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.
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.
That wouldn't make it the worst anti-tank gun against a 4++. Against a T7 4++ target a Fellblade Accelerator Cannon averages 3.33. Against T8 4++ it's 2.667.
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.
K, lets bring in da Orkz then shall we?
DA KANNON WAGON! 170pts base. T7 3+ save, 16 Wounds BS5+ (BS4 on its gun so it can't be improved beyond 4+) its only gun worth mentioning Heavy 2D6 S8 -2 3dmg Blast. Ranged 60. Averages 7 shots and 3.5 hits a turn. Against a unit of 5 Marines its 1.94 dead Marines. The 0.94 being the chance of a 2nd wound happening which inflicts 3 dmg so auto kills a 2 wound Marine. So in complete fairness 2 Dead Marines a turn.
Against a T8 vehicle with 2+ armor its 3.5 hits, 1.75 wounds and 0.87 unsaved wounds for 2.6 dmg a turn on average. In fairness, this model which doesn't want to move or be anywhere near the frontlines has the capacity to transport 6 whole ork models so there is that.
Not a fair comparison because its forgeworld? Ok lets go to the codex and the infamous GUNWAGON! (WARNING: Gunwagon makes the Kannonwagon look OP)
GunWagon: 165pts base.
T8 16 wounds 3+ armor. Has +1 to hit on its maingun so it can never hit better than a 4+ on any of its guns regardless of positive modifiers.
What is its base weapon? Is it as good as the Railgun! Absolutely! Its a ...Kannon. S8 -2 D6dmg heavy 1. BUT! you can use a frag munition instead which is Heavy D6 S5 no AP 1dmg. Ok, bad comparison, nobody runs this thing with a kannon, lets upgrade it to its REAL main gun! For 10pts more you can take a KILLKANNON! WOOO!!!!!!
Now this gun is seriously just as good as the Railgun because its a true 9th edition gun right! HELL YES. D6 shots, S8 -2AP 2dmg Blast. *Sad Ork noises* Averages half the Kannon wagon in terms of hits/wounds, only other difference is dmg and range. The kannonwagon is Range 60, the Killkannon is 24 So 3.5 shots, 1.75 hits, Works out to basically about 1 dead Marine a turn. Against a T8 2+ vehicle its 0.87dmg a turn.
What about real Ork anti-tank options. Ok lets look. TANKBUSTAS! For a mere 170pts you can take 10 Tankbustas at T5 1 wound 6+ armor with 24' rokkitz which are S8 -2 3dmg They are Heavy weapons though, so if they move their 5' movement they hit infantry on 6s and vehicles on 5s. Realistically you have to put these guys into a trukk because you really don't want a 17pt model dying to a handful of bolter shots. So its more like 240pts for this build. How good is it? Well turn 1 against its target of choice (Vehicles) it moves forward and does 20 shots on average for 6.6 hits, against T7, 4.4 wounds and against 3+ armor thats 9dmg. Against infantry its ...well how can i put this...not so good. Its 3.3 hits, 2.7 wounds and against 3+ armor 1.85 dead Marines, not exactly what you want from what used to be the GO TO weapon of choice for anti-marine fire power. of course at this point we have also drifted from vehicles/heavy support to anything that can kill vehicles
I can keep going if you really want, the point though is that no other faction in the game has such a weapon in its arsenal (*yet*) and unless the points cost is truly prohibitive we are about to see a lot of HH on the table.
Also, on a pro-tau tangent Please everyone keep in mind, everyone thought Ork boyz were going to break the game in 9th when their datasheets were leaked. Sadly we didn't have all the rules and interactions yet and it wasn't until about 4 months after release that Die Hard anti-boyz players admitted they were wrong and that boyz suck...and even to this day some muppets still exist which say Ork boyz are OP So, before we start screaming the sky is falling, lets wait and see how it interacts with the rest of the army and specifically their rules.
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.
In fairness to you, yes you are correct, however that isn't the point. In 8th every single army could easily deal with 180 Orkz with no problem. The issue that arose was when those boyz were brought to a tournament where it ran counter-meta and nobody had brought the tools to deal with it. In this case, its more the fact that its a devastating alpha strike weapon. If the Tau players goes first against a Vehicle/monstrous creature style army its going to basically be GG turn 1. 4 of these (including their HQ option) will kill a knight and some more turn 1 and still leave most of the Tau army ready to fire their first volley still.
I pity the matchup where a player brings a small elite force or big monstrous units against a HH tau list because its not going to be a fun game for at least one player
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/02 21:52:54
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.
That wouldn't make it the worst anti-tank gun against a 4++. Against a T7 4++ target a Fellblade Accelerator Cannon averages 3.33. Against T8 4++ it's 2.667.
So, just asking, this would be able to punch through the void shields of a titan correct? Because in the writing, it says a Void shield is just an extra invuln save.
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.
That wouldn't make it the worst anti-tank gun against a 4++. Against a T7 4++ target a Fellblade Accelerator Cannon averages 3.33. Against T8 4++ it's 2.667.
Relatively speaking.
Way to kick me when I'm down, Daed......................
It'll still kick your Monolith's straight back to the War in Heaven though.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, just asking, this would be able to punch through the void shields of a titan correct? Because in the writing, it says a Void shield is just an extra invuln save.
No. That's not rules. Just follow the rules as printed for how void shields work.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, just asking, this would be able to punch through the void shields of a titan correct? Because in the writing, it says a Void shield is just an extra invuln save.
No. That's not rules. Just follow the rules as printed for how void shields work.
So technically it does, if it wounds. It'll do 3 MW (bypassing voids) and collapse 1 layer of void shielding. So by inflicting mortal wounds, it is "punching through"
But not in the way I assume FezzikDaBullgryn means.
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.
Custodes have plenty of firepower and, more to the point, can actually hide from the fething thing reasonably well.
The faction that the railgun is actually going to gak on is Daemons, particularly monster mash which is one of the most viable ways to play them atm. Most competitive Daemons lists have like five greater daemons in them, some have even more..
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.
Custodes have plenty of firepower and, more to the point, can actually hide from the fething thing reasonably well.
The faction that the railgun is actually going to gak on is Daemons, particularly monster mash which is one of the most viable ways to play them atm. Most competitive Daemons lists have like five greater daemons in them, some have even more..
Well yeah, this gun exists to punish big models with 4++/5++ saves. Those with inbuilt hit penalties though don't risk that much. Belakor in particular laughs at railguns.
Want to know who is going to be very sorry? Dreadknights.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/03 06:13:25
Well yeah, this gun exists to punish big models with 4++/5++ saves. Those with inbuilt hit penalties though don't risk that much. Belakor in particular laughs at railguns.
Want to know who is going to be very sorry? Dreadknights.
Two hammerheads firing at Belakor at once are more likely to score a wound on Belakor than not, and if that happens Belakor is suddenly bracketed with five wounds left. And two hammerheads are cheaper than Belakor at their current points. And it bluntly isn't a huge upset for two railguns to just blow him clean off of the table, we've all seen considerably hotter rolls. And as you've said, Belakor is one of the worst targets for this thing. It does considerably better against Big Bird of a Keeper of Secrets.
That's the problem with this gun. It's the most feast or famine weapon I've ever seen. It either does nothing, or it does 10-12 wounds.
Spoletta wrote: An Hammerhead has a 22% chance to wound belakor.
More accurately: a Hammerhead has a 22% chance to wound assuming they are BS4+ in the next codex instead of BS3+ like they are now.
Assuming their Ballistic Skill remains as is, a lone Hammerhead would have a 33% chance to successfully land a hit and wound.
Tau vehicles are BS4+, including 9th edition ones (we know this from FW).
HH having 1 more than the other tanks was due to the targeting array being incorporated in the datasheet, which in this case isn't.
Spoletta wrote: I think that the chances of it are quite low.
Tau vehicles are BS4+, including 9th edition ones (we know this from FW).
HH having 1 more than the other tanks was due to the targeting array being incorporated in the datasheet, which in this case isn't.
Except that in 6e edition they had BS 4 (hit on 3+) and could take the targeting array upgrade for a chance at Precision Shots USR.
It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote: It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
Spoletta wrote: I think that the chances of it are quite low.
Tau vehicles are BS4+, including 9th edition ones (we know this from FW).
HH having 1 more than the other tanks was due to the targeting array being incorporated in the datasheet, which in this case isn't.
Gw copy paste alot so there is a good chance that stats remain the same regardless of balance.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Jidmah wrote: It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
The video of that one guy freaking out is still one of my favorites. But yeah, i'm not worried yet, i'll wait to see the stat sheet. Not a fan of the sub munitions though I can tell you that. So hopefully the Cost tied with lack of CP makes it less appealing
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/03 17:32:20
Jidmah wrote: It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
Spoletta wrote: I think that the chances of it are quite low.
Tau vehicles are BS4+, including 9th edition ones (we know this from FW).
HH having 1 more than the other tanks was due to the targeting array being incorporated in the datasheet, which in this case isn't.
Except that in 6e edition they had BS 4 (hit on 3+) and could take the targeting array upgrade for a chance at Precision Shots USR.
Advanced Targeting System, not Targeting Array. The Targeting Array of previous codexes disappeared in 6th.
And now it's back. Doing something other than +1 BS.
Jidmah wrote: It's good to see that the same people which were losing their mind about how overpowered and gamebreaking Mozrog Skragbad is, are now losing their mind over tau rail guns.
Hah. I had to go look him up, because I completely forgot who the hell he was.
I think we're still waiting on the Kill Rig meta, too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/03 18:28:01
I think we're still waiting on the Kill Rig meta, too.
I think a triple killrig list would be really good. The problem is that the damn model is so big its hard to maneuver and your almost always in LOS of the enemy.
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.
Folks can mean different things when they say ‘power creep’: but the most useful definition I’ve seen is when comparing against a baseline (e.g., Antagonist NPCs in a video game, an immutable standard card in a collectible card game). In this 40k context, Editions are the baseline.
Therefore, I don’t think that comparing 8th Ed. to 9th Ed. demonstrates power creep—even though clearly stats increased between the two editions. If we went to a hypothetical 10th Ed. Where all stats got a flat 1000x increase: the stats are obviously higher, but everything is still technically the same.
The problem with my argument is that armies/units still exist with their stats unchanged since their 8th Ed. version—but I think this illustrates the frustration you are probably experiencing in these discussions: those armies should be getting updated. Comparing these against each other is obviously wrong, aside from demonstrating the need for GW to more swiftly release the relevant Codex updates.
So 3.5 shots, 1.75 hits, Works out to basically about 1 dead Marine a turn. Against a T8 2+ vehicle its 0.87dmg a turn.
straight back to the War in Heaven though. 
