Yowza! The damage...

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.

**Dudeface**

sieGermans wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ordana wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ordana wrote:I just love people comparing 9th edition weapons to 8th and then complaining about how much worse the 8th edition weapon is.

Like this is the first time a 9th edition weapon profile has looked ridiculous in comparison.

9th is a whole different game not even in the same ballpark, stop trying to force comparisons.

And yet half (or so) of the armies in the game don't have their codex yet, including all of mine at least until may.

Should we just sit tight and suffer? Or perhaps GW should put some effort into balancing the game instead of all the new books being better than all the old books?

One side of the mouth says "power creep doesn't exist!" and the other side of the mouth says "don't compare new books to old ones, the old books are too weak!"
wtf are you talking about, I do little on these forums but complain about how insane the power creep is in 9th. Where am I saying power creep does not exist? my entire complaint is that the power creep is so bad that there is no point in comparing 8th and 9th.

And yes GW should do better, feel free to stop giving them money. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes little sense to compare 8th and 9th edition armies.

I didn't mean your mouth specifically. There are people on this forum that swear up and down power creep doesn't exist, and then when I make a thread illustrating that it does, I get bogged down by people saying "of course it does, idiot" as you have (in so many words).

The utility in comparing 9th books to 8th books is to illustrate precisely the point you agree with - power creep is utterly bonkers. It makes perfect sense in that context.

Folks can mean different things when they say ‘power creep’: but the most useful definition I’ve seen is when comparing against a baseline (e.g., Antagonist NPCs in a video game, an immutable standard card in a collectible card game). In this 40k context, Editions are the baseline.

Therefore, I don’t think that comparing 8th Ed. to 9th Ed. demonstrates power creep—even though clearly stats increased between the two editions. If we went to a hypothetical 10th Ed. Where all stats got a flat 1000x increase: the stats are obviously higher, but everything is still technically the same.

The problem with my argument is that armies/units still exist with their stats unchanged since their 8th Ed. version—but I think this illustrates the frustration you are probably experiencing in these discussions: those armies should be getting updated. Comparing these against each other is obviously wrong, aside from demonstrating the need for GW to more swiftly release the relevant Codex updates.

To distill the argument further, even with an edition change, the core rules and unit profiles didn't change in a manner that necessitated an inflation of power/damage in the way that has been seen. It would have been perfectly acceptable to simply revise the armies or place them on a similar power curve to the 8th ed books and nothing would have been lost.

**Jidmah**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.

Hah. I had to go look him up, because I completely forgot who the hell he was.

I think we're still waiting on the Kill Rig meta, too.

To be fair, kill rigs are a fairly decent units and there are a bunch of people placing well with 2-3 of them as part of lists using the traditional Waaagh!

Not an unconditionally OP unit, but definitely one of the best ones in the codex.

**Unit1126PLL**

Yeah. There is no reason "edition change" must be synonymous with "increased power". Thus, the edition has nothing to do with power creep.

**Jarms48**

Aenar wrote:
Gunrigs hit on a 5+ though. And the extra shots with Kauyon are not only turn 3 onwards but within 12" as well.

Could be buffed to 4+ though. Most fortifications have been moving to 4+ recently.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I really hope they give this "ignore everything" to the shadow sword. It would go a long way to justifying the cost.

Quake Cannon too.

**Some_Call_Me_Tim**

The problem I have, and I think others may have too is that these buffs are just very inequal, like someone was pointing out earlier the gunwagon actually got nerfed, and now is 175 points for a 4+ bs chassis putting out d6 s8 ap-2 d2 shots. The guns that actually did get buffed inarguably, the KMB and the tellyport blasta are basically only on a handful of units, even within those only on a few chassis even worth considering.

**Dr. Mills**

I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.

I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.

As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?

**Dudeface**

Dr. Mills wrote:
I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.

I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.

As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?

I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each

**Drachii**

Dudeface wrote:
Dr. Mills wrote:
I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.

I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.

As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?

I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each

I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.

**Ordana**

Drachii wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Dr. Mills wrote:
I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.

I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.

As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?

I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each

I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.

which only makes it weirder why the slightly bigger one does.

Is it somewhere between a bullet going mach 10 or mach 12 that reality just breaks?

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

It's actually hilarious now. The Shadowsword and Quake Cannon are anti-titan weapons, cost 500 points per platform, have a worse balistic skill, no rerolls, and can't get orders/aura buffs. Obviously there is the 30 wound thing, but try and hide a baneblade anywhere on a map. You can't. Hammerheads can be. Rules like this invalidate entire sections of codexes, like the BB variants, or the whole list of Land Raiders.

**Ordana**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's actually hilarious now. The Shadowsword and Quake Cannon are anti-titan weapons, cost 500 points per platform, have a worse balistic skill, no rerolls, and can't get orders/aura buffs. Obviously there is the 30 wound thing, but try and hide a baneblade anywhere on a map. You can't. Hammerheads can be. Rules like this invalidate entire sections of codexes, like the BB variants, or the whole list of Land Raiders.

Super Heavies don't belong in 40k and Land Raiders haven't been valid since forever, the Railgun existing or not is irrelevant to that.

**Pyroalchi**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's actually hilarious now. The Shadowsword and Quake Cannon are anti-titan weapons, cost 500 points per platform, have a worse balistic skill, no rerolls, and can't get orders/aura buffs. Obviously there is the 30 wound thing, but try and hide a baneblade anywhere on a map. You can't. Hammerheads can be. Rules like this invalidate entire sections of codexes, like the BB variants, or the whole list of Land Raiders.

To be fair: the Shadowsword has BS 3+ and rerolls failed wound rolls against titanic units. But I get what you mean.

**Tittliewinks22**

Dr. Mills wrote:
I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.

I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.

As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?

The Railgun is good vs infantry and large targets though.

6+D3 Damage kills 1
3 MW kills: 3 1w models, 1.5 2w models or 1 3w model

VS MSQ of 5 the normal fire mode is better vs all targets.
VS MSQ of 10 the stratagem is slightly better vs 1 wound targets, parity vs 2w, and worse vs 3w.

**Drachii**

Ordana wrote:
Drachii wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Dr. Mills wrote:
I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.

I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.

As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?

I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each

I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.

which only makes it weirder why the slightly bigger one does.

Is it somewhere between a bullet going mach 10 or mach 12 that reality just breaks?

I suspect it's supposed to be *considerably* bigger, not *slightly* bigger, and we've just spent the last several years being collectively enormously underwhelmed by a deeply mediocre version of the weapon.

**Spoletta**

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Dr. Mills wrote:
I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.

I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.

As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?

The Railgun is good vs infantry and large targets though.

6+D3 Damage kills 1
3 MW kills: 3 1w models, 1.5 2w models or 1 3w model

VS MSQ of 5 the normal fire mode is better vs all targets.
VS MSQ of 10 the stratagem is slightly better vs 1 wound targets, parity vs 2w, and worse vs 3w.

HH isn't absolutely terrible against 1w units because it inflicts 3 MWs, but that's not exactly the same as "Good". A gladiator reaper kills 17 guards, and it isn't even considered good.

**Daedalus81**

Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
The problem I have, and I think others may have too is that these buffs are just very inequal, like someone was pointing out earlier the gunwagon actually got nerfed, and now is 175 points for a 4+ bs chassis putting out d6 s8 ap-2 d2 shots. The guns that actually did get buffed inarguably, the KMB and the tellyport blasta are basically only on a handful of units, even within those only on a few chassis even worth considering.

Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.

**Spoletta**

On T8?

50% of the time assuming BS4
58% of the time assuming BS3

**Daedalus81**

Spoletta wrote:
On T8?

50% of the time assuming BS4
58% of the time assuming BS3

Sorry - I think I left a CP reroll to wound on there, which obviously isn't a given.

**Jidmah**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
The problem I have, and I think others may have too is that these buffs are just very inequal, like someone was pointing out earlier the gunwagon actually got nerfed, and now is 175 points for a 4+ bs chassis putting out d6 s8 ap-2 d2 shots. The guns that actually did get buffed inarguably, the KMB and the tellyport blasta are basically only on a handful of units, even within those only on a few chassis even worth considering.

Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.

The gunwagon is BS5+ and pays 40 points for +1 to hit on a single gun. The only way to make it even remotely worthwhile is paying another 25 points for a weapon upgrade, for a total of 190 points for what is roughly equal to a bare bones LRBT with battle cannon.
The transport capacity is pretty much worthless, as it's not open topped.
The melee capacity is irrelevant as you are not driving a 190 points tank (205 with deff rolla) with 4+ armor and a bast weapon into combat.
It's quite literally one of the worst units in the codex.

**Spoletta**

Any codex has units like that. The good thing is that with quarterly unit updates, you have good chances that it gets buffed.

That's what I tell myself everytime I look at the paragon warsuits.

**Jidmah**

There is no point value where a gunwagon would be worth bringing. It's just a flawed unit, dead till next codex.

**Spoletta**

As far as we know (which isn't much), quarterly updates actually change rules and datasheets, they don't change points.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?

Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.

**VladimirHerzog**

Jidmah wrote:
There is no point value where a gunwagon would be worth bringing. It's just a flawed unit, dead till next codex.

how can you even make claims like that? there is for sure a points cost where it would be an auto 3-of in every army

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?

Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.

Tau are much better at killing low-T stuff than vehicles from my experience against them.
I don't think i ever saw rail rifles broadsides so their only true anti tank was either coldstar with fusions, ghostkeel or some meme-y missile list

**Tyel**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?

Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.

When's the last time you saw a Railgun equipped Hammerhead in a competitive Tau list?

**sanguine40k**

Tyel wrote:

When's the last time you saw a Railgun equipped Hammerhead in a competitive Tau list?

Tbf, you don't see a lot of Broadsides in competitive lists either.

Most seem to kill things with weight of fire from CIB or MP Crisis.

**Ordana**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?

Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.

Broadsides Heavy Railrifles are 2 shot s8 ap-4 d6 damage. And broadsides are barely taken in competitive (and then more often the missile version) because they are slow, expensive and eat AT fire. Tau's AT fire tends to come more from a single relic Ion Riptide and lots of str 7 shots.

**Unit1126PLL**

I see a lot of fusion suits locally (like 3 body crisis team with fusion guns)

**Drachii**

'Large volumes of low damage' has been the majority contribution to tau antitank for a while now, with the relic ion riptide being a bit of an outlier just because of how bloody good that gun is.

**VladimirHerzog**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I see a lot of fusion suits locally (like 3 body crisis team with fusion guns)

damn, that seems soooo expensive