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.

GW really gaked things up with their Strenght D proliferation because of their agenda of pushing super heavies into regular 40k games. I really dislike the power escalation that is going on in this game and its one of the reasons I fear things like the hammerhead getting Str D. I don't want to play a game where my Trukks are just as durable as my Battlewagons to anti tank fire.

 Vankraken wrote:
GW really gaked things up with their Strenght D proliferation because of their agenda of pushing super heavies into regular 40k games. I really dislike the power escalation that is going on in this game and its one of the reasons I fear things like the hammerhead getting Str D. I don't want to play a game where my Trukks are just as durable as my Battlewagons to anti tank fire.

But that would be exactly the case against a weapon as powerful as a railgun of that size.

Tested it at d...it sucked, a single shot even at d just wasn't that great, if it hits great, it has a fairly good chance at killing it's target, but wasnt worth the 25pt price hike that comes with the d.

So we tested it at d3 shots and it performed much better as a general anti everything role, so I'm going with that.

Strength D on anything can die in a fire for all I care.

Did we really need another rule that ignores all the in-place rules for wounds and hps?

I didn't think so.

But if anything was to be Str D it would be a giant railgun.

Part of what makes the Hammerhead issue so salient is the visual impact of the weapon. It is the biggest gun in a faction known for having the biggest guns. All other comparably sized weapons fire large blasts, are ordnance or start using rules that were one exclusive to Apocalypse level games. It being a straight up hit (though a very strong one) is dissonant with the visual impact of the weapon.

The other issue is that, as the premier tank killing weapon of the Tau, the Railgun is eclipsed by other anti-tank options within the Tau codex (and in the forces of their enemies) by not having special rules or a rate of fire that provides it the reliability to take on heavy armour.

So based on the above, it needs to be better at it's job.

I do think the platform is too cheap as is for D, but an upgrade that redresses some of the power issue could be done with little need for a points bump.

Martel732 wrote:

"Thing is, that the Wraithknight's Strength D weapon is justified."

Glad you think so. I don't think it's justified. What's the justification for BA being horrible at assault, their alleged specialty?

Now, the BA sucking in assault is not justified. But D Strength for a weapon that tears the very fabric of reality apart is perfect. That's pretty much the level of destruction the Destroyer special rule should represent. It is definitely not a special rule for a gun that just fires a metal rod very fast.

Martel732 wrote:

"up its intended role (long-range anti-tank) just fine"

No, it really doesn't. Single shots suck in 7th ed. Unless they are D.

I would argue that D is better or not than S10+Armourbane. With the latter, you autopenetrate AV 10 and 11, while the D can still fail to do anything with these (as on a '1' there is no effect). In fact, the two only have the same chance to do nothing (or just Glance for S10+Armourbane) when facing AV14. D has the Advantage of stripping D3 HPs instead of 1, but you still need hot dices to Wreck a vehicle with this, and it actually has a worse chance to happen than the Explodes result from the penetration. Alternatively, you can pray for a Devastating Blow...

With average rolls, the only thing D does better than S10+Armourbane is that it strips one more HP from the target... W-O-W ...

Actually, given how vehicles are more likely to die from hull point depletion than from getting explodified, would it make any sense to give the Railgun Ordnance (more likely to punch in the first place - but leave its submunition mode as Heavy 1) and also add "penetrating hits from this weapon also remove one additional hull point"?

jade_angel wrote:
Actually, given how vehicles are more likely to die from hull point depletion than from getting explodified

This only stands for multi-shot weapons. For a one-shot weapon, one additional point of HP damage won't help much, unless the target only has 2 HP. If you have to waste two shots at the vehicle, then chances are high that you are going to score an Explodes result for the second shot (if you couldn't do it for the first).

Really, the best way to make the Railhead a powerful and nasty asset is to play on a 10'x10' table and make the battle last for 10+ turns.

Or going back to the damage table that blew up the target on half if the penetrations.

I'm now wondering if an "AP1 does d3 wounds to a MC" would actually work as a general rule to help bring the balance back to vehicles a bit. It would also fit with the bonuses AP1 gets on the vehicle damage table.

Not a terrible idea, and suddenly makes melta almost as scary as grav. That's a big boost to Tau Broadsides and Sisters in general, IHMO. And Salamanders, while we're at it: Vulkan He'Stan with Sternguard in a pod with tons of combi-meltas? Die, Riptide, die.

*Dang you, autocorrupt.

Ok d3 Shots is the way to do it, str10 ap1 heavy d3.

Tested the d, it was not very good and the vehicle was too expensive with it. Thus far an average of 2 shots is doing the trick, and we will be carrying on with that.

D is not the answer people.

D3 shots misses the fact the railgun is all about "one shot, that's all you need" style

Give it armorbane or the likes, something that makes it pen with ease , and from there the AP1 bonus to damage table will carry it to "cripple or kill" realm against tanks.

Hell just give it rerolls on the pen chart.

since its a fethin solid projectile flying at ludicrous speeds.

Just give it Lance.

 BoomWolf wrote:
D3 shots misses the fact the railgun is all about "one shot, that's all you need" style

Give it armorbane or the likes, something that makes it pen with ease , and from there the AP1 bonus to damage table will carry it to "cripple or kill" realm against tanks.

D3 shots doesn't actually mean 3 shots fluff wise, it could just as easily be conceived that the round does such damage it is the equivalent of the tank being utterly annihilated.

Just as twin linked is actually 2 or more shots, but you only get 1 set with re rolls.

Alcibiades wrote:
Just give it Lance.

It doesn't do anything.

Im surprised with Formosa's D tests though

a 1/3 chance of HP out a tank off the bat. and on top of that another 1/3rd chance at killing any tank out right
with a 1/6 chance of ignoring invuls.

Stop trying to make it better than a Leman Russ. When the Russ, in particular the Vanquisher variant, is buffed to actually be more effective then we will review your Hammerhead.

You already stole the IG's gunline. You have more mobility and buff/debuff capabilities. Stop trying to take our last few defining aspects.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Stop trying to make it better than a Leman Russ. When the Russ, in particular the Vanquisher variant, is buffed to actually be more effective then we will review your Hammerhead.

You already stole the IG's gunline. You have more mobility and buff/debuff capabilities. Stop trying to take our last few defining aspects.

Or you know.. since Tau is apparently next in line for a book update. and IG can sit there till its their turn.

On the bright side going by the SM book. take 3 Vanquishers and it will probably get D strength. or something silly.

 Desubot wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Stop trying to make it better than a Leman Russ. When the Russ, in particular the Vanquisher variant, is buffed to actually be more effective then we will review your Hammerhead.

You already stole the IG's gunline. You have more mobility and buff/debuff capabilities. Stop trying to take our last few defining aspects.

Or you know.. since Tau is apparently next in line for a book update. and IG can sit there till its their turn.

On the bright side going by the SM book. take 3 Vanquishers and it will probably get D strength. or something silly.

I really hope we get our update soon as we need it more than the Tau.

We can but sit and hope for something to make the vanquisher a decent tank killer.

 Desubot wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Just give it Lance.

It doesn't do anything.

Im surprised with Formosa's D tests though

a 1/3 chance of HP out a tank off the bat. and on top of that another 1/3rd chance at killing any tank out right
with a 1/6 chance of ignoring invuls.

It's a matter of cost, for the extra 30-50pts for a single shot d weapon that hits on a 3, it just isn't worth the cost, added to that the d weapon is actually worse vs light vehicles too, the railguns issue and only issue is rate of fire to cost, it's too much for a single shot, d3 shots is working for us at the moment.

Next we will test flat heavy 2, devastating shot: the railgun causes an additional loss of a hull point whenever it penetrates an enemy vehicle, in addition to any other damage it causes.

Then dont raise the price.

Leave it near original or slightly more like 10 points.

You cannot effective spam the thing so it should be fine.

you also really cant consider hitting on 3s in a tau army.

since there whole schtick is synergistic marker lighting.

 Desubot wrote:
Then dont raise the price.

Leave it near original or slightly more like 10 points.

You cannot effective spam the thing so it should be fine.

you also really cant consider hitting on 3s in a tau army.

since there whole schtick is synergistic marker lighting.

You want the d but not to pay d tax, uh...no.

Especially with homebrew rules, d is 30-50 points depending on platform.

30-50 on a generic home brews sheet?

without even considering the context or RoF?
If 30-50 points for what it did was too much then why is it suddenly not paying taxes when you want to lower it?

a Railgun cannon should be able to reach out and touch some one. it should reload relatively slowly

Otherwise why not leave the 30-50 tax and give it two rolls on the pen table. (d3 hp lost once but two chances to do interesting things) (with fluff justification as the velocity of the weapon tends to chew through multiple systems or machines within the tank it self)

So, what about:

Railgun -> Ordinance.

AP1 -> d3 wounds.

Pen Effects -> increase AP3/2/1 by 1 each.

It would affect more than just the Hammerhead, obviously. A lot.

The change to the pen table retains the original direct goal (high AP can't Explodes a tank), but now should effect the intended change (big low-AP weapons are just as useful as last edition, and more useful relative to high-AP weapons than before this change). And my shaped charge (Krak) mmissiles will actually feel like they are meant for cracking tanks (although they still won't be great at it).

Oh, and d3 wounds from AP1 because feth the big nasties. But not Hull Points. +3 on the Pen Table helps there.

I could go for that. I mean, it'll make Fire Dragons ludicrously devastating (+4? +5 against open-topped stuff?) but then, they probably should be.

You're back to lascannons, brightlances, etc being hellacious against tanks without the side effect of Rhinos getting exploded by brainleech devourers, and now there's a useful way to counter big MCs without grav or D (and maybe an actual reason to take multi-melta devastators, maybe).

The salt is real

Martel732 wrote:
If a gun the size of the hammerhead railgun doesn't have Str D, then nothing in the game should.

Distort weapons are already Str D.

If a Knight's Melta Cannon isn't Str D, then nothing in the game should have it.

See how silly you sound right now? There's plenty of examples of weapons that should have it, but don't.

Bharring wrote:So, what about:

Railgun -> Ordinance.

AP1 -> d3 wounds.

Pen Effects -> increase AP3/2/1 by 1 each.

It would affect more than just the Hammerhead, obviously. A lot.

The change to the pen table retains the original direct goal (high AP can't Explodes a tank), but now should effect the intended change (big low-AP weapons are just as useful as last edition, and more useful relative to high-AP weapons than before this change). And my shaped charge (Krak) mmissiles will actually feel like they are meant for cracking tanks (although they still won't be great at it).

Oh, and d3 wounds from AP1 because feth the big nasties. But not Hull Points. +3 on the Pen Table helps there.

jade_angel wrote:I could go for that. I mean, it'll make Fire Dragons ludicrously devastating (+4? +5 against open-topped stuff?) but then, they probably should be.

You're back to lascannons, brightlances, etc being hellacious against tanks without the side effect of Rhinos getting exploded by brainleech devourers, and now there's a useful way to counter big MCs without grav or D (and maybe an actual reason to take multi-melta devastators, maybe).

Interesting concept. I'd like to playtest this sometime. Though I'd add it to my existing intention to playtest replacing Wrecked/Explodes with extra HP loss (probably d3); most vehicles can't survive that, and the ones that can pay heavily for the privilege.

Is say we just go back to 5th edition vehicle rules, the hammerhead was quite good back then. That and I liked the rules.


Also, bringing back the vehicle multi-trackers and target-locks would help a lot.