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 would be in favor of buffs to rail weapons, seeing as how I've seen them used only twice or three times in two editions now.

BrianDavion wrote:
... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the nerfs to the vehicle damage table. Single-shot weapons suck at killing vehicles, you need volume of fire to strip lots of HP and ignore the damage table.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, because of the nerfs to the vehicle damage table. Single-shot weapons suck at killing vehicles, you need volume of fire to strip lots of HP and ignore the damage table.

Not to mention the low volume they come in. In a single CAD Tau can field 3 total Railguns that take up all 3 HS slots.
Compare that to the number of things that can be fitted with Lascannons, or multiple lascannons, as an afterthought.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, because of the nerfs to the vehicle damage table. Single-shot weapons suck at killing vehicles, you need volume of fire to strip lots of HP and ignore the damage table.

Not to mention the low volume they come in. In a single CAD Tau can field 3 total Railguns that take up all 3 HS slots.
Compare that to the number of things that can be fitted with Lascannons, or multiple lascannons, as an afterthought.

It's real value is ID on t5.

 Peregrine wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the nerfs to the vehicle damage table. Single-shot weapons suck at killing vehicles, you need volume of fire to strip lots of HP and ignore the damage table.

That doesn't mean the rail gun needs to be changed, thats more a problem with the current vehicle rules. Lascanons and other "high STR low volume" heavy weapons have the same problems. I';d suggest changing the rules so that a shot that glances rolls on the vehicle damage table as -3 or -4. only if they get a result on the table does the vehicle suffer a hull point.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's real value is ID on t5.

But in low volume that takes up HS slots for a single shot that requires another unit to support it?
What is there at T5 that would warrant including sub-par anti-tank to try and one shot? I admit it's good when you manage it, I'll always smile thinking about one-shotting a DP with a hammerhead in the pre-update 6th or making TWC run off by getting a lucky kill past a stormshield.

I'm thinking 40K needs to introduce the multiple wound system rather than the ID system. I find it odd that a Lascannon will do just as much damage to an armorless DP a a single shot from an autocannon.

BrianDavion wrote:

... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the price of the platforms that carry it (and the number of platforms in case of Hammerheads).

Hammerhead is 125 points base for S10 AP1
Broadside is 65 point base for S8 AP1

Compare that to IG where a heavy weapons team with Lascannon (S9 AP2) costs 20 points or SM where a devastator with Lascannon costs 34 points. Hell, a Predator at 140 points has 3 lascannons, one of which is TL.

I'd give the main rail gun armor bane and an extra +2 to the results table, and it causes D6 extra HP to a super heavy upon exploding a super heavy. Railguns should be seriously bad news. I would probably charge a bit more for it, though.

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the price of the platforms that carry it (and the number of platforms in case of Hammerheads).

Hammerhead is 125 points base for S10 AP1
Broadside is 65 point base for S8 AP1

Compare that to IG where a heavy weapons team with Lascannon (S9 AP2) costs 20 points or SM where a devastator with Lascannon costs 34 points. Hell, a Predator at 140 points has 3 lascannons, one of which is TL.

yeah except the hammerhead is more then JUST the weapon. you need to factor in other things, for one thing it's a skimmer and thus has superior mobility to a tracked tank, it also has Jink, giving it a useful, if situational, cover save.

furthermore if you compare it to the laspred, the best source of comparison would be the laspred with heavy bolter sponsons (the closest you come to compareable firepower given the hammerhead has gundrones) which means a 120 point cost for the Laspred vs the 125 for the hammerhead.

BrianDavion wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the price of the platforms that carry it (and the number of platforms in case of Hammerheads).

Hammerhead is 125 points base for S10 AP1
Broadside is 65 point base for S8 AP1

Compare that to IG where a heavy weapons team with Lascannon (S9 AP2) costs 20 points or SM where a devastator with Lascannon costs 34 points. Hell, a Predator at 140 points has 3 lascannons, one of which is TL.

yeah except the hammerhead is more then JUST the weapon. you need to factor in other things, for one thing it's a skimmer and thus has superior mobility to a tracked tank, it also has Jink, giving it a useful, if situational, cover save.

And yet, given the general opinion of it is bad, I guess that's not enough.

You take Heavy Support to shoot and kill the enemy. As such firepower is primordial, and Hammerhead's firepower to cost and firepower to occupied slot ratios are too low.

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the price of the platforms that carry it (and the number of platforms in case of Hammerheads).

Hammerhead is 125 points base for S10 AP1
Broadside is 65 point base for S8 AP1

Compare that to IG where a heavy weapons team with Lascannon (S9 AP2) costs 20 points or SM where a devastator with Lascannon costs 34 points. Hell, a Predator at 140 points has 3 lascannons, one of which is TL.

yeah except the hammerhead is more then JUST the weapon. you need to factor in other things, for one thing it's a skimmer and thus has superior mobility to a tracked tank, it also has Jink, giving it a useful, if situational, cover save.

And yet, given the general opinion of it is bad, I guess that's not enough.

You take Heavy Support to shoot and kill the enemy. As such firepower is primordial, and Hammerhead's firepower to cost and firepower to occupied slot ratios are too low.

yet again though the problem is more how the rules for vehicle damage are. not something special about hammerheads. (although I am going to say 65 points per suit? the broadside seems more then a little under costed)

I like the idea of Lance It gives HH, rail sides and pathfinders an actual job of heavy vehicle hunting (though maybe not lance because flair shields are BS) Maybe just call it armor penetration with stipulations like doesn't work on snap fire)) or a simple +d3 on the to pen roll.

BrianDavion wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the price of the platforms that carry it (and the number of platforms in case of Hammerheads).

Hammerhead is 125 points base for S10 AP1
Broadside is 65 point base for S8 AP1

Compare that to IG where a heavy weapons team with Lascannon (S9 AP2) costs 20 points or SM where a devastator with Lascannon costs 34 points. Hell, a Predator at 140 points has 3 lascannons, one of which is TL.

yeah except the hammerhead is more then JUST the weapon. you need to factor in other things, for one thing it's a skimmer and thus has superior mobility to a tracked tank, it also has Jink, giving it a useful, if situational, cover save.

And yet, given the general opinion of it is bad, I guess that's not enough.

You take Heavy Support to shoot and kill the enemy. As such firepower is primordial, and Hammerhead's firepower to cost and firepower to occupied slot ratios are too low.

yet again though the problem is more how the rules for vehicle damage are. not something special about hammerheads. (although I am going to say 65 points per suit? the broadside seems more then a little under costed)

i would almost say your right but SM have centurians which i argue are better in almost every way for a marginal point increase.

Sargow wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the price of the platforms that carry it (and the number of platforms in case of Hammerheads).

Hammerhead is 125 points base for S10 AP1
Broadside is 65 point base for S8 AP1

Compare that to IG where a heavy weapons team with Lascannon (S9 AP2) costs 20 points or SM where a devastator with Lascannon costs 34 points. Hell, a Predator at 140 points has 3 lascannons, one of which is TL.

yeah except the hammerhead is more then JUST the weapon. you need to factor in other things, for one thing it's a skimmer and thus has superior mobility to a tracked tank, it also has Jink, giving it a useful, if situational, cover save.

And yet, given the general opinion of it is bad, I guess that's not enough.

You take Heavy Support to shoot and kill the enemy. As such firepower is primordial, and Hammerhead's firepower to cost and firepower to occupied slot ratios are too low.

yet again though the problem is more how the rules for vehicle damage are. not something special about hammerheads. (although I am going to say 65 points per suit? the broadside seems more then a little under costed)

i would almost say your right but SM have centurians which i argue are better in almost every way for a marginal point increase.

Centurions aren't better. They have better supporting HQ's to go with them. Having access to ablative wounds though. Broadsides are pretty hard to kill and have no problem staying in range of stuff they need to shoot.

 Desubot wrote:
I like the idea of Lance It gives HH, rail sides and pathfinders an actual job of heavy vehicle hunting (though maybe not lance because flair shields are BS) Maybe just call it armor penetration with stipulations like doesn't work on snap fire)) or a simple +d3 on the to pen roll.

? S10 Lance? That's almost as silly as making it Armourbane.

Some things are meant to have limitations.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I like the idea of Lance It gives HH, rail sides and pathfinders an actual job of heavy vehicle hunting (though maybe not lance because flair shields are BS) Maybe just call it armor penetration with stipulations like doesn't work on snap fire)) or a simple +d3 on the to pen roll.

? S10 Lance? That's almost as silly as making it Armourbane.

Some things are meant to have limitations.

Tell that to the spartan (Whats toooooo much defense?)

 Desubot wrote:
I like the idea of Lance It gives HH, rail sides and pathfinders an actual job of heavy vehicle hunting (though maybe not lance because flair shields are BS) Maybe just call it armor penetration with stipulations like doesn't work on snap fire)) or a simple +d3 on the to pen roll.

I don't like that at all. They are already better than laz cannons by a long shot. I think the issue lies most with starting BS3 - should be 4 at it's current cost. Now I think they realized that 3 railguns would be really OP. Why not an upgrade to make it twin linked for like 20-25 points? If it was twin linked bs 4. If it's hitting most of the time it's almost always dealing damage. Something most people tend to ignore entirely about the damage table is that immobilized results make transports useless and weapon destroyed results can cripple a battle tank. So If you consider those results good (they are good) you've got a 50% chance on a pen to make something good happen. Only AP 1 weapons do that. I understand why people don't take hammer heads - theres a lot better stuff in the codex. You could make some really strong lists that centered around 3 Hammer Heads though. You know how badly that will mess up a knight? Probably 3 turns of fire will take it down from 3 hammerheads if you got some marker lights on it and you never even had to let it get close. They will mess up land raiders and lemon russ. Problem is the stuff they are good at killing people already don't take cause melta kills them so easy.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I like the idea of Lance It gives HH, rail sides and pathfinders an actual job of heavy vehicle hunting (though maybe not lance because flair shields are BS) Maybe just call it armor penetration with stipulations like doesn't work on snap fire)) or a simple +d3 on the to pen roll.

I don't like that at all. They are already better than laz cannons by a long shot. I think the issue lies most with starting BS3 - should be 4 at it's current cost. Now I think they realized that 3 railguns would be really OP. Why not an upgrade to make it twin linked for like 20-25 points? If it was twin linked bs 4. If it's hitting most of the time it's almost always dealing damage. Something most people tend to ignore entirely about the damage table is that immobilized results make transports useless and weapon destroyed results can cripple a battle tank. So If you consider those results good (they are good) you've got a 50% chance on a pen to make something good happen. Only AP 1 weapons do that. I understand why people don't take hammer heads - theres a lot better stuff in the codex. You could make some really strong lists that centered around 3 Hammer Heads though. You know how badly that will mess up a knight? Probably 3 turns of fire will take it down from 3 hammerheads if you got some marker lights on it and you never even had to let it get close. They will mess up land raiders and lemon russ. Problem is the stuff they are good at killing people already don't take cause melta kills them so easy.

Better than a las cannon sure but we have almost no access to it. the ONLY place you can get these are on a expensive as feth skimmer tank. and only gets 1 shot. quite a lot of the avalible las cannons in all armies are already twinlinked and can be bolted on to pretty much anything. its also not 50% chance unless its open top. its a 1/3 chance to straight explode. Knights woundnt give a rats as there will proabably be 3 of them to your 3 hammerheads.

and ether way you cant tell me a broadside with St8 ap1 is taking down av 14 regularly. (with lance its putting them up with bightlances so they at least have a chance to utilize that ap1) the rest of the army and there missile pods can deal with light vehicles. a rail gun seems kinda excessive to just go for light vehicles ya know?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I like the idea of Lance It gives HH, rail sides and pathfinders an actual job of heavy vehicle hunting (though maybe not lance because flair shields are BS) Maybe just call it armor penetration with stipulations like doesn't work on snap fire)) or a simple +d3 on the to pen roll.

I don't like that at all. They are already better than laz cannons by a long shot. I think the issue lies most with starting BS3 - should be 4 at it's current cost. Now I think they realized that 3 railguns would be really OP. Why not an upgrade to make it twin linked for like 20-25 points? If it was twin linked bs 4. If it's hitting most of the time it's almost always dealing damage. Something most people tend to ignore entirely about the damage table is that immobilized results make transports useless and weapon destroyed results can cripple a battle tank. So If you consider those results good (they are good) you've got a 50% chance on a pen to make something good happen. Only AP 1 weapons do that. I understand why people don't take hammer heads - theres a lot better stuff in the codex. You could make some really strong lists that centered around 3 Hammer Heads though. You know how badly that will mess up a knight? Probably 3 turns of fire will take it down from 3 hammerheads if you got some marker lights on it and you never even had to let it get close. They will mess up land raiders and lemon russ. Problem is the stuff they are good at killing people already don't take cause melta kills them so easy.

I generally agree, but you got a few things wrong - The Hammerhead is BS 4 already, first of all. Secobdly, compating it to a Lascannon is the mootest of moot - When the Predator Annihalitor gets them as its main gun, it's because it is twin-linked and can take further two as sponsons. The Hammerhead... Just can't. IG abd SM armies have loads upon loades of the fething things, and we only get one, on our main battle tank. Therefo, you can't compare the two, just like you wouldn't compare it to a Heavy Bolter or Autocannon.

Lance would make more sense than Twin-Linked to me, and/or the Armourbane rule would make it more of a "one shot one kill... sometimes" weapon, and I like that a lot.

Come to think of it, maybe the problem isn't with the Railgun itself, but the availability. 3 is way toi short to be effective... So maybe make them a 1-3 oer Heavy slot, like the Leman Russ? It would fit the fluff nicely (as mobile armoured columns is actually a thibg for the Tau), and it would help them defeat larger opponents! And why stop there - Give the slot an option for a Skyray, as a support Markerlight option! Or even give the option for a Tank Shas'o as a HQ!...

Nine Railguns. NINE.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I don't like that at all. They are already better than laz cannons by a long shot.

Not really. Name a single army that has access to Laz cannons that is limited to 3 per CAD. I believe a significant number of those come twin-linked or on BS4 base models as well.
Even infantry are allowed to have lazcannons while our Heavy Infantry got toned down from a standard Railgun. If non-tank got S8 Laz cannons I'd probably be more sympathetic on the issue.

Now I think they realized that 3 railguns would be really OP.

It really wasn't in pre-update 6th when Broadsides still had full strength guns and could move and shoot.

You know how badly that will mess up a knight? Probably 3 turns of fire will take it down from 3 hammerheads if you got some marker lights on it and you never even had to let it get close. They will mess up land raiders and lemon russ.

I would hope the Hammerhead, Tau's iconic anti-tank weapon platform, would be capable of actually doing damage to tanks. The problem with your scenario is that you're talking about the entirety of a CAD HS section taking down a single vehicle that all the IoM can bring multiples of.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Sargow wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the price of the platforms that carry it (and the number of platforms in case of Hammerheads).

Hammerhead is 125 points base for S10 AP1
Broadside is 65 point base for S8 AP1

Compare that to IG where a heavy weapons team with Lascannon (S9 AP2) costs 20 points or SM where a devastator with Lascannon costs 34 points. Hell, a Predator at 140 points has 3 lascannons, one of which is TL.

yeah except the hammerhead is more then JUST the weapon. you need to factor in other things, for one thing it's a skimmer and thus has superior mobility to a tracked tank, it also has Jink, giving it a useful, if situational, cover save.

And yet, given the general opinion of it is bad, I guess that's not enough.

You take Heavy Support to shoot and kill the enemy. As such firepower is primordial, and Hammerhead's firepower to cost and firepower to occupied slot ratios are too low.

yet again though the problem is more how the rules for vehicle damage are. not something special about hammerheads. (although I am going to say 65 points per suit? the broadside seems more then a little under costed)

i would almost say your right but SM have centurians which i argue are better in almost every way for a marginal point increase.

Centurions aren't better. They have better supporting HQ's to go with them. Having access to ablative wounds though. Broadsides are pretty hard to kill and have no problem staying in range of stuff they need to shoot.

They have an extra toughness, bs 4, relentless, and a higher ws and leadership. They have a threat range of 30 inches instead of 36. Also their gun is ap 2 with 5 shots i believe. In my books that makes them better. I would gladly loose the 36 inch range for relentless.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
The Tau Empire has loads and loads of Railguns - Those loveable, long ranged, high S and low AP weapons. They come in Cheeseburger (36'', S 5, AP 1), Menu (60'', S 8 AP 1) and Supersize Menu (70', S 10, AP 1) sizes outside of Apocalypse, and are, alongside Pulse and Ion weapons, what Tau are known for on the weapon front... But is it just me, or are they being outclassed?

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with them, per say. They are fine for what they are, but why don't we see them more? I mean, the standard Railgun has the highest base S and AP in the game, and a great range to boot, but nobody takes it, or even talks about it (That might have something to do with the Hammerhead, though...). And what about the Heavy Rail Rifles? As far as I know, people only take the HYMP nowadays... And Pathfinders with anti-heavy infantry?...

Is there a problem with the Rail Weapons in general, or are they just outclassed? To my mind, it's a bit of both. Everyone knows how powerful the HYMP is, and the Riptide is superior to the Hammerhead in most respects, so that of course rules out the Rail Weapons as go-to weapons. On the other hand, they tend to be terribly hit-or-miss, literally. If you miss, you miss, nothing happens, and if you hit, you have some chance of taking a Hull Point, and maybe even do a Penetrating hit (which might - MIGHT - make the thing explode), because, let's face it, Railguns are anti-armour.

Do you feel there is a problem to solve, or are they just outclassed by better options? Are the Railguns simply too bare bones? Would it help to give them, say, Armourbane, or maybe even a native +1 when rolling on the Vehicle Damage chart, on top of AP 1?

You don't see pathfinders with them since the only reason you take pathfinders is for markerlights. If they're not shooting marker lights, then they're generally wasted points, as you can easily get Str 5 shots elsewhere in your army at a greater cost ratio to compensate for the AP1. Not to mention you've now got a 26 point model with 1 wound at T3 and a 5+ save who has to shoot at the same target the rest of his unit is shooting at with their laser pointers. Expensive guns on fragile platforms are generally not worth it.

The reason why you don't see them on the broadsides is because HYMP do their job much, much better than they could ever hope to. As another poster said, if you look at the fact that they've got a pair of TL missile pods, well, that'd be 40 points just for the weapons on a crisis suit. Is a 2 wound 2+ armour unit with Twin linked SMS really only worth 25 points? (Hint; The answer is No.) HYMP are far too good for their cost which is why you see nothing but them despite being nowhere near as cool looking as the rail rifle. Personally I think Savage Convoy hit the nail on the head. Heavy rail rifles should be rapid fire rather than heavy, though at less range (again, I agree with savage convoy about the range, 48" would be a good compromise) but I also think you should see HYMP get a price hike. They are currently a bit too cheap.

The reason you don't see Hammerheads? As other have mentioned, it's a single shot that can't compete with the volume of fire from HYMP's, nor the anti FMC abilities of the skyray, both of which are cheaper and do a better job of tank hunting than the Hammerhead. Don't get me wrong, the hammerhead is exactly where it should be IMHO. Maybe giving it tank hunter as an upgrade option wouldn't be out of the question though. I suspect most of the others asking for armourbane or Str D/11 aren't used to playing non-Tau and need to remember we're going for a balanced playing field rather than going back to the escalation and power creep of old.

Also as mentioned earlier, Tau have other options if they really want to explode vehicles. Fusion blasters aren't exactly uncommon, so there's no truth to the "Tau can't deal with vehicles without [x]" that I've heard else where. It's funny, as much as I hear that the Tau book has exception internal balance, it always comes down to Commander/Crisis/IA Riptides/HYMP Broadsides while stuff like Darkstrider/Aunva/Aunshi/krootox/vespid/stealths/piranahs/fliers/snipers/hammerheads never get taken. Perhaps the Tau book never really had the exceptional internal balance it was touted as having for so long and was just that much more powerful than anything else at the time?

You were correct that there's nothing wrong with the rail gun/rifles, they're just overshadowed by much stronger (some would say overpowered/undercosted) options, or in the case of the pathfinders, available on the wrong unit (should be a firewarrior special).

LordBlades wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the price of the platforms that carry it (and the number of platforms in case of Hammerheads).

Hammerhead is 125 points base for S10 AP1
Broadside is 65 point base for S8 AP1

Compare that to IG where a heavy weapons team with Lascannon (S9 AP2) costs 20 points or SM where a devastator with Lascannon costs 34 points. Hell, a Predator at 140 points has 3 lascannons, one of which is TL.

IG heavy weapons teams with a Lascannon are 35pts for each model, and are amongst the worst heavy weapons units in the game. The IG HWT gets a simple Mortar for 20pts.

Honestly, a Hammerhead is not bad at all for what it is. You just can't take three of them and rely on them for all of your anti-tank, just like an IG army can't take just 3 Vanquishers and rely on them for all of their anti-tank. Hammerheads are great support units, need to be supplemented. If you're bringing hammerheads, bring some pirhanas and crisis suits/riptides with fusion blasters, and you probably won't have any anti-tank issues, particularly if you also have some Markerlights. Just don't expect the Hammerheads to cleanse vehicles off the field with every shot.

The broadside with rail rifle is lacking at this point, I think the most reasonable fix would be to make it S9, but really, as pointed out earlier, GW has for some reason really designed vehicles such that heavy anti-tank guns are often the least effective anti-tank weapons, and its the generalist mid-strength spam weapons like HYMPs that are the most capable weapons.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If you're bringing hammerheads, bring some pirhanas and crisis suits/riptides with fusion blasters, and you probably won't have any anti-tank issues, particularly if you also have some Markerlights.

This is one of the bigger problems with the game right now that I see.
It's so easy to just rely on melta as the answer to anti-tank and it's so cheap and readily available that ranged anti-tank weapons are very lackluster or rare in comparison.
Yes, it's simple to bring suits and Piranha to help deal with tanks. But the problem I have with that is why does a tank, that's so purpose is taking down other tanks forced to rely on or surpassed in anti-tank ability by light harassment units.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

What is there at T5 that would warrant including sub-par anti-tank to try and one shot?

i keep my thallax away from these things and vindicators.

actually, sometimes they end up quite close...

The Hammerhead's sole purpose is not just killing other tanks, that's why it has secondary weapons systems and submunition options. That said, it's not the only tank with that issue, the Leman Russ Vanquisher is also a rather poor tank hunter despite being primarily anti-tank oriented.

However, yes melta is very cheap, it also usually comes in multiples such that if it doesn't explode something you'll still get the 3 HP's.

The bigger issue in general is just that long range dedicated heavy anti-tank guns are actually bad at their role relative to lighter weapons. HP's are just easier to strip with lighter weapons and the damage table too hard to consistently get a kill with using heavy AT guns. Lascannons have the same issues.

I would hope the Hammerhead, Tau's iconic anti-tank weapon platform, would be capable of actually doing damage to tanks. The problem with your scenario is that you're talking about the entirety of a CAD HS section taking down a single vehicle that all the IoM can bring multiples of.

Price of a Imperial Knight Paladin: 375 points.

Price of 3 Hammerhead tanks: 360 points.


sorry but the argument that hammerheads suck because it takes multiple hammerheads a few rounds to kill a knight is a pretty bad one . yes an Imperial Player can takes all the Knights he wants, but knights are very expensive from a points standpoint, and besides Tau can always take multiple detachments if it's a real issue.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
... seriously? a S 10 AP 2 weapon is only single shot and it is a terriable gun because of that?

Yes, because of the nerfs to the vehicle damage table. Single-shot weapons suck at killing vehicles, you need volume of fire to strip lots of HP and ignore the damage table.

That doesn't mean the rail gun needs to be changed, thats more a problem with the current vehicle rules. Lascanons and other "high STR low volume" heavy weapons have the same problems. I';d suggest changing the rules so that a shot that glances rolls on the vehicle damage table as -3 or -4. only if they get a result on the table does the vehicle suffer a hull point.

Agree with the bolded part but not with the proposed solution. I think the "hull points" mechanic is a good idea but poorly implemented as in its current state. Doubling every vehicle's hull points (i.e. Leman Russ 6 HP) then making penetrating hits automatically score two HPs would make it more difficult to destroy vehicles by just scratching their paintwork, and at the same time make things like Vanquishers more valuable.

As for the Rail Weapons, I see them fine as they are. If almost nobody gets them on a table it's more due to Riptides outclassing them, but I'd say it's more a matter of nerfing the Riptide than anything else. S10 AP1 is already pretty good if you think about it, giving it Armorbane would just guarantee a penetrating hit with +2 on the chart.

When it comes to rail weapons for the Tau, the 6th edition codex changed things up a lot. GW correctly realized there needed to be a difference between the Strength 10, AP 1 railgun of the Broadsides and the Strength 10, AP 1 railgun of the Hammerheads. As Strength D was still apocalypse only at that point, there was really only one thing that could be done, and that was to introduce a weaker railgun for the Broadsides. From that decision the stats of the Rail Rifles needed to be adapted to follow along, leaving us with what we are facing now.

So what's wrong with the rail weapons and how do we fix that? Let's look at each of the weapons and see.

Rail Rifles: Statwise these guns are fine, especially considering they used to be Heavy 1 and AP 3. The issue with these is that as of the 6th ed codex, they were only carried by a unit that has more important things to do than shoot things - Pathfinders. They need to be on more platforms (along with the Ion Rifles). I'd love to see Firewarrors get the chance to carry them. I've also thought about them as weapons for Stealthsuits. My wildest idea is to add them to the list of Battlesuit weapons, perhaps replacing Plasma Rifles in the process.

Heavy Rail Rifles: Oh for the days of Strength 10. As it is now, the gun just does not compete with the High Yield Missile Pod in terms of damage output. While it has been suggested that Rapid Fire is the solution to this problem (or a dreaded points cost increase on the HYMP) I think that this weapon breaks the Rapid Fire criterion wide open. Still, an extra shot would do a lot to make this weapon pay off. So I think that Salvo 2/1 is probably the better choice. Improved firepower in the static role, but able to still do some damage in the mobile role.

Railgun: Free Submunitions would be a start. A Strength 6 AP 4 alternate attack shouldn't cost a lot for a Strength 10 AP 1 weapon to deliver. However this does not deal with the big issue facing the Railgun. it's a single shot weapon on an expensive platform that takes up an entire FOC slot on its own. This makes it highly vulnerable to bad dice. Considering it is the only means the Tau have to deal with AV 14 at range, this unreliability is a huge weakness in the Tau codex. As above I think that had the Codex been written in 7h edition, Strength D might have happened for the Hammerhead's Railgun, but to be honest, I think that it may be a tad too far - at least not without a sizable points increase. So what other options are there? I could see Armourbane or Lance, but if the Railgun has those, why don't the Rail Rifles and Heavy Rail Rifles? On the other hand, Ordnance would allow a reroll on that critical penetration roll, which would do all that is required. As a general rule, if you are firing the solid slug at something with the Hammerhead, the odds are the rest of the weapons wont' do anythign if they hit anyway, so no worries about them dropping to BS 1.

So, in summary; Rail Rifles need to be on more platforms, Heavy Rail Rifles should be Salvo and Railguns should get the Submunition round for free and be Ordnance weapons.

BrianDavion wrote:

I would hope the Hammerhead, Tau's iconic anti-tank weapon platform, would be capable of actually doing damage to tanks. The problem with your scenario is that you're talking about the entirety of a CAD HS section taking down a single vehicle that all the IoM can bring multiples of.

Price of a Imperial Knight Paladin: 375 points.

Price of 3 Hammerhead tanks: 360 points.


sorry but the argument that hammerheads suck because it takes multiple hammerheads a few rounds to kill a knight is a pretty bad one . yes an Imperial Player can takes all the Knights he wants, but knights are very expensive from a points standpoint, and besides Tau can always take multiple detachments if it's a real issue.

Bad example. First off the tank is 125 base, not 120. Also, a hammerhead is not taken naked. It will almost always be given disruption pods for +1 cover save. That makes it 140. 140*3 = 420, more than any knight and will probably not even kill one before they crash into the main line of Tau. The 3 shots of the hammerheads (with markerlights) will deal 0.833 HP to a knight, with 0.208 of the 3 shots being explodes results. 6.944% chance per shot to cause an explodes result, and 27.778% chance per shot to strip a HP. That's 22 shots to glance it to death (hint, more shots than there are game turns). One knight will probably fall about turn 3-4 factoring in the explodes you get from the random pens.

The biggest thing that can help the hammerhead is the ability to buy multi-trackers, treating it as a fast vehicle again. With the 4th ed book, hammerheads could move 12" and still fire their main gun and supporting weapon, but now it's 6" to fire the main gun and snap fire the supporting weapon. Lance would be cool because of how strong this weapon is supposed to be, but isn't. And the HRR shorter range + rapid fire would be cool. The standard rail rifle needs to not be on pathfinders. If that could be a weapon option for firewarriors, that would make that weapon useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
On the other hand, Ordnance would allow a reroll on that critical penetration roll, which would do all that is required. As a general rule, if you are firing the solid slug at something with the Hammerhead, the odds are the rest of the weapons wont' do anythign if they hit anyway, so no worries about them dropping to BS 1.

So, in summary; Rail Rifles need to be on more platforms, Heavy Rail Rifles should be Salvo and Railguns should get the Submunition round for free and be Ordnance weapons.

Hah, you wrote that as I was typing my response. The Ordnance to the Railgun would solve a huge part of it's (in)ability to penetrate armor.