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.

Yeah, big nerf for the broadside railguns.

OTOH, the model itself is way smaller than a hammerhead railcannon to the point of questionably being the same weapon.


That said, this edition being S10 is an actually pointless feature, since for some reason they decided to make vehicles T7 and T8 rather than T8 & T9 [or even make use of opening up the scales and re-stat them and their weapons].

The Hammerhead railgun should have always caused catastrophic damage.

 Elbows wrote:
I was on board with 8th until the killiness just steadily went off the charts...making the game feel utterly pointless in too many cases. Haven't played in 5-6 months and don't see myself doing so again. It's all good though, I left after 3.5 and only came back in 8th, so I'll convert my armies back to 2nd ed. style or adopt other rules, etc.

I'm increasingly liking the idea of 8th without stratagems or subfaction bonuses. It takes a lot of the gimmickry out of the game, dramatically reduces the alpha strike potential and killing power, makes many restrictions and downsides much more meaningful, and is less stuff to keep track of or account for. Not a perfect solution, but I do find it an improvement generally.

Martel732 wrote:
The Hammerhead railgun should have always caused catastrophic damage.

The only gun on-paper more powerful than the Hammerhead railgun back when I first played was the Medusa Siege Artillery Gun, which was armorbane and small blast @ 48" instead of having 72" range. [The Vanquisher gun and meltaguns were also more powerful against heavy targets, being armorbane.]

It used to be great, my friend played Tau, and I played Guard, and the game was basically tank duels between Leman Russes and Hammerheads.

I mean more catastrophic than it was in the game. The magical armor result roll was always an issue. It should have been a D weapon before D weapons.

Martel732 wrote:
I mean more catastrophic than it was in the game. The magical armor result roll was always an issue. It should have been a D weapon before D weapons.

I wouldn't have gone that far. It's not that massive. I think D weapons shouldn't have been part of the game more than older weapons should have been more lethal. Destroyer being introduced with it's "if it hits, remove the model" was definitely a downhill moment for the game, especially when they went back and made a ton of weapons for one faction destroyer but didn't do so for powerful weapons elsewhere.

The weapon is almost as long as the tank. And its high tech. Anyway, that's my view on it. It should have been able to reliably one shot a Russ, not roll to hit, roll to pen, then pray for a magical damage die.

 Elbows wrote:
I was on board with 8th until the killiness just steadily went off the charts...making the game feel utterly pointless in too many cases. Haven't played in 5-6 months and don't see myself doing so again. It's all good though, I left after 3.5 and only came back in 8th, so I'll convert my armies back to 2nd ed. style or adopt other rules, etc.

Same here. Not played (anything, in fact. feth all gamers want to show up at an FLGS, but I digress...) since roughly September as I have no desire to trudge my stuff into town to get blown away by the latest unpainted meta chasing SM army that seems to infect my local GW, which is the only place I've been able to get somewhat regular games of 40k, despite there being an abundance of places to play in this city, yet no opponents.

At this point I wonder why I am still in this hobby with what I see it become on social media. People taking stuff far to seriously (both in and out of fiction) and everything revolving around a godforsaken metagame that I never signed up for and apparently if I wish to continue in this game I have to distort my armies into something that only resembles them in the broadest strokes to apparently have a fighting chance.

Martel732 wrote:
The weapon is almost as long as the tank. And its high tech. Anyway, that's my view on it. It should have been able to reliably one shot a Russ, not roll to hit, roll to pen, then pray for a magical damage die.

I have a lot of other opinions on railguns in general, but I felt that it was pretty adequately powerful for what's expected of it. I might have said "that would be neat" back in 5th, but after the days of 7th, if it needed to be more powerful, giving it armorbane would have been fine. We don't, didn't, and shouldn't need more destroyer or destroyer mechanics in the game.

As for weapon perceived power, I've also always thought that a Earthshaker should be more powerful. It was plenty powerful, but given what actually happens to tanks hit by artillery...

Martel732 wrote:
The Hammerhead railgun should have always caused catastrophic damage.

I agree that it should have been more powerful than the suit version, yes. And that definitely shouldn't have come at the expense of the suit version.
At least now it could have S 16 or whatever, to wound T8 on a 2. It should be better than it is for sure, I'd love to see more Hammerheads on the table because it's a great model.

Depends on the artillery. But direct hits should be much more difficult for the artillery. It's a level of sophistication not possible in GWs system. But the hammerhead always felt way too weak to me. Single shot weapons have progressively gotten worse and worse in GW-land, too. Look at melta now.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The Hammerhead railgun should have always caused catastrophic damage.

I agree that it should have been more powerful than the suit version, yes. And that definitely shouldn't have come at the expense of the suit version.
At least now it could have S 16 or whatever, to wound T8 on a 2. It should be better than it is for sure, I'd love to see more Hammerheads on the table because it's a great model.

Me too. I think that the heavy AT guns should be damage 2d6 or something. It wouldn't step on the toes of former destroyer weapons, because the Shadowsword does 2d6 6 times, not just once or twice. The Space Marine Laser Destroyer rolls 4d6 dice for damage [with a minimum of 12!], the Railgun and Vanquisher should definitely be able to make at least the 4d6.

Hammerheads should probably get a grinding advance ability, like most other factions main battle tanks, and have a damage promotion to at least 2d6 [maybe 2d6 with a floor or even 3d6]. That would definitely make them a competitive option.

The Vanquisher Gun is a pretty obvious point-out for the stupidity. Besides for some reason being S8, they're afraid to give a weapon more than 1d6 damage. Except the Demolisher Cannon gets a whole 2d6 for 1d6 each [that's 7d6 on average], and the basic Battle Cannon averages almost 4d6 downrange of damage, versus the Vanquisher Tank Gun among the most powerful AT weapons in the Imperium and prized for it's first-shot kill rate on heavy tanks, averages 2d6, and the Railcannon, also counted among the most powerful antitank weapons in the setting short of a titanic superlaser, averages only a tiny 1d6, and is exactly as good as a little itty bitty lascannon.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The Hammerhead railgun should have always caused catastrophic damage.

I agree that it should have been more powerful than the suit version, yes. And that definitely shouldn't have come at the expense of the suit version.
At least now it could have S 16 or whatever, to wound T8 on a 2. It should be better than it is for sure, I'd love to see more Hammerheads on the table because it's a great model.

Me too. I think that the heavy AT guns should be damage 2d6 or something. It wouldn't step on the toes of former destroyer weapons, because the Shadowsword does 2d6 6 times, not just once or twice.

Hear hear!

Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery. A vehicle that is moderately durable that can shoot all the way across the board can just...have that be its thing, it doesnt HAVE to totally invalidate all the points another model paid for its durability.

Id be a-ok with making railguns do more reliable damage. Min 3 damage would be a start.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery.

Sorta, I mean we have those Custodes with 3W, 2+ armor and a 4+ invuln wandering around. Not to mention those Shield capatins with a T6, 7W and a 3++, etc. . .

This brings me back to the tank armor thing again. Back in the day they were absolutely immune to small arms, and that helped differentiate them from fancy characters with invulns.

If anything should invalidate durability, its that railgun. It needs to ignore or reduce invulns as well. It overloads the field in the spot it hits or something. Instead, the go to Tau weapon is Robotech missiles vs everything. Because RoF is god.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery.

Sorta, I mean we have those Custodes with 3W, 2+ armor and a 4+ invuln wandering around. Not to mention those Shield capatins with a T6, 7W and a 3++, etc. . .

This brings me back to the tank armor thing again. Back in the day they were absolutely immune to small arms, and that helped differentiate them from fancy characters with invulns.

I don't think that's the issue. Wounding on 6s is basically wasting your fire in 8th. I'd get rid of invulns myself. They cause more trouble than they are worth. They make costing certain weapon types very hard.

Martel732 wrote:
RoF is god.

This has been a problem since hull points became a thing. This is why IMO 5e was best.

Actaully, yeah. You know what I miss? The days of 3rd ed when if Marneus Calgar failed his 4+ save, he just dies because of Instant Death.

High powered weapons in 2nd and 3rd often just annihilated characters if they were caught. In 2nd you could get a Displacer field (3++), but you could only have one, and it'd be on a model with 3-4 wounds in an environment where a Heavy Bolter did D4 damage and a Lascannon did 2D6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
RoF is god.

This has been a problem since hull points became a thing. This is why IMO 5e was best.

4th Ed. But close enough

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
RoF is god.

This has been a problem since hull points became a thing. This is why IMO 5e was best.

5th or 3rd. I'd entertain an argument for either. 5th was the beginning of MOAR FIREPOWER! though. I remember my WD codex BA got tabled by the 5th ed IG codex in 2.5 turns.

4th ed skimmer rules were unforgivable. I can't go for 4th. Also, made transports deathtraps if I recall.

Martel732 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
RoF is god.

This has been a problem since hull points became a thing. This is why IMO 5e was best.

5th was the beginning of MOAR FIREPOWER!

Yah. The number of high AP weapons started to balloon real badly. As did the number of "MC"s with high numbers of wounds.

fething IG plasma spam made me a very sad Panda. Then the saviour for power armor was the GK. /facepalm. I really hate GW's design philosophy.

Marines felt like marines in 3rd and 4th at least. I'll give them that, Eldar and Tau skimmer shenanigans notwithstanding.

Martel732 wrote:
If anything should invalidate durability, its that railgun. It needs to ignore or reduce invulns as well. It overloads the field in the spot it hits or something. Instead, the go to Tau weapon is Robotech missiles vs everything. Because RoF is god.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery.

Sorta, I mean we have those Custodes with 3W, 2+ armor and a 4+ invuln wandering around. Not to mention those Shield capatins with a T6, 7W and a 3++, etc. . .

This brings me back to the tank armor thing again. Back in the day they were absolutely immune to small arms, and that helped differentiate them from fancy characters with invulns.

I don't think that's the issue. Wounding on 6s is basically wasting your fire in 8th. I'd get rid of invulns myself. They cause more trouble than they are worth. They make costing certain weapon types very hard.

Or at least change how they work. You could for example make invulnerable saves add ablative wounds - 1 for each of pt they currently grant. So a 3+ save gives +4 wounds to models profile.

It's easier to balance but still leaves them vulnerable to high damage weapons

That would be a big help. But the commonality if 5++ makes -2 ap the sweet spot to me. Which is a bit nuts.

Hellebore wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If anything should invalidate durability, its that railgun. It needs to ignore or reduce invulns as well. It overloads the field in the spot it hits or something. Instead, the go to Tau weapon is Robotech missiles vs everything. Because RoF is god.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery.

Sorta, I mean we have those Custodes with 3W, 2+ armor and a 4+ invuln wandering around. Not to mention those Shield capatins with a T6, 7W and a 3++, etc. . .

This brings me back to the tank armor thing again. Back in the day they were absolutely immune to small arms, and that helped differentiate them from fancy characters with invulns.

I don't think that's the issue. Wounding on 6s is basically wasting your fire in 8th. I'd get rid of invulns myself. They cause more trouble than they are worth. They make costing certain weapon types very hard.

Or at least change how they work. You could for example make invulnerable saves add ablative wounds - 1 for each of pt they currently grant. So a 3+ save gives +4 wounds to models profile.

It's easier to balance but still leaves them vulnerable to high damage weapons

That does not work. Because... Well, do you really want 3-wound Plaguebearers? But on the flip side, a GUO with two extra wounds but no save... He'll drop like a punk even more than he already does.

Yeah good point

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hellebore wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If anything should invalidate durability, its that railgun. It needs to ignore or reduce invulns as well. It overloads the field in the spot it hits or something. Instead, the go to Tau weapon is Robotech missiles vs everything. Because RoF is god.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery.

Sorta, I mean we have those Custodes with 3W, 2+ armor and a 4+ invuln wandering around. Not to mention those Shield capatins with a T6, 7W and a 3++, etc. . .

This brings me back to the tank armor thing again. Back in the day they were absolutely immune to small arms, and that helped differentiate them from fancy characters with invulns.

I don't think that's the issue. Wounding on 6s is basically wasting your fire in 8th. I'd get rid of invulns myself. They cause more trouble than they are worth. They make costing certain weapon types very hard.

Or at least change how they work. You could for example make invulnerable saves add ablative wounds - 1 for each of pt they currently grant. So a 3+ save gives +4 wounds to models profile.

It's easier to balance but still leaves them vulnerable to high damage weapons

That does not work. Because... Well, do you really want 3-wound Plaguebearers? But on the flip side, a GUO with two extra wounds but no save... He'll drop like a punk even more than he already does.

I'd love six-wound Custodian infantry, but this does highlight 40k's model count problem where because everything gets attacks per model/wounds per model any change you make to anything gets multiplied massively more for swarm armies. Maybe it'd be interesting to think about trying to design the game so you don't need to have five-model single-wound infantry units and thirty-model single-wound infantry units in the same game.

That or bring back morale/sweeping or introduce some kind of suppression mechanic so you don't have to kill every single model on the table with attacks and maybe the dry math of how many attacks it takes to kill a given unit isn't quite so important.

I was responding to comments about removing invulnerable saves entirely, so it was already a lethal change. All I did was offer an option that was slightly less lethal than that.

In the context of that conversation it works fine, you're not comparing it to the correct thing.

Hellebore wrote:
I was responding to comments about removing invulnerable saves entirely, so it was already a lethal change. All I did was offer an option that was slightly less lethal than that.

In the context of that conversation it works fine, you're not comparing it to the correct thing.

Then explain how it DOES work.

Explain how this change works.

Because right now, it looks like it RIDICULOUSLY overpowers 1-Wound Invuln models (Harlequins going from 1 wound glass-cannons to 4-wound murder machines, or Plaguebearers going from a durable T4 6+/5++/5+++ wound to a ridiculously durable three T4 6+/5+++ wounds) while doing basically nothing for tougher models with an invuln (GUO going from 18 to 20 wounds, but losing their 5++ in exchange for a 6+, or a Knight going from 24 to 26 wounds).

Instant Death as a mechanic can go feth itself. If you think multi wound infantry are bad now, they were persona non grata in earlier editions. They were so much more expensive compared to a single model unit they were never used unless they were 5+ toughness.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 jobalisk wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I miss when I found 40k fun...

Yeah, I feel you. I'd love to play some good old school 40k. But noone at the club I'm at wants to play anything but 8th ed.

Because 8e is actually fun.

I made this thread to highlight some lovely old times. But it did what I hoped it would. Brought out conversations.

Conversations about things that made people love the hobby.

Conversations about the horrors of things that have been and changed.

The game is ever changing, if you don't like it as it is now just read through this thread and see how much has changed. Chances are it will change again, so people don't need to moan relentlessly. If you don't like game in it's current state, shelf your army and wait. Or learn to enjoy what it currently is and look forward to what changes it brings in future.

That being said, I do miss the days when you could combat hop with combat armies. I went through about 4/5 lists all getting mephisted because mephiston could combat hop destroy me, it was fun learning to counter that.

I'm not saying that I don't play 8th, and I'm not saying its not fun in its own way. But I definatly had more fun with the older rules. Having said that, it might also be the people I play with here VS the people I used to play 4/5/6th ed 40k with,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 wallygator wrote:
For me, as stated before, i do miss the blast templates and scatter dice, armor facing and fire arks of vehicle weapons.
But the things i miss most is the -to hit modifier you used to get when shooting through other squads (friend and foe) to shoot at some guys knee, and the time before CP and reroll stratagem. I do find stratas fun as it extends your tactical options, but i do enjoy the game more when both sides have burned all their CP, and a diceroll's result is more definitive. There's a lot more tension about crucial rolls that way.

You know, I also kind of feel this. Once you get to turn 3, when you've each got like 2-3CP left and you're looking to just squeeze the maximum out of the few stratagems you have left, is honestly the most fun part of the game to me now.

Turn 1-2, when 2/3 of either army just gets shoveled off the table, have become a bit mechanical.

Meh, ... why not just get rid of the models entirely,
and play the card game instead?

2nd ed was a proper miniatures game.
3rd, 4th... valiant efforts.

Came back at the tail-end of 7th,
and bought the infamous Imperial Agents book for myself for my Birthday to celebrate.

Slavered all over the release of 8th, figuring we would see more continuity after GW puked blood all over WFB fans.

But, they decided to us instead.

Yeah, OK, there are some cool enough plastic models,
contrast paints have been fun (reminiscent to the old inks, anyone?)
and Sisters are OK for the most part,
but...
this guy nailed it here:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I miss when I found 40k fun...

This!
I think we can safely close this thread now.

8th is the edition that made me give up on 40k, I've been playing since the start of 2nd edition. Seeing what GW and 40K have morphed into is honestly quite upsetting. Reading this thread and remembering all the previous editions made me sad at just how lackluster and corporate the current 40K is.

RIP 40k... you were a fun game, that gave players years of enjoyment and laughter.

And this is true too. I mean, just look at Space Marines being slowly dissolved by primerus. Its another example of GW just silently screwing people over.