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.
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.
That's the difference between a dead vehicle and an alive one, which means they've needing to have other guns in place. Burst cannons are still only 18", which is quite short if you're trading tanks. Honestly this is probably the best way to make a unit that only really gets one shot - at least Raiders can still transport models.
This thing is still a huge problem for superheavies so the full jury is still out until we have the whole picture.
Anyway of the next books the following have a general purpose FNP:
Admech - 4+++
Marines
The entire GK army
Thousand Sons
And these have a strat to go top profile:
Admech
Marines PotMS GKPotMS DGPotMS TSPotMS
Necrons have none, but have Quantum Shielding and a subfaction. DE have nothing, but I don't think anyone cares there. Orks have none, but have high wound counts on the vehicles that would care. Sisters have none, but aren't a "big vehicle" army.
This is all aside from prayers, spells, other abilities, or armies that can double repair.
Both Death Guard and Thousand Sons can only use their PotMS on basic Land Raiders, nothing else. And it wouldn't be "a huge problem for superheavies" if they'd actually let them get something out of terrain, and change the cap on negative modifiers to hit.
The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
could you elaborate what is hilarious about it? Aren't tank commanders roughly in the same price range (195 + 30 for optional sponsons). Do you mean hilarious in a "a tank commander with one of the best IG relics should do more to a hammerhead" sense or do you mean "a tank commander from a not updated and currently struggling codex already almost kills it in one shot, the other codizes need not be afraid"?
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
could you elaborate what is hilarious about it? Aren't tank commanders roughly in the same price range (195 + 30 for optional sponsons). Do you mean hilarious in a "a tank commander with one of the best IG relics should do more to a hammerhead" sense or do you mean "a tank commander from a not updated and currently struggling codex already almost kills it in one shot, the other codizes need not be afraid"?
What I meant was that everyone is freaking out about how OP this thing is. There isn't a really prominent faction that can't deal with this thin very easily, except for Custodes.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
could you elaborate what is hilarious about it? Aren't tank commanders roughly in the same price range (195 + 30 for optional sponsons). Do you mean hilarious in a "a tank commander with one of the best IG relics should do more to a hammerhead" sense or do you mean "a tank commander from a not updated and currently struggling codex already almost kills it in one shot, the other codizes need not be afraid"?
What I meant was that everyone is freaking out about how OP this thing is. There isn't a really prominent faction that can't deal with this thin very easily, except for Custodes.
Don't have any Telemons? And haven't I seen you mention having an Ares before?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The mathhammer of a LR Tank Commander with relic battle cannon against this thing is hilarious. Two tanks can drop it to it's last bracket, and a tank ace with the relic can do 9 wounds, if it doesn't use max payload.
could you elaborate what is hilarious about it? Aren't tank commanders roughly in the same price range (195 + 30 for optional sponsons). Do you mean hilarious in a "a tank commander with one of the best IG relics should do more to a hammerhead" sense or do you mean "a tank commander from a not updated and currently struggling codex already almost kills it in one shot, the other codizes need not be afraid"?
What I meant was that everyone is freaking out about how OP this thing is. There isn't a really prominent faction that can't deal with this thin very easily, except for Custodes.
Properly tooled-up Shield-Captain on Dawneagle Jetbike w/Salvo Launcher...
Spoletta wrote: Despite many considering it a bad thing for the game, the fact that recently weapons saw and increase in the number of attacks, is actually quite good.
The more the output of a weapon is split in several attacks, the less the game depends on the randomness of the dices.
This weapon instead goes completely against that concept, and this is why it isn't good for the game.
It doesn't have a problem of firepower, or MWs or ignore invul or stuff like that. It has a problem on the distribution of results.
All or nothing.
The existence of this weapon makes the game a lot more dice based. Hitting or missing with it makes a huge swing in the course of the game.
I disagree. The game should definitely remain dice based to some significant degree, which can't be too low. There's no point in rolling tons of dice to rely on guaranteed average results, let's just play with averages then, rolling just one dice to round the result up or down. Basically the only thing I miss from the past is rolling not many dice when attacking with units.
IMHO the problem is not the hit or miss concept, in fact I wish the entire game was basically designed around units firing a limited amount of shots. The problem is hit or miss with such profile as it's either 0 damage or 10-12 damage. It's either a massive reward or a massive failure. A pure gamble. Unless tau gain ways to "fix" the roll and get something very close to a guaranteed good result; in that case it would be extremely unhealthy for the game as well.
Ordana wrote: The ignore invul is literally the designer looking at all the invul save tanks & monsters everyone brings (because those without and invul are generally garbage) and thinking 'I want to counter that' and either no one being able to tell him no or GW recognizing that they gave out way to many invul saves.
Yeah, it's just kind of bad rules writing since mortal wounds are already the "ignores invulnerable saves" mechanic in the game.
You could make this gun damage into MWs, sure. But then it would be a lot stronger against small models.
We already have guns which in the fluff are supposed to be very powerful who have this rule. On a succesful wound roll, inflict x mortal wounds and then the attack sequence ends.
In this case, the damage was done largely by standard methods to avoid making it too powerful.
Gert wrote: Dedicated AT weapon finally good at killing tanks and big monsters. Next up, water wet?
And medium to heavy infantry, and light infantry.
It kills 4 models out of a unit of guardsmen if it hits and wounds (possibly on a 2+ with reroll and 2+, respectively). That's way more reliable than any d6 blast weapon against the same target
Just an observation, but you are making it sound like the Hammerhead should not be able to kill anything at all. Killing 4 guardsmen or 2 1/2 space marines is not some major feat of power.
Will be interesting to see the final rules(with codex bonuses, stratagems, and all the jazz). I'll keep my judgment until I see the entire thing.
Gert wrote: Dedicated AT weapon finally good at killing tanks and big monsters. Next up, water wet?
And medium to heavy infantry, and light infantry.
It kills 4 models out of a unit of guardsmen if it hits and wounds (possibly on a 2+ with reroll and 2+, respectively). That's way more reliable than any d6 blast weapon against the same target
Just an observation, but you are making it sound like the Hammerhead should not be able to kill anything at all. Killing 4 guardsmen or 2 1/2 space marines is not some major feat of power.
Well it makes sense when you think about how railguns actually work. Presumably if its killing multiples of anything it's because they're standing in a straight line.
Gert wrote: Dedicated AT weapon finally good at killing tanks and big monsters. Next up, water wet?
And medium to heavy infantry, and light infantry.
It kills 4 models out of a unit of guardsmen if it hits and wounds (possibly on a 2+ with reroll and 2+, respectively). That's way more reliable than any d6 blast weapon against the same target
Just an observation, but you are making it sound like the Hammerhead should not be able to kill anything at all. Killing 4 guardsmen or 2 1/2 space marines is not some major feat of power.
Well it makes sense when you think about how railguns actually work. Presumably if its killing multiples of anything it's because they're standing in a straight line.
Doesn't even need that. The acoustic shockwave generated by the hypersonic projectile can also kill people outside the direct line of the projectiles trajectory.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Gert wrote: Dedicated AT weapon finally good at killing tanks and big monsters. Next up, water wet?
And medium to heavy infantry, and light infantry.
It kills 4 models out of a unit of guardsmen if it hits and wounds (possibly on a 2+ with reroll and 2+, respectively). That's way more reliable than any d6 blast weapon against the same target
Just an observation, but you are making it sound like the Hammerhead should not be able to kill anything at all. Killing 4 guardsmen or 2 1/2 space marines is not some major feat of power.
Will be interesting to see the final rules(with codex bonuses, stratagems, and all the jazz). I'll keep my judgment until I see the entire thing.
It is a pretty major feat for an anti-tank gun.
Could you imagine what the best Eldar heavy weapon would be if they all were normal and then the Bright Lance just said "if this wounds infantry, it kills 4". It would be the best all-rounder weapon hands down, as that would exceed every other weapon against both tanks and bodies.
Yet that is essentially what the Hammerhead Railgun does (against 1w infantry anyways).
Heck, killing 2.5 Marines is almost as good as a stock Russ on average.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/02 14:24:12
Gert wrote: Dedicated AT weapon finally good at killing tanks and big monsters. Next up, water wet?
And medium to heavy infantry, and light infantry.
It kills 4 models out of a unit of guardsmen if it hits and wounds (possibly on a 2+ with reroll and 2+, respectively). That's way more reliable than any d6 blast weapon against the same target
Just an observation, but you are making it sound like the Hammerhead should not be able to kill anything at all. Killing 4 guardsmen or 2 1/2 space marines is not some major feat of power.
Will be interesting to see the final rules(with codex bonuses, stratagems, and all the jazz). I'll keep my judgment until I see the entire thing.
It is a pretty major feat for an anti-tank gun.
Could you imagine what the best Eldar heavy weapon would be if they all were normal and then the Bright Lance just said "if this wounds infantry, it kills 4". It would be the best all-rounder weapon hands down, as that would exceed every other weapon against both tanks and bodies.
Yet that is essentially what the Hammerhead Railgun does (against 1w infantry anyways).
Heck, killing 2.5 Marines is almost as good as a stock Russ on average.
Yet weirdly those russ aren't packing anti-armour rounds yet do it pretty well!
Dudeface wrote: Yet weirdly those russ aren't packing anti-armour rounds yet do it pretty well!
That's exactly my point.
The Hammerhead railgun is pretty good against infantry - certainly better than a d6 blast weapon. And is VERY good against tanks. It's more "all purpose" than most weapons in the game, with the quintessential all-purpose weapon being the battlecannon.
By comparison, the battlecannon kills about 3 marines (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 and not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2.5.
The battlecannon does 2-3 damage against a Baneblade, the Hammerhead does 10-12 roughly 50% of the time (average of about 6).
The battlecannon does 3-4 damage against a Chimera/Rhino; the Hammerhead outright kills the chimera or rhino roughly 70% of the time.
The battlecannon kills 1 Custodes (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2 outright.
The battlecannon kills 1 Terminator with Storm Shield; the Hammerhead kills 2 outright, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/02 15:06:14
Dudeface wrote: Yet weirdly those russ aren't packing anti-armour rounds yet do it pretty well!
That's exactly my point.
The Hammerhead railgun is pretty good against infantry - certainly better than a d6 blast weapon. And is VERY good against tanks. It's more "all purpose" than most weapons in the game, with the quintessential all-purpose weapon being the battlecannon.
By comparison, the battlecannon kills about 3 marines (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 and not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2.5. Wrong, it kills 1.56.
The battlecannon does 2-3 damage against a Baneblade, the Hammerhead does 10-12 roughly 50% of the time (average of about 6).
The battlecannon does 3-4 damage against a Chimera/Rhino; the Hammerhead outright kills the chimera or rhino roughly 70% of the time.
The battlecannon kills 1 Custodes (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2 outright. Wrong, it kills 1.25.
The battlecannon kills 1 Terminator with Storm Shield; the Hammerhead kills 2 outright, etc. Wrong, it kills 1.25.
Corrected some of your numbers.
Yes, the railgun outperforms the battle cannon when shooting at high durability targets like vehicles, custordes or terminators. Nothing wrong with it, that's its niche. Also, the railgun is a vastly more costly weapon than a battle cannon (assuming that it will cost around 190-210 points) and is mounted on a more frail platform, comparing them 1 to 1 isn't exactly fair.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/02 15:40:39
Ordana wrote:I just love people comparing 9th edition weapons to 8th and then complaining about how much worse the 8th edition weapon is.
Like this is the first time a 9th edition weapon profile has looked ridiculous in comparison.
9th is a whole different game not even in the same ballpark, stop trying to force comparisons.
And yet half (or so) of the armies in the game don't have their codex yet, including all of mine at least until may.
Should we just sit tight and suffer? Or perhaps GW should put some effort into balancing the game instead of all the new books being better than all the old books?
One side of the mouth says "power creep doesn't exist!" and the other side of the mouth says "don't compare new books to old ones, the old books are too weak!"
Tyel wrote:How can we stand against a gun which can kill 4 whole guardsmen?
Thank you for misunderstanding the point for a quick jab.
Dudeface wrote: Yet weirdly those russ aren't packing anti-armour rounds yet do it pretty well!
That's exactly my point.
The Hammerhead railgun is pretty good against infantry - certainly better than a d6 blast weapon. And is VERY good against tanks. It's more "all purpose" than most weapons in the game, with the quintessential all-purpose weapon being the battlecannon.
By comparison, the battlecannon kills about 3 marines (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 and not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2.5. Wrong, it kills 1.56.
The battlecannon does 2-3 damage against a Baneblade, the Hammerhead does 10-12 roughly 50% of the time (average of about 6).
The battlecannon does 3-4 damage against a Chimera/Rhino; the Hammerhead outright kills the chimera or rhino roughly 70% of the time.
The battlecannon kills 1 Custodes (rounded down to account for the fact that it's damage d3 not damage 2). The Hammerhead kills 2 outright. Wrong, it kills 1.25.
The battlecannon kills 1 Terminator with Storm Shield; the Hammerhead kills 2 outright, etc. Wrong, it kills 1.25.
Corrected some of your numbers.
Yes, the railgun outperforms the battle cannon when shooting at high durability targets like vehicles, custordes or terminators. Nothing wrong with it, that's its niche.
Also, the railgun is a vastly more costly weapon than a battle cannon (assuming that it will cost around 190-210 points) and is mounted on a more frail platform, comparing them 1 to 1 isn't exactly fair.
I rounded to whole numbers because averages don't work for a gun that either does everything or nothing.
Right now the hammerhead is 156 stock, and the Russ is 160 stock. You can assume a cost all you want, but it's always just going to be "I made up this number, now it is a bad tank, Huzzah!". As if GW has never miscost anything in the past.
And it isn't that much frailer of a platform. The hammerhead has 1 less toughness, which matters against strength 8 weapons and strength 14 and 15 weapons, but 1 more wound. There are a couple of other units and army special rules that can repair a Leman Russ, but there are also a couple of Tau units and special rules that increase a Hammerhead's damage output for the points.
T7 vs T8 matters against S4 and S7 too. Plus S8 being super common for AT, and S4 being twice as effective vs T7, is a big deal. Russes also have a 2+ save now vs the Hammerhead's 3+. The Russ is a ton sturdier whereas 'T7 3+ no invulnerable no damage reduction' dies to a stiff breeze these days.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/02 16:24:04
Twilight Pathways wrote: T7 vs T8 matters against S4 and S7 too. Plus S8 being super common for AT, and S4 being twice as effective vs T7, is a big deal. Russes also have a 2+ save now vs the Hammerhead's 3+. The Russ is a ton sturdier whereas 'T7 3+ no invulnerable no damage reduction' dies to a stiff breeze these days.
Ah true, forgot the 2+ update.
Still, when it comes to my armies (which is the perspective I am looking from), both defensive profiles are very similar.
Good point about the 2+, though, conceded that the Russ is more durable.
Twilight Pathways wrote: T7 vs T8 matters against S4 and S7 too. Plus S8 being super common for AT, and S4 being twice as effective vs T7, is a big deal. Russes also have a 2+ save now vs the Hammerhead's 3+. The Russ is a ton sturdier whereas 'T7 3+ no invulnerable no damage reduction' dies to a stiff breeze these days.
Ah true, forgot the 2+ update.
Still, when it comes to my armies (which is the perspective I am looking from), both defensive profiles are very similar.
Good point about the 2+, though, conceded that the Russ is more durable.
Which brings us to: how much of this is a problem with the hammerhead and how much of it is disgruntlement about the state of the factions you play?
Dudeface wrote: ...Which brings us to: how much of this is a problem with the hammerhead and how much of it is disgruntlement about the state of the factions you play?
The Hammerhead's a symptom, not a cause. We all know that damage creep is GW's solution to all problems, and it's happening so fast these days that if you didn't get a Codex that broke the game in half when it released it probably means that a year on you'll be obsolete and getting casually tabled by whatever new hotness comes along.
Twilight Pathways wrote: T7 vs T8 matters against S4 and S7 too. Plus S8 being super common for AT, and S4 being twice as effective vs T7, is a big deal. Russes also have a 2+ save now vs the Hammerhead's 3+. The Russ is a ton sturdier whereas 'T7 3+ no invulnerable no damage reduction' dies to a stiff breeze these days.
Ah true, forgot the 2+ update.
Still, when it comes to my armies (which is the perspective I am looking from), both defensive profiles are very similar.
Good point about the 2+, though, conceded that the Russ is more durable.
Which brings us to: how much of this is a problem with the hammerhead and how much of it is disgruntlement about the state of the factions you play?
Does it have to be one or another?
The factions I play are just as much a part of the game as anyone else's. GW's inability to keep the game on a stable, fun-to-play footing is a problem for me now, but it will be a problem for others into the future as well.
It would be better if GW were better, no? And they could do better, so complaining/illustrating problems has a purpose.
As Anomander says, the problem with the Hammerhead is a microcosm of the problem with the game in general, and serves as a useful, illustrative example.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/02 16:55:17
Ordana wrote:I just love people comparing 9th edition weapons to 8th and then complaining about how much worse the 8th edition weapon is.
Like this is the first time a 9th edition weapon profile has looked ridiculous in comparison.
9th is a whole different game not even in the same ballpark, stop trying to force comparisons.
And yet half (or so) of the armies in the game don't have their codex yet, including all of mine at least until may.
Should we just sit tight and suffer? Or perhaps GW should put some effort into balancing the game instead of all the new books being better than all the old books?
One side of the mouth says "power creep doesn't exist!" and the other side of the mouth says "don't compare new books to old ones, the old books are too weak!"
wtf are you talking about, I do little on these forums but complain about how insane the power creep is in 9th. Where am I saying power creep does not exist? my entire complaint is that the power creep is so bad that there is no point in comparing 8th and 9th.
And yes GW should do better, feel free to stop giving them money. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes little sense to compare 8th and 9th edition armies.
Ordana wrote:I just love people comparing 9th edition weapons to 8th and then complaining about how much worse the 8th edition weapon is.
Like this is the first time a 9th edition weapon profile has looked ridiculous in comparison.
9th is a whole different game not even in the same ballpark, stop trying to force comparisons.
And yet half (or so) of the armies in the game don't have their codex yet, including all of mine at least until may.
Should we just sit tight and suffer? Or perhaps GW should put some effort into balancing the game instead of all the new books being better than all the old books?
One side of the mouth says "power creep doesn't exist!" and the other side of the mouth says "don't compare new books to old ones, the old books are too weak!"
wtf are you talking about, I do little on these forums but complain about how insane the power creep is in 9th. Where am I saying power creep does not exist? my entire complaint is that the power creep is so bad that there is no point in comparing 8th and 9th.
And yes GW should do better, feel free to stop giving them money. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes little sense to compare 8th and 9th edition armies.
I didn't mean your mouth specifically. There are people on this forum that swear up and down power creep doesn't exist, and then when I make a thread illustrating that it does, I get bogged down by people saying "of course it does, idiot" as you have (in so many words).
The utility in comparing 9th books to 8th books is to illustrate precisely the point you agree with - power creep is utterly bonkers. It makes perfect sense in that context.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/02 17:06:53
Ordana wrote: The ignore invul is literally the designer looking at all the invul save tanks & monsters everyone brings (because those without and invul are generally garbage) and thinking 'I want to counter that' and either no one being able to tell him no or GW recognizing that they gave out way to many invul saves.
Yeah, it's just kind of bad rules writing since mortal wounds are already the "ignores invulnerable saves" mechanic in the game.
It doesn't really pan out like that.
If the Rail Gun didn't ignore invulns and did 3MW it would possibly be the worst anti-tank unit around when it comes up against 4++.
A TVC with ML does 5.3. Said HH would do 4.1 for (presently) more points, but "as-is" does 6.5. The TVC has access to way more buffs.
Let's pretend it does ALL MW. You have the same net effect, but then the gun becomes worse against armies with lots of FNP available. Against a GMDK it the current version does 7.4 and if it did all MW it would be 5.9. But if you had no FNP it would be 8.9. This creates a much larger gap between haves and have nots versus such a weapon.
Ordana wrote: The ignore invul is literally the designer looking at all the invul save tanks & monsters everyone brings (because those without and invul are generally garbage) and thinking 'I want to counter that' and either no one being able to tell him no or GW recognizing that they gave out way to many invul saves.
Yeah, it's just kind of bad rules writing since mortal wounds are already the "ignores invulnerable saves" mechanic in the game.
It doesn't really pan out like that.
If the Rail Gun didn't ignore invulns and did 3MW it would possibly be the worst anti-tank unit around when it comes up against 4++.
A TVC with ML does 5.3. Said HH would do 4.1 for (presently) more points, but "as-is" does 6.5. The TVC has access to way more buffs.
Let's pretend it does ALL MW. You have the same net effect, but then the gun becomes worse against armies with lots of FNP available. Against a GMDK it the current version does 7.4 and if it did all MW it would be 5.9. But if you had no FNP it would be 8.9. This creates a much larger gap between haves and have nots versus such a weapon.
If it did all MW, it'd wipe a Guard squad in one wound. Or an entire min squad of Marines.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
yeah, the biggest problem with making it all mortal wounds (which it effectively is with AP -6 and no invuls) is that mortal wounds carry over and normal damage doesn't.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
Don't have any Telemons? And haven't I seen you mention having an Ares before?
