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.

 Wolfnid420 wrote:
a .50cal sniper rifle doesnt have to actually make contact with a person to do damage, if you fire it within a few feet of a person the propulsion will still rip skin,clothes and somethines muscle off the bone.

Somewhat off topic, but motherhell this is the dumbest, wrongest thing in the entire world. Stop having bad info, internet.

As for rail weapons, I had a suggestion

 raverrn wrote:

 Wolfnid420 wrote:
a .50cal sniper rifle doesnt have to actually make contact with a person to do damage, if you fire it within a few feet of a person the propulsion will still rip skin,clothes and somethines muscle off the bone.

Somewhat off topic, but motherhell this is the dumbest, wrongest thing in the entire world. Stop having bad info, internet.

I don't know where this myth came from from, but you really do have to hit someone with a .50 cal to kill someone. Or at least something near them that will spray them with shrapnel.

Back on topic, I've used HRR with plasma as elites hunters to good effect. Old codex I would use stabilizers so they could move and shoot, and hunt TEQ and MC. With 6e+ codex, I just let the move and snap shoot, and back them up with ML if needed. For support system either intercept or shields or stims. They move slow, but are still great for lane control and for highly built up areas.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Real life rail weapons obliterate anything they hit, .

They do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More so than, say, an explosive warhead?

Not really, a rail weapon is just something that uses electricity to propel an object instead of combustion. You can even make a Coilgun at home which functions like a rail gun, but it'd be worse than a regular gun by a good margin.

The point of a railgun is not explosion or combustion. The point is a railgun can fire a round much faster than a normal missile/warhead and can penetrate much much further as well

I'm not a military/weapons guy, but my intense research aka reading of wikipedia tells me that the military is interested in railguns not because of killing power, but because rail rounds would be less expensive than missiles as they do not require an engine or explosives..

Alcibiades wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Real life rail weapons obliterate anything they hit, .

They do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More so than, say, an explosive warhead?

Not really, a rail weapon is just something that uses electricity to propel an object instead of combustion. You can even make a Coilgun at home which functions like a rail gun, but it'd be worse than a regular gun by a good margin.

The point of a railgun is not explosion or combustion. The point is a railgun can fire a round much faster than a normal missile/warhead and can penetrate much much further as well

I'm not a military/weapons guy, but my intense research aka reading of wikipedia tells me that the military is interested in railguns not because of killing power, but because rail rounds would be less expensive than missiles as they do not require an engine or explosives..

Those are all advantages: no powder magazine on a ship, cheaper rounds, faster/farther flight, more energetic impacts, etc.

Also, a coil gun functions nothing like a rail gun except they both use electricity.

Alcibiades wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Real life rail weapons obliterate anything they hit, .

They do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More so than, say, an explosive warhead?

Not really, a rail weapon is just something that uses electricity to propel an object instead of combustion. You can even make a Coilgun at home which functions like a rail gun, but it'd be worse than a regular gun by a good margin.

The point of a railgun is not explosion or combustion. The point is a railgun can fire a round much faster than a normal missile/warhead and can penetrate much much further as well

I'm not a military/weapons guy, but my intense research aka reading of wikipedia tells me that the military is interested in railguns not because of killing power, but because rail rounds would be less expensive than missiles as they do not require an engine or explosives..

Yes, and their current weapnized lasers are from a decades long project to again do the same thing - cheaper ammunition. The laser they just put into service costs about $1.20 per shot/use, as apposed to a comparable $1000.00 solid shot or $100,000.00 missile.

SJ

As an EE major I always wanted to work on a Gatling Gun style of compact rail/coil weapon, where the charge rate for each barrel was short enough to output a slug fast enough to have the primary rail charged by the time it rotated back around, mostly by use of many small rails in a compacted way and even back up capacitors.

The real issue with rail weapons is the conversion rate between electrical energy to kinetic is extremely low, and there's still a period of time to charge the capacitor banks, though the ladder can be worked on beyond weapons, since battery and charge fields are basically one of the three primary fields of EE.

Instead I'm working on a coffee maker CMM D:

I mostly work with plasma for metal vapor deposition, but have made solenoid guns as a hobby, as well as a laser guilded electron gun back in highschool (think of it as a wireless teaser, a decade before teasers). In the military, I worked on ground to air missiles (HAWK missile system). Also do blackpowder rifles for hunting and competition shooting, and use to fight sword'n'board in the SCA (Roman style, wall shield with short sword). Been tabletop war gaming for over 30 years. Not epeening, just stating where my opinion on the subject originates.

SJ

I didnt believe it either but my Marine buddy who says he saw it in action, begs to differ. I told him he was full of gak, and he said what I'll say to you guys." you don't have to believe me,"


Anywho, done with that. I'm a huge fan of HRR, I also believe they should be s9, but they will almost always have a spot in my list as AA unless Im told ahead of time that they wont be bringing any air support. They always make their points back by the end of the game

 Wolfnid420 wrote:
I didnt believe it either but my Marine buddy who says he saw it in action, begs to differ. I told him he was full of gak, and he said what I'll say to you guys." you don't have to believe me,"


Anywho, done with that. I'm a huge fan of HRR, I also believe they should be s9, but they will almost always have a spot in my list as AA unless Im told ahead of time that they wont be bringing any air support. They always make their points back by the end of the game

I'm ambivalent about this. On one hand it's list tailoring, which I'm never cool with. On the other hand it's bad list tailoring. So, uh..

Go get 'em champ?

Actually, it makes sence as a dedicated AA gun with some ground punch. Range is a good thing for AA.

People act like planes can avoid a 36" threat with ease. How many times does a plane actually avoid such a huge threat area (unless you have them in the corner of the map for some reason, which is bad on all accounts for an immobile unit) and still find viable targets for their guns?

Every time a plane dodges my AA power, the worst they do is take out some troops or pathfinders because the angles on their guns prevents them from hitting my suits/vehicles.

Playing apoc ok i could understand that then, larger table 36" becomes kinda moot.

Flyers have trouble avoiding 24" range weapons, let alone 36" range weapons.

SJ

 koooaei wrote:
Actually, it makes sence as a dedicated AA gun with some ground punch. Range is a good thing for AA.

What everyone else said. Deployed centrally, 36" range is the majority of the board! There's exactly one cornercase - the Crimson Hunter hovering on the edge of the board - but seeing as he'll murder your Broadside team the turn he comes in even the performance THERE is the same.

If you're real worried about AA, take Ghostkeels. Not only do they have room for Interceptor AND Skyfire, but can get ignores cover naturally.

Dploying centrally is not always a good option. It's good when you can afford to deploy anywhere rather than just centrally.

 raverrn wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Actually, it makes sence as a dedicated AA gun with some ground punch. Range is a good thing for AA.

What everyone else said. Deployed centrally, 36" range is the majority of the board! There's exactly one cornercase - the Crimson Hunter hovering on the edge of the board - but seeing as he'll murder your Broadside team the turn he comes in even the performance THERE is the same.

If you're real worried about AA, take Ghostkeels. Not only do they have room for Interceptor AND Skyfire, but can get ignores cover naturally.

Ignoring cover ability does not work with interceptor

Right, putting EWO on your Ghostkeels in the OSC is actually hurting them not helping. Mirrors only work in the shooting phase, so if you intercept they dont get +1bs, ignore cover, or hit rear armor.

IS that how it works? when does it wear off? at the end of my turn or at the beginning of my next turn? i dont have the book on hand ATM.

"for that shooting phase" its in the middle of the paragraph. Start of their shooting phase you declare Mirrors are active or not, and its gone at the end of the phase. Prevents interceptor/overwatch from benefiting from it.

it also enables you to NOT use it in case an IK puts his shield on his ass. Hit his AV13 face...yeah you dont get +1BS and its on a slightly higher AV but he has no 4++ so its still better.

To be fair, EWO is a really weird piece of gear, since it has the drawbacks people have mentioned, but also has the benefit of taking away potential fire power in a sort of alpha strike. It's really a situation based thing, as sometimes it's better to have weaker shooting, but take out new things to survive, than to have stronger shooting but not have as much left.

 Tinkrr wrote:
To be fair, EWO is a really weird piece of gear, since it has the drawbacks people have mentioned, but also has the benefit of taking away potential fire power in a sort of alpha strike. It's really a situation based thing, as sometimes it's better to have weaker shooting, but take out new things to survive, than to have stronger shooting but not have as much left.

In other words, its balanced.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
To be fair, EWO is a really weird piece of gear, since it has the drawbacks people have mentioned, but also has the benefit of taking away potential fire power in a sort of alpha strike. It's really a situation based thing, as sometimes it's better to have weaker shooting, but take out new things to survive, than to have stronger shooting but not have as much left.

In other words, its balanced.

Well yea, decision making during the game is always good.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
To be fair, EWO is a really weird piece of gear, since it has the drawbacks people have mentioned, but also has the benefit of taking away potential fire power in a sort of alpha strike. It's really a situation based thing, as sometimes it's better to have weaker shooting, but take out new things to survive, than to have stronger shooting but not have as much left.

In other words, its balanced.

Well yea, decision making during the game is always good.

No, that means it's garbage. If it isn't an instant win button it's garbage.

Deploying centrally generally means deploying closer to the enemy than necessary, which is generally bad for a shooting unit with poor melee ability.

maceria wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
To be fair, EWO is a really weird piece of gear, since it has the drawbacks people have mentioned, but also has the benefit of taking away potential fire power in a sort of alpha strike. It's really a situation based thing, as sometimes it's better to have weaker shooting, but take out new things to survive, than to have stronger shooting but not have as much left.

In other words, its balanced.

Well yea, decision making during the game is always good.

No, that means it's garbage. If it isn't an instant win button it's garbage.

I assume you're joking. Hard to tell on forums.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alcibiades wrote:
Deploying centrally generally means deploying closer to the enemy than necessary, which is generally bad for a shooting unit with poor melee ability.

I agree, Turning the flank with heavy firepower works really well because of the "closest model" thing. Broadsides aren't as good as once they were. I think the Gunrigs will more than adequately replace an entire unit of them and then some. I like those gun rigs man.

maceria wrote:

No, that means it's garbage. If it isn't an instant win button it's garbage.

So true XD

But The HRR outperforms the HYMP in 2 areas, targeting anymodel with a 2+ save, and targeting anything with 8+ toughness and a 3+ save. The HRR is indeed designed to kill High Armor Infantry 2+ Save 4+ Toughness and that is where it accels. Only one tau unit config is better at removing them point for point, and that is a Crisis Suit with plasma+TLplasma and the difference in damage only slightly favors the CS, inflicting on average 2.083 wounds compared to a Broadside's 1.875, When you factor in the Broadsides armor and range along with the TL and giving him precision I really prefer the Broadside for taking out termies and the like.

So in short, Broadsides are optimally used against models with 2+ save.

 SaJeel wrote:

maceria wrote:

No, that means it's garbage. If it isn't an instant win button it's garbage.

So true XD

But The HRR outperforms the HYMP in 2 areas, targeting anymodel with a 2+ save, and targeting anything with 8+ toughness and a 3+ save. The HRR is indeed designed to kill High Armor Infantry 2+ Save 4+ Toughness and that is where it accels. Only one tau unit config is better at removing them point for point, and that is a Crisis Suit with plasma+TLplasma and the difference in damage only slightly favors the CS, inflicting on average 2.083 wounds compared to a Broadside's 1.875, When you factor in the Broadsides armor and range along with the TL and giving him precision I really prefer the Broadside for taking out termies and the like.

So in short, Broadsides are optimally used against models with 2+ save.

The only problem being there are many better choices for dealing with specifically 2+ Armor saves that also manage to deal with other threats as well. Making taking a unit that excels only at that one thing rather silly.

 raverrn wrote:

 SaJeel wrote:

maceria wrote:

No, that means it's garbage. If it isn't an instant win button it's garbage.

So true XD

But The HRR outperforms the HYMP in 2 areas, targeting anymodel with a 2+ save, and targeting anything with 8+ toughness and a 3+ save. The HRR is indeed designed to kill High Armor Infantry 2+ Save 4+ Toughness and that is where it accels. Only one tau unit config is better at removing them point for point, and that is a Crisis Suit with plasma+TLplasma and the difference in damage only slightly favors the CS, inflicting on average 2.083 wounds compared to a Broadside's 1.875, When you factor in the Broadsides armor and range along with the TL and giving him precision I really prefer the Broadside for taking out termies and the like.

So in short, Broadsides are optimally used against models with 2+ save.

The only problem being there are many better choices for dealing with specifically 2+ Armor saves that also manage to deal with other threats as well. Making taking a unit that excels only at that one thing rather silly.

Exactly. I would rather have a IA riptide rather than 3 Railsides

Even against 2+ armor, HYMP wins, as they almost always have invul backup, and even when not cover is still a thing.

When you look at the stats, as I have said before, The only thing better suited for killing 2+ armor point for point, is a crisis suit with 2 plasma, one being twinlinked being roughly 10% more effective, everything else, from riptides to hammerheads are weaker at removing 2+ armor.

Against 2+ armor HYMP loses, at best it ties, HYMP are not better at removing 2+ armor than HRR, I've done the math many times

 SaJeel wrote:
When you look at the stats, as I have said before, The only thing better suited for killing 2+ armor point for point, is a crisis suit with 2 plasma, one being twinlinked being roughly 10% more effective, everything else, from riptides to hammerheads are weaker at removing 2+ armor.

Against 2+ armor HYMP loses, at best it ties, HYMP are not better at removing 2+ armor than HRR, I've done the math many times

I beg to differ about riptides. 1 IA Riptide will do WAY more damage than 3 HRR broadsides against 2+ armor