Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've noticed that in larger games, Hammerhead Gunships quickly fall behind to Broadside Battlesuit teams because the Broadsides bring more firepower and can be brought in greater number.

My thoughts are that in large-scale engagements, Tau would join gunships into teams (similar to how sniper drone teams are organized normally).

So the proposal;
0-1 Hammerhead Gunship Team (Heavy Support)
> 1-3 Hammerhead Gunships.


In large-scale engagements, Tau tacticians and advisors will direct Hammerhead Gunships to operate under a single command to better direct their firepower.

I was thinking of either placing a "only in games of 2000 points or more" or adding a "each Hammerhead Gunship beyond the first costs +10 points each."

Not trying to compete with IG, while they do remain the undisputed "i can haz spam tankz" army, I think Tau and possibly other mechanized forces fall behind quickly at higher point levels because they can't put as many choices in their heavy support slots.

9 TL ST10 Ap1 72" shots per turn, plus SMS...say goodbye to that IG Mech list.

You missed the limitation. It's 0-1, as in "one per army".

The idea is that in larger engagements, the Tau commanders realize the need to organize their heavy support and thus organize Hammerheads into a focused team instead of each force org slot taken by one tank.

Hmm, this sounds like a good idea. I would say that you should also add a Pathfinder squad to the formation, so that they can use Markerlights for the formation.

Here's my idea of what it could be.
200 + Models

0-1 Hammerhead "Railgun Cluster"

1 Pathfinder Squad
1-3 Hammerhead Gunships with Railguns

Special Rules.

Advanced Markerlights: The Pathfinders of the squadron are equipped with advanced Markerlights which are linked to the Railguns of the awaiting Hammerheads.

Markerlight counters produced by the Pathfinders may only be used by the Hammerheads of the squadron. Markerlight counters from units not in the squadron may not be used by the Hammerheads. However, the Hammerheads may use a Markerlight counter in order to make their Railguns twin-linked.


Pinpoint Attack: The Hammerheads co-ordinate their Railguns into a devestating array of hypersonic projectiles that tear apart even the most toughest opponents

(Apoc only) If all Hammerheads fire at the same target, then all shots gain the Destroyer rule if all shots hit.

In_Theory wrote:You missed the limitation. It's 0-1, as in "one per army".

The idea is that in larger engagements, the Tau commanders realize the need to organize their heavy support and thus organize Hammerheads into a focused team instead of each force org slot taken by one tank.

Actually no, you didn't read my post.

What I provided, were the stats for 3 units of 3 Broadsides.

Advanced Markerlights: The Pathfinders of the squadron are equipped with advanced Markerlights which are linked to the Railguns of the awaiting Hammerheads.

Markerlight counters produced by the Pathfinders may only be used by the Hammerheads of the squadron. Markerlight counters from units not in the squadron may not be used by the Hammerheads. However, the Hammerheads may use a Markerlight counter in order to make their Railguns twin-linked.

Che-Vito wrote:

In_Theory wrote:You missed the limitation. It's 0-1, as in "one per army".

The idea is that in larger engagements, the Tau commanders realize the need to organize their heavy support and thus organize Hammerheads into a focused team instead of each force org slot taken by one tank.

Actually no, you didn't read my post.

What I provided, were the stats for 3 units of 3 Broadsides.

Sure, missed the "TL" bit...

But why are you posting that in this thread? I'm 100% understand what Broadsides can do...

In_Theory wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

In_Theory wrote:You missed the limitation. It's 0-1, as in "one per army".

The idea is that in larger engagements, the Tau commanders realize the need to organize their heavy support and thus organize Hammerheads into a focused team instead of each force org slot taken by one tank.

Actually no, you didn't read my post.

What I provided, were the stats for 3 units of 3 Broadsides.

Sure, missed the "TL" bit...

But why are you posting that in this thread? I'm 100% understand what Broadsides can do...

You mentioned Broadsides. I am mentioning that prior to my post, I would still find using groups of Broadsides to be more effective.

A group of 3 TL Railguns that cannot move and fire (or only move slowly and fire) without the pie plate.
vs.
A group of 3 Railguns that can move up to 12" and fire along with a pie plate.


Why not both?
That's the point of this proposal.

In_Theory wrote:A group of 3 TL Railguns that cannot move and fire (or only move slowly and fire) without the pie plate.
vs.
A group of 3 Railguns that can move up to 12" and fire along with a pie plate.


Why not both?
That's the point of this proposal.

It's a good proposal. I am simply voicing that I wouldn't use it.

Isn't this what spearhead and apoc are for?

While this is a good idea, to me it doesn't reflect the Tau's position of a small empire that relies upon Tech.

Let me explain.
I feel this way because of the Mech style battlesuits intended design is to be a one man tank. IRL and in Sci-fi, battlesuits of this type are considered the next evolution of mechanized/infantry warfare. The aim of developing these suits is to reduce both raw material usage and production time. They are supposed to have the firepower and durability of a tank while having a minimal target profile and close quarters agility of an Infantryman. These qualities when combined makes for a highly mobile force that should have overwhelming firepower. The fact that the Tau currently does not have such firepower indicates a problem on the infantry/battlesuit side.

Now Battlesuits will probably never fully replace Tanks because of their sheer size and ability to mount and fire truly powerful guns/cannons. If you are going to design tank units for a battlesuit army of a small empire , you don't just throw more tanks onto the field as it betrays the fundament properties of the army. You would rather make the vehicle weapons more powerful and more effective. You would give the tanks main weapons more range, power, and accuracy. Even though the Rail gun is S10 and AP 1 which makes it is tough to improve but it is still possible. Here are a couple of Ideas:

1)Use modified Sky Ray turret to mount two railguns. This would make them either Twin-linked or Heavy 2.

2)Increase the range out to 108"-120".

3)Improve the sub-munitions profile to a bast version of the rail rifle.
(Personally I'd do all of these first three.)

4)Give the Railgun an extra d3 worth of armor penetration or some rule to such effect.


IMO, Improving the vehicles weapons fits the army's design philosophy. Will GW stick with the army philosophy? Probably not. They will instead completely destroy the ethos of the army just to sell more vehicles. So, your idea is probably the way GW will take the army. This is not a slam against you or your idea , it is a slam against GW. As I said, your idea is good. I just disagree with the direction that it would take the army.

I like the idea of making the railgun's shot a bit more potent, because as is there is no reason to not take a group of broadsides over a hammerhead.

I don't like the idea of mounting two railguns, seems a little too brute-like for tau (if that makes any sense). Increasing the range would be nice, but seeing as how a 72" range will span the table even if you are on a short board edge reduces the value of this.

What I really agree with is making the submunition shot better, but I'm not entirely sure how to do it (making it AP 3 is a little bit overkill to me). Also, some way to make the railgun on a hammerhead more reliable on taking out bigger targets seems like the way to go so the extra D3 would make it almost a guaranteed damaging shot.
This would also work well with a rule I saw proposed before. They suggested making it so if the armor value was ever beaten by 4, that there would be an extra +1 to the damage roll.

There's something to be said for just adding an extra Force Chart when you go over 2,000 points, however this just allows all the other armies to spam even more of whatever it is they've got.

Your idea solves the problem for Tau without giving everyone else the same boost. (A rising tides lifts all the ships.)

The key problem for Tau is a lack of decent AT outside the Broadside teams and Piranha squadrons. This has become a more serious issue in these days of cheap, effective mechanised armies from some codexes.

Honestly I think that an increase in the availability and effectiveness of Rail Rifles (the Tau equivalent of sniper rifles) would make this much better. More often than not the tanks are being spammed are transports at AV 12 tops, not land raiders and such. I really think that moving the Sniper Drone team out of the heavy support slot and into maybe a fast attack slot would be much better. This could be coupled with the move of pathfinders to Troops but not giving them the ability to capture a position.

Well, you're starting to re-organise the whole Tau codex there.

It is an interesting topic however the original idea was to increase the availability of Hammerheads in large games.

The reason for this is not to add anti-tank, it is to add large blast templates for use against hordes.

I would be quite surprised if the next Tau codex doesn't allow some kind of vehicle squadrons in the Heavy slots.

I think the Heavy Support will gain a vehicle squadron, but it wont be Hammerheads. I think the Remora will be added as a Deep Striking squadron that increases Seeker Missile effectiveness and adds markerlights.

I do think that there will be a distancing between the small broadside Railguns and the Large Hammerhead railguns.

I think I actually agree with the premise of increasing either the power of availability of the vehicle-mount railgun over the suit mount.

Just giving the Hammerhead the ability to mount two of the railguns or ion cannon would go a long way to this, even if it ends up being TL'd. Broadsides would still have a place as the way to field larger numbers of small railguns able to target lock and pick off multiple targets.
The Hammerhead would remain the "heavy-hitter" tank.

I think the SkyRay should have a place as a Fast Attack choice instead of Sniper Drones (I have proposed moving Pathfinders to troops in the past because they're not really a fast selection).
Then give the SkyRay 4 Markerlights- 2 networked, 2 non-networked. Make the SkyRay the true support gunship, so that it provides markerlight and seeker support while the Broadsides and Hammerheads bring the pain. The Sniper Drone teams will still have an effective place as anti-MEq and transport.

why have non-networked lights for the sky ray?

does it have any weapons that benefit from its own lights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AFAIK Seekers are separate from vehicle firing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(sure, you can give the Sky Ray itself a 2+ BS....for what, burst cannons?)

I assume the Sky Ray has burst cannons or SMS, as well as its Seekers which as you rightly say, it can fire on its own markers whether they are networked or not.

Giving the vehicle two of each type seems like an unnecessary complication to me. I doubt it would rule the battlefield with four networked lights and a pair of burst cannons.