.
Both erradicator spam and attack bike spam has been part of many top placing armies before drukhari and admech flipped the meta upside down to no longer favor melta.
I'm 100% with Dudeface on hammerheads. All-or-nothing mechanisms are neither competitive nor fun.
And the d6+2 matters less because the new melta profile got left behind as more armies escalated the damage problem (and the Hammerhead is part of the continued escalation).
An 'even more better meltagun' seemed ridiculous at the beginning of the edition when we weren't used to where 9th edition was going. Its still a symptom of the same design problem, its just been left behind as the lethality problem keeps growing unchecked (and is even encouraged).
Eradicators are a curious unit, born in the jump of 8th to 9th design paradigms. Double shoot is in many ways an 8th edition rule, it was a prominent mechanic in many 8th edition codexes, it still is in the remaining ones (IG's Leman Russes, Tyranid Exocrines, Tyrannofexes and Single-minded Annihilation), while 9th edition codexes have pretty much lost double shoot rules (e.g. Kastelan Robots).
We see similar old 8th edition rules in other parts of the Space Marine codex, for example Iron Hands' 6+++ when all other 9th edition codexes have lost subfaction trait 6+++ rules, and Space Marine vehicles being notable fragile while other 9th edition vehicles have layers of defensive rules (Dreadnoughts being the exception with their -1D).
In any case the Wraithknight stats are leaked and it gives a vision into the future. It went from W24 to W22, but it also picked up -1D.
That's a pretty curious and important change there. If the WK kept 24 wounds and had -1D then it would be the be-all end-all of titanics that could stand up to the Rail Gun and would squelch other AT guns as well. As it is it creates an environment where you don't want to rely on plink damage to take it down so AT is required.
This is going to force lists with low long range AT to pick them up if they really want to tackle the WK. I'm curious to see how Knights will change now, too.
In any case the Wraithknight stats are leaked and it gives a vision into the future. It went from W24 to W22, but it also picked up -1D.
That's a pretty curious and important change there. If the WK kept 24 wounds and had -1D then it would be the be-all end-all of titanics that could stand up to the Rail Gun and would squelch other AT guns as well. As it is it creates an environment where you don't want to rely on plink damage to take it down so AT is required.
This is going to force lists with low long range AT to pick them up if they really want to tackle the WK. I'm curious to see how Knights will change now, too.
I'm having trouble seeing what's "curious" or "important" about the Wraithknight's wound change. A 24 wound Wraithknight with the -1 damage ability wouldn't be the "all-end-all" of titanics that could stand up to the Rail Gun. Any of the 26+ wound LOWs can already take a hit from one without being bracketed, and two without going down.
In any case the Wraithknight stats are leaked and it gives a vision into the future. It went from W24 to W22, but it also picked up -1D.
That's a pretty curious and important change there. If the WK kept 24 wounds and had -1D then it would be the be-all end-all of titanics that could stand up to the Rail Gun and would squelch other AT guns as well. As it is it creates an environment where you don't want to rely on plink damage to take it down so AT is required.
This is going to force lists with low long range AT to pick them up if they really want to tackle the WK. I'm curious to see how Knights will change now, too.
Well, the other effect of lowering the wounds and adding -1 damage is it makes 1 damage weapons much more effective. So you've made medium guns (autocannons) and heavy guns (battlecannons) less effective, but actually increased the relative effectiveness of tiny guns (lasguns) and some medium guns (Reaper autocannons).
The number of lasgun hits required to kill a WK went from 432 (wounding on 6s, 3+ save) to 396. The Imperial Guard only has to bring 605 points of Guardsmen, instead of 660. I know it's an absurd example,, but I'm fairly certain that's an unintended consequence. Let's go with a different example:
Bare-Bones LRBT vs Wraithknight (old first, then new) 8 Russes (rounded up from 7.6) with battlecannon and HB to kill an old WK (1280 pts) 15 Russes (rounded up from 14.9) with battlecannon and HB to kill a new WK (2520 pts)
Bare-Bones LR Punisher vs Wraithknight (old first, then new) 9 Punishers (rounded up from 8.8) with punisher cannon and HB to kill an old WK (1665 pts) 9 Punishers (rounded up from 8.9) with punisher cannon and HB to kill a new WK (1665 pts)
What this tells me is the Punisher barely lost any efficiency at all (with only the HB suffering, basically counteracting the 2-wound change) whilst the basic Battlecannon Russ is almost halved in effectiveness. Furthermore, the Punisher has now eclipsed (DRAMATICALLY) the normal Russ in the anti-WK role. That seems counter-intuitive to me - in fact, it seems downright backwards.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'm having trouble seeing what's "curious" or "important" about the Wraithknight's wound change. A 24 wound Wraithknight with the -1 damage ability wouldn't be the "all-end-all" of titanics that could stand up to the Rail Gun. Any of the 26+ wound LOWs can already take a hit from one without being bracketed, and two without going down.
You're going to naturally see in-codex titanics way more than FW models. The other FW will be FAQ'd at some point. As it stands a WK will be better than a 28 wound knight by virtue of -1D and the fact that it's 200+ points cheaper.
e.g. 18 Dark Lances have a 91% chance to kill a W26 Titanic, 45% vs W28 5++, and 47% against the W22 5++ -1D WK.
Had the WK remained at 24 wounds it would 38% and 0% against Rail Guns, which is far and away more survivable than a W26 titanic ( and W28 5++ ) in the same cost bracket with no invulnerable save.
Well, the other effect of lowering the wounds and adding -1 damage is it makes 1 damage weapons much more effective. So you've made medium guns (autocannons) and heavy guns (battlecannons) less effective, but actually increased the relative effectiveness of tiny guns (lasguns) and some medium guns (Reaper autocannons).
The number of lasgun hits required to kill a WK went from 432 (wounding on 6s, 3+ save) to 396. The Imperial Guard only has to bring 605 points of Guardsmen, instead of 660. I know it's an absurd example,, but I'm fairly certain that's an unintended consequence. Let's go with a different example:
Bare-Bones LRBT vs Wraithknight (old first, then new)
8 Russes (rounded up from 7.6) with battlecannon and HB to kill an old WK (1280 pts)
15 Russes (rounded up from 14.9) with battlecannon and HB to kill a new WK (2520 pts)
Bare-Bones LR Punisher vs Wraithknight (old first, then new)
9 Punishers (rounded up from 8.8) with punisher cannon and HB to kill an old WK (1665 pts)
9 Punishers (rounded up from 8.9) with punisher cannon and HB to kill a new WK (1665 pts)
What this tells me is the Punisher barely lost any efficiency at all (with only the HB suffering, basically counteracting the 2-wound change) whilst the basic Battlecannon Russ is almost halved in effectiveness. Furthermore, the Punisher has now eclipsed (DRAMATICALLY) the normal Russ in the anti-WK role. That seems counter-intuitive to me - in fact, it seems downright backwards.
This just shows that plink damage is relatively better - not that it is an efficient means of taking down a knight. Whether or not the Battlecannon keeps D3 will change how it interacts with -1D. Doing the average math on D3 will just make it look worse in these scenarios since you're always reducing it to 1D.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I'm having trouble seeing what's "curious" or "important" about the Wraithknight's wound change. A 24 wound Wraithknight with the -1 damage ability wouldn't be the "all-end-all" of titanics that could stand up to the Rail Gun. Any of the 26+ wound LOWs can already take a hit from one without being bracketed, and two without going down.
You're going to naturally see in-codex titanics way more than FW models. The other FW will be FAQ'd at some point. As it stands a WK will be better than a 28 wound knight by virtue of -1D and the fact that it's 200+ points cheaper.
e.g. 18 Dark Lances have a 91% chance to kill a W26 Titanic, 45% vs W28 5++, and 47% against the W22 5++ -1D WK.
Had the WK remained at 24 wounds it would 38% and 0% against Rail Guns, which is far and away more survivable than a W26 titanic ( and W28 5++ ) in the same cost bracket with no invulnerable save.
Do we know the price of a Wraithknight already? And are you factoring defensive stratagems into your math? Because nobody is going to pay that much for a unit and not use those. And what do you mean by "FW will be FAQ'd at some point"?
Daedalus81 wrote: This just shows that plink damage is relatively better - not that it is an efficient means of taking down a knight. Whether or not the Battlecannon keeps D3 will change how it interacts with -1D. Doing the average math on D3 will just make it look worse in these scenarios since you're always reducing it to 1D.
Right, relatively better.
One can say "the change to the WK makes medium to heavy weapons worse against it, so you need MEGA DAMAGE to stop it!"
One can also say "the change to the WK makes weapons that have no business hurting it at all more effective than they already were."
My fear for the IG codex is the Baneblade will get an invuln and -d3 damage or something like that. "It's a rolling fortress!" says GW. "It should be durable!" Meanwhile, all they're doing is reducing the inefficiency of high-power multidamage weapons, and increasing the relative efficiency of lasguns against it. Rolling fortress indeed.
Giving it a 2+ armor save will actually sort this problem, but that's the extent of it. There's no way to make it more durable against small arms without a bespoke special rule (i.e. feel-no-pain-save against weapons Strength 7 or lower or whatever). Or a -1 damage flat, no "to a minimum of 1" cap... but that's just making tanks immune to small arms, which I thought was a selling point of 8th (despite my dislike personally).
Gadzilla666 wrote: Do we know the price of a Wraithknight already? And are you factoring defensive stratagems into your math? Because nobody is going to pay that much for a unit and not use those. And what do you mean by "FW will be FAQ'd at some point"?
PL 23 ( 2 more than present ).
The Phantom Titan and other FW units like T'au equivalents will certainly get tweaks after the codexes come out.
No buffs factored, because I don't want to bounce around all the possibilities that would also include craftworld spells.
One can say "the change to the WK makes medium to heavy weapons worse against it, so you need MEGA DAMAGE to stop it!"
One can also say "the change to the WK makes weapons that have no business hurting it at all more effective than they already were."
My fear for the IG codex is the Baneblade will get an invuln and -d3 damage or something like that. "It's a rolling fortress!" says GW. "It should be durable!" Meanwhile, all they're doing is reducing the inefficiency of high-power multidamage weapons, and increasing the relative efficiency of lasguns against it. Rolling fortress indeed.
Giving it a 2+ armor save will actually sort this problem, but that's the extent of it. There's no way to make it more durable against small arms without a bespoke special rule (i.e. feel-no-pain-save against weapons Strength 7 or lower or whatever). Or a -1 damage flat, no "to a minimum of 1" cap... but that's just making tanks immune to small arms, which I thought was a selling point of 8th (despite my dislike personally).
I think the only real issue is what role D2 can play with -1D being so relevant when not shooting it at MEQ.
When this is said and done you should hopefully have a compelling reason to take a Vanquisher as well as other LRBT variants.
Sure, though it is a bit weird that the Battlecannon Russ is increasingly a worse generalist tank than the Punisher as more invulns, 1+ or better armor saves, and damage reduction continue to compound.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Do we know the price of a Wraithknight already? And are you factoring defensive stratagems into your math? Because nobody is going to pay that much for a unit and not use those. And what do you mean by "FW will be FAQ'd at some point"?
PL 23 ( 2 more than present ).
The Phantom Titan and other FW units like T'au equivalents will certainly get tweaks after the codexes come out.
No buffs factored, because I don't want to bounce around all the possibilities that would also include craftworld spells.
So about 460 PPM. I hope they actually pay some attention to older units this CA. And it's a bit annoying seeing these -1 damage abilities handed out piecemeal. No tank should fear "plink" damage.
Chaos Jim wrote: To the Knight players, the railgun is busted. You can’t hide, you lose a Knight every turn because the Tau player has 2 hammerheads, you can’t shoot back that well because they’ll either be hiding, or you’re bracketed so you can’t hit the broadside of a barn, or you’re dead.
This got me thinking about something I thought about awhile ago.
What if you just bring an all armiger/war dog army?
You still get to play knights, but armiger class knights don’t have the titanic keyword. So they can hide.
I’ve done the calculations and you could run 14 armiger class knights in a standard 2k point game, and then equip half of them with autocannons.
Of course you’d have to buy 14 armigers, but they’re faster, are still quite tanky, and more expendable. Plus they all have obsec if you’re running mono knights, and they all count as 5 models for objectives.
I want to know if this is a decent counter play to the railgun if you still want to play mono knights.
No. If this is happening, you are playing knights wrong, and need to go back and get in the books.
Chaos Jim wrote: To the Knight players, the railgun is busted. You can’t hide, you lose a Knight every turn because the Tau player has 2 hammerheads, you can’t shoot back that well because they’ll either be hiding, or you’re bracketed so you can’t hit the broadside of a barn, or you’re dead.
This got me thinking about something I thought about awhile ago.
What if you just bring an all armiger/war dog army?
You still get to play knights, but armiger class knights don’t have the titanic keyword. So they can hide.
I’ve done the calculations and you could run 14 armiger class knights in a standard 2k point game, and then equip half of them with autocannons.
Of course you’d have to buy 14 armigers, but they’re faster, are still quite tanky, and more expendable. Plus they all have obsec if you’re running mono knights, and they all count as 5 models for objectives.
I want to know if this is a decent counter play to the railgun if you still want to play mono knights.
No. If this is happening, you are playing knights wrong, and need to go back and get in the books.
Huh? Lots of people are having success with armigers. It's a far more flexible list than just all titantic.
I can say that I enjoy fielding a single melee Despoiler (in reserve) and playing with a swarm of Autocannon Wardogs.
but then, I'm more than a little strange.
I play Tau and I've been loosely following the leaks and the previews from Warcom.
I'm not sold on the Railgun. Its a very good weapon for sure, but only against specific targets. and since its a single shot there is always the possibility that the rolls spike low, and you either miss, or fail to wound. you are more likely to be successful than not, but the possibility of failure means that I would need to double or triple up on Hammerheads to guarantee a kill. The downside of that is hammerheads are relatively big models, and while you can use the mortals against other units to thin them down, its not efficient. they are also a relatively fragile chassis, so its very much a case of 'use it and lose it'. The only time when Hammerheads will be worth maxing out is if you are going up against Titanic units and you list tailor, so Knights, Greater Daemons, Mortarian etc since they can't hide behind obscuring terrain, but hammerheads can. You will also be giving your enemy easy secondaries because i find it highly unlikely given the brilliant buffs Devilfish are getting they will not be appearing in numbers.
Complicating this are the facts that Riptides appear to be moving to HS, and broadsides just got quite a lot more relevant. While getting HS slots is easy, there is a CP cost associated, and a lot of the cooler abilities tau have are stratagem locked. Broadsides, specifically Railsides with Plasma I think are going to be the surprise winners. They are now infantry, so they can benefit from cover, so they will rock a 1+, When shooting a unit with markerlights they all benefit, and with the much simplified 'spend a markerlight to get +1 to hit' you are looking at 2 Str 9 AP -4 D3+d3 +1MW shots, and 2 S8 AP-4 D3 shots each at 3+ to hit, and they appear to rock in at a little under 2 broadsides per hammerhead in points.
They will reliably punch out heavy infantry, i can see broadsides shredding aggressors, eradicators, custodes, terminators of all varieties. they have the volume high damage shots to put down vehicles. they will be relatively mobile turns 1-3 if you use Mont'ka with no loss of accuracy. and they are surviveable. for about the same points as 3 hammerheads, you can take 6 broadsides (broadsides are the more expensive choice though) that have a higher damage cap, are more useful against a variety of targets, have a better save, and are more efficient for markerlights.
Riptides too seem to be a good HS choice, the ion accelerator is decent, they are a bit tougher as standard(4++ if the leaks are correct) and as tough as before if they nova charge (4++ 5+++) or preferably they just use the nova charge to dive back behind cover since they arent titanic and not get shot at all
all that being said, I will try out hammerheads, but as it stands before playing a few games, I can forsee taking, at the most, 1 Hammerhead with a railgun to keep other players honest when they consider leaving things like swarmy out in the open to bait shooting. 1 shot and he could very well be finished, or at least open to being slapped by a wet hankerchief to finish him off.
In short then, its weird reading everyones comments about how the hammerhead railgun is going to break the game. I think it is a good weapon, but the changes to: crisis teams, commanders, devilfish, fire warriors, and so forth are much more interesting. if they lean heavily into plasma, tau are going to give elite armies palpitations. and fire warriors with AP-1 (or -2 if in mont'ka) will shred light infantry
Unit1126PLL wrote: The more people that don't want to play the hammerhead, the less afraid my Chaos Daemons are. So I hope your opinion spreads.
Pulse rifles are indistinguishable from Bolters against my light infantry.
All your high damage AT weapons grant me the invuln except the HH, which is why high damage AT weapons have rarely been the best way to kill a Keeper.
whats changed though, is that unlike before, tau have good access to +1 to hit. Currently (for the next week or so) you need 5 markerlights on a target, usually requiring a lot of ML shots to achieve. when the new rules drop its going to be a lot easier, just 1 ML hit gives a unit +1 to hit with all its weapons, and that on a 3+.
Markerlight changes alone are a massive buff to Tau armies. throw in the buffs to a lot of tau weapons (plasma being STR8 D3 weapons for example) and tau crisis teams, and broadside teams are going to hit a lot harder than before.
you also have to take into account the growing prevalence of -1D abilities so the weapons that are good against a KoS (for the tau this would currently be a missile pod) are terrible against other things. Its harder for missile pods rolling exactly average damage to take down a Redemptor dreadnought without an invuln than it is to take out a KoS with one (you are both T7 and will both get a 5+ save unless its an exalted with a 4++ in which case its still easier to kill the KoS, this is discounting FnP rolls ofc, which both can get so it evens out somewhat). whats most frightening about Daemons, Slaanesh in particular is not the durability (they are very fragile) its their speed.
The issue i think is that the Railgun is only good against a very specific set of targets, and if you lean heavily into them then if you meet that target then you are laughing. bonus points if you are borkan and take a stormsurge as well for extra lols. If you don't meet the target your railguns are very specifically good at fighting, then you are wasting a massive number of points which could be spent on units that are still good at smacking around tough targets, but also good against things the railgun fails at fighting.
All the buffs you list could apply to a HH as well - and I know speed is my best utility, but someone gets to go first and if that someone isn't me then a HH can poke holes in a keeper. Other weapons can't poke holes in a keeper - they either have to be much closer, or my saves are great against them because they are a single powerful shot.
I don't actually think the Hammerhead has a bad target. Can you elaborate what targets it would be a "waste" to shoot the hammerhead at? Especially considering its other weapons.
Unit1126PLL wrote: All the buffs you list could apply to a HH as well - and I know speed is my best utility, but someone gets to go first and if that someone isn't me then a HH can poke holes in a keeper. Other weapons can't poke holes in a keeper - they either have to be much closer, or my saves are great against them because they are a single powerful shot.
I don't actually think the Hammerhead has a bad target. Can you elaborate what targets it would be a "waste" to shoot the hammerhead at? Especially considering its other weapons.
Given the Railguns stats, the optimal target for a railgun would be: sitting 71 & 7/8" away from you, be T7 W10 with a 2+/2++ save (and be markerlit) This would take advantage of the weapons range, its hefty Strength, AP and ignore invulns ability, and 10 is the minimum damage it can do. The secondary weapons would be best shooting at light infantry since their stats are more suited for that, an they will likely get to be used since battlefields rarely allow you to leverage range to the extent that perhaps you would want to
Shooting at targets with fewer wounds or worse saves wastes the Railguns damage and armour penetration characteristics (it will still kill them though), also Ghaz and C'tan are awful targets as they have a damage cap. It would also be a waste to shoot a railgun shot if something significant had a single wound remaining after a previous railgun hit as your excess 9-11 damage would be wasted. I would say the absolute worst thing to fire it at would be a single model unit with 1W like fenrisian wolves (not that that would happen much), chaos spawn would also be a contender
The solid shot could potentially kill 4 geq, 2 meq or 2teq, 8/4/2 if you use submunitions and 1CP but you are really paying for the ability to deal damage to well protected targets with the railgun, not the ability to squash infantry. Essentially you will be buying the railgun to shoot at a specific type of target (monsters, Titanic units and other vehicles) so shooting anything else will be a waste (why bring a railgun if you arent going to shoot it at tough things). Geq can be dealt with by pulse weapons, meq and teq with plasma/ion weapons. I guess its about efficiency. sure the railgun can kill pretty much anything it hits outside of Titanic units but if its shooting at guardsmen, its not shooting at their chimera, or the leman russ.
I would say the only time a hammerhead would be better than a broadside is if the target has a really strong invuln, but for almost the same points as a Hammerhead you can take 2 broadsides,heavy rail rifles are just obscene weapons if the leaks are correct, and in addition to being great against tanks they can deal with meq/teqs as well, and plasma rifles are awesome as well. for me its a choice between 8 high powered shots for similar points to 1 for the hammerhead.
You're not considering the full potential of the hammerhead, while comparing it to the full potential for other units.
Against a markerlit 30-man conscript unit within 18" of the HH, it will kill nearly 12 of them (nearly half) for zero CP. For 1CP, it kills 18.
That's 155 pts of Hammerhead into its worst target profile (conscripts) and it gets a 60 (nearly 40%) point return for no investment, or a 56% return for 1CP.
Don't forget the Hammerhead gets 16 Strength 6 AP-1 1 damage shots as well as the railgun.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Don't forget the Hammerhead gets 16 Strength 6 AP-1 1 damage shots as well as the railgun.
If you're bringing your T7 3+ tank with a 72" railgun within 18" of an enemy unit to shoot with its burst cannons, you're playing it wrong.
You take 2 SMS instead for the 30" range and most importantly the no LOS shooting. You keep it hidden as much as you can, you move it out to take a good shot and you try to do so in a way that allows the Hammerhead to be as close as possible to the board edge while being screened from deepstriking anti tank threats. Long range ones are usually less deadly and you can always have a nearby drone to sacrifice for the greater good.
And as much as a railgun Hammerhead may be good, it's not a profile you'd spam. One, maybe one + Longstrike in Tau sept lists is what is going to be played.
Let's be honest, this thing was designed to play peekaboo with Knights and other T8 Stompy boys from across the map. Telemons, Relic Contemptors, and Blood Thirsters, all crap their pants at the sight of this thing. It's not for use against Conscripts, Plague Bearers, or Blood letters.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Let's be honest, this thing was designed to play peekaboo with Knights and other T8 Stompy boys from across the map. Telemons, Relic Contemptors, and Blood Thirsters, all crap their pants at the sight of this thing. It's not for use against Conscripts, Plague Bearers, or Blood letters.
Three automatic mortal wounds means you can still shoot them in a pinch and kill 4 dudes, regardless of being the preferred target or not.
Hey, I mean, if you just want to not shoot 16 Strength 6 shots per turn because it's not "how you use this thing", be my guest.
To me that's a bit like putting a Lascannon on a Leman Russ Punisher and then saying you don't ever want to shoot the 20 Str 5 shots, but YMMV
(Seriously. Its secondaries are as good as the main weapons on other tanks. Sorry that isn't good enough to make it even worth shooting, though. What more would they need, Damage 2 on the sixteen shots? Strength 7 or 8?)
Yes if you have a HH with burst cannons its probably worth getting to shoot them but the point is that you don't have to take burst cannons and can take something else that better complements a HH's range and playstyle. (aka SMS)
And if you are desperate enough for str 5 shots that you chose to bring burstcannons your better of taking 20 gun drones then 1 Hammerhead.
The hammerhead burst cannons are Strength 6, and 8 shots each (at AP-1); called Accelerator Burst Cannons.
You gain 6" of range and ignore LoS, but lose 1 strength and half the number of shots for the same points cost with the SMS. To me the Burst Cannon is the CLEAR better choice.
It's be like replacing a Punisher Cannon with 15 Vostroyan lasguns. You lose shots and strength, but hey range amirite
Unit1126PLL wrote: Hey, I mean, if you just want to not shoot 16 Strength 6 shots per turn because it's not "how you use this thing", be my guest.
To me that's a bit like putting a Lascannon on a Leman Russ Punisher and then saying you don't ever want to shoot the 20 Str 5 shots, but YMMV
(Seriously. Its secondaries are as good as the main weapons on other tanks. Sorry that isn't good enough to make it even worth shooting, though. What more would they need, Damage 2 on the sixteen shots? Strength 7 or 8?)
I don't think I've ever seen burst cannons on a hammerhead or skyray, it's usually the SMS for the ignore LOS shots and range. 18" for burst cannons is not exactly short ranged, but its getting awfully near to 'danger close' territory. now that the burst cannons are getting a significant boost, this 'may' change however (I strongly doubt we will see many Tau tanks with burst cannons.)
The reason you buy the Hammerhead is for the main weapons, specifically the railgun, and most people would probably like to shoot said railgun at an optimal target. Now a Hammerhead in the open is a dead Hammerhead, since its far from tough. which means if you move it out to shoot some conscripts, you have either already won the game (well done!) or you are going to, in your opponents next turn, lose the hammerhead (also, well done!). This use it and lose it is why you will see most tau vehicles with SMS instead of BC (SMS are also longer ranged than BC), even when they are hiding they can do something
Unit1126PLL wrote: The hammerhead burst cannons are Strength 6, and 8 shots each (at AP-1); called Accelerator Burst Cannons.
You gain 6" of range and ignore LoS, but lose 1 strength and half the number of shots for the same points cost with the SMS. To me the Burst Cannon is the CLEAR better choice.
It's be like replacing a Punisher Cannon with 15 Vostroyan lasguns. You lose shots and strength, but hey range amirite
forgot about the extra point of str yeah. Still think SMS are superior. They let the HH stay out of sight more which is needed because they die quickly, non-LoS shooting is very powerful and there is a limited amount of places you can get it and Tau are in no short supply of the type of firepower of an 'Accelerator' Burst cannon.
Right, you obviously would point the gun at an optimal target. My point isn't "wow, hammerhead kills conscripts well" but rather that "hey, claiming that the HH is good for one thing and one thing only because other units are more versatile" is a bit of a lie.
Conscripts are the worst possible target for it in every way, and it still gets over 50% of it's points back laying into them if it really must.
That's a better point for point return than most "anti-tank units" in the game would get in a similar situation, while ALSO being damn good at tank hunting.
And if you are keeping the Railgun out of LoS so that you can use the SMS (a weapon that comes on a gazillion platforms in the Tau army list unlike Accelerator Burst Cannons), then lol. Sure man. There probably was a better way to get artillery in your list than buying that Railgun and before strapping the NLOS to it.
Good spot Unit1126PLL, using those ABCs is probably as easy as 1-2-3. They are very well priced at 5 points (or 10 for 2) and I do think for the HH and Skyray they are well worth the cost.
There are a few match ups out there where they bring barely any anti-tank and the added value of those 16 shots would be huge. Even against a more balanced opponent, if you clear their anti tank by turn 3, just two turns with the ABCs will probably get you a massive return.
Chaos Jim wrote: To the Knight players, the railgun is busted. You can’t hide, you lose a Knight every turn because the Tau player has 2 hammerheads, you can’t shoot back that well because they’ll either be hiding, or you’re bracketed so you can’t hit the broadside of a barn, or you’re dead.
This got me thinking about something I thought about awhile ago.
What if you just bring an all armiger/war dog army?
You still get to play knights, but armiger class knights don’t have the titanic keyword. So they can hide.
I’ve done the calculations and you could run 14 armiger class knights in a standard 2k point game, and then equip half of them with autocannons.
Of course you’d have to buy 14 armigers, but they’re faster, are still quite tanky, and more expendable. Plus they all have obsec if you’re running mono knights, and they all count as 5 models for objectives.
I want to know if this is a decent counter play to the railgun if you still want to play mono knights.
true. the Tau faction is going to be completely toxic upon arrival. especially against vehicles.
That's what I'm referring to. Nids being monsterous creature. But vehicles in general this edition blow, with all the AP just ripping their armor off and making it kinda poinles they just get chipped away. Even with guard recently getting 2+ save it feels bad.
And yeah space marine vehicles are criminally trash.
Backspacehacker wrote: That's what I'm referring to. Nids being monsterous creature. But vehicles in general this edition blow, with all the AP just ripping their armor off and making it kinda poinles they just get chipped away. Even with guard recently getting 2+ save it feels bad.
And yeah space marine vehicles are criminally trash.
The Railgun is broken nonsense but there were plenty of editions where vehicles did not even get a armour save - it was well past time when they got it though
Backspacehacker wrote: The counter to that is, vehicles also literally could not be wounded by a lot of weapons though.
Yes, and vehicles that used to die to a single heavy bolter/assault cannon it, also. My orky paper things are much tougher now and finally playable after a very long time; before that since 3rd we only had the 5th edition gimmick that provided 4+ to vehicles thanks to the KFF. Otherwise all our vehicles, including the most armored ones used to say goodbye turn 1 or 2 at most with little effort from the opponent.
Backspacehacker wrote: The counter to that is, vehicles also literally could not be wounded by a lot of weapons though.
Yes, and vehicles that used to die to a single heavy bolter/assault cannon it, also. My orky paper things are much tougher now and finally playable after a very long time; before that since 3rd we only had the 5th edition gimmick that provided 4+ to vehicles thanks to the KFF. Otherwise all our vehicles, including the most armored ones used to say goodbye turn 1 or 2 at most with little effort from the opponent.
As someone playing 4th edition against an Ork player, I wish I had the luck of your opponents. 3 AV 14 battlewagons is a lot to suffer from, especially stuffed full of badness like Meganobz.
Backspacehacker wrote: The counter to that is, vehicles also literally could not be wounded by a lot of weapons though.
Yes, and vehicles that used to die to a single heavy bolter/assault cannon it, also. My orky paper things are much tougher now and finally playable after a very long time; before that since 3rd we only had the 5th edition gimmick that provided 4+ to vehicles thanks to the KFF. Otherwise all our vehicles, including the most armored ones used to say goodbye turn 1 or 2 at most with little effort from the opponent.
As someone playing 4th edition against an Ork player, I wish I had the luck of your opponents. 3 AV 14 battlewagons is a lot to suffer from, especially stuffed full of badness like Meganobz.
Well, to be honest for the vast majority of 4th edition orks played with 3rd edition codex, when battlewagons were AV13/12/10 and most importantly 0-1 per army. 4th editon codex dropped a 5-6 months before the release of 5th. But even considering that codex, is it really that difficult to bring down open topped vehicles with AV12 from the side and AV10 from the back? KFF in 4th wasn't as effective as in 5th, when it provided 4+ to all vehicles. IIRC vehicles in cover only gained -1 to the damage table in 4th, not an actual save. Or maybe that was 3rd?
In 5th I played very often with 3 BW with 4+. Still one guaranteed dead wagon per turn. A single lascannon could do it.
All in all, the "it could be balanced" looks to have been proven completely wrong.
You'll be hitting on rerollable 3s, wounding on potentially rerollable 2s, no saves, at least 10 damage. The souped up burst cannons are a ludicrous addition on such a cheap model. If the only reason you aren't maxing them out is because everything else is absurdly pushed, that says something for the Tau book.
All in all this Codex looks like Ork Buggies+1. Almost any list I can imagine has a bazillion high S, high AP shots that on decent dice (which becomes very probable with a bunch of rerolls) will just table people with no skill beyond point and click.
Tau might be bad but the biggest issue with the Ork list was that you couldn't hide. Thanks to flyers and indirect fire it would hit you anywhere on the board no matter the terrain.
Atleast against Tau you can hide (SMS aren't what is broken)
Backspacehacker wrote: The counter to that is, vehicles also literally could not be wounded by a lot of weapons though.
Yes, and vehicles that used to die to a single heavy bolter/assault cannon it, also. My orky paper things are much tougher now and finally playable after a very long time; before that since 3rd we only had the 5th edition gimmick that provided 4+ to vehicles thanks to the KFF. Otherwise all our vehicles, including the most armored ones used to say goodbye turn 1 or 2 at most with little effort from the opponent.
As someone playing 4th edition against an Ork player, I wish I had the luck of your opponents. 3 AV 14 battlewagons is a lot to suffer from, especially stuffed full of badness like Meganobz.
Well, to be honest for the vast majority of 4th edition orks played with 3rd edition codex, when battlewagons were AV13/12/10 and most importantly 0-1 per army. 4th editon codex dropped a 5-6 months before the release of 5th. But even considering that codex, is it really that difficult to bring down open topped vehicles with AV12 from the side and AV10 from the back? KFF in 4th wasn't as effective as in 5th, when it provided 4+ to all vehicles. IIRC vehicles in cover only gained -1 to the damage table in 4th, not an actual save. Or maybe that was 3rd?
In 5th I played very often with 3 BW with 4+. Still one guaranteed dead wagon per turn. A single lascannon could do it.
It isn't that difficult to damage the side or rear, no. But that isn't happening on the first turn unless he deployed them sideways or something. It is very difficult to get side or rear shots Turn 1. And it only takes a turn or 2 for them to do their job.
In 5th with a 4+ save, a Lascannon hit has about a 3% chance to destroy a BW from the front. To reliably destroy one in a single turn your opponent would need to bring over thirty lascannons and fire them all at the same target and they all have to hit. It only takes about 16 lascannons in 9th.
In 4th with 4th edition's cover system (it can only glance) a Lascannon hit has a 5% chance to destroy a BW, so it would take about 20. Again, into the front.
EviscerationPlague wrote: So per Goonhammer it looks like they're less than 160 points. That's a steal.
145, 155 with the 2x Accelerator Burst Cannons
This thing is cheaper than a sponsonless Sicaran? Seriously? And a Stormsurge is cheaper than a Cerberus. And the new and improved Wraithknight is probably going to be cheaper than a Baneblade or Fellblade based on its leaked power level. Boy, gw is really hitting a homerun with the balance lately. /s
EviscerationPlague wrote: So per Goonhammer it looks like they're less than 160 points. That's a steal.
145, 155 with the 2x Accelerator Burst Cannons
This thing is cheaper than a sponsonless Sicaran? Seriously? And a Stormsurge is cheaper than a Cerberus. And the new and improved Wraithknight is probably going to be cheaper than a Baneblade or Fellblade based on its leaked power level. Boy, gw is really hitting a homerun with the balance lately. /s
It's OK they'll have the itc winners in soon to tell them it's fine to leave their armies alone and never mention the baneblade because it's a "funnies unit".
Yeah the Hammerhead is half the points and kills half the models just with it's main gun, no invuln allowed.
The 16 strength 6 shots will kill something like 6 more models, even allowing invulns, which means the hammerhead is half the cost but kills MORE than the Yahvara
EviscerationPlague wrote: So per Goonhammer it looks like they're less than 160 points. That's a steal.
145, 155 with the 2x Accelerator Burst Cannons
This thing is cheaper than a sponsonless Sicaran? Seriously? And a Stormsurge is cheaper than a Cerberus. And the new and improved Wraithknight is probably going to be cheaper than a Baneblade or Fellblade based on its leaked power level. Boy, gw is really hitting a homerun with the balance lately. /s
It's OK they'll have the itc winners in soon to tell them it's fine to leave their armies alone and never mention the baneblade because it's a "funnies unit".
Yeah, which is just one of the problems that I have with letting "competitive" players have input on game balance: they'll only be interested in balancing "competitive" units. Anything even remotely obscure will go even further by the wayside. Like gw needed any help with that to begin with.
Backspacehacker wrote: The counter to that is, vehicles also literally could not be wounded by a lot of weapons though.
Yes, and vehicles that used to die to a single heavy bolter/assault cannon it, also. My orky paper things are much tougher now and finally playable after a very long time; before that since 3rd we only had the 5th edition gimmick that provided 4+ to vehicles thanks to the KFF. Otherwise all our vehicles, including the most armored ones used to say goodbye turn 1 or 2 at most with little effort from the opponent.
As someone playing 4th edition against an Ork player, I wish I had the luck of your opponents. 3 AV 14 battlewagons is a lot to suffer from, especially stuffed full of badness like Meganobz.
Except they weren't AV 14. Even with the 4th edition codex it was AV 14/12/10 and the Side armor was....how can I put this...3x larger than the front armor? So realistically...no, unless you deployed multiple battlewagons next to one another to be able to angle them and protect side armor, there was almost no way you were going to use that AV14 turn 1. More importantly, no matter what side you looked at, in CC it was always AV10 which means SM's with their fists could hurt it, and it was open topped which meant they could theoretically kill it by dumb luck.
Back to Railguns vs Knights though. Its looking more and more like the HH is going to be a glass cannon unit that...believe it or not, functions as a glass cannon. Sadly I think they may have over tuned the cannon portion a bit and left the glass part a little bit too thick. I'm still going to reserve judgement on OP or not until after I see how it interacts with all the other parts of the codex.
My big issue with the HH railgun is that it ignores invulnerables. If it didn't had that I would be completely fine with the rest of the weapon. It is the largest single shot weapon in the game, and it is supposed to do absurd amounts of damage, but the ignore invulerables thing overtuned it.
That being side, a Knight player running into a HH heavy list should get their teeth kicked in, because HH are meant to be the best long range anti-tank in the game.
Its a flying unit with 12+D6 move assuming Mont'ka. Deploy behind LOS blocking terrain, jump out and shoot what you want.
Getting out a markerlight isn't free to be sure - but rerolling 3s to hit, potentially rerolling 2s or 3s to wound for 10-12 damage is nuts versus a whole range of targets.
And then with Mont'ka you can have 16 S6 AP-2 shots rerolling 1s to wound. Okay BS4+ etc, but that's effective versus a lot of stuff too.
Sure 155 points isn't that cheap and there are consequently lots of things that can very efficiently bring this down. But if you get to fire, I think you'd have to be unlucky not to make your points back versus lots of lists I can think of. The only argument I can see is that as the Tau codex looks DE tier pushed other stuff might be even more lethal.
Backspacehacker wrote: The counter to that is, vehicles also literally could not be wounded by a lot of weapons though.
Yes, and vehicles that used to die to a single heavy bolter/assault cannon it, also. My orky paper things are much tougher now and finally playable after a very long time; before that since 3rd we only had the 5th edition gimmick that provided 4+ to vehicles thanks to the KFF. Otherwise all our vehicles, including the most armored ones used to say goodbye turn 1 or 2 at most with little effort from the opponent.
As someone playing 4th edition against an Ork player, I wish I had the luck of your opponents. 3 AV 14 battlewagons is a lot to suffer from, especially stuffed full of badness like Meganobz.
Except they weren't AV 14. Even with the 4th edition codex it was AV 14/12/10 and the Side armor was....how can I put this...3x larger than the front armor? So realistically...no, unless you deployed multiple battlewagons next to one another to be able to angle them and protect side armor, there was almost no way you were going to use that AV14 turn 1. More importantly, no matter what side you looked at, in CC it was always AV10 which means SM's with their fists could hurt it, and it was open topped which meant they could theoretically kill it by dumb luck.
My opponent brings 3, and terrain in 4th is very generous with LoS blocking. It is generally possible to hide a BW either between area terrain or with terrain on one side and the board edge on the other.
Furthermore, close combat attacks hit the facing the model was in in 4th, rather than rear armor. One of the reasons I prefer it to 5th.
FYI, the two times LVO and ITC champion shared some hot takes and first impressions about the new Tau codex, a faction he knows decently well Well, he considers the Hammerhead complete trash. "If you play against a good player, it's useless".
Aenar wrote: FYI, the two times LVO and ITC champion shared some hot takes and first impressions about the new Tau codex, a faction he knows decently well Well, he considers the Hammerhead complete trash. "If you play against a good player, it's useless".
A hot take, indeed. He should amend his comment to "if you play against a good player, and superheavies/monsters/non-obscured big things are not in the meta, it's useless".
The Hammerhead is swingy, and is not hard to kill, but "useless" just felt like he was trying to get clicks, that's just not true.
Feels similar to Nanavati's "buggies won't work" theorising - and then they did.
Typically the best players don't like units which swing hard but occasionally fall on their face due to bad dice. They aim to win in the movement phase. So the assumption here is presumably you'll always keep critical units out of LOS against the HH despite its high M and fly.
Maybe so - but as we know if the stats are skewed enough, 60% of the time, it works every time. The only argument is that there are various other units in this book that potentially stack up even better.
Tyel wrote: Feels similar to Nanavati's "buggies won't work" theorising - and then they did.
Typically the best players don't like units which swing hard but occasionally fall on their face due to bad dice. They aim to win in the movement phase. So the assumption here is presumably you'll always keep critical units out of LOS against the HH despite its high M and fly.
Maybe so - but as we know if the stats are skewed enough, 60% of the time, it works every time. The only argument is that there are various other units in this book that potentially stack up even better.
Right, I get why a pro player may not like Hammerheads, but objectively, the mathhammer is very, very good. And bringing multiples really amps up the reliability.
Aenar wrote: FYI, the two times LVO and ITC champion shared some hot takes and first impressions about the new Tau codex, a faction he knows decently well Well, he considers the Hammerhead complete trash. "If you play against a good player, it's useless".
A hot take, indeed. He should amend his comment to "if you play against a good player, and superheavies/monsters/non-obscured big things are not in the meta, it's useless".
The Hammerhead is swingy, and is not hard to kill, but "useless" just felt like he was trying to get clicks, that's just not true.
It's the gatekeeper effect.
Jimbo at the local store takes 4 HH and crushes his Knight buddy.
Jimbo shows up at the tournament and faces Siegler and finds out that HH aren't as flexible as he thought.
Does that mean the HH needs a nerf? Not necessarily.
Pushing the HH too much will absolutely make it fall out of the game very quickly. Broadsides are GOOOOOOOOOOOD.
The thing that GW absolutely must address in the Feb dataslate is bodyguards. If you can't shoot Longstrike it's going to be some bs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One other point of consideration. HH ( as do Skyrays and Devilfish ) explode 6" and D6. If we still see Alpha Legion explosion strats it could be a risky unit in the back line.
Tau can force an explosion, too, which could make Devilfish a little extra scary.
Or take 1 hammerhead, and either use it for its intended purpose or as bait to get your opponent's heavy hitters into the open so you have an easier time killing them.
Aenar wrote: FYI, the two times LVO and ITC champion shared some hot takes and first impressions about the new Tau codex, a faction he knows decently well Well, he considers the Hammerhead complete trash. "If you play against a good player, it's useless".
As already mentioned...yeah top players are absolutely not infallible. My personal favorite is when the top players who don't play orkz often at all try to weigh in as though they are experts. Orkz are a very...unique army. As are Tau to a degree. And playing a lot of Space Marines and Eldar isn't going to help you develop that 6th sense a lot of those diehard players have in regards to those 2 factions.
Tyran wrote: My big issue with the HH railgun is that it ignores invulnerables. If it didn't had that I would be completely fine with the rest of the weapon. It is the largest single shot weapon in the game, and it is supposed to do absurd amounts of damage, but the ignore invulerables thing overtuned it.
That being side, a Knight player running into a HH heavy list should get their teeth kicked in, because HH are meant to be the best long range anti-tank in the game.
Yeah I would be fine without that - as a lore nerd it does not just grate but shreds my soul
Dudeface wrote: Time to check back in, 2 top placing Tau armies in a large GT. 1 hammerhead between them. Can we now admit to the overreaction?
You really don't see how utterly dumb take this is?
"Thing X is better than 99.9% of the units in the game, which means unit Z, better than 99.5% of the units in the game, but skipped thanks to X unit spam, is totes okay and in no way OP". Gee, that's all right then!
Or, maybe, just maybe, people spam unit X instead of Hammerheads because they already have unit X but no HH thanks to WAAAC types ignoring HHs before (and HHs instantly selling out in store once people learned how broken gak it is). Gee, there being no time to buy and paint HHs sure means they are totes okay and in no way OP now!
Or, maybe, just maybe, people don't take HHs because their very threat deleted every single vehicle from the meta the tournament is on and there was little point to taking them. Gee, that also means they are in no way OP!
Want me to continue or you get how laughable your single point of anecdata with zero support behind it is?
Jidmah wrote: They don't have time to do that, they are busy overreacting to eldar leaks
Want me to save this post to say 'told you so' 6 months down the line once Eldar beat winrates DE had when their book dropped?
Ah, I forgot, apologists making inane excuses for laughably broken things, especially xeno armies, never cared about stuff like facts, math, or logic, and 6 months down the line they will be pretending they never said that (or ignore reality and still say broken gak is totes OK and in no way strong, see outright clownish lala land takes defending Reapers and quad fusion spam in 8th edition, or Riptide Scatspam in 7th)
Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?
Dudeface wrote: Time to check back in, 2 top placing Tau armies in a large GT. 1 hammerhead between them. Can we now admit to the overreaction?
You really don't see how utterly dumb take this is?
"Thing X is better than 99.9% of the units in the game, which means unit Z, better than 99.5% of the units in the game, but skipped thanks to X unit spam, is totes okay and in no way OP". Gee, that's all right then!
Or, maybe, just maybe, people spam unit X instead of Hammerheads because they already have unit X but no HH thanks to WAAAC types ignoring HHs before (and HHs instantly selling out in store once people learned how broken gak it is). Gee, there being no time to buy and paint HHs sure means they are totes okay and in no way OP now!
Or, maybe, just maybe, people don't take HHs because their very threat deleted every single vehicle from the meta the tournament is on and there was little point to taking them. Gee, that also means they are in no way OP!
Want me to continue or you get how laughable your single point of anecdata with zero support behind it is?
So, this 13 page of woe and doom about how the hammerhead will wreck the game is less anecdotal than actual results, no?
Wait and see is always best, but at the same time, if you see a car parked on a track and a train barreling toward it, you dont need to wait and see what happens to know whats gonna happen.
Metas can shift which can justify some "wait and see" but Tau look to have the numbers to be very good. Custodes have been out a little longer and seem clearly up there too. Its hard to see what revelation would mean they aren't.
4 HH was unlikely to be the tournament list to beat (although it would be interesting to see some people try). I'm not sure how you'll get data on "Timmy bought his Knights (or Greater Daemons, or Dreadknights or Primaris Vehicle list and had most of his army deleted in a turn and then he said wow, this game sucks". Its probably out there. Admittedly, lots of things could probably do the same but still.
Dudeface wrote: Time to check back in, 2 top placing Tau armies in a large GT. 1 hammerhead between them. Can we now admit to the overreaction?
This feels incredibly premature. When Dark Eldar were podiuming left and right after their book came out with Cult and Kabal-heavy lists, did that mean that Covens were not actually busted?
Dudeface wrote: Time to check back in, 2 top placing Tau armies in a large GT. 1 hammerhead between them. Can we now admit to the overreaction?
This feels incredibly premature. When Dark Eldar were podiuming left and right after their book came out with Cult and Kabal-heavy lists, did that mean that Covens were not actually busted?
They were less broken and didn't appear until the first rounds of nerfs iirc.
Plus if the hammerhead is so OP as to cause thus level of concern, surely it'd be featuring more than the humble crisis suit, or even vespid?
It seems to be forgotten - but Covens did get buffed when the rest of DE got nerfs. Haemi down 10, Talos down 10, Grotesques down 5. Cronos up 5 as a bit of compensation but not really adding up to much.
Lists may have gone that way anyway - but it wasn't just meta whimsy when this happened at the same time as Succubi, Wyches, Incubi and Raiders going up.
VladimirHerzog wrote: just because hammerheads arent tearing up the competitive scene doesnt mean theyre not a problematic unit.
At casual tables, having a model that can straight up delete anything big with (the perceived) no counterplay is gonna feel terrible to face.
Oh I don't disagree but after a month if being told how they're an auto include and wipe out their points worth almost automatically against any target, I expected more of a splash in honesty.
They're a dumb concept as I've stated in here previously, I just don't think they're the scourge of the game they were claimed to be by many.
Tyel wrote: It seems to be forgotten - but Covens did get buffed when the rest of DE got nerfs. Haemi down 10, Talos down 10, Grotesques down 5. Cronos up 5 as a bit of compensation but not really adding up to much.
Lists may have gone that way anyway - but it wasn't just meta whimsy when this happened at the same time as Succubi, Wyches, Incubi and Raiders going up.
I can't prove it but I don't think those buffs mattered that much; if GW hadn't done them, I suspect Thicc City would have still been nasty (and Thin City didn't really get buffed period).
Irbis wrote: Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?
I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining
Irbis wrote: Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?
I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining
Sorry bud, you don't get to complain Tau were broken OP for the longest time. Orkz had 2 editions without a codex, and our 7th was so bad that we wished we had the old 4th one back We finally got a good codex here in 9th and because orkz weren't the "LOL easy win" faction we had so many complainers that they literally changed the rules of 9th to make it so our top lists couldn't compete anymore.
Irbis wrote: Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?
I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining
Sorry bud, you don't get to complain Tau were broken OP for the longest time. Orkz had 2 editions without a codex, and our 7th was so bad that we wished we had the old 4th one back We finally got a good codex here in 9th and because orkz weren't the "LOL easy win" faction we had so many complainers that they literally changed the rules of 9th to make it so our top lists couldn't compete anymore.
Depends on the event. I remember playing into green tide lists, having my opponent laboriously measure the movement of each model, then win on points as the match went to time.
Dudeface wrote: Time to check back in, 2 top placing Tau armies in a large GT. 1 hammerhead between them. Can we now admit to the overreaction?
I'm more interested in seeing if their is a similar tau-outrage mob that demands immediate nerf to the Tau because they did really well in 1 GT.
Tau will be left alone because they aren't orks
VladimirHerzog wrote:just because hammerheads arent tearing up the competitive scene doesnt mean theyre not a problematic unit.
At casual tables, having a model that can straight up delete anything big with (the perceived) no counterplay is gonna feel terrible to face.
But that's the thing, they're not really a problematic unit. They excel at chunking big single entities, especially those that rely on invuln saves. Other than that, they're okay against other targets and are on a fairly squishy platform. And they're a single shot, all or nothing type deal.
They're good against single entities and the heaviest of infantry.
Broadsides appear to be good against everything; more shots, comparable damage once the multiple shots are factored in, and better distribution of wounds/mortal wounds because of multiple shots. I'd argue that they're the problematic unit of the two if I had to pick one.
If 40k featured a "side deck" mechanic like some card games do (going into game one with a set list and X amount of toolbox units to sub in for game two once you've realised what you're up against. Obviously those games feature a best of three set up for their matches, not a one and done) then HH's would be very problematic as two/three of them would cover any AT deficiency in any competitive TAC list.
Irbis wrote: Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?
I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining
Sorry bud, you don't get to complain Tau were broken OP for the longest time. Orkz had 2 editions without a codex, and our 7th was so bad that we wished we had the old 4th one back We finally got a good codex here in 9th and because orkz weren't the "LOL easy win" faction we had so many complainers that they literally changed the rules of 9th to make it so our top lists couldn't compete anymore.
Depends on the event. I remember playing into green tide lists, having my opponent laboriously measure the movement of each model, then win on points as the match went to time.
And you didn't call a judge? That's like saying Harlequin lists are a problem because if you weight your dice to always roll 4+ you'll never fail a save.
Three tournaments is a very short period. People need to get familiar with a new codex before reaching some conclusions, which means 10+ games played in person against that faction.
To me "wait and see" means 3-4 months since the rules' release at least, definitely not days or even a few weeks.
Depends on the event. I remember playing into green tide lists, having my opponent laboriously measure the movement of each model, then win on points as the match went to time.
That's cheating or abusing house rules' loopholes. Losing in such ways had nothing to do with the actual rules.
Irbis wrote: Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?
I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining
Eldar have literally been top tier/the best codex in every edition besides 5th, where they were just upper mid tier. Just.
Three tournaments is a very short period. People need to get familiar with a new codex before reaching some conclusions, which means 10+ games played in person against that faction.
To me "wait and see" means 3-4 months since the rules' release at least, definitely not days or even a few weeks.
Depends on the event. I remember playing into green tide lists, having my opponent laboriously measure the movement of each model, then win on points as the match went to time.
That's cheating or abusing house rules' loopholes. Losing in such ways had nothing to do with the actual rules.
There's also the problem of Suits being so good the Railgun defenders in this thread won't make the connection that there's stuff better than the Rail gun =/= nothing wrong with the rail gun
Irbis wrote: Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?
I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining
Eldar have literally been top tier/the best codex in every edition besides 5th, where they were just upper mid tier. Just.
Three tournaments is a very short period. People need to get familiar with a new codex before reaching some conclusions, which means 10+ games played in person against that faction.
To me "wait and see" means 3-4 months since the rules' release at least, definitely not days or even a few weeks.
Depends on the event. I remember playing into green tide lists, having my opponent laboriously measure the movement of each model, then win on points as the match went to time.
That's cheating or abusing house rules' loopholes. Losing in such ways had nothing to do with the actual rules.
There's also the problem of Suits being so good the Railgun defenders in this thread won't make the connection that there's stuff better than the Rail gun =/= nothing wrong with the rail gun
And there's some very blinkered people who will ignore that pretty much everyone agrees they're a poor design choice, but also miss that the "defenders" simply didn't think they'd be a problem. Everyone, myself included, who hasn't been convinced that 4 Hammerhead lists will be a thing, admits that a swingy single shot weapon is a problem one way or another.
I don't think for a single moment that railguns will be broken or taken by 3 in competitive (or any format outside of joke, really, because who the hell would want to take 3 HH in casual ?)
Th real problem of this weapon really is that it's a poor design. It's not something that's fun to play with or against, and it's got specific rules that ignore specific rules just for the sake of it. If it had 2 shots but didn't ignore invul it would be better designed (even if maybe a little undercosted).
I think the big weapons that are Heavy 1d6 dealing 1d6 dmg are crap, but still better for the game that this idiocy.
Mr Raptor wrote: I don't think for a single moment that railguns will be broken or taken by 3 in competitive (or any format outside of joke, really, because who the hell would want to take 3 HH in casual ?)
Why wouldn't someone take 3 HH in casual? I don't know about where you play, but we see all sorts of stuff outside tourney play.
Mr Raptor wrote: Th real problem of this weapon really is that it's a poor design. It's not something that's fun to play with or against,
Mr Raptor wrote: I don't think for a single moment that railguns will be broken or taken by 3 in competitive (or any format outside of joke, really, because who the hell would want to take 3 HH in casual ?)
Why wouldn't someone take 3 HH in casual? I don't know about where you play, but we see all sorts of stuff outside tourney play.
Let me rephrase that. It feels more like a meme rather than a serious thing. Also, you need to own 3 railguns, and a lot of casual people don't. The whole point of casual play is to not specifically follow the meta and take 3x the best thing in the codex.
Mr Raptor wrote: Th real problem of this weapon really is that it's a poor design. It's not something that's fun to play with or against,
Well, that's an opinion.
And that's a great contribution.
I say it's bad design because it's both hit and miss and has 0 counterplay. It's not the worst thing in the world but it's kind of a shame that GW thougth that the only way to make a frightening canon was to make it ignore invuln. And it's not like it's a warp bullet or a reality bending ammo, or whatever feckery you could have to justify it. The whole reason it has a special rule to ignore the system is "bullet go fast".
VladimirHerzog wrote: just because hammerheads arent tearing up the competitive scene doesnt mean theyre not a problematic unit.
At casual tables, having a model that can straight up delete anything big with (the perceived) no counterplay is gonna feel terrible to face.
Yeah, some people will just be sad. They deserve it.
Others of us? We merely see a challenge.
Yeah, I will just experience the challenge of not playing my Greater Daemons against Tau or playing my Chaos Knights. Such great challenge. This kind of egocentric chest thumping nonsense is more toxic than any amount of doom crying.
40k is more and more becoming a game where if you do not playing with the most optimized meta list you can get rolled in even the most casual of environments. Do you know boring the game gets when I roll my opponents, with the game being decided by turn two? It happens a lot in the games I play, despite everyone saying the game is so balanced. It sucks when I do it to someone and it sucks when it happens to me. I played this game weekly for the past year or so and I can not remember the last time I had a game that was not over after turn 2. If it is not LOS ignoring long range weapons, fast moving high power weapons or super fast melee units getting across the table in one turn there is always some sort of all or nothing play in modern 40k that decides the game early on. This is the first week in years where I have just decided that I have no interest playing and due to that loss of interest I also have no interest in painting anything.
The HH is not going to ruin the game, but it sure as gak feels like an additional straw on the already broken back of the player base having to deal with the unreal power creep. They are creating rules to counter other rules that counter certain rules in a never ending chain of bs.
I'll throw my hat in the ring. I posted a pseudo battle report in the Imperial Knights thread. The short of it is that Knights actually do well against a TAC Tau list in a casual setting. Top tier tournament lists are running a trio of Broadsides, or a Stormsurge, but rarely more than that. So what if Tau can build the hardest counter to Imperial Knights? That kind of Hammerhead spam would be god-awful against a huge variety of other lists. In a tournament, you just wouldn't run into it. In a casual game, you'd tell your opponent to knock it off. Either way, it's not a practical problem.
Mr Raptor wrote: I don't think for a single moment that railguns will be broken or taken by 3 in competitive (or any format outside of joke, really, because who the hell would want to take 3 HH in casual ?)
Why wouldn't someone take 3 HH in casual? I don't know about where you play, but we see all sorts of stuff outside tourney play.
Let me rephrase that. It feels more like a meme rather than a serious thing. Also, you need to own 3 railguns, and a lot of casual people don't. The whole point of casual play is to not specifically follow the meta and take 3x the best thing in the codex.
Your logic on this confused: So 3 HH are somehow a meme that's not to be taken seriously, won't be an issue in tourney play, BUT if you take 3 outside a tourney - in casual play - you're following the meta by taking 3x the best thing in the codex....
As for any casual player who's interested in fielding 3 HH but doesn't own them? I'm betting they can solve that problem.
Mr Raptor wrote: Th real problem of this weapon really is that it's a poor design. It's not something that's fun to play with or against,
Well, that's an opinion.
And that's a great contribution.
I say it's bad design because it's both hit and miss and has 0 counterplay. It's not the worst thing in the world but it's kind of a shame that GW thougth that the only way to make a frightening canon was to make it ignore invuln. And it's not like it's a warp bullet or a reality bending ammo, or whatever feckery you could have to justify it. The whole reason it has a special rule to ignore the system is "bullet go fast".
Zero counterplays? Really? You sure?
Gw wanted to make a scary gun - yep, they succeeded. This thing tags something, it'll leave a mark.... What fluff justification they give it is irrelevent to me.
Wether or not it's fun to use/play against? Very much an opinion. Obviously it'll suck for you. Me? I just see a challenge - and one I'm sure I'm up to. The kid who was assembling a HH at the shop Sat evening? He seemed really excited about it.
DarkHound wrote: I'll throw my hat in the ring. I posted a pseudo battle report in the Imperial Knights thread. The short of it is that Knights actually do well against a TAC Tau list in a casual setting. Top tier tournament lists are running a trio of Broadsides, or a Stormsurge, but rarely more than that. So what if Tau can build the hardest counter to Imperial Knights? That kind of Hammerhead spam would be god-awful against a huge variety of other lists. In a tournament, you just wouldn't run into it. In a casual game, you'd tell your opponent to knock it off. Either way, it's not a practical problem.
But this thread spends pages telling you how they're incredibly efficient at killing guard squads and marines etc. How they're singularly too good against any target and that 4 x Hammerhead is the way forward because of how efficient they are into everything and the scourge of existence.
Let me rephrase that. It feels more like a meme rather than a serious thing. Also, you need to own 3 railguns, and a lot of casual people don't. The whole point of casual play is to not specifically follow the meta and take 3x the best thing in the codex.
They're (maybe) the best thing now. They definitely weren't in the past. And having 3x of a single vehicles isn't that unreasonable, especially if you are someone who likes armoured companies rahter than spamming big robots.
I'm an ork player and I love the battlewagon. I have 3 of them and I'd love to field the full 3 if their rules encourage me to do so. Always fielded 3 ravagers when I played drukhari, and they are basically the drukhari's hammerheads. I've also played against 3 PB crawlers (deathguard's hammerheads) pretty often, etc... And never been to a tournament, although I do play against guys that are testing their lists for tournaments sometimes.
Well, all our tau veterans own three hammerheads, simply because a long time ago it use to be the only heavy support choice other than broadsides that wasn't a joke and it looked cool to have an all-tank army.
DarkHound wrote: I'll throw my hat in the ring. I posted a pseudo battle report in the Imperial Knights thread. The short of it is that Knights actually do well against a TAC Tau list in a casual setting. Top tier tournament lists are running a trio of Broadsides, or a Stormsurge, but rarely more than that. So what if Tau can build the hardest counter to Imperial Knights? That kind of Hammerhead spam would be god-awful against a huge variety of other lists. In a tournament, you just wouldn't run into it. In a casual game, you'd tell your opponent to knock it off. Either way, it's not a practical problem.
But this thread spends pages telling you how they're incredibly efficient at killing guard squads and marines etc. How they're singularly too good against any target and that 4 x Hammerhead is the way forward because of how efficient they are into everything and the scourge of existence.
I haven't seen anybody in this thread say 4x HH is "the way forward". People were saying "these will be in tournament lists" (which, they are, so those people were right) before we knew quite how insane the rest of the book would be that the Hammerhead would be somewhat overshadowed. But please, keep compiling these bad takes that'll be proven wrong after Hammerheads show up once GW has nerfed the more egregious offenders.
For a purely aesthetics pov, the HH is extremely cool so I wouldn't be surprised if Tau players, specially old ones, own several of them.
As for it being a hit or miss gun, it always has been be a hit or miss gun, it always will be. The current version has specifically designed to be mostly a hit rather than miss, that's why it has a re-roll, s14, ap-6 mortal wounds and ignore invul.
Now I agree the ignore invulnerable saves is ridiculous and broke the gun, both in lore and in balance, but the rest? The HH should be a one shot damage 6+D3+3 mortal wounds, it should be a gun that can one shot a dread and two shot everything else.
Just you know, don't ignore invulnerable, the sheer momentum of the projectile is supposed to be represented by the mortal wounds, ignoring invulnerables just makes it a feel bad gun for the opponent.
DarkHound wrote: I'll throw my hat in the ring. I posted a pseudo battle report in the Imperial Knights thread. The short of it is that Knights actually do well against a TAC Tau list in a casual setting. Top tier tournament lists are running a trio of Broadsides, or a Stormsurge, but rarely more than that. So what if Tau can build the hardest counter to Imperial Knights? That kind of Hammerhead spam would be god-awful against a huge variety of other lists. In a tournament, you just wouldn't run into it. In a casual game, you'd tell your opponent to knock it off. Either way, it's not a practical problem.
But this thread spends pages telling you how they're incredibly efficient at killing guard squads and marines etc. How they're singularly too good against any target and that 4 x Hammerhead is the way forward because of how efficient they are into everything and the scourge of existence.
I haven't seen anybody in this thread say 4x HH is "the way forward". People were saying "these will be in tournament lists" (which, they are, so those people were right) before we knew quite how insane the rest of the book would be that the Hammerhead would be somewhat overshadowed. But please, keep compiling these bad takes that'll be proven wrong after Hammerheads show up once GW has nerfed the more egregious offenders.
OK, so I'm making a bad take by saying that 4 hammerheads aren't the peak of the op cheese and aren't going to dominate the game. Your response is to confirm that is correct, but what, they can become the Tau standard list if they nerf other stuff, so we're into the "wait and see" land.
Okay, look, Hammerheads simply do not fill the roles that make the current main-stays good. If Crisis suits get worse, you don't switch over to Hammerheads instead. There's no wait-and-see about it. Hammerheads are niche, and their gun is basically exactly as good as a one-shot gun needs to be in order to be relevant.
DarkHound wrote: Okay, look, Hammerheads simply do not fill the roles that make the current main-stays good. If Crisis suits get worse, you don't switch over to Hammerheads instead. There's no wait-and-see about it. Hammerheads are niche, and their gun is basically exactly as good as a one-shot gun needs to be in order to be relevant.
Its still a bad design, and again, not every game is top tier competitive lists facing off. If a Daemon player happens to play against a tau list that brought a number of hammerheads, its gonna be a terrible game.
Tyran wrote: For a purely aesthetics pov, the HH is extremely cool so I wouldn't be surprised if Tau players, specially old ones, own several of them.
As for it being a hit or miss gun, it always has been be a hit or miss gun, it always will be. The current version has specifically designed to be mostly a hit rather than miss, that's why it has a re-roll, s14, ap-6 mortal wounds and ignore invul.
Now I agree the ignore invulnerable saves is ridiculous and broke the gun, both in lore and in balance, but the rest? The HH should be a one shot damage 6+D3+3 mortal wounds, it should be a gun that can one shot a dread and two shot everything else.
Just you know, don't ignore invulnerable, the sheer momentum of the projectile is supposed to be represented by the mortal wounds, ignoring invulnerables just makes it a feel bad gun for the opponent.
Agreed....I hate that it ignores invulns and I have a pair of Hammerheads....plenty of other things to do but that.
It also highlights some of the limitations of the game system when units that rely on speed for defense (which are given invulns, because the game otherwise has no mechanics to represent being hard to hit) don't get saves against the railgun either.
A gun that puts a hole through any defense can be part of an interesting rock-paper-scissors dynamic, but not when it also can't be dodged and also can kill lots of models at once to the point of being reasonably efficient against even chaff. It doesn't have range or mobility limitations either, so there's no counterplay besides 'kill it first'.
While it is true that it is effectively VERY POTENT against chaff, I would hardly count it as a big perk. If you shoot at any infantry with 1w, the return on investment is gonna be pretty low most of the time.
Or at least unless you're using that stratagem for 8 MW but it still has to be worth it.
Outside of that, yeah sure it kills 2 custodes or shield termi straight up, but lots of other things in the codex are better at doing that.
Well, the Fire Prism has been previewed by WarCom, and it's probably going to be a more popular (but still unpopular) take on giving ranged weapons Ignore Invul.
Pros:
You only need to expose a single Fire Prism to fire at a target, so long as the other Fire Prism(s) are within 12", to get all the Fire Prisms' shots together. That's a decent sized bubble for a Prism-sized vehicle.
It's also 2 shots that average 6 damage, and are minimum 3 damage, so it can at least spread the hurt around heavy elite infantry. (Poor Custodes).
Con:
You need 2+ Fire Prisms, and it costs a 2 CP Stratagem. You don't get to ignore Invulns for free, so this is closer to a non-<craftworld> limited-in-scope version of the Bork'an Ignore Invuln strat than it is to the Hammerhead (which gets it for free).
Daedalus81 wrote: Ignoring invulnerable saves isn't really without precedent.
If it exists in the game it should be back on Warscythes.
Tbf, the Nightbringer ignores invuln and FNP. However, not only is it on a 370pts melee unit, it also hasn't gotten the recent codex treatment and the damage is stuck to a stupid d6.
Not saying the necrons are weak by any mean, but still...
Daedalus81 wrote: Ignoring invulnerable saves isn't really without precedent.
If it exists in the game it should be back on Warscythes.
Tbf, the Nightbringer ignores invuln and FNP. However, not only is it on a 370pts melee unit, it also hasn't gotten the recent codex treatment and the damage is stuck to a stupid d6.
Not saying the necrons are weak by any mean, but still...
Wouldn't really say they're good though. More CORE certainly helped.
Top list right now is likely the Custodes one. A Hammerhead has easy access to +1 to hit and re-roll 1s to hit. Assuming those easy buffs, they are likely to hit 4 out of 5 turns. They are completely capable of killing 1 Sagitarum Custode per turn, and likely killing 2. Thats a 50-100pt return on investment each and every turn. Against the bigger models like the Vetus Praetors its 1 dead Model per turn, but thats an 85pt model. A unit of 3 HHs is killing 240pts of Praetors with relative ease, thats 435pts killing more than 50% its value in 1 turn. That isn't a bad return on investment in the slightest. A pair of HHs can likely 1 shot a Caladius Grav tank as well.
So "is the hammerhead broken" yeah it probably is, but that doesn't mean its the best model for Tau right now. range, durability have to factor in and most importantly, likely target environment. Not many people are bringing big center piece models anymore because they are so easy to lose in 1 turn. Likewise, if you get a bad match up vs an light infantry list you are going to regret not bringing other things.
Just to put it this way, If some Tau player showed up to a GT with 4 HHs (including the character) they would likely beat the top custodes list due to bad match up more than anything else. Those 600ish points of models being able to take away 250-300pts of enemy models turn 1 from the other side of the table is just insanely powerful.
SemperMortis wrote: Top list right now is likely the Custodes one. A Hammerhead has easy access to +1 to hit and re-roll 1s to hit. Assuming those easy buffs, they are likely to hit 4 out of 5 turns. They are completely capable of killing 1 Sagitarum Custode per turn, and likely killing 2. Thats a 50-100pt return on investment each and every turn. Against the bigger models like the Vetus Praetors its 1 dead Model per turn, but thats an 85pt model. A unit of 3 HHs is killing 240pts of Praetors with relative ease, thats 435pts killing more than 50% its value in 1 turn. That isn't a bad return on investment in the slightest. A pair of HHs can likely 1 shot a Caladius Grav tank as well.
Aren't Custodes [im]famous for their stratagem negating rerolls? And their Transhuman stratagem? (I've heard something about a -1 to hit banner, too). All of which are likely to be used as often as possible on those big, heavy-in-point units like Praetors, I'd think.
Where is the Hammerhead getting reroll 1's to hit? Pretty sure that was almost universally taken away from non-Core T'au.
How many turns are the Hammerheads surviving after they get around 50% of their value in targets killed?
Just to put it this way, If some Tau player showed up to a GT with 4 HHs (including the character) they would likely beat the top custodes list due to bad match up more than anything else. Those 600ish points of models being able to take away 250-300pts of enemy models turn 1 from the other side of the table is just insanely powerful.
The HH gets to reroll to a hit baseline with Targeting Array.
If you go Tau you can also always have the ability to reroll the wound roll.
You then throw out 16 S6 AP-1 shots - or 8 S5 AP-1 shots that ignore LOS. Not amazing perhaps if you are base BS4 no rerolls - but if you get Mont'ka these will likely add up to something. And plenty of ignoring LOS shooting is just kind of good.
Yeah, T'au Sept Railguns (IF you can use your rerolls) are pretty darn reliable for a single shot weapon on a BS4 platform.
And they can take secondary weapon systems that either emphasize their 1st (and probably only) turn of shooting OR let them take potshots while waiting for the perfect moment to take their 1st (and probably only) turn of shooting.
But that's the thing - they need the right sort of target to trade up efficiently, because T7 14w 3+ in the open isn't going to live long against a competent player, and it's too big to hide forever. So to be worthwhile at all, they need to be able to do lots of work while they still exist in non-flaming-wreckage form.
Edit: and they can. If you catch the right target in the right circumstance, you can trade up horrifyingly well. Or at least well enough for the Hammerhead to have carried its weight in value.
Which is why I would describe it as good. It's not the best thing the T'au have in heavy slots (that's probably Broadsides), but that doesn't mean Hammerheads are bad. It COULD still be overtuned while not being the best option for the slot, but I don't think that's really been shown.
Yeah. Its a bit one-dimensional, but if you were going to take 6 Broadsides and some drones, or the 4 HHs (roughly the same points) - the Broadsides are just better. Probably base - and incredibly so due to being Core.
But I think Broadsides are comically undercosted and will get nerfed at some point. Which moves into DE territory whereby HHs would be considered. Perhaps especially if GW jumped on the Talos train and went "no one's using them, cut 10 points off for the lols".
EightFoldPath wrote: After the fake dataslate, I'm a little more cautious on these leaks. The Knight codex is an easy one to fake as there aren't 30 datasheets to forge.
It does seem odd that only two characteristics degrade as wounds go down.
Dudeface wrote: Not intended as threadomancy but instead to save a new one in the same topic:
Now we have an incline of what knights might look like in 9th on base profiles, are 4 Hammerheads still their doom?
Castellan stats:
Spoiler:
Well this definitely seems to be flying under the old radar for right now, doesn't it? I guess everyone is too busy arguing over the semantics of what constitutes "elite" right now. Anyhoo.
So, more wounds, -1 damage, a 2+, and a 5++ that works against shooting and melee (THAT'S a significant difference, right there). Looks like the weapons have gotten an overhaul as well. Interesting that one Volcano Lance has the same strength, better AP, more damage, and the same number of shots as the two Volcano Cannons on a Falchion, and hitting on 2s no less. Looks to be getting more expensive, though.
Also, am I reading this wrong, or do Armigiers only get their invulnerable saves in melee? That would be a significant difference, as well.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Interesting that one Volcano Lance has the same strength, better AP, more damage, and the same number of shots as the two Volcano Cannons on a Falchion
If I recall correctly, the two Volcano Cannons on a Falchion have fewer shots than the single Volcano Cannon on a Shadowsword. It's definitely one of the "losers" in the Imperial Armour Compendium
Gadzilla666 wrote: Interesting that one Volcano Lance has the same strength, better AP, more damage, and the same number of shots as the two Volcano Cannons on a Falchion
If I recall correctly, the two Volcano Cannons on a Falchion have fewer shots than the single Volcano Cannon on a Shadowsword. It's definitely one of the "losers" in the Imperial Armour Compendium
Less shots, less strength, more reliable damage
Falchion :
2d3, 14, -5, 6
Shadowsword :
3d3, 16, -5, 2D6
oh and falchion get a full wound reroll while the shadowsword is only failed wound rolls.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Interesting that one Volcano Lance has the same strength, better AP, more damage, and the same number of shots as the two Volcano Cannons on a Falchion
If I recall correctly, the two Volcano Cannons on a Falchion have fewer shots than the single Volcano Cannon on a Shadowsword. It's definitely one of the "losers" in the Imperial Armour Compendium
Yes, but I had assumed that was because they were "toning down" things like Volcano Cannons for 9th, and we'd see a similar treatment for the Shadowsword in the 9th edition Guard codex. That's what I get for "assuming", I guess.
Thairne wrote: I'm beginning to think these are fake. 24A with sweep profile... At S7...
Only AP1 D1 though.
24 * .833 * .666 * .5 = 6.6 or about 3 marines.
It makes sense for that cost. The 2+ and W16 feel weird, but if it's real they're definitely taking them in a new direction and it'd be the second such book to push vehicles to a 2+, which might bode well for the future of other vehicles.
Thairne wrote: I'm beginning to think these are fake. 24A with sweep profile... At S7...
Only AP1 D1 though.
24 * .833 * .666 * .5 = 6.6 or about 3 marines.
It makes sense for that cost. The 2+ and W16 feel weird, but if it's real they're definitely taking them in a new direction and it'd be the second such book to push vehicles to a 2+, which might bode well for the future of other vehicles.
So, Guard vehicles, then. Everything else is already done.
Does it even matter if something is +2 or +3 sv in the state the game is right now? I play an army where nothing has a save worse then +2, and it does not feel as if it is offering protection from anything. Even the inv doesn't feel like much.
Even if they are fake or partially fake. I don't think, unles knights unlucky to be the tone it down codex, that expecting crazy stuff from knights is something wierd. So maybe they won't have this, but get some crazy mechanic from prior editions or mirroring something from AoS, or even WFB.
Dudeface wrote: Not intended as threadomancy but instead to save a new one in the same topic:
Now we have an incline of what knights might look like in 9th on base profiles, are 4 Hammerheads still their doom?
Castellan stats:
Spoiler:
Well this definitely seems to be flying under the old radar for right now, doesn't it? I guess everyone is too busy arguing over the semantics of what constitutes "elite" right now. Anyhoo.
So, more wounds, -1 damage, a 2+, and a 5++ that works against shooting and melee (THAT'S a significant difference, right there). Looks like the weapons have gotten an overhaul as well. Interesting that one Volcano Lance has the same strength, better AP, more damage, and the same number of shots as the two Volcano Cannons on a Falchion, and hitting on 2s no less. Looks to be getting more expensive, though.
Also, am I reading this wrong, or do Armigiers only get their invulnerable saves in melee? That would be a significant difference, as well.
I imagine its flying under the radar because it just looks incredibly fake.
No new models for imperial Two new models for chaos
A rule about how heroic your army is doing in four different categories and as you become more heroic the more abilities you gain
A squirre mechanic where your big knights can tell a little knight to just be better
Also, says the datasheets are fakes.
Hasn't that person been pretty much "spot on" so far? That would put the kibosh on this.
ayup.
Well, that's no fun. Oh well, moving on.....
Lead up to April 1st, where nothing says 'fun prank' like outright lies.
Indeed. And apologies from myself and everyone else who was duped by this to all of the "I knew all along" folks. We all don't have a copy of Codex: Giant Stompy Loyalist Scum Robots to compare to, you know.
Karol wrote: Does it even matter if something is +2 or +3 sv in the state the game is right now? I play an army where nothing has a save worse then +2, and it does not feel as if it is offering protection from anything. Even the inv doesn't feel like much.
It does. It basically helps stave off small to medium weapons so that they really need to put anti-tank into a target if they want to kill it.
It does. It basically helps stave off small to medium weapons so that they really need to put anti-tank into a target if they want to kill it.
.
From my expiriance the basic weapons in good armies can easily double as doing both. everything is either D2 or str 5 etc and that is for those armies that are unlucky to have infantry based armies. For something like eldar the basic weapon, is by model count in army, is something like a gun on a jetbike or a crazy heavy gun on some tyranid . Even for GK , specially pre brotherhood nerf, the basic unit was and still kind of a is, an NDK.
I agree, oddly having a daft typo such as having 4 shoulder weapons is probably more of a feather in the real cap, it's on form.
*looks at Chaos Fellblade entry in Imperial Armour Compendium *
*reads*
Transport:This model has a transport capacity of 25 <LEGION> INFANTRY models. Each JUMP PACK or TERMINATOR model takes up the space of two models and each CULT OF DESTRUCTION model takes up the space of 3 models.
No new models for imperial Two new models for chaos
A rule about how heroic your army is doing in four different categories and as you become more heroic the more abilities you gain
A squirre mechanic where your big knights can tell a little knight to just be better
Also, says the datasheets are fakes.
I vaguely remember a statement from around the start of 9th saying every book would get a minimum of one new model/sculpt to go with it - if the above is true, I believe IK would be the first to break that pattern, which seems a little odd, though I acknowledge that Knights are a tricky one to add a new model/sculpt to. Can't remember who made the statement, either, or whether it was something the community came up with.
@Gadzilla - The issue there being that the Fellblade isn't meant to be a transport, right?
Dysartes wrote: @Gadzilla - The issue there being that the Fellblade isn't meant to be a transport, right?
Yes. It appears to be a copy & paste from the Chaos Spartan, and was 'fixed' via FAQ.
Yeah, which is why "little mistakes" in a datasheet don't necessarily make them look less authentic. But if this OK_ENTREPENEUR individual says that these are fakes, I'll take their word on it, because they've been pretty accurate in the past.
I wonder if this was a real leak but GW pulled one of those leaker bait things again with different fake books given to different printers to track down who is doing all the leaking.
Anybody else remember the fake 6th edition rules? What was it that it was called online, pancake edition?
Pancake edition?
Yeah, supposedly someone got hold of a draft of the mechanical rules (so, just the mechanics, no fluff or pictures etc.) from the upcoming 6th edition, in pdf form.
The password of the pdf was pancake, hence "pancake edition". It was a total fabrication, someone went to the effort of writing their own complete overhaul of 40k's rules and then "leaking" it online.
Must have been nice to see the real thing. I for one hope that the knight players get a win rate even higher then the 98% (excluding mirrors) harlis have around here. If any players deserve some fun it is them.
A Town Called Malus wrote: someone went to the effort of writing their own complete overhaul of 40k's rules and then "leaking" it online.
wich was legit by the time, as a lot of people/groups wrote their version of 40k by that time for different reason
and you got no one to play with them, even finding testers outside the design groups was nearly impossible because "not official"
but as soon as community written rules were "a leak from GW" random people played it and gave feedback online of their impression
and writing the core of 40k is not that hard, even GW can come up with decent core rules, but getting the army rules right is
Karol wrote: Must have been nice to see the real thing. I for one hope that the knight players get a win rate even higher then the 98% (excluding mirrors) harlis have around here. If any players deserve some fun it is them.
I'd like them to land at 50% ideally but appreciate that's unlikely. Note: still no quad Hammerhead lists topping anything.
.
I can say that I enjoy fielding a single melee Despoiler (in reserve) and playing with a swarm of Autocannon Wardogs.
