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.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I love how people are acting like the objective game is gonna be hard for Tau, it's not like HH's are gonna have at least an 8" move and as vehicles there is literally no down side to moving with them.
I am not gonna go out and say that HH's are gonna be meta breaking but it just fething sucks that my models like Belakor are a liability on the table because of one unit. Monsters and vehicles have no defense vs this thing and just like most of 9th edition it is not fun to just pick up my models while the other player roles dice. Lethality wouldn't be so bad if there was some way to mitigate it but when your mitigation is hide and hope they can't get an angle on you, that is gak game play.
It is funny that you mention Belakor. He is the absolute worst target for an Hammerhead.
It takes 3 hammerheads 3 turns of continous fire to take him down.
Daedalus81 wrote: The HH has no tangible benefit from Montka
Reroll 1 to wound is a pretty tangible benefit for a weapon that is going to wound on a 2+ pretty often and at worst a 3+ (without transhuman nonsense, but that usually costs the defender CP.)
I don't forsee HH being in position to take advantage of Montka often.
That's fine. Then its probably not getting charged or attacked with melta weapons, either.
Somehow.
It will definitely get charged by infantry walking through walls and there's plenty of weapons better than melta.
Spoletta wrote: Eh I don't know. Those profiles always look better than they work.
I would like to remind that we currently have a gun that always hits on 2+, always wounds on 2+, negates invul, negates cover, is AP-3 and ignores Look Out Sir. All this for 100 points and can shoot twice for 1 CP. It even rewards you with CPs for killing stuff!
If that description doesn't immediately make you think of the Vindicare assassin, is because he is NEVER seen on any table.
It doesn't make me think much of the Vindicare Assassin because the Vindicare Assassin doesn't bracket my Great Unclean One with a single shot on average.
Also, Hits on a 2+ (assuming you didn't move), Wounds on a 2+ (if you're targeting INFANTRY or something else that's T2), negates invulns, cover, and 4+ or worse armor, but allows saves against 3+ or better, and ignores Look Out Sir... For d3 damage. And can shoot twice, but has to target two separate targets. It does also do MW, if it does any damage from the normal shot. One MW on a 3+, then one on a 4+, then one on a 5+, so on and so forth, but stopping when you fail a roll. That averages to 1.74 MW.
So, a Vindicare Assassin can kill an ordinary SM Captain if they hit (2+), wound (2+), Captain fails save (5-), then d3 damage plus MW rolls have to be 5 or higher. The odds of a successful unsaved wound killing a Captain (with no FNP) is about 16%, so combine that with three 5/6 odds, and you get a whopping 9% chance of killing a Captain. Put that Captain on a Bike, and those odds drop a TON. Assassin is now wounding on a 4+, and the extra wound means he needs a 2+ on damage to kill the Captain even with perfect MW rolls. Actual odds? 1.5%.
Against the mentioned GUO, you're looking at hitting on a 2+, wounding on a 5+, no save, and dealing an average of about 2.3 wounds on a successful unsaved wound. Average of (with hitting and wounding accounted for) .64 wounds per shot. Put another way, that's 28 Vindicare turns to kill a GUO.
Now, a Hammerhead one-shots any Captain, but to be fair, said Captains have Look Out Sir protecting them. What about that GUO? We'll assume they hit on a 4+, thanks to Miasma. They deal an average of 7.33 wounds per successful shot, so it does take three good hits to kill a GUO. With a 4+ rerollable to-hit and a 2+ to-wound, that's a 5/8ths chance of any given shot landing a wound. Or, put another way, it takes just under 5 Hammerhead turns to kill a GUO.
Exactly, as you correctly said, the hammerhead is bad into a GUO. 5 turns to kill a model of similar cost, isn't exactly a great return (pending exact cost of HH obviously). Also, with miasma it hits on 5+, so it doesn't even get to kill him in 5 turns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/31 06:19:27
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I love how people are acting like the objective game is gonna be hard for Tau, it's not like HH's are gonna have at least an 8" move and as vehicles there is literally no down side to moving with them.
I am not gonna go out and say that HH's are gonna be meta breaking but it just fething sucks that my models like Belakor are a liability on the table because of one unit. Monsters and vehicles have no defense vs this thing and just like most of 9th edition it is not fun to just pick up my models while the other player roles dice. Lethality wouldn't be so bad if there was some way to mitigate it but when your mitigation is hide and hope they can't get an angle on you, that is gak game play.
HH won't be jumping on objectives and Tau are still really bad at melee even if their suits survive it and can shoot.
It isn't simple to draw Los across a table with good terrain.
bullyboy wrote: At this stage, I think I'd rather play epic. I have no issue with models getting insta smashed off the table when you have so many of them and big guns feel right by pulverizing a tank etc. But in 40K? I want everything to be a little more viable and not just eliminated in one shot so easily. People are also thinking that this is the only thing Tau have that can kill, we know that will not be the case. A tau shooting phase is going to be downright devastating, so terrain had better be damn good for your army to survive turn 1 and 2 (unless you pay CPs to put those armoured units in outflank).
I just don't like the ignore invulns, should not exist inherently within the weapon. Now, if Tau had some form of munition/system to reduce invulns (markerlights?) meaning they would have to 'soften" a target before the railgun hit, that would feel better. Simply bypassing it just feels wrong. I guess adding minuses to hit will be the best defense if you can't hide, since no save will help.
Problem is there's too much invulnerable saves. So any 1 shot AT weapon=useless. You miss, hit or bounce on inv too often.
And as for terrain...in 9e rule of thumb is if you can't hide 100% of your army in deployment your terrain is too sparse. Enemy needs indirect guns to shoot if they go first.
Alternatively (now hear me out, I know it's crazy):
The HH could just not ignore invulnerable saves for no reason.
Alternatively, invulnerable saves could just not exist.
Or y'know, they could be separated into categories.
-Arcane
-Technological
-Biological
Pretty sure we've discussed this before, but why those categories? I'd be more inclined to do something like:
-Forcefield
-Evasion
-Anatomical
Pretty sure those are more or less what most of the invulns in the game boil down to regardless of whether their source is machinery, biology, or magic. Skitarii cyborg bits and drukhari pain tolerance are both probably "Anatomical", but one would be technological and the other biological in your system. Any invuln from a psychic power would be "arcane," but you might be achieving those results by making the unit blink in and out of reality (Evasion) or by simply putting up a telekinetic shield (Forcefield). Plus, I feel like mechanics that interact with such hypothetical tags are more likely to care about the type of defense being expressed rather than the mechanisms used to manifest them. A flamer, for instance, could reasonably counter Evasion-derived invulns that represent units being hard to hit, but not Forcefields or Anatomical invulns like cybernetics and pain tolerance. But I'm not sure that same flamer particularly cares whether a unit is hard to hit because it has cybernetics, tyranid limbs, or magic-infused limbs.
But yeah. Kind of agree with the notion of just not letting the HH ignore invulns. You have to squint pretty hard to justify it bypassing necrons phasing out of reality, mandrakes being made of shadow, or eldar vehicles not being where the shot was in the first place. I'm not sure making it a little cheaper, a little more niche, and more fluffy is a bad way to go. If you just made it Damage 6+d6 and then ditched the mortal wounds and ignores invulns stuff, you'd have a weapon that was very good against conventional armored targets but less good against targets with defenses rooted in evasion and magic. Seems fluffy. Gives you a reason to take other units in your army that are good against such defenses. Seems like a good move all around.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Or...and this is just a thought here...they could stop throwing so much AP into the game that anything without an Invulnerable save is irrelevant? That way they wouldn't have to throw quite so many Invulnerable saves into the game, and AT weapons wouldn't have to ignore Invulnerable saves to be relevant, and we wouldn't have to argue as much about what different Invulnerable saves represent and why it makes sense for a weapon to ignore one but not the other.
I know it's asking a lot to ask GW to be disciplined enough to not completely invalidate core mechanics of their game by assigning stats like Oprah, but maybe, just maybe, the game would work better if they would admit some things were stupid decisions and go back and fix them, instead of piling a tower of band-aid patches on top of shaky foundations until there's so much bloat they'll need to burn down the game and start over again just five years after the last time they burned down the game and started over.
AnomanderRake wrote: Or...and this is just a thought here...they could stop throwing so much AP into the game that anything without an Invulnerable save is irrelevant? That way they wouldn't have to throw quite so many Invulnerable saves into the game, and AT weapons wouldn't have to ignore Invulnerable saves to be relevant, and we wouldn't have to argue as much about what different Invulnerable saves represent and why it makes sense for a weapon to ignore one but not the other.
I know it's asking a lot to ask GW to be disciplined enough to not completely invalidate core mechanics of their game by assigning stats like Oprah, but maybe, just maybe, the game would work better if they would admit some things were stupid decisions and go back and fix them, instead of piling a tower of band-aid patches on top of shaky foundations until there's so much bloat they'll need to burn down the game and start over again just five years after the last time they burned down the game and started over.
That would work too. I kind of feel like the proliferation of invulns on vehicles were sort of a weird choice at the time. Like, we spent a long time (prior to the melta weapon update) complaining about how plasma was more effective than melta/lascannons at killing vehicles. Giving more vehicles invulns just made that problem worse. If you nixed a lot of the slapped-on invulns and changed some of the recently buffed anti-tank weapons to just be Dd6 min 3 instead of dX+Y (dark lances, melta, etc.), then I think we'd land in a reasonably good place.
Edit: It also feels like the increased damage profiles were partly a response to the proliferation of mechanics that reduced damage (like on dreadnaughts). Which in turn was introduced because plasma type weapons were too good at chewing through dreadnaughts compared to dedicated anti-tank guns. So it feels like a lot of these newer balance problems could have been avoided by just doing something about plasma-like weapons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/31 07:46:06
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
AnomanderRake wrote: Or...and this is just a thought here...they could stop throwing so much AP into the game that anything without an Invulnerable save is irrelevant? That way they wouldn't have to throw quite so many Invulnerable saves into the game, and AT weapons wouldn't have to ignore Invulnerable saves to be relevant, and we wouldn't have to argue as much about what different Invulnerable saves represent and why it makes sense for a weapon to ignore one but not the other.
I know it's asking a lot to ask GW to be disciplined enough to not completely invalidate core mechanics of their game by assigning stats like Oprah, but maybe, just maybe, the game would work better if they would admit some things were stupid decisions and go back and fix them, instead of piling a tower of band-aid patches on top of shaky foundations until there's so much bloat they'll need to burn down the game and start over again just five years after the last time they burned down the game and started over.
Well while that would be nice...it still wouldnt change restart cycle. That's done for profit. GW won't stop press money button.
AnomanderRake wrote: Or...and this is just a thought here...they could stop throwing so much AP into the game that anything without an Invulnerable save is irrelevant? That way they wouldn't have to throw quite so many Invulnerable saves into the game, and AT weapons wouldn't have to ignore Invulnerable saves to be relevant, and we wouldn't have to argue as much about what different Invulnerable saves represent and why it makes sense for a weapon to ignore one but not the other.
I know it's asking a lot to ask GW to be disciplined enough to not completely invalidate core mechanics of their game by assigning stats like Oprah, but maybe, just maybe, the game would work better if they would admit some things were stupid decisions and go back and fix them, instead of piling a tower of band-aid patches on top of shaky foundations until there's so much bloat they'll need to burn down the game and start over again just five years after the last time they burned down the game and started over.
That would work too. I kind of feel like the proliferation of invulns on vehicles were sort of a weird choice at the time. Like, we spent a long time (prior to the melta weapon update) complaining about how plasma was more effective than melta/lascannons at killing vehicles. Giving more vehicles invulns just made that problem worse. If you nixed a lot of the slapped-on invulns and changed some of the recently buffed anti-tank weapons to just be Dd6 min 3 instead of dX+Y (dark lances, melta, etc.), then I think we'd land in a reasonably good place.
Edit: It also feels like the increased damage profiles were partly a response to the proliferation of mechanics that reduced damage (like on dreadnaughts). Which in turn was introduced because plasma type weapons were too good at chewing through dreadnaughts compared to dedicated anti-tank guns. So it feels like a lot of these newer balance problems could have been avoided by just doing something about plasma-like weapons.
All these problems are here because they wanted to do 2W infantry (which just pushes the power creep further because your D1 weapons become increasingly irrelevant unless you slam masses of buffs on them), wrote the to-wound table wrong (so it's too easy to spam shots that wound on 5+ and too hard to get to a shot that wounds on 2+/6+, not to mention they didn't bother to use all this stat range they claim to have opened up and made 99.7% of vehicles T7/3+), and really wanted to bring overcharged plasma back from 2e for some reason (which isn't really in-scale with 40k, it should have stayed in Necromunda where it belongs).
It isn't simple to draw Los across a table with good terrain.
It is when you can move, advance, and count as stationary. OR when HH arrive from strategic reserves, the tau player to place it where it can draw los to enemy units.
Dudeface wrote: (1)They sort of do, yes fluffwise tau add in auxilia to reinforce their own weaknesses, but in current fluff they're distrusting of them in the 4th sphere following warp shenanigans.
(2)Imperial guard is primarily ranged yes but their main aspect is quantity over quality, bodies, tanks, shots etc. so no they're not simply marines but they aren't just tau with melee and pyskers either.
(3)Finally it adds value because it draws back to reminding people the factions place in the game design paradigm, which is the "technology over adversary, here's the best tech and weapons we can make to overcome our foe". They trust their tech, provide the best punch with their guns and so on, hence just hand waving their problems away with some auxilia dilutes the faction in terms of game design.
(1) Ok, so you confirm what I say that we can explore Demiurg, Kroot, Vespids, Gue'vesa and other auxiliaries as that is well established fluff. So we may flesh out the faction beyond ever bigger Gundams.
(2) Somehow you miss the point while spelling out that adding "something" to a faction does not automatically make that faction play exactly like another one at the same time by yourself. So I don't get why you argue against my point?
(3) See your point above. Adding depth to the one dimensional playstyle of Tau does not mean that they will be Gundam skinned Guard or Marines. Auxiliaries are as much part of the original Tau design as fielding high tech battle suits. Last time we had Gue'vesa rules was in 3rd and the last time we saw new auxiliary troops were Vespids in 4th. It is about time.
Read again what I wrote and what Sim-Life replied. Defending their contentless, hysterical response is enabling their gakposting. Going from "explore auxiliaries instead of upping the guns" to "LeT's ReMoVe EvErYtHiNg AnD jUsT hAvE oNe CoDeX fOr AlL fAcTiOnS SKREEEEEEEE"
What's the main tactical weaknesses tau possess? They don't have chunky high save melee troops to sit on/clear objectives nor access to psykers for mw defence or buffs.
What happens when you then introduce some demiurg who are robust high save/t melee blobs to sit on midfield objectives. They either become auto includes by proxy, or suddenly you're having to deal with a hard to kill block whilst being shot to bits by "the shooting army".
The intentional gaps are there by intent, I'd wager they stopped adding auxilia in because they realised there wasn't scope without creating some horrid cookie cutter default list.
It isn't simple to draw Los across a table with good terrain.
It is when you can move, advance, and count as stationary. OR when HH arrive from strategic reserves, the tau player to place it where it can draw los to enemy units.
Both cases put the HH in a terrible position, and since they don't make their points back in a single turn, you don't want them where they can be easily attacked by the whole enemy army.
I can do the same with a melta pod, by outflanking retributors, by advancing chickens or simply jumping 3 landspeeders in your face. They all get to inflict horrible damage to an enemy target I really want dead, and then get deleted.
Out of all of those, rushing an HH into the opponent's face looks like the least effective of the bunch.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I love how people are acting like the objective game is gonna be hard for Tau, it's not like HH's are gonna have at least an 8" move and as vehicles there is literally no down side to moving with them.
I am not gonna go out and say that HH's are gonna be meta breaking but it just fething sucks that my models like Belakor are a liability on the table because of one unit. Monsters and vehicles have no defense vs this thing and just like most of 9th edition it is not fun to just pick up my models while the other player roles dice. Lethality wouldn't be so bad if there was some way to mitigate it but when your mitigation is hide and hope they can't get an angle on you, that is gak game play.
getting to the Objectives has never been Tau's problem. Surviving when they get there is. And sofar we have seen nothing that helps with that aside from making it easier to kill your opponent and be unopposed.
bullyboy wrote: At this stage, I think I'd rather play epic. I have no issue with models getting insta smashed off the table when you have so many of them and big guns feel right by pulverizing a tank etc. But in 40K? I want everything to be a little more viable and not just eliminated in one shot so easily. People are also thinking that this is the only thing Tau have that can kill, we know that will not be the case. A tau shooting phase is going to be downright devastating, so terrain had better be damn good for your army to survive turn 1 and 2 (unless you pay CPs to put those armoured units in outflank).
I just don't like the ignore invulns, should not exist inherently within the weapon. Now, if Tau had some form of munition/system to reduce invulns (markerlights?) meaning they would have to 'soften" a target before the railgun hit, that would feel better. Simply bypassing it just feels wrong. I guess adding minuses to hit will be the best defense if you can't hide, since no save will help.
Problem is there's too much invulnerable saves. So any 1 shot AT weapon=useless. You miss, hit or bounce on inv too often.
A 1 shot weapon that deals such massive damage is going to reap the reward of a failed invuln, that's basically this game in a nutshell. However, when you automatically bypass the invuln (and basically any other save), then the damage needs to be tempered. This thing does both...oh and then tack on some MW too for good measure....because reasons.
It's too much of a meta shifting weapon which will stifle list building. Marine dreadnoughts, even those with a shield save from deathwatch, nope...just take more infantry. Transports? Nope, just more infantry. Immolators....already bad, not taking for sure now. Anything in that 8-12 wound range that isn't super cheap is going to take a hard pass. The HH will need to be over 200pts to compensate for this (like the marine tanks that nobody takes) and had better not be anywhere near 160pts.
Im fine with this. Its a flyer so they can only have 2. They die very easily, and only get one shot.
Ill throw tannhausers bones on my on my Chaplain on Bike, and ignore the mortals on 5+, and use Litany of Divine Faith around it's most likely targets. It says no invul, but still a FNP.
It's going to be interesting. My Templars are the most resilient army I've ever played.
My Orks, well, ill be attacking Hammerheads with Rukkatrukk Squigbuggies. If you can go first and take one down quickly, its one less big gun to worry about.
With my Blood Angels, I'll just die quickly and horribly.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/12/31 13:04:51
Apocalypse81 wrote: Im fine with this. Its a flyer so they can only have 2. They die very easily, and only get one shot.
Hammeread is a heavy support skimmer, not a flyer. There's also an Hammered HQ like AM tank commanders, which is Longstrike. So it's at least 4 of those weapons, as maybe there are other ways to field railguns or something similar. Definitely not just 2.
Maybe going out on a limb, but not convinced this is going to warp the meta any more than its already warped.
Its the equivalent of a Ravager with 4-5 shots. This has a different probability curve on the damage - 10-12 wounds or nothing is I think is worse for the game - but in terms of competitive play I don't think that matters.
Sure if your opponent brings 3 and they all hit and wound and blow up three of your vehicles/monsters that's going to be lame. But if I bring 3 ravagers and, idk, a Jetfighter, and I roll in the upper 25% outcome bracket, I'm going to kill a load of your stuff too. That's just 9th edition.
I don't think the Hammerhead will be used all that often in all honesty. A one per detachment type of deal at most.
Hear me out.
It absolutely annihilates whatever single target it hits at a very good range, regardless of whether it's a knight, a monster or character. Two HHs stand a pretty good chance of killing anything that normal 40k can reasonably field, barring things like Ghaz or C'Tan.
These will 100% be priority number one for anyone facing them, and will be shot off the table as soon as possible to prevent them nuking your expensive stuff. I don't see GW making the HH super durable without it being made absurdly expensive to compensate, so it should be killable pretty quickly if you can get LOS on it.
Taking three HH's is going to be overkill and wasted points except against pure Knights lists and Nid Monster Mash or something. One isn't enough because it gets killed straight away, so two is the magic number. The rest of the list will be full of things like burst cannons and blast weapons to deal with infantry and chip everything else down.
There's also the factor that the HH presents some super big, super spooky numbers. People don't want their stuff getting one shot, so they either lean in to infantry so that the firepower is wasted, or lean eeeven further into AT alpha strike to kill the HH before it can do anything. Either way, the HH suffers where other more flexible units prosper.
I think the HH will be seen infrequently, but will absolutely matter when it does show up.
Alternatively (now hear me out, I know it's crazy):
The HH could just not ignore invulnerable saves for no reason.
Alternatively, invulnerable saves could just not exist.
Or y'know, they could be separated into categories.
-Arcane
-Technological
-Biological
Pretty sure we've discussed this before, but why those categories? I'd be more inclined to do something like:
-Forcefield
-Evasion
-Anatomical
Because those are the main three those things can be broken down into.
Arcane can cover everything from psyker abilities or runic inscriptions or BELIEVING! to daemonic vitality to C'Tan powers, etc. If it isn't a part of the warriors' wargear(cybernetic limbs, force field generators, extra hefty armor) or natural biology(for argument's sake, we'll throw "moves really fast!" into this although I don't believe Evasion should be an invulnerable save), it's Arcane.
Pretty sure those are more or less what most of the invulns in the game boil down to regardless of whether their source is machinery, biology, or magic. Skitarii cyborg bits and drukhari pain tolerance are both probably "Anatomical", but one would be technological and the other biological in your system. Any invuln from a psychic power would be "arcane," but you might be achieving those results by making the unit blink in and out of reality (Evasion) or by simply putting up a telekinetic shield (Forcefield). Plus, I feel like mechanics that interact with such hypothetical tags are more likely to care about the type of defense being expressed rather than the mechanisms used to manifest them. A flamer, for instance, could reasonably counter Evasion-derived invulns that represent units being hard to hit, but not Forcefields or Anatomical invulns like cybernetics and pain tolerance. But I'm not sure that same flamer particularly cares whether a unit is hard to hit because it has cybernetics, tyranid limbs, or magic-infused limbs.
Drukhari pain tolerance is great and all, but if you're on fire then you're on fire.
Shooting a Drukhari with an arc rifle might not do a whole lot other than the 'basic' damage...but against a Necron or a Skitarii or a Power Armored enemy with an invulnerable save that isn't Arcane or Biological it should be doing a bit more.
The whole point of setting them up into those three categories is because "evasion" shouldn't be an Invulnerable Save category. If it's going to be a thing and if it's going to be used, it should be its own thing--and have counters that affect it. The Hydra used to be able to "lock" Flyers into only being able to go a certain speed before it got blanded for the codex proper to throw an example out there.
But yeah. Kind of agree with the notion of just not letting the HH ignore invulns. You have to squint pretty hard to justify it bypassing necrons phasing out of reality, mandrakes being made of shadow, or eldar vehicles not being where the shot was in the first place.
You have to squint pretty hard to justify Mandrakes having an invulnerable save rather than a cover save for "being made of shadow". You have to squint pretty hard to justify "phasing" as an invulnerable save that's always on rather than tying it to movement. Etc. Etc.
I'm not sure making it a little cheaper, a little more niche, and more fluffy is a bad way to go. If you just made it Damage 6+d6 and then ditched the mortal wounds and ignores invulns stuff, you'd have a weapon that was very good against conventional armored targets but less good against targets with defenses rooted in evasion and magic. Seems fluffy. Gives you a reason to take other units in your army that are good against such defenses. Seems like a good move all around.
You're literally ignoring that what makes these kinds of weapons have a poor showing is that you don't get to control your opponent's list. You can't ask them "Please sir, put some tanks in so my Hammerhead can have fun!".
Apocalypse81 wrote: Im fine with this. Its a flyer so they can only have 2. They die very easily, and only get one shot.
Ill throw tannhausers bones on my on my Chaplain on Bike, and ignore the mortals on 5+, and use Litany of Divine Faith around it's most likely targets. It says no invul, but still a FNP.
It's going to be interesting. My Templars are the most resilient army I've ever played.
My Orks, well, ill be attacking Hammerheads with Rukkatrukk Squigbuggies. If you can go first and take one down quickly, its one less big gun to worry about.
With my Blood Angels, I'll just die quickly and horribly.
Why die horribly with BA?
BA armies often consist of jump packers and a Chaplain on bike.
Here every shot of the Hammerhead is a waste.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Apocalypse81 wrote: Im fine with this. Its a flyer so they can only have 2. They die very easily, and only get one shot.
Ill throw tannhausers bones on my on my Chaplain on Bike, and ignore the mortals on 5+, and use Litany of Divine Faith around it's most likely targets. It says no invul, but still a FNP.
It's going to be interesting. My Templars are the most resilient army I've ever played.
My Orks, well, ill be attacking Hammerheads with Rukkatrukk Squigbuggies. If you can go first and take one down quickly, its one less big gun to worry about.
With my Blood Angels, I'll just die quickly and horribly.
Why die horribly with BA?
BA armies often consist of jump packers and a Chaplain on bike.
Here every shot of the Hammerhead is a waste.
Maybe Apocalypse built their BA force differently than what's most often seen?
You know there are those who don't merrily March along in lockstep with the herd....
Anyways, I presume they know the downsides to their own particular force.
Daedalus81 wrote: The HH has no tangible benefit from Montka
Reroll 1 to wound is a pretty tangible benefit for a weapon that is going to wound on a 2+ pretty often and at worst a 3+ (without transhuman nonsense, but that usually costs the defender CP.)
I don't forsee HH being in position to take advantage of Montka often.
That's fine. Then its probably not getting charged or attacked with melta weapons, either.
Somehow.
*Cough* Vertus Praetors with Salvo Launchers *Cough*
bullyboy wrote: This thing does both...oh and then tack on some MW too for good measure....because reasons.
People keep thinking the MW are to make it more deadly, but clearly that isn't the case as it ignores almost all possible saves. It's to allow an avenue for saves. That's the "because reasons".
bullyboy wrote: This thing does both...oh and then tack on some MW too for good measure....because reasons.
People keep thinking the MW are to make it more deadly, but clearly that isn't the case as it ignores almost all possible saves. It's to allow an avenue for saves. That's the "because reasons".
But the counter point to this is that it also allows the 1 shot gun to be tremendously better against elite units compared to any other 1 shot gun in the game, no 1 shot weapon meant purely as a massive AT one shots 2 terminators/custodes/necron desteoyers/wraiths etc etc, but at that point between that and the strat is not even irrelevant in case I bring a list without tanks, no downside to bringing HHs
bullyboy wrote: This thing does both...oh and then tack on some MW too for good measure....because reasons.
People keep thinking the MW are to make it more deadly, but clearly that isn't the case as it ignores almost all possible saves. It's to allow an avenue for saves. That's the "because reasons".
Ah yes, the handcrafted design to be ever-so-slightly worse if the Hammerhead happens to be facing off against very specific subfactions that will possibly shrug off an average of 1 in 3 mortal wounds. I can taste the game balance.
IMHO the 3MW is so that it can be a better weapon against Guardsmen and Custodes than if it was just D3+9.
Remember, this single shot against a unit of 10 infantry outperforms most d6 Blast weapons and is only one dead model short of equalizing the average of the Submunitions strat against the same target.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/31 16:45:40
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 